- This topic has 7 voices and 30 replies.
-
Posts
-
I'd like to invite all you guys to visit me and let's go hang around the coffee shops near Brown, RISD, etc, then we'll go do the same at the schools in Boston. If liberal arts is supposed to teach kids how to think critically, then those institutions have failed miserably. With some rare exceptions, these kids and adults are told WHAT to think, not how to think. I'm not saying it will change your minds, but it will help you see why I have the point of view that I have.
Ski - I think those schools are providing a liberal education --- not a liberal arts education.
I want the explanation again on how having a plethora of math classes aids, in any way, a history major?Doesn't college level algebra cover the ingredients a person needs in every day life? Do I really need to know higher level math to balance my checkbook, figure out my 401K, and prepare my budget? I don't think so.So getting to the "well rounded" part, I took college algebra, I have the math portion covered, I have my sciences covered, literature, etc, do I REALLY need a bunch of classes in areas that have absolutely no bearing on my major and my focus? My declared major is History... not General Education, Accounting, Science, etc etc... it's Hisotry, and I think that should be the main focus... I'll get my "well rounded" education just as well as the next guy but will come out more prepared for my future in the History world focusing on that aspect.Just my two cents
I guess I kicked the ant-hill with this one didn't I?I come squarely down on Vulture's side on this one. I think college is there to teach more than just whatever your major is, if that was not the case then all you would need is x number of history courses to get a degree. That seems to be the path we are going down. The traditional Liberal Arts curriculum was to teach method and not the mindless regurgitation of facts. It gave a person the skills to analyze the focus of study and not just parrot what someone else says. The narrowing of curriculums is a very bad thing in my opinion.Ironic side anecdote, I have a West Point Grad captain working in my office who had never read Clausewitz or Sun-Tzu until I let him borrow my copies. He said they had only like 3 military studies classes in his 4 years at Hudson High but plenty of Civil Engineering classes, which is what his degree is in.
But again, you are talking about a captain who, while focusing on the Engineer portion, is also a captain and should understand leadership, strategy and tactics. So… those studies should have been in his learning plan.However... it all boils back to going beyond what is necessary. I am not advocating history majors taking no math, they should take it, but should they be required to take classes that go beyond the required fundamentals? Even in, let's say, a business aspect of history - balancing books, crunching numbers, etc. - again, is an advanced math class really necessary for even that? So, a history major takes all the required, liberal arts classes on the fundamental level to make them "well rounded"... at that point they have leveled the playing field and IMHO should now focus on the historical aspects OR whatever other classes are relavent to their future degree/career plan.I see where you are coming from, but I think we have people getting degrees who are informed about a lot and masters of a little.Again, my two cents...
Just looking to my personal experience, a liberal arts curriculum usually requires everyone, regardless of major, to take a certain mix of foundational courses. While there are generally accepted “norms” – schools frequently put their own marks on the degree. My experience was something like, two science classes, two religion classes, a composition class and a literature class, two humanities classes, two math classes (and yes, “Math for Liberal Arts Majors” was one – the other was a non-calculus based statistics class), two social sciences, I know I took two philisophy courses – although they were probably electives – and most of the rest were history courses.Now, I'm currently a graduate student at AMU, so I went back and looked at their required undergraduate curriculum (AMU is designated as a liberal arts institution - I believe one of only two 100% online liberal arts schools). They require:2 English classes (one must be composition)1 Humanities class2 History classes1 Literature class1 Math class1 Political Science class1 Science class (with lab)2 Social Science classesThat's pretty much regardless of your selected major - that's the minimum that everyone must take.The intended result is that every graduate, regardless of discipline, will have a solid foundation in fundamental courses and subjects.
However… it all boils back to going beyond what is necessary. I am not advocating history majors taking no math, they should take it, but should they be required to take classes that go beyond the required fundamentals? Even in, let's say, a business aspect of history – balancing books, crunching numbers, etc. – again, is an advanced math class really necessary for even that?
I think what you are advocating is the same that the rest of us are advocating - minimum levels of college math/science for the history major. I don't think that liberal arts schools need to make history majors get the equivalent of minors in math, but they should require some math, some science, etc. I know of only one school which is "pure liberal arts" in that there is only one major available there. Friends of mine who graduated from there were very bright and well-equipped for graduate school.
Except for Eng and Hist, you only take one each of those required courses at AMU. It's 34 credits, slightly more than a quarter of a BA degree requirements. That's fine. But it seems the pro side here is advocating for more. For Math, I chose Gen Math, and for science I chose meteorology. My math and science requirements are finished. I'm just asking why should I as a history major take Calc or other maths and more sciences. One is enough. I like AMU's electives much better than anywhere else I've checked and that's just another 18 credits. There are some very good military history,religion, and international relations courses. AMU requires 60 credits of core and concentration courses. Prov Coll and URI only require 30, the remaining are Gen Ed and electives. I am interpretting what you are saying is that PC and URI have a better UG program because it's more well-rounded. I respectfully disagree.BTW, I do agree that all UGs should take at least one math, science, and writing composition course, and others like philosophy and literature. BUT, IMO the engineering major should use math and science classes to fill his electives while the history major should use literature or writing. They're both getting a well-rounded education, but they are smarter in their specialties. Neither should be required to take more of something he doesn't need for his major. As a history major am I better off or more well-rounded using an elective to take Calculus instead of a 200 level War from Antiquity to 1700? (especially considering Ancient Mil Hist and Medieval Mil Hist are 400 level degree requirements). I feel taking Calculus or more sciences is wasting an elective, hindering my growing and learning in history, and is a waste of my time and money.
I think the best basic approach is to require a set number of required courses across different fields, while leaving open the chance to take some electives so as to specialize in a particular area.
AMU requires 60 credits of core and concentration courses. Prov Coll and URI only require 30, the remaining are Gen Ed and electives. I am interpretting what you are saying is that PC and URI have a better UG program because it's more well-rounded. I respectfully disagree.
I don't think the PC or URI programs are more "well-rounded" simply because they offer more opportunities for electives. A more "well-rounded" program would make all students take certain required courses regardless of major, while also establishing a certain number of credits that one needs to take in one's major. Letting students take a ton of electives doesn't solve anything since those credits can be satisfied by "Pool Cleaning 101" and other such mindless courses.
To flip the mirror around (and play devil's advocate) should an engineering student be required to take a literature, composition, philosophy, and political science courses? Does a pre-med student need to take a course on the Renaissance? Should a math major have to take a course on Middle Eastern culture or political philosophy? Or a course on the American Civil War? Will these courses make them better engineers, doctors, or scientists?Probably not - but these classes will help make them better citizens and more functional adults.
To flip the mirror around (and play devil's advocate) should an engineering student be required to take a literature, composition, philosophy, and political science courses? Does a pre-med student need to take a course on the Renaissance? Should a math major have to take a course on Middle Eastern culture or political philosophy? Or a course on the American Civil War? Will these courses make them better engineers, doctors, or scientists?Probably not - but these classes will help make them better citizens and more functional adults.
I would argue that it's perhaps more important for students in the sciences to take courses in the humanities than vice versa. The sciences are where ethical problems can multiply very easily (cloning, weapons R&D, etc.). I would want scientists, engineers, and doctors to realize that just because they can do something does not mean that they should do it. In other words, I would want them to know how to weight their actions correctly.
I think we all agreeing on what we think a curriculum should consist of but not adequately expressing it. I am not advocating making major focused course a minority of required classes, I am advocating a requirement for a minimum number of liberal arts classes, i.e Math, language, foreign language, science, and humanities. If there were only one thing I would change about AMU's history program, it would be to add a foreign language component to history degrees. I don't think we should get too caught up in requiring non-major coursework but we should not focus too exclusively on major coursework either. My whole point in bringing this up in the first place is that schools are getting to the point where you can almost ignore general requirements in favor of courses in your major. This leaves colleges graduating what are essentially idiot savants instead of thinking people because they have been told what they should think in areas outside of their competence instead of being taught how to think for themselves. People that let others do their thinking for them are the definition of the modern left. If for no other reason that should be argument enough to bring about calls for a return to the classical liberal arts curriculum.Lastly, liberal in liberal arts is used in its classic and not modern definition.
they have been told what they should think in areas outside of their competence instead of being taught how to think for themselves.
Not to get too much off topic, but this is the reason I chose meteorology as the science. I wanted to learn a little about climate change and counter the fallacies of the AGW alarmists. It didn't make me an expert by any means, but it does help one see the laughable contradictions they are coming up with now because their predictions are so wrong.
they have been told what they should think in areas outside of their competence instead of being taught how to think for themselves.
Not to get too much off topic, but this is the reason I chose meteorology as the science. I wanted to learn a little about climate change and counter the fallacies of the AGW alarmists. It didn't make me an expert by any means, but it does help one see the laughable contradictions they are coming up with now because their predictions are so wrong.
Then you are making the use of a liberal arts education that you should.
I would argue that it's perhaps more important for students in the sciences to take courses in the humanities than vice versa. The sciences are where ethical problems can multiply very easily (cloning, weapons R&D, etc.). I would want scientists, engineers, and doctors to realize that just because they can do something does not mean that they should do it. In other words, I would want them to know how to weight their actions correctly.
Ah, there's the rub. Just as we want these folks to have a grounding in the liberal arts and the humanities in order to establish a moral and ethical foundation, is it not also essential for the liberal arts majors to have a similar foundation in the sciences? At a minimum, shouldn't the liberal arts major at least understand the scientific method and foundational theories?I think we need to take a look at what Scout said above - the purpose of a college education - in the classical sense - is to produce a well rounded functional adult who can contribute to (and lead) society. In general, this used to constitute two years of general education in the arts and sciences, and then two years of focused study in the desired "major" curriculum. Then there was further advanced studies within the discipline (graduate school) for further specialized education. Over time, some schools morphed into offering more focused curriculum at the expense of the first two years of general (liberal) education. Academia caved in to the demands of scientists stating "what do I need to know about a book written 500 years ago or who won a battle 100 years ago? How will that help me as a scientist?" The unintended consequence to that is that many traditional liberal arts degrees followed suit and either abandonded science and mant requirements or just opened over half the curriculum to elective credit - assuming that the true student would pursue the areas that he/she believed would be most beneficial to their overal education. Instead, in many cases, it has become a way of simply padding the GPA.I believe that in many ways, this is the root of the many ethical problems that we now face in science, business, and government - as well as society as a whole.I think I've posted on this before, but the most recent census data that I have seen states that less than 28% of Americans over the age of 25 hold a four year college degree. I would go one further, and ask that of that 28%, how many possess a well rounded, liberal arts degree that included courses in ethics or philosophy?
I think I've posted on this before, but the most recent census data that I have seen states that less than 28% of Americans over the age of 25 hold a four year college degree. I would go one further, and ask that of that 28%, how many possess a well rounded, liberal arts degree that included courses in ethics or philosophy?
That is a very good question. I would guess that most of the people that graduated before the late '60s early '70s do. So many societal changes seem to have happened in the US around that pivotal year of 1969.
