Gen ed problems and future outlook

[Wahoo Redux]

Let me turn the question around, do you think the current haphazard system of general education requirements, taught by underpaid adjuncts, to unmotivated students, fulfills the lofty goals of a liberal arts tradition? I argue that it doesn't do anything to open up student's perspective in any meaningful way, and only serves to tick off a list of arbitrary requirements that do nobody any real good, but lengthen the time to degree, and increase the cost of higher education.

This article on IHE provides an interesting perspective on this issue,

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/02/10/higher-ed-needs-redesign-gen-ed-real-world-opinion

Yes.  It is definitely imperfect, and your characterization of "current haphazard system of general education requirements, taught by underpaid adjuncts" is silly hyperbole as is "unmotivated students."  Come on, man, don't argue like this is Disqus or Reddit.

But yes, I do think the gen eds open up people's minds-----not everyone, of course, but imperfection is part of human endeavor.  I teach a lot of gen ed.  Plenty of students are motivated.  Plenty learn stuff.  Some don't.  Some adjuncts are great, some are awful, gen ed or otherwise.  Some professors are great, some are awful.  I am happy if we change up gen eds, but I believe in them.

BTW, I already posted the Handstedt article.  It has problems.

Now answer my question: If financial and opportunity costs are the important factors in education, why have college at all (except for doctors and engineers, who could enter the workforce in their early 20s)?

[mleok]

Amazing bit of honesty in  the article:

Implicit within all of this is a dynamic we'd generally prefer to avoid acknowledging: in many ways, the distributional model continues because it provides job security. As long as students are required to take courses in all three divisions (social sciences, STEM, arts and humanities), all three divisions will remain viable.

I served on the curriculum committee at a small elite private research university when I was an undergraduate, and it was very clear that discussions regarding core curriculum requirements invariably involve the protection of turf and the protection of enrollment in courses by departments.

[Wahoo Redux]

Do we have any accounting professors here?  Why couldn't we have people largely trained to be accountants with basic written literacy by the end of high school?  Why have college at all except for engineers and doctors?

If students know by middle school that they want to be accountants, I'd be all for such an option. (Same goes for any other career path; if students have figured it out by the time they start high school, it would be great for them to be able to focus on it. Realistically, they couldn't complete all of the requirements for many things by the end of high school, but they could probably cut a year or two off PSE.)

As I mentioned before, the last two years of high school in the UK system already incolves a degree of specialization, and the subjects one chooses to study in those two years affects the areas of study that one can pursue in university. In addition, both law and medicine are undergraduate degrees which take 4 and 5 years respectively.

Been well established already.

[marshwiggle]

Now answer my question: If financial and opportunity costs are the important factors in education, why have college at all (except for doctors and engineers, who could enter the workforce in their early 20s)?

You seem to think this question should be somehow shocking. If people can get the training that they want in as little time as possible, why shouldn't they?????? There's no intrinsic reason to keep people in school any longer than necessary.

[mleok]

But yes, I do think the gen eds open up people's minds-----not everyone, of course, but imperfection is part of human endeavor.  I teach a lot of gen ed.  Plenty of students are motivated.  Plenty learn stuff.  Some don't.  Some adjuncts are great, some are awful, gen ed or otherwise.  Some professors are great, some are awful.  I am happy if we change up gen eds, but I believe in them.

BTW, I already posted the Handstedt article.  It has problems.

Now answer my question: If financial and opportunity costs are the important factors in education, why have college at all (except for doctors and engineers, who could enter the workforce in their early 20s)?

I am still interested in quantifiable benefits of general education on the typical student. It seems like a religious belief for many faculty, undoubtedly colored by our own personal experiences, which may not be representative of the typical student that we teach. I have no doubt that some students learn stuff, and have their perspectives expanded, but is it something that can only achieved with general education requirements for all, or is it something that they could have pursued on their own time?

As for the your last statement, financial and opportunity costs do not weight equally on all students, if you come from a rich family, then spending the time to "find yourself" has no significant cost, but for the students who we are trying to expand access to, the costs are significant. Realistically, most first generation college students from economically disadvantaged families will be focusing on degrees that have a strong connection to future career success, and the additional cost of general education disproportionately disadvantages such students, and hinders their ability to fulfill their goals and aspirations. I do not find that to be defensible position to hold.

[mleok]

Do we have any accounting professors here?  Why couldn't we have people largely trained to be accountants with basic written literacy by the end of high school?  Why have college at all except for engineers and doctors?

If students know by middle school that they want to be accountants, I'd be all for such an option. (Same goes for any other career path; if students have figured it out by the time they start high school, it would be great for them to be able to focus on it. Realistically, they couldn't complete all of the requirements for many things by the end of high school, but they could probably cut a year or two off PSE.)

As I mentioned before, the last two years of high school in the UK system already incolves a degree of specialization, and the subjects one chooses to study in those two years affects the areas of study that one can pursue in university. In addition, both law and medicine are undergraduate degrees which take 4 and 5 years respectively.

Been well established already.

Yes, it goes to show that the US model is not the only possible approach to higher education. Has civilization as we know it collapsed in the UK as a consequence?

[mleok]

At my institution, depending on which undergraduate college you belong to (something which students do not have complete freedom in deciding), some students are required to take three quarters of calculus, irrespective of their major. As a mathematician, and having seen students who have taken the same calculus class numerous times, only to fail repeatedly, and the eye watering level of cheating that is occurring in such required lower-division classes during the pandemic, I have come to truly question the value of requiring this of every student.

I say this as a person who previously served on a college committee tasked with reviewing the general education requirements, with a view towards reducing the time to degree, and who previously defended the lofty goal that every student overcome their math phobia prior to graduating by being forced to face and overcome their inner math demons (calculus). But, the reality is that while I still think calculus is important as a language and gateway to the sciences and engineering, and that students who came to us with less rigorous high school preparation should not automatically get pigeonholed into non-STEM subjects, I cannot in good conscience say that students who have made a good faith effort at fulfilling these requirements but have failed to do so are undeserving of their degrees, nor that if their goal is to major in the arts and humanities that calculus is an essential part of their higher education.

[Wahoo Redux]

Do we have any accounting professors here?  Why couldn't we have people largely trained to be accountants with basic written literacy by the end of high school?  Why have college at all except for engineers and doctors?

If students know by middle school that they want to be accountants, I'd be all for such an option. (Same goes for any other career path; if students have figured it out by the time they start high school, it would be great for them to be able to focus on it. Realistically, they couldn't complete all of the requirements for many things by the end of high school, but they could probably cut a year or two off PSE.)

As I mentioned before, the last two years of high school in the UK system already incolves a degree of specialization, and the subjects one chooses to study in those two years affects the areas of study that one can pursue in university. In addition, both law and medicine are undergraduate degrees which take 4 and 5 years respectively.

Been well established already.

Yes, it goes to show that the US model is not the only possible approach to higher education. Has civilization as we know it collapsed in the UK as a consequence?

Yes mleok, Brittan is now fighting a civil war using clubs and stone-tipped arrows.

Come on, man.

[mleok]

Yes mleok, Brittan is now fighting a civil war using clubs and stone-tipped arrows.

Come on, man.

Well, I'm still waiting to hear you clearly articulate a reason for general education requirements which aren't based on strawman arguments.

[mleok]

Let me try to revisit the question of what the goals of general education requirements should be. The best analogy I can think of is the breadth requirements which are encapsulated in the qualifying examinations at the doctoral level, and in that context, the goal as I see it for the broad qualifying (or general) examination is that it equips PhD students with a core body of knowledge that allows them to acquire any futher knowledge they might require by reading an advance textbook on the subject. Perhaps that should be the benchmark for what a good general education program aims to achieve at the undergraduate level, equipping students with the necessary skills be become lifelong learners in areas that they did not specialize in.

[Wahoo Redux]

At my institution, depending on which undergraduate college you belong to (something which students do not have complete freedom in deciding), some students are required to take three quarters of calculus, irrespective of their major. As a mathematician, and having seen students who have taken the same calculus class numerous times, only to fail repeatedly, and the eye watering level of cheating that is occurring in such required lower-division classes during the pandemic, I have come to truly question the value of requiring this of every student.

I say this as a person who previously served on a college committee tasked with reviewing the general education requirements, with a view towards reducing the time to degree, and who previously defended the lofty goal that every student overcome their math phobia prior to graduating by being forced to face and overcome their inner math demons (calculus). But, the reality is that while I still think calculus is important as a language and gateway to the sciences and engineering, and that students who came to us with less rigorous high school preparation should not automatically get pigeonholed into non-STEM subjects, I cannot in good conscience say that students who have made a good faith effort at fulfilling these requirements but have failed to do so are undeserving of their degrees, nor that if their goal is to major in the arts and humanities that calculus is an essential part of their higher education.

I've taught a lot of humanities gen eds.  There are certainly problems, but my experience in the classroom at a relatively exclusive R1 in grad school, two open-enrollment universities FT, a catholic LAC  as a VAP, and at a CC as a sideline in grad school has been the opposite of yours.  Certainly I could have wished for better students in a great many of these classes, but they have still been fun and, yeah, I will plant a stake on it, students have learned. 

Did they learn enough to justify their tuition and my salary and the "opportunity costs"?  I dunno.  My idea since I was old enough to think about it is that "education" means you know about many things and have a broad experience in learning----I was influenced by my parents, both of whom thought education was important, although my father really wanted me to be a business major.

This is why I ask what we want out of education.  I would have hated calculus and it is something I never would have used in a practical sense in my life.  I am not sure that is a good reason to remove it, however.

I appreciate that Marshy just came out with it:

You seem to think this question should be somehow shocking. If people can get the training that they want in as little time as possible, why shouldn't they?????? There's no intrinsic reason to keep people in school any longer than necessary.

No Marshy, it is not meant to be a "shocking" question (really, dudes, chillax the rhetoric); I'm asking if this is what we want from the careers we've chosen to participate in.

Seems to me I posted a poll on this very thing some time ago...wonder if I could find it...

[Wahoo Redux]

Let me try to revisit the question of what the goals of general education requirements should be. The best analogy I can think of is the breadth requirements which are encapsulated in the qualifying examinations at the doctoral level, and in that context, the goal as I see it for the broad qualifying (or general) examination is that it equips PhD students with a core body of knowledge that allows them to acquire any futher knowledge they might require by reading an advance textbook on the subject. Perhaps that should be the benchmark for what a good general education program aims to achieve at the undergraduate level, equipping students with the necessary skills be become lifelong learners in areas that they did not specialize in.

So "yes" to gen eds but revised?

Sure.  Seems reasonable.

[marshwiggle]

Let me try to revisit the question of what the goals of general education requirements should be. The best analogy I can think of is the breadth requirements which are encapsulated in the qualifying examinations at the doctoral level, and in that context, the goal as I see it for the broad qualifying (or general) examination is that it equips PhD students with a core body of knowledge that allows them to acquire any futher knowledge they might require by reading an advance textbook on the subject. Perhaps that should be the benchmark for what a good general education program aims to achieve at the undergraduate level, equipping students with the necessary skills be become lifelong learners in areas that they did not specialize in.

If that were the goal, then I would argue that it would be better served with a few well-designed courses, targeted for that purpose exclusively, such as the scientific literacy course I discussed, rather than just a bunch of ordinary introductory courses from a few disciplines.

[marshwiggle]

This is why I ask what we want out of education.  I would have hated calculus and it is something I never would have used in a practical sense in my life.  I am not sure that is a good reason to remove it, however.

I appreciate that Marshy just came out with it:

You seem to think this question should be somehow shocking. If people can get the training that they want in as little time as possible, why shouldn't they?????? There's no intrinsic reason to keep people in school any longer than necessary.

No Marshy, it is not meant to be a "shocking" question (really, dudes, chillax the rhetoric); I'm asking if this is what we want from the careers we've chosen to participate in.

This sounds like you're asking what kind of environment we want to teach in. What kind of place I'd like to teach in isn't really relevant; what's relevant is what's best for the students who choose and pay to come.  Since the issue of micro-credentials has come up before, if that becomes popular with students, then my focus has to be on how to make useful micro-credentials, regardless of whether I'd prefer longer "traditional" programs. Trying to force students into the kind of system that suits me is self-serving at best, obnoxious at worst.

[Wahoo Redux]

Yes mleok, Brittan is now fighting a civil war using clubs and stone-tipped arrows.

Come on, man.

Well, I'm still waiting to hear you clearly articulate a reason for general education requirements which aren't based on strawman arguments.

What "strawman" arguments?

Fine, you should have just asked that.  Again, this is not Disqus.

At BEST CASE SCENARIO (so please don't bore me by pointing out how idealistic this is):

I believe in gen eds because I believe education, higher education in particular, includes broad learning as well as a practical skillset for making a living. 

I believe in gen eds because they open up people's minds and expose them to things they may never have encountered in their home or secondary education.  This happened to me.  This happens to a great many 1st generation students in particular.

College graduates should have read Shakespeare; know something about the great historical events in the world; have learned something about science; practiced a foreign language; and, sure, whatever other subjects flesh out a "well rounded" individual. 

I believe in gen eds because stretching and straining our brains with new material makes us better people, better workers, better etc.  People who make the big bucks are expected to be able to handle problems, evaluate, analyze, apply and improvise----which sounds like what one has to do in a class in which you study a subject you have never or marginally been exposed to.

I believe in gen eds because they are part of what separates college from being simply career training and maintain our campuses as places of intellectual discovery.

Feel free to disagree.