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

[tuxthepenguin]

I'm strongly against dropping gen ed humanities requirements just because they don't offer any direct job skills. On the other hand, I'm disappointed that you won't get very far if you argue that all gen ed courses should incorporate training of some skills that help the students. My proposal wasn't exactly the skills you've listed, but I've argued that some such training should be a part of all of those classes. For example, incorporating advanced spreadsheet usage into a history class if that's something the professor can do. I understand that faculty in those departments want to teach "pure" classes. I also understand that they want to continue to be paid.

A couple of decades ago I started having fewer experiments in labs and having more lab exercises to teach specific skills. I have two lab exercises on using spreadsheets; one for doing basic calculations and some statistical analysis, and one on graphing. Surprise, surprise; students from other disciplines have told me afterwards how they now do all their labs in their own disciplines using spreadsheets, and wouldn't dream of doing it otherwise. I also started having exercises in how to do library research (run by our library), and on writing (run by our Writing Centre). So they do less "subject" content but learn more skills that will benefit no matter what they do.

I honestly think that if some of these courses that claim to teach "soft skills" would actually incorporate some explicit instruction  in tools, techniques, etc. rather than simply expecting students to learn it by osmosis then students would have more satisfaction that they had, in fact, learned something which may be useful in the future.

What you are talking about here is teaching skills in a contextualized way.

For example, in history, they are learning research, writing, considering alternative points of view, and evaluating potential outcomes against reality. Now how do you teach those "skills" without an interesting context - in this case, history. Or literature, or gender studies, or any other "humanities gen ed" topic? I suppose you could just put it all on an online quiz and have students search for random factoids, write a grammatically correct robo-graded essay, and so forth. Would you really be teaching those "skills?"

The important thing is that faculty would be explicitly teaching those skills. If I hire a plumber, I don't want to receive a bill for $2400 for "services rendered". I want to know what they did and why. I see no reason why it should be any different for college students. Make a dedicated effort to teach certain skills in the context of a history class and tell the students that's what you're doing. Even if they think it's dumb that they have to learn history, they'll agree that they gained something by taking the history class. It might feel good to tell your friends that you teach a class that exists solely for the purpose of learning, but that makes it easy to drop your class, and there's no reason it has to be that way.

In response to one of the comments above, this has been proposed many times. I was by no means the first. The surprising thing is the resistance from faculty in departments that might cease to exist in the near future. Why aren't they pushing for this change?

[marshwiggle]

In response to one of the comments above, this has been proposed many times. I was by no means the first. The surprising thing is the resistance from faculty in departments that might cease to exist in the near future. Why aren't they pushing for this change?

I think part of the problem is that faculty had to pick up those skills themselves "by osmosis", so they have a hard time trying to articulate the process. I have found it challenging also, but it's well worth it when I can see my students actually learn and know that they have learned.

[ciao_yall]

I'm strongly against dropping gen ed humanities requirements just because they don't offer any direct job skills. On the other hand, I'm disappointed that you won't get very far if you argue that all gen ed courses should incorporate training of some skills that help the students. My proposal wasn't exactly the skills you've listed, but I've argued that some such training should be a part of all of those classes. For example, incorporating advanced spreadsheet usage into a history class if that's something the professor can do. I understand that faculty in those departments want to teach "pure" classes. I also understand that they want to continue to be paid.

A couple of decades ago I started having fewer experiments in labs and having more lab exercises to teach specific skills. I have two lab exercises on using spreadsheets; one for doing basic calculations and some statistical analysis, and one on graphing. Surprise, surprise; students from other disciplines have told me afterwards how they now do all their labs in their own disciplines using spreadsheets, and wouldn't dream of doing it otherwise. I also started having exercises in how to do library research (run by our library), and on writing (run by our Writing Centre). So they do less "subject" content but learn more skills that will benefit no matter what they do.

I honestly think that if some of these courses that claim to teach "soft skills" would actually incorporate some explicit instruction  in tools, techniques, etc. rather than simply expecting students to learn it by osmosis then students would have more satisfaction that they had, in fact, learned something which may be useful in the future.

What you are talking about here is teaching skills in a contextualized way.

For example, in history, they are learning research, writing, considering alternative points of view, and evaluating potential outcomes against reality. Now how do you teach those "skills" without an interesting context - in this case, history. Or literature, or gender studies, or any other "humanities gen ed" topic? I suppose you could just put it all on an online quiz and have students search for random factoids, write a grammatically correct robo-graded essay, and so forth. Would you really be teaching those "skills?"

The important thing is that faculty would be explicitly teaching those skills. If I hire a plumber, I don't want to receive a bill for $2400 for "services rendered". I want to know what they did and why. I see no reason why it should be any different for college students. Make a dedicated effort to teach certain skills in the context of a history class and tell the students that's what you're doing. Even if they think it's dumb that they have to learn history, they'll agree that they gained something by taking the history class. It might feel good to tell your friends that you teach a class that exists solely for the purpose of learning, but that makes it easy to drop your class, and there's no reason it has to be that way.

In response to one of the comments above, this has been proposed many times. I was by no means the first. The surprising thing is the resistance from faculty in departments that might cease to exist in the near future. Why aren't they pushing for this change?

Well, they do explicitly teach them, obviously, which is how the students get through the class.

The resistance tends to come because different fields have different methods for doing research, writing styles, evaluation and weight of fact versus opinion versus perception.

So when someone starts wanting to micromanage how historians or psychologists or whomever do their work, the hackles come up fast.

Case in point - I taught business (so I have some neoliberal cred on this.) In business, our grammar and spelling are to be impeccable. Writing is clear and declarative and factual. Does this disadvantage certain communities and English language learners? Yep. Guess what, that is life. Writing is a key part of business and if you don't write properly you won't get anywhere. Them's the rules and culture, and I can't change them.

So I used to get a lot of crap from other departments because I insisted on grading student writing and even taking off points for style and grammar issues. "But it's their thoughts that are important," some would wail. True, still, if they can't present their thoughts in a way that is accepted within 99% of the business community, those important thoughts will simply not be herd heard.

[ciao_yall]

[. . .]

For example, in history, they are learning research, writing, considering alternative points of view, and evaluating potential outcomes against reality.

[. . .]

Maybe in an ideal world. But for many undergraduates, "history" means completing a gen ed requirement consisting of sitting in a lecture hall with 100-300 other students, taking a few Scantron tests, and maybe writing a term paper the night before it is due that will only ever be read by an adjunct or a GTA. Not very cost effective in terms of learning skills or content.

And that is why we need to prioritize gen eds and fund them sufficiently to create real learning.

I think Scantron is evil.

[downer]

[. . .]

For example, in history, they are learning research, writing, considering alternative points of view, and evaluating potential outcomes against reality.

[. . .]

Maybe in an ideal world. But for many undergraduates, "history" means completing a gen ed requirement consisting of sitting in a lecture hall with 100-300 other students, taking a few Scantron tests, and maybe writing a term paper the night before it is due that will only ever be read by an adjunct or a GTA. Not very cost effective in terms of learning skills or content.

And that is why we need to prioritize gen eds and fund them sufficiently to create real learning.

I think Scantron is evil.

Well that's never going to happen. So what's the best option, given the available options?

[marshwiggle]

Well, they do explicitly teach them, obviously, which is how the students get through the class.

The resistance tends to come because different fields have different methods for doing research, writing styles, evaluation and weight of fact versus opinion versus perception.

That's the most terrifying statement I've heard on here.

[Wahoo Redux]

The point isn't that everyone needs algebra so much as if almost no one even gets that first step, we're screwed.

* Bright enough people with social capital get good-to-great jobs
* Some bright enough people with social capital get college degrees.
* Therefore, college degrees make people bright and employable.

People who are bright enough and driven enough tend to do acceptably well within their communities.  Those folks tend to not end up in overall high-powered jobs, but they are our community leaders regardless of their formal education.

I absolutely knew someone would say this.  It's cliche. It's a no duh declaration. That's why I said:

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, thank you for pointing out the obvious socioeconomic dynamics----we all know them----and now I am pointing out another dynamic, the educational one.

The simple fact remains, our high-end success stories (CEOs, film directors, inventors, investors, designers, writers, researchers, artists) are overwhelmingly college educated.  We don't necessarily like our politicians, but overwhelmingly these folks are college educated.  And our most difficult professions that directly affect people's lives (doctoring, lawyering, engineering, military officers, most sheriffs and police commissioners) all require college degrees.  And yes, even the lowly professoriate requires those undergrad degrees with their darn gen eds for virtually any position (unless one is a highly successful artist in some genre or medium).

On a related note: How many jobs require a college degree as a gateway requirement?  Go ahead, explain that one away.  Someone thinks that these degrees where no one really learns very much are important.

No one is saying we are educating people perfectly.  No one is saying it can't be done better.  But before we get too far out there, we better remember that something has gone right within the halls of academia. 

To deny that is simply to deny facts.

If Polly, you and Spork think you can re-rig American secondary education as it actually exists, go ahead.  Figure out how to realistically rewire what we do given the tax structure and mission of mandatory education. 

[spork]

[. . .]

the takeaway from all of this is that nobody needs to know anything about history.

That isn't the takeaway. Never stated or implied that it was.

Example: annual tuition, after discount, at a four-year, private non-profit university is $25,000. An undergraduate needs 120 credits to graduate, the university has a fall-spring semester calendar and forces eight semesters of enrollment. The student takes 10 courses per year, at $2,500 per course. So at a cost of $2,500, the student has to take a course in Gen Ed 101. The student has no interest in the course topic, the course is nothing but Scantron tests and a term paper, and the course results in little to no learning on the student's part. That's $2,500 down the drain for every course that offers what can be obtained for almost nothing from books at the public library or that repeats material that should have been learned in elementary school.

[tuxthepenguin]

Well, they do explicitly teach them, obviously, which is how the students get through the class.

The resistance tends to come because different fields have different methods for doing research, writing styles, evaluation and weight of fact versus opinion versus perception.

So when someone starts wanting to micromanage how historians or psychologists or whomever do their work, the hackles come up fast.

You're missing the point of the proposals. History profs are teaching history, not spreadsheets or writing or public speaking or other practical skills. The students get through the class by taking tests over history.

This isn't micromanaging and it doesn't have anything to do with telling historians how to do their work.. These proposals would require any gen ed course instructor to explain what practical skills they are teaching. It could be writing, public speaking, computer programming, interpersonal skills, personal finance, sales, or many others. If the university is going to require students to take a particular class, that class has to do more than cover knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Other courses, like a seminar in European history, would have no such requirement.

[Wahoo Redux]

So at a cost of $2,500, the student has to take a course in Gen Ed 101. The student has no interest in the course topic, the course is nothing but Scantron tests and a term paper, and the course results in little to no learning on the student's part. That's $2,500 down the drain for every course that offers what can be obtained for almost nothing from books at the public library or that repeats material that should have been learned in elementary school.

This is why you sound so embittered to me. 

Firstly, you cannot make this kind of blanket statement.  You just can't.  Particularly when considering the size of our undergraduate population.

Secondly, this is not necessarily what happens.  I am a prime example.

Thirdly, this attitude is not about gen eds alone.  A couple of years ago I gave a brief assignment to my students asking them to explain why they were in college.  I was stunned by the negativity.  I am likewise stunned by the negativity I overhear when students are discussing their professors or classes (fortunately I've never overheard anyone say anything too terrible about me). 

Very few people really, truly enjoy school.  When I thought about it, I didn't either, at least not until the graduate level.  This part of the reason we have giant football schools and Greek systems; if we didn't provide a substantial amount of entertainment value to schooling, our colleges and unis would be, I dunno, a third their sizes?  Half their sizes?  Who can say.

Yet for some reason we still think education is pretty important.  And as I've posted elsewhere, educated people predominate the ranks of individuals who are the most successful in our culture. 

So your hypothetical academic victim, even if hu is pretty unhappy with the experience, probably gets a lot out of it whether or not they or you want to admit it.

[marshwiggle]

Well, they do explicitly teach them, obviously, which is how the students get through the class.

The resistance tends to come because different fields have different methods for doing research, writing styles, evaluation and weight of fact versus opinion versus perception.

So when someone starts wanting to micromanage how historians or psychologists or whomever do their work, the hackles come up fast.

You're missing the point of the proposals. History profs are teaching history, not spreadsheets or writing or public speaking or other practical skills. The students get through the class by taking tests over history.

This isn't micromanaging and it doesn't have anything to do with telling historians how to do their work.. These proposals would require any gen ed course instructor to explain what practical skills they are teaching. It could be writing, public speaking, computer programming, interpersonal skills, personal finance, sales, or many others. If the university is going to require students to take a particular class, that class has to do more than cover knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Other courses, like a seminar in European history, would have no such requirement.

And I think, if universities actually did this, they they could make that a selling point for those courses.

[marshwiggle]

Very few people really, truly enjoy school.  When I thought about it, I didn't either, at least not until the graduate level.  This part of the reason we have giant football schools and Greek systems; if we didn't provide a substantial amount of entertainment value to schooling, our colleges and unis would be, I dunno, a third their sizes?  Half their sizes?  Who can say.

Yet for some reason we still think education is pretty important.  And as I've posted elsewhere, educated people predominate the ranks of individuals who are the most successful in our culture. 

So your hypothetical academic victim, even if hu is pretty unhappy with the experience, probably gets a lot out of it whether or not they or you want to admit it.

Sorry for the double post, but perhaps you could enlighten a colleague on another thread:

Regardless, we're now stuck in a pattern where only a handful of stellar students talk, the bottom 30% will barely complete in-class exercises, and nobody seems particularly prepared or interested (although at least nobody's hostile). 

Sounds like there may be quite a few who are "getting a lot out of it whether or not they want to admit it."

[polly_mer]

On a related note: How many jobs require a college degree as a gateway requirement?  Go ahead, explain that one away.  Someone thinks that these degrees where no one really learns very much are important.

Calling something a cliche doesn't make it untrue.  For jobs that don't require specific skills, requiring a college degree is simply the easiest filter to apply to ensure that the new hire is very likely to be bright enough to learn something new, socially polished enough to not be an embarrassment, and pliant enough to have knuckled under to the formal educational system and therefore very likely to knuckle under to the corporate system.   

Companies that really need the social polish tend to recruit from specific institutions and only the recent graduates.  Those companies are sorting based on who has obviously bought into the whole American system, especially if the new hires have done the socially responsible and accepted ways of gentle protest related to social justice that isn't all that hard for an individual and doesn't make that much difference to the workings of the system.  The filter is absolutely for social class and related mindsets and actions.

The corollary is that good enough students who attend good enough schools end up back in their old neighborhoods with whatever jobs their social network can find that didn't need a college education.  Networking, including attending the right schools all the way up, but definitely for college and post-college is the way people get the unadvertised jobs that constitute 70-85% of the jobs.

For jobs that require specific skills that are only learned in college, college pedigree matters much less and companies advertise the jobs they have to the general public because they need those specific skills.  That's not filtering on the college degree; that's acknowledging how useful formal education can be in specific areas where formal education is the most effective way to get knowledgeable people.

Be dismissive all you like of pointing out the obvious, but ignoring the effects of socioeconomic status means failing at critical thinking regarding what's currently happening, what's likely to continue to happen, and what can be done to address known problems.

Some sectors of higher education are indeed doing something well.  However, large fractions of college-going people being underprepared for college, college graduation rates of 50-70%, and college graduation rates that vary strongly by socioeconomic status indicate something is also very wrong with higher education. 

Fixing the K-12 system is hard, but a better use of the resources if the social goal is more people who are better broadly educated instead of college-level teaching jobs for faculty members.  Otherwise, we're going to continue to read about college students who can't recite the alphabet and yet are somehow supposed to be getting something out of their trip to the library.

Correlation (having a college degree) is not causation (being bright enough, supported enough, and taking full advantage of all the educational opportunities along the way).  It's cliche because it's true.

[Wahoo Redux]

On a related note: How many jobs require a college degree as a gateway requirement?  Go ahead, explain that one away.  Someone thinks that these degrees where no one really learns very much are important.

Calling something a cliche doesn't make it untrue.  For jobs that don't require specific skills, requiring a college degree is simply the easiest filter to apply to ensure that the new hire is very likely to be bright enough to learn something new, socially polished enough to not be an embarrassment, and pliant enough to have knuckled under to the formal educational system and therefore very likely to knuckle under to the corporate system.   

This sounds like a pretty good justification for college to me.  Including gen eds.  I'm sold.

Be dismissive all you like of pointing out the obvious, but ignoring the effects of socioeconomic status means failing at critical thinking regarding what's currently happening, what's likely to continue to happen, and what can be done to address known problems.

See, this is the trouble with debates in general.  I never dismissed that ingredient in the recipe.  I actually acknowledged it by saying yes, yes, yes we all know this.  Yes, yes, yes.  We know.

[ciao_yall]

On a related note: How many jobs require a college degree as a gateway requirement?  Go ahead, explain that one away.  Someone thinks that these degrees where no one really learns very much are important.

Calling something a cliche doesn't make it untrue.  For jobs that don't require specific skills, requiring a college degree is simply the easiest filter to apply to ensure that the new hire is very likely to be bright enough to learn something new, socially polished enough to not be an embarrassment, and pliant enough to have knuckled under to the formal educational system and therefore very likely to knuckle under to the corporate system.   

....

Correlation (having a college degree) is not causation (being bright enough, supported enough, and taking full advantage of all the educational opportunities along the way).  It's cliche because it's true.

Blah blah blah, polly_mer. Where would you be today without your college degree? Still in your hometown scraping to make ends meet?

You had opportunities. Stop using your prolific typing skills to explain why other people shouldn't have the same.