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

[spork]

[. . .]

Spork my friend I don't know what your point is.

[. . .]

See my most recent post (or second most recent, counting this one) upthread.

Yeah, saw that one.  Still wasn't sure what you were on about.  But since you mentioned it...

People who get B.A.s in the humanities generally choose those majors out of interest and capability. Forcing other students to take courses in which they have no interest and little capability generally serves no purpose other than collecting their tuition money and employing faculty in those fields (whether full- or part-time).

Can you substantiate any of that?

Do you have any studies or interviews or proof that A) students resent the gen eds or that B) schools include gen eds simply to "collect tuition"?

Let's examine the converse: all undergraduates are required to successfully complete a single dental hygienist course, because, as we all know, dental hygiene is extremely important. Would this lead to a massive increase in the number of dental hygienist majors? No. Would it lead to new life-altering awareness of and ability to apply dental hygiene techniques? Generally, no. Would it be the direct cause of a huge increase in life satisfaction among college graduates? Probably not. Would the vast majority of students regard Dental Hygiene 101 as a meaningless hoop they had to jump through to get a bachelor's degree? Yes.

Really?  You have any objective info which would suggest the above?

I'll point to Arum and Roksa's Academically Adrift, with its finding that on average undergraduates are learning little to nothing in the first two years of college -- which (my comment, not theirs) is when students complete most of their general education requirements.

I don't have stats on this, but I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of colleges and universities are using a distribution model for most of their general education requirements. The model typically centers around "take at least one course in each of X different academic disciplines." By default those courses are almost always 100-level, frequently taught by adjuncts or grad students.

As for students choosing their majors out of interest and capability, rather than "I took Basketweaving 101 in my first college semester and it was so transformative that I majored in Basketweaving," there is the decline in the percentage of students choosing to major in humanities fields. (Also discussed here.)

Generally I think that choice of major is a fairly good indicator of revealed preferences. Students are voting with their feet. The AAAS conclusions referenced in the second item linked to above are particularly damning.

Again from where I sit -- non-prestigious, non-profit university -- I don't see the "take one course in each of X different disciplines" requirement doing much besides generating tuition revenue, and in fact even that is going away -- because of demographic changes, we are working on block transfer agreements with area community colleges. Students earn 60 credits at community college, completing their gen ed requirements in the process, then transfer in to complete a B.A. in their major of choice.

[ciao_yall]

I'll point to Arum and Roksa's Academically Adrift, with its finding that on average undergraduates are learning little to nothing in the first two years of college -- which (my comment, not theirs) is when students complete most of their general education requirements.

Really? I learned a lot my first two years of college. How can someone spend 16 hours a week in class for two semesters, plus another 32 hour per week and not learn anything?

Silliest thing I ever heard.

I don't have stats on this, but I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of colleges and universities are using a distribution model for most of their general education requirements. The model typically centers around "take at least one course in each of X different academic disciplines." By default those courses are almost always 100-level, frequently taught by adjuncts or grad students.

Distribution of what?

More likely the assumption is that higher ed is expected to create graduates with some exposure to science, literature, social studies, fine arts and mathematics, so students should take some number of these classes.

Again from where I sit -- non-prestigious, non-profit university -- I don't see the "take one course in each of X different disciplines" requirement doing much besides generating tuition revenue, and in fact even that is going away -- because of demographic changes, we are working on block transfer agreements with area community colleges. Students earn 60 credits at community college, completing their gen ed requirements in the process, then transfer in to complete a B.A. in their major of choice.

Alternatively, because a college education has been long expected to create well-rounded citizens aware of the cultural and historical touch points of the educated class, whatever that means.

In California we are also dealing with the push towards students getting their gen eds and early major prep classes out of the way at a CC with smaller classes so that the 4-year schools can do the more focused study in student majors. Gen eds are still valuable for teaching students fundamental skills such as research, math, scientific method and the like.

[Wahoo Redux]

Fair enough. 

But you are aware that Academically Adrift is far from being incontestable.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/20/studies-challenge-findings-academically-adrift. 

(If anyone from SMF is watching, your hyperlink function sucks balls)

The rest of that is largely perception.  Most students fill out there gen eds throughout their college careers.

And I agree with ciao.  I was hardly a great intellect, but I learned more in my first two years of college than in all high school. I'm betting the biggest learning curve is in the first two years of college.

The decline in English majors is a complex phenomenon, and a lot of its decline is misconception regarding the degree's marketability.  I've posted about that very thing on this thread.

[spork]

[. . .]

Distribution of what?

Of different academic disciplines. Are you not familiar with how models of general education requirements are referred to in the USA?

More likely the assumption is that higher ed is expected to create graduates with some exposure to science, literature, social studies, fine arts and mathematics, so students should take some number of these classes.

Exposure does not necessarily equal learning. Or motivation to learn.

Fair enough. 

But you are aware that Academically Adrift is far from being incontestable.

Yes. But I don't have ready access to NSSE or other data that might provide a clearer picture of whether student success (however defined) can be attributed in any significant degree to general education requirements. European post-secondary ed systems don't have the kind of required gen ed curriculum that the USA has, and in many cases those systems seem to produce good outcomes.

The rest of that is largely perception.  Most students fill out there gen eds throughout their college careers.

At the two universities I attended as a student, and the four universities I've been a full-time employee at, students complete the overwhelming majority of gen ed requirements in the first two years. If curricula weren't constructed this way, community college students wouldn't be transferring to four-year universities at the rate that they do.

And I agree with ciao.  I was hardly a great intellect, but I learned more in my first two years of college than in all high school. I'm betting the biggest learning curve is in the first two years of college.

[. . . ]

I remember extremely little, if anything, from courses taken across all four years of college. But probably more representative than the experience of two academics -- though still not necessarily statistically representative -- are the exit surveys of graduating seniors at my current employer that consistently show dissatisfaction with general education courses and requirements.

[kaysixteen]

I probably should have been clearer and more specific: it is much easier for a new humanities PhD to get alternative non-academic employment if they look for it straight out of grad school, or perhaps even better, whilst still ABD.  It's much much harder to reboot and refocus into a non-academic path if one has been out of grad school for several years and now decides one has to go in such a direction.  Much much harder, yet this would be precisely when the to-date only adjunct prof, whether or not he's ever authored an 'adjunct porn' treatise, would, if taking this sort of advice, have to be searching elsewhere.

[Wahoo Redux]

As a young person my perceptions about coursework were predicated on comfort and expediency.  I suspect I was fairly typical in that regard.  I now recognize that those were maybe not the best criteria to evaluate my own education.  We also know about the developing adolescent / young adult mind, which I suspect affects how people think about subjects such as gen eds.  People complain a lot about money in this regard.  If one looks online one can find a number of opinions about gen eds, pro and con, from all quarters.  Education professionals seem to feel that gen eds are very important.

And, as I did with Polly, I will point out that there are schools which essentially do away with pesky gen eds...Be a Phoenix? 

I seriously doubt the Machiavellian approach to gen eds as a money generation scheme, don't think it holds water.  Many colleges actually lose money on students----tuition does not cover the entire cost of their education. I'm sure you know this.  Moving people through in 2 or 3 years of streamlined job-oriented education would save on technology and administrative costs, wouldn't it?  Not to mention all those adjuncts you could fire.  And if we really wanted to extra tuition, why wouldn't we just up the number of major requirements?  There is enough knowledge in every discipline to fill out doctorate level education and entire scholarly careers----why not just convert grad courses into more intensive upper-division undergrad courses, eliminate gen eds, and charge the same rate for tuition? 

[Aster]

Whenever I have thoughts as to how Higher Education can be made better, I look to what the corporate for-profit colleges have done to erode the value, quality, and public confidence of education in America.

And then my doubts go away.

[polly_mer]

And, as I did with Polly, I will point out that there are schools which essentially do away with pesky gen eds...Be a Phoenix? 

Phoenix is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is subject to the same rules as all four-year institutions including standard general education credit requirements.  Phoenix is hemorrhaging students and money because they are expensive for what they do that is the same 4-year schooling as everyone else who now is also online.  The national decrease in percent of adjuncts as faculty is generally attributed to Phoenix and similar institutions shedding faculty as they shrink or close.

A better example of eliminating general education requirements would be the competency-based models like Western Governor's University, which has 110k students enrolled.  Another example is the tightly structured minimal general education requirements in many nursing and engineering programs.  Those are generally not 30-40 credits of exploration, but are instead mandatory courses that meet needs with a tiny bit of flexibility depending on the specific term a student has a slot marked "humanities/social science elective" and what fits into the rest of the regulated schedule. 


In addition, the European higher ed system seems to function fine without US-style general education requirements.  Again, the implication that one is getting a welding certificate or dental hygienist training if one doesn't have general education is not the reality on the ground.

The calls in some areas for three-year bachelor's degrees that rely heavily on entering students having already completed many gen eds elsewhere are not going away, especially for the institutions serving the well-prepared students.  Again, the conclusion appears to be that people who have a good K-12 education can focus on their majors to speed through college, while those who had inadequate K-12 education probably need support for 6 or 8 years of undergraduate study.

As for downer's question regarding general education, much restructuring is going on.  For example, the University of Virginia is rolling out a new general education program that includes quantitative and computational fluency requirements.  With business and other non-liberal-arts majors now the popular degrees, the push-back on many campuses against a liberal-arts-lite-humanities-heavy smorgasbord will continue to increase.  After all, we keep hearing about how those poor adjuncts are being exploited to cover the requirements and it's not at all clear what those checkbox requirements being taught by overworked and underpaid adjuncts are providing in terms of a solid education.

[marshwiggle]

And, as I did with Polly, I will point out that there are schools which essentially do away with pesky gen eds...Be a Phoenix? 

As Spork and others have pointed out, lots of countries don't have gen eds and have some very prestigious institutions. It's ridiculous to present Phoenix as the only available model.

[mahagonny]

Whenever I have thoughts as to how Higher Education can be made better, I look to what the corporate for-profit colleges have done to erode the value, quality, and public confidence of education in America.

And then my doubts go away.

Not enough hockey and football. I could see that coming. In fact, I think the Marx Brothers covered that pretty well in the 1930's.

[downer]

Are there stats on what proportion of schools require gen ed in the US and what the trends are? Universities are not known for being nimble in responding to social needs and trends.

I'd be pretty happy to see a lot of gen ed thrown out. On the other hand, there is also a problem of creating an over-specialized student. Some breadth in knowledge and skills can be useful.

[polly_mer]

For those who want to follow the excitement, IHE has a column regarding the UVA new gen ed curriculum that points out that UVa is well-heeled and will be staffing this program with their already-existent full-time faculty instead of adjuncts or newly hired non-TT.

Are there stats on what proportion of schools require gen ed in the US and what the trends are?

All institutions that want their students to be eligible for federal financial aid have some sort of general education requirements on the books because that's a requirement for regional accreditation.  However, what constitutes minimally acceptable general education requirements has changed over the years.  That's something you can do the web search on yourself.  However, it's pretty typical to have eliminated the foreign language requirement and to loosen what goes on specific lists (e.g., quantitative reasoning instead of actual math; any sort of lab-like experience possibly including social science instead of a handful of physical/life sciences).

Who doesn't have general education?  The tiny little bible colleges that don't care about federal financial aid.  The fly-by-night, buy-your-degrees here institutions.  Many of the old-style correspondence education that doesn't get the same pool of federal financial aid won't have typical general education.

Western Governors University is the primary example of not having traditional general education requirements because of their competency-based model that assumes adults, not straight-from-HS graduates, and WGU is fighting hard not to have to change their methods.

[downer]

So it is the federal government that really establishes the requirement for gen ed. I didn't realize that.

I'm normally dismissive of libertarianism, but occasionally something tugs me in a libertarian direction. This does.

[tuxthepenguin]

Are there stats on what proportion of schools require gen ed in the US and what the trends are?

I don't think such stats would be helpful. "Gen ed" can mean speech and composition classes, which provide skills needed for any job, or art history, which provides no job skills. These discussions, as I've seen them, are primarily focused on elimination of humanities requirements, which in many universities would allow students to finish a semester earlier.

[downer]

Are there stats on what proportion of schools require gen ed in the US and what the trends are?

I don't think such stats would be helpful. "Gen ed" can mean speech and composition classes, which provide skills needed for any job, or art history, which provides no job skills. These discussions, as I've seen them, are primarily focused on elimination of humanities requirements, which in many universities would allow students to finish a semester earlier.

Doesn't it depend on how the stats are presented, and whether they are transparent or obfuscating?