"You'll Use This Everyday for the Rest of Your Life..."

[ciao_yall]

My memory works really differently for things I liked and things I didn't. Four years of Spanish is all but gone, but I still remember Great Gatsby and On the Road pretty well even though I haven't picked up either book since I was sixteen. I'm not good with languages, but I did fine in my sciences classes and still can't remember much. I think it just didn't pique my interest much and got stored in my brain as just a collection of discrete pieces that got dumped out at some point.

OK, with that realization (and you are far from the only one), what should we do about mandatory education?

Where's the line on how to allocate our limited resources so that we get the best return on investment, even if that return is social good, not more money?

I'm not sure that it is really a problem. Or, to put it an other way, it is part of the nature of education. Some people, like me, suck at languages and also will be bad at applying themselves to things they aren't good at. But does that mean that language education isn't important? Or that we should ditch it as a requirement? Focusing on the utility of education is always going to be a trap, because it is impossible to know what skills, knowledge or ways of thinking about the world might be helpful to someone in the future. The more you focus on utility, the more you crush all the life out of the whole thing. For an example of this, just see the suggestion above about universal testing for each major, which I'm quite sure would make for deadly boring classes which taught to the test and were not about the things instructors and students were interested in.

Even if someone never uses their French or Spanish again, learning a language teaches cultural appreciation. And perspective - interesting to learn how languages are used and idiomatic expressions.

And maybe some humility and appreciation for those who have to learn a new language when they move to a new country.

[Wahoo Redux]

My memory works really differently for things I liked and things I didn't. Four years of Spanish is all but gone, but I still remember Great Gatsby and On the Road pretty well even though I haven't picked up either book since I was sixteen. I'm not good with languages, but I did fine in my sciences classes and still can't remember much. I think it just didn't pique my interest much and got stored in my brain as just a collection of discrete pieces that got dumped out at some point.

OK, with that realization (and you are far from the only one), what should we do about mandatory education?

Where's the line on how to allocate our limited resources so that we get the best return on investment, even if that return is social good, not more money?

It's a good and valid question.  The social good comes from people who have brains bigger than the mere precincts of their jobs.

One of our non-trads just took the LSAT.  To study for the LSAT hu practiced on some of the toughest prep questions I have ever seen covering logic, analytical stuff, reading comprehension, and writing.  The student-in-question did not know hu wanted to be a lawyer until consciousness pricked; the student seriously wants to do labor and civil rights law because of personal experience.  What the future holds for this person, who knows?  But hu's broadly defined liberal arts education in English is the stuff of the LSAT and the stuff that lawyers do.  A streamlined, singular approach to education would not have prepped this person.  In the broader practical sense, this is what education is all about----it is not job training, it is preparation to do new things that you may not have known you would be doing one day (see Spork's comment about diagnosing the rhetorical structure of academic journal articles).

My father was very upset that I wanted to study English until one of his partners explained why he loved English majors: they could write good memos.  Even back then I knew that dad and his partner had missed the point----yet this does point out something serious.

Routinely I teach business writing to accounting, marketing, and finance majors.  These folks have a good basic vocabulary, basic syntax, and good basic grammar (but they never understand the semicolon).  They can write a cogent email about a new printer or, say, new office hours-----but if they have to do anything that harnesses subtlety or argumentation or complexity then they are in trouble. 

Not important? 

When they graduate they will have a degree from a middling state school, an internship, and a job at MacDonalds or Walmart on their resumes.  They will have 300 words on a cover letter to make the case that they should rise above the other 100 candidates for that coveted job in nearby-big-city where they all want to go.  If they are ever faced with compiling a complicated research report covering, say, the eastern seaboard and explaining the intricacies of the market, it will be a tremendous struggle.  Part of my job is to get them ready for these sorts of tasks: only a few of them will end up in the careers they envision.  My big advice to them: read, read, read.  If it were up to me, they would all take a course in philosophy, creative writing, journalism, and Modernist literature as a routine part of their business degrees; they need just this kind of training to communicate better than they are doing. The acquisition of complex language-skills is not an easy task, but at some point it will be essential to them. 

You just acknowledged you can do an algebraic proof better than you can a compound sentence, Polly.  And frankly, I sometimes get lost in your diction.  With all due respect (as a guy who wishes he had paid more attention in algebra), maybe you should have taken more literature and journalism.

[Caracal]

Fields like medicine, law, and accounting rely on universal testing because it means that people who pass have a definable level of knowledge of the material. By not having an external test to "teach to", instructors can just do their own thing, and may not even really cover their own syllabus, but rather focus on their own pet topics. It's a double-edged sword.

Sure, but these are all professional programs where someone is getting a certificate allowing them to practice. In fact, the exam is created and administered by professional bodies in the fields. Lawyers want to be able to control who can practice in their profession and set a minimum bar of knowledge and they've been successful at getting the state to ratify their authority and control over the profession. Outside of a few areas, college degrees don't have this kind of clear pathway to particular professions with professional bodies acting as gatekeepers.

[Caracal]

Even if someone never uses their French or Spanish again, learning a language teaches cultural appreciation. And perspective - interesting to learn how languages are used and idiomatic expressions.

And maybe some humility and appreciation for those who have to learn a new language when they move to a new country.

Very good point. When I hear someone struggling to speak English, or speaking with a heavy accent, I often think about how terrible my Spanish is.

[marshwiggle]

Fields like medicine, law, and accounting rely on universal testing because it means that people who pass have a definable level of knowledge of the material. By not having an external test to "teach to", instructors can just do their own thing, and may not even really cover their own syllabus, but rather focus on their own pet topics. It's a double-edged sword.

Sure, but these are all professional programs where someone is getting a certificate allowing them to practice. In fact, the exam is created and administered by professional bodies in the fields. Lawyers want to be able to control who can practice in their profession and set a minimum bar of knowledge and they've been successful at getting the state to ratify their authority and control over the profession. Outside of a few areas, college degrees don't have this kind of clear pathway to particular professions with professional bodies acting as gatekeepers.

Yes, but the point is that it really matters that people know their stuff in these fields, because careers, businesses, and even lives depend on it. To say that it's more important that instructors can do whatever appeals to them implies that (in contrast to professional fields) there is no fundamental knowledge that a person should have after "studying" in that field. That invites the kind of criticism which says that graduates of certain programs learn nothing useful, if there is not any definite content that is guaranteed. An incompetent plumber can be identified by his/her inability to perform tasks that any plumber should be able to perform. If an entire degree program doesn't result in any objectively measurable knowledge or ability, then it's worth asking whether that is reasonable.

[Caracal]

Yes, but the point is that it really matters that people know their stuff in these fields, because careers, businesses, and even lives depend on it.

To say that it's more important that instructors can do whatever appeals to them implies that (in contrast to professional fields) there is no fundamental knowledge that a person should have after "studying" in that field. That invites the kind of criticism which says that graduates of certain programs learn nothing useful, if there is not any definite content that is guaranteed. An incompetent plumber can be identified by his/her inability to perform tasks that any plumber should be able to perform. If an entire degree program doesn't result in any objectively measurable knowledge or ability, then it's worth asking whether that is reasonable.
[/quote]

The comparison just doesn't make much sense. This isn't how college majors are designed. Someone who majors in biology isn't progressing to some clearly defined career path. Thats what professional exams and tests are about, not a determination on how important we think the subject is. It is a form of professional gatekeeping. I'm not really sure you understand how we think about knowledge in the humanities. The model you have seems to be that knowledge of particular "stuff" defines expertise. But that isn't really how it works. Expertise in history isn't about knowing when Harry Truman was elected or exactly what the Marshall plan did. In effect, plenty of content is guaranteed. I promise you that nobody reputable teaching modern Europe just skips the French Revolution or WW1. But after that, survey courses are a constant tug of war between breadth and depth and there isn't some clear answer on what one should spend more or less time on. Is the Great Migration more or less important than Prohibition? Would it be more valuable to know about the Tulsa Race Riot or U.S foreign policy after the Spanish American War? If you choose both too many times you end up with a really boring class that doesn't allow you to look at anything with any nuance.

Also, instructors teaching things they are interested in is hardly a bad thing. I try to maintain a balance between teaching things I'm passionate about, things I think my students might find relevant and things that I think are important to know regardless.

[waterboy]

So...I love this discussion. As someone with a PhD in the sciences, I was never good at math and felt I had to hide that fact somewhat. I rarely have needed anything I took through calculus (and somehow managed an A in that). Yet I've managed to comfortably get through several decades of a career. What all those "unused" courses did, however, was form some rather good study habits and a deep appreciation for folks who could do those things that I could not. Sigh...still don't like reading Shakespeare, however.

[little bongo]

Oh, are we going to start having civil and productive conversations now?  When did that start and did someone hide the frying pan?
[/quote]

Hey, a shout-out! (Well, credit to Tom Robbins, but still.)

[marshwiggle]

Sigh...still don't like reading Shakespeare, however.

Reading Shakespeare, (the plays, anyway), is like watching a music video without the sound. They're meant to be watched. I haven't read Shakespeare since high school, as I recall, but I've seen plays every year or two.

Just to say that not enjoying reading Shakespeare is perfectly reasonable, in my mind.

[apl68]

What all those "unused" courses did, however, was form some rather good study habits and a deep appreciation for folks who could do those things that I could not.

Seems like that's what general education requirements are supposed to do--make students aware of an array of different fields of knowledge, and of their importance.  When people are entirely ignorant of something, they tend to assume that it's useless.  If they can at least come away from gen ed with an understanding that discipline X has something worthwhile to offer--that expertise in it means something--that's an advance right there.  That it doesn't seem to be working in so many cases is troubling, but I'm not sure that's a reason to just stop trying.

[apl68]

Sigh...still don't like reading Shakespeare, however.

Reading Shakespeare, (the plays, anyway), is like watching a music video without the sound. They're meant to be watched. I haven't read Shakespeare since high school, as I recall, but I've seen plays every year or two.

Just to say that not enjoying reading Shakespeare is perfectly reasonable, in my mind.

That's true.  Kenneth Branagh's screen adaptation of "Henry v" is what finally made Shakespeare come alive for me.  At my old job we had a theater professor who made her Shakespeare students view multiple screen versions of several different Shakespeare plays.  She was adamant that they should be viewed and not merely read.  Did make for some interesting logistics at the library media center, back when video was almost all on VHS tapes.  Her students trying to cram in all their video viewing at the end of the semester made life awfully hectic for those of us who had to provide access to those videos.

[Wahoo Redux]

When people are entirely ignorant of something, they tend to assume that it's useless [....] That it doesn't seem to be working in so many cases is troubling, but I'm not sure that's a reason to just stop trying.

Pearls, folks. 

[marshwiggle]

Seems like that's what general education requirements are supposed to do--make students aware of an array of different fields of knowledge, and of their importance.  When people are entirely ignorant of something, they tend to assume that it's useless.  If they can at least come away from gen ed with an understanding that discipline X has something worthwhile to offer--that expertise in it means something--that's an advance right there.  That it doesn't seem to be working in so many cases is troubling, but I'm not sure that's a reason to just stop trying.

Perhaps not; but it is a reason to make some changes to try and determine what does work.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing you've always done and expecting a different result.

[ciao_yall]

Seems like that's what general education requirements are supposed to do--make students aware of an array of different fields of knowledge, and of their importance.  When people are entirely ignorant of something, they tend to assume that it's useless.  If they can at least come away from gen ed with an understanding that discipline X has something worthwhile to offer--that expertise in it means something--that's an advance right there.  That it doesn't seem to be working in so many cases is troubling, but I'm not sure that's a reason to just stop trying.

Perhaps not; but it is a reason to make some changes to try and determine what does work.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing you've always done and expecting a different result.

Is there anyone out there who actually took a gen ed and decided there was nothing at all to be gained? Not even to decide that yeah, they really didn't like Shakespeare or Geology...

[marshwiggle]

Seems like that's what general education requirements are supposed to do--make students aware of an array of different fields of knowledge, and of their importance.  When people are entirely ignorant of something, they tend to assume that it's useless.  If they can at least come away from gen ed with an understanding that discipline X has something worthwhile to offer--that expertise in it means something--that's an advance right there.  That it doesn't seem to be working in so many cases is troubling, but I'm not sure that's a reason to just stop trying.

Perhaps not; but it is a reason to make some changes to try and determine what does work.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing you've always done and expecting a different result.

Is there anyone out there who actually took a gen ed and decided there was nothing at all to be gained? Not even to decide that yeah, they really didn't like Shakespeare or Geology...

I have a strong hunch that the majority of people who were forced into a course outside their "comfort zone" but who benefited from it were serious students who struggled with it and got something out of it. However, the apathetic students who make no effort beyond the minimum to pass who just want to get through probably don't get any appreciable benefit.