I've always wondered about this, not sure if a Science forum can help

[flyingpig]

Okay this has been bothering me for a while, why is it that colleges still force Science students to take humanities courses? Didn't we get it over and done with in high school? I have foreign friends who really excel in science subjects, but they are on the verge of nearly failing (like 60%?) in those Art courses. And Science students still have to take at least one or two every semester.

Why do colleges still do that? Especially when you do declare your major, for example, "Physics", and you still have to take a course in history?

How do schools count GPA mainly from science and math courses apart from arts courses (plus total courses)?

On the subject of Art courses, what are some that most people find it easy?

 

[twofish-quant]

Okay this has been bothering me for a while, why is it that colleges still force Science students to take humanities courses?

Because you have to eat your vegetables. It's good for you.

Didn't we get it over and done with in high school?

No.

 

[story645]

How do schools count GPA mainly from science and math courses apart from arts courses (plus total courses)?

Uh, every course you take counts for as many credits as it is. So a 3 credit math course has the same effect on your GPA as a 3 credit art course, and a 4 credit art course counts more than a 3 credit math course. There's also your major GPA, which is usually calculated based solely on your major courses.

 

[DaveC426913]

There are many ways to answer tihs, but none really so eloquent as this:

Because you have to eat your vegetables. It's good for you.

You can probably deduce the logic that follows. (Hint: so you come out a human rather than a robot).

 

[Choppy]

I have to wonder how strict the requirements are at your school. During my undergrad we had the opportunity to take "electives" but they weren't very stringent. Some people went for the "easy A." I chose courses based on my interests and looking back I wish I could have taken more.

Something else to consider too is interdisciplinary work. Physics has lots of applications in sociology for example in modeling human behaviour.

 

[story645]

Something else to consider too is interdisciplinary work. Physics has lots of applications in sociology for example in modeling human behaviour.

I was just telling a friend that the upside of taking so many psychology courses was that I've had a lot of classes on designing and analyzing experiments, much more so than my CS/EE courses. That background in experiments is super useful for a phd, as my adviser reminded me (in the form of gentle scolding) today.

 

[turbo]

When I started engineering school, I had a mentor (professor emeritus) who ran the honors program at the university. After my first year, with his guidance, I plunged into arts and sciences with a double major in English literature and philosophy. I never regretted that switch for a second, though I had to give up a 5-year scholarship in chemical engineering sponsored by the pulp and paper industry. I ended up working in that field anyway, for decades, but never regretted my education in liberal arts.

My parents were far from wealthy, and I had to scrape and save and pay my own way through college through my summer jobs, and buying/selling/repairing guitars and amplifiers during the school year, plus playing frat parties on weekends. Man! I got sick of playing "House of the Rising Sun" and "Gloria", but when the brothers made requests, you played what paid the bills.

 

[Ryker]

flyingpig, I've actually wondered the same thing, especially since only seems to be a requirement in the US and Canada. But in the context of high school education there, I think it makes sense, and from the looks of it it seems to be working, as both countries have a strong economy and a high living standard. I don't see the need to implement that in other countries, though, since high school actually does take care of a broad education.

 

[eri]

My undergraduate school (liberal arts college) had no general education requirements, but a few 'distribution requirements' if you wanted to graduate with honors (and I did). My science classes rarely ever required me to write an essay, but anthropology and comp lit certainly did, and that's come in very useful for writing papers in grad school/postdoc. It's not technical writing, but it's writing. The point of those classes isn't to memorize random dates and facts, it's to learn how to read, write, communicate, and think at the college level - something you don't always get from science classes alone.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Because you have to eat your vegetables. It's good for you.

I'm from the UK, and so all of my experience is of the system we have here, where almost all universities stick exclusively to the desired discipline as they can. For instance, you apply to a physics degree. Year one: you'll maybe study just physics, nothing else. Maybe physics + maths. Maybe physics, chemistry + maths. Not really any more than that, though at some places it is possible to take one course outwith your faculty (say, maths, physics + history).

There are good and bad things about both systems, but I can't help but feel undergraduates in the UK do suffer from their lack of knowledge in areas other than their own. A bit of a life-taster in something like history goes a long way, and I wish there was something like this incorporated into how we run things, albeit maybe on a lesser scale. I'd also be interested to know if it cuts down, or encourages snobbery within science. I have always found undergraduates in science have a real lack of respect for humanities disciplines (perhaps in the same tone as the OP ).

 

[flyingpig]

Because you have to eat your vegetables. It's good for you.

But we aren't really swallowing those vegetables, we've been choking on them everytime and just glad if we can swallow it and digest.

Uh, every course you take counts for as many credits as it is. So a 3 credit math course has the same effect on your GPA as a 3 credit art course, and a 4 credit art course counts more than a 3 credit math course. There's also your major GPA, which is usually calculated based solely on your major courses.

yeah, but why? Isn't college created for the purpose of studying only one thing and what you want to pursue? The other humanity courses are just wasting Science student's time. Is this to ensure grade deflation?

 

[dav2008]

The thought process required in courses outside of your major can greatly benefit your ability to tackle problems within your major. That being said, I think there are ways to maintain a humanities requirement while making it even more beneficial for science-related majors.

I wish they had courses that were more tailored towards specific majors, but still satisfying humanities credit. For example, there could be a core set of "History of Engineering" courses that are required for engineering majors. The would be taught just like a typical history course, but the subject matter would be more applicable to engineering students. It would still force students to read a book and perform some critical analysis, but it would also expose the history of engineering problems and how/why a particular field developed as it did.

There are exciting stories to be told in the history of science, but they're rarely presented in coursework outside of short anecdotes if the professor is interested in mentioning it.

 

[flyingpig]

The thought process required in courses outside of your major can greatly benefit your ability to tackle problems within your major. That being said, I think there are ways to maintain a humanities requirement while making it even more beneficial for science-related majors.

I wish they had courses that were more tailored towards specific majors, but still satisfying humanities credit. For example, there could be a core set of "History of Engineering" courses that are required for engineering majors. The would be taught just like a typical history course, but the subject matter would be more applicable to engineering students. It would still force students to read a book and perform some critical analysis, but it would also expose the history of engineering problems and how/why a particular field developed as it did.

There are exciting stories to be told in the history of science, but they're rarely presented in coursework outside of short anecdotes if the professor is interested in mentioning it.

So you think I should take history for all my arts courses? I was thinking of taking theology or some other religion courses

 

[dav2008]

So you think I should take history for all my arts courses? I was thinking of taking theology or some other religion courses

Oh no, you should take whatever interests you most.

I just meant that given the choice between "History of the U.S." or "History of Airplane Engineering" I would choose the latter.

 

[discrete*]

yeah, but why? Isn't college created for the purpose of studying only one thing and what you want to pursue? The other humanity courses are just wasting Science student's time. Is this to ensure grade deflation?

I'm sorry, but you are just totally wrong here. The purpose of higher education is to make those who attend educated persons! That means you need a base of knowledge with which to build your specific major studies on.

Think about it this way: would you be able to write research papers without taking courses in English, literature, and writing; or, what would mathematics be without logic and philosophy? Why do you think Einstein's closest intellectual companion was Godel?

Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, education at university ties knowledge together from various fields in order to accomplish its original goal of educating students.

 

[Ryker]

Oh no, you should take whatever interests you most.

I just meant that given the choice between "History of the U.S." or "History of Airplane Engineering" I would choose the latter.

I think if universities implemented what you suggest, it would kind of defeat the purpose of this broad education they so desperately strive for. While, at least in my opinion, "History of Airplane Engineering" would be useless, "History of the U.S." could conceivably bring some value to a Science major's education. And if they want to ensure Science majors have diverse skills, they really shouldn't water down the Arts courses for them, and just impose sticking with them as they are. After all, I've seen a lot of people arguing here that Arts majors should take "proper" Science courses, as well, and not, say, "Arts for Teachers".

 

[dav2008]

I think if universities implemented what you suggest, it would kind of defeat the purpose of this broad education they so desperately strive for. While, at least in my opinion, "History of Airplane Engineering" would be useless, "History of the U.S." could conceivably bring some value to a Science major's education. And if they want to ensure Science majors have diverse skills, they really shouldn't water down the Arts courses for them, and just impose sticking with them as they are. After all, I've seen a lot of people arguing here that Arts majors should take "proper" Science courses, as well, and not, say, "Arts for Teachers".

But you learn the history of the U.S. over and over in high school. The only difference in a college course is that you get into a bit more detail and read from book that are more in-depth than a textbook. I think it's assumed that when you graduate high school you are familiar with the constitution and the history of this country. I had to take world history, US history, and a government class in high school.

I would argue that the value of humanities courses is the problem-solving approach and not the actual content that you learn. It's the ability to read a lengthy passage and critically analyze it from a historical perspective. This can be done just as effectively if you're learning about the history of engineering. In addition, the phrase "learning from history's mistakes" applies here. There are countless engineering disasters that would be both interesting to learn about and actually beneficial to the student.

I'm not saying we should replace all history course requirements with engineering history, but maybe 1/3rd of the humanities/arts requirements could be satisfied with a course tailored specifically to engineering history or engineering ethics.

 

[flyingpig]

I'm sorry, but you are just totally wrong here. The purpose of higher education is to make those who attend educated persons! That means you need a base of knowledge with which to build your specific major studies on.

Think about it this way: would you be able to write research papers without taking courses in English, literature, and writing; or, what would mathematics be without logic and philosophy? Why do you think Einstein's closest intellectual companion was Godel?

Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, education at university ties knowledge together from various fields in order to accomplish its original goal of educating students.

I thought Einstein nearly failed all of his language classes...

Besides, I never really learned any real vocabulary from English lit classes, I learned how to write and speakly intelligently from math and physics texts (no kidding, I even learned how to argue better too). Oh, i guess I could take philosophy for art classes, my friend tell me it is just mostly argument techniques...which couuuld help.

 

[Norman]

Why not take a look at what the mission of your university (or college) is?

Public universities are funded with tax dollars. This implies (on some level) that they should be educating people for the benefit of society also, not just the student. This is typically seen by the high up administrators as making a well rounded student. Therefore making sure you have been exposed to certain things is important. For instance, for my undergrad degree, all Letters and Science college undergrads had to take a logic course (whether it was in the philosophy or math department). Understanding basic logic is important (in my opinion and in the opinion of the college administrators), regardless of whether you are studying English or Physics or History.

 

[discrete*]

I thought Einstein nearly failed all of his language classes...

Besides, I never really learned any real vocabulary from English lit classes, I learned how to write and speakly intelligently from math and physics texts (no kidding, I even learned how to argue better too). Oh, i guess I could take philosophy for art classes, my friend tell me it is just mostly argument techniques...which couuuld help.

I don't know how Einstein did in his language classes.

If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to write off the humanities and arts. I won't speak for physics, but to me, mathematics is more like an art than a science most of the time.

The best advice that I can give you is to make the most out of your time at university. Try and enjoy everything you learn, not just science and math. It will make your time there much easier and enjoyable. Experiment with different courses and see which ones you like and which ones you don't -- but keep in mind that at the end of the semester, if you learned anything at all, you're a step farther than you were before the semester started.

 

[story645]

Isn't college created for the purpose of studying only one thing and what you want to pursue?

No, that's a trade school. And grad school. College arose out the liberal education system and well everyone else has explained it so I won't repeat.

The other humanity courses are just wasting Science student's time. Is this to ensure grade deflation?

I miss my art courses, but can't take any at least until I pass quals. As demonstrated by all the people speaking up on this thread, some of us actually liked at least some of our liberal arts courses. Also, depending on the field it's sometimes useful to know more about some liberal arts. Art and photography can be really useful for computer vision, the linguistics program overlaps with the CS program at many schools, and a good number of the CS students I know picked up enough credits for a double with psych (I did) 'cause all the neuropsych stuff has some great overlap with AI. It depends on the person, but again I didn't see much grade deflation do to liberal art courses (much the opposite actually-my liberal art courses saved me a few times.)

 

[G01]

Isn't college created for the purpose of studying only one thing and what you want to pursue? The other humanity courses are just wasting Science student's time. Is this to ensure grade deflation?

---------------
Ever get annoyed at someone who thinks they know everything about physics, who starts proposing their own "theories" about how physics works and what physicists do?

You then ask them what their background is: "I got a B in my high school physics class. But I saw this movie about "Quantom Mecanics" on youtube and I think it's pretty obvious that the universe is conscious and that we can change the future by thinking positive thoughts."

Man that gets annoying! Everyone should be forced to take physics in college!

I think people in other disciplines are lucky! English Majors, for instance, NEVER have to worry about people who think they know everything about literary theory because they read A Tale of Two Cities in high school.

You know what else? There is evil in the world, and like, why does god let that happen if he exists! Man, I'm going to have so much fun when I confront my theologian friends about this! I bet they never even considered it!

Oh and also, have psychologists even considered that maybe autistic kids are just brats acting out? I can see that and I've only taken a high school psychology course!

------------------------

We take courses outside of our disciplines in college because education is not training! A college graduate should be able to:

1.Think critically and express themselves clearly, regardless of whether they are talking about 18th century literature or Newtonian mechanics.

2. Develop logical arguments supported by facts, whether using equations or words.

3. Realize how much they know and how much they don't know about a certain field of study.

4. Respect the intellectual pursuits of their colleagues in different areas of study. Science isn't the end all be all of human existence.

 

[epenguin]

Your question basically is 'How the hell will these humanities courses help me become a nerd?'

The answer is they won't.

Hopefully they might just help you not become a nerd which is more useful.

 

[D H]

I think people in other disciplines are lucky! English Majors, for instance, NEVER have to worry about people who think they know everything about literary theory because they read A Tale of Two Cities in high school.

I'm sure the other side of the two cultures is just as plagued with crackpots as is our side. Stronger: They definitely have a problem with crackpots. Just watch the History Channel, Fox News, or MSNBC; there they are!

Science isn't the end all be all of human existence.

Just the meat and potatoes. One needs plenty of fruits and vegetables to make for a balanced diet.

 

[davesface]

While I agree with the spirit of the arguments made in favor of taking humanities courses (which, for the record, I agree with completely), the reality can be a lot more annoying .

For me, at least, the only thing I've gotten out of my humanities courses have been recurring nightmares about trying to put together a schedule that let's me take all the classes I need to take.

 

[PoyDuo]

Interesting fact: At least in Texas, I know that some of the liberal arts requirements in college (government and US history) were added to help fight communism during the cold war. So it seems there is more to the gen ed requirements than just wanting to be well rounded.

That being said, the only reason I know the above fact is because my US history professor told it to me when I was taking his class, so take that for what it is worth... (sorry if it is a little off topic, just really wanted to share)

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

Some Engineering students need experience speaking and writing English; myself included.

 

[Andy Resnick]

---------------

<snip excellent post>

Well put! *Graduate*school is professional training. Undergraduate education is not.

 

[G01]

[Science is] Just the meat and potatoes. One needs plenty of fruits and vegetables to make for a balanced diet.

I like this!

 

[jmason52]

If you can't understand why a project has developed the way it has (history) or how to describe a double helix (art) or be able to write a simple papern (English) that's readable to those who might or might not give you funding on it's basis, then you can never consider yourself educated. To truly explore the universe, you really should be acquainted with all of it's facets.

 

[turbo]

If you can't understand why a project has developed the way it has (history) or how to describe a double helix (art) or be able to write a simple papern (English) that's readable to those who might or might not give you funding on it's basis, then you can never consider yourself educated. To truly explore the universe, you really should be acquainted with all of it's facets.

Well-rounded would be a good way to describe this. Back in the 18th C in America, it was expected that children from well-off families should read Latin and Greek, and be able to access historical texts in those languages. It was also expected that the children show proficiency in mathematics and sciences. Until the "socialist" practice of publicly-financed public education gained a foothold, this type of education was reserved for the wealthy, who could hire private instructors, or could band together and hire an instructor and support a school that more children could attend. This type of education was inaccessible to the poor, and often to females.

There were "dame schools" that helped fill some gaps, but often children were seen as "help" in the family enterprises, and were not willingly allowed to better themselves if their families were struggling. We live in better times, in this regard, IMO.

 

[AlephZero]

While, at least in my opinion, "History of Airplane Engineering" would be useless...

It depends how it was taught. If it was just a catalogue of the USA's (or Russia's, or China's) achievements that were supposedly infinitely superior to the rest of the world's feeble efforts, then of course it would be useless.

On the other hand, if it explored topics like

* Changing attitudes to risk (and litigation)
* Reactions by the industry, the media, politicians, etc to serious unforseen problems
* The historical role (proactive or reactive) of independent safety regulators

etc, it could teach engineers a great deal about real world engineering, which is a different subject from how to get the right answers to coursework problems.