Gen ed problems and future outlook

[Wahoo Redux]

So should we retool higher ed as career training?

This is what I mean by "strawman argument." Is a BA in mathematics at Cambridge University just career training? Maybe you should take your own advice against relying on hyperbolic arguments. You're one of the most passive-aggressive posters on this forum.

You've lost me, my friend.  I think you are frustrated by the conversation.  And I am trying to be civil and do not know how I am being "passive-aggressive."

I don't think I have said anything about Cambridge.  THAT is a strawman argument.

I think my questions have been pretty straight-forward.  Of all people, Marshy seems to understand them.

[Wahoo Redux]

I am a mathematician, and I do not think that a degree program that focuses on just mathematics is simply career training, nor is it incompatible with intellectual discovery.

We would have actuary science, statistics, and department of defense majors if we have career mathematics degrees.

I understand we would also have computer programmers and production managers who use math, but those would be their own majors with a lot of math training.  Finance seems to me would have a broad cross-section of training which included advanced mathematics.

Those would still be intellectually rigorous degrees.   

I'm sure there are more, but I honestly don't know what people would do with a math degree.

Again, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with general education requirements outside one's core area of study. Can you stop trying to obfuscate the issue.

I have obfuscated nothing.

I'm trying to imagine what a career-training-focused degree would look like for mathematics. 

[mleok]

I have obfuscated nothing.

I'm trying to imagine what a career-training-focused degree would look like for mathematics.

Again, I was not arguing for a career-training focused degree, I am arguing for less general education requirements, and those two positions are not equivalent.

[Wahoo Redux]

I have obfuscated nothing.

I'm trying to imagine what a career-training-focused degree would look like for mathematics.

Again, I was not arguing for a career-training focused degree, I am arguing for less general education requirements, and those two positions are not equivalent.

Fair enough.  I acknowledged that.

[mleok]

I don't think I have said anything about Cambridge.  THAT is a strawman argument.

I think my questions have been pretty straight-forward.  Of all people, Marshy seems to understand them.

You're arguing that anyone who does not support general education requirements is advocating for vocational training, and I am simply saying that the UK does not have general education requirements at the university level, so unless you view a BA in mathematics from Cambridge as being vocational training, that argument clearly holds no water.

[mleok]

I have obfuscated nothing.

I'm trying to imagine what a career-training-focused degree would look like for mathematics.

Again, I was not arguing for a career-training focused degree, I am arguing for less general education requirements, and those two positions are not equivalent.

Fair enough.  I acknowledged that.

But every one of your arguments have conflated these two issues, and presented a false dichotomy between a system with general education requirements, and one which is purely vocational training.

[mleok]

You've lost me, my friend.  I think you are frustrated by the conversation.  And I am trying to be civil and do not know how I am being "passive-aggressive."

You're being passive-agressive by constantly dismissing issues which have already been raised and acknowledged, but which are raised precisely because you persist in using false narratives that are countered by these issues.

[Wahoo Redux]

You're arguing that anyone who does not support general education requirements is advocating for vocational training, and I am simply saying that the UK does not have general education requirements at the university level, so unless you view a BA in mathematics from Cambridge as being vocational training, that argument clearly holds no water.

THAT is another strawman. 

I asked if our high ed system should be vocational.  You answered that gen eds should be restructured to more closely fit the major.  Fine.  You do seem to think that we should have done our broadening in high school, which sounds like vocational higher ed to me.

Perhaps this debate has run out of anything to say.

[mleok]

You're arguing that anyone who does not support general education requirements is advocating for vocational training, and I am simply saying that the UK does not have general education requirements at the university level, so unless you view a BA in mathematics from Cambridge as being vocational training, that argument clearly holds no water.

THAT is another strawman. 

I asked if our high ed system should be vocational.  You answered that gen eds should be restructured to more closely fit the major.  Fine.  You do seem to think that we should have done our broadening in high school, which sounds like vocational higher ed to me.

Perhaps this debate has run out of anything to say.

I said that higher education should be more specialized, which is distinct from saying it should be vocational. Again with the false dichotomy. Mathematics is one of the liberal arts, and it does not prepare one for a specific vocation, so by definition, it is not vocational. This debate has stalled because you seem incapable of making this basic distinction, despite claims to the contrary.

As for the issue of vocational training, I think that there should be far more investment in good quality public vocational training, and it should be one of the many options that are available to students. I don't think that every student wants, needs, nor benefits (after a cost-benefit analysis) from a broad liberal arts education, and that forcing that upon students ends up in suboptimal outcomes for a significant fraction of students.

[Wahoo Redux]

Fair enough.

[Mobius]

My wish (not likely to happen) is a way to get students in majors out of gen ed courses in their field. For example, many intro courses are also gen ed. Others have suggested various "topics" courses to spice it up for non-majors so they are interested instead of checking off boxes. Sounds pollyannaish, but it can be soul crushing when you teach check-off courses that also include majors.

[mleok]

My wish (not likely to happen) is a way to get students in majors out of gen ed courses in their field. For example, many intro courses are also gen ed. Others have suggested various "topics" courses to spice it up for non-majors so they are interested instead of checking off boxes. Sounds pollyannaish, but it can be soul crushing when you teach check-off courses that also include majors.

Agreed, it is very challenging to be teaching introductory classes intended to prepare majors that also include unmotivated students taking it to satisfy a general education requirement. This doesn't happen as much in mathematics as we typically have two tracks in calculus, one for math, science, and engineering majors, and another one for students in less analytical fields which is typically the track chosen by students enrolling purely for general education requirements.

[marshwiggle]

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. 

As has been stated, Shakespeare,world history, science, foreign language should be covered in high school.

But here's the question I'd really like you to answer:

What constitutes "whatever other subjects flesh out a "well rounded" individual", who decides this, and how do you possibly cap it to a finite number of courses? By what criteria does something get excluded from "whatever other subjects flesh out a "well rounded" individual"?

I want to hear what subjects make someone less well-rounded, or even make no contribution to well-roundedness.

[kiana]

My wish (not likely to happen) is a way to get students in majors out of gen ed courses in their field. For example, many intro courses are also gen ed. Others have suggested various "topics" courses to spice it up for non-majors so they are interested instead of checking off boxes. Sounds pollyannaish, but it can be soul crushing when you teach check-off courses that also include majors.

Agreed, it is very challenging to be teaching introductory classes intended to prepare majors that also include unmotivated students taking it to satisfy a general education requirement. This doesn't happen as much in mathematics as we typically have two tracks in calculus, one for math, science, and engineering majors, and another one for students in less analytical fields which is typically the track chosen by students enrolling purely for general education requirements.

That's why I utterly loathed teaching college algebra at my last job. It was the lowest gen ed math class, so it was full of students taking it just for their gen ed, but there were a small subset of students who were planning on majoring in things where they actually needed to take real calculus.

I'd rather do intermediate algebra, at least then I can say "We need to learn this so you can pass college algebra".

[mythbuster]

The term that keeps popping into my head as I read this discussion is "well-rounded". In the last decades of the 20th century, there was an emphasis by elite colleges on being the well-rounded applicant, and to becoming a well-rounded individual through a broad college education.
   This concept inherently gave GE type courses as much importance as the courses in your major, as you were expected to be able to discuss Shakespeare, political philosophies, and Exponential growth rates with some level of knowledge because of your broad and diverse education.
   Today this concept if foreign to most people, and I never hear it discussed in the context of applicants to highly competitive schools. Instead it's a combination of "finding your passion" and then specializing as rapidly as possible. Financial aid rules and other factors have accelerated this hyper-focused approach.

   The other example that I think we should consider are US Universities that do not have prescribed GEs at all. The main example that comes to mind is Brown University. To my understanding, they ONLY have major requirements and beyond that you take whatever you want to get to the required number of credits.  It would be interesting to compare the course distributions of these students to another Ivy with more traditional requirements. Do the top students push their own limits? I fully realize that with this example, the data is NOT applicable to the average state school etc. for a variety of reasons.