View Full Version : General Education Requirements in College



Pages : [1] 2

AP
10-07-2016, 11:40 AM
I am having a debate with a co-worker, and would like to see other opinions on the topic. Do you think general education requirements (i.e. comp I & II, History, Gov) are necessary or should we do away with them to lessen the financial burden?

jerrywall
10-07-2016, 12:17 PM
I am having a debate with a co-worker, and would like to see other opinions on the topic. Do you think general education requirements (i.e. comp I & II, History, Gov) are necessary or should we do away with them to lessen the financial burden?

They are necessary. College isn't merely about learning a trade. Trade schools exist for that. There's a reason so many jobs/careers want you to have a college degree, and don't even care what degree it is.

There are options for folks who want to lower the burden. For example, taking general education courses at a community college for example. Lots of times it can even be free for folks.

dankrutka
10-07-2016, 03:41 PM
I think there's always room to re-think what general education courses should be offered, and of course, the quality of them is vital to what any student takes away from them... AND, in an era of massive debt, we have to find ways to lower costs...

But, yes, general education courses serve a valuable purpose in my mind. I do not think we need to continue with the McDonaldization of education with only cost and efficiency as our core values. We have to function in a democratic society and being well-rounded helps us do that... then we can get on with specialization.

OkiePoke
10-07-2016, 03:49 PM
What about those required credits where bowling, wine tasting, travel Europe are classes?

Pete
10-07-2016, 04:10 PM
You never, ever know where life will take you and thus a broad education can be very valuable.

Who new my 9th grade typing class would result in one of the most valuable skills that I use for hours every single day?

Jake
10-07-2016, 04:20 PM
I agree that having a broad education can be beneficial, but in cases like mine where I've had to take at least 4 to 5 humanities/western history classes for my major (broadcasting), it can be a bit excessive. I know what I want to do, just let me graduate and do it.

ChrisHayes
10-07-2016, 05:24 PM
I think a bigger thing is getting away from this assumption that everyone should go to college and that college is necessary for success. Neither is true. Learning skilled trades can lead to success just as much as a degree can. More so in some cases because so many degrees are useless. I took diesel technology at Francis Tuttle from 2014 to May of last year when I completed the program. I work for Hobby Lobby and am making pretty good money. Other people who took the program are making what I am, all the way up to 70,000+ a year in a few cases. Now, it wouldn't hurt to back it up with some college education such as a business degree for opening other doors, but it isn't a necessity. And I think people are being done a disservice in being told a degree is necessary. For a whole host of reasons

Rover
10-07-2016, 05:35 PM
Doing away with it is just another attempt at dumbing down our population. Conservatives say get rid of government. But helping the people stay ignorant diffuses the ability of an informed public to stand up to government. I am also shocked that someone wanting to go into broadcasting is against being taught composition and history. Scary.

Midtowner
10-07-2016, 08:13 PM
I agree that having a broad education can be beneficial, but in cases like mine where I've had to take at least 4 to 5 humanities/western history classes for my major (broadcasting), it can be a bit excessive. I know what I want to do, just let me graduate and do it.

You don't really need a broadcasting degree to do it. That said, if you want to have a bachelor's degree. What that traditionally means is that you have a broad education, that you're at least somewhat cultured. If you're going into broadcasting, a little bit of culture and understanding your world in a broader context is not unimportant. College doesn't teach you everything about everything, but it certainly equips you with the skills to evaluate the reliability of sources and should leave you with a broad enough education to be able to figure out at least where to start when trying to learn something.

Jake
10-07-2016, 08:18 PM
I'm not against history and composition, I'm against having to take African American Dance, Israeli Art Through Film, and History of Typefaces. And since I transferred from Arkansas, I've had to take several of these types of classes again.

But since you seem to know a great deal of what I should learn, I can set up a GoFundMe so you can pay them for me.

Midtowner
10-07-2016, 10:04 PM
I'm not against history and composition, I'm against having to take African American Dance, Israeli Art Through Film, and History of Typefaces. And since I transferred from Arkansas, I've had to take several of these types of classes again.

But since you seem to know a great deal of what I should learn, I can set up a GoFundMe so you can pay them for me.

At UCO, this would probably be your major:

https://www.uco.edu/academic-affairs/files/ug-catalog/degree-sheets/cla/mcom-profmedia.pdf

OU seems no different.

http://www.ou.edu/content/gaylord/undergraduate/journalism.html

You are not required to take African American Dance, Israeli Art through Film or the History of Typefaces, although all of those might be interesting, you'd never be required to take those. The gen ed requirements seem pretty reasonable. Some basic math and science, some classes on aesthetic analysis and critical inquiry, a government class, 3 hours of American history, a study of a second language OR a cultural analysis class, social and behavioral analysis, health and life skills.

If you're going to be a college graduate, there's an expectation that you're actually an educated person. Quit whining, put your head down and do the work. If you can't hack it, there are other routes into that business which don't involve college.

Rover
10-07-2016, 10:28 PM
I'm not against history and composition, I'm against having to take African American Dance, Israeli Art Through Film, and History of Typefaces. And since I transferred from Arkansas, I've had to take several of these types of classes again.

But since you seem to know a great deal of what I should learn, I can set up a GoFundMe so you can pay them for me.

You don't have to take those classes and you know it. If you want to be uncultured, don't know history, or don't understand societal and historical context you damned sure should have no part in broadcasting anything purporting to be important or the truth. Guess you could make cartoons or go into sports broadcasting....or Fox News.

Midtowner
10-07-2016, 11:53 PM
If the Ogle girl has to get an edumacation, so does Jake.

Jake
10-08-2016, 07:03 AM
Again, I don't disagree that gen-eds like math/science/history etc. arent necessary, the requiremennt that I take several, specifically stated non JMC electives (for my degree track at least, it may be different for others) is frustrating to me.

It's irrelevant anyway, since this is my last semester and I took my capstone last year along with all of my other classes required for my major. All I have left are electives, some of which I wanted to take, weren't even offered this semester (again, frustrating). That's my only beef here. That and maybe the idea that taking an online art history class somehow makes you more cultured, which is obviously hard to quantify. How does one become cultured anyway? Seems contingent on the person and their desire to learn, which I think would follow them after they graduate anyway.

I don't mean to cause an argument, so forgive my tone. It's just my opinion.

White Peacock
10-08-2016, 08:32 AM
GenEd + electives aim to make one well-rounded in their education. Universities weren't created to help people get jobs, but to educate them. They're best suited for people enjoy learning and knowing as much as possible. And any university worth its salt will have enough of a variety of electives that you don't have to take (insert specialized topic) if you don't want.

There's no such thing as knowing too much (outside of mafia context).

Midtowner
10-08-2016, 12:21 PM
That and maybe the idea that taking an online art history class somehow makes you more cultured, which is obviously hard to quantify. How does one become cultured anyway? Seems contingent on the person and their desire to learn, which I think would follow them after they graduate anyway.

An art history course is a survey sort of course in most cases. It's not designed for you to gain a thorough knowledge of the arts. The design of these classes is more of an introduction to the world of art. Hopefully by the end of the class, you'll have enough of a foundation so that you know something about the subject matter--and if you care to or need to really know something later, you'll hopefully know where to start your research.

Jake
10-08-2016, 03:18 PM
An art history course is a survey sort of course in most cases. It's not designed for you to gain a thorough knowledge of the arts. The design of these classes is more of an introduction to the world of art. Hopefully by the end of the class, you'll have enough of a foundation so that you know something about the subject matter--and if you care to or need to really know something later, you'll hopefully know where to start your research.

Which I agree with totally. I think I misspoke and didn't word my point very well earlier. Comp I & II, History, Gov, Art History, etc. are completely rational and good things to have for anyone wanting an education. My only problem has been my experience with Gaylord requiring 3 upper-divion JMC electives (which, since it's in the same wheelhouse, it's not that big of a problem) and 3 upper-division NON-JMC classes, 12 hours of humanities, 6 hours of western culture (finding what is considered "western" and non-western" was a hassle in itself). This compounded by the fact that, for some reason, 2 of my humanites classes didn't trasfer from Arkansas, which meant I had to take those classes again while at OU. (which isn't necessarily anyone's fault, just annoying)

For what I originally went to school for (I actually work doing social media marketing now) everything is very technical. There are so many different software systems, editing software, cameras, equipment, etc. that you need to learn, that I wish at least half of the 12 devoted to humanities could be diverted into other JMC classes that I believe are necessary to be at least competent in that field. (AfterEffects, Post Production, etc./Avid, which is the sofware used by most production studios, isn't even offered as a class at OU). I understand not all majors are like this and that OU isn't a trade school, but if I'm paying to go to school to learn how to do this stuff, at least give me the option to take the classes that I think I feel are necessary to take in order to learn. Which means, yes, I would rather take a post production class to learn Avid than take another humanities class. Sorry, not sorry.

All of my other fellow capstone students shared this idea as well, which we have expressed to the deans, unfortunately to no avail. They have limits to what they can and can't do, so I don't hold it against them though.

Midtowner
10-08-2016, 04:37 PM
That's really unfortunate. I was sort of broadcast major-adjacent at UCO. I anchored the TV news program there for a couple of years and in doing so, almost every day, at 1:30PM, I showed up to the news room, figured out my own assignment, shot, wrote, recorded sound and edited a 1.5 minute package ready for the 5PM newscast. Of course in those days, AVID was kind of new--and I was okay with it. Did a documentary on AVID once. It ran for a few years in Edmond. But our editing booths were cuts-only SVHS machines.

If you're still reading this, I'm sorry. The rambling had a point. The point was that the way technology is advancing, it is almost certain that the technical skills you learn will be out of date shortly after you graduate. If I was to go into TV news today, aside from my mad teleprompter skills, I would be totally unfamiliar with the technology.

But that's okay. I didn't attend a trade school. I understand the basics, I am very aware of current events, politics, culture, what's going on in the various communities around OKC. I also understand how to quickly adapt and learn new systems. I'll bet I could do just fine at a news reporting job because my education has prepared me for those sorts of things and supplied me with a high general level of knowledge.

I know nothing about the quality of either OU or UCO's broadcasting schools, but back in my day, UCO's broadcasting program was far and away the best in the state.

Jake
10-08-2016, 05:19 PM
Yeah, I was really close to going to UCO. A lot of my friends go/went to UCO and really enjoy it.

I'm not ragging on OU. I love the school, the people, and the relationships I've gained here. I also understand it's very difficult to balance both a comprehensive curriculum in a certain field as well as a balanced, all-encompasing curriculum that benefits students as a whole. It's just infortunate that, in my opinion, certain subjects that I think would have been incredibily beneficial weren't touched on as much as they should have in lieu of broader subjects.

I actually don't even disagree with the original question of "Do you think general education requirements are necessary or should we do away with them to lessen the financial burden?, so I have no idea how I derailed this thread so badly. Whoops! Sorry!

No, general education requirements should definitely not be done away with. However, I think there is a potential discussion about what exactly could/should be defined as a gen-ed and what's necessary and what's not.

dankrutka
10-09-2016, 02:57 PM
I'm not against history and composition, I'm against having to take African American Dance, Israeli Art Through Film, and History of Typefaces. And since I transferred from Arkansas, I've had to take several of these types of classes again.

None of these sound like general education requirements. These sound like options or electives which you could choose to take or not... is that not correct?

dankrutka
10-09-2016, 03:01 PM
GenEd + electives aim to make one well-rounded in their education. Universities weren't created to help people get jobs, but to educate them.

I think that universities should educate for career AND citizenship (broadly defined). It's not an either/or. It's a fair question to ask, why is this course worthwhile? But, I also don't think every course needs to directly focus on specialized job skills or knowledge. A quality education can prepare students for their careers and living in a diverse and complex society.

jerrywall
10-10-2016, 08:12 AM
Also, the assumption that someone KNOWS what they're going to do their whole life? Absurd. I'm in my 40s, and I've had multiple career shifts in my life. My wife was an english major, and she's working (and loving) in HR and accounting. I've never been unemployed or unemployable, and I credit a well rounded education to that. You never know what the future brings.


Now my son decided last year he wanted to be a programmer. I encouraged him (and he is) to attend Vo-Tech (or whatever PC terminology they're using now) instead of enrolling in college, until he's more sure it's what he wants to do. From experience, I know programming sucks, and there is a very specific mindset that's good at it (I am). But it's mind numbing boring work. So I don't want him to waste money pursuing it. He's already changing his mind, so this year at vo-tech is helping him mature before college. Now he wants to (uhg) go to OU.

jn1780
10-10-2016, 09:16 AM
In a perfect world, all students should be able to test out of a lot of gen-ed classes since a lot of the material is just reteaching what they should have learned in grades 9-12. But since schools are treated like daycares these days, most don't or even try to test out.

jerrywall
10-10-2016, 10:03 AM
In a perfect world, all students should be able to test out of a lot of gen-ed classes since a lot of the material is just reteaching what they should have learned in grades 9-12. But since schools are treated like daycares these days, most don't or even try to test out.

Certainly, both of my sons took all 4 AP course lines. I'd actively encourage that. Or if you're an OKC student I suggest going to OCCC which is free (or Rose State is you're a Del City graduate). Get those free courses out of the way.

Jim Kyle
10-10-2016, 10:11 AM
Which means, yes, I would rather take a post production class to learn Avid than take another humanities class. Sorry, not sorry.

All of my other fellow capstone students shared this idea as well, which we have expressed to the deans, unfortunately to no avail. They have limits to what they can and can't do, so I don't hold it against them though.The problem with teaching the use of a specific tool is that most of what's taught there will be obsolete by the time you make it into any position where you need to use it. And the problem with your alma mater is that it evolved from a quite honest trade school -- The School of Journalism that Henry H. Herbert founded in 1913 -- into a much broader concept that's attempting to be a university, and consequently is more a jack of all trades and master of none.

It still has dedicated staff, and most of them really try. But it has lost such stars as Herbert himself (who taught two generations of would-be journalists to have some concept of ethics), Fayette Copeland, Joe Holland, Walter S. Campbell, and many more. In the mid-fifties the OU J-School turned out dozens of good journalists and at least a couple of good novelists. We didn't have all of the elective requirements that irk you, but we did manage to get a bit of rounding. I'm grateful for the two-hour course in constitutional law that I took to fill one such need, and for the year of economics that taught me to take all economic theory with huge doses of salt. But over the years I've earned my living following a simple four-word formula that Professor Campbell taught me in the five minutes between classes. And I've not seen my diploma for more than 30 years, nor has any employer asked about it (although I did get my first newspaper job on the recommendation of Dr. Copeland).

Good trade schools are essential to the creation of competent craftsmen. Don't expect to get the same benefit from any university. As others have noted in this thread, universities should be for those who love learning for its own sake. And for such as we, no course is superfluous -- nor does education stop when one leaves school. There's a good reason the graduation ceremony is called "commencement."

Eric
10-10-2016, 11:23 AM
Also, the assumption that someone KNOWS what they're going to do their whole life? Absurd. I'm in my 40s, and I've had multiple career shifts in my life. My wife was an english major, and she's working (and loving) in HR and accounting. I've never been unemployed or unemployable, and I credit a well rounded education to that. You never know what the future brings.


Now my son decided last year he wanted to be a programmer. I encouraged him (and he is) to attend Vo-Tech (or whatever PC terminology they're using now) instead of enrolling in college, until he's more sure it's what he wants to do. From experience, I know programming sucks, and there is a very specific mindset that's good at it (I am). But it's mind numbing boring work. So I don't want him to waste money pursuing it. He's already changing his mind, so this year at vo-tech is helping him mature before college. Now he wants to (uhg) go to OU.

Maybe it should be the norm to do several years of internship work before starting college. I've thought it would be a good idea. College just doesn't seem like the place to "figure out what you want to do" especially considering how many people don't actually take a job in "what they wanted to do".

jerrywall
10-10-2016, 11:34 AM
Maybe it should be the norm to do several years of internship work before starting college. I've thought it would be a good idea. College just doesn't seem like the place to "figure out what you want to do" especially considering how many people don't actually take a job in "what they wanted to do".

I definitely think a few years of experience and maturing would be smart for 70% of college students. Too may student loans for 2-3 years of college exist.

Rover
10-10-2016, 11:44 AM
I disagree that universities are there for those who love learning for its own sake. People don't go to study architecture just because they love to learn something....they learn the essentials to become competent. They don't go to learn geophysics just because they love to study. They don't go learn chemistry just for giggles and grins. They don't go learn engineering just for the love of learning. Universities teach knowledge. It is up to the student to decide what to do with it. Universities teach skills, not necessarily trades, for professions, not just jobs.

Midtowner
10-10-2016, 12:03 PM
In a perfect world, all students should be able to test out of a lot of gen-ed classes since a lot of the material is just reteaching what they should have learned in grades 9-12. But since schools are treated like daycares these days, most don't or even try to test out.

Most public universities offer that opportunity. When you are talking about liberal arts schools, however, they typically have a regimen of the classics, Greek and Latin authors, etc.--stuff you don't get in traditional public school anymore.

adaniel
10-10-2016, 12:27 PM
You never, ever know where life will take you and thus a broad education can be very valuable.

Who new my 9th grade typing class would result in one of the most valuable skills that I use for hours every single day?

So true. I took an Indian Peoples of Oklahoma class my junior year at OU with absolutely zero initial interest in it, having no idea that my first job would involve working with Indian land and landowners. It gave me a ton of valuable insight that a lot of my coworkers lacked.

On a more practical level, I don't know how anyone could look at the events of the past few years, including this dumpster fire of an election, and not see the need for a broad education. Even as an older millenial, it shocks me how many people my age do not know super basic things like the three branches of government or what the electoral college is. Or their notions of history are comically off, i.e. thinking slaves in the US were "immigrants" (this is actually in textbooks in Texas--look it up). How can anyone expect good decision making when college educated people, who are more likely to be in leadership roles, do not even know the basic tenets and background of our country and world?

Universities are not trade schools. They fill two important but entirely different needs. While minimizing costs are a worthwhile discussion, a person should assume that they will be required to have a broad learning experience at one.

Pete
10-10-2016, 12:45 PM
More than anything, college teaches you how to learn, even when you aren't interested in the subject at hand.

As fast as the world is changing, the ability to quickly learn something new is perhaps the most valuable skill of all.

Eric
10-10-2016, 02:16 PM
Universities are not trade schools. They fill two important but entirely different needs. While minimizing costs are a worthwhile discussion, a person should assume that they will be required to have a broad learning experience at one.

While I really want to agree, the undergraduate level of Universities functions an awful lot like a trade school. The vast majority are doing whatever they have to in order to get the piece of paper that allows them the opportunity to acquire the job they want. I don't know how much philosophical thinking is going on at OU and OSU undergrad schools. Read the book, listen to the lecture, pass the test. Nothing to it really. While I don't have any first hand experience at grad school, that is where I would suspect this type of thinking to occur. Answering the why questions of the world.

That combined with the fact that OSU (more so than OU) seems more interested in being a degree factory than an institution of higher learning. Seems to undercut the idea that Universities are places of higher learning when everyone and their dog can get admitted.

Follow the money. This is why we are having this discussion right now.

dankrutka
10-10-2016, 02:59 PM
While I really want to agree, the undergraduate level of Universities functions an awful lot like a trade school. The vast majority are doing whatever they have to in order to get the piece of paper that allows them the opportunity to acquire the job they want. I don't know how much philosophical thinking is going on at OU and OSU undergrad schools. Read the book, listen to the lecture, pass the test. Nothing to it really. While I don't have any first hand experience at grad school, that is where I would suspect this type of thinking to occur. Answering the why questions of the world.

That combined with the fact that OSU (more so than OU) seems more interested in being a degree factory than an institution of higher learning. Seems to undercut the idea that Universities are places of higher learning when everyone and their dog can get admitted.

Follow the money. This is why we are having this discussion right now.

I attended OU for undergrad in teh early 2000s and it was nothing like you're describing. Most of my classes investigated incredibly complex issues like Genocide and the American Response, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Sports in America, Conformity and Dissent, and South African History since 1900 (all classes I took). But my general education classes like Physics for Non-Majors and U.S. History survey courses also consisted of tons of deep, critical thinking. Most of my classes included small group discussions on contested questions. My education at OU truly was transformative. And I know it can't be that different now because many of the most inspirational professors I had at OU are still there doing great work.

Teo9969
10-10-2016, 03:58 PM
To the original question: Absolutely not to curbing the general education classes. Beyond the course matter, which many have pointed out good reasons for keeping, the interaction between people from different majors is very important in the undergraduate environment. Yes, there are many opportunities for social interaction outside of the classroom between all students. That being said, in the aggregate, people in certain fields tend to have similar viewpoints/personalities and how those come out in the classroom is pretty essential in the developmental environment of academia.

Regarding saving money, I think this is pretty spot on:


I think a bigger thing is getting away from this assumption that everyone should go to college and that college is necessary for success. Neither is true. Learning skilled trades can lead to success just as much as a degree can. More so in some cases because so many degrees are useless. I took diesel technology at Francis Tuttle from 2014 to May of last year when I completed the program. I work for Hobby Lobby and am making pretty good money. Other people who took the program are making what I am, all the way up to 70,000+ a year in a few cases. Now, it wouldn't hurt to back it up with some college education such as a business degree for opening other doors, but it isn't a necessity. And I think people are being done a disservice in being told a degree is necessary. For a whole host of reasons

I think we actually need to do a better job of education at the high school level in terms of preparing people for the real world, and not just the next step in academia. That's not to say we're doing a bad job...the US is an incredible country in large part due to how quality the education is...but I think to be better we need to be more realistic with students about what to expect in post-secondary-education life. The reality is that no education is worthless, but not all education is worth what it costs. Moreover, not all education within an academic setting is the best education in whatever particular field.

We need to do a better job of encouraging students to find out what they're actually interested in before going to college. College simply shouldn't take 6 years to finish, but if you're meandering about, entering with no real bent towards a particular major and then changing 2 or 3 times, you end up wasting a ton of money, and more importantly, time on things you're not using. There are much better ways to get experience in a field you're interested in, but not sure that you want to commit serious time and money to studying. We need to start identifying the things people like sooner and push them to investigate the field as much as possible outside of the classroom.

As it is right now, there are way too many people entering college, racking up debt, and not even finishing, let alone actually using their degree/education. The only reason that happens is because we tell people "You have to go to college to be competitive" when there are billionaire high school dropouts.

In other words, advisement is where I think we really need to improve our system. I say this having basically advised myself through my undergraduate and hearing horror stories from classmates who couldn't graduate on time because the adviser failed to help the student plan class schedules correctly (though the responsibility ultimately lies with the student). If we can't advise correctly at the college level, how much worse is it in secondary schools?

Midtowner
10-10-2016, 09:13 PM
While I really want to agree, the undergraduate level of Universities functions an awful lot like a trade school.

I hate to presume, but you don't have a college degree, do you?

bombermwc
10-11-2016, 07:12 AM
I have a Bach. in Computer Science. Do i NEED knowledge about History, Literature, Art, etc in my normal everyday life to do my job? No. But do they help form me as a more informed person, ABSOLUTELY! College is, be definition, "Continuing Education" and it's absolutely imperative that you continue to get exposed to all aspects of knowledge. You may not immediately realize what sort of impact they have on you, and that impact may even be delayed, but it's there.....it is 1000000% there.

If you dont take courses on History, how else are you going to learn about it? Watching the History Channel? A high school History course does NOT equate to a college History course. If you dont think you need it in college, then the same argument could be said for not needing it in high school since you took it in middle school. I would liken a college general education requirement as the "adult" version of what you learned before. Think of it in another way. In church, as a youth, you probably had something like the Good News Bible. The wording of the story isn't quite the same as it is in the real thing. Not quite as, shall we say, graphic. As you grow in your education of religion, similarly you are brought up to the standard model of the Bible (whatever your preferred translation may be) with the full history/graphic nature/etc in there. The same approach can be taken for any of those general education courses. The purpose is to give you the tools to help you form an educated opinion and help you to critically think as an adult.

Contrary to Eric's statement, colleges in the U.S. do NOT act as trade schools. The inclusion of the general ed. requirements is what makes the difference there. I went to OCU, a decidedly Liberal Arts University so i even had a few more of those credit requirements than my wife did at OU/OSU. It only takes a 5 minute conversation with some international students to see the differences in university thinking. Most of the Indian students in our department's Comp Sci Masters program went to a type of university that focusing solely on the degree area, More like what we would think of as a trade school. They always had quite a bit of remedial courses to take in our undergrad program so i would say that focusing in that way did NOT help them. There are cultural differences as play there too, which affect the abilities of the student, but that's another discussion.

So while we complain about those things while we are in college, they are for sure an integral part of our growth as a WHOLE person!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eric
10-11-2016, 08:48 AM
I hate to presume, but you don't have a college degree, do you?

You would, but I do. Finance - Risk Management, so maybe my experiences are different. Maybe B-School is different.

My perception was that the gen ed classes were taken by and large by those not seeking degrees in Western Civiliation and Geology. Therefore critical thought was rather on the thin side, because nobody really paid any mind to them. They just needed it to get the piece of paper.

Eric
10-11-2016, 08:49 AM
I have a Bach. in Computer Science. Do i NEED knowledge about History, Literature, Art, etc in my normal everyday life to do my job? No. But do they help form me as a more informed person, ABSOLUTELY! College is, be definition, "Continuing Education" and it's absolutely imperative that you continue to get exposed to all aspects of knowledge. You may not immediately realize what sort of impact they have on you, and that impact may even be delayed, but it's there.....it is 1000000% there.

If you dont take courses on History, how else are you going to learn about it? Watching the History Channel? A high school History course does NOT equate to a college History course. If you dont think you need it in college, then the same argument could be said for not needing it in high school since you took it in middle school. I would liken a college general education requirement as the "adult" version of what you learned before. Think of it in another way. In church, as a youth, you probably had something like the Good News Bible. The wording of the story isn't quite the same as it is in the real thing. Not quite as, shall we say, graphic. As you grow in your education of religion, similarly you are brought up to the standard model of the Bible (whatever your preferred translation may be) with the full history/graphic nature/etc in there. The same approach can be taken for any of those general education courses. The purpose is to give you the tools to help you form an educated opinion and help you to critically think as an adult.

Contrary to Eric's statement, colleges in the U.S. do NOT act as trade schools. The inclusion of the general ed. requirements is what makes the difference there. I went to OCU, a decidedly Liberal Arts University so i even had a few more of those credit requirements than my wife did at OU/OSU. It only takes a 5 minute conversation with some international students to see the differences in university thinking. Most of the Indian students in our department's Comp Sci Masters program went to a type of university that focusing solely on the degree area, More like what we would think of as a trade school. They always had quite a bit of remedial courses to take in our undergrad program so i would say that focusing in that way did NOT help them. There are cultural differences as play there too, which affect the abilities of the student, but that's another discussion.

So while we complain about those things while we are in college, they are for sure an integral part of our growth as a WHOLE person!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If they really thought that, they would be more selective. There is not that large a portion of the population that is really capable of truly critical thinking.

dankrutka
10-11-2016, 09:35 AM
There is not that large a portion of the population that is really capable of truly critical thinking.

Not even sure what this means, but it's certainly not true. Almost everyone is capable of critical thinking. The degree to which people employ or develop that skill is a different debate, but almost everyone is capable of it.

jerrywall
10-11-2016, 09:47 AM
I also think there's a large aspect of YMMV in play here. People will get out of college and college life what they put into it. My wife went to OCU, and was driven to graduate as soon as possible. She didn't live on campus, had no involvement in college life, clubs, or activities. It was "go to school, go home". She graduated in 3.5 years, with honors. But it really was just school for her.

I on the other hand, moved to Stillwater, lived on campus, was very active in clubs and groups and activities. I remember seeing a Clockwork Orange there and having a big discussion after the movie. Living in the honor dorm, there were always lively conversations in the common area. Lots of political arguments (go figure - college kids who think they know everything). For me college really was an experience, not just school. It was the first time I met and spent lots of time with people of very diverse backgrounds, from all over the world.

And yes, public colleges are designed to be accessible to as many as possible. They're not meant to be "exclusive". It's what you get out of them which can be exclusive.

Teo9969
10-11-2016, 10:41 AM
^^^

That's exactly why I think we need to do a better job of advisement. We tend in this country to sell a very particular idea of what life looks like, especially to young people. What ends up happening is that most people's early-to-mid-20s becomes this shocking experience of "self-discovery" where they make lots of mistakes that add baggage of anywhere from an unnecessary to a crippling nature for the next 10 to 25 years of life. It's not always financial either. Many times, it's years wasted on achieving a vision for life that's not really suited for that person, but is the only vision of life they were sold during their formative years. (And of course, there are many who are sold this vision who instinctively know that's not a reality because of what they live out on a day to day basis and those people then feel like they don't belong at large).

Of course, self-discovery is very important and not something that we should try to avoid or inhibit, but I think we can increase people's QoL in addition to overall productivity if we do a better job of helping individuals understand themselves a bit earlier, and surely help them avoid making costly missteps.

adaniel
10-11-2016, 11:17 AM
It only takes a 5 minute conversation with some international students to see the differences in university thinking. Most of the Indian students in our department's Comp Sci Masters program went to a type of university that focusing solely on the degree area, More like what we would think of as a trade school. They always had quite a bit of remedial courses to take in our undergrad program so i would say that focusing in that way did NOT help them. There are cultural differences as play there too, which affect the abilities of the student, but that's another discussion.


This is a really good point. It is in the lower level gen ed courses in which one develops their "soft skills." It is not a coincidence that most degree programs want students to finish their gen ed courses before they dive into their upper level degree-related coursework, even if they have nothing to do with each other academically.

There have been numerous articles that discuss how people who do not have any sort of liberal arts education frequently lack creativity, problem solving, and communication skills. This is of particular importance in an economy that is becoming a lot more global-focused and knowledge based. Its simply not enough to have a ton of "book sense" anymore.

TU 'cane
10-11-2016, 11:47 AM
If the goal is to make more well rounded students as many of you claim by forcing "gen ed" courses on students, then the colleges need to offer them for free or discounted.

I can't tell you how many people in my gov't classes, history, humanities, etc. goofed off and never paid attention.

I think a fair compromise would be to offer the entire first year of taking 5 basic or gen ed courses at half price. After that, students should be able to immediately pursue courses related to their degree or what they're interested in.

We all know that won't happen though: $$$$

dankrutka
10-11-2016, 12:36 PM
If the goal is to make more well rounded students as many of you claim by forcing "gen ed" courses on students, then the colleges need to offer them for free or discounted.

I can't tell you how many people in my gov't classes, history, humanities, etc. goofed off and never paid attention.

I think a fair compromise would be to offer the entire first year of taking 5 basic or gen ed courses at half price. After that, students should be able to immediately pursue courses related to their degree or what they're interested in.

We all know that won't happen though: $$$$

Were these other students distracting you? Did you discuss it with the professor? If s/he was unresponsive, did you ask the department chair? That crap would never happen in my classes, but then again, my background is in education.

Like others have said, a lot of students get out of courses what they put into them. I had some professors in college who did a poor job of making the class time or course engaging, but I still gained a lot by digging into the content. I could have slacked off (and there were times that I did), but I still learned a lot in those courses by using it as an opportunity to dig in myself. But that was a minority of my courses at OU. Most were good, really good, and even transformative for me.

I've really enjoyed so many people contributing why a liberal arts education, and general education courses in particular, are important to our society. This has been an interesting thread.

TU 'cane
10-11-2016, 01:51 PM
Were these other students distracting you? Did you discuss it with the professor? If s/he was unresponsive, did you ask the department chair? That crap would never happen in my classes, but then again, my background is in education.

Like others have said, a lot of students get out of courses what they put into them. I had some professors in college who did a poor job of making the class time or course engaging, but I still gained a lot by digging into the content. I could have slacked off (and there were times that I did), but I still learned a lot in those courses by using it as an opportunity to dig in myself. But that was a minority of my courses at OU. Most were good, really good, and even transformative for me.

I've really enjoyed so many people contributing why a liberal arts education, and general education courses in particular, are important to our society. This has been an interesting thread.

The point I was trying to make is that many people weren't interested in those subjects. Naturally, some of them wouldn't put forth maximum effort. Or some would put forth just enough effort to pass and I would bet many of them can't recall much of what they "learned" in those courses. You can't force people to like or enjoy something. And generally speaking, people don't enjoy themselves in these scenarios and thus let their minds wander. So, how much are people truly becoming well rounded?

As I said, I think 1 year of basic/gen ed at a discounted price is fair and then students can move on to their respective degrees of choice. Or, if you want to be more well rounded, then you should be allowed to take as much gen ed as you want.

Eric
10-11-2016, 02:00 PM
If the goal is to make more well rounded students as many of you claim by forcing "gen ed" courses on students, then the colleges need to offer them for free or discounted.

I can't tell you how many people in my gov't classes, history, humanities, etc. goofed off and never paid attention.

I think a fair compromise would be to offer the entire first year of taking 5 basic or gen ed courses at half price. After that, students should be able to immediately pursue courses related to their degree or what they're interested in.

We all know that won't happen though: $$$$

This was my experience at OSU (I know, some of you will say that's not a real University, ha ha). I'm not saying that nothing of consequence occurred, just that I don't think it did much of anything to well round students into anything. The focus just wasn't there. Now, in my major courses it was, and we had meaningful discourse throughout. But there was an interest already. I would expect even more robustness at the grad level (again no gen ed courses there).

What you all are suggesting is that somehow that 18-19 year old kid is capable of critical thought and such. Why not then do that kind of thing in high school where it is free. But we do that already. But it's free. I know, back to my point. You all think Universities are some sort of altruistic holy grounds are kidding yourselves. Schools like OSU and many others are turning into diploma mills, nothing more. Except that many don't even make it that far.

I have known in towns in Oklahoma in the past where schools went through "14th grade". Why not bring that back. I know the answer why we don't.

Heck, I could make a case that the gen ed courses are the wrong ones. Seems that a finance gen ed course would have been quit beneficial to many many people. Just saying. These Universities need to get with the times. But they won't.

And you all saying universities aren't a trade school type are off your rocker too. If kids could get better jobs without going to university they would. That is what trade schools do. They increase the value of workers. That being said, a true university does do more, it's just that most of the undergrad part is a glorified trade school with different specializations, that gets you an even better job than attending Francis Tuttle.

Added:

Oklahoma State University's Graduation Rate: 60%

Eric
10-11-2016, 02:08 PM
Best comment I've seen on the waste of gen ed courses:


If you can't reason, articulate your thoughts or do simple math then twelve years of public school was a waste. Going to college to learn how to learn is an insult to anyone with any intelligence.

dankrutka
10-11-2016, 02:25 PM
Best comment I've seen on the waste of gen ed courses:

Meaningful learning is a lifelong endeavor. Some aspects of growth will come with more maturity and experience. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that someone should acquire all their reading, writing, critical thinking, etc. skills by age 18 doesn't really understand learning at all. Moreover, we live in knowledge and information economy now -- learning trades is such an industrial way of thinking about the skills required for so many jobs today.

Maintaing certain skills also requires continual engagement and practice in habits of doing and thinking. For example, while I taught my high school students how to critically consume and corroborate sources, it's clear from this election (and just public discourse in general) how many Americans lack basic critical consumption skills. The amount of misinformation accepted and curated by Americans during elections is staggering. In fact, that's a pretty good indicator that we need more classes that require intellectual skills, practical skills, and individual/social responsibility... all of these things are taught in addition to content in most general education courses (see Table 1 from this study on general education courses (https://docs.fajardo.inter.edu/Acad/revisionPEG/Articulacin%20Educacin%20General/What%20GenEd%20Courses%20Contribute%20to%20Essenti al%20Learning%20Outcomes_2009.pdf)).

I guess some posters didn't get anything out of their college experiences and that is unfortunate, but that doesn't mean that no one else -- and our society as a whole -- is benefitting from their general education.

jerrywall
10-11-2016, 02:32 PM
Best comment I've seen on the waste of gen ed courses:

Although, guess how many basic English or Math courses I had to take at college? 0. Because I did learn it in 12 years of school. If others didn't, that's more reflective of them.

adaniel
10-11-2016, 02:51 PM
You all think Universities are some sort of altruistic holy grounds are kidding yourselves. Schools like OSU and many others are turning into diploma mills, nothing more. Except that many don't even make it that far.


Seems like your main issue is with OSU, although even as an OU alum I can say that your experience does not jive at all with the OSU grads I know.

Eric
10-11-2016, 02:56 PM
Seems like your main issue is with OSU, although even as an OU alum I can say that your experience does not jive at all with the OSU grads I know.

It's not OSU specifically, all though I can speak to it more personally. I have experience at a few other "lesser" schools in the state (all public).

My issue with it (aside from what I have already stated) is that I didn't get anything out of gen ed classes that I didn't already know. I actually paid attention in high school. And what classes I still did have to take in college (didn't have to do Math & Science as I had jumped straight to higher courses) were a rehash of what I did in high school. And I went to a small rural school with no official AP courses (although that level was taught particularly in math and science coincidental). While everyone may not be that exceptional, shouldn't we expect it if they are going to attend "prestigious" universities?

And like it was said above, why should we expect 18 year old's to acquire this, why should we expect 18 and 19 year old's to be able to take it any better. Is one year that much of a change?

Again, it is an insult to our secondary education system, not just Oklahoma's in this case, that's another discussion all together.

Eric
10-11-2016, 03:01 PM
These arguments of why they are important are reminiscent of high school. Void of any real quantifiable evidence.

bombermwc
10-12-2016, 07:15 AM
One problem I see with public universities like OU and OSU is the inconsistent quality of graduate teaching assistants. There are some really good ones, and some real crap. It sounds to me, that Eric got a good run of the bad quality kind. If you didn't learn anything new, then they didn't do their job. But you also have to consider if the only common thing between the courses was you, then you might have been part of the problem. OCU only employees those with a doctorate or those completing their dissertation. It doesn't mean we had all awesome profs either. I had a couple real doozies myself. But we also paid a LOT more for that. It's not always practical and puts it out of reach for a lot of students. I had a LOT of scholarship (music performance and academic) and spent a LOT of time on activities related to that scholarship money to help me through that....and managed to be debt free when i left. If i could do that with OCU tuition numbers, dont tell me you can't do it with OU numbers people.

My wife is finishing her PHD at OU and has been a GTA there for years. She's one of the top GTAs in her department....consistently. I'm also aware that her department has worked hard to correct some bad habits of some of the staff that weren't performing well....to the point that they are no longer teaching at the university while they complete their degree (ie no longer a GTA). So the school is doing its part to help make things better. The students, on the other hand, get what they put into it. I wont tell you her department, other than it's something in a category that every student is required to take. To most, it would be considered Gen. Ed. coursework. Several of her students have gone on to get a minor in this area. Most of them do fairly well, but there are (and always will be) people that piss and moan about how they dont need the classes, how it's a waste of time and money, and their grades reflect that. Their effort put into the course also reflects that opinion. FYI, my wife also completed every one of her degrees debt free. But she also had to work hard to keep pushing for those scholarships.

I was about as excited about taking Philosophy as i would be to scrape ice off my windows in 10 degree weather. Especially with a book the professor wrote. Definitely my least favorite gen. ed. course....even over Economics!!!! But counter that to History, and i had an amazing prof that really did things differently than any other History class i'd ever had and we really enjoyed it. It was almost all lecture, but i really learned a LOT and enjoyed every minute of it. I actually wished i would have been able to take MORE gen. ed. courses. I honestly DO NOT use the higher level math i had to take for my degree requirements. I would have taken more gen ed in place of some calculus classes any day of the week. My statement about getting what you put in is also not mutually exclusive to gen. ed courses. The same is true in degree courses. I got through all that calc/statistics/discrete math/etc but i hated every minute of it. For me, that was the nails on the chalkboard.

And related to another comment. I was also an OCU commuter....a LOT of students there are. Because there are so many commuters (because it's so centrally located in the city), there is less campus life. I spent a LOT of time on campus because of my music work. But otherwise, being a mostly introvert, i probably would have followed the other poster's wife's trend...go to school, go home. Treat it like a job. Looking back, i really with i had lived on campus so i could have forced myself to break through those habits. it would have saved a lot on gas too!

Midtowner
10-12-2016, 07:45 AM
Music is really different from just about any other discipline. If you are not a former music major, or at least unless you were music-adjacent (I attended UCO on a music scholarship), you just don't understand. I use none of the math either. But again, as I've said, I may not have the answer in my mind to every question, but at least, in part due to my general ed studies, I know where to start to look for answers if I have questions.

Eric
10-12-2016, 09:38 AM
To be clear, I never once impugned the quality or consistency of the faculty at OSU (or any other school for that matter). I get that there are good and bad TA's. Heck there are good and bad professors/lecturers.

Not to toot my own horn, but I was a really good student. I did fine in the gen ed classes (As couple Bs), but in my major courses, I was consistently in the top spot. Everyone studied with me so they would succeed. I get edumacation. :wink:

I also get that I learned pretty much everything I learned in those gen ed classes in high school, where I was also paying attention. If I would have taken Geology in high school, I would have learned it too. Just a different course. My point is, if you are not already thinking critically, how is a few hundred days and many thousands of dollars going to make a difference? Either the public education system stinks (in which these kids shouldn't go to college), or they are fleecing us. In both these gen ed courses are unnecessary.

Teo9969
10-12-2016, 02:51 PM
Eric,

If you are such an outlier and you're a top of the class student, you need to understand that you are, well, an outlier and top of the class student. You and your experience does not represent reality and absolutely should not dictate the basis around which the system is molded.

That's not to say everything you're saying is without merit. But if the basis of what informs your opinion is "This was easy for me" that's not the reality for even half of the students who go to college.

That's not to say any critique of the system is invalid, or that your insights and opinions should be discarded immediately...but the reality is, no, most people arriving to college do not know how to critically think and we're a very long ways away from achieving that sort of convergence.

Eric
10-12-2016, 04:03 PM
Eric,

If you are such an outlier and you're a top of the class student, you need to understand that you are, well, an outlier and top of the class student. You and your experience does not represent reality and absolutely should not dictate the basis around which the system is molded.

That's not to say everything you're saying is without merit. But if the basis of what informs your opinion is "This was easy for me" that's not the reality for even half of the students who go to college.

That's not to say any critique of the system is invalid, or that your insights and opinions should be discarded immediately...but the reality is, no, most people arriving to college do not know how to critically think and we're a very long ways away from achieving that sort of convergence.

I agree. But because they are not prepared to critically think is not reason to keep gen ed classes in and of itself. Which is the point I have been making.

Rover
10-12-2016, 08:32 PM
If educating the uneducated isn't a good reason, what is? I guess you just want to be cheap and let the chips fall where they may.

Eric
10-12-2016, 09:45 PM
If educating the uneducated isn't a good reason, what is? I guess you just want to be cheap and let the chips fall where they may.

You all realize our public university system has just such a resource for those who need these sorts of classes. They are called junior colleges. There are a handful spread throughout the state.

I'm saying the resources expended by the state and the student at a four year research university teaching remedial type courses are extremely wasteful to all involved.

Eric
10-12-2016, 09:47 PM
And prior to that we have high school. It's this socialist construct that educates are youth to become productive citizens (but apparently doesn't teach critical thought). Who knew. sarc off.