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

  • Thread starter Thread starter flyingpig
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forum Science
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the requirement for science students in colleges to take humanities courses, sparking debate on their necessity and relevance. Participants express frustration over mandatory humanities classes, arguing that these courses seem unnecessary after high school and can detract from a science-focused education. However, others emphasize the importance of a well-rounded education, suggesting that humanities courses foster critical thinking, communication skills, and a broader understanding of societal issues, which are beneficial in any field, including science.The conversation also touches on how GPA is calculated, noting that all courses, regardless of discipline, contribute equally to a student's overall GPA. Some suggest that humanities courses could be tailored to better align with science majors, such as offering courses on the history of engineering, which could provide relevant context while still fulfilling humanities requirements. The overarching theme highlights the tension between specialized education and the value of a comprehensive liberal arts education, with many advocating for the latter as essential for developing well-rounded, educated individuals.
  • #31
jmason52 said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ryker said:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K