The evils of a 'balanced' education...

[Verbose]

Why don't trade schools do it with plumbers?

In some countries they do. Sweden requires all such state-sponsored educations to give students enough knowledge to make them eligible for admittence to university, should they want to. (It's "free", kind of. And if you pay for it yourself and get it from a private school you learn what you like/need.)

The assumption is that such education might be useful later on, as things are shifting fast enough to possibly require people to switch careers several times. Having learned how to learn at least, on several levels and different subjects, gives you an advantage then. (Btw, do you really expect mathematics to be a useful meal-ticket on its own?)

So if you were living in a society where the state guarantees free education, and is a democracy, the answer would be that it's a political decision taken in democratic order, for collective long term competitiveness reasons. (If it pays off remains to be seen.)

But since you're paying for it yourself, and the impetus for making you take classes like that seems to be not to crank out technocratic egg-heads, but "well rounded" characters, I think we can assume that you're up against the inertia of Traditional Academia. (That's their assumption of what a few weeks of history etc. might do for you, I'd think.)

And they'll get away with it if the educational institution is good enough. You want the rest of their product, yes? Well, then these are their conditions, and presumably, even if you're paying, there are others who might like your spot, no?

Oh, and would it make sense to tell Einstein there's more to life than physics? Or Gallileo astronomy? Or Michaelangelo art? Puhleeze. Humans specialize for a reason.

What makes you think specialisation was the key to their success? The specialist might be completely barren when it comes to thinking up the new stuff. That's the thing about specialisation; it's tailor made for already known and specific tasks, not for coming up with something new.
Gallileo did a bit of everything, like any Italian courtier; party entertainment, military engineering etc. He learned a lot just pottering about in the Arsenal in Venice.
So did Michelangelo. Heck, when he started on the Sistine Chapel he had to write home to Florence to ask his old masters about the basics of al fresco painting. He had taken the class once, just never actually used it.
And Einsten, well he was a second rate student, and getting a not to onerous job in the Patent Office, technically a career dead-end, was what allowed him the free time to develop his theories. Had he been a successful specialist there's no way he would have had the time to do that. He would have been to occupied solving already eisting problems.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I had no requirements to study any other subjects while studying Physics in the UK, but I did in any event take one social science class. In hindsight I would strongly support taking a more balanced education, though I'm not sure that the situation that newfangle describes is exactly what I would advocate.

Studying even a little bit in an area outside your field has a tremendous positive influence on your outlook and character.

If it's any consolation newfangle - your mathematics degree will qualify you for any number of proffessions unrelated to mathematics. It seems like a fair trade-off to me. It's not like learning about something else will be detrimental. Just find an option that interests you.

In fairness, while I enjoyed social science, if my Uni made me take a business course I would have been furious.

 

[CaptainF]

Newfangle, I am your polar opposite.

When I graduate from high school in 2007 I never want to see another math class again. I'm all about history, the arts, psychology, sociology and language.

I suppose i'll have to take math in college. Damn.

 

[Wolfwood]

What makes you think specialisation was the key to their success? The specialist might be completely barren when it comes to thinking up the new stuff. That's the thing about specialisation; it's tailor made for already known and specific tasks, not for coming up with something new.
Gallileo did a bit of everything, like any Italian courtier; party entertainment, military engineering etc. He learned a lot just pottering about in the Arsenal in Venice.
So did Michelangelo. Heck, when he started on the Sistine Chapel he had to write home to Florence to ask his old masters about the basics of al fresco painting. He had taken the class once, just never actually used it.
And Einsten, well he was a second rate student, and getting a not to onerous job in the Patent Office, technically a career dead-end, was what allowed him the free time to develop his theories. Had he been a successful specialist there's no way he would have had the time to do that. He would have been to occupied solving already eisting problems.

You basically hit the nail on the head with that one.

In Finland, we get free univ education as well and we have to pick a subject to major in and a couple of minors, as well as finish a few "basic courses", such as Latin, writing skills, Swedish etc. depending on the faculty at which we studied. Those extras sometimes bothered me, but, in the end, they weren't so bad (although I needed a few tries with the Latin test).

Also, unlike in the US apparently, we don't get multiple choice questions at the university level (except perhaps in the basic language courses). It's all about learning to write your own stuff (or, in some cases, memorising what the lecturer said and writing it down in the exam).

All good for you, believe me!

 

[amadeus]

Do not confuse education with schooling, newfangle. Sitting in a brown brick building listening to a jerk in a tweed jacket with leather patches on the elbows talk about the positive impacts of Maoism is not an education. It's schooling.

Education is what you get after college.

 

[warpus]

On one hand Universities make you take more courses so that they can get more of your money.

On the other hand it's good to be 'balanced'. I had to take a lot of electives when I was @ University.. and sure, I didn't like them all, but I liked some.. and some were really interesting.

IMO finding only 1 thing interesting is a bit on the OCD side.

 

[Ethics]

I'm with newf.
I too had to take many useless courses. Some of them made me dumber, I'd say. Others(cough sociology cough) made me hate commies more than I already did, and that is certainly unhealthy. BTW, why is it that every single sociologist on the planet is a communist? Is there a massive brainwashing conspiracy that I'm missing?

All in all, the University should only require credits on the disciplines of each course. Getting a broader perspective should be the option of each student.

You know, I was going to come in here defending some of the extra requirements to a degree... but then I remembered spending a semester in sociology with a foreign grad student who couldn't speak a lick of comprehendible english.

I don't think my sociology teacher could be considered communist as she probably couldn't read the pamphlet... but jesus if my anthropology professor wasnt (twig boy if there ever was one). He tried to make us feel horrible for going to the mall and not selling our women for beads and cattle.

I really can't even say that the extras benefited me, because my history professors usually covered more complex aspects of those subjects in a much more applicable, balanced, and unbiased manner.

On the flipside, I wish I had been required to take more math and sciences. After four years, if anything, the system needs to be structured around applicable writing, research, and a strong basis in math and science. My favorite class has to have been "Science in the Modern World," where we took an entire semester going through the history of science & religion, and the impacts of both on one another. Awesome twist she pulled on us at the end.

 

[Truronian]

In the UK education specializes much earlier on, and university is a single subject course (unless you want to take a joint degree). Personally I don't see the advantage of diversifying university courses; when I've spent my whole life studying a huge range of topics, I'd rather concentrate on the one I enjoy in uni. Of course, being in the UK, I can.

 

[Ethics]

In the UK education specializes much earlier on, and university is a single subject course (unless you want to take a joint degree). Personally I don't see the advantage of diversifying university courses; when I've spent my whole life studying a huge range of topics, I'd rather concentrate on the one I enjoy in uni. Of course, being in the UK, I can.

Well, I don't think the premise is a bad idea. There is merit in math majors gaining liberal art experience, and vice versa for a liberal arts major.

The problem is, there ends up being a lot of junk required. I havn't found the relevence of the Bantu speaking tribe of Sub-Sahara Africa yet, nor do I plan to.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Why oh why do you universities require their students to take options? I mean, honestly, we aren't in high school anymore. University is a place for people to learn what they want to learn. If you want to take courses unrelated to your degree, go for it! University is also a place to experiment. But options as requirements for graduation is assinine.

In my case, I am entering my last year of a B.Sc. in mathematics. Of the 40 courses I need to graduate, I am required to take 8 non-science options (2 of which have to be humanities, 2 social science, 4 of any other). That's 20% of my degree. Thousands of dollars. For what? A few regurgitory multiple choice exams on monkeys, feminists, communists, ideal economics, and the alphabets of some long-dead tribe from Clickland? How does this make me a better mathematician?

Logic and other non-math mathy courses only take up so much space. At some point I have to pay to take some atrociously pointless course that drains my soul every second I sit there listening to mundane, pointless verbal arse-discharge.

Arg! I still have 4 more of these buggers to do. And not only do I hate them, they are significantly more work for me than a high-level math course (yes I suppose I have a one-track mind blah blah blah).

Phew, I feel better. Now back to linguistics...

I feel with you, newfangle. We also had the opportunity to make 10 out of 260 ECTS points from "soft skill" lectures (my field is chemistry). I wouldn´t say all of them were useless as, for instance management lectures are surely an asset for a scientist as carreers will end up in more and more management heavy postions. I had another one which was about women in the history of chemistry I found *ahem* pointless.
I really ask myself how does forcing people to take lectures they don´t like make them less nerdy/ more broader educated? I was present at such lectures with my body only, made the exam and forgot the topic right afterwards.
In a nutshell either you have broad interests and educate yourself on these "soft" topics or you don´t, lectures you don´t like won´t change it and are a waste of time for all involved persons.

 

[Grisu]

Why don't trade schools do it with plumbers?

they don't do that in canada?

That's common practice here, and I think it's pretty sensible thing to do.

 

[7ronin]

\Why don't trade schools do it with plumbers?

Ah, but they are starting to. Employer's have found that plumbers who can read and write and reason and have a few other skills as well make better plumbers.

 

[Abaddon]

Within the UK, you dont have to do that

 

[De Lorimier]

Could we slow down on the commie rethoric. It doesn't make any point better or more convincing. It just sounds like a bunch of frustrated kids moaning. It's time for some of you to realize that humanism and communism are far from being the same thing. The fact that you're in the 'don't care' categories doesn't mean the ones who do care are damn commies.

 

[Shaihulud]

Strange choice of subjects... I chose from the fields of biology, chemistry and journalism as an alternate field of study besides my major in mathematics and physics and i enjoyed it all! I find it more disturbing that someone can become so fixated in a single field to the exclusion of any other subjects and there are so many units in a University, even brewery...

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I had no requirements to study any other subjects while studying Physics in the UK, but I did in any event take one social science class. In hindsight I would strongly support taking a more balanced education, though I'm not sure that the situation that newfangle describes is exactly what I would advocate.

That's the party propaganda line of liberal educators. In practice, there is actually no benefit to taking classes you have no interest in, because you will not bother to remember them, and so they will have no influence on you, other than to waste your time.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

That's the party propaganda line of liberal educators. In practice, there is actually no benefit to taking classes you have no interest in, because you will not bother to remember them, and so they will have no influence on you, other than to waste your time.

I'm not sure what you're saying bears any relation to my post.
Balanced education =/= being forced to take classes you're not interested in.

Anyone claiming to be only interested in their chosen field deserves to be pushed into expanding their horizons, and if they don't take advantage of this opportunity then more fool them.

I wouldn't support students being forced to take classes in any specific area, as newfangle seems to have been, but it's just common sense to expose students to some wider learning.

 

[IglooDame]

Newfangle, if you think you've got it bad, you should try out my alma mater - you could major in English, History, or Political Science and graduate with a Bachelor of Science degree, and the (required) electrical, mechanical, and other engineering courses to justify a BoS.

 

[Homie]

I am currently studying at an american college where I have to take several core subjects that everyone has to take, besides my concentration. But I am NOrwegian, so I am familiar with both systems of education. And I have to agree with Newfangle and the brits on the board, why do Americans have to take all these courses that have nothing to do with their concentration? Its pointless. None of you have been able give a good reason for it. If it is so necessary, how come the UK, Norway and many other countries don't make you take core courses? Are people in these countries less knowledgable as a result? No, from experience I can tell you they are not. Are these countries economies suffering as a result? No, not at all.

 

[Brian_B]

I honestly couldn't imagine having gone to college and having every single course I take be in one area of study be it English Lit, Political Science, Engineering, Biology, etc. etc.