3 year college degrees?

[Makkari1]

Sounds like a good plan.

[galactus]

I took Chemistry and Biology in Junior High and new right then and there I didn't want to be a Chemist, Biologist or anything to do with those fields.

I then got to High School and they told me I had to take High School Chemistry and Biology even though I still knew that I didn't want to have anything to do with those disciplines for my career.

Guess what happened in College? That's right, I HAD to take some sort of Sciences as part of the general curriculum, most of which were some variant of Chemistry or Biology.

So basically, I took 4 classes I didn't want to take, and as far as my life goes and blending in with society, didn't NEED to take. There were a multitude of other things I could have taken, that I WANTED to take, which I had no time to do (unless of course I want to stay at college for a 5th year and pay more money).

Kids need to be able to speak, read and write English properly and be able to add and subtract so they can balance their damn checkbook. Nothing else is really needed to be a cog in society at this point. That's not to say that a well rounded eduction is bad, I think it's necessary. But don't fu(king tell me that forcing me to take the same classes 3 times over is what gives me a well rounded education.

[nbr3bagshotrow]

Originally Posted by galactus

I took Chemistry and Biology in Junior High and new right then and there I didn't want to be a Chemist, Biologist or anything to do with those fields.

I then got to High School and they told me I had to take High School Chemistry and Biology even though I still knew that I didn't want to have anything to do with those disciplines for my career.

Guess what happened in College? That's right, I HAD to take some sort of Sciences as part of the general curriculum, most of which were some variant of Chemistry or Biology.

So basically, I took 4 classes I didn't want to take, and as far as my life goes and blending in with society, didn't NEED to take. There were a multitude of other things I could have taken, that I WANTED to take, which I had no time to do (unless of course I want to stay at college for a 5th year and pay more money).

Kids need to be able to speak, read and write English properly and be able to add and subtract so they can balance their damn checkbook. Nothing else is really needed to be a cog in society at this point. That's not to say that a well rounded eduction is bad, I think it's necessary. But don't fu(king tell me that forcing me to take the same classes 3 times over is what gives me a well rounded education.

Totally agree. Foreign languages should be an option not a requirement. As I said before, kids should be able to speak, read, and write English out of high school

[Teague]

Originally Posted by galactus

Kids need to be able to speak, read and write English properly and be able to add and subtract so they can balance their damn checkbook. Nothing else is really needed to be a cog in society at this point. That's not to say that a well rounded eduction is bad, I think it's necessary. But don't fu(king tell me that forcing me to take the same classes 3 times over is what gives me a well rounded education.

Absolutely true; but that's a failure in the system in terms of allowing students to test out of a required competency, not an argument for not requiring that competency in the first place. I completely agree with you that this is lacking in most universities, though--but it's a vicious cycle. Higher Ed takes major budget cuts, and has to eliminate programs (like competency testing, and advising, and all the necessary things like that which aren't in the classroom, and therefore strike some critics of higher ed as wasteful spending). And then Higher Ed gets accused of not serving their population well enough, and that vast changes have to be made. And well, they do...but if among those changes were better funding, a lot of the other changes would happen naturally.

You want to know why universities offered better educational experiences--smaller class size, more experienced professors, personal advising, better campus living, etc? Follow the money. That's not all of it, but it's a big part of it.

Totally agree. Foreign languages should be an option not a requirement. As I said before, kids should be able to speak, read, and write English out of high school

Foreign language being optional is probably in the cards anyway. But I think it's short-sighted to think that students will be able to write a college-level essay, for example, based on high school learning. If nothing else, the five-paragraph essay (the standard for high schools) is markedly different from "real" essay standards. That model is a great place to start, but it's by no means where students should end up.

[Underdog07]

Originally Posted by Teague

But there aren't all that many BS electives required anymore in most colleges. Unless you're including things like English Composition in the "BS" category, in which case I'd refer you to all the expense that American businesses have had to incur over the last 20 years in training courses for executives to be able to put a reasonable sentence together.

While I agree that there's something to be said for a focused education, there's also something to be said for an English major knowing the basics of math and science, for a biologist to know something about literature, and like I said, for a stockbroker to know how to write a paragraph that carries the meaning he needs it to carry (and without making him look like an idiot). Well-rounded is not a bad thing; I'd argue that it's a very good thing, in fact.

You don't not got any clue what you is righting about!

[mwf6171]

Originally Posted by nbr3bagshotrow

I agree! Problem, IMO, is that should have occurred in High School not college. I volunteer at CDE (Colorado Dept of Education where I work) to review/judge high school submissions for scholarships and I am appalled at the lack of basic grammar and spelling in their applications. If that's what these kids are graduating with, then the teachers haven't been doing their job. As what I've read/heard, it is next to impossible to fire negligent or incompetent teachers.

As I am married to a public school teacher and have taken education classes in college, I feel qualified to make a brief comment on the highlighted statement above. I find it amusing when people say teachers are not doing their jobs. It has been proven that over the past 50 yrs teachers are asked to instruct students in many more content areas than the past, but in the SAME amount of time. For the most part the time kids are in school has not changed from the 1950's. One way around this is to adopt the European model where students are given a test and their scores dictate what type of schooling they receive. "Poor" scores = vocational training and "good" scores = ability to go to college/university to be teachers, doctors etc. JMO.

[Teague]

Originally Posted by Underdog07

You don't not got any clue what you is righting about!

You know, I get messages like this a lot from my freshmen students. Spelling and all.

I find it amusing when people say teachers are not doing their jobs. It has been proven that over the past 50 yrs teachers are asked to instruct students in many more content areas than the past, but in the SAME amount of time. For the most part the time kids are in school has not changed from the 1950's.

Great point, MWF. High school has gotten MUCH tougher to teach, and the salaries haven't kept up with the times. That, combined with the easing of rules and regs in most school systems (the ones that used to keep most kids in line), have led to the system we have today: too much for teachers to do, not enough time in which to do it, arbitrary government standards that distract further from real learning goals (since teachers are then forced to "teach to the test"), and next to no authority left to maintain control, let alone discipline.