Let's Ditch Gen Eds

[Wahoo Redux]

This is an impossible subject for some folks to discuss and the topic derails. 

We all know the conundrums and dynamics involved (they repeatedly spin through the threads on The Fora).

So I thought I would make it simple and see what happens.

[lightning]

Yeah, sure why not, and let's see what happens, BUT only if the much more useless things that a university harbors, gets ditched, too.

[bio-nonymous]

Yeah, sure why not, and let's see what happens, BUT only if the much more useless things that a university harbors, gets ditched, too.

Good Point. Here controversy: How about we ditch the climbing walls/lazy rivers/high rise luxury apartment-dorms/empty buses cruising campus every 15 minutes/athletic departments/bloated administrative bureaucracy of assistants to the assistants of the assistants...

[Ruralguy]

It depends on why you are getting rid of gen Ed. There are non-budgetary reasons for doing so.
A better question might be "if you could afford gen Ed and all other luxuries on campus, would you still keep it?"

The answer may depend a lot on the mission of the school and what gen Ed looks like now. If it's a pointless menu at a engineering or nursing school, I could see people scrapping it. If it's a SLAC with a motivation for gen Ed, I could see a lot staying or being retooled.

Also, thinking of reality, it will be a budgetary issue at some places, and they probably can't really save much by limiting hours at the lazy rive because they likely don't have stuff like that.

[lightning]

It depends on why you are getting rid of gen Ed. There are non-budgetary reasons for doing so.
A better question might be "if you could afford gen Ed and all other luxuries on campus, would you still keep it?"

The answer may depend a lot on the mission of the school and what gen Ed looks like now. If it's a pointless menu at a engineering or nursing school, I could see people scrapping it. If it's a SLAC with a motivation for gen Ed, I could see a lot staying or being retooled.

Also, thinking of reality, it will be a budgetary issue at some places, and they probably can't really save much by limiting hours at the lazy rive because they likely don't have stuff like that.

It sounds like you are attempting to equate gen-eds with the more useless luxury items on campus, thereby de-valuing gen-eds.

Going back to my original response post, just so no one misunderstands me (because I am in support of keeping healthy gen-eds at my own university, although it does need examination),

My response is a response to the scorched earth strategy of ditching gen-eds. If indeed scorched earth is the way someone wants to go, then by God, go scorched earth and do scorched earth correctly, instead of selective scorched earth.

[Ruralguy]

This is stupid. We've opened up three threads. I've given my opinion multiple times. Without saying anything so drastic as GBCF, I will stop participating in the " gen Ed threads" for the next few weeks.

[mleok]

It sounds like you are attempting to equate gen-eds with the more useless luxury items on campus, thereby de-valuing gen-eds.

Going back to my original response post, just so no one misunderstands me (because I am in support of keeping healthy gen-eds at my own university, although it does need examination),

My response is a response to the scorched earth strategy of ditching gen-eds. If indeed scorched earth is the way someone wants to go, then by God, go scorched earth and do scorched earth correctly, instead of selective scorched earth.

These luxury items are presumably sunk costs, and even if they weren't, they attract students to enroll. The same is true of things like athletics programs. In contrast, I have yet to come across any student who has told me they have chosen to enroll at any university because of their general education requirements.

Any student who is interested in diversifying their education can avail themselves of that opportunity by a system of free electives, so unless there is truly something unusual about the general education offerings, along the lines of specially constructed courses (and sequences) targeted at the non-major, and the kind of broad multidisciplinary collaborations I've suggested, general education requirements are unlikely to be a generator of student enrollment. On the contrary, the additional year of courses that a general education requirement tacks onto the main disciplinary track is a financial impediment to students enrolling.

I wonder if struggling colleges would be able to reduce their discount rate if they offered a three-year degree program that eliminated their general education requirements, given that it would reduce the opportunity costs of attending college, and allow a student's financial resources to be spread over three years instead of four.

[mleok]

This is stupid. We've opened up three threads. I've given my opinion multiple times. Without saying anything so drastic as GBCF, I will stop participating in the " gen Ed threads" for the next few weeks.

Indeed, opening so many threads just comes across as a petulant response by the OP to not getting their way on the other threads.

[spork]

[. . . ]

general education requirements are unlikely to be a generator of student enrollment.

Never once in my career have I ever heard or read about a student who enrolled at a particular university because of its gen ed requirements.

[. . . ]

I wonder if struggling colleges would be able to reduce their discount rate if they offered a three-year degree program that eliminated their general education requirements, given that it would reduce the opportunity costs of attending college, and allow a student's financial resources to be spread over three years instead of four.

The business model that struggling colleges have wedded themselves to requires students to pay for eight semesters of tuition (albeit heavily discounted from sticker price) and four to six semesters of room and board. They don't want to give up the program and auxiliary revenue they think comes from a year's worth of gen ed courses.

[theflea]

Is there any evidence that general education requirements benefit students? There are enough open, or nearly open, curriculum institutions that we should know by now if their graduates fare worse in any way than the graduates of the open curriculum institutions' peers.

[Wahoo Redux]

This is stupid. We've opened up three threads. I've given my opinion multiple times. Without saying anything so drastic as GBCF, I will stop participating in the " gen Ed threads" for the next few weeks.

I just did this because the conversation gets so muddy.  I thought this might be more clarifying and I wanted to gauge people's overall opinions.

[marshwiggle]

This is stupid. We've opened up three threads. I've given my opinion multiple times. Without saying anything so drastic as GBCF, I will stop participating in the " gen Ed threads" for the next few weeks.

I just did this because the conversation gets so muddy.  I thought this might be more clarifying and I wanted to gauge people's overall opinions.

Muddy? Just because people have different opinions doesn't mean they haven't been clearly expressed.

As has been noted, it seems that a certain rationale for gen eds is to fill in the gaps for poor high schools, here's an option, (which might fit some of the comments in this thread). Make a gen ed year, which is intended to be basically remedial, but have prospective students take tests which allow them to skip the "gen ed year" if they do well enough. This would allow the gen ed courses to be targeted at the level students need, and people who had a decent high school experience demonstratably wouldn't need them.

[Mobius]

It sounds like you are attempting to equate gen-eds with the more useless luxury items on campus, thereby de-valuing gen-eds.

Going back to my original response post, just so no one misunderstands me (because I am in support of keeping healthy gen-eds at my own university, although it does need examination),

My response is a response to the scorched earth strategy of ditching gen-eds. If indeed scorched earth is the way someone wants to go, then by God, go scorched earth and do scorched earth correctly, instead of selective scorched earth.

These luxury items are presumably sunk costs, and even if they weren't, they attract students to enroll. The same is true of things like athletics programs. In contrast, I have yet to come across any student who has told me they have chosen to enroll at any university because of their general education requirements.

Any student who is interested in diversifying their education can avail themselves of that opportunity by a system of free electives, so unless there is truly something unusual about the general education offerings, along the lines of specially constructed courses (and sequences) targeted at the non-major, and the kind of broad multidisciplinary collaborations I've suggested, general education requirements are unlikely to be a generator of student enrollment. On the contrary, the additional year of courses that a general education requirement tacks onto the main disciplinary track is a financial impediment to students enrolling.

I wonder if struggling colleges would be able to reduce their discount rate if they offered a three-year degree program that eliminated their general education requirements, given that it would reduce the opportunity costs of attending college, and allow a student's financial resources to be spread over three years instead of four.

In reality, they'll still take 4-5 years to graduate instead of the 5-6 now.

[Aster]

I can't tell if this is a joke thread or not.

[Wahoo Redux]

I can't tell if this is a joke thread or not.

Meant to be tongue-in-cheek polemical.

Let's just lay it on the table.