"It's time to prioritize what students want and need over what we want to teach"

[ciao_yall]

Because what people get out of college is not so much what they studied, but the "ways of knowing" of a particular discipline. And, the norms, disposition and cultural touchpoints of the educated professional class by spending 4 years prostrate to the higher mind, in the words of the Indigo Girls.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm, or just pompous bafflegab. There are no "ways of knowing" in calculus. There is only "Can you differentiate or integrate this function?" You don't have to be "prostrate to the higher mind" in physics; you just have to calculate the trajectory of the stupid projectile!!!!

No-one teaching in those disciplines cares if you learned the material from them, only that you know it.

There are ways of breaking down and approaching a problem that vary across disciplines.

There are cultures within discipline that value certain traits, such as the ability to generalize or the ability to tease out specific details, which are emphasized when choosing approaches to problems.

Google jokes about mathematicians, physicists, historians, astronomers and the like. There is truth to these.

[Aster]

+1 What Polly said.

Quantity has a Quality All Its Own.

[polly_mer]

There are ways of breaking down and approaching a problem that vary across disciplines.

There are cultures within discipline that value certain traits, such as the ability to generalize or the ability to tease out specific details, which are emphasized when choosing approaches to problems.

Google jokes about mathematicians, physicists, historians, astronomers and the like. There is truth to these.

Yes, I agree about ways of knowing because it's usually pretty clear who was educated as a mathematician, engineer, physicist, or chemist even when working in the same field on similar problems.  The approaches are different.

However, successfully acquiring those ways of knowing tends to require years of guided practice in a community of experts.  Taking a couple intro classes in college is a very poor substitute and does not inculcate the desired ability to function as a member of a discipline community.

Likewise, becoming acclimated to the norms of the professional class is generally not accomplished by attending an Nth-tier institution for a generic degree disconnected from a profession.  One may have a very good formal education in a profession or specific liberal arts field at a variety of institutions.  However, again, taking a random mix of formal classes to result in a degree is not the same as essentially serving an apprenticeship in the relevant network of professionals to acquire their norms and have people who will be assisting with the next step for one of their own.

[Caracal]

Yes, I agree about ways of knowing because it's usually pretty clear who was educated as a mathematician, engineer, physicist, or chemist even when working in the same field on similar problems.  The approaches are different.

However, successfully acquiring those ways of knowing tends to require years of guided practice in a community of experts.  Taking a couple intro classes in college is a very poor substitute and does not inculcate the desired ability to function as a member of a discipline community.

It isn't supposed to be a substitute. The idea is that understanding how other disciplines approach and think about the world will give students a broader perspective that will be valuable to them even as they narrow their focus later. That broader perspective is vital and often missing in our world. Many people know a lot about one thing and assume that knowledge can be applied to everything. They don't have a sense of other perspectives and approaches and thus, they don't know when they are profoundly ignorant about something.

I took a class on Old English literature in college. It was really hard and involved things I wasn't used to doing. I wasn't particularly good at it and it certainly didn't make me an expert. I'd have to go to grad school for that and I doubt I'd have the skills for it even then. But, the approach to language and translation I experienced has continued to shape the way I think in all kinds of ways.

[spork]

I think this is a demonstration of selection bias. We -- academics -- are a group that is supposed to be, by definition, interested in and capable of learning to think well. I doubt that for the average undergraduate in the USA an assortment of 100-level intro courses produces lifelong awareness of or changes in "ways of thinking."

I'd be happy to admit being incorrect if someone has data demonstrating otherwise.

Edited to add: I think a more useful approach would be, instead of gen ed requirements that are in reality a list of boxes that students check off before graduation, a requirement that students take maybe 3-5 courses in a single field that is completely different from the subject they are majoring in. Something representing a student's "side interest," which they would explore in some degree of depth. But this would mean institutions of < ~ 3,000 undergrads would need to identify which "side programs" would be offered. E.g., "we have the standard academic programs in A through G, but students choose a concentration in X, Y, or Z in addition to one of the A-G majors." But faculty don't want to do this.

and a p.s.: what marshwiggle says below.

[marshwiggle]

It isn't supposed to be a substitute. The idea is that understanding how other disciplines approach and think about the world will give students a broader perspective that will be valuable to them even as they narrow their focus later. That broader perspective is vital and often missing in our world. Many people know a lot about one thing and assume that knowledge can be applied to everything. They don't have a sense of other perspectives and approaches and thus, they don't know when they are profoundly ignorant about something.

I realized that the term "ways of knowing" bothers me because of the certainty it implies. And the implication above is that "knowledge" is somehow wrong in certain situations. It may be irrelevant, but that doesn't make it incorrect. I'd be much happier with "ways of investigating" or "types of evidence" because they are process-oriented. The implication that each discipline somehow gets to decide what is "true" is ridiculous.

[Caracal]

I think this is a demonstration of selection bias. We -- academics -- are a group that is supposed to be, by definition, interested in and capable of learning to think well. I doubt that for the average undergraduate in the USA an assortment of 100-level intro courses produces lifelong awareness of or changes in "ways of thinking."

I'd be happy to admit being incorrect if someone has data demonstrating otherwise.

I dunno, what's the standard. I took two semesters of Italian and learned almost nothing because I was bad at it and didn't try, but does that mean we ought to scrap the foreign language requirement too? Part of the problem is that if we keep pretending that getting a college degree is about acquiring a particular set of skills that will then allow you to get the job you want, anything we do is going to seem inadequate. We will keep getting more and more specialized and it won't get results, because that's a bad model for education. Some students won't get anything out of some classes, maybe some of them won't get anything out of the whole thing, but that doesn't mean the whole enterprise is worthless.

[marshwiggle]

I think this is a demonstration of selection bias. We -- academics -- are a group that is supposed to be, by definition, interested in and capable of learning to think well. I doubt that for the average undergraduate in the USA an assortment of 100-level intro courses produces lifelong awareness of or changes in "ways of thinking."

I'd be happy to admit being incorrect if someone has data demonstrating otherwise.

I dunno, what's the standard. I took two semesters of Italian and learned almost nothing because I was bad at it and didn't try, but does that mean we ought to scrap the foreign language requirement too? Part of the problem is that if we keep pretending that getting a college degree is about acquiring a particular set of skills that will then allow you to get the job you want, anything we do is going to seem inadequate. We will keep getting more and more specialized and it won't get results, because that's a bad model for education. Some students won't get anything out of some classes, maybe some of them won't get anything out of the whole thing, but that doesn't mean the whole enterprise is worthless.

But the less specific skills are expected out of post-secondary education, the more it just becomes "doing what high school should have done", and the more the high schools can give up on. My mother had to learn Latin and trigonometry in high school about 80 years ago. Many (most??) people didn't finish high school then. Now, no-one has to do "hard" stuff like that in high school so most people graduate. I bet the people who finished high school in my mom's day had about the level of "soft skills" of most university graduates today, because they had to in order to pass. The way things are going, in a generation (or less), people will have to complete graduate school to get the same level of skills as high school graduates a few decades ago.

[mahagonny]

I think this is a demonstration of selection bias. We -- academics -- are a group that is supposed to be, by definition, interested in and capable of learning to think well. I doubt that for the average undergraduate in the USA an assortment of 100-level intro courses produces lifelong awareness of or changes in "ways of thinking."

I'd be happy to admit being incorrect if someone has data demonstrating otherwise.

I dunno, what's the standard. I took two semesters of Italian and learned almost nothing because I was bad at it and didn't try, but does that mean we ought to scrap the foreign language requirement too? Part of the problem is that if we keep pretending that getting a college degree is about acquiring a particular set of skills that will then allow you to get the job you want, anything we do is going to seem inadequate. We will keep getting more and more specialized and it won't get results, because that's a bad model for education. Some students won't get anything out of some classes, maybe some of them won't get anything out of the whole thing, but that doesn't mean the whole enterprise is worthless.

But the less specific skills are expected out of post-secondary education, the more it just becomes "doing what high school should have done", and the more the high schools can give up on. My mother had to learn Latin and trigonometry in high school about 80 years ago. Many (most??) people didn't finish high school then. Now, no-one has to do "hard" stuff like that in high school so most people graduate. I bet the people who finished high school in my mom's day had about the level of "soft skills" of most university graduates today, because they had to in order to pass. The way things are going, in a generation (or less), people will have to complete graduate school to get the same level of skills as high school graduates a few decades ago.

So much for teacher tenure keeping rigor in the courses. It doesn't.

[tuxthepenguin]

I think this is a demonstration of selection bias. We -- academics -- are a group that is supposed to be, by definition, interested in and capable of learning to think well. I doubt that for the average undergraduate in the USA an assortment of 100-level intro courses produces lifelong awareness of or changes in "ways of thinking."

I'd be happy to admit being incorrect if someone has data demonstrating otherwise.

No data, but strong disagreement. The selection bias works in the opposite direction IMO. Academics will learn on their own. They'll study all these other subjects online, in the library, by sitting in on classes by colleagues. The average student in a rural, public directional university will get their only exposure to these alternative ways of thinking in their 100-level intro courses.

[spork]

I don't think exposure, on average, has any positive effect. At high tier institutions with truly selective admissions, maybe, but at the place I work, trying to get students to understand very, very basic concepts like cause and effect is often an uphill battle. The common attitude is "tell me the formula that I need to memorize to solve this one very narrowly-drawn, simplistic example."

[marshwiggle]

I don't think exposure, on average, has any positive effect. At high tier institutions with truly selective admissions, maybe, but at the place I work, trying to get students to understand very, very basic concepts like cause and effect is often an uphill battle. The common attitude is "tell me the formula that I need to memorize to solve this one very narrowly-drawn, simplistic example."

This is the thing:  a highly motivated student with a basic introduction to a topic will be able (and perhaps willing) to engage in and out of class to benefit. An unmotivated student will not. And the more courses students have* to take, the fewer of them who will be motivated.

*Just to be clear; a student who has chosen a major will likely at least be somewhat engaged in compulsory courses in the major, since they chose the major, if not the specific courses.

[Caracal]

This is the thing:  a highly motivated student with a basic introduction to a topic will be able (and perhaps willing) to engage in and out of class to benefit. An unmotivated student will not. And the more courses students have* to take, the fewer of them who will be motivated.

*Just to be clear; a student who has chosen a major will likely at least be somewhat engaged in compulsory courses in the major, since they chose the major, if not the specific courses.

Students aren't "motivated" or "unmotivated." They vary in their engagement and motivation depending on the course, but even through the course of the semester. I see students who have been totally checked out all semester suddenly get really engaged in a particular topic or reading. I'm assuming that happens all the time in less obvious ways. There's something pretty depressing about all this pessimism about students. I don't share it. Just because our students can't just have information and ways of thinking downloaded to their brains, doesn't mean the whole idea of a broad based education is a lost cause.

[marshwiggle]

Just because our students can't just have information and ways of thinking downloaded to their brains, doesn't mean the whole idea of a broad based education is a lost cause.

It's not that it's a "lost cause"; the question is whether, with a finite amount of resources, this is the best way to allocate them. (And those resources include the students' time. Is 4 years of a person's life reasonable to spend on this? For everyone?)

[ciao_yall]

This is the thing:  a highly motivated student with a basic introduction to a topic will be able (and perhaps willing) to engage in and out of class to benefit. An unmotivated student will not. And the more courses students have* to take, the fewer of them who will be motivated.

*Just to be clear; a student who has chosen a major will likely at least be somewhat engaged in compulsory courses in the major, since they chose the major, if not the specific courses.

Students aren't "motivated" or "unmotivated." They vary in their engagement and motivation depending on the course, but even through the course of the semester. I see students who have been totally checked out all semester suddenly get really engaged in a particular topic or reading. I'm assuming that happens all the time in less obvious ways. There's something pretty depressing about all this pessimism about students. I don't share it. Just because our students can't just have information and ways of thinking downloaded to their brains, doesn't mean the whole idea of a broad based education is a lost cause.

Motivation is not a function of the college's selectivity or student aptitude. I have had disengaged A students who went through the motions and super motivated C students who couldn't quite get their homework done but were still among the liveliest and most insightful.