The evils of a 'balanced' education...

[JerichoHill]

Question: Why do we take classes in areas that aren't directly related to our degree?

Answers:

1) Because extreme specialization leaves on inflexible in the work force

2) Because most new innovation comes from being aware of advances IN OTHER FIELDS and then applying them TO YOUR OWN.

3) Because quite possibly, maybe being aware of what else is out there just might be good for society.

 

[warpus]

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.

Meh, the more people know the less ignorant they will be.

 

[Homie]

Question: Why do we take classes in areas that aren't directly related to our degree?

Answers:

1) Because extreme specialization leaves on inflexible in the work force

2) Because most new innovation comes from being aware of advances IN OTHER FIELDS and then applying them TO YOUR OWN.

3) Because quite possibly, maybe being aware of what else is out there just might be good for society.

1. Bull
2. Bull
3. Bull

I'm sure you mean well Jericho, but your answers have no basis in reality.
If one wants to be a good basketball player, you train for basketball, evryone recognizes this. But it is the same with any other field, doesn't matter if it is math, football or economics, you get best at a certain field by training for that field.

In the US educational system, taking a bachelor's degree in e.g. Physics takes 4 years, but only 2 of those years are spent doing Physics courses, the other 2 are spent doing the core subjects plus electives. In many countries in Europe a Bachelor's degree only takes 3 years, but a European student in Physics would know more because all of those years are spent on Physics. So we are left with: one year less of school, but with one year more of learning within the desired field.

 

[luiz]

What annoys me the most in the brazilian education system is that while I(engineering student) was forced to attend to sociology clasess, sociology students are not forced to learn even a bit of calculus or physics.

I'd pay to see one of those taking a calculus exam. This would make the whole thing worthy.

 

[newfangle]

Again, I'd like to return to my original point. (though I appreciate all of those on my side )

Let us assume that having a balanced education is worthwhile.

Why, then, is K-12 education not sufficient for this purpose? Honestly, most of us here could have completed primary and secondary school in about 6 years if a lot of the crap was taken out. But instead they completely overload the education system with all sorts of different things.

Why must the same behaviour go on into university?

 

[El_Machinae]

A university degree means that you've gotten a balanced education. That means, when I look at your resume, I can assume that you've gotten one.

If you want to specialise, go to a different type of school or learn on your own. The degree is an accreditation of a certain level of education - nothing more.

 

[Ethics]

A university degree means that you've gotten a balanced education. That means, when I look at your resume, I can assume that you've gotten one.

If you want to specialise, go to a different type of school or learn on your own. The degree is an accreditation of a certain level of education - nothing more.

Well, I'll be honest with you... the only thing I found in the workforce is that since I didn't specialize in learning how to sell insurance or take classes on human resources, noone wanted my degree. Employers *want* specialization. I mean jesus, theres now programs for being a glorified secretary included with that all important "certification" in the field.

The only thing I did find was laws to protect older generations, unions, seniority, affirmative action, or a "good ole boy" system that did not include me.

 

[El_Machinae]

Employers *want* specialization.

An excellent reason to get a trade ticket. At least get one on the side, since they can be gotten with night courses (often).

 

[mdwh]

I can do better than that, I can give you a proof: when a majority of mathematicians don't support something that is imposed by the administration (such as Harvard's "new" calculus, or minimal averages, to name but two common practices that were in place when I was a student) it disappears after a few years. The fact that the western system of studying various courses is still in place (even for mathematicians) speaks volumes, in a contrapositive sense.

Except it isn't in place outside of the US.

In the UK, we've stuck with studying in particular areas at University level, so I could use the same logical and conclude that mathematicians support it.

understanding that you need to do things that you don't like (and most mathematicians hate having to study anything other than math for credit) is a sure sign of non-nerdiness, I think.

I don't see how "doing things you don't like" is in any way related to "nerdiness".

 

[mdwh]

No requirements = Don't have to take anything outside of, say, mathematics.

Hang on - there's a difference between "nothing other than maths", and "studying a range of subjects, from maths to humanities".

Furthermore, requirements may be broader than what you study.

Here in England, you may need 3 A levels, so that means you have to study something other than maths to get it. Of course, you can choose something related such as Physics, rather than something totally random like Physical Education, but I don't see why that's a bad thing. Indeed, universities tend to prefer your requirements be in a relevant or related subject, and may even insist on it (e.g., I needed an A in Physics, Maths and Further Maths - getting an A in my 4th A Level, economics, wouldn't have counted). I'm not sure how that can be summed up as "no requirements".

 

[mdwh]

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.

Isn't that what school's for? What do you guys do in school over there if you havn't achieved this general experience by the end of it?

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.

But that's basic skills. Is it necessary to have a plumber who's studied Shakespeare?

 

[pboily]

Except it isn't in place outside of the US.

It's certainly in place in Canada and Australia. And the only time the topic has come up with a English mathematician, he had had to take credits outside of math (Surrey).

As for your other rebuke, I'm going to advance that you just don't know enough nerds...

Edit: Not so sure about Australia anymore.

 

[slip79]

Well I didn't have to take any courses that I didn't want to take here in NZ.
We could specialise all we wanted.
However, within certain subjucts of course you have to take "core" papers, but that's a bit different to what newfangle means.

In theory I would've thought that a high school education should give you a nice well rounded education to allow you later to specialise, or broaden, however you want.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

Again, that's the party line of liberal educators, who seem to believe that the "right" society is nurtured by a liberal education. This attitude may be relevant in high school, where the students are children and just don't know any better, but it's hardly the same in higher education, where the students are adults. It essentially boils down to the attitude that "you don't know any better, so we'll make you study what we want you to, for your own good." By the time you're in college, you should've had some idea of what you want to do in life, and not sample a little of everything in the hopes of figuring it out later. And I say this as someone who received a very liberal arts education, from a very liberal school, NYU, and with a major in Classics. It gained me nothing but a speed bump on my way to medical school.

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.

What other system did you think existed in universities?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Meh, the more people know the less ignorant they will be.

You mistake class attendance for knowledge.

 

[warpus]

The term "liberal arts" doesn't mean that the subject is going to be taught by a left-leaning democrat, does it?

I was under the impression that the 'liberal' in 'liberal arts' had nothing to do with the word 'liberal' that is used in American politics today... yet you seem to use the two interchangeably!

I am seriously confused, as we don't use that term up here.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think that people will learn more outside the class than they will within.

 

[warpus]

You mistake class attendance for knowledge.

Nah, I assume that somebody who takes classes from various disciplines will be less ignorant than somebody who takes no such classes.

Sure, some people are going to go to class and not learn a thing - but they'll be at least exposed to new ideas.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

The term "liberal arts" doesn't mean that the subject is going to be taught by a left-leaning democrat, does it?

I was under the impression that the 'liberal' in 'liberal arts' had nothing to do with the word 'liberal' that is used in American politics today... yet you seem to use the two interchangeably!

I am seriously confused, as we don't use that term up here.

I don't use "liberal" in the GOP conservative sense, where they've made it into a 4-letter word, but in the 18th century enlightened sense. A liberal education just means a diverse education that includes exposure to math, science, art, and history. It's actually nothing more than the descendant of ancient Classical education, modified for the modern age.

Anyway, what I was saying about attending classes is that it's a given that those who aren't interested in the material, and don't become interested, will just do the minimum necessary to pass the class. Those people will forget the stuff as soon as the pen is put down at the end of the final exam.

 

[mdwh]

It's certainly in place in Canada and Australia. And the only time the topic has come up with a English mathematician, he had had to take credits outside of math (Surrey).

Well I can tell you that this isn't generally the case in the UK. There's sometimes a level of mixing, but (a) that's related subjects (e.g., sciences, or maths with computer science) rather than mixing sciences with humanities/arts - I don't have any problem with that level of mixing - and (b) since there are a variety of Universities with different specialisation of courses, you have a choice (e.g., at Cambridge you have to study all sciences at least in the 1st year if you want to do science, where as at Oxford I believe you can focus on a particular science to begin with).

I've never heard of someone taking maths also having to do arts subjects, and I was able to do maths and only maths. Maybe there are other countries like the US, but the UK isn't one of them.

As for your other rebuke, I'm going to advance that you just don't know enough nerds...

But surely, if studying a range of subjects at university is necessary to stop people getting too nerdy, I should know plenty of nerds?