What Constitutes a Well-Rounded Education and Stupid LibArts Majors

In summary: Perhaps you've studied a very specific subject and found it boring. Either way, having a broad education is important, and while some people may not appreciate the arts or humanities, they are still important subjects that shouldn't be left out.
  • #1
MissSilvy
300
1
So the current (and classical) opinion on education is that a well-rounded education is best for students. The definitions of well-rounded are a bit muddly and mean different things to different people, so I was curious; what subjects should a 'well-educated' person know or at least be competent in (roughly ranked by importance, let's assume)?
Ex: -Literature
-Foreign Languages
-Math
-Art
-Underwater Basket Weaving

Second bit of this post may be a little provocative, but I have to say it, because this has happened about five times in the past week alone.

The assumption is that if I went into a STEM major (or two, in fact) is the self-satisfying notion that I must be bad at 'being creative' and I must be a robot who can''t hack together a decent English paper or something stupid like that. This seems to me like a 'feel better about myself' sort of idea; 'They're a math major and I'm a philosophy major. I can't tell an integer from my own jerk but at least they can't philosophize like I do!'

Has anyone ever dealt with this before? Maybe it's because I'm in a college where the LibArts always feel like they get the short end of the stick but this makes me want to smack them. My entire first year of tuition was paid for by grants and scholarships- scholarships that I received from writing creative essays. I didn't go into a STEM major because it was what I was best at, it's because it was the thing that I was most interested in!

Obviously, this isn't all LibArts majors or even most of them (who are a fun bunch by-and-large) but the very vocal and annoying part of them.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Don't you have homework to do or something?
 
  • #3
MissSilvy said:
The assumption is that if I went into a STEM major (or two, in fact) is the self-satisfying notion that I must be bad at 'being creative' and I must be a robot who can''t hack together a decent English paper or something stupid like that. This seems to me like a 'feel better about myself' sort of idea; 'They're a math major and I'm a philosophy major. I can't tell an integer from my own jerk but at least they can't philosophize like I do!'

Until you start noticing physics and chemistry majors aceing 'liberal arts' classes without even trying and then you start wondering...

It's just people like doing different things. Sure some people in the liberal arts can't hack it in science and some people in the sciences can't make a creative paper if their life depended on it... but its just silly when people keep themselves out of majors based on such preconceived notions :).
 
  • #4
I think that well rounded should include (no ranking):
a writing class
a year of a modern foreign language
a year of economics
a year of mathematics
a history course (especially 20th century history)
an ethics philosophy course

as for the misconceptions of different talents, it takes just as much creativity to get a succinct proof in mathematics as to analyze the effects of nuclear proliferation to rogue states. yes, some people in stem majors can't write and some in humanities can't think superlogically, but that is not really the rule. for example, in my abstract mathematics class, most people are stem majors, but we also have 3 economists (woot!), and an english lit major.

but, I have taken many advanced math, statistics, history, political science, and economics classes. I must say, math and stats classes have a lot more independent anaylsis and application. It isn't just learning what was said in class, but applying the thms and such to novel problems. History and political science is fun, but it takes very little thought to sit and write a 10 page paper, in which you can really say almost anything if you can find support. A grade of B seems like a failure in a humanities class, but the same grade in a stem class feels like dancing angels on a pin.

Maybe that is just me.
 
  • #5
ascapoccia said:
I think that well rounded should include (no ranking):
a writing class
a year of a modern foreign language
a year of economics
a year of mathematics
a history course (especially 20th century history)
an ethics philosophy course

I'm sure I've said this before, but shouldn't these sorts of classes be taught in high school? If they are, then why do you need to repeat them in university? If not, then what do you learn in high school?

In my opinion, university is for specialising and obtaining a degree in one subject. The time before that is taken up with the broad, background education in everything.

Maybe that is just me.

I think it is. I wouldn't argue that humanities and arts subjects are easy because you can just write down whatever comes into your head. Perhaps you've never studied such a subject...
 
  • #6
cristo said:
I'm sure I've said this before, but shouldn't these sorts of classes be taught in high school? If they are, then why do you need to repeat them in university? If not, then what do you learn in high school?

In my opinion, university is for specialising and obtaining a degree in one subject. The time before that is taken up with the broad, background education in everything.

I agree completely. The "well-rounded" courses students typically have to take where I go teach a lot of things you can use in daily life... except that they're courses that people are suppose to have taken in high school. I think it's the fact that high schools and universities are dumbing down their educations typically that is creating such a problem. At my university, if you did well in high school and learned what you were suppose to learn, the general education courses are meaningless essentially because you already know them. It really is a disappointment because whenever I chose to venture out into another department to take a fun course to learn something not science related, I was disappointed at how elementary the course was (to the point I slept through almost every class and set test score highs). I think high schools need to stop being daycares and allow universities to stop wasting students times by forcing useless courses down everyone's throats simply because high schools failed at their job.
 
  • #7
Before studying anything else, everybody should be forced to have a middle-college level in mathematics. That would deeply deeply change the world.
 
  • #8
MissSilvy:
I'd just tell them about the amount of money you've already made through your writing... Just say "Well, I've already done the writing thing... one year I received $XXXXX for my work... then I found out that as an engineer, I could make three times that, and if I want, I can continue to write in my free time!" (You don't have to let them know your royalties were actually scholarship monies.)

Pengwuino said:
Until you start noticing physics and chemistry majors aceing 'liberal arts' classes without even trying and then you start wondering...
this was me... I was always top in all my liberal arts classes in college, so I was never ragged on.
 
  • #9
cristo said:
I'm sure I've said this before, but shouldn't these sorts of classes be taught in high school? If they are, then why do you need to repeat them in university? If not, then what do you learn in high school?

In my opinion, university is for specialising and obtaining a degree in one subject. The time before that is taken up with the broad, background education in everything.
This is my view as well. Of course, language courses should be more advanced, and I don't understand why one couldn't do advanced language course in mathematics, physics or engineering/applied science, although one could if one traveled abroad (from the US).
 
  • #10
On the other hand, I've also seen plenty of engineers and science types who can't write anything worth a damn. I know because I've been on group projects with them that involved a report at the end, and their parts were scarcely grammatical, let alone readable and logically organized.

So I do think that some of these things should be required. However, to force people to repeat things they did in high school is rather silly. Luckily, most liberal arts courses don't actually have prerequisites, in a meaningful sense (except for foreign languages), so you should be able to jump into whatever course sounds interesting.

I think everyone should have experience in a few of these:

Creative writing
Literature
Theatre
Philosophy
Music
Foreign language
History
Art

and also experience in a few of these:

Logic
Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Geology
Anatomy
Astronomy

Most people should be exposed to this stuff in high school, but I think it makes sense to require it at a higher level in university. I also think no-one should be allowed to graduate who cannot both:

1. Write an essay in a concise, organized way, and

2. Make a logical argument for some concrete position.
 
  • #11
People should learn things they are interested in and what they consider to be important.

If an engineer don't consider communicating thoughts as important and chooses not to learn them, he wouldn't get much success in his career. He can work on his own if he thinks that he should. Simple as that. No need to tell people what's good for them.
 
  • #12
I disagree that University should be a time only for specialization.

If you look at mot curricula, they are comprised of around 120 hours. Personally, I feel that a 90-30 split between depth and breadth is reasonable. How many places require 30 hours of gen. ed. courses anyway? For a science major, the list could include:

6 hrs of composition
6 hrs of hrs of literature
3 hrs of philosophy
3 hrs of fine arts
6 hrs of social science
6 hrs of history

Of course, the "gen. ed." requirement to have:

6 hrs of mathematics
6 hrs of physical science
3 hrs of computer

Would be related to the major anyway, and therefore constitute depth, not breadth.

Also, many people *do* get their breadth out of the way in high school; look into the advanced placement (AP) system.
 
  • #13
I understand that some people prefer certain types of learning over others. But I find it difficult to believe that a person who displays intelligence in one area is incapable of showing it in another. Once you find what you like, you will do it over and over again until you are good at it, to the exclusion of other activities. This will leave you stronger in one area than another. However, it may be that later in life you have reason to broaden your activities into new areas and find that you are just as able to succeed in them as in your original pursuit. In time small successes may lead you to actually like something you previously thought you didn't like and will spend more and more time at it and achieve greater and greater success. For instance, we see so many people writing on the net, people who hated to write essays in creative writing class. I am one such. If they keep doing it, a certain percentage of these people are bound to get good at it, find satisfaction in doing it, and perhaps even abandon old pursuits in favor of it.

A liberal arts education is supposed to expose the student to a range of intellectual areas. It should happen at a time when the student doesn't yet know what area they will go into. It should be a mix of arts and sciences.
 
  • #14
No one included a speaking class?

I always hated the method my high school used: just assign enough oral presentations and the student will a) eventually become good at public speaking, or b) eventually learn they don't like to speak in front of the class. About the only thing worse than giving oral presentations was listening to them when the speaker forgot to number their index cards.

Jerry Seinfeld said:
The average person at a funeral would rather be in the casket than doing the eulogy.

If you're nervous speaking to a crowd, it helps to picture them naked. Just make sure your shirt is untucked or you're holding a book in front of you.
 
  • #15
BobG said:
If you're nervous speaking to a crowd, it helps to picture them naked. Just make sure your shirt is untucked or you're holding a book in front of you.

This must be the best tip I ever heard on how to encourage people to speak to crowds. Ty, BobG. So how have you solved the staring issue?
 
  • #16
misgfool said:
This must be the best tip I ever heard on how to encourage people to speak to crowds. Ty, BobG. So how have you solved the staring issue?

Staring issue? :confused:

I guess I've never been looking at their eyes.

If it's a problem, wear a tie and wipe the drool from the corner of your mouth once in a while. Then they won't stare so much.
 
  • #17
BobG said:
Staring issue? :confused:

I guess I've never been looking at their eyes.

If it's a problem, wear a tie and wipe the drool from the corner of your mouth once in a while. Then they won't stare so much.

I just thought that if there were some attractive women in the crowd, ones focus might not be in their eyes. But I think a tie might not be enough as there could be a lake forming at ones feet.
 
  • #18
MissSilvy said:
what subjects should a 'well-educated' person know or at least be competent in (roughly ranked by importance, let's assume)?

This is an old and tired idea, at one time referred to as a "literacy list." It's garbage, even in concept. There is no single, indisputable way to define "well-roundedness," just as there is no single, indisputable way to define "intelligence."

- Warren
 
  • #19
humanino said:
Before studying anything else, everybody should be forced to have a middle-college level in mathematics. That would deeply deeply change the world.

In this country, we would be way ahead if everyone understood introductory algebra.

Obama wants to make a college degree or tech certification the new minimum standard; that is, he wants it to be an automatic expectation and provide a means for everyone to attend, regardless of their financial means. Right now you can drop out of high school at age sixteen if you can read the name on a cereal box and get it mostly correct.

I remember my first semester Calculus Professor announcing at the end of the class that we now know more math than 95% of the people in the country.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
jimmysnyder said:
A liberal arts education is supposed to expose the student to a range of intellectual areas. It should happen at a time when the student doesn't yet know what area they will go into. It should be a mix of arts and sciences.

I agree.

Also, BobG mentioned speaking, to which I also agree.

Oddly, I've never had an issue with oral presentation assignments, even though I can be nervous talking to people personally. I would usually not write out what I wanted to say, but merely write an outline, and then give the entire presentation off the cuff, without practice. I don't know if my presentations were actually any good, but somehow I wasn't nervous giving them.
 
  • #21
Ivan Seeking said:
Obama wants to make a college degree or tech certification the new minimum standard. Right now you can drop out of high school at age sixteen if you can read the name on a cereal box and get it mostly correct.

It's too bad that these days, having a college degree and such doesn't exactly translate into someone being "college educated". I think we need to instead of further devaluing what a bachelors degree is (which is the only practical way of making it the new minimum standard), make a high school degree signify the person knows more then what 1+1 is. At least theoretically, you have more control over what high schools teach then what colleges teach.
 
  • #22
Ivan Seeking said:
I remember my first semester Calculus Professor announcing at the end of the class that we now know more math than 95% of the people in the country.

At least it wasn't a statistics professor who said that :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #23
cristo said:
I'm sure I've said this before, but shouldn't these sorts of classes be taught in high school? If they are, then why do you need to repeat them in university? If not, then what do you learn in high school?

I did a little teaching at the high school level in a somewhat unusual capacity [when starting my first business]: I was a full-time tutor for kids who could not attend the regular school due to health or behavior problems. As a result, I saw everything from the worst to the best students and dealt with all subjects. It was absolutely shocking! The best students were impressive as was their course material. More than once I was surprised by the level of sophistication that the kids demonstrated. It was clear that these were great kids who had great teachers who were providing a world-class education. On the other end were kids who could barely read. What I saw passing as high school level coursework was in my mind appropriate for elementary schools - literally! It seemed to me that the system viewed them as hopeless and provided busy work just to kill time. The point of this is that even at the same school, the education received could land anywhere on a broad spectrum of possibilities.

Anyone preparing for college would get math, chem, language, etc, but the college level classes are more sophisticated. In some cases they are much more sophisticated. For example, my one year of college German was listed as equivalent to 4 years of high school German.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Ivan Seeking said:
I remember my first semester Calculus Professor announcing at the end of the class that we now know more math than 95% of the people in the country.

Pengwuino said:
At least it wasn't a statistics professor who said that :rofl: :rofl:

Really! http://www.maa.org/features/elvisdog.pdf [Broken] (If you only use x's less than 15, the dog's ratio is .143 instead of the calculated .144.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Pengwuino said:
At least it wasn't a statistics professor who said that :rofl: :rofl:

Source?
 
  • #26
Pengwuino said:
At least it wasn't a statistics professor who said that :rofl: :rofl:

Ivan Seeking said:
Source?

Ooh! This would be good. When I first read Pengwino's post, it did make me curious about how many people had actually taken Calculus ... but then I got distracted by the dog.
 
  • #27
BobG said:
Ooh! This would be good. When I first read Pengwino's post, it did make me curious about how many people had actually taken Calculus ... but then I got distracted by the dog.

I would tend to assume that the number was close - he was a mathematician after all. He certainly carries more weight with me than Penguins rolling heads. :biggrin:

You have to look at the data from twenty-five years ago. Keep in mind also that this must include everyone that was living and not just the trend at that time. Two generations ago, many people never even completed high school [of course this is true again!]. My grandfather didn't finish high school because he had to help save the farm.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Ivan Seeking said:
Source?

I heard it on Oprah.
 
  • #29
This is an old and tired idea, at one time referred to as a "literacy list." It's garbage, even in concept. There is no single, indisputable way to define "well-roundedness," just as there is no single, indisputable way to define "intelligence."

The idea wasn't to make a list of what 'everyone should know or else you're a doofus'. From what I remember, literacy lists are long and boring lists of words and phrases that 'every adult American' should know (something like http://www.engines4ed.org/hyperbook/nodes/NODE-107-pg.html" [Broken]). I was just looking for some general areas that are worth knowing a little about but I can see your point against lists. Perhaps just a rough idea of what it means to you would've been better?

Anyone preparing for college would get math, chem, language, etc, but the college level classes are more sophisticated. In some cases they are much more sophisticated. For example, my one year of college German was listed as equivalent to 4 years of high school German.

And my ONE exchange year of German was equivalent to a college level degree (even graduates from that department had funny accent, stumbled over 'Sprachgefuehl', and wrote like middle-schoolers). Don't get me started on the abysmal state of language education today across all levels :(

Increasing the sophistication or number of high school classes taken is all fine and good, but you can't make anyone want to learn anything. Those who do want to learn will learn and do it well, but those who don't (the majority) will drag their feet and do their best to do the absolute minimum and learn diddly-squat. I never understood the 13-21 crowd and I'm part of it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
I remember once asking my English teacher what a semicolon is for.
the answer she gave me: "don't worry about it; you don't need to know that for now."

this wasn't in middle school, this was a grade 12 academic English class. (for any non-Canadians: that's the highest-level English course in high school.)

what this means is I now have to spend a fourth of my first year, which is quite expensive, taking mandatory basic grammar courses. there is no opt-out exam: all must take them. and when I say basic, I mean basic.

I kid you not, this is a real paragraph from a real essay I've had to mark (we do peer review in that class)... and it's not even the worst I've seen:

http://noamgr.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/grammar.jpg

I think we have a problem.
this is stuff they should be teaching in grades 9 and 10, not university.

My grammar isn't perfect, but the downright HORRID grammar some of the other kids have... basic, basic stuff!

I think that it only makes sense that we should leave high school knowing basic grammar and composition, some literature beyond just To Kill A Mockingbird and The Great Gatsby, and math, biology, physics, etc. at a 101 level.

This is what my high-school-graduated friend asked me a couple of weeks ago: "if we evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys?"

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/fail-owned-another-public-education-fail.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
I've already read some god awful papers written by my peers in college. I wonder if they even bother reading over what they just vomited onto their papers.

That picture is funny though. Isn't there a real saying like that however? Obviously either "success" or "hard work" wasn't in the real saying. I'm thinking maybe "hard" wasn't suppose to be there? haha.
 
  • #32
I think the original saying is "The dictionary is the only place where 'success' comes before 'work'" if I remember correctly.
 
  • #33
cristo said:
I'm sure I've said this before, but shouldn't these sorts of classes be taught in high school? If they are, then why do you need to repeat them in university? If not, then what do you learn in high school?


For most Americans? Almost nothing.

An education, IMO, should cover literacy, numeracy, and logic until it is beaten into people's heads so thoroughly they can't open their mouths without some of it falling out.

If you have those three things you can learn anything (and I mean ANYTHING) else on your own as quickly as your own intellect will allow. If you don't know those three, all you can ever do is memorize and repeat, never understand. The vast majority of people in the US lack even a single one of them (I'm not using the normal definition of literacy here, where it would usually mean the ability to read and write, I rather mean something more sophisticated than that: the ability to read, write, and understand well). Subject education (history, economics, science) needs to come only after those skills are imparted.
 

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
3
Replies
92
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
837
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
815
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
844
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
707
Back
Top