General Education Requirements in College

[Eric]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^^^

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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.