Schools Why are US grads not awarded masters degrees after 4 years of college?

[Mépris]

In the UK, following the Bologna process, any undergrad degree taking 4 years, assuming sufficient amount of credits is obtained, one is awarded a Masters degree. A 3 year course results in a bachelors. Why is it that in the US, one is awarded with BS after 4 years of study? Is it because of the additional year of secondary/high school in the UK? Or do they not deem the material studied at undergrad sufficient enough to warrant a masters degree?

 

[jtbell]

Is it because of the additional year of secondary/high school in the UK?

That's one reason. Students don't progress as far in high school in the USA as in most other countries.

Also, in most colleges and universities in the USA, students have to take a certain set of "general education" courses (English, history, etc.) regardless of the subject their degree is in, and these courses usually amount to at least a year's worth altogether.

 

[Shaun_W]

In the UK, following the Bologna process, any undergrad degree taking 4 years, assuming sufficient amount of credits is obtained, one is awarded a Masters degree. A 3 year course results in a bachelors. Why is it that in the US, one is awarded with BS after 4 years of study? Is it because of the additional year of secondary/high school in the UK? Or do they not deem the material studied at undergrad sufficient enough to warrant a masters degree?

No, it is only in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that bachelors degrees take three years. In Scotland they last for four years, and the Scottish university system is more similar to the American one than the English one.

 

[DivisionByZro]

No, it is only in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that bachelors degrees take three years. In Scotland they last for four years, and the Scottish university system is more similar to the American one than the English one.

Quebec (Canada) undergraduates typically only take 3 years to complete their bachelors. Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[dacruick]

Quebec (Canada) undergraduates typically only take 3 years to complete their bachelors. Just thought you'd like to know.

Quebec, I believe, also has an extra year of high school. Either that or an intermediate step between high school and university.

 

[cgk]

It's new to me that masters degrees are supposed to take only four years. I was of the impression that these were five year degrees in the general case in Europe.

 

[Mépris]

It's new to me that masters degrees are supposed to take only four years. I was of the impression that these were five year degrees in the general case in Europe.

I thought so too.

Following the Bologna process, this has been changed to four. What I did notice though, was the presence of 1-2 year long Masters courses. Some taught, some research ones (these are typically the two year ones).

Thank you for the replies. The "general education" part is something I didn't know. I always thought they were just electives. :s

How is the Scottish system similar to that of the US, besides the length of course? Do they have as much freedom in choosing "majors"?

 

[MECHster]

Quebec, I believe, also has an extra year of high school. Either that or an intermediate step between high school and university.

Yep, they have CEGEP. But not all programs are 3 years. I know McGill engineering is 5 years if your from Ontario and 4 from Quebec.

 

[ych22]

From what I gathered, a 3 year bach + 1 year masters degree in many European Universities is at the same rigor as a 4 year bachelor's degree in many other countries.

As a 3rd year engineering undergraduate, I have friends who are on international exchange programs in european universities taking graduate level classes with masters candidates.

 

[Jokerhelper]

Yes, I think the main reason is that in most of Europe it takes 13 years of schooling to get your high school degree, whereas in much of North America it's 12 years. I remember reading a state exam written in Italy at the end of high school, and their math section was for the most part what I had learned in Calc I and II, so I'm guessing in general your last year of high school is equivalent to our first year of university.

Yep, they have CEGEP. But not all programs are 3 years. I know McGill engineering is 5 years if your from Ontario and 4 from Quebec.

But isn't that because they have a year of co-op in it?

 

[twofish-quant]

Also the fact that other countries have one extra year of school is something really important to remember whenever you try to do cross-country comparisions of academic ability.

 

[Sankaku]

Level of specialization is important to consider as well. Although it is changing, A-Levels in the UK meant that students used to do only 3 subjects for the last 2 years of high-school. A 3 year degree then was only studying one subject in-depth. This is not to say that it is good or bad, just different.

.

 

[Shaun_W]

How is the Scottish system similar to that of the US, besides the length of course? Do they have as much freedom in choosing "majors"?

Well, we don't use the "major/minor" system here, but it is similar in that in many courses at many universities, students can choose which classes they want to take, and can take classes outside of their chosen degree. For example, a physicist could take maths classes, computer science classes, economics classes, philosophy classes, etc. If enough of these classes are taken, then up until the end of second year, it is actually possible for someone to change what subject their degree will be awarded in without having to start again from scratch. So for example, someone could apply to "MSci Physics", take plenty of maths modules in the first two years, and then effectively switch to "MSci Maths".

It's quite a good system and I wish it was duplicated across the rest of Britain. Because a lot of 17 year old university applicants really don't know what they want to do, and if they make the wrong choice, they either have to bear it out for three/four years, or start again.

 

[Mépris]

Well, we don't use the "major/minor" system here, but it is similar in that in many courses at many universities, students can choose which classes they want to take, and can take classes outside of their chosen degree. For example, a physicist could take maths classes, computer science classes, economics classes, philosophy classes, etc. If enough of these classes are taken, then up until the end of second year, it is actually possible for someone to change what subject their degree will be awarded in without having to start again from scratch. So for example, someone could apply to "MSci Physics", take plenty of maths modules in the first two years, and then effectively switch to "MSci Maths".

It's quite a good system and I wish it was duplicated across the rest of Britain. Because a lot of 17 year old university applicants really don't know what they want to do, and if they make the wrong choice, they either have to bear it out for three/four years, or start again.

Aha, makes sense.

Hmm, it does seem like a good system, in that it enables that much flexibility but I doubt whoever is in charge would want to change. Under the pretext that this current system works; so why change it. At least, it seems to work.

Personally, I do like the idea of more flexibility. About a year ago, I wanted to read English Literature and well, I never put much effort into Physics and beyond paying attention to Maths classes, I did little else. I suppose it's a good thing, I stayed back in lower sixth and took up Chemistry instead of English and will probably do Further Maths. But yeah, the point I was trying to illustrate is that what I feel is somewhat wrong with the current system is that there's too much specialisation being done at too early an age. One's whole life can get messed up simply because of "bad" decisions taken at 14.

 

[MECHster]

But isn't that because they have a year of co-op in it?

I don't believe so. If you're from Ontario, the first year is called "year zero", in which you catch up to the CEGEP kids. It could be that the CEGEP kids finish in 3 years without coop/internship, but that's not what was told to me when I went for a tour of the department. Here are the courses, the 2nd page has the schedule for non-cegep students, which includes 29 more credits.

http://www.mcgill.ca/files/mecheng/StreamsABC_2009-2010.pdf

 

[Shaun_W]

Aha, makes sense.

Hmm, it does seem like a good system, in that it enables that much flexibility but I doubt whoever is in charge would want to change. Under the pretext that this current system works; so why change it. At least, it seems to work.

Personally, I do like the idea of more flexibility. About a year ago, I wanted to read English Literature and well, I never put much effort into Physics and beyond paying attention to Maths classes, I did little else. I suppose it's a good thing, I stayed back in lower sixth and took up Chemistry instead of English and will probably do Further Maths. But yeah, the point I was trying to illustrate is that what I feel is somewhat wrong with the current system is that there's too much specialisation being done at too early an age. One's whole life can get messed up simply because of "bad" decisions taken at 14.

I agree. Specialisation at an early age is a major flaw with the English system and I am glad we have a different system in Scotland.

 

[Jokerhelper]

I don't believe so. If you're from Ontario, the first year is called "year zero", in which you catch up to the CEGEP kids. It could be that the CEGEP kids finish in 3 years without coop/internship, but that's not what was told to me when I went for a tour of the department. Here are the courses, the 2nd page has the schedule for non-cegep students, which includes 29 more credits.

http://www.mcgill.ca/files/mecheng/StreamsABC_2009-2010.pdf

Are you sure that the first two semesters posted for out-of-province students isn't the "year zero"? Because that to me looks like the general first year sequence that's taken in most engineering programs across Canada. Gen Chem. sequence, Calc. I & II, LA, mechanics, E&M...

 

[mal4mac]

Personally, I do like the idea of more flexibility. About a year ago, I wanted to read English Literature and well, I never put much effort into Physics and beyond paying attention to Maths classes, I did little else. I suppose it's a good thing, I stayed back in lower sixth and took up Chemistry instead of English and will probably do Further Maths. But yeah, the point I was trying to illustrate is that what I feel is somewhat wrong with the current system is that there's too much specialisation being done at too early an age. One's whole life can get messed up simply because of "bad" decisions taken at 14.

I agree that specialization, and lack of opportunity, is a problem. You *can* do a wide range of subjects at 14, if you go to "the right" school. But I didn't have the chance. For instance, I had to drop history (a subject I *really* liked) to keep on the science track. I also didn't do music or art, and regret not learning to play a musical instrument to a reasonable standard. And learning to paint watercolours would have been fun! And my life is a mess :)

 

[MECHster]

Are you sure that the first two semesters posted for out-of-province students isn't the "year zero"? Because that to me looks like the general first year sequence that's taken in most engineering programs across Canada. Gen Chem. sequence, Calc. I & II, LA, mechanics, E&M...

Yes, I think it is. But since there are more courses in the out-of-province schedule, students will take 5 years (I'm assuming). When I went for a tour of the department they told us all if you're from outside Quebec this is a 5 year program, if not it's a 4 year program. Considering McGill doesn't have an automatic coop program (like Waterloo), I do not believe those numbers include a year of coop.

 

[kloptok]

I thought so too.

Following the Bologna process, this has been changed to four. What I did notice though, was the presence of 1-2 year long Masters courses. Some taught, some research ones (these are typically the two year ones).

...

Is this really true? I thought it was the other way around - after Bologna a Masters degree is supposed to be five years.

At my university and in my country in general, earlier four year degrees (national degrees) are being replaced by five year Masters degrees following the Bologna process.

 

[Ryker]

Is this really true? I thought it was the other way around - after Bologna a Masters degree is supposed to be five years.

At my university and in my country in general, earlier four year degrees (national degrees) are being replaced by five year Masters degrees following the Bologna process.

Yeah, a Masters is supposed to be five years (3 + 2 or 4 + 1), as opposed to six prior to the Bologna process (4 + 2). At least most EU countries have devised their systems in such a way now, but it's hard to compare across the board, because each educational system still retained some special features from the past. If you ask me, things are even more complicated now, because, if you take the UK, for example, you have an "undergraduate" Masters degree, and then you have the "normal" postgraduate Masters degree. Then it comes down to interpretation whether both are considered equivalent or not, and it's all one big mess, because they may be equivalent in one regard, but not in all of them. It's the same in my home country, our old four-year degrees are supposed to be equivalent to the new Masters degrees, but we don't get the title Masters, and the old Masters degrees are not offered anymore. So they've basically created a void with this watered-down version of a Masters, as prior to that a Masters degree wasn't really something everyone went for. Now, people don't want to end their education after three years, because they are afraid the new bachelor degrees are worthless, at least in the eyes of employers.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This thread is very timely- our Governor (Ohio, John Kasich) has been pushing for the state Universities to convert 10% of undergraduate degree programs to a 3-year program next year, and have that increase to 65% of degree programs in 3 years. We are resisting this for a few reasons, some of which are mentioned on this thread.

The underlying problem (IMO) is the government issuing these mandates without providing any rationale- the stated reason is "to make a college education more affordable", but it's clear that education is precisely what will suffer by this mandate (in addition to other decrees being discussed by the Governor's office).

To be fair, the "120 credit hours" requirement for a BS degree is remarkably arbitrary (as best I can determine)- but since there is no guidance or direction on what should be cut to reduce this to 90 credit hours, it's not clear how to maintain a proper curriculum, nor how to ensure our graduates remain competitive with 120 c.h. curricula.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Have you thought about going back to the Governor and say, "We'd love to - now please make sure that all the high school grads are 100% ready for college?"

There are lots of good reasons to resist going to 3 years, but in my mind, one of the largest is that students arrive to college unprepared. Whether going from 4 to 3 for a well-prepard student is a good idea is questionable, but doing it for an unprepared student is impossible.

 

[Skrew]

Cut general education requirements, problem solved.

 

[Vanadium 50]

At the expense of a bigger problem. Do we want college grads who think Aristotle was Belgian? That the central tenet of Buddhism is "every man for himself"? That the London Underground is a political movement?

 

[Klockan3]

Have you thought about going back to the Governor and say, "We'd love to - now please make sure that all the high school grads are 100% ready for college?"

You have that problem all over the world except for a few differences. For example where I live for example you aren't even allowed to apply for an Engineer/physics/"insert science field here" degree unless you have studied certain subjects in high school. For example, if you want to become an Engineer you need to have taken maths up till calculus, 3 years of physics and 1 year of chemistry, then on top of that we also have no gen ed requirements. With that it isn't strange that we can award a bachelor in 3 years, the extra year is cut by forcing the students to take important courses in high school and by not having irrelevant courses.

As for gen-ed in college I don't really see why, is there a certain reason why college students needs to have more general knowledge than any other citizen? If you want more gen ed then put it in the required education, aka high school. If the high schools aren't providing sufficient gen ed then alter them, college isn't there to clean up the mess after high school especially since many don't even attend college.

At the expense of a bigger problem. Do we want college grads who think Aristotle was Belgian? That the central tenet of Buddhism is "every man for himself"? That the London Underground is a political movement?

Why would that be any more absurd or problematic than high school grads thinking the same? At least where I live people are taught such things before the age of 15. Also since people can choose their gen ed by themselves they could just as well avoid those things anyway.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Cut general education requirements, problem solved.

What 'problem' are you solving, exactly?

 

[Klockan3]

What 'problem' are you solving, exactly?

I would assume the 4 year bachelor in the US, gen ed ads time required to take the degree but aren't providing any tangible reward.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Have you thought about going back to the Governor and say, "We'd love to - now please make sure that all the high school grads are 100% ready for college?"

You are under the impression that the governor gives a rat's a$$ about education- or any job performed by a unionized workforce.

There are lots of good reasons to resist going to 3 years, but in my mind, one of the largest is that students arrive to college unprepared. Whether going from 4 to 3 for a well-prepard student is a good idea is questionable, but doing it for an unprepared student is impossible.

<snip>

As for gen-ed in college I don't really see why, is there a certain reason why college students needs to have more general knowledge than any other citizen? If you want more gen ed then put it in the required education, aka high school. If the high schools aren't providing sufficient gen ed then alter them, college isn't there to clean up the mess after high school especially since many don't even attend college.

Why would that be any more absurd or problematic than high school grads thinking the same? At least where I live people are taught such things before the age of 15. Also since people can choose their gen ed by themselves they could just as well avoid those things anyway.

These sentiments are completely logical, and also complete unworkable. Universities pushing the problem back onto the High Schools (and then, just as predictably, high schools pushing the problem back onto junior high schools, etc) moves the problem around without ever providing an education to anyone- a version of 'Not in my backyard', if you will. I don't pick my students; I still have an obligation to provide the best possible learning environment that I can. Although it is currently fashionable to consider a college education as little more than a means to a better job, Universities are not people-processing facilities, and it's not reasonable to think that magically pouring knowledge into a student's head produces a critical-thinking rational citizen.

Learning takes time, and growing up takes time. Paradoxically, the US has managed to allow children to remain children for longer and longer periods of time, while also requiring those children to act like responsible adults. The result is predictable- large groups of adults have no idea how to manage finances. It's considered normal (even expected for some) to go on television and discuss private matters. Name-calling has replaced rational debate. And at the same time, children can ruin their entire life by making a single error in judgment.

 

[Klockan3]

Universities are not people-processing facilities, and it's not reasonable to think that magically pouring knowledge into a student's head produces a critical-thinking rational citizen.

But how do gen ed do this better than for example science courses? Dismantling statements/arguments and analyzing their parts is important and trained in every subject and it is more emphasized the higher up you get.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think it's pushing back. It's placing the responsibility back where it belongs.

 

[George Jones]

There is some evidence that gen ed science requirements for non-science majors do produce results.

Some might find the following to be quite surprising.

Art Hobson, in a letter published the July 2008 issue of The American Journal of Physics, writes:

"Fortunately, the U.S. system of higher education allows us a perfect opportunity to do this. Our system requires most college students to take a variety of general education courses in history, language, literature, the arts, and the sciences. All European nations, and most other nations, have no such general education requirements for college students. U.S. adults have scored far higher than European adults during two decades of tests of general scientific literacy by Jon D. Miller,² Director of the International Center for Scientific Literacy at Michigan State University. Miller has shown that the U.S. required college science courses for nonscientists are almost certainly the reason for this unexpected result, and that these courses are surprisingly effective at instilling lifelong scientific literacy.³ As Miller puts it, “What we are seeing here is a result of the fact that Americans are required to take science courses at the university, while Europeans and Asians are not.

² For an overview of Miller’s program of scientific literacy measurements and analysis, see J. Trefil, Why Science?
Teacher’s College Press, New York, 2008, Chap. 6.

³ A. Hobson, “The surprising effectiveness of college scientific literacy courses,” submitted for publication to The Physics Teacher, preprint available at physics.uark.edu/hobson/ pubs/08.01.TPT.html."

However, it is possible that not everyone will believe that these results are unbiased.

 

[Mépris]

Yeah, a Masters is supposed to be five years (3 + 2 or 4 + 1), as opposed to six prior to the Bologna process (4 + 2). At least most EU countries have devised their systems in such a way now, but it's hard to compare across the board, because each educational system still retained some special features from the past. If you ask me, things are even more complicated now, because, if you take the UK, for example, you have an "undergraduate" Masters degree, and then you have the "normal" postgraduate Masters degree. Then it comes down to interpretation whether both are considered equivalent or not, and it's all one big mess, because they may be equivalent in one regard, but not in all of them. It's the same in my home country, our old four-year degrees are supposed to be equivalent to the new Masters degrees, but we don't get the title Masters, and the old Masters degrees are not offered anymore. So they've basically created a void with this watered-down version of a Masters, as prior to that a Masters degree wasn't really something everyone went for. Now, people don't want to end their education after three years, because they are afraid the new bachelor degrees are worthless, at least in the eyes of employers.

I was talking about the undergraduate masters; should've been more precise. From what I gather, some universities (pretty certain I read so on the websites of Cambridge and Imperial) tend to think of it as "adequate preparation" onto a PhD program or employment. Then again, is a BSc not adequate preparation for that?

I know of somebody who went with a BSc in Biology for a Masters course but got transferred into a PhD program some time into it. I've heard of somebody else, in his BEng year (in their country; it's the fourth year), who got selected for a scholarship (PhD) when he was competing with 6/7 other people, among which were people with post-grad MSc, people in their MEng year and people with actual work experience under their belt. His argument was that the university he applied to was more concerned with an applicant's potential to achieve rather than what he had already achieved and for instance, the BEng applicant who got accepted without a Masters is one who, under different circumstances, given the time, would probably have a Masters degree. Or at least, would be capable of earning one.

 

[Mépris]

I agree that specialization, and lack of opportunity, is a problem. You *can* do a wide range of subjects at 14, if you go to "the right" school. But I didn't have the chance. For instance, I had to drop history (a subject I *really* liked) to keep on the science track. I also didn't do music or art, and regret not learning to play a musical instrument to a reasonable standard. And learning to paint watercolours would have been fun! And my life is a mess :)

We did have art and music up until year 10. I failed art. Grade 10 Economics was more akin to Commercial Studies than actual Economics, which didn't really spark my interest in it, despite doing fairly well in it. I didn't like Accounting. I was average at DT. We did not have a Sociology teacher at the time. Which left me with...Computer Studies, English Lit, French Lit, Chemistry, Physics, Biology and Additional Maths, out of which, four (used to be five; got dropped to four for my year for some reason unknown to me) had to be chosen, along with the compulsory Maths/English/French to take up to O-Level (GCSE alternative; common option for foreign countries). Not much choice now, is there?

Oh, did I mention that we actually get our subject combinations shortlisted for us? So, it's options 1-11, with 1 being ScienceA, 2 being ScienceB (note: only difference is one of them do Bio and the other do Computer S.) and so on. So, if I do Economics, I cannot do science. If I do Literature, I cannot do science. Science was probably the only thing I was interested in then, people encouraged me to do it and I was told I could do literature or art for A-Levels if ever I wanted to, despite never having done them. It's pretty much the same story for A-Levels, people doing Maths/Physics/Economics are unheard of. In my first year of year 12, I was doing Maths/Phys/English Lit. (I had to "fight" to get that combination) and people were looking at me as if I had just flung out my wang straight at their faces. Anyway...

Bottom line is, I (and my peers) have no knowledge of economics or sociology. Nor history for that matter. We only studied history in primary school and it's shame that I've forgotten most of it. Hopefully that should change within the coming years, while trying to sort my act out, I'm going to find some time to catch up on that.

My main complain I suppose is something like that: "If you're going to base your education system on that of England, at the very least, you might want to get it right repugnant imbeciles."

 

[Mépris]

Have you thought about going back to the Governor and say, "We'd love to - now please make sure that all the high school grads are 100% ready for college?"

There are lots of good reasons to resist going to 3 years, but in my mind, one of the largest is that students arrive to college unprepared. Whether going from 4 to 3 for a well-prepard student is a good idea is questionable, but doing it for an unprepared student is impossible.

In that case, then the addition of a, possibly optional, thirteenth year in high school, for those wanting to go to college, wouldn't be a bad idea. That would, however, also result in nearly the same flaw the English system have - specialisation before university/college.

As for the general education requirements; I really don't know about that. As has been hinted before, I don't like the method of "early specialisation" and kicking the ball over to the other backyard (college to high school to junior high) would create the platform for just that.

The way I've always seen it/been told about it; America's about giving opportunity to her people. It's theirs to take. Would it be sensible to have the 'gen. ed' requirements turned into electives, then? Or would forcing people to do these courses fitting into that category be a better option, since it would ensure all college grads have broader knowledge, in one way or another?

 

[Sankaku]

I am a bit strange but I think choice is the key all the way through.

Students in High-School should have choice to specialize or not. i.e They should not be forced into a system like English A-Levels, but to have it available. The IB and AP programs are a decent attempt at this, but they could be better and they are not offered everywhere.

Students in University should have choice to do many general subjects or to specialize, if they wish. There is no time-limit on learning. The only artificial constraint is whatever the system has decided is needed for a piece of paper. Make it more flexible and stop trying to make all degrees from all Universities in the whole world look the same. A fine arts degree is radically different than a Science degree (they both have their place). Why do they all have to take the same amount of time?

The whole phenomenon of people going to University for 3 or 4 years just for a piece of paper is a complete disgrace. I doubt it is possible to reverse, but we should try anyway. People have mistaken the finger for the moon.

Go to university to learn. Take as much time as you need to learn it properly.

 

[Jokerhelper]

The whole phenomenon of people going to University for 3 or 4 years just for a piece of paper is a complete disgrace. I doubt it is possible to reverse, but we should try anyway. People have mistaken the finger for the moon.

Go to university to learn. Take as much time as you need to learn it properly.

No offense but I think you're being too naive. When students have to invest tens of thousands of dollars with loans and lines of credit into their education, it's hard to ask them to only care about what they're learning without worrying about the monetary value of their degree.

 

[cristo]

We only studied history in primary school and it's shame that I've forgotten most of it. Hopefully that should change within the coming years, while trying to sort my act out, I'm going to find some time to catch up on that.

That's a problem with your school, not with the system. I took two humanities subjects at GCSE level (geography and history) along with maths, physics, chemistry, biology, french, english lang and lit.

That would, however, also result in nearly the same flaw the English system have - specialisation before university/college.

I don't see that this is a flaw. You're taught a wide range of subjects up to the age of compulsory education (16) and then narrow down to 4 or 5 subjects for two years after that. Those who are able, then go on to university to specialise further.

 

[Mépris]

I am a bit strange but I think choice is the key all the way through.

Students in High-School should have choice to specialize or not. i.e They should not be forced into a system like English A-Levels, but to have it available. The IB and AP programs are a decent attempt at this, but they could be better and they are not offered everywhere.

This would mean having to have more, much more teachers and paying them. (obviously) Generally, bigger institutions have more choice available. I've heard of schools in the UK offering both the IB and the A-Levels. I'm not sure how they go about to doing it though. I know of a local school which is currently trying to implement that and by the look of things, it's going to fail. I hope not but both have fairly different syllabi and teaching Standard Level Maths with AS Maths is just not going to work. Although it does have more chances of working than HL Maths with A2 Maths. Not with that school anyway. Why? They don't have enough teachers. Not enough competent teachers anyway, it seems.

As someone who's had experience with both IB and A-Levels, I don't think neither is the better choice. While the IB provides room for more breadth of study, it does not mean that you get to take these subjects up for further study at university. Only your three higher level subjects matter. If you go to a small school, you won't have enough choice. In my five month stint in the IB, the only languages I could choose from were English as First Langauge and French as Second Language; no Japanese, German, Italian, Spanish or Mandarin. No Economics. I couldn't do History because it clashed with my Physics class.

Also, saying A-Levels cannot provide breadth is wrong. I've heard of people doing 4-5 subjects at A2, some of whom do subjects from a fairly broad range. The key is a more flexible time table which can exist if there is a sufficient number of teachers.

Students in University should have choice to do many general subjects or to specialize, if they wish. There is no time-limit on learning. The only artificial constraint is whatever the system has decided is needed for a piece of paper. Make it more flexible and stop trying to make all degrees from all Universities in the whole world look the same. A fine arts degree is radically different than a Science degree (they both have their place). Why do they all have to take the same amount of time?

The whole phenomenon of people going to University for 3 or 4 years just for a piece of paper is a complete disgrace. I doubt it is possible to reverse, but we should try anyway. People have mistaken the finger for the moon.

Go to university to learn. Take as much time as you need to learn it properly.

This sounds like an interesting idea. Various courses available, one can choose as many/little as they want across the board. Then, depending on the courses they've chosen; which category/field (physics; neurobiology; sculpture; or even something as broad as 'science') these courses fit into and if they've gotten enough credits, are awarded 'x' or 'xy' degree. Wait...this sounds like a more "liberal" approach to the US college system, no? Then again, I might be wrong, considering I've not yet had an inside look to how university/college functions.

 

[Mépris]

No offense but I think you're being too naive. When students have to invest tens of thousands of dollars with loans and lines of credit into their education, it's hard to ask them to only care about what they're learning without worrying about the monetary value of their degree.

True, true.

That's a problem with your school, not with the system. I took two humanities subjects at GCSE level (geography and history) along with maths, physics, chemistry, biology, french, english lang and lit.

No, system. If you'd have paid more attention, you'd have noticed I was talking about another country (former British colony) whose education system is based on that of the English.

I don't see that this is a flaw. You're taught a wide range of subjects up to the age of compulsory education (16) and then narrow down to 4 or 5 subjects for two years after that. Those who are able, then go on to university to specialise further.

Again, it depends on whether the choice is available. I doubt all schools would have as wide a range. Mal4Mac, who by the looks of it, is in the UK, didn't seem to have the choice at his school.

 

[cristo]

No, system. If you'd have paid more attention, you'd have noticed I was talking about another country (former British colony) whose education system is based on that of the English.

Well then that's not a problem with the English system, but rather with the system in your country.

Again, it depends on whether the choice is available. I doubt all schools would have as wide a range. Mal4Mac, who by the looks of it, is in the UK, didn't seem to have the choice at his school.

I can't comment on that, but I went to a state school. I know lots of schools that provide a wide range of A level subjects.

 

[Klockan3]

There is some evidence that gen ed science requirements for non-science majors do produce results.


However, it is possible that not everyone will believe that these results are unbiased.

According to it Sweden is far ahead of the US and we don't have gen ed requirements in college. We do however have compulsory physics, chemistry and biology in middle school.
http://www.arcsfoundation.org/pittsburgh/JMiller.pdf

 

[Mépris]

Well then that's not a problem with the English system, but rather with the system in your country.

My main complaint I suppose is something like that: "If you're going to base your education system on that of England, at the very least, you might want to get it right repugnant imbeciles."

Eh.

I can't comment on that, but I went to a state school. I know lots of schools that provide a wide range of A level subjects.

That's good then. The main problem here, in my opinion, with regards to specialisation, is that it's very unlikely that youth, in general, have any sort of clue of what to study and if they actually would genuinely like to further their studies in any way and I believe that the system restricts choice.

Personally, I don't mind the additional year spent for a bachelor's degree, I would rather much do that and still have the choice to do pretty much anything I want. ;)

 

[Andy Resnick]

I would assume the 4 year bachelor in the US, gen ed ads time required to take the degree but aren't providing any tangible reward.

But how do gen ed do this better than for example science courses? Dismantling statements/arguments and analyzing their parts is important and trained in every subject and it is more emphasized the higher up you get.

This reasoning is perfectly fine for the student that already knows what they want to be when they grow up. For the vast majority of students, this is not the case. Already, hypercompetitive medical schools select for students that decided they want to be doctors when they were in middle school, and have built up a resume/CV specifically for this purpose over 10+ years. Does this make them better doctors?

Universities should not be in the business of churning out thoughtless robots.

 

[Andy Resnick]

In that case, then the addition of a, possibly optional, thirteenth year in high school, for those wanting to go to college, wouldn't be a bad idea. That would, however, also result in nearly the same flaw the English system have - specialisation before university/college.

I agree- and one strategy to deal with a shorter BS program is to make more use of Community Colleges. For example, a high school graduate takes their freshman year/gen ed classes at a community college. Is that good? I say no.

 

[cristo]

Eh.

Are you speaking English now, or just grunting?

That's good then. The main problem here, in my opinion, with regards to specialisation, is that it's very unlikely that youth, in general, have any sort of clue of what to study and if they actually would genuinely like to further their studies in any way and I believe that the system restricts choice.

Maybe that's something to do with your culture, but I don't think we should be treating 16/17 year olds like 8 year olds and telling them that they are unable to make a decision as to whether they want to further their education. No, instead, at the end of compulsory education you should be given the choice as to whether you wish to stay on in education or not. If so, then you choice to reduce the breadth of your study by about a half in order to study in more detail. Students are given help with these decisions; it's not like people just toss a coin.

 

[cristo]

This reasoning is perfectly fine for the student that already knows what they want to be when they grow up. For the vast majority of students, this is not the case. Already, hypercompetitive medical schools select for students that decided they want to be doctors when they were in middle school, and have built up a resume/CV specifically for this purpose over 10+ years.

This isn't a comparison that can be made (presuming we're still talking about the original question), since medicine in the UK is an undergraduate degree.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This isn't a comparison that can be made (presuming we're still talking about the original question), since medicine in the UK is an undergraduate degree.

In the US, medical school is a professional version of graduate school, much like Law, Nursing, Dentistry, or Business. Typically, "pre-med" (undergraduate) students major in biochemistry, biology, etc.

My point is that shortening the time-to-degree will preferentially select for students who decided on their career early in life, prior to entering college. This may be fine for the majority of PF posters, but this is not fine for the majority of college students (or people in general). Furthermore, it's debatable whether selecting for "early career adopters" is good for *any* profession.

 

[Mépris]

Maybe that's something to do with your culture, but I don't think we should be treating 16/17 year olds like 8 year olds and telling them that they are unable to make a decision as to whether they want to further their education. No, instead, at the end of compulsory education you should be given the choice as to whether you wish to stay on in education or not. If so, then you choice to reduce the breadth of your study by about a half in order to study in more detail. Students are given help with these decisions; it's not like people just toss a coin.

I take it you had particularly good career/further education guidance? In my experience, it was rubbish. For the most part.

And this:

This may be fine for the majority of PF posters, but this is not fine for the majority of college students (or people in general).

 

[Klockan3]

This reasoning is perfectly fine for the student that already knows what they want to be when they grow up. For the vast majority of students, this is not the case. Already, hypercompetitive medical schools select for students that decided they want to be doctors when they were in middle school, and have built up a resume/CV specifically for this purpose over 10+ years. Does this make them better doctors?

Universities should not be in the business of churning out thoughtless robots.

It is not like you can't take courses offered in high school later on in life just like you do in the US, why are you so narrow minded? Most colleges offer a year of high school physics/maths/chem to get eligible for science degrees. But a large majority of those who chose to study science went for the science track in high school which is a common track for most since it makes you eligible for every college track while for example the social science track don't.

Also the over-competitiveness over medical school is not like this at all, it is due to the supply for medical education not satisfying the demand which presses up the wages of physicians, which in the end means that they are basically overpaid in terms of how hard it is to get that position. Thus people put in ridiculous amount of work getting those golden seats in the classroom since that seat is worth so much. If you instead supplied seats to everyone interested and then had much stricter rules once you were there all of those problems would be gone.

My point is that shortening the time-to-degree will preferentially select for students who decided on their career early in life, prior to entering college. This may be fine for the majority of PF posters, but this is not fine for the majority of college students (or people in general). Furthermore, it's debatable whether selecting for "early career adopters" is good for *any* profession.

Honestly, what is the difference between this and the current American system where you already can choose to study calculus, physics, chemistry and biology in high school? Why not just make that curriculum the norm instead with some gen ed on the side? Then you would have the Swedish high school, even in the science track we still have to study history, geography, Swedish, English, a third foreign language(you start with it in middle school), social science and then some electives. Our high school isn't any more specialized than yours, it is just standardized in such a way as to make colleges able to require things out of their students while in the US all colleges have to assume that the arriving students don't know anything at all.