SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:34PM (4 children)
the folks coming out of strong Liberal Art schools are actually doing quite well
You don't think that there are any other confounding socio-economic variables of comparing elite private liberal art schools to run-of-the-mill STEM graduates?
I'm happy that you received some value out of the GEs that you took, but that is not true for everyone. We don't need a NCLB for college and there is already enough hand-holding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:40PM (1 child)
Maybe you just don't appreciate the value of the GEs you took. It is difficult to quantify such exposure. That said there definitely are worthless classes, so do your research and try and avoid things which will give you no value. If the college level course is beneath your highschool education then complain! Write some reviews, let people know the college course is crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:11PM
I did my research and choose my GEs based on interest and which ones would fulfill the most requirements (e.g. diversity, international, American institutions). Despite any hidden value, there was an opportunity cost associated with being forced to take worthless classes.
(Score: 2) by mechanicjay on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:16PM (1 child)
You don't think that there are any other confounding socio-economic variables of comparing elite private liberal art schools to run-of-the-mill STEM graduates?
Are you talking about the "good 'ol boys club" that gets bandied about in relation to most 'prestigious' institutions? Once you drop off from the top-top-tier schools, there's little advantage post-degree. There are a ton of very good mid-tier schools, with those outcomes I spoke of that are accessible to almost anyone and indeed who's undergrad ranks are full of first generation college students. Not saying that aren't a ton of issues there because there certainly are, just that the process has a level-the-playing field effect.
I'm happy that you received some value out of the GEs that you took, but that is not true for everyone.
I'm sorry you didn't get any value of the GEs that you took, but that is not true for everyone.
We don't need a NCLB for college and there is already enough hand-holding.
I have no idea what you mean here. NCLB for college -- that doesn't even make sense.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:51PM
the process has a level-the-playing field effect
There will be a selection bias associated with college students that can afford the expensive tuition of private liberal arts schools. I don't doubt that there is value in a liberal arts education, but comparing liberal arts graduates out of "strong" schools to the typical STEM graduate isn't a fair demonstration of its relative value.
Regardless of the perceived value of GEs, they are required and this is the hand-holding that I was referring to. Forcing students to take particular classes to bring everyone to the same level is what reminded me of NCLB.
I am not opposed to competency requirements in certain subjects (e.g. writing, mathematics, and speech), but I disagree with requiring a particular type of "well-rounded" education.