quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I just think by the time you hit high school you should have the OPTION to drop them, and by the time you're in college they should not be required for vocational degrees.
What vocational degrees require a background in arts and music?
And don't tell me it's too much of a burden for a full time college freshman in Engineering school to come to a music appreciation class twice a week. That's also part of the college experience that people want and pay for- even if they grumble, it's for more than the knowledge of the subject, and the knowledge of the subject is highly useful. It would be my argument that these classes ought to be unnecessary in Uni, but they aren't. I could only advocate better education at a lower level, so that when the required arts classes come around, students actually have something to put into them. Those classes serve multiple functions, and I don't think the answer is simply doing away with the requirement.
As an example: A really good (certainly not all) art appreciation class or, in my case, a freshman science class, like geology, may also include quite a bit of coaching from the professor on subjects related to everyday life, and surviving college. My first quarter of my first year, I took geology one, and the professor, knowing that there were probably no geology majors in the class, and few science people, used the opportunity to coach the class through the experience of the first quarter. We studied the subject, which was low-pressure and interesting, but we also studied "how to study," and it was the perfect thing for me to be doing three times a week. That's something I think a general ed course might be able to do where a depth course wouldn't bother. If you've got a required class like that, it has a social and pedagogical function above the material.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: We studied the subject, which was low-pressure and interesting, but we also studied "how to study," and it was the perfect thing for me to be doing three times a week. That's something I think a general ed course might be able to do where a depth course wouldn't bother. If you've got a required class like that, it has a social and pedagogical function above the material.
I think that, if that were the best reason to take those required courses, a better option would be one required course called "How to Study and Survive College".
ETA: Dang. My previous response was that last one on the page. I hate that.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What vocational degrees require a background in arts and music?
It varies by the school. My almost-step-brother-in-law (that's a mouthful) had to take 3 art classes, including one appreciation, one music appreciation, and one fine arts performance class (glee club, instrument, drama, whatever) to get his BS in Chemistry.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
A curriculum in the Western Canon, including art and music, appears to dramatically improve earning potential for people with minimal skills or knowledge.
Essentially, knowledge of shakespeare, mozart, michelangelo, plato, homer, et al, is extremely helpful in getting good access to power, whether that power is your landlord, the manager at mcdonalds, the banker you're trying to get a mortgage from, or your federal representative.
Doesn't need to be a LOT of exposure, but adult exposure to the curriculum that those in power have as a knowledge base puts you on a more equal footing with those in power, when you're trying to get something from them.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: What vocational degrees require a background in arts and music?
In context, we were initially talking about adult students in an English class who had no understanding/appreciation for the literature that was being taught. So that, at least, is one form of "art" that everyone has a requirement in but that not everyone needs/gives a hoot about.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that, if that were the best reason to take those required courses, a better option would be one required course called "How to Study and Survive College".
Some schools actually require a class or workshop in "study skills" and one in "library skills," etc. for all freshmen. I don't think that is a horrible idea if they're seeing problems in those areas.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A BS in Chemistry is not a vocational degree.
"Skills" classes are pointles because they aren't being applied to anything. A general class on the library won't teach nearly as well as a class on geology where students are required to use the library and given support while researching a separate topic.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It varies by the school. My almost-step-brother-in-law (that's a mouthful) had to take 3 art classes, including one appreciation, one music appreciation, and one fine arts performance class (glee club, instrument, drama, whatever) to get his BS in Chemistry.
See, I'm of the opinion that baccalaureate degrees should have some form of art as a requirement. Those types of degrees show that someone has a well-rounded adult education.
Now, it might be cool to have an "engineer" or "scientist" program that have no liberal arts at all, but I wouldn't call them baccalaureates. That denotes a different type of education than the very narrow one that would be required in that type of situation.
quote: "Skills" classes are pointles because they aren't being applied to anything. A general class on the library won't teach nearly as well as a class on geology where students are required to use the library and given support while researching a separate topic.
I don't agree. I think it would be perfectly feasible to present a real-world type of situation in which the students would have to do research on a particular topic in order to pass.
That said, I think that in practice they probably would be useless because most people seem to think they are above such classes and see them for what they are, just another "required course" that doesn't take into consideration what a student already knows.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think anyone is debating the inclusion of some art in a baccalaureate degree...
I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the subsequent belief that such a degree can be used to determine suitability for employment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: A BS in Chemistry is not a vocational degree.
"Skills" classes are pointles because they aren't being applied to anything. A general class on the library won't teach nearly as well as a class on geology where students are required to use the library and given support while researching a separate topic.
No, it's not. I was trying to answer the spirit of his question, because what I was asserting was not that people needed arts for vocational degrees, but that they needed liberal arts degrees to get work because not enough vocational degrees are available.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't that vocational degrees aren't available; it is that jobs are looking for people with bachelor's degrees when they could do it with a vocational degree.
There are lots of places willing to give you a vocational degree.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but I'm talking about ones for, say, engineers or scientists as PSI mentioned. Or accounting, KPC would have loved that. The number of fields in which vocational degrees are available are extremely limited, while some of the jobs that require a bachelor's degree could benefit from hiring people that had a vocational degree, but such a degree does not yet exist.
(Okay, actually I'm not advocating this for engineering or science, for a variety of reasons. But accounting or maybe waste management, lots of other fields, sure.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Either way, if the students are too far behind what you're teaching the only thing to do is to teach from a lower level or with simpler texts."
This is not the job of a 100-level college course.
"And yes, I did Shakespeare all through high school, but I imagine if this is the first time these students are encountering Shakespeare and they're not getting it and it's on the curriculum, there's obviously something that needs fixing at this school."
No, there's something that needs fixing *prior* to this school. If you get to a 100-level college course and you are lost, then it is not the teacher's responsibility to remediate for you. This isn't elementary school.
If the material is above the level of the student, the teacher cannot bring the level of material down so that the student can pass. That simply waters down the subject material and makes a passing grade worth less.
If you fail at English-101, you need help. That doesn't mean help in the form of the teacher lowering standards, or help in the form of taking the class over and over again until you scrape by with a D. You need a lower-level, remediated course, or maybe even GED-prep courses.
It's getting more and more to the point where a high school diploma isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and is no guarantee of any sort of competence in any given academic area.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that, if that were the best reason to take those required courses, a better option would be one required course called "How to Study and Survive College".
Some schools actually require a class or workshop in "study skills" and one in "library skills," etc. for all freshmen. I don't think that is a horrible idea if they're seeing problems in those areas.
My mother made me take a class like that (Effective Studying) my first semester, on the theory that I had never really had to study in my life, and therefore had never learned how.
I got all As that first semester, except for Effective Studying, which I failed because it was so boring that I just stopped going.
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: I love that people are required to take a wide variety of courses. I think it's marvelous that even engineers need to take English in college, and that even art majors need to pass Math 1050.
Depends on where you go. The BFA at BGSU has no math requirement.
As far as engineers taking English, I had it explained to me that they actually need that class because they have to write reports. Don't know if that's true or not; it probably depends on the person/position.
"Even engineers". Heh.
I studied engineering at the university, and that's not how it worked for me.
The 100-level English course that I took was the same one that everybody took. I didn't learn anything about how to write a report. The focus was on the literature, and the writing portion was just so that the teacher could grade us on the literature portion.
I don't begrudge the class, but it gave me no more engineering-required skills than did my 100-level courses in music, political science, sociology, or philosophy.
One class that did help me, however, was a 400-level technical writing class that was required for graduation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We studied the subject, which was low-pressure and interesting, but we also studied "how to study," and it was the perfect thing for me to be doing three times a week. That's something I think a general ed course might be able to do where a depth course wouldn't bother. If you've got a required class like that, it has a social and pedagogical function above the material.
I think that, if that were the best reason to take those required courses, a better option would be one required course called "How to Study and Survive College".
Nah, that's defeating the purpose. The point is that it has to be a class you don't technically need to ace, just one that is interesting, and a primer for how to take a class. Just think, if you're taking a class called "how to study and survive college," you're actually studying something you really need, whereas the lesson sneaks in with a good general ed course. I realize that's counter-intuitive, but people can learn better when they aren't necessarily aware of exactly what it is they are learning.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: A BS in Chemistry is not a vocational degree.
"Skills" classes are pointles because they aren't being applied to anything. A general class on the library won't teach nearly as well as a class on geology where students are required to use the library and given support while researching a separate topic.
Incidentally, yes, the geology class I took required me to use various electronic journal resources to *actually* do something. And as a result I ended up using those same resources throughout school, when others simply didn't know about them. The amount of resources actually available to undergraduates at a large university is staggering- and some students never use them, or even know about them.
I can't argue that a study skills class couldn't have gotten me that information, but I know that the geology class did, and I didn't even realize it at the time. Besides, a study skills section, useful or not, is not the same thing as a run of the mill general ed course. In a good general ed course, you can become engrossed enough in the topic to pick up the tools you are offered without complaint, and you will, imo, carry that implied lesson through the rest of your life. If it's good. I have yet to hear about a study skills class (and I've only been in two myself, middle and high school) that were any good at all. I learned the Dewey Decimal system for crying out loud- I've never used it in my life, and probably never will. We have these things called computers that tell you where the books are.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but I'm talking about ones for, say, engineers or scientists as PSI mentioned. Or accounting, KPC would have loved that. The number of fields in which vocational degrees are available are extremely limited, while some of the jobs that require a bachelor's degree could benefit from hiring people that had a vocational degree, but such a degree does not yet exist.
(Okay, actually I'm not advocating this for engineering or science, for a variety of reasons. But accounting or maybe waste management, lots of other fields, sure.)
Having edited and re-written an accounting manual from material written by accountants, I am all for accountants taking as many writing classes as possible.
There isn't any professional field where someone can do well by only knowing their narrow subject. I think it can and should be possible to get a job doing that, but an actual career requires dealing with people outside of your subject area, and a broader education and communication skills are vital to doing that well.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, my liberal arts university had "general" courses designed exactly for that purpose - the First Year Seminar. Every student had to enroll in their first semester, and they were typically really off-beat, but cool topics that you weren't likely to study again:
History of Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Intelligence, Mind, and Computers The Looking-Glass Self: Women and Self-Portraiture What is a Riddle? Paradoxes, Conundrums, and Riddles Green Chemistry
etc, etc. Each First-Year Seminar, besides studying the topic of the course, discussed research and test-taking strategies, required papers, presentations, and group-work, and generally just helped the freshmen get oriented to college life. The professor of the course is the student's initial adviser (when you declared a major or knew enough faculty in your major area, you switched). And all of the students in the same seminar were in the same orientation group too, and had the same peer mentor.
It's one of the more brilliant setups I've seen at a university to help students succeed.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
DePauw University, people. It's in the middle of Nowhere, Indiana, but it's got great academics, very good merit aid, excellent honors/technology/internship programs, and a Super-Walmart in town!
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does seem to me that it is possible to over-focus on the curriculum at the expense of preparation. Europe and the US have very different philosophies on this; I didn't have to take a single art or literature class for my undergrad, for example. Nonetheless, both continents do turn out people who are well-educated and suited either for research or business. If there exist differences in how well the graduates do, they are clearly subtle.
The problem, then, is not so much in what is taught, as who it is taught to and what their preparation is. People who cannot write a grammatical sentence have no business in a college course whether it's on complex analysis or basketweaving. And high schools that turn out such people are not doing their jobs.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having edited and re-written an accounting manual from material written by accountants, I am all for accountants taking as many writing classes as possible.
What do you mean by "as many as possible"? Do you think accountants should have, say, the equivalent of an undergraduate English degree?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Line me up with Orincoro on this one. Education should be more than just skills to earn a living. What about living itself? I can imagine nothing sadder than a person spending their whole life with a self who has nothing interesting to say.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's getting more and more to the point where a high school diploma isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and is no guarantee of any sort of competence in any given academic area.
You are apparently right. As for my comments, I was under the impression that this was a "junior university" that caters specifically to people who are not necessarily academic.
quote:Orincoro, my liberal arts university had "general" courses designed exactly for that purpose - the First Year Seminar
My (big) university offers these as a recommended, but not required class. They weren't so dedicated to helping students to fit in, at least overtly, but they were similarly small classes on wacky topics where you were not one of 500 students. The idea was to give you at least one class where you were one of only 20, could engage directly with a real professor on a wacky topic.
Mine was called "Time."
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll not comment on cost. Shopping for price, when it is a factor, applies to education too. But, given that; Yes.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Line me up with Orincoro on this one. Education should be more than just skills to earn a living. What about living itself? I can imagine nothing sadder than a person spending their whole life with a self who has nothing interesting to say.
While this is, indeed, sad, the fact remains that that half of the population which has less than median intelligence is not going to become more interesting through an ability to regurgitate Shakespeare.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Orincoro, my liberal arts university had "general" courses designed exactly for that purpose - the First Year Seminar. Every student had to enroll in their first semester, and they were typically really off-beat, but cool topics that you weren't likely to study again:
History of Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Intelligence, Mind, and Computers The Looking-Glass Self: Women and Self-Portraiture What is a Riddle? Paradoxes, Conundrums, and Riddles Green Chemistry
etc, etc. Each First-Year Seminar, besides studying the topic of the course, discussed research and test-taking strategies, required papers, presentations, and group-work, and generally just helped the freshmen get oriented to college life. The professor of the course is the student's initial adviser (when you declared a major or knew enough faculty in your major area, you switched). And all of the students in the same seminar were in the same orientation group too, and had the same peer mentor.
It's one of the more brilliant setups I've seen at a university to help students succeed.
This is the system we use at Dickinson, too. My freshman...err, "First-Year" seminar was Rock Climbing: A Case Study in Science and Risk. It's a wonderful way to guide incoming students through that critical first semester.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, I am all for everyone taking writing classes. At least ones germane to their field (accountants could benefit from professional writing and business writing and letter writing classes, for example.) That's part of functioning in the business world and I see it as part of the purview of a technical degree.
I'm still not convinced that everyone needs biology or music appreciation to succeed in business.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am convinced that a business person who can talk intelligently only about their specialized subject is at an extreme disadvantage.
Sooner or later, the different between a job and a successful career is the ability to engage with people outside your own field.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but there are other avenues to being able to talk about other things. Not everyone needs a music appreciation class to talk to other laypeople about music intelligently, and if high schools are doing their jobs one should have a basic understanding of science, etc.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm not denying that you have to take a class in order to understand music at a sopisticated level, it certainly is the easiest way. I also suspect someone who cannot understand the material when taking a music class would have a hard time learning the same material from laypeople.
If someone hates their basic literature course, I doubt they'll go out on their own and read the classics and be able to discuss it.
There are many ways to learn, but the mainlining of a formal course is the most straightforward.
-----
You shouldn't need a background liberal arts education to get a job. But a liberal arts education is invaluable to someone who wants a career.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the alternative of being able to get the qualifications you need for a job, getting a job, and then, once you are financially stable, being able to go back for classes in the arts that interest you or even get a liberal arts degree. I think if that were a more accepted path that people would be more invested in their liberal arts education, because they would 1) not be worrying about the huge amounts of debt they were going into to get something they did not see as necessary in the immediate future and 2) would be doing it on their own terms and their own time, when they wanted it.
It's kind of a hierarchy of needs thing to me; first people want to make sure they're going to be able to survive and take care of themselves (and their families if they have them), then they have time to satisfy their needs for music and arts and literature, etc.
I'm not saying everyone is like this. There will always be the people that want the liberal arts education from the start and enjoy it, and the people who don't go back and aren't going to enjoy it whatever you do. But this might cover the middle ground of people who WOULD enjoy it if they didn't feel they had more pressing concerns (which in my limited experience of talking to people about these things is a lot of people.)
That's why I'd be in favor of more choices in qualifications and paths to an education.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are different choices and paths to an education. The problem isn't a lack of options for an education - it is that despite the different paths to an education, only one or two are what employers are looking for.
The option of going back for more schooling later is available to people now.
If people want a professional, career-track job that can support a family with only a high school diploma or with minimal education, that's a different request that has nothing to do with the value of a liberal arts education.
quote:I just think by the time you hit high school you should have the OPTION to drop them, and by the time you're in college they should not be required for vocational degrees.
A University equation IS NOT and SHOULD NOT BE vocational training. Universities exist to educate people to be life longer learners and lead a rich full intellectual life and not merely to train people for jobs.
There are very few professions or vocations which require a university degree. If all you want is to be trained for a job, then a University really isn't the right place for you. Go to a Business College, Nursing school, a technical school. If the courses that interest you are only offered at a University, there is nothing preventing you from taking only those University courses that interest you. People have the OPTION right now to never take an art class of a history class while they attend the University. They just don't have the option to receive a degree without fulfilling all the requirements for the degree -- including those that might include classes in the arts and humanities.
There is no law preventing companies from hiring engineers, accountants or IT managers who have the relevant technical skills but haven't completed their arts and humanities courses. If companies won't, maybe its because they have found that people with a broader liberal education make better employees in the long run.
Universities have the right to set requirements for the degrees they issue. If what they teach and require isn't relevant to a lot of people, People have other options. Tertiary education is a highly competitive market. There are many options available if you don't want to meet the requirements Universities set.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sick and tired of restating myself ten different ways in an effort to get my point across, and being nit-picked. (I'm also just plain tired-- I've been averaging 3 hours of sleep per 24 hour period for the past week and a half.) I know what I mean but apparently no one else does. So I think I'm going to take a break from this thread now.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Orincoro, my liberal arts university had "general" courses designed exactly for that purpose - the First Year Seminar. Every student had to enroll in their first semester, and they were typically really off-beat, but cool topics that you weren't likely to study again:
History of Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Intelligence, Mind, and Computers The Looking-Glass Self: Women and Self-Portraiture What is a Riddle? Paradoxes, Conundrums, and Riddles Green Chemistry
etc, etc. Each First-Year Seminar, besides studying the topic of the course, discussed research and test-taking strategies, required papers, presentations, and group-work, and generally just helped the freshmen get oriented to college life. The professor of the course is the student's initial adviser (when you declared a major or knew enough faculty in your major area, you switched). And all of the students in the same seminar were in the same orientation group too, and had the same peer mentor.
It's one of the more brilliant setups I've seen at a university to help students succeed.
We had something similar, but not required in my first year. It was required in all subsequent years. At my school, teachers had the option of devising their own random freshman seminar course. They met once a week, typically did not include homework, and everyone got an A for showing up. Class sizes were very small- like 10-15 They could be on just about anything, and were usually just a forum for students to talk to professors and teachers about whatever ailed them.
It's a good set-up, and a good system, and it also helped teachers try out materials and subjects for their bigger required classes. In fact, one of my musicology professors presented a paper I wrote on Californian minimalism to his seminar class on California history, and later he decided to include the lecture in his class on California music.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have been irritated to take random classes past freshman year; seminar classes would be fine, as most of mine were (shameless boast: my largest class was 22 people), but I was ready to focus on my interests after my first year of college.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I am sick and tired of restating myself ten different ways in an effort to get my point across, and being nit-picked. (I'm also just plain tired-- I've been averaging 3 hours of sleep per 24 hour period for the past week and a half.) I know what I mean but apparently no one else does. So I think I'm going to take a break from this thread now.
Have fun.
I would frankly expect more from you. But not on 3 hours of sleep, so I understand.
I think the essential objection to your point is that a university degree is not and maybe should not be what you think it is, but that vocational degrees should be better respected and a more real option for more people. At the same time, yours is a losing argument, if only because the way things are carries with it many advantages that you are not willing to acknowledge, or would like to suggest alternatives for. The point remains that universities gain their reputations by graduating people who are good at what they do, and have a diverse range of knowledge and interests that help them through life.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A University equation IS NOT and SHOULD NOT BE vocational training. Universities exist to educate people to be life longer learners and lead a rich full intellectual life and not merely to train people for jobs.
People have different reasons for attending universities, and vocational training IS one of them, whether it should be or not. And for many jobs, a university education is the best education availble for that particular job - because many jobs require well-rounded individuals that can think and be flexible to a changing work environment. That is what many employers are looking for. This many not be what the faculty intends to be the purpose of the univesity, but for many people that is exactly what it is. (It should also be noted that if people who merely wanted to get a good job suddenly stopped going to universities, many universities across the country would probably have to shut their doors due to lack of enrollment.)
----
Having said that, I think many people misunderstand "practical" when they try to get an education with practical value. Practical does not equal money. Practical does not equal getting a job. Practical means something that will create utility for you - anything that will get you something of real, inherent value to you.
Money is only of value to people indirectly - it is only as useful as the things you can buy with it are useful. And while some people do find inherent value in their careers, others simply hold jobs to make money (which in turn is only useful for buying other things.) That means if you really want to assess the practicality of an education, you need to look beyond the financial value of it to how it ultimately effects all the things people really care about - good health, family, friends, happiness, productiveness, fulfillment, knowledge, or whatever. Education can get you a job which can get you money to buy products which can eventually help you attain some of those things, but education can also get you some of those things in far more direct ways.
That is why it can be practical for students to take classes in the arts. And in those cases, it is not so much the specific details of Shakespeare that will get those students the most utility. Rather, its the general experience of learning to think about art and the ideas behind art, of learning how to think creatively, etc. that provide the utility.
Whether college classes actually succeed in teaching those general skills is another question - but that is, at least, the intention.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There are very few professions or vocations which require a university degree. If all you want is to be trained for a job, then a University really isn't the right place for you. Go to a Business College, Nursing school, a technical school.
In the US, the distinction between a college and a university is generally whether the school offers anything past the level of an associate's or bachelor's, not (necessarily) the quality of the education or classes. Most colleges which offer 4-year degrees (as opposed to technical schools or others which offer specific job training) have some kind of "breadth" or "core" requirements. These usually require English (composition & literature) courses, science & math, arts, and possibly other things -- regardless of the field one is majoring in.
While there certainly are schools which will allow you to get a 4-year degree (or its "equivalent", which can mean all kinds of things) without such requirements, almost all are proprietary schools, which charge on the order of 5-10 times what a state school does. (At least here in California.)
And many, many employers consider a 4-year degree part of the minimum qualifications for a job.
While I happen to approve of the breadth requirements (at least in the form that most schools have them), I can understand the frustration.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no law preventing companies from hiring engineers, accountants or IT managers who have the relevant technical skills but haven't completed their arts and humanities courses. If companies won't, maybe its because they have found that people with a broader liberal education make better employees in the long run.
There is no law that explicitly says so, no. However, the various employment laws have the same effect, in that they require employers to show that their hiring decisions were based on measureable criteria. A full bachelor's degree is measureable; "the relevant technical skills" is not.
Or so runs one theory. Another theory is that having only half a degree does not demonstrate an ability to see things through, which is a bit of a disadvantage for a job. But this does not imply that we are giving people the right things to finish whether they like it or not.
A point to notice here is that a high proportion of graduate students in physics have undergraduate degrees from Europe or Asia, with a much higher degree of specialisation in physics. Presumably this indicates that universities here do not find liberal arts necessary to good physics-research skills.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Employers aren't required to show that their hiring decisions are based on measurable criteria.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A point to notice here is that a high proportion of graduate students in physics have undergraduate degrees from Europe or Asia, with a much higher degree of specialisation in physics. Presumably this indicates that universities here do not find liberal arts necessary to good physics-research skills.
Or it means that proportionately few American undergrads are interested in getting a graduate degree in research science, so universities are forced to compete for the foreign applicants, and the details of their undergrad degrees be damned.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Employers aren't required to show that their hiring decisions are based on measurable criteria.
I do believe that the proponents of that theory are rather exaggerating the threat of lawsuits, yes. Hence my implied skepticism with "Or so runs one theory". Still, it's a point to consider.
quote:Or it means that proportionately few American undergrads are interested in getting a graduate degree in research science, so universities are forced to compete for the foreign applicants, and the details of their undergrad degrees be damned.
And what does this say about how well-prepared a standard American undergraduate degree leaves people for a graduate degree in science?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or it means that proportionately few American undergrads are interested in getting a graduate degree in research science, so universities are forced to compete for the foreign applicants, and the details of their undergrad degrees be damned.
And what does this say about how well-prepared a standard American undergraduate degree leaves people for a graduate degree in science?
Precious little.
It does say quite a bit about the PITA process of getting one's PhD, and the cut-throat nature of academia. Many US science undergrads have seen enough of that up close to have no desire to go through either.
The problem is not their qualifications; it's their interest.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Especially given a simple model of comparative advantage: even if an American undergraduate degree prepares a student well for graduate research in science, if it prepares them proportionally better for some other pursuit (than people with undergraduate degrees from somewhere else), they're still not going to go into graduate research in science as much, whatever the relative absolute levels in capability.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It does say quite a bit about the PITA process of getting one's PhD, and the cut-throat nature of academia. Many US science undergrads have seen enough of that up close to have no desire to go through either.
Your words are not in correspondence with reality.
quote:The problem is not their qualifications; it's their interest.
Interest is a qualification.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's in the middle of Nowhere, Indiana, but it's got great academics, very good merit aid, excellent honors/technology/internship programs, and a Super-Walmart in town!
