The US vs The UK System Of Higher Education

[BOAS]

Hello,

firstly i'd like to point out that I realize these systems aren't exclusive to the U.S and the U.K, but I'm using them as examples because a lot of what I read on here is regarding the U.S system and my own experience relates to the U.K system.

Essentially, I would like to generate a discussion on the pros and cons of the U.S system of majors and minors, and the U.K system of 'this is your subject, this is what you'll study'.

If I understand it correctly, in the U.S you don't have to actually declare the subject you wish to 'major in' (which I hope is synonymous with 'get your degree in') until the end of your second year at university. I think it must be a little more complicated than this, because someone who wishes to study English literature might very well get into Harvard, but I assume they won't allow that person to declare themselves a physics major once they're in...

This system does seem to provide students with the opportunity to try out various courses and get a good feel for what it is they wish to devote their time to. I've seen people posting on here saying that they're taking all manner of different combinations of courses and this seems attractive to me.

When I left school, I started an architecture degree having never studied it before. In the U.K system, from day 1 you are an architecture 'major' (we don't use that term). So every single one of my courses was geared towards the subject. As it turns out, I really did not enjoy this course and had to go through a difficult period of uncertainty.

I eventually got myself sorted out and was accepted onto a physics degree. I'm much happier now. I do think that if we had the U.S system, I could have turned up to university with the intention of studying architecture, realized it wasn't for me, re-shuffled some courses and tried to gear myself towards physics.

An obvious downside to this system though, is that it doesn't seem possible for a student in the U.S to cover the same amount of subject specific material in the same amount of time a student in the U.K can. My courses throughout my degree have and will be maths and physics based.

I hope this generates some discussion,

i'd love to get some more understanding of the situation because there are opportunities for me to study in the U.S down the line.

regards,

BOAS.

 

[lisab]

Good idea for a thread here - we do get questions about all kinds of education systems, and there is a lot of misunderstanding out there!

Part of the problem with the US system is that there is no one system. Each college/university (the terms are usually interchangeable in the US) has its own rules. There are some similarities, though.

Generally, it is possible to change from an English major to a Physics major. But you may need to meet certain requirements before doing so (e.g., pass first-year physics classes).

 

[WannabeNewton]

An obvious downside to this system though, is that it doesn't seem possible for a student in the U.S to cover the same amount of subject specific material in the same amount of time a student in the U.K can.

This isn't true. It depends entirely on the university and how extensive their general education criteria are. I'll have finished up to and including QFT 2 before the end of my 3rd year and I only have language requirements left. The Arts and Sciences school in my university has a terrible policy of not allowing AP credit from high school to replace these pointless, time-wasting language and general education classes which is not true of all US universities. Many others will let you basically use AP credits to replace such classes and you can skip all the general education requirements and focus solely on the classes pertaining to your major, spending more time on research, or self-studying. Beyond these pointless general education requirements, you basically have all the freedom you want to go hard on physics and math classes if that is to your liking.

In other words the real downfall of the US system compared to the UK system is the almost ubiquitous presence of general education requirements. They are useless time-sinks that put unnecessary pressure on you and leave you with a bad taste in your mouth-seriously the time would be much better spent on taking more classes pertaining to your major. Why make a student waste time on classes like western mythology and Victorian literature? I mean if you like it then all the power to you, go take it. But to someone like me who cares less than little about such things, the US system is truly, truly frustrating.

 

[BOAS]

Good idea for a thread here - we do get questions about all kinds of education systems, and there is a lot of misunderstanding out there!

Part of the problem with the US system is that there is no one system. Each college/university (the terms are usually interchangeable in the US) has its own rules. There are some similarities, though.

Generally, it is possible to change from an English major to a Physics major. But you may need to meet certain requirements before doing so (e.g., pass first-year physics classes).

Interesting.

I don't know how many subjects someone from high school studies before applying to university, but if it's anything like the U.K's 'A-levels', then most people have narrowed their options down at least a little before starting university.

When applying for a university, is it the university in general that sets a criteria or do departments have their own? For example, does a prospective student need to make their intentions known and have their application approved by their potential departments admissions tutor?

My application to university was heavily geared towards my subject area because I knew it would be someone from the department reading it.

 

[BOAS]

This isn't true. It depends entirely on the university and how extensive their general education criteria are. I'll have finished up to and including QFT 2 before the end of my 3rd year and I only have language requirements left. The Arts and Sciences school in my university has a terrible policy of not allowing AP credit from high school to replace these pointless, time-wasting language and general education classes which is not true of all US universities. Many others will let you basically use AP credits to replace such classes and you can skip all the general education requirements and focus solely on the classes pertaining to your major, spending more time on research, or self-studying. Beyond these pointless general education requirements, you basically have all the freedom you want to go hard on physics and math classes if that is to your liking.

In other words the real downfall of the US system compared to the UK system is the almost ubiquitous presence of general education requirements. They are useless time-sinks that put unnecessary pressure on you and leave you with a bad taste in your mouth-seriously the time would be much better spent on taking more classes pertaining to your major. Why make a student waste time on classes like western mythology and Victorian literature? I mean if you like it then all the power to you, go take it. But to someone like me who cares less than little about such things, the US system is truly, truly frustrating.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Am I correct in thinking that an 'AP class' is like a 'further course in x, at a level akin to university'?

These general education requirements do baffle me when I read other's posts on this site and I sympathise with your frustration. It seems to me that they either A, get in the way of studying what you really find interesting, or B provide an 'easy' course to fill a number of credits.

My second option is quite possibly an oversimplified view of things, but when the choice is QFT 2 or film studies, western mythology etc, one seems significantly easier than the other.

I appreciate that at some point, everyone needs to fulfill certain requirements to graduate with an actual degree in subject x, but it seems like people could do so much faster and more cheaply, without taking subjects they consider a waste of time.

 

[George Jones]

Generally, it is possible to change from an English major to a Physics major. But you may need to meet certain requirements before doing so (e.g., pass first-year physics classes).

I have taught two students who double-majored in English and Physics, each at a different university in Canada.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Am I correct in thinking that an 'AP class' is like a 'further course in x, at a level akin to university'?

Yes indeed.

These general education requirements do baffle me when I read other's posts on this site and I sympathise with your frustration. It seems to me that they either A, get in the way of studying what you really find interesting, or B provide an 'easy' course to fill a number of credits.

Yes and they can be a lot if work. Langauge classes meet Mon. to Fri. and you get homework every single day. It's ridiculous. And I have zero interest in learning a new language so that makes the ordeal so much worse. Sometimes I contemplate switching to engineering physics just to avoid the language requirement. God I hate the Arts and Sciences school at my university.

 

[BOAS]

Yes indeed.



Yes and they can be a lot if work. Langauge classes meet Mon. to Fri. and you get homework every single day. It's ridiculous. And I have zero interest in learning a new language so that makes the ordeal so much worse. Sometimes I contemplate switching to engineering physics just to avoid the language requirement. God I hate the Arts and Sciences school at my university.

Do they give a rationale for why the requirements differ?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Do they give a rationale for why the requirements differ?

"The faculty considers competence in a foreign language essential for an educated person. Studying a language other than one’s own helps students understand the dynamics of language, our fundamental intellectual tool, and enables students to understand another culture. The sooner a student acquires competence, the sooner it will be useful. Hence, work toward the foreign language requirement should be undertaken in the first two years. Students postponing the language requirement for junior and senior years risk not graduating in time. Courses in foreign languages and/or literature are taught in the College of Arts and Sciences by the following departments: Africana Studies and Research Center, Asian Studies, China and Asia-Pacific Studies, Classics, Comparative Literature, German Studies, Linguistics, Near Eastern Studies, and Romance Studies."

It's just nonsense really. I really couldn't care less about understanding the dynamics of language or understanding other cultures.

 

[WWGD]

"The faculty considers competence in a foreign language essential for an educated person. Studying a language other than one’s own helps students understand the dynamics of language, our fundamental intellectual tool, and enables students to understand another culture. The sooner a student acquires competence, the sooner it will be useful. Hence, work toward the foreign language requirement should be undertaken in the first two years. Students postponing the language requirement for junior and senior years risk not graduating in time. Courses in foreign languages and/or literature are taught in the College of Arts and Sciences by the following departments: Africana Studies and Research Center, Asian Studies, China and Asia-Pacific Studies, Classics, Comparative Literature, German Studies, Linguistics, Near Eastern Studies, and Romance Studies."

It's just nonsense really. I really couldn't care less about understanding the dynamics of language or understanding other cultures.

Learning all that will help you become better-rounded and will help you become better-prepared and better informed to participate in the discussions/debates about societal, world issues that affect us all. Now, if those classes are poorly-taught or designed, it is a different issue. I assume the school believes it is (part of) its mission to do that, to train you as a citizen, not just as a physicist; it is not a technical school after all.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Learning all that will help you become better-rounded and will help you become better-prepared to participate in the discussions/debates about societal, world issues that affect us all.

Like I said, I really couldn't care less about that. I'm looking for my (or rather my parents') money's worth and paying several grand a year to become "better-rounded" so as to engage in off-tournament friendly debate with others is definitely not worth that kind of money. If I was in tournament debate then I could understand but I don't need to take liberal arts classes in order to engage in pedestrian debates. I'm not looking to become Christopher Hitchens here. I entered college to learn physics and go to physics grad school. Foreign cultures simply do not interest me and I find it a huge waste of time having to learn about them. I assure you my elementary knowledge of linguistics or western mythology will never be useful, ever. The only useful general education classes I can think of are rhetoric classes as they help develop one's expository writing abilities.

 

[WWGD]

it is not to engage in off-tournament- friendly debate; it is to be informed as a citizen on problems that affect us all, even at a world level. You see to want the benefits without the burden . Still, if you (your parents) can afford to send you there , they are most likely able to afford a school where there are no such reqs. Why didn't you choose a different school? I , for one, prefer to have scientists that are aware and prepared to understand the humanities perspective/ implication of their work ,and not just the technical aspects.

 

[WannabeNewton]

it is not to engage in off-tournament- friendly debate; it is to be informed as a citizen on problems that affect us all, even at a world level.

This is all nice on the back of a cereal box but I don't want to be put under pressure due to grades and essays and exams when I have tons of physics related things like classes, self-studying, and research to worry about. Exams and essays in particular induce a lot of stress. My rhetoric class on the ubiquity of US violations of international laws of war involved so many essays that it basically ate out all the extra time I had to further my studies in general relativity.

There are simply more important things going in my academics than "being informed as a citizen on problems that affect us all". My local life is more important to me than global politics and wasting time on the latter is not a luxury when one is studying physics in university. I have the Daily Show for that and that's enough for me. I don't like being forced to learn about things that I have no interest in.

Why didn't you choose a different school?

All the Ivy leagues have strict general education requirements in Arts and Sciences schools so the others won't be any different from the one I attend now. Berkeley is not as strict but it's an out of state school so it will be extremely expensive, like 50 grand a year since OOS schools don't offer much financial aid; the same goes for other OOS schools which are well known for physics like UIUC and UMich Ann Arbor. Schools like MIT and CalTech tend to be more lenient as well with general education requirements but I applied to MIT in high school and didn't get in so I can't do anything about that. UChicago is even worse when it comes to general education requirements than my school.

 

[jtbell]

When applying for a university, is it the university in general that sets a criteria or do departments have their own? For example, does a prospective student need to make their intentions known and have their application approved by their potential departments admissions tutor?

In the US, at the undergraduate level, you usually (there are always exceptions!) apply to the school as a whole. Departments are not involved in the admissions process. At the small undergraduate-only school where I work, the application form includes a space for specifying the intended or possible major(s), but this is used only for assigning the student's first faculty advisor. If a student changes his interests, he changes to a different advisor when he officially declares his major, no later than the end of the second year.

Large universities usually have an intermediate administrative level, the "college" or "school", between the university-as-a-whole and the individual departments, e.g. "college of arts and sciences", "college of engineering", etc. I think usually each "college" does their own admissions, and students have to apply to the "college" that contains the department(s) that they are interested in.

Different "colleges" in the same university also tend to have different gen-ed requirements.

 

[WWGD]

Well man, it sucks, but it is about more than your or my needs; it is about our obligations too, as members of society. And overly-specialized scientists without a humanities perspective are potentially harmful. Besides, aren't you around 20 y/o, with rich parents and you already get a head start with physics clubs in high school and have been exposed to material most older people have not been? I don't mean to take away from your talent and hard work, but isn't this enough of a break most of us did not/do not have for you to be willing to give something back ?

 

[Dadface]

Yes indeed.



Yes and they can be a lot if work. Langauge classes meet Mon. to Fri. and you get homework every single day. It's ridiculous. And I have zero interest in learning a new language so that makes the ordeal so much worse. Sometimes I contemplate switching to engineering physics just to avoid the language requirement. God I hate the Arts and Sciences school at my university.

Try not to let the language requirements divert you from your goals. Just get on with the classes and get them out of the way.

 

[jtbell]

When I left school, I started an architecture degree having never studied it before. In the U.K system, from day 1 you are an architecture 'major' (we don't use that term). So every single one of my courses was geared towards the subject. As it turns out, I really did not enjoy this course and had to go through a difficult period of uncertainty.

I eventually got myself sorted out and was accepted onto a physics degree. I'm much happier now. I do think that if we had the U.S system, I could have turned up to university with the intention of studying architecture, realized it wasn't for me, re-shuffled some courses and tried to gear myself towards physics.

Yes, it's not at all unusual for students to change their major mid-stream, or at least early-stream. If they do it early enough, they can often still squeeze in all the required courses for their new major without having to stay in school longer. The four-year time frame for a bachelor's degree here usually leaves enough room for several "elective" courses if a student sticks with the same major, over and above the major and gen-ed requirements. That extra room also makes it easier to switch majors if you do it early enough.

If you have to switch from one "college" to another in the same university, things would probably be a bit messier, but still do-able.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't mean to take away from your talent and hard work, but isn't this enough of a break most of us did not/do not have for you to be willing to give something back ?

I suppose? I don't really know what I can give back haha.

Try not to let the language requirements divert you from your goals. Just get on with the classes and get them out of the way.

Yes you are definitely right. It's not like I can do anything about it.

But to come back to the OP's original thread intent, this is indeed my biggest annoyance with the US higher education system when compared to that of UK and Europe more generally. But just to level the playing field a bit, one could argue that the UK system of "this is what you must choose to study when entering university and this is what you must learn as a result" might not be to everyone's advantage. A friend of mine is choosing universities in the UK to attend and he is having a rather hard time choosing a discipline to study e.g. EE vs. comp sci because he doesn't have the freedom to change later down the line in university. So it does put a lot of pressure on him to make the right decision especially given that kids his age don't necessarily know what they want to do as a career. They need to test the waters a bit.

 

[George Jones]

Art Hobson believes that science general education requirements for non-science majors have benefited society. In a letter published in the July 2008 issue of The American Journal of Physics, he 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."

 

[Medicol]

I think about education system like one machine whose input is a student, for example, when output will have himself coated with some knowledge, the more machines he goes through the thicker his coat will become.
The problem with me personally is that after I passed through the machines, I became totally naked.
Luckily I psyche me up quite nicely and am trying to learn more. I have been meeting and working with several people graduated from some schools in the US and my conclusion is the US spreads good ads about their higher education system but their outcomes are not really good.
I also meet some guys who can't even speak fluently or listen well some simple statements or words commonly used in their own areas of expertise, although they have been living in the US for a dozen of years or more.
So their system comes alive (1) based on money; if you pay the money, study!
(2) based bad attitudes (e.g attitudes like whatever as long as I get my own work done)

I also see an odd thing that many American when they get out of their country and land on a Asian one laugh at how silly or stupid and pure Asian people "care" too much about each other. I realize people there in the US care only their own business and their own relatives. Even in a movie when Jenny cries to Johny "You come back for me, huhu ?", I can see how cold the American people actually are.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Well man, it sucks, but it is about more than your or my needs; it is about our obligations too, as members of society. And overly-specialized scientists without a humanities perspective are potentially harmful. Besides, aren't you around 20 y/o, with rich parents and you already get a head start with physics clubs in high school and have been exposed to material most older people have not been? I don't mean to take away from your talent and hard work, but isn't this enough of a break most of us did not/do not have for you to be willing to give something back ?

You're over-emphasizing the importance of the classes. Do you truly think that I'm an incompetent citizen with an unfulfilled obligation towards my country--neigh, humanity--unless I take Spanish 211 and learn briefly about Dia de los Muertos?

The U.S. is nearly unique in its position of general education requirements. In a sense, you're purporting that countries like England, that offer solely specialized courses in university, are ill-prepared global citizens who simply cannot understand the plights of other countries.

Now, I think certain requirements ought to be requirements. It is vital that scientists know how to communicate, therefore, like WBN referenced, classes like Rhetoric are very useful. However, learning of Ancient Rome, while interesting to me, is not vital to the growth of a citizen, nor vital in any sense to a physics major. I'm of the opinion that language classes in college are largely superficial, seeing as it's nonsensical for one to begin heavily learning a language at the age of 18. The reason other countries are so much more affluent and bilingual is that their schooling for other languages is considered essential from an early age, whereas in the U.S. we only get an inkling of it as early as middle school (pre-teen to early teenage years).

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Art Hobson believes that science general education requirements for non-science majors have benefited society. In a letter published in the July 2008 issue of The American Journal of Physics, he 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."

I live in Iowa. While not university, my HS offered an environmental science course. My Spanish IV class had a few of those "my pappy's a neo-con who says Obama will be the death of the free-world, and so am I," who conceded that taking the environmental science course entirely changed their view on global warming, which they previously thought was a farce.

People are reasonable, at the core. Put them in a setting devoted to reason, give them reasonable reasons with sensible reasoning about certain subjects, and we have no reason to fear a science-illiterate populous

 

[WWGD]

I live in Iowa. While not university, my HS offered an environmental science course. My Spanish IV class had a few of those "my pappy's a neo-con who says Obama will be the death of the free-world, and so am I," who conceded that taking the environmental science course entirely changed their view on global warming, which they previously thought was a farce.

People are reasonable, at the core. Put them in a setting devoted to reason, give them reasonable reasons with sensible reasoning about certain subjects, and we have no reason to fear a science-illiterate populous

Many of these college classes expose you to issues , perspectives you are not likely to be exposed to otherwise. Of course , you can do this on your own too, but I think it is a good idea to try to make sure that those who will likely have an impact on society are thoughtful, well-informed, and have a broad-based perspective. And I think requiring scientists to be exposed to a humanities perspective helps in this respect. Besides, you can meet more women that way :) , since there are still relatively few women in science--outside of psychology.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... Besides, you can meet more women that way :) ...

Fair enough. I have a penchant for artsy women anyway

 

[Travis_King]

I don't know how many subjects someone from high school studies before applying to university, but if it's anything like the U.K's 'A-levels', then most people have narrowed their options down at least a little before starting university.

When applying for a university, is it the university in general that sets a criteria or do departments have their own? For example, does a prospective student need to make their intentions known and have their application approved by their potential departments admissions tutor?

As has been said, it differs from school to school.

I should point out here that while we colloquially use "college" and "university" interchangeably here in the U.S. the schools often don't. My school was technically a university, and when I applied to the university I had to make it clear that I was applying to the "School of Engineering". I didn't have to declare a major until after my third semester, but I had to declare that I was entering the university in the School of Engineering. In order to transfer, I had to apply to the School of Physics (or physical sciences, or whatever it was called) or the School of Management. Though the process of intra-university application was not as involved as the original application process, it was still required that my credentials be reviewed for acceptance into the other "school" within my University.

I know that happens in many other universities and "institutes" as well around the U.S. and not just in engineering. I have friends that went to schools for interior design. They had to apply to the school of interior design and if they were rejected, they had to apply again in the next term to another school within their university (if they still wanted to get in). For one friend, she wished to switch from the University's Fashion Merchandising major to Interior Design. They required that she apply as if she were a non-student, though they allowed her to use her fashion coursework as portfolio work.

So, depending on what school's you are trying for, you may have to make your intentions clear in order to get into the program you want. Some, however, allow you to enter the school in general education/liberal arts and transfer to other programs if you meet the requirements for transfer. Some schools have very little in the way of cross-major barriers; excepting of course the fact that you still need to take the requisite classes. Basically, in some schools you can switch majors, but you may need to spend another year or more in order to take the courses required.

As to your other question, about high school students knowing what they want to study, that also depends. The push to go to university is pretty ubiquitous in the U.S., so many people go just because you're expected to. I, and many of my friends, knew what I wanted to study when I left high school. Many others, not so much. They go, they take gen. ed. classes and the required math classes, and then hopefully they figure something out in time to finish their program on time. Many students switch majors 2-3+ times and wind up staying enrolled for extra semesters/years just for a bachelor's degree.

The system is intended to allow students freedom to study what they are actually interested in. As a large percentage of 18 year olds don't necessarily know what they want to do with their lives (especially in American culture), forcing them to choose a rigid set of coursework could be a recipe for disaster (or at least a workforce of begrudging employees).

You're over-emphasizing the importance of the classes. Do you truly think that I'm an incompetent citizen with an unfulfilled obligation towards my country--neigh, humanity--unless I take Spanish 211 and learn briefly about Dia de los Muertos?

Maybe WWGD was over-emphasizing it, but I too think it's important. So do most universities. Universities are not associates degree tech schools. They are, or see themselves as, institutions which produce clever, well-rounded professionals. Some schools are turning more toward the technical degree and putting less emphasis on liberal arts (my school, for example, had no language requirement, and any liberal arts/history classes one took were strictly as free electives). But schools are wary of making this full transition because it's a matter of giving students a complete education, in the traditional sense of the word.

These classes are intended to provide a foundation for the prospective professionals to have interests and general knowledge outside of their chosen field. In the best case, a student learns about the world, or about literature, or something like that, and realizes that they enjoy it; they then may pursue it as a hobby or in passing and become a more well rounded person. If nothing else, it teaches you how to do well even in subjects that are of virtually no interest to you, which is a valuable skill as well.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

To clarify a few things for OP:

- AP classes are one of the better ways to bypass gen-eds in university in the US, varying of course upon the rigor and prestige of different universities. My mediocrity prevented me from applying to Ivy-tier schools (although I'll be attending a so-called "public ivy"), yet because of all the AP tests I signed up for, I racked up 32 credit hours and, for registration purposes, am considered a sophomore. Were I to attend Cornell like my esteemed colleague WBN, they likely, and rightly so, wouldn't have accepted any of my AP credit.

- Larger universities are divided into different schools, aka Arts and Science, Engineering, Business, etc. Some schools will go so far as to require certain grades to be, say, a chemical engineer, yet have no outstanding requirements to be a civil engineer. Others count on people finding chemical engineering too difficult and dismissing themselves from the field. So while there is certainly a large amount of leniency and time allotted to students when determining their major, there is a definite benefit to knowing what one wants to study from the beginning.

- In the college of Arts and Sciences at my university, they have a neat option for science majors regarding foreign language: If at some point I can prove proficiency in reading science articles in a foreign language, I will have satisfied my foreign language requirements. So not all schools are entirely unreasonable.

All in all, the U.K., as far as I can tell, is more forthright in letting students specialize in their intended area of study, whereas in the U.S., if you want to specialize, you have to work around a stupid system via AP classes in high school, testing out of certain subjects, or just biting the bullet and sitting through a lecture on some boring gen-ed.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Many of these college classes expose you to issues , perspectives you are not likely to be exposed to otherwise.

Where are you getting such an idea? What possible useful perspective could I be exposed to or learn from a Spanish class? Or a Greek mythology class? Yes I learn that Grecian gods have insatiable sexual appetites. My world view has now been greatly enhanced. Or, god forbid, a philosophy class? I'm at least happy I'm not forced to take philosophy classes. Just thinking about it makes me uneasy. I truly envy the UK system in this regard. The only liberal arts classes I enjoy are those pertaining to western literature. Mind you I haven't gained any perspectives from such classes, I just enjoy western literature.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... but I too think it's important. So do most universities ...

As do I, but I think the stringent structure that most universities implement is a bit much. Telling me that I have to take, regardless of my major, 9 credit hours of history, 6 credit hours of english, 6 credit hours of a political/social science, reach the 311 level of any foreign language, etc. etc. is too demanding and annoying.

Telling me that I have to take, say, a grand total of 12-15 credit hours of classes either outside of my major, or outside of my school (Arts and Sciences), or to have 15 credit hours in electives, is fine to me because it makes my education just that: my education. I just willingly signed up for an English class about 19th century American authors (one can hope the class is entirely devoted to the demi-god Mark Twain) because I love good literature and expect to enjoy the class. It's much more satisfying to have more demand over my courses, to be able to choose based on my own volition rather than to atone for a pre-set structure designed by someone who thinks I'll be better off because of it.

I believe most people at the age of 18+ have a general idea of what they enjoy and don't enjoy. It's a bit insulting to still be holding our hands, telling us, "No, no, no, you need to try the green-beans, they're very good for you and make you a healthy young man." I'm not suggesting that one indulges in straight-up ho-hos for the entirety of their 4-year schooling, but that if they adamantly don't like green-beans, the students ought to be able to bypass that and not have their degree withheld from them because of it.

 

[Travis_King]

Where are you getting such an idea? What possible useful perspective could I be exposed to or learn from a Spanish class? Or a Greek mythology class? Yes I learn that Grecian gods have insatiable sexual appetites. My world view has now been greatly enhanced. Or, god forbid, a philosophy class? I'm at least happy I'm not forced to take philosophy classes. Just thinking about it makes me uneasy. I truly envy the UK system in this regard. The only liberal arts classes I enjoy are those pertaining to western literature. Mind you I haven't gained any perspectives from such classes, I just enjoy western literature.

Apart from learning about the classic greek philosophers, many philosophy courses discuss modern (or slightly pre-modern) philosophers who dealt with logic. I took a bunch of philosophy courses as free electives (as I had placed out of a lot of courses) and was surprised to find that the courses offered a wealth of knowledge on the logical structure of sound arguments. Many of these courses teach students about proper argumentative structure and you also learn in depth about logical fallacies and how to detect and avoid using them.

The other classes are not supposed to be directly useful to your professional career. They are there to build a bit of culture. You may be world-wise, but a huge number of Frosh aren't. Did they force you to take greek mythology, or was that the arts elective you selected? I agree that forcing students to take a specific subject in the arts (like greek mythology) is ridiculous. But if they just said, "pick an elective" and you picked that one, that is a different story. The classes exist so that you can take a mental detour from your science studies and focus some energy on cultural topics.

As do I, but I think the stringent structure that most universities implement is a bit much. Telling me that I have to take, regardless of my major, 9 credit hours of history, 6 credit hours of english, 6 credit hours of a political/social science, reach the 311 level of any foreign language, etc. etc. is too demanding and annoying.

I could see that getting annoying possibly, but honestly, are there that many electives that you want to take in anyone subject that the others are getting in the way of? If they said, "you must take Greek literature, then Victorian era literature, then Future literature" then I could see that being a real problem, but if they just tell you to take three English courses and a few social sciences courses, and leave which ones you take up to you. I don't see the issue.

They offer you an educational program which you agreed to follow when you entered the school. The curriculum is set up so that when you leave their school, you have learned the material that that school board thinks is appropriate/important for a young person to know.

I believe most people at the age of 18+ have a general idea of what they enjoy and don't enjoy...
...the students ought to be able to bypass that and not have their degree withheld from them because of it.

Eh, while I agree that most 18+ y/o may know in general what they like and dislike, most (perhaps just "many") haven't had a real education in the arts. Disliking the Scarlet Letter is hardly an indication of your interest in contemporary literature. Finding the Civil War boring is not really an indication that you'll dislike Sociology or social physchology.

It's not really "withholding" your degree, it's more that you were accepted into a program with a specific curriculum, and the degree which you are pursuing comes with a price tag of some liberal arts courses.

I'll point out again, though, that for the most part, these classes are there in the hopes that students will become engaged, learn some critical thinking in areas outside of their selected field, in general practice writing and structuring reports, and learn a thing or two. And at the very least, it's to show you that you can't generally pick and choose everything about your life. Sometimes you just have to grin and bear it.

 

[WannabeNewton]

They are there to build a bit of culture.

I keep hearing about culture but frankly who cares? So what if I'm not cultured? How will that slow me down in life or in my career? Like I said, rhetoric classes are absolutely essential so there is no argument there. But literature, philosophy, foreign language, and cultural studies arguably aren't. If you're interested in any of these then again all the power to you, go nuts with them. But not everybody has interest in culture or the likes. I got lucky that the music theory sequence counted towards distribution credit because I love music theory. Will it be useful to me? Most certainly not.

Did they force you to take greek mythology, or was that the arts elective you selected? I agree that forcing students to take a specific subject in the arts (like greek mythology) is ridiculous. But if they just said, "pick an elective" and you picked that one, that is a different story.

No it was the one I chose but it was the best of the worst really. The others were even more drab. Here's how the distribution requirements go: http://as.cornell.edu/academics/degree-req.cfm

The classes exist so that you can take a mental detour from your science studies and focus some energy on cultural topics.

Well that's nice for people who want such a detour. I don't and it sucks that I have no leeway in this regard. Cultural topics are meaningless to me. But like dadface said earlier, it's not really productive for me to sit around and complain about this. I should just grin and bear it, like you said as well. I don't really have any choice in the matter.

The bottom line is, these rather extensive general education requirements present me with two choices: I don't get to take all the advanced physics and math classes I would absolutely love to take in order to finish the requirements on time or I go ahead and take the advanced major specific courses I want to and fail to graduate on time. I don't get why the system wants to make me face such a dilemma, for the sake of being cultured. If my school in particular accepted AP credit for these requirements then I would have no complaints really. I could skip all of them with the AP classes I took in HS. But I can't if I'm in the Arts and Sciences school and the same holds for other universities like UChicago, Columbia, etc.

 

[Travis_King]

I keep hearing about culture but frankly who cares?

The universities in the U.S.

So what if I'm not cultured? How will that slow me down in life or in my career?

Nobody says that you have to learn anything from the classes. It might be useful one day chatting with a history buff who's deeply interested in greek mythology, but generally the lessons are there just for the sake of learning.

As I said, if you don't care to learn the stuff, it's just as acceptable to grin and bear it and show that you can do well even in those things that you don't enjoy. It's pretty useful outside of your academic life as well, usually.

No it was the one I chose but it was the best of the worst really. The others were even more drab. Here's how the distribution requirements go: http://as.cornell.edu/academics/degree-req.cfm

Cornell is an ivy league school lol do you really think that you'll get away without a "classical" education in social sciences and history/culture from an ivy? These schools are especially geared toward graduating professionals who are cultured and educated in an array subjects; especially social issues. If you wanted a technical education alone, you chose the wrong school. You can't blame them for that, they've been doing pretty much exactly that since like 1860.

Well that's nice for people who want such a detour. I don't and it sucks that I have no leeway in this regard. Cultural topics are meaningless to me. But like dadface said earlier, it's not really productive for me to sit around and complain about this. I should just grin and bear it, like you said as well. I don't really have any choice in the matter.

You selected the school...you have to take the good with the "bad". They probably make poli-sci students take some science classes as well; I'm sure they hate it just as much as you hate social sciences.

The bottom line is, these rather extensive general education requirements present me with two choices: I don't get to take all the advanced physics and math classes I would absolutely love to take in order to finish the requirements on time or I go ahead and take the advanced major specific courses I want to and fail to graduate on time.

That is of course a dilemma. It would be nice to be able to take all the classes that you are interested in, and some universities are set up that way. Ivy's typically aren't. They leave the advanced and specific courses for graduate school, where you don't have the social classes.

I don't get why the system wants to make me face such a dilemma, for the sake of being cultured.

because for the most part, people aren't faced with the same dilemma as you. Most people take their curriculum courses, take the social courses, and study a few extra/advanced courses in their free electives. The issue really doesn't come up as far as limiting your time to take advanced courses. Or, as was my case, many schools (even extremely old ones like my alma mater) offer truly free electives, where you can select as many social science or advanced physics classes that you like. Generally, schools like this require as set number of humanities/social science electives over the course of the program, rarely bothering to care which one's you select.

 

[cristo]

Where are you getting such an idea? What possible useful perspective could I be exposed to or learn from a Spanish class? Or a Greek mythology class? Yes I learn that Grecian gods have insatiable sexual appetites. My world view has now been greatly enhanced. Or, god forbid, a philosophy class? I'm at least happy I'm not forced to take philosophy classes. Just thinking about it makes me uneasy. I truly envy the UK system in this regard. The only liberal arts classes I enjoy are those pertaining to western literature. Mind you I haven't gained any perspectives from such classes, I just enjoy western literature.

In the UK these sort of classes are no omitted but, rather, are taught during high school. University is a place to study a specialised subject, building on your broad, general education, that you obtained while in high school. The reason that this works is that we are a small country, and therefore can have a national curriculum for high school students. So every student has (roughly) the same background knowledge when attending university, since they have all taken the same exams at GCSE level (age 16), and all students applying for the same course have taken the same course and exams in that specific subject at A level (age 18).

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I am, and will forever be, more "cultured" from reading random books and the news via my own capriciousness than any class purporting to acculturate me will.

I'm trying my best not to come off as a whiny, ungrateful college-bound student who stomps his feet when he is told he needs to take a class he doesn't want to. My point, rather, is that when shelling out $40,000+/yr on tuition and living accommodations, I would expect a slightly more choose-your-own-adventure style of schooling a la the United Kingdom.

Travis, the curriculum I would prefer is one set forth by your school. Obviously a liberal education is more endowing and successful at creating a well-rounded student body, but there still needs to be freedom of choice in doing so. Being told that without Classes A, B, and C, I can't graduate is frankly stifling.

And yes, I could've chosen to attend Carnegie Mellon or some school that says anything beyond science can piss off, but I doubt I would've been accepted to any of them. Regardless, those schools are very rare, and most schools expect you to confine yourself to their pre-set curriculum with little room for customization beyond picking [Insert Major Here] and [Insert Minor Here].

Summary: I think being "cultured" and "well-rounded" is abusing empty terms that really hold no meaning. I've met a plethora (as all people have) of college graduates, and "cultured" and "well-rounded" never comes to mind. It's more so a mindset of wanting to be accepting and erudite than it is a class you sit through.

 

[AlephZero]

What cristo said. The UK high school system has changed over time, in particular becoming more "fragmented" as the older "end-of-course" examinations have been replaced by modular exams (which can be re-taken without much downside) and assessment of coursework.

In the "traditional" version of the UK system, most aspiring university entrants would have taken the national GCSE exams in 9 or 10 subjects at age 16, covering the complete spectrum of liberal arts, science, English (language and literature) and foreign languages. As a personal example, at that level I took exams in maths, physics, chemistry, geography, history, English language, English literature, French, Latin, and music. Good grades in maths and English Langauge are prerequisites for education beyond age 16 (which is the minimum school-leaving age) in any subject.

At 18 they would take the A level exams in three or four subjects directly relvant to their intended degree (e.g. a selection from of pure and applied maths, physics, chemistry, biology for scientists).

The downside of this is that students can be making decisions at age 13 or 14 which will affect their entire future education. The upside is that if you enter university for a degree in subject X, the only courses you are required to take are in subject X.

 

[WWGD]

I am, and will forever be, more "cultured" from reading random books and the news via my own capriciousness than any class purporting to acculturate me will.

I'm trying my best not to come off as a whiny, ungrateful college-bound student who stomps his feet when he is told he needs to take a class he doesn't want to. My point, rather, is that when shelling out $40,000+/yr on tuition and living accommodations, I would expect a slightly more choose-your-own-adventure style of schooling a la the United Kingdom.

Travis, the curriculum I would prefer is one set forth by your school. Obviously a liberal education is more endowing and successful at creating a well-rounded student body, but there still needs to be freedom of choice in doing so. Being told that without Classes A, B, and C, I can't graduate is frankly stifling.



Summary: I think being "cultured" and "well-rounded" is abusing empty terms that really hold no meaning. I've met a plethora (as all people have) of college graduates, and "cultured" and "well-rounded" never comes to mind. It's more so a mindset of wanting to be accepting and erudite than it is a class you sit through.

I agree one should have enough freedom to choose one's classes. I think you're misunderstanding a causation-correlation issue in my posts: other things being equal, people who are exposed to a liberal education are more likely to be "cultured" ; outliers do not detract from this t(statistical) fact/statement. If you do not cultivate what you learned , it will not flourish. Conversely, even without a formal education you may become "cultured" , but it does not happen often, since this is not the path of least resistance most tend to take.