General education requirements in University- How much is too much?

[DS2C]

I was looking at my student status today and saw that I'm now a Sophomore, although I haven't started my major yet (have completed almost all the gen ed requirements). What struck me as odd was that in purely doing gen ed requirements, it raised me a full class rank, and took a full school year to complete. I am fully on board with being "well-rounded" and taking these classes, but this just seems like a money-making scheme to me. For a 4 year degree in a specific major, 3 of those years are actually spent on the major itself, and the other year is spent being "well-rounded".

As an example, at my university, we are required to complete the General Education requirements as well as what are called Breadth requirements and Depth Requirements. The Depth requirements can overlap with degree specific classes.

In high school, I was required to take a History class every year. Since I've enrolled in university, I've taken two more. I love history and some of these other required gen ed classes, but this just seems too much.

Does anybody think that the Gen Ed requirements should be trimmed down a bit like I do?

 

[symbolipoint]

Not really, but I conceive of some educational degree more streamlined than "bachelors" degree, maybe something with less of the general ed. courses which leads to some package like a bachelors but not sure what to call such a degree - certificate degree of some kind?

Really someone trying to earn an undergraduate degree needs to understand something about the social sciences and journalism and be able to deal with some higher level language art.

 

[DS2C]

Well there is a specific degree just called General Education which results in a BA in...well...general education! It's basically just taking Gen Ed classes until you get the required credit amount.

In any degree, some classes are undoubtedly essential. Having a couple classes in English will teach someone to write clear and professional papers. A class or two in Social Science teaches us where we are and where we've been. Being well rounded is key in any major. But in its current state, I think it's too much. Anyone could easily pick up a book from the library and broaden their intellectual spectrum.

Why require students to fork out more cash to be 'extra' well rounded? Multiple History classes required even after high school? A required introductory Biology course when high school required the same? My high school Biology class was more in depth than my university one. I ended up just using my high school notes to review. If I were to have opted for a more in depth version of the class, it would have required me to take the intro version.

I like the content of these gen ed classes and think that they're important to know. But requiring students to take them for a check-in-the-box seems like the wrong way to go. It costs students more money and more time for something they could be doing on their own time for $1.25 in library fees. I think that having a single class in each category should be sufficient.

 

[symbolipoint]

DS2C, post #3,
First paragraph is the description of a degree in Liberal Arts.

Someone trying for an undergraduate degree in ANYTHING, for example, Chemistry, or Physics, should be expected to have some idea how such things as Journalism or History works, but maybe the General Education requirements in some cases are excessive; and maybe not. The student going for bachelor degree in some science or in Engineering must be able to read well and write well, no mistaking this. If the student is unable to show good sense in his technical writing, such as in his laboratory reports, then his is understandably missing something. If he cannot communicate properly with social documentors, then something is understandably missing.

 

[BillTre]

You might have been able to get college credit for some of those HS courses, if they were AP or you took a test to do that.

When I was in college, I went to a large school (~40,000 students). There was a lot of different courses in the non-major areas i had to take so I could take things tangentially related to my major (Zoology), like history of medicine, philosophy of science, physical geography, and science fiction. I kind of liked these courses, but I am guessing this option is not available in lots of places, especially smaller schools.

@symbolipoint's point that writing is important to STEM work is a good one.

 

[jtbell]

Different colleges and universities have different amounts of general education requirements. Ideally, you'd take that into account when you're choosing a college, if it's important to you. Otherwise, you're pretty much stuck with them and there's not much gained by kvetching about them.

At the college where I used to teach, a typical physics major has to take about 40 semester hours of gen eds outside of physics and math (out of about 120 s.h. required for the degree), but they're normally spread out over all four years, with physics and math courses starting in the first year.

 

[russ_watters]

Does anybody think that the Gen Ed requirements should be trimmed down a bit like I do?

No, but I think the focus is off. Someone pointed out in a recent thread that while many liberal arts majors are considered well rounded taking almost no math and science, STEM majors are not considered well rounded without substantial liberal arts. That's an unfortunate disconnect/contradiction.

 

[Mark44]

No, but I think the focus is off.

I agree.

Someone pointed out in a recent thread that while many liberal arts majors are considered well rounded taking almost no math and science, STEM majors are not considered well rounded without substantial liberal arts.

This is also a point made by John Allen Paulos, in his book "Innumeracy." In the book he mentions several people who are considered "intellectuals," but whose knowledge of math is not much above arithmetic, and whose scientific knowledge is just as minimal.

 

[symbolipoint]

No, but I think the focus is off. Someone pointed out in a recent thread that while many liberal arts majors are considered well rounded taking almost no math and science, STEM majors are not considered well rounded without substantial liberal arts. That's an unfortunate disconnect/contradiction.

I agree.

This is also a point made by John Allen Paulos, in his book "Innumeracy." In the book he mentions several people who are considered "intellectuals," but whose knowledge of math is not much above arithmetic, and whose scientific knowledge is just as minimal.

Several types of people. One type wants to know how machines and the physical world works. Another type wants to know how human society works. Now there are still {several}-2 types of people and you can give them whatever descriptions you like.

The two types of people I described will have some disagreement of how much the two types need to know of Mathematics. We can all debate endlessly.

 

[russ_watters]

Several types of people. One type wants to know how machines and the physical world works. Another type wants to know how human society works. Now there are still {several}-2 types of people and you can give them whatever descriptions you like.

The two types of people I described will have some disagreement of how much the two types need to know of Mathematics. We can all debate endlessly.

Well sure. But doesn't "well rounded" mean you know a little of everything? Shouldn't we at least agree on the definition and requirement that it exist (liberal studies majors claim to at least)? So the first type should know some of how human society works and the other should know some of how machines and the physical world work. Sure, people can have "pure" opinions based solely on "I don't wanna!" and totally devoid of logic, but even people who learn about how human society works claim to be logical. Are they really? Is there a logical reason why the door shouldn't swing both ways?

There are some basic and major (very broadly applicable) social sciences. I'd feel my education was inadequate if I didn't have any economics or political science/law, for example (and I believe I covered all the major disciplines, but I'd have to check a catalog). But my understanding is that people are allowed to graduate college without taking a course in any/all of the three major pillars of science: chemistry, physics and biology (excluding math, which to me is separate and as far as I know everyone takes at least some).

edit: I don't recall taking biology in college. I took honors biology in high school (wasn't required there either), but I know I didn't take an AP test in it. So I think I skipped that in college too.

 

[BillTre]

Well sure. But doesn't "well rounded" mean you know a little of everything?

Yes.
And even more importantly (to me anyway) is the ability to communicate with and understand what a wide variety of people are talking about.

Of particular concern to me is the lack of STEM knowledge among Supreme Court justices.

 

[symbolipoint]

Well sure. But doesn't "well rounded" mean you know a little of everything? Shouldn't we at least agree on the definition and requirement that it exist (liberal studies majors claim to at least)? So the first type should know some of how human society works and the other should know some of how machines and the physical world work. Sure, people can have "pure" opinions based solely on "I don't wanna!" and totally devoid of logic, but even people who learn about how human society works claim to be logical. Are they really? Is there a logical reason why the door shouldn't swing both ways?

There are some basic and major (very broadly applicable) social sciences. I'd feel my education was inadequate if I didn't have any economics or political science/law, for example (and I believe I covered all the major disciplines, but I'd have to check a catalog). But my understanding is that people are allowed to graduate college without taking a course in any/all of the three major pillars of science: chemistry, physics and biology (excluding math, which to me is separate and as far as I know everyone takes at least some).

edit: I don't recall taking biology in college. I took honors biology in high school (wasn't required there either), but I know I didn't take an AP test in it. So I think I skipped that in college too.

The colleges and universities should keep their programs' General Education requirements. The courses are honestly intended to make the students and ultimately, the graduates, well-rounded, or as rounded as the institutions can make.

Look at a some of the people who graduate in some physical science and then get into their careers. A few of them (yes, I can accept, "few"; not all of them - just certain few of them), even if they have a bachelor of science or arts degree, including the required G.E. courses, still do not know how to think outside of their narrow jobs. At least the institutions tried.

 

[russ_watters]

The colleges and universities should keep their programs' General Education requirements. The courses are honestly intended to make the students and ultimately, the graduates, well-rounded, or as rounded as the institutions can make.

I'm not clear on what this means. By "keep", do you also mean keep the current mix? The second sentence implies you believe the mix does indeed represent "well rounded". That feels like a contradiction to me.

Maybe we should look at such a curriculum and see. My [mechanical engineering] degree is from Drexel University. It's on the quarter system, which means it has more, shorter classes than is typical: 3 main terms per year, instead of 2, with a summer term where you might get a break or have an internship. This provides more opportunities for small bites of various fields, which should enable a more "well rounded" education than is typical of semester colleges. Here are sample plans of study for Political Science and Philosophy...and mechanical engineering for comparison:
http://catalog.drexel.edu/undergrad...ces/politicalscience/#sampleplanofstudybatext
http://catalog.drexel.edu/undergraduate/collegeofartsandsciences/philosophy/#sampleplanofstudybatext
http://catalog.drexel.edu/undergrad...echanicalengineering/#sampleplanofstudybstext
[It always tickled me that "college of arts and sciences" exists (instead of separating them)]

The plan for political science freshmen includes 15 courses of which 6 are political science major courses, 7 are social science core courses (er: one is a "diversity" "elective"), 1 is a social science elective (already?!), and 1 is "The Drexel Experience". *None* are STEM. In sophomore year, there are 2 required math courses and 1 required science elective (remember: 3 course per year is 1 per term). [problem: the sample course of study seems to be missing a science course: the degree requirements say 2 are required] Total STEM requirement: 4 courses. This is the entirety of a Drexel Political Scientists' STEM education! (unless they go after it with a free elective)

The plan for Philosophy freshmen looks to start off better, with 2 math courses, but the end result is the same: 4 total STEM courses.

Just to make sure, I checked what that science elective requirement allows for, with mixed results:
"Any Biology (BIO), Chemisitry (CHEM), Geoscience (GEO), Nutrition (NFS), Physics (PHYS) or Environmental Science (ENVS) course." [emphasis added] Sigh.

The mechanical engineering plan includes 20 courses. The mechanical engineering degree is 7% more total credits than philosophy or poly-sci, which is itself a problem (representing roughly an extra term), but in freshmen year there are more, shorter STEM classes to get a taste for various engineering subjects before choosing. This will skew the results because the non-STEM classes are comparatively longer, but the difference is so massive it doesn't matter. The non-STEM requirements: 4 courses in freshmen year alone. Then it gets a little sticky: there are 3 non-STEM courses with the word "engineering" or "technology" in front of them: economics, ethics and history. I'm counting them, for 7 total.

All 3 allow for 2 free elective courses.

To be honest, the engineering, while it was more "rounded" than non-STEM, it was less than I remember (7 - 4). Perhaps some of that is explained by the free electives: I took non-STEM and I suspect non-STEM people do too (that would make the score 9-4). But the other part of the problem is that I spent only half my college at Drexel and the other half at the Naval Academy, which included more general education including formal leadership and ethics seminars outside of normal classes...and even some of the courses didn't transfer because I had too many general courses (Naval Leadership, for example).

Let's have a quick look at that:
https://www.usna.edu/Academics/Majors-and-Courses/Course-Requirements-Core.php

Remember, we're back to semester: Everyone is required 8 humanities/SS courses and 4 leadership/ethics courses. 12 courses or 2.5x more than what Drexel requires of STEM majors. And on the other side, get this: *9* direct STEM courses and - get this - they snuck electrical engineering(!) into the section on "engineering and weapons". And all 6 courses in that section have STEM trigger words in them. That's 15 total STEM courses or 5.6x more STEM than a Drexel arts/sciences/humanities major. Please note: this isn't all a trade-off (less in-major courses): the Naval Academy requires more credits to graduate too. Obviously this is a special case, but there is much more cross-over between major types even as the ratio shifts in favor of non-STEM people being more "well rounded" than STEMs (both are much more "well rounded" than a Drexel grad).

 

[russ_watters]

That was long, but here's a concise take-away:

It is my perception that it is society's perception that humanites/social science majors are more well rounded and as a result more "educated" than STEM majors. But in a pure numerical analysis, both of these are clearly false. But there is an obvious solution: since these non-STEM majors are currently required to take about 3.5 fewer courses than STEM majors, Drexel should require them to fill that gap with 3 STEM courses. Then the score will be 7-7 (for required courses, anyway). They will be equally as educated (take an equal number of credits) and equally as "well rounded" (take an equal number of cross-over credits).

 

[symbolipoint]

The colleges and universities should keep their programs' General Education requirements. The courses are honestly intended to make the students and ultimately, the graduates, well-rounded, or as rounded as the institutions can make.

... At least the institutions tried.

I'm not clear on what this means. By "keep", do you also mean keep the current mix? The second sentence implies you believe the mix does indeed represent "well rounded". That feels like a contradiction to me.

...

By the word, "keep", is meant "maintain" what those programs already require. Note again the second sentence having the phrasing, ",.. or as rounded as the institutions can make." Some flat spots will still result for some or many students.

 

[russ_watters]

By the word, "keep", is meant "maintain" what those programs already require. Note again the second sentence having the phrasing, ",.. or as rounded as the institutions can make." Some flat spots will still result for some or many students.

So, given my post #13, summarized in post #14, do you still think it is true that the coursework is "as rounded as the institutions can make"? According to what I see, it isn't. And my proposal in post #14 can actually level the playing field without compromising the core education of non-STEM majors -- by requiring their degrees to include as many total credits as STEM degrees.

I'll put it another way: non-STEM degrees are made easier by removing half of the well-roundedness and replacing it with party time.

 

[symbolipoint]

So, given my post #13, summarized in post #14, do you still think it is true that the coursework is "as rounded as the institutions can make"? According to what I see, it isn't. And my proposal in post #14 can actually level the playing field without compromising the core education of non-STEM majors -- by requiring their degrees to include as many total credits as STEM degrees.

I'll put it another way: non-STEM degrees are made easier by removing half of the well-roundedness and replacing it with party time.

Establishing all the required courses for GE to make everyone pefectly well rounded (using just college or university courses) would take too much time and effort for most students. Propose what you want for non-STEM degree people, but you may find it to not be very popular.

One of the trends in non-STEM majors is the much LESS emphasis on Mathematics courses for their General Education choices or requirements. Fine for some of the many introductory science courses. You would like non-STEM people to have 3.5 or 4 more STEM courses. Maybe a good idea; but more well-rounded? Or would this really be enough? An introductory Chemistry course - very little Math needed. An "Elementary" Chemistry course - at least Algebra 1 needed. That is about as far as some non-STEM student would go. An introductory or 'elementary' Physics course, which as I remember had Algebra 2 as prerequisite - this would be something that so many non-STEM students will try to avoid.

That would seem to go toward satisfying what you described in post #14; but can something like that become established or be popular in colleges and universities?

 

[russ_watters]

Establishing all the required courses for GE to make everyone pefectly well rounded (using just college or university courses) would take too much time and effort for most students.

I'm not advocating everyone be "perfectly well rounded" - indeed I think that would be a bad thing. "Perfectly well rounded" would require elimination of all majors and result in no one being an expert in anything. What I'm advocating is everyone be equally well rounded. If being equally well rounded is too much time and effort for non-STEM majors, do they even deserve to be awarded degrees?

Propose what you want for non-STEM degree people, but you may find it to not be very popular.

Oh, I so don't care at all about what is "popular"! I'm shocked and dismayed that you would even suggest that "popular" matters.

[edit] Let me add a caveat/explanation to that: most colleges are businesses and in order to generate profit, "popularity" matters. But I submit that the components of "popularity" are not well associated with the claimed/intended purpose of going college (getting an education).

 

[symbolipoint]

from symbolipoint:

Propose what you want for non-STEM degree people, but you may find it to not be very popular.

from russ_waters:

Oh, I so don't care at all about what is "popular"! I'm shocked and dismayed that you would even suggest that "popular" matters.

Instead of ...popular..., I should say or say differently, you may find that convincing the governing bodies of your proposal may be extremely or exceedingly difficult, and maybe would not happen, unless your proposal is lucky. What you propose, adding a few additional science & technology courses required for non-scienc/tech students, although a possible good idea, will have some people arguing against it.

 

[bhobba]

I'll put it another way: non-STEM degrees are made easier by removing half of the well-roundedness and replacing it with party time.

By and large true.

But it does depend on the institution. Have a look at what it takes to get a degree from the Slone Business School or Business, Economics and Management from Cal-tech.

IMHO the way we are heading in the areas of AI and data analytics you won't get a job unless you do some decent computing/stats/math in whatever you do. So I think the current situation will not last long.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dale]

There are some courses designed to help liberal arts majors be well rounded. @bcrowell spent quite a bit of time putting together a “physics for poets” class.

My favorite class that I ever took was “Physiology for Biomedical Engineers”. The instructors were from the veterinary physiology department, but they did a fantastic job of teaching to engineers for engineers. They routinely brought in concepts like mass and energy transfer. It was fantastic.

I think that there is great power in a curriculum prepared for the needs and background of a specific group of students. IMO well-roundedness could be much more palatable and valuable if it were achieved primarily through these types of courses.

Why did I have to take the one-size-fits-all history curriculum which was developed with no thought of me instead of a “history for engineers” where I could have learned the history of great inventions and obtained a social-historical context for my planned career? Similarly, why don’t Journalism majors take a science course tailored for journalists so that they can actually understand what they write about?

 

[gleem]

t’s in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough—that it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing.

Steve Jobs

 

[radium]

From what I have seen STEM students usually will need to take classes that could potentially be used to fulfill humanities/non quantitative major to fulfill core requirements while humanities students can get away with taking watered down sciences courses, which cannot be used to fulfill any STEM major requirements. So when it comes to grades science majors are competing with people majoring in the particular non STEM subject to fulfill their requirements while the non STEM majors are only competing with each other. On the surface I think this seems a bit unfair, but because grading is usually much more lenient in the humanities things may balance out.

 

[gleem]

From what I have seen STEM students usually will need to take classes that could potentially be used to fulfill humanities/non quantitative major to fulfill core requirements while humanities students can get away with taking watered down sciences courses, which cannot be used to fulfill any STEM major requirements. So when it comes to grades science majors are competing with people majoring in the particular non STEM subject to fulfill their requirements while the non STEM majors are only competing with each other. On the surface I think this seems a bit unfair, but because grading is usually much more lenient in the humanities things may balance out.

This thread is about the need of humanities by scientist. Unfair? The only gripe I had about liberal arts majors was their apparent surplus of free time compared to science majors. Science majors compete with science majors. I wonder if humanity majors think that the science majors are getting away with watered down survey humanity courses. Just as science majors are to develop insights into physical theories so do liberal arts major in their respective subjects maybe even being held more accountable.

 

[gleem]

If found this article on why scientists should study the humanities reasonable, practical and to the point

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chador...should-study-art-and-literature/#181312cd47ee

 

[radium]

I think it would also be beneficial for students in the humanities to be forced to take a class like calc I or intro bio rather than watered down courses, because then they could also have a better appreciation for quantitive disciplines and hence be more well rounded.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

In my Physics BS from LSU, I had about 100 credit hours of science, math, and programming with 35 credits or so of humanities courses.

I can see scaling that back to 80 or so required credit hours in math and physics for physics majors.

The trouble is lots of schools have lowered the overall credit hour requirement to 120 credit hours for many BS degrees. Too many gen ed requirements lowers the math and science too much. Of course, there is nothing preventing students from earning over 130 credit hours total to strengthen their math and physics coursework. No one says you must do the bare minimum.

Suck it up, or choose a school with lower gen ed requirements in the first place.

 

[jtbell]

I think it would also be beneficial for students in the humanities to be forced to take a class like calc I or intro bio rather than watered down courses,

That's exactly what we do here. All students have the same gen ed requirements, which include two semesters of lab courses in the natural sciences and one math course above remedial-algebra level. Once upon a time, the options for science were just the standard freshman intro courses in biology, chemistry and physics. Then we opened it up by allowing departments to designate additional courses as gen-ed courses, with the approval of the faculty committee that oversees the gen ed program.

 

[bhobba]

Suck it up, or choose a school with lower gen ed requirements in the first place.

That's the real answer isn't it. In the US you have a massive choice in schools - just do a bit of research. For engineering I am a big fan of in the US 3+2 engineering degrees and math as the first degree - it prepares you for just about anything - but you can do whatever takes your fancy - there are schools with very little actual forced requirements offering 3+2 with places like Georgia Tech. You get the best of both worlds that way - you can explore your interests before going to the engineering school where you can specialize. And not just in engineering either - you can do physics, chemistry - all sorts of things under the 3+2.

Here is Australia we have something similar with engineering degrees moving to being a Masters - just do a few mandatory subjects like physics and math and the rest is up to you. If you know for sure you want some branch of engineering you can take some of the subjects undergrad reducing the masters from 3 to 2 years. Again I think the best of both worlds.

Thanks
Bill

 

[jasonRF]

That's the real answer isn't it. In the US you have a massive choice in schools - just do a bit of research. For engineering I am a big fan of in the US 3+2 engineering degrees and math as the first degree - it prepares you for just about anything - but you can do whatever takes your fancy - there are schools with very little actual forced requirements offering 3+2 with places like Georgia Tech. You get the best of both worlds that way - you can explore your interests before going to the engineering school where you can specialize. And not just in engineering either - you can do physics, chemistry - all sorts of things under the 3+2.

Here is Australia we have something similar with engineering degrees moving to being a Masters - just do a few mandatory subjects like physics and math and the rest is up to you. If you know for sure you want some branch of engineering you can take some of the subjects undergrad reducing the masters from 3 to 2 years. Again I think the best of both worlds.

Thanks
Bill

I value the skills gained from 'soft' subjects so in principle I really like the 3-2 programs as well but there are two problems.

First, the extra cost over a 4 year degree, but if it helps students make a better selection of major (and hence carreer) then it could be worth the cost for those that can afford it. But for many families even a 4 year degree is a financial strain. The fact that the first 3 years of most (all?) of these programs are at expensive schools just adds to this. Of course, it may be possible to do a custom 5 year program at an inexpensive school that effectively duplicates the benefits of a 3-2. In any case, 5 years is too large of a financial burden for most folks.

Second, many students who plan on doing a 3-2 end up with a 4-0 because they don't want to leave their schools after three years because of friends, sports teams they are on, etc. This probably says more about the students than the existence of those programs, though.

The BS in math or physics followed by a masters can worth for many (but not all) engineering fields in the US also. But the masters won't really fill in the breadth of the discipline the same way the BS does.

Jason