General education courses are not remedial courses. Anyway, sorry you see them as useless. Mine were great and certainly prepared me well for future classes, life, and my career.

I think the disagreement here is clearly a matter of values, and little more. The gen-ed stuff I took at OCCC opened my eyes to a lot of things that either NW Classen didn't teach me, or that NW Classen tried to teach me but didn't click at the time. The courses were better planned and presented and the knowledge was more complex than what was taught at the basic high school level, even if the same subjects were touched on.

Now, in my opinion, I did it the right way by testing the waters at community college and getting my AA before going to a university and pursuing my Bachelor (albeit with a decade hiatus in between), as it saved a great deal of money and that setup tends to be more forgiving of youthful, idiotic mistakes. For example, right after high school, a friend of mine shipped off to TCU where he stayed on campus. A semester later, he was back in OKC and enrolling at OCCC. He didn't take it seriously enough and it spat him out. That might be a minority situation, but still representative of something that could be avoided by starting at a community college, unless you're well disciplined upon graduating high school.

Whenever the question of well-rounded education vs. trade focus comes up, this Heinlein quote always comes to my mind.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

There's nothing wrong with wanting to know as much as possible about every subject available. I cut ties with another friend from high school, who was also at OCCC when I was, because he came to only ask to hang out when he needed help with writing essays for his comp I class. Every time, it proved more accurate to say that I wrote his entire essay in the course of trying to show him how to construct an essay, and him just turning that in as his own without retrying it in his own language. Every time we met, I tried to tell him he needed to learn to do this himself, and he flatly refused to try, saying he just wanted to get the grade and get the job and had no interest in learning things. "It's not what you know, it's who you know" was his mantra, whatever that means. So I just stopped taking his calls and cut him off. If you lead a horse to water and he pisses in it, the horse is probably retarded.

The point I'm making with that story is that the "college requirements r dum" argument is something I've long seen, from both the nonintellectual and the anti-intellectual, and in all cases, it's nonsense. Critical thinking doesn't have an on-off switch; it's progressive, and at every stage in our progress we feel like we're at the pinnacle, only to learn later how mistaken we may have been. 1000 level gen-ed courses help to facilitate that progress and to clean up whatever messes high school may have left in a kid's head. If you paid great attention in high school and your 1000 level classes are a rehash, great, enjoy your easy A. But not everyone came away from high school with an honorary doctorate in auto-fellatio. That's an indictment on our public school system, not the university's requirements. Proper AP courses apply as college credits, and the super smart can clep out of some of the baser requirements. For the rest of the lot, the basics are required to make sure you have a good foundation before proceeding to higher level classes, and that foundation can point you in the direction of what you ultimately want to major in and receive your degree in.

If universities want to stick their head in the sand and let society pass them by, that's fine I guess. But I would hope our public institutions would reflect the changes in society. We are a specialized society. Any disagreements here? While it's great to know all those things in your quote, gen ed classes are a pretty poor vehicle to do that. They just teach other specialties. That's all they are. The claim that they create a well rounded student is only backed up by the fact that you all say they teach critical thinking. Never once do you mention the specific subjects. Which are just different specializations than what a person majors in.

You want to know why high schools are failing? Because it is compulsory. Gen ed courses fail too for the same reason. I'm not saying no one no where didn't get anything out of a general ed class. Just that by and large the system is failing. Heck, I see the new crops of new hires every year and wonder what the hell they were doing for four years. I know that's a random observation. My discussions with other industry employers only confirms that by and large the incoming new hire crop is woefully under prepared to enter the workforce, with college degrees.

The reasons to keep them are all hypothetical, and the results are telling a different story all together.

You can call me dumb all you want. It's not just anti intellectuals that think like this. Several at the pinnacle of higher learning also seems to take issue with gen ed classes and how they are not meeting the needs of the modern day student.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2015/05/harvard-college-general-education-criticized
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/2/6/fail-gened-harvard/

If universities want to stick their head in the sand and let society pass them by, that's fine I guess. But I would hope our public institutions would reflect the changes in society. We are a specialized society. Any disagreements here?

I agree we are a society with not only increased specialization, but also increased fragmentation. People increasingly exist in professional silos and personal echo chambers... all these are great justifications for general education requirements. Again, it is always worth discussing which courses are included in general education, but I think the need for general education is more dire than it ever has been because of increased specialization and fragmentation.

You want to know why high schools are failing? Because it is compulsory. Gen ed courses fail too for the same reason.

Honest question - on what basis are you supporting the statement that both high schools AND general education are completely failing? You don't even add any nuance to this sweeping claim that they're underperforming in maybe some respect or another, but just state (without evidence) that they're completely failing. I don't accept that statement.

And, again, I agree that personalization and specialization can be good for individuals and their careers as a component of their education... but some aspects of education are concerned with individuals as they exist in a society that should have common areas of understanding for our democracy to function. You seem to only speak in individual terms and totally ignore any importance for education to advance a common good.

Honest question - on what basis are you supporting the statement that both high schools AND general education are completely failing? You don't even add any nuance to this sweeping claim that they're underperforming in maybe some respect or another, but just state (without evidence) that they're completely failing. I don't accept that statement.

A

I challenge you to the same. Show me how these courses are beneficial to society or the individual. So far it has been no less anecdotal than my "evidence".

Are you really contending that secondary education is not struggling at the very least? I won't start on that at the moment, just focussing on the gen ed requirements at the university level.

By and large the evidence is that students don't take them seriously, which is understandable as it seems that the university doesn't seem to either. They are not difficult courses in general so the challenge isn't there, among other things.

Also, there is a rather small body of literature that is focussed on this subject. In fairness it is generally against the best interest of the potential authors so that doesn't surprise me all that much.

http://docplayer.net/6068083-What-do-college-students-think-about-general-education-and-assessment-j-christine-harmes-james-madison-university-b-j-miller.html

Per Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay


There's value and then there's value. There's what we say we value and then there's what we show we value through our choices. We can say we value equality, but as long as people move out of the cities into affluent, white-dominated neighborhoods, we won't get it. A CEO can say he values general education, but as long as the actual hiring focuses on technical skill, that's what will count in the marketplace. Regardless of how true it may be that broadly educated people make better workers, the economic reality is that employers get acceptable productivity faster by hiring narrowly-trained specialists than generalists. They or the broader society may pay for it later on, but there's an immediate payoff, and lots of people don't care about anything else.

There have been many papers looking to improve general education, so there is obviously a realization that there is a problem of some sort. Again are we going to stick our head in the sand or change with the times. The phrase I always see is there is a mismatch of intent with reality. That's what I see.

I have made several suggestions that could remedy this problem. It's not like I am just complaining to complain. I'm offering solutions.

And prior to that we have high school. It's this socialist construct that educates are youth to become productive citizens (but apparently doesn't teach critical thought). Who knew. sarc off.

Another case of dumbing down of America and blaming someone else.

This state loves to argue AGAINST education in almost all forms...common ed, stem, and on, and on... We are near the bottom in educational funding and results. We have a high drop out rate. We don't support the arts well. And we wonder why we have trouble attracting real growth outside of poking holes in the ground.

Another case of dumbing down of America and blaming someone else.

This state loves to argue AGAINST education in almost all forms...common ed, stem, and on, and on... We are near the bottom in educational funding and results. We have a high drop out rate. We don't support the arts well. And we wonder why we have trouble attracting real growth outside of poking holes in the ground.

That wasn't intended to be a jab solely at Oklahoma.

If universities want to stick their head in the sand and let society pass them by, that's fine I guess. But I would hope our public institutions would reflect the changes in society. We are a specialized society. Any disagreements here? While it's great to know all those things in your quote, gen ed classes are a pretty poor vehicle to do that. They just teach other specialties. That's all they are. The claim that they create a well rounded student is only backed up by the fact that you all say they teach critical thinking. Never once do you mention the specific subjects. Which are just different specializations than what a person majors in.

I don’t disagree we’re an increasingly specialized society; I’m arguing that it’s the wrong direction. The Heinlein quote isn’t mean to be a literal reading of the things a person should know how to do; don’t overlook the importance of nuance. Yes, each class you take is an island unto itself taught by a presumed expert on the topic. Ultimately it depends on the student being able to incorporate that material into their greater understanding of the world. Failure to do that is a personal failure.

Let’s talk about subjects: what exactly do you think a person intending to graduate with a college degree shouldn’t be required to know? How to write an essay or paper? US history? World history? Philosophy and logic? Science? Psychology? Where among these subjects is ignorance acceptable when there’s an alternative?

You want to know why high schools are failing? Because it is compulsory. Gen ed courses fail too for the same reason. I'm not saying no one no where didn't get anything out of a general ed class. Just that by and large the system is failing. Heck, I see the new crops of new hires every year and wonder what the hell they were doing for four years. I know that's a random observation. My discussions with other industry employers only confirms that by and large the incoming new hire crop is woefully under prepared to enter the workforce, with college degrees.
The reasons to keep them are all hypothetical, and the results are telling a different story all together.

Is your anecdotal evidence superior to everyone else’s anecdotal evidence? You talk about what you see as though it’s gospel, while you’re being countered with other personal experience examples and rejecting them as valid evidence.

You can call me dumb all you want. It's not just anti intellectuals that think like this. Several at the pinnacle of higher learning also seems to take issue with gen ed classes and how they are not meeting the needs of the modern day student.

I never called you dumb. I did call you anti-intellectual, which is not the same as dumb. It’s a flawed position from which to pulpit, but it’s a position in its own right that doesn’t necessarily reflect the inherent intelligence of the party holding it.

What would you propose be done to make the gen-ed requirements more coherent, since lack of coherency between the courses seems to be the chief argument from your first link? What’s the solution? Remember that if you remove gen-ed entirely, what you’ve got is effectively no better than trade school, so we can forget about forcing people to learn lots of things against their will at colleges. If you’ve identified the problem, what is your solution that doesn’t involve whittling a college down to a multi-practice trade school?

The other arguments I see are basically “students don’t think they’re getting anything from it,” which sounds to me like whining. That kind of “why do I need to know this?” is a carryover from high school, and those are probably the kinds of people that should have opted instead for a trade school instead of a college. Nobody forces people into universities.

If anything needs to change, it’s the Bachelor Degree requirement for an entry level job that has no business requiring a college degree.

Considering that an associates degree and a high school diploma are looked at as about equal, I will say that I have personally advised many people who are not sure what they want to do to *not* go directly to university and 1. Identify some things they are passionate about or very interested in 2. Look for opportunities outside of school to get involved with those while working to find out if the field is really that compelling to the individual 3. If going to college, go knock out gen. eds. at a community college, discover what classes interest you and then get involved with the subjects more in-depth.

If the argument is that we need to make better use of community college, then I am 100% on board with that.

Again, this is 100% an advisement issue. Removing Gen Eds. from the university environment is a bad idea. You don't tailor the entire educational system to a particular demographic. The system is solid...it's the usage is poor. A great idea would be removing students who don't know what they're doing at a university. You only accomplish that through advisement.

If you want to learn a trade or career go to vo-tdch or something similar. If you want to learn how to be an adult and successful, go to college. People say we're more specialized, but that's not true. Think about folks in the 70s who only knew their trade, and suddenly became unemployed (and unemployable). I'm happy I'll never be there.

My dad was an expert at grocery stores. Owned and ran them. When the oil crash and bank crash of the 80s happened, he lost everything. You know what his skills and experience meant? Nothing. Everyone wanted a degree and they didn't care what type. Know where he ended up, in his late 30s, with 3 kids and a wife? Working for hourly pay at McDonald's. Yeah, he was specialized.

My wife has a liberal arts degree. For all the jokes about it, it has opened doors like crazy. Just showing you have the ability to commit and learn goes a long way. She'll got against any trade school student for any job. I've been unemployed for a total of 4 days since I was 22. And that's with multiple career field changed. Being well rounded in your education helps. If I could choose to model myself after a rennasaince man or a blacksmith I know what I chose.

TLDR; the concept of being well rounded and why employers want that? For a reason.

If universities want to stick their head in the sand and let society pass them by, that's fine I guess. But I would hope our public institutions would reflect the changes in society. We are a specialized society. Any disagreements here?

I would argue that this is the very reason to require gen ed so that we counter some of this specialization. We are very specialized these days, but i dont necessarily see that as a good thing. What it means that that people know their one thing really well, and dont know crap about anything else. People know how to plan an investment portfolio, but can't fix a toilet. We can sew back on, but can't repair a fence. The separation of society on these lines has fractured our society in a way that we see with the uncompromising political divide. It's us vs. them in everything, no willingness to compromise because people just dont understand (and aren't taught) to be able to view things from different perspectives.

Now days, if you happen to know things from many disciplines, you're a Renaissance Man. In our parent's day, it would have been that you were a normal functioning adult capable of taking care of yourself. I'm in the age group of Millenials...i think. I'm on the old end of them and we're very different from the younger ones. But so many people my age are just absolutely STUPID about life. Downright morons about normal things. "I'm so awesome, i drive a prius and drink a pumpkin spice latte, i have a beard and drink only organic juice.....i also have no idea how anything in my house works and am completely dependent on others to do everything for me...but im still awesome, right?".

Music is really different from just about any other discipline. If you are not a former music major, or at least unless you were music-adjacent (I attended UCO on a music scholarship), you just don't understand. I use none of the math either. But again, as I've said, I may not have the answer in my mind to every question, but at least, in part due to my general ed studies, I know where to start to look for answers if I have questions.I have to disagree with you most emphatically about the sentiment I put in boldface above. As one who was subjected to piano lessons for more than a decade (my final teacher was an OCU professor who had a few private students; she introduced me to Rachmaninoff but instilled a lifetime distaste for Chopin) but learned to love music anyway, I find that most harmonic structure is heavily dependent upon math and physics, while an ear for phrasing has been essential to earning my living as a professional writer for more than half a century.

It's no coincidence that such a high percentage of software architects have a background in music. The underlying structures are quite isomorphic to each other!

As for student interests, I think Tom Lehrer has the absolute essence of education nailed when he observed that "Life is like a sewer. You get out of it what you put into it." Or as we say when dealing with data, GIGO.

I have to disagree with you most emphatically about the sentiment I put in boldface above. As one who was subjected to piano lessons for more than a decade (my final teacher was an OCU professor who had a few private students; she introduced me to Rachmaninoff but instilled a lifetime distaste for Chopin) but learned to love music anyway, I find that most harmonic structure is heavily dependent upon math and physics, while an ear for phrasing has been essential to earning my living as a professional writer for more than half a century.

It's no coincidence that such a high percentage of software architects have a background in music. The underlying structures are quite isomorphic to each other!

As for student interests, I think Tom Lehrer has the absolute essence of education nailed when he observed that "Life is like a sewer. You get out of it what you put into it." Or as we say when dealing with data, GIGO.

I believe he was speaking specifically to the experience of those who study music in college as opposed to any other major. It's a very different animal that getting a degree in just about anything else (I feel like Dance/Acting might be a sort of in-between...but those are both also part of the performing arts).

I'm sure the experiences in college are far different, one from another, depending in large degree on one's major field. The performing arts are almost unique in that the performer's "product" exists only in the instant (movies and recordings can preserve the instant to some degree, but those "products" are always collaborative -- directors control actors, engineers control recordings -- and are not identical to the original product.

My point, though, is that the knowledge and experience gained through study of not-directly-relevant material turns out to be not only useful, but vital, to one's eventual niche in life. That's something not immediately obvious to impatient younglings, a category that includes a majority of undergraduate students.

A well-meaning faculty adviser nominated me (without my knowledge or consent) for a small scholarship during my first year at OU. Winning it came as a complete surprise -- and its requirement that I minor in economics to qualify was an unwelcome shock. Nevertheless I gave it the old college try and spent two semesters of my second year listening to the most boring material I ever encountered.

At the end of that year, I surrendered the scholarship and changed my minor to English, which did fit my eventual career goal. However when, much later, I had to become "assistant market editor" for the OKC Times (meaning that I edited wire copy about futures and Wall Street until the real market editor's shift began), what little I had absorbed during that boring year spent mostly sleeping in the back of the classroom turned out to be gold!

At the end of that year, I surrendered the scholarship and changed my minor to English, which did fit my eventual career goal. However when, much later, I had to become "assistant market editor" for the OKC Times (meaning that I edited wire copy about futures and Wall Street until the real market editor's shift began), what little I had absorbed during that boring year spent mostly sleeping in the back of the classroom turned out to be gold!

This is a perfect example of how Gen Ed comes back to HELP you later in life. You never know where you're going to end up, but those tools you have stored in your brain are what you call on later. Can anyone say for certain that 30 years into the workforce, that you'll be doing the same job that was directly from your degree? How many business majors are doing all kinds of crazy things? My point, it helps mold you and arms you with knowledge you dont know you need!!!!

I have to disagree with you most emphatically about the sentiment I put in boldface above. As one who was subjected to piano lessons for more than a decade (my final teacher was an OCU professor who had a few private students; she introduced me to Rachmaninoff but instilled a lifetime distaste for Chopin) but learned to love music anyway, I find that most harmonic structure is heavily dependent upon math and physics, while an ear for phrasing has been essential to earning my living as a professional writer for more than half a century.

It's no coincidence that such a high percentage of software architects have a background in music. The underlying structures are quite isomorphic to each other!

As for student interests, I think Tom Lehrer has the absolute essence of education nailed when he observed that "Life is like a sewer. You get out of it what you put into it." Or as we say when dealing with data, GIGO.

Piano, I think, offers a very different perspective with music. Most of us in the traditional orchestra instruments are so laser-focused on getting our part right that it's a little too easy to not see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Certainly, there's math involved, and this may just be because I play an instrument (I currently do play in an orchestra) which carries the melody most of the time, I see the math and structure as helpful to knowing where I fit in, harmonic structures are hardly an afterthought--they're happening in the score, but they're not my job--my focus is on the musicality, technique, correct bowings, the right notes, the best fingerings, listening to and fitting in with my section--getting my part right. With piano, you are often the solo instrument, it's you, that's it. Playing in a large group of 50-60 people, I think my focus is different.

Also, I was never a music major. I never got very deep on the theory stuff beyond what I needed to know for my own competency.

That said, the theory classes are the most similar classes to what music majors are going to take. In my music major adjacent experience, the music majors took two years of really in-depth ear training classes affectionately known as "sight screaming." And the practice time they had to put in was insane. There were weekly Wednesday performances when they would perform for their peers and professors, they were required to be in various bands, choirs and orchestras (there were multiple iterations of everything) and of course, the dreaded end of the year juries and senior recitals. It's not so much that they went to class--it was more a way of life than anything. VERY different from your typical liberal arts or hard sciences major. But of course they had to do those gen ed classes too.

Piano, I think, offers a very different perspective with music. Most of us in the traditional orchestra instruments are so laser-focused on getting our part right that it's a little too easy to not see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Certainly, there's math involved, and this may just be because I play an instrument (I currently do play in an orchestra) which carries the melody most of the time, I see the math and structure as helpful to knowing where I fit in, harmonic structures are hardly an afterthought--they're happening in the score, but they're not my job--my focus is on the musicality, technique, correct bowings, the right notes, the best fingerings, listening to and fitting in with my section--getting my part right. With piano, you are often the solo instrument, it's you, that's it. Playing in a large group of 50-60 people, I think my focus is different.

Also, I was never a music major. I never got very deep on the theory stuff beyond what I needed to know for my own competency.

That said, the theory classes are the most similar classes to what music majors are going to take. In my music major adjacent experience, the music majors took two years of really in-depth ear training classes affectionately known as "sight screaming." And the practice time they had to put in was insane. There were weekly Wednesday performances when they would perform for their peers and professors, they were required to be in various bands, choirs and orchestras (there were multiple iterations of everything) and of course, the dreaded end of the year juries and senior recitals. It's not so much that they went to class--it was more a way of life than anything. VERY different from your typical liberal arts or hard sciences major. But of course they had to do those gen ed classes too.

Being a music major is insane. You have 8-10 classes (because 6 of them are 2 credit hours or less). And those classes require more of your weekly time than any gen. ed. class possibly could. If you're doing it right, you spend no less than 40 hours in the music building, and then you probably have a gen ed or two adding on another 6 hours outside of the classroom and your total study/homework time is probably around 15 hours. It's a 60-hour per week gig, at minimum...God help you if you have a week or two before a performance...

Being a music major is insane. You have 8-10 classes (because 6 of them are 2 credit hours or less). And those classes require more of your weekly time than any gen. ed. class possibly could. If you're doing it right, you spend no less than 40 hours in the music building, and then you probably have a gen ed or two adding on another 6 hours outside of the classroom and your total study/homework time is probably around 15 hours. It's a 60-hour per week gig, at minimum...God help you if you have a week or two before a performance...

My wife had a full scholarship to OCU for music. It drove her insane that she'd spend more time working on a 1 credit hour course than she'd need to for a 3 credit hour elective/gen ed course. Tons of work involved with little (on paper) to show, and lots of apparent exploitation of the students' talents. She decided it wasn't worth the stress after a few semesters.

Yeah i'll attest to that. Think about us Non-Music Majors that were at OCU on music scholarships. I had to do all the normal crap a music major would while still doing all my regular degree coursework. Talk about insanity.....

Yeah i'll attest to that. Think about us Non-Music Majors that were at OCU on music scholarships. I had to do all the normal crap a music major would while still doing all my regular degree coursework. Talk about insanity.....

Hair went gray a bit early, did it?