[QUOTE="hokies1313"]I have to agree with Theo. General Education requirements are eating up a year of my college education, most of it is stuff I've already learned before. I'd much rather delve into the meat of my degree in order to become better prepared for my job and profession in the future.ttobba07I agree that it is eating time. It is nearly 2 years of my college, but my college makes it were u have to take 200 and 300 level gen ed courses so u don't fall into taking easy classes that u already know. I could see how that could help. But I must point out that learning at a 2000 or 3000 level for Geology will do very little for a Political Science major, or a spanish major, or an arts major.
How would you change the education system in America?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ttobba07"][QUOTE="hokies1313"]I have to agree with Theo. General Education requirements are eating up a year of my college education, most of it is stuff I've already learned before. I'd much rather delve into the meat of my degree in order to become better prepared for my job and profession in the future.hokies1313I agree that it is eating time. It is nearly 2 years of my college, but my college makes it were u have to take 200 and 300 level gen ed courses so u don't fall into taking easy classes that u already know. I could see how that could help. But I must point out that learning at a 2000 or 3000 level for Geology will do very little for a Political Science major, or a spanish major, or a arts major. I agree. I have to take a level 300 humanities class in theater. How is that going to me be a software engineer?
I'm not following why you are drawing this conclusion. Considering the fact that many universities are private institutions we would have to abolish the private sector in order to do so. My thinking is that people will go to the schools they want to, and we do not have a good reason to make it seem like they have to go a certain route.Apparently not. I guess with that thinking I see here we should abolish universities and have tech schools.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not following why you are drawing this conclusion. Considering the fact that many universities are private institutions we would have to abolish the private sector in order to do so. My thinking is that people will go to the schools they want to, and we do not have a good reason to make it seem like they have to go a certain route.I was joking....:(Apparently not. I guess with that thinking I see here we should abolish universities and have tech schools.
Welkabonz
It's the internet... I am accustomed to us disagreeing.I was joking....:(
LJS9502_basic
1. stricter standards for being a teacher. My mom has worked at a few schools and while most teachers are great and put in extra effort, enough see it as a cake job with good benefits and summer vacation and dont care about the kids.
2. Get rid of the parcel tax and get funding some other, better way. Idunno how it is elsewhere but in California the method for raising money for schools is rediculous. Everyone should have to pay taxes, and a decent amount, for education, even if you have no kids; youre investing in the future of your country, quit your bellyaching.
3. Payouts for good grades. It goes against my personal beliefs, but it works. Pay kids for good grades. Not a lot, but if you manage a 3.50 or higher you get 50 bucks, a 3.00 or higher you get 30 bucks, 2.50 or higher you get 10, and anything lower you get nothing. I mean, kids work hard in school and they need a cheap, immediate reward (I remember how upset I got every time my folks told me "It will pay off eventually").
[QUOTE="ttobba07"] I agree. I have to take a level 300 humanities class in theater. How is that going to me be a software engineer?hokies1313My point exactly. Me taking music literature or intro architecture is not going to help me with my Political Science degree. However I could see how taking an English class on speeching writing might help. So there are obviously some benefits to Gen. Ed, but only if one does it right.
this is what upsets me about the college environment.
too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.
college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.
nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.
I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.
My point exactly. Me taking music literature or intro architecture is not going to help me with my Political Science degree. However I could see how taking an English class on speeching writing might help. So there are obviously some benefits to Gen. Ed, but only if one does it right.[QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="ttobba07"] I agree. I have to take a level 300 humanities class in theater. How is that going to me be a software engineer?mrbojangles25
this is what upsets me about the college environment.
too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.
college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.
nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.
I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.
Nobody says you can't take them. But they should not be required. Requiring a bunch of cIasses irrelevant to your major screws with your future--and that is what the purpose of education is.
this is what upsets me about the college environment.>too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.mrbojangles25I want to know how things work, but I also want to know how things work as they apply to what I am doing in life. I'm taking philosophy classes that have nothing to do with my major because I want to know what it is about. I want to take history classes because I want to learn about history and why things turned out the way they did. However, I'd rather get to choose what I want to learn about (especially when I pay 25K+ dollars a year) than have it all dictated to me.
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
[QUOTE="hokies1313"] My point exactly. Me taking music literature or intro architecture is not going to help me with my Political Science degree. However I could see how taking an English class on speeching writing might help. So there are obviously some benefits to Gen. Ed, but only if one does it right.Theokhoth
this is what upsets me about the college environment.
too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.
college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.
nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.
I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.
Nobody says you can't take them. But they should not be required. Requiring a bunch of cIasses irrelevant to your major screws with your future--and that is what the purpose of education is.
Of course they should. If you don't want a well rounded education...select a trade school and be done with. Again....higher education is not about getting you a job but EDUCATING. The degree will possibly get you a job in the end but that is not the reason schools exist.My point exactly. Me taking music literature or intro architecture is not going to help me with my Political Science degree. However I could see how taking an English class on speeching writing might help. So there are obviously some benefits to Gen. Ed, but only if one does it right.[QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="ttobba07"] I agree. I have to take a level 300 humanities class in theater. How is that going to me be a software engineer?mrbojangles25
this is what upsets me about the college environment.
too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.
college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.
nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.
I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.
Good for you, I for one don't care about the classes I was forced to take. And I believe that if people don't want to learn anything about that subject, especially if it has nothing to do with their major, then they shouldn't have to take it. Freedom to choose isn't bad.[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="hokies1313"] My point exactly. Me taking music literature or intro architecture is not going to help me with my Political Science degree. However I could see how taking an English class on speeching writing might help. So there are obviously some benefits to Gen. Ed, but only if one does it right.WhiteSnake5000
this is what upsets me about the college environment.
too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.
college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.
nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.
I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.
Good for you, I for one don't care about the classes I was forced to take. And I believe that if people don't want to learn anything about that subject, especially if it has nothing to do with their major, then they shouldn't have to take it. Freedom to choose isn't bad.I can empathize, I really can, but I think it is good people are forced to take it. It makes them more worldy, more comprehensive...idunno how to phrase it.
If all we did was take classes that pertained to our future career we would end up with a bunch of people that know a lot about one thing, little about anything else, and cant appreciate knowledge for knowledge's sake.
My point exactly. Me taking music literature or intro architecture is not going to help me with my Political Science degree. However I could see how taking an English class on speeching writing might help. So there are obviously some benefits to Gen. Ed, but only if one does it right.[QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="ttobba07"] I agree. I have to take a level 300 humanities class in theater. How is that going to me be a software engineer?mrbojangles25
this is what upsets me about the college environment.
too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.
college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.
nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.
I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with general education courses in college. I like them in fact. I do however hate the fact that most of my general eds, I cannot choose. I am forced to take Theater 306. I would much rather put that toward chemistry, meteorology, or graphic design. I think gen ed courses should be more open to choice. Maybe my college is different but they force certain gen eds on different majors.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
this is what upsets me about the college environment.
too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.
college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.
nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.
I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.
LJS9502_basic
Nobody says you can't take them. But they should not be required. Requiring a bunch of cIasses irrelevant to your major screws with your future--and that is what the purpose of education is.
Of course they should. If you don't want a well rounded education...select a trade school and be done with. Again....higher education is not about getting you a job but EDUCATING. The degree will possibly get you a job in the end but that is not the reason schools exist.Education is a MEANS, not an END. You don't get educated for no reason. Your career, your FUTURE, is the very purpose of education and should be stressed.
Of course they should. If you don't want a well rounded education...select a trade school and be done with. Again....higher education is not about getting you a job but EDUCATING. The degree will possibly get you a job in the end but that is not the reason schools exist.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Nobody says you can't take them. But they should not be required. Requiring a bunch of cIasses irrelevant to your major screws with your future--and that is what the purpose of education is.
Theokhoth
Education is a MEANS, not an END. You don't get educated for no reason. Your career, your FUTURE, is the very purpose of education and should be stressed.
Some people actually like education for educations sake.Anyway the goal of the thread I believe is to suggest ways to make people better educated....not less. Which seems to be your goal.
[QUOTE="Oblivionfan10"]More emphasis put on the academics than athletics, discipline is upped, and less tolerance for low performancefidosimThere is, however, the fact that we're all fat. I am not talking about PE, I am talking sports. The athletes at my school are all given special treatment: 3 were caught drinking and were just given a 3 day suspension. They can still particpate in sports even though they were caught drinking. My school feels that if we lose recognition for sports then the school fails
Better educated or less educated? So 'better' depends on the amount of education?Anyway the goal of the thread I believe is to suggest ways to make people better educated....not less. Which seems to be your goal.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Of course they should. If you don't want a well rounded education...select a trade school and be done with. Again....higher education is not about getting you a job but EDUCATING. The degree will possibly get you a job in the end but that is not the reason schools exist.
LJS9502_basic
Education is a MEANS, not an END. You don't get educated for no reason. Your career, your FUTURE, is the very purpose of education and should be stressed.
Some people actually like education for educations sake.Anyway the goal of the thread I believe is to suggest ways to make people better educated....not less. Which seems to be your goal.
These people are usually old, rich and content with their lives. Nobody gets an education, sits down and goes "Wow, I feel so good that I've been educated! Now I'm going to do nothing with that education and just muse for the rest of my life."
"Better educated" has nothing to do with general education requirements. :lol: Please, don't distort my position (again) by implying that I'm against what I'm for and for what I'm against; "better" education is not the same as "more" education. Schools that give importance to studies related to students' majors perform better than schools that do not, and students of those schools are more successful on average than students that are not. That is a fact.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Better educated or less educated? So 'better' depends on the amount of education?Assuming one goes to a decent school and puts energy into it....then they should be better educated. However, I believe the purpose of this thread would be to overhaul the system to benefit the student. Less education clearly does not.Anyway the goal of the thread I believe is to suggest ways to make people better educated....not less. Which seems to be your goal.
Welkabonz
Good for you, I for one don't care about the classes I was forced to take. And I believe that if people don't want to learn anything about that subject, especially if it has nothing to do with their major, then they shouldn't have to take it. Freedom to choose isn't bad.[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
this is what upsets me about the college environment.
too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.
college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.
nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.
I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.
mrbojangles25
I can empathize, I really can, but I think it is good people are forced to take it. It makes them more worldy, more comprehensive...idunno how to phrase it.
If all we did was take classes that pertained to our future career we would end up with a bunch of people that know a lot about one thing, little about anything else, and cant appreciate knowledge for knowledge's sake.
I have learned much of what I know, mostly outside of school. If you really think you need school to be "more comprehensive or more worldly", you have yet to see the world for what it really is. School can be useful, but it doesn't necessarily make you any of those things. People are taking classes because they have to. If you let people take classes they are interested in, they are more likely to be successful in it, and actually care about it. "If all we did was take classes that pertained to our future career we would end up with a bunch of people that know a lot about one thing, little about anything else, and cant appreciate knowledge for knowledge's sake." Yes, this is why we're different. I have no interest in Mathematics (and I've took around 14 years of Math). So if I ever got into a conversation with a mathematician, I really wouldn't want to be in that conversation, it doesn't interest me. Same way someone who isn't in to history, wouldn't be interested in talking with a historian. There are many things in this world, and people like different things, it is what makes us individuals, we don't all have know everything, or be well educated in something that doesn't draw us in... Still, there are a lot of people who have similar interests to me or you, and as long as there are people with similar interests, that's all that matters.Better educated or less educated? So 'better' depends on the amount of education?Assuming one goes to a decent school and puts energy into it....then they should be better educated. However, I believe the purpose of this thread would be to overhaul the system to benefit the student. Less education clearly does not.[QUOTE="Welkabonz"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
Anyway the goal of the thread I believe is to suggest ways to make people better educated....not less. Which seems to be your goal.
LJS9502_basic
They aren't getting less education by eliminating general education requirements. They have their general education by the time they hit college; from there on they should focus on their futures. Eliminating GERs refine education and make it "better."
More education =/= better education.
Assuming one goes to a decent school and puts energy into it....then they should be better educated. However, I believe the purpose of this thread would be to overhaul the system to benefit the student. Less education clearly does not.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Welkabonz"] Better educated or less educated? So 'better' depends on the amount of education?Theokhoth
They aren't getting less education by eliminating general education requirements. They have their general education by the time they hit college; from there on they should focus on their futures.
They are getting less education. And grade and high school DO NOT offer the same general courses. At least not in a good university.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Assuming one goes to a decent school and puts energy into it....then they should be better educated. However, I believe the purpose of this thread would be to overhaul the system to benefit the student. Less education clearly does not.
LJS9502_basic
They aren't getting less education by eliminating general education requirements. They have their general education by the time they hit college; from there on they should focus on their futures.
They are getting less education. And grade and high school DO NOT offer the same general courses. At least not in a good university."Less education" is not "Worse education" and there is such a thing as "irrelevant education." All of these things you are ignoring; a geology course does nothing for a psychology major and a sociology course does nothing for a math major; why take these courses? For learning them anyway? Odds are they won't be learned but forgotten within a month of taking the cIass. General education requirements for colleges DO NOT WORK; they do not provide the optimum education for students, they do not serve the ultimate purpose of education ( the assurance of a bright and prosperous future for individuals and, by extension, their society), and they do not aid the student in progressing in college. They should be left to high school and under.
They are getting less education. And grade and high school DO NOT offer the same general courses. At least not in a good university.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
They aren't getting less education by eliminating general education requirements. They have their general education by the time they hit college; from there on they should focus on their futures.
Theokhoth
"Less education" is not "Worse education" and there is such a thing as "irrelevant education." All of these things you are ignoring; a geology course does nothing for a psychology major and a sociology course does nothing for a math major; why take these courses? For learning them anyway? Odds are they won't be learned but forgotten within a month of taking the cIass. General education requirements DO NOT WORK; they do not provide the optimum education for students, they do not serve the ultimate purpose of education ( the assurance of a bright and prosperous future for individuals and, by extension, their society), and they do not aid the student in progressing in college. They should be left to high school and under.
Dear theoLess education is exactly what I said it was....less education. If college is too taxing for someone I suggest they not go. Tech schools get one out and working and don't put any "unnecessay" studies on the individual. That would be the route I suggest for someone that isn't interested in learning subjects they may not have discovered.
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="hokies1313"] My point exactly. Me taking music literature or intro architecture is not going to help me with my Political Science degree. However I could see how taking an English class on speeching writing might help. So there are obviously some benefits to Gen. Ed, but only if one does it right.ttobba07
this is what upsets me about the college environment.
too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.
college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.
nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.
I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with general education courses in college. I like them in fact. I do however hate the fact that most of my general eds, I cannot choose. I am forced to take Theater 306. I would much rather put that toward chemistry, meteorology, or graphic design. I think gen ed courses should be more open to choice. Maybe my college is different but they force certain gen eds on different majors.oh that sucks, I can see why you hate it.
At my school we could choose from a bunch of different classes that were all kind of similiar. But to be forced to take one specific class is kind of a bummer.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]They are getting less education. And grade and high school DO NOT offer the same general courses. At least not in a good university.
LJS9502_basic
"Less education" is not "Worse education" and there is such a thing as "irrelevant education." All of these things you are ignoring; a geology course does nothing for a psychology major and a sociology course does nothing for a math major; why take these courses? For learning them anyway? Odds are they won't be learned but forgotten within a month of taking the cIass. General education requirements DO NOT WORK; they do not provide the optimum education for students, they do not serve the ultimate purpose of education ( the assurance of a bright and prosperous future for individuals and, by extension, their society), and they do not aid the student in progressing in college. They should be left to high school and under.
Dear theoLess education is exactly what I said it was....less education. If college is too taxing for someone I suggest they not go. Tech schools get one out and working and don't put any "unnecessay" studies on the individual. That would be the route I suggest for someone that isn't interested in learning subjects they may not have discovered.
It's not a matter of being taxing. It's a matter of what you are learning and what you COULD BE learning and what you SHOULD BE learning.
Tech schools tend to be successful. . . but only for technology. That should be a hint that, hey, the major-intensive system works.
Dear theo[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
"Less education" is not "Worse education" and there is such a thing as "irrelevant education." All of these things you are ignoring; a geology course does nothing for a psychology major and a sociology course does nothing for a math major; why take these courses? For learning them anyway? Odds are they won't be learned but forgotten within a month of taking the cIass. General education requirements DO NOT WORK; they do not provide the optimum education for students, they do not serve the ultimate purpose of education ( the assurance of a bright and prosperous future for individuals and, by extension, their society), and they do not aid the student in progressing in college. They should be left to high school and under.
Theokhoth
Less education is exactly what I said it was....less education. If college is too taxing for someone I suggest they not go. Tech schools get one out and working and don't put any "unnecessay" studies on the individual. That would be the route I suggest for someone that isn't interested in learning subjects they may not have discovered.
It's not a matter of being taxing. It's a matter of what you are learning and what you COULD BE learning and what you SHOULD BE learning.
Tech schools tend to be successful. . . but only for technology. That should be a hint that, hey, the major-intensive system works.
You have the requirements for the major which have to be studied as well. It's not like you are losing out on those classes so I fail to see a problem.And while tech schools work for technology the individual does not have higher education. They are considered different.;)
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]They are getting less education. And grade and high school DO NOT offer the same general courses. At least not in a good university.
LJS9502_basic
"Less education" is not "Worse education" and there is such a thing as "irrelevant education." All of these things you are ignoring; a geology course does nothing for a psychology major and a sociology course does nothing for a math major; why take these courses? For learning them anyway? Odds are they won't be learned but forgotten within a month of taking the cIass. General education requirements DO NOT WORK; they do not provide the optimum education for students, they do not serve the ultimate purpose of education ( the assurance of a bright and prosperous future for individuals and, by extension, their society), and they do not aid the student in progressing in college. They should be left to high school and under.
Dear theoLess education is exactly what I said it was....less education. If college is too taxing for someone I suggest they not go. Tech schools get one out and working and don't put any "unnecessay" studies on the individual. That would be the route I suggest for someone that isn't interested in learning subjects they may not have discovered.
exactly.
And that is also why 4-year school generally land you a better job than a trade school does.
Employers look at someone with BS degree and they say "Here is a well-rounded individual that spent 4 years at college". They dont care about your specific classes, they dont really care about the degree so long as its relevant...they care about the achievement.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Dear theo
Less education is exactly what I said it was....less education. If college is too taxing for someone I suggest they not go. Tech schools get one out and working and don't put any "unnecessay" studies on the individual. That would be the route I suggest for someone that isn't interested in learning subjects they may not have discovered.
LJS9502_basic
It's not a matter of being taxing. It's a matter of what you are learning and what you COULD BE learning and what you SHOULD BE learning.
Tech schools tend to be successful. . . but only for technology. That should be a hint that, hey, the major-intensive system works.
You have the requirements for the major which have to be studied as well. It's not like you are losing out on those classes so I fail to see a problem.And while tech schools work for technology the individual does not have higher education. They are considered different.;)
I know. . .I've been arguing this whole time that you should focus on the requirements of your major and not an irrelevant course.:|
Because they only study technology. . . . higher education has nothing to do with how many courses you take.
Dear theo[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
"Less education" is not "Worse education" and there is such a thing as "irrelevant education." All of these things you are ignoring; a geology course does nothing for a psychology major and a sociology course does nothing for a math major; why take these courses? For learning them anyway? Odds are they won't be learned but forgotten within a month of taking the cIass. General education requirements DO NOT WORK; they do not provide the optimum education for students, they do not serve the ultimate purpose of education ( the assurance of a bright and prosperous future for individuals and, by extension, their society), and they do not aid the student in progressing in college. They should be left to high school and under.
mrbojangles25
Less education is exactly what I said it was....less education. If college is too taxing for someone I suggest they not go. Tech schools get one out and working and don't put any "unnecessay" studies on the individual. That would be the route I suggest for someone that isn't interested in learning subjects they may not have discovered.
exactly.
And that is also why 4-year school generally land you a better job than a trade school does.
Employers look at someone with BS degree and they say "Here is a well-rounded individual that spent 4 years at college". They dont care about your specific classes, they dont really care about the degree so long as its relevant...they care about the achievement.
What an employer thinks is irrelevant to what you have learned. They may hire you for your degree but they'll just as soon fire you if you do a poor job; your well-rounded education will not help you keep a job unless, as you just said, your degree is relevant to what you can do. Therefore, it is best to focus on what you can do rather than be a jack-of-all-trades and not excel in anything because you're too focused on everything.
I wouldn't assume what the topic creator wanted us to work toward, nor would I assume that there are no inferred redundancies. But if we are just talking about the schools that happen to educate as much as possible and as efficiently as possible, the prospective student should know what the school is about and what it expects before they are in. There are, of course, more liberal colleges out there.Assuming one goes to a decent school and puts energy into it....then they should be better educated. However, I believe the purpose of this thread would be to overhaul the system to benefit the student. Less education clearly does not.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Dear theo
Less education is exactly what I said it was....less education. If college is too taxing for someone I suggest they not go. Tech schools get one out and working and don't put any "unnecessay" studies on the individual. That would be the route I suggest for someone that isn't interested in learning subjects they may not have discovered.
Theokhoth
exactly.
And that is also why 4-year school generally land you a better job than a trade school does.
Employers look at someone with BS degree and they say "Here is a well-rounded individual that spent 4 years at college". They dont care about your specific classes, they dont really care about the degree so long as its relevant...they care about the achievement.
What an employer thinks is irrelevant to what you have learned. They may hire you for your degree but they'll just as soon fire you if you do a poor job; your well-rounded education will not help you keep a job unless, as you just said, your degree is relevant to what you can do. Therefore, it is best to focus on what you can do rather than be a jack-of-all-trades and not excel in anything because you're too focused on everything.
ya I agree but c'mon the majority of your classes at a 4 year school are either major or support classes. I forget exactly what it was but GE and Elective classes made up about 40 of my 185 units I needed to take.
When people hire you, its because A.) you impressed them during the interview, and B.) they feel youre well qualified. If you went to a four year school, they know youre specialized and you know your stuff. The other stuff (GEs and Electives) just improves your thinking skills and, like I said, makes you a more well-rounded person.
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Dear theo
Less education is exactly what I said it was....less education. If college is too taxing for someone I suggest they not go. Tech schools get one out and working and don't put any "unnecessay" studies on the individual. That would be the route I suggest for someone that isn't interested in learning subjects they may not have discovered.
Theokhoth
exactly.
And that is also why 4-year school generally land you a better job than a trade school does.
Employers look at someone with BS degree and they say "Here is a well-rounded individual that spent 4 years at college". They dont care about your specific classes, they dont really care about the degree so long as its relevant...they care about the achievement.
What an employer thinks is irrelevant to what you have learned. They may hire you for your degree but they'll just as soon fire you if you do a poor job; your well-rounded education will not help you keep a job unless, as you just said, your degree is relevant to what you can do. Therefore, it is best to focus on what you can do rather than be a jack-of-all-trades and not excel in anything because you're too focused on everything.
degree has almost no relevance in the workplace.
As I said, they see your degree as something well-rounded. They say "This is a person I can teach, who is open to anything." When youre on the job they dont say "You know how to do this, you did it in college". They say "Here, let me show you how we do it here".
I dont know if youre done with school yet, but youre going to find out that, from a technical standpoint, a college degree is 90% useless. As I said, a 4-year degree is an acheivement, a symbol.
Dont get me wrong, its a good thing. I do in fact use some stuff I learned, not to mention I was genuinely interested in my major, but 95% of what I needed to know about my job I learned on the job within the first 3 months. I got hired not because of my degree relevance to my career, but simply because I had a degree. As I said, a degree shows that your receptive to knowledge, and having a diverse class selection reinforces this concept...learning on the job quickly and efficiently shows your employer that his or her faith was well-placed.
I would add naptime.
You have the requirements for the major which have to be studied as well. It's not like you are losing out on those classes so I fail to see a problem.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
It's not a matter of being taxing. It's a matter of what you are learning and what you COULD BE learning and what you SHOULD BE learning.
Tech schools tend to be successful. . . but only for technology. That should be a hint that, hey, the major-intensive system works.
Theokhoth
And while tech schools work for technology the individual does not have higher education. They are considered different.;)
I know. . .I've been arguing this whole time that you should focus on the requirements of your major and not an irrelevant course.:|
Because they only study technology. . . . higher education has nothing to do with how many courses you take.
And I've been saying the courses are not irrelevant in regard to the mission of the university. Which is education.Higher education is what is taught at the university level. Who said anything about the amount of classes though you will notice most tech schools are two years or less while degrees are generally 4 years. Logistically that would mean less courses.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I wouldn't assume what the topic creator wanted us to work toward, nor would I assume that there are no inferred redundancies. But if we are just talking about the schools that happen to educate as much as possible and as efficiently as possible, the prospective student should know what the school is about and what it expects before they are in. There are, of course, more liberal colleges out there.I'd hope it wasn't the goal of the TC to change the education system for the worse.:|Assuming one goes to a decent school and puts energy into it....then they should be better educated. However, I believe the purpose of this thread would be to overhaul the system to benefit the student. Less education clearly does not.
Welkabonz
I would put a computer into every single desk so we would stop wasting money on paper and could just study whatever easily. Everyone would be connected via lan and have access to the internet for research. This would be the ultimate tool for learning.
Looking at television shows and seeing youth watch it, I'm not surprised at why they're so stupid...
Complete abolition/reformation - and a focus on learning and developing interests rather than studying to the test or training them for jobs.FamikingYayyyy! Discover their purpose in life, find their interests, focus more on actual practical things to get You a job (soliciting, company society, the differences in salary and jobs) and more focus on healthcare. More focus on learning to learn and socializing. Basically throw 90% of what they teach now out of the window since nobody is interested in that safe for the teachers. It's completely ridiculous.
Privatize it.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
this is what upsets me about the college environment.
too many kids think this way. they see college as a direct route to a better job and want nothing to do with anything else.
college is, or was, about learning. More importantly, college was about a learning environment where your peers were interested in all kinds of things. Now colleges are commercial businesses catering to the get-in/get-out crowd and it ruins it.
nowadays its not "why does it work like that?"; no, instead its "Will this be on the test?". Kids want to memorize, not learn, and its sad.
I am happy I was "forced" to take classes that had nothing to do with my major. My life would be a much less interesting place without the history, philosophy, and other cool classes that dont pertain to microbiology and organic chemistry.
LJS9502_basic
Nobody says you can't take them. But they should not be required. Requiring a bunch of cIasses irrelevant to your major screws with your future--and that is what the purpose of education is.
Of course they should. If you don't want a well rounded education...select a trade school and be done with. Again....higher education is not about getting you a job but EDUCATING. The degree will possibly get you a job in the end but that is not the reason schools exist.I have to agree with you and Bojangles on this subject.
A 4yr university education is not just about learning about your major, it's about becoming a well rounded individual through higher education. I fully support "forcing" kids to complete Gen. Ed. courses in college. I'm happy FSU "forced" me to take them.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
exactly.
And that is also why 4-year school generally land you a better job than a trade school does.
Employers look at someone with BS degree and they say "Here is a well-rounded individual that spent 4 years at college". They dont care about your specific classes, they dont really care about the degree so long as its relevant...they care about the achievement.
mrbojangles25
What an employer thinks is irrelevant to what you have learned. They may hire you for your degree but they'll just as soon fire you if you do a poor job; your well-rounded education will not help you keep a job unless, as you just said, your degree is relevant to what you can do. Therefore, it is best to focus on what you can do rather than be a jack-of-all-trades and not excel in anything because you're too focused on everything.
degree has almost no relevance in the workplace.
As I said, they see your degree as something well-rounded. They say "This is a person I can teach, who is open to anything." When youre on the job they dont say "You know how to do this, you did it in college". They say "Here, let me show you how we do it here".
I dont know if youre done with school yet, but youre going to find out that, from a technical standpoint, a college degree is 90% useless. As I said, a 4-year degree is an acheivement, a symbol.
Dont get me wrong, its a good thing. I do in fact use some stuff I learned, not to mention I was genuinely interested in my major, but 95% of what I needed to know about my job I learned on the job within the first 3 months. I got hired not because of my degree relevance to my career, but simply because I had a degree. As I said, a degree shows that your receptive to knowledge, and having a diverse class selection reinforces this concept...learning on the job quickly and efficiently shows your employer that his or her faith was well-placed.
YOu are 100% correct.
Before the recession hit (and my company put a freeze on new hires), I helped my company interview & hire new engineers and field technicians. A 4yr degree merely showed us that someone possessed the determination and intelligence to follow through with a (major) commitment. The tasks/projects a new employee would be expected to perform for us would be taught by us.
We fully expect to spend a minimum of 5mos training a straight-out-of-college employee at my company.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment