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: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:54PM (4 children)
What has always bothered me is that the STEM degrees have to take a ton of liberal arts classes, and if they are a good school a good mix of science and math outside of their major, but the liberal arts students have to take very little in the way of science and math. So to graduate I needed:
2 classes of composition at the minimum level acceptable for an English, or creative writing major
2 speech classes at the minimum acceptable level for a communication major
1 course at the minimum acceptable level for a *Studies or poly-sci major
2 history courses at the minimum acceptable level for a history major
1 literature class at the minimum acceptable level for an English or lit major
1 art class also at the minimum acceptable level for an art major
1 philosophy class also at the minimum acceptable level for a philosophy major
1 physical education class
By minimum acceptable level these are courses that would be the lowest level courses that would actually count towards one of those majors, unlike say taking college algebra and expecting it to count towards something other than total credit count for a math major. Yet to fulfill most most math or science requirements in a liberal arts degree you can take courses like college algebra, or introduction to astronomy which wouldn't count towards a math or astronomy major. Additionally as part of my BS in CS degree I had to take a full year of chemistry or physics, 2 other first year science classes, and also one senior (400 level) science class not in my major. Technology classes are the worst because a CS or EE gets those out of the way with ease and most of the time physics, ME, and astronomy students have it covered by a programming course they end up having to taking, but for others you can take intro to MS word or what ever the fuck it is which is a fucking joke of a class and would be akin to taking a class called intro to swinging a hammer where you learn how to pick-up, hold, and swing a 16oz Stanly claw hammer but don't bother to learn how to use the claws for pulling nails because that is an advanced feature and don't even bring up using a different brand of hammer.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:12PM (3 children)
These so-called "useless" classes are precisely designed to keep you big-brained STEM'ers from making beyond-stupid comments like this [twitter.com].
You don't know everything because you can do linear algebra while toking a bong. And you aren't better than me because you think reading music is a useless relic of the past because you have an iPod or the internet. Stop belittling things you think are worthless and try to, instead, figure out why they might be useful. The key word in "Humanities" is "human." It might be wise of you to reflect on why that is.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:57PM
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday March 16 2017, @07:07PM
If you notice I did not disparage the additional classes but pointed out the disparity between STEM and non STEM general education requirements. One who gets a BS degree has a far more rounded education than someone who gets a BA degree as the sciences and math are severely lacking in a BA yet the arts and humanities are plentiful in a BS degree. Also I do know how to read music, speak a couple of foreign languages (not fluent but trying), and have a very detailed knowledge of art and history beyond what was taught in even my college courses. It is truly a wonderful thing when you are in a Paris for work and you are able to go with your coworkers to the Louvre on the weekend and be able to tell them about not only the major pieces but also the lesser known and even obscure ones as well as being able to tell them artistically why the Virgin of the Rocks is my favorite piece there but that I like the one in London better.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @08:26PM
Good luck with that, the derision against anything but hard science seems to run very very deep.