Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday March 16 2017, @12:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the sit-stay-cook dept.

If you ever need to strike up a conversation with a group of academics, a surefire way to get them talking is to ask about their graduate training. Where did they train, in what methods, in which lab, under what mentor? People will speak with great pride about their training as an economist, historian, chemist, philosopher, or classicist. If, on the other hand, you need to make a quick exit, try sharing the opinion that undergraduate education should include a lot more vocational training. You'll soon find yourself standing alone or responding to accusations of classism and questions about your commitment to social and racial equality. You might even hear that "training is for dogs," a common refrain in higher education that carries the unpleasant implication that skills-based education is the equivalent of teaching students to sit, stay, and shake hands.

For reasons that are not entirely clear, in the United States training is widely understood to be the end, not the beginning, of an educational journey that leads to a particular job or career. Undergraduates are supposed to get a general education that will prepare them for training, which they will presumably get once they land a job or go to graduate school. Any training that happens before then just doesn't count.

It is because of this belief that general-education requirements are the center of the bachelor's degree and are concentrated in the first two years of a four-year program. The general-education core is what distinguishes the B.A. from a vocational program and makes it more than "just training." It is designed to ensure that all degree holders graduate with a breadth of knowledge in addition to an in-depth understanding of a particular subject area. Students are exposed to a broad range of disciplines and are pushed to think critically about the social, cultural, and historical context in which they live. It is supposed to guarantee that all graduates can write, have a basic understanding of the scientific method, have heard of the Marshall Plan and Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and know that iambic pentameter has something to do with poetry.

While few would challenge the importance of general education, both to students and to a well-functioning democracy, there is good reason to question why it has to come at the beginning of a B.A.—and just how general and theoretical it needs to be. The pyramid structure of the bachelor's degree, which requires that students start with the broad base of general requirements before they specialize, is what makes college unappealing to so many young people.

It doesn't have to be this way. There is no iron law of learning dictating that students must master general theories or be fully versed in a particular historical or cultural context before learning how to do things. Some students will do well under this approach, but there is solid evidence that some students learn better through experience. For these students, theory does not make sense until it is connected to action. Putting a lot of general or theoretical courses on the front end just leaves them disengaged or, even worse, discouraged. They will do better if they start by learning how to master certain tasks or behaviors and then explore the more abstract concepts behind the actions.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:21PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:21PM (#479903)

    a little background in history, philosophy and ethics to be able to understand the moral implications of his doing

    If scientists and engineers are relying on GEs teaching them ethics and morals, then we would be in a lot more trouble than we already are. My school didn't require ethics or philosophy as part of its GEs.

    I also fail to see how education in the humanities makes someone more responsible or less likely to misunderstand the moral implications of one's actions. Aren't most politicians non-STEM degree holders? They don't even need to consider the moral implications of auto-piloting war-heads because they're already fully able to ignore them in reguards to conventional weapons.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:37PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:37PM (#479919)

    Just because some people make unethical decisions doesn't mean we shouldn't educate people about ethics. What about the children of unethical people? They'll grow up learning that it is ok to screw people over, but maybe some education will open their eyes and let them see their parents for the assholes they are. The education doesn't MAKE someone ethical, but it at least gives them some perspective so that they are better able to evaluate their own decisions or the orders coming from the top.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @10:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @10:35PM (#480075)

      Ethics should be required during elementary, middle, and high school. Basic ethics should not be necessary at the college level (field-specific ethics are a different story).

      My GE requirements (California State University) did not cover Ethics at all.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @09:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @09:03AM (#480308)

    I also fail to see how education in the humanities makes someone more responsible or less likely to misunderstand the moral implications of one's actions. Aren't most politicians non-STEM degree holders?

    Yep, that's it right there. Total inability to understand quantitative analysis that is the hallmark of the under-education of these alleged STEM types. Not only do they not understand language and ethics, they cannot do logic or math. As the Donald would say, so sad. Sick.