RA = Well rounded

Most RA institutions require a lot of what I call fluff courses. If someone is studying science or engineering should that person have to take music appreciation, or literature. If a computer major is desired is a social science or humanities course really needed? Should the person majoring in English, or History really take a calculus course?

My take on this is no. I would rather see people learn their vocation rather than become so called well rounded. People get enough of this in high school, and from watching TV, so why waste their time and money in college.

Do you think this will ever change?

 

British model

In England, not only do students study subjects related to what Americans would call their "major" (in British terminology, the subject that they're "reading") at university and no other subjects, but they specialize in 3 to 4 subjects in their last two years of what Americans call "high school". When I was in England in the 1970s, if you wanted to read Maths (gosh, that's hard to say) or Physics at university, you would take your 'A'-levels in Maths, Extra Maths, and Physics.

Do you prefer that model?

 

Unfortunately I doubt if it ever will.
It is the way of life regarding advancement in corporate America.

Is Sam well rounded enough?
John is well rounded for the position.
June has a well rounded back ground.
Jill must become well rounded before we consider her for promotion.

Some individuals, not all, seem to lose identity of which they came as they become more advanced in academics or career, thus all others should be. See my point.

I for one did not enjoy Literature and English in College, esp. at 39 years of age, however, I also know my written english is the pits and looked at the classes as practice.

The world is the world, life is life, as my old drill sergeant said many moons ago. Suck it up and drive on. It hasn't changed in 100 years and it aint gonna change now.

Good Luck

 

Why can't it change? I may be wrong, but I think most people would like to pay to study subjects they are interested in!

 

I agree 100%! I do hope one day the education system will begin to teach in area which equal the specialization of study.
Maybe one day it will, but for this old man, I will have my MBA and MS way before it will change.

Already paid thousands for my 101's and 202's basic bull pucky courses.

I really liked my 1500.00 computer intro course.
something like space bar, enter, tab, on button, off button, sound, ping! and alot of other cool stuff!

 

Bill Gates doesn't have a degree. Maybe that's why I click on START to shut down my computer. Having a bit in a lot of areas doesn't hurt a bit.

 

Before Bill Gates came along there was no internet as we know it. Everybody did not have a PC, and you had to really know your stuff to operate a computer. I remember the PCDOS days, editing files in Edlin, and personally I am glad Bill Gates had the vision to get us where we are today. He may not know much about Sigmond Freud, but he knows his bits, and bytes.

 

I agree with you, somewhat.

As universities have evolved from centers of academic learning (knowledge for knowledge's sake) into corporate and technological training centers, we have been left with a system that benifits neither. Students who wish to further their careers in technology or management based programs are often made to complete a humanities based element in order to earn their degree, while many of the traditional academic departments (such as philosophy) have been watered down into courses that would appeal to the career minded individual.

I do, however, think that humanities or social sciences based majors require a broad education. An anthropology major for instance would benifit from some knowledge of history, literature, and philosophy.

In engineering, technology, and business, on the other hand, I think that universities have not kept pace with the real world. Programs such as construction management are important to the field inwhich I work. But, in my opinion, none of the programs I am familiar with (Heriot-Watt being an exception) in any way prepares students for careers in construction management. Like many career based programs, they are pieced togather from existing departments, and forced into the traditional university mold.

Will there ever be a change? I doubt any time soon. As long as universities view themselves as the protector of learning standards, they will continue to believe the real world should adapt to the mystical world of bricks, mortar, and ivy.

 

Most colleges require approximately 25% of the courses required to earn a bachelor’s degree be in the loosely defined area of general education. For the most part, this is mandated by the accrediting bodies – the institutions have no choice.

I personally have no problem with this requirement. A quality education should be more than vocational. Regardless of your major, a well rounded education will result in many intangible benefits both from a vocational standpoint as well as a live style standpoint.

It is also noted graduate programs generally have no general education requirements.

 

plscott,

Your point is well taken and, fortunately, the solution already exists. For those who wish not to be distracted by exposure to "fluff", such as literature, English or foreign languages, current and historical events, cultural and political analysis or other things that historically have defined what an "educated" person is, we have the myriad of specilized vocational schools, where one can receive highly concentrated exposure to very narrow areas.

Having spent over 15 years in both academic and industrial settings, I have observed that the mentality of extreme specialization (the "why do I have to take any of this "general education stuff") leads to a tunnel vision mentality of both work and life.

When I worked for Intel Corporation in the 90s, the company had to do some major restructuring to adapt to chaging needs in the marketplace. There was a general concensus among those responsible for the implementation that employees from narrow-specialized programs were the least able (or completely unable) to change the way that they did things or be re-trained into other areas. Some very highly paid engineers ended up leaving Intel.

About the same time, I was doing educational/vocational counseling under contract with the US Department of Defense. Recruiters from graduate schools of business, medicine and law were asking me for students with degrees in humanities, social sciences, languages, English, etc., since the "well rounded" students in these areas were proving to be more successful in technical based graduate programs than the "why do I have to take this GE?" crowd.

You are completely free to disagree with me and determine that I am off my rocker on this one. That is the beauty of this type of forum. I can, however, offer my own expereince as a witness to my point of view. My field is instructional technology and I received my masters in this area in 1991 (I am now completing my dissertation for a doctorate).

Two years after I graduated, the World Wide Web hit us and, soon after, my entire field changed. When I went to school, positions like "web developer" and "web master" did not exist. Communication technology changed and the type of interactions involved changed as well. My job evolved in ways that required that I draw upon the full meaure of my education, not just the narrow technical side. Had I remained a narrow specialist, I would not have been able to take advantage of the many opportunities for professional growth that my "generalized" background afforded.

Just in case you were wondering, my undergraduate degrees were in Spanish & Psychology. I was able to put myself through much of my graduate school by teaching college Spanish classes and serving as a counselor (another benefit of a broader education).

Tony

 

Here's a few ideas I had about this subject:

* What is a degree is supposed to mean? Does a degree simply mean that a graduate has technical proficiency in some narrow skillset, or does it mean that a graduate is an *educated* man or woman, using some necessarily more vague and global definition of "educated"?

* Do most jobs demand people who possess a deep but narrow technical skillset, or is it (occasionally? always?) important for individuals to be able to situate their skills in a wider social, historical and intellectual context?

* Does this vary by field? Could an engineer get away with all major courses, all the time? Would a business or pre-law major be better off learning to employ elagantly written persuasive rhetoric, and by acquiring some understanding of the context in which court cases or business products exist?

* If a student restricts learning too narrowly, does the student run a risk of transforming him or herself into a tool? An instrument for individuals with broader vision and higher purposes to employ to realize the kinds of ends that are beyond a tool's comprehension?

 

Tony,

I started this thread to get opinions like yours, but to also give mine. I think it is great that the Spanish, and Psch. courses worked out for you. Most of what you talked about above had to do with techonolgy changes. When I finished electronics in 88 I learned all about board level electronics. Now unless you actually design electronics you will not see much of that on the repair side. After working in the field I changed with the times and the techonology. I have learned many more skills since that time, and I have been in business for myself since 1994. I am a licensed master electrician, electrical contractor, and master hvac technician. I learned CAD, PLC programming, and many other skills to adapt to the changes in my vocation.

With all that said I cannot say that music appreciation, art history, general psch., or philosophy has helped me at all in my vocation.

Ocassionally I get something right on Jeopardy though.

 

It depends on what is meant by the issued degree. In the U.S., an education in the liberal arts has been a staple of the undergraduate experience. In Britain, one tends to focus on one's major area of study. Both seem to have advantages and drawbacks.

 

I personally think I would like the English method better.

 

In both the UK and NZ tertiary studies, the subjects are almost always specific to the course being taken, that is, (apart from Communications English which is compulsory) all subjects are specifically related to the course objectives - even though a great deal of subject material is often of little value in the 'real' world, apart from helping expand the brain!
However, when I studied Tool Design in the UK for three years our lecturer, who was a rabid socialist, invariably walzed through the tool design lecture in the shortest possible time, and then spent the next two or three hours talking about the world and how we could make it a better place. There is no doubt that we all benefitted from this - becoming much wiser, and all passing the final Tool Design exam!

 

Here's what the Dearing Report has to say on the subject, from a distinctly British perspective:

Breadth and depth of programmes

9.3 We have given much thought to the appropriate breadth and depth of programmes, particularly at the undergraduate level. The breadth of programmes was a particular theme for the Robbins Committee. It felt that higher education was constrained by a tradition of relatively narrow educational experiences, and that its requirements drove a similarly narrow focus earlier in the educational system. We believe that, while many students will continue to welcome the opportunity to pursue a relatively narrow field of knowledge in great depth, there will be many others for whom this will be neither attractive, nor useful in future career terms, nor suitable. In a world which changes rapidly, the nation will need people with broad perspectives.

Employers' views about breadth

9.4 Employers emphasised to us in their evidence the importance of high level analytical skills. The development of such skills characterises higher education, and should continue to be one of its primary purposes. Indeed, many employers are seeking individuals with highly specialised knowledge and skills, with the medical and veterinary fields as the most obvious examples. But employers are also concerned about the general capabilities and potential of those with higher education qualifications, not just about the subject they have studied. The recruitment patterns of employers demonstrate that they are often looking for rounded but adaptable people who can successfully tackle a range of tasks and be effective members of a team.

'for many years over 40 per cent of jobs advertised for graduates in the UK have been open to applicants from most, if not all, disciplines'.1

9.5 Employers are, therefore, looking for a variety of entrants: some specialists, some generalists. A typical response to our employer questionnaire confirms this:

'We will continue to need scientists and engineers ..over the next twenty years. (Applied skills with people management abilities – not pure science.) For other roles we will continue to need broad intellectual skills.'

...

Recommendation 16
We recommend that all institutions of higher education should, over the medium term, review the programmes they offer:
with a view to securing a better balance between breadth and depth across programmes than currently exists;
so that all undergraduate programmes include sufficient breadth to enable specialists to understand their specialism within its context.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/

 

I believe that the English system is predicated on the idea that the university bound will have acquired a well-rounded education prior to university studies. You'd likely not like any of the European systems as there your educational track is more dictated than chosen. Compared to the U.S., that is.

You know, what you haven't done is to state your educational goals. If you wish a vocation then there are vocational schools to attend. If you wish a narrow field studied in college then there are certificate programs to accomodate you. If you wish a baccalaureate degree then you must fulfill all the requirements of that degree. If you wish a postgraduate degree then you must first obtain a baccalaureate degree.

We are educationally blessed in the U.S. in that we have education/training to match nearly every desire, age and remedial need. What is it that you desire to obtain that is not available to you in terms of education?

 

I really have no problems with the above. My problem is with a science major taking courses in Literature, Music Appreciation, History of Art etc.. I also do not think that someone majoring in English or History should have to take Calculus.

If these were electives then fine, but when I had some of the above courses I did just what I had to do to get through them. I was not interested in them whatsoever. I would have rather taken business courses, management, or foreign lang. courses than Lit. Mus. Art. as electives. You are not given much of a choice in most programs Lit., Psych., and humanities are requirements.

I think being well rounded is great, but give me a little more control of that. Shakespeare, Picasso, and Stravinsky just are not for me

 

I don’t think so. The reason the British can concentrate on a specific field during their undergraduate studies is that they covered many of those “fluff” courses during what you call your high school. If anything, they place a greater emphasis on these subjects than we do.

You have a warped sense of what constitutes an education.

Even though it is amply evident that you consider courses in Literature, English Composition, and Humanities to be superfluous, society, in general, and academia, in particular, disagree with you.

But that is exactly the point of being well-rounded, isn’t it? Doesn’t it mean, by definition, to have a basic knowledge of even those subjects that don’t particularly interest you? The basic idea is that you should have an interest in not only the subjects that interest you (that’s easy), but also those subjects that make you a well-rounded individual. I do understand, however, that not everyone can have class.

 

This is an interesting subject, one which I have thought about continually for the past few years. If I'm a business major, why do I have to take liberal arts classes? At first it seemed a bit strange. However, upon reflection, I believe they were some of my most memorable experiences in college. It seems as if there are quite a mixture among students. Some like it, some don't. I can say that I am a "rounded" person for taking them and I wouldn't change a thing.