General Education Requirements in College

[AP]

I am having a debate with a co-worker, and would like to see other opinions on the topic. Do you think general education requirements (i.e. comp I & II, History, Gov) are necessary or should we do away with them to lessen the financial burden?

[jerrywall]

I am having a debate with a co-worker, and would like to see other opinions on the topic. Do you think general education requirements (i.e. comp I & II, History, Gov) are necessary or should we do away with them to lessen the financial burden?

They are necessary. College isn't merely about learning a trade. Trade schools exist for that. There's a reason so many jobs/careers want you to have a college degree, and don't even care what degree it is.

There are options for folks who want to lower the burden. For example, taking general education courses at a community college for example. Lots of times it can even be free for folks.

[dankrutka]

I think there's always room to re-think what general education courses should be offered, and of course, the quality of them is vital to what any student takes away from them... AND, in an era of massive debt, we have to find ways to lower costs...

But, yes, general education courses serve a valuable purpose in my mind. I do not think we need to continue with the McDonaldization of education with only cost and efficiency as our core values. We have to function in a democratic society and being well-rounded helps us do that... then we can get on with specialization.

[OkiePoke]

What about those required credits where bowling, wine tasting, travel Europe are classes?

[Pete]

You never, ever know where life will take you and thus a broad education can be very valuable.

Who new my 9th grade typing class would result in one of the most valuable skills that I use for hours every single day?

[adaniel]

You never, ever know where life will take you and thus a broad education can be very valuable.

Who new my 9th grade typing class would result in one of the most valuable skills that I use for hours every single day?

So true. I took an Indian Peoples of Oklahoma class my junior year at OU with absolutely zero initial interest in it, having no idea that my first job would involve working with Indian land and landowners. It gave me a ton of valuable insight that a lot of my coworkers lacked.

On a more practical level, I don't know how anyone could look at the events of the past few years, including this dumpster fire of an election, and not see the need for a broad education. Even as an older millenial, it shocks me how many people my age do not know super basic things like the three branches of government or what the electoral college is. Or their notions of history are comically off, i.e. thinking slaves in the US were "immigrants" (this is actually in textbooks in Texas--look it up). How can anyone expect good decision making when college educated people, who are more likely to be in leadership roles, do not even know the basic tenets and background of our country and world?

Universities are not trade schools. They fill two important but entirely different needs. While minimizing costs are a worthwhile discussion, a person should assume that they will be required to have a broad learning experience at one.

[Eric]

Universities are not trade schools. They fill two important but entirely different needs. While minimizing costs are a worthwhile discussion, a person should assume that they will be required to have a broad learning experience at one.

While I really want to agree, the undergraduate level of Universities functions an awful lot like a trade school. The vast majority are doing whatever they have to in order to get the piece of paper that allows them the opportunity to acquire the job they want. I don't know how much philosophical thinking is going on at OU and OSU undergrad schools. Read the book, listen to the lecture, pass the test. Nothing to it really. While I don't have any first hand experience at grad school, that is where I would suspect this type of thinking to occur. Answering the why questions of the world.

That combined with the fact that OSU (more so than OU) seems more interested in being a degree factory than an institution of higher learning. Seems to undercut the idea that Universities are places of higher learning when everyone and their dog can get admitted.

Follow the money. This is why we are having this discussion right now.

[dankrutka]

While I really want to agree, the undergraduate level of Universities functions an awful lot like a trade school. The vast majority are doing whatever they have to in order to get the piece of paper that allows them the opportunity to acquire the job they want. I don't know how much philosophical thinking is going on at OU and OSU undergrad schools. Read the book, listen to the lecture, pass the test. Nothing to it really. While I don't have any first hand experience at grad school, that is where I would suspect this type of thinking to occur. Answering the why questions of the world.

That combined with the fact that OSU (more so than OU) seems more interested in being a degree factory than an institution of higher learning. Seems to undercut the idea that Universities are places of higher learning when everyone and their dog can get admitted.

Follow the money. This is why we are having this discussion right now.

I attended OU for undergrad in teh early 2000s and it was nothing like you're describing. Most of my classes investigated incredibly complex issues like Genocide and the American Response, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Sports in America, Conformity and Dissent, and South African History since 1900 (all classes I took). But my general education classes like Physics for Non-Majors and U.S. History survey courses also consisted of tons of deep, critical thinking. Most of my classes included small group discussions on contested questions. My education at OU truly was transformative. And I know it can't be that different now because many of the most inspirational professors I had at OU are still there doing great work.

[Midtowner]

While I really want to agree, the undergraduate level of Universities functions an awful lot like a trade school.

I hate to presume, but you don't have a college degree, do you?

[Eric]

I hate to presume, but you don't have a college degree, do you?

You would, but I do. Finance - Risk Management, so maybe my experiences are different. Maybe B-School is different.

My perception was that the gen ed classes were taken by and large by those not seeking degrees in Western Civiliation and Geology. Therefore critical thought was rather on the thin side, because nobody really paid any mind to them. They just needed it to get the piece of paper.

[Jake]

I agree that having a broad education can be beneficial, but in cases like mine where I've had to take at least 4 to 5 humanities/western history classes for my major (broadcasting), it can be a bit excessive. I know what I want to do, just let me graduate and do it.

[Midtowner]

I agree that having a broad education can be beneficial, but in cases like mine where I've had to take at least 4 to 5 humanities/western history classes for my major (broadcasting), it can be a bit excessive. I know what I want to do, just let me graduate and do it.

You don't really need a broadcasting degree to do it. That said, if you want to have a bachelor's degree. What that traditionally means is that you have a broad education, that you're at least somewhat cultured. If you're going into broadcasting, a little bit of culture and understanding your world in a broader context is not unimportant. College doesn't teach you everything about everything, but it certainly equips you with the skills to evaluate the reliability of sources and should leave you with a broad enough education to be able to figure out at least where to start when trying to learn something.

[ChrisHayes]

I think a bigger thing is getting away from this assumption that everyone should go to college and that college is necessary for success. Neither is true. Learning skilled trades can lead to success just as much as a degree can. More so in some cases because so many degrees are useless. I took diesel technology at Francis Tuttle from 2014 to May of last year when I completed the program. I work for Hobby Lobby and am making pretty good money. Other people who took the program are making what I am, all the way up to 70,000+ a year in a few cases. Now, it wouldn't hurt to back it up with some college education such as a business degree for opening other doors, but it isn't a necessity. And I think people are being done a disservice in being told a degree is necessary. For a whole host of reasons

[Teo9969]

To the original question: Absolutely not to curbing the general education classes. Beyond the course matter, which many have pointed out good reasons for keeping, the interaction between people from different majors is very important in the undergraduate environment. Yes, there are many opportunities for social interaction outside of the classroom between all students. That being said, in the aggregate, people in certain fields tend to have similar viewpoints/personalities and how those come out in the classroom is pretty essential in the developmental environment of academia.

Regarding saving money, I think this is pretty spot on:

I think a bigger thing is getting away from this assumption that everyone should go to college and that college is necessary for success. Neither is true. Learning skilled trades can lead to success just as much as a degree can. More so in some cases because so many degrees are useless. I took diesel technology at Francis Tuttle from 2014 to May of last year when I completed the program. I work for Hobby Lobby and am making pretty good money. Other people who took the program are making what I am, all the way up to 70,000+ a year in a few cases. Now, it wouldn't hurt to back it up with some college education such as a business degree for opening other doors, but it isn't a necessity. And I think people are being done a disservice in being told a degree is necessary. For a whole host of reasons

I think we actually need to do a better job of education at the high school level in terms of preparing people for the real world, and not just the next step in academia. That's not to say we're doing a bad job...the US is an incredible country in large part due to how quality the education is...but I think to be better we need to be more realistic with students about what to expect in post-secondary-education life. The reality is that no education is worthless, but not all education is worth what it costs. Moreover, not all education within an academic setting is the best education in whatever particular field.

We need to do a better job of encouraging students to find out what they're actually interested in before going to college. College simply shouldn't take 6 years to finish, but if you're meandering about, entering with no real bent towards a particular major and then changing 2 or 3 times, you end up wasting a ton of money, and more importantly, time on things you're not using. There are much better ways to get experience in a field you're interested in, but not sure that you want to commit serious time and money to studying. We need to start identifying the things people like sooner and push them to investigate the field as much as possible outside of the classroom.

As it is right now, there are way too many people entering college, racking up debt, and not even finishing, let alone actually using their degree/education. The only reason that happens is because we tell people "You have to go to college to be competitive" when there are billionaire high school dropouts.

In other words, advisement is where I think we really need to improve our system. I say this having basically advised myself through my undergraduate and hearing horror stories from classmates who couldn't graduate on time because the adviser failed to help the student plan class schedules correctly (though the responsibility ultimately lies with the student). If we can't advise correctly at the college level, how much worse is it in secondary schools?

[Rover]

Doing away with it is just another attempt at dumbing down our population. Conservatives say get rid of government. But helping the people stay ignorant diffuses the ability of an informed public to stand up to government. I am also shocked that someone wanting to go into broadcasting is against being taught composition and history. Scary.

[Jake]

I'm not against history and composition, I'm against having to take African American Dance, Israeli Art Through Film, and History of Typefaces. And since I transferred from Arkansas, I've had to take several of these types of classes again.

But since you seem to know a great deal of what I should learn, I can set up a GoFundMe so you can pay them for me.

[Midtowner]

I'm not against history and composition, I'm against having to take African American Dance, Israeli Art Through Film, and History of Typefaces. And since I transferred from Arkansas, I've had to take several of these types of classes again.

But since you seem to know a great deal of what I should learn, I can set up a GoFundMe so you can pay them for me.

At UCO, this would probably be your major:

https://www.uco.edu/academic-affairs...-profmedia.pdf

OU seems no different.

http://www.ou.edu/content/gaylord/un...ournalism.html

You are not required to take African American Dance, Israeli Art through Film or the History of Typefaces, although all of those might be interesting, you'd never be required to take those. The gen ed requirements seem pretty reasonable. Some basic math and science, some classes on aesthetic analysis and critical inquiry, a government class, 3 hours of American history, a study of a second language OR a cultural analysis class, social and behavioral analysis, health and life skills.

If you're going to be a college graduate, there's an expectation that you're actually an educated person. Quit whining, put your head down and do the work. If you can't hack it, there are other routes into that business which don't involve college.

[Rover]

I'm not against history and composition, I'm against having to take African American Dance, Israeli Art Through Film, and History of Typefaces. And since I transferred from Arkansas, I've had to take several of these types of classes again.

But since you seem to know a great deal of what I should learn, I can set up a GoFundMe so you can pay them for me.

You don't have to take those classes and you know it. If you want to be uncultured, don't know history, or don't understand societal and historical context you damned sure should have no part in broadcasting anything purporting to be important or the truth. Guess you could make cartoons or go into sports broadcasting....or Fox News.

[dankrutka]

I'm not against history and composition, I'm against having to take African American Dance, Israeli Art Through Film, and History of Typefaces. And since I transferred from Arkansas, I've had to take several of these types of classes again.

None of these sound like general education requirements. These sound like options or electives which you could choose to take or not... is that not correct?

[Midtowner]

If the Ogle girl has to get an edumacation, so does Jake.

[Jake]

Again, I don't disagree that gen-eds like math/science/history etc. arent necessary, the requiremennt that I take several, specifically stated non JMC electives (for my degree track at least, it may be different for others) is frustrating to me.

It's irrelevant anyway, since this is my last semester and I took my capstone last year along with all of my other classes required for my major. All I have left are electives, some of which I wanted to take, weren't even offered this semester (again, frustrating). That's my only beef here. That and maybe the idea that taking an online art history class somehow makes you more cultured, which is obviously hard to quantify. How does one become cultured anyway? Seems contingent on the person and their desire to learn, which I think would follow them after they graduate anyway.

I don't mean to cause an argument, so forgive my tone. It's just my opinion.

[Midtowner]

That and maybe the idea that taking an online art history class somehow makes you more cultured, which is obviously hard to quantify. How does one become cultured anyway? Seems contingent on the person and their desire to learn, which I think would follow them after they graduate anyway.

An art history course is a survey sort of course in most cases. It's not designed for you to gain a thorough knowledge of the arts. The design of these classes is more of an introduction to the world of art. Hopefully by the end of the class, you'll have enough of a foundation so that you know something about the subject matter--and if you care to or need to really know something later, you'll hopefully know where to start your research.

[Jake]

An art history course is a survey sort of course in most cases. It's not designed for you to gain a thorough knowledge of the arts. The design of these classes is more of an introduction to the world of art. Hopefully by the end of the class, you'll have enough of a foundation so that you know something about the subject matter--and if you care to or need to really know something later, you'll hopefully know where to start your research.

Which I agree with totally. I think I misspoke and didn't word my point very well earlier. Comp I & II, History, Gov, Art History, etc. are completely rational and good things to have for anyone wanting an education. My only problem has been my experience with Gaylord requiring 3 upper-divion JMC electives (which, since it's in the same wheelhouse, it's not that big of a problem) and 3 upper-division NON-JMC classes, 12 hours of humanities, 6 hours of western culture (finding what is considered "western" and non-western" was a hassle in itself). This compounded by the fact that, for some reason, 2 of my humanites classes didn't trasfer from Arkansas, which meant I had to take those classes again while at OU. (which isn't necessarily anyone's fault, just annoying)

For what I originally went to school for (I actually work doing social media marketing now) everything is very technical. There are so many different software systems, editing software, cameras, equipment, etc. that you need to learn, that I wish at least half of the 12 devoted to humanities could be diverted into other JMC classes that I believe are necessary to be at least competent in that field. (AfterEffects, Post Production, etc./Avid, which is the sofware used by most production studios, isn't even offered as a class at OU). I understand not all majors are like this and that OU isn't a trade school, but if I'm paying to go to school to learn how to do this stuff, at least give me the option to take the classes that I think I feel are necessary to take in order to learn. Which means, yes, I would rather take a post production class to learn Avid than take another humanities class. Sorry, not sorry.

All of my other fellow capstone students shared this idea as well, which we have expressed to the deans, unfortunately to no avail. They have limits to what they can and can't do, so I don't hold it against them though.

[Jim Kyle]

Which means, yes, I would rather take a post production class to learn Avid than take another humanities class. Sorry, not sorry.

All of my other fellow capstone students shared this idea as well, which we have expressed to the deans, unfortunately to no avail. They have limits to what they can and can't do, so I don't hold it against them though.

The problem with teaching the use of a specific tool is that most of what's taught there will be obsolete by the time you make it into any position where you need to use it. And the problem with your alma mater is that it evolved from a quite honest trade school -- The School of Journalism that Henry H. Herbert founded in 1913 -- into a much broader concept that's attempting to be a university, and consequently is more a jack of all trades and master of none.

It still has dedicated staff, and most of them really try. But it has lost such stars as Herbert himself (who taught two generations of would-be journalists to have some concept of ethics), Fayette Copeland, Joe Holland, Walter S. Campbell, and many more. In the mid-fifties the OU J-School turned out dozens of good journalists and at least a couple of good novelists. We didn't have all of the elective requirements that irk you, but we did manage to get a bit of rounding. I'm grateful for the two-hour course in constitutional law that I took to fill one such need, and for the year of economics that taught me to take all economic theory with huge doses of salt. But over the years I've earned my living following a simple four-word formula that Professor Campbell taught me in the five minutes between classes. And I've not seen my diploma for more than 30 years, nor has any employer asked about it (although I did get my first newspaper job on the recommendation of Dr. Copeland).

Good trade schools are essential to the creation of competent craftsmen. Don't expect to get the same benefit from any university. As others have noted in this thread, universities should be for those who love learning for its own sake. And for such as we, no course is superfluous -- nor does education stop when one leaves school. There's a good reason the graduation ceremony is called "commencement."

[White Peacock]

GenEd + electives aim to make one well-rounded in their education. Universities weren't created to help people get jobs, but to educate them. They're best suited for people enjoy learning and knowing as much as possible. And any university worth its salt will have enough of a variety of electives that you don't have to take (insert specialized topic) if you don't want.

There's no such thing as knowing too much (outside of mafia context).