The University Reform War

[Pecan]

No, I'm merely saying that if I had to take 12 quarters of liberal arts, then why not require humanities majors to do the same for science/math/etc.? I might have grumbled about it a little bit at the time (I had truly awful English classes in high school and picked a college where I could avoid having to take any if I didn't want to) but I ended up enjoying them, mostly.

ETA: solo, not every science class involves "science experiments". I recommend geology. Delightful rocks!

Okay I get what you're saying now, and yes, that makes a ton of sense.

[Jo498]

While it seems a good thing to have the opportunity (and obligation) to study things outside of one's major at college level, I wonder why not more of "general education" can be done in 12 years of primary/secondary school. For some reason the US who undoubtedly has some of the finest universities apparently cannot manage this with its secondary school system. I can only speak about Germany (but I believe most continental European countries are similar). But here there are several "tracks" for students starting to diverge often at age 10 or 12. The traditional college-bound track requires at least two foreign languages for about 5 years each (usually a third one for a few years as well) and maths up to basic calculus and vector algebra. Final examinations (after 12th or 13th grade) are in 4-5 subjects with German, maths and one foreign language compulsive exam subjects.

In any case the general idea is that ones general education is more or less finished before starting university. (I think it used to work quite well but I am not sure anymore because standards have relaxed and people seem to pass their exams without really knowing all that much...)

There are also schools more focused on technical subjects or business that would have less language requirements (but until recently would not enable you to study every subject at university but only the ones your secondary school focussed on).

There are about 50% of students (used to be more like 70%) who leave school after the 10th grade (roughly corresponding to British O-levels) and then usually start an apprenticeship (during which there are still some general educational requirements amounting to about one school day per week but this includes also training for the particular trade.) With a journeyman's certificate you can again, if you want, attend some kind of technical college and eventually maybe even university (but it is somewhat involved). (I knew a guy at university who left school at 16, became a chimney sweeper! by trade, attended at technical school and later college for a few years until he received an intermediary degree with which he could start at a "real university". He went on to get a PhD in nuclear physics)

[sologdin]

general requirements in US higher education is a product of cold war domestic policy (eisenhower's czar was mr. james b. conant, who wrote the standard text on the subject, 'general education in a free society' [sic]). ike famously pooh-poohed the military-industrial complex in his farewell address, but his regime set up incentives to encourage the recruitment of more engineers & encrypters & technophiles for the purposes of fighting the soviets. higher pay and a narrative that this stuff is more rigorous (and therefore its adherents are smarter, &c) might be used to attract kids into these somewhat fugly disciplines.

but: since the point of this whole cold war thing was to suppress the world proletariat, it would be untoward to exacerbate class warfare in the US by funnelling public moneys into the hands of weapon designers above the traditional professions and other educated laborers. in typical quasi-fascist reasoning, the remedy is not to be more egalitarian, but rather to use general education requirements to affix the emergent class division and glue together its disparate parts ideologically through class apologia, imperial propaganda, jingo agitation, and so on--a 'common culture' for young genocidaires. english 101 was the irreducible flagship of the core curriculum, required everywhere, wherein rudimentary communicative reasoning (mainly for the purpose of taking orders, surely) was to supplement heaping doses of elementary intellectual property doctrine and animalistic fictive individualism ('academic honesty'). students were to sample other traditional liberal arts at their convenience, and this alleged 'education' supposedly would weld their loyalties to this purportedly 'free' society, which is able to stratify amain without risk of revolution.

i think this means that STEM students are wannabe stormtroopers for the empire. this might be confirmed by conversation with young engineers in training, to see if they have any interests other than weapon design. i asked one crew of promising future rome statute violators to recommend a good one-volume history of engineering, and they told me--no shit--'go watch modern marvels on history channel.' that's how 'general education' works, i guess. by contrast, those of us who undertake a traditional & conservative study of great books, philosophy, religion, history, art, pure science (which eschews television NB) subvert the imperialist project.

it also means that rightwing complaints about the university (fromm, bloom, horowitz, kimball, et al.) are a fucking joke. the empire has structured the university precisely as it now exists. the weakness of course is that the core curricula can't be taught by reliable technocratic fascists in all instances, which means that weapons designers will come into corruptive contact with humanized influences. that's why the less cool conantians flip out about leftists in the university. OH NOS they're influencing our children with marx and freud and nietzsche instead of teaching them about nuclear bombs and nerve gas WUT EFRUNTARY!!!

[Larry of the Lawn]

Fixed that for you.

hahahah

it also means that rightwing complaints about the university (fromm, bloom, horowitz, kimball, et al.) are a fucking joke. the empire has structured the university precisely as it now exists. the weakness of course is that the core curricula can't be taught by reliable technocratic fascists in all instances, which means that weapons designers will come into corruptive contact with humanized influences. that's why the less cool conantians flip out about leftists in the university. OH NOS they're influencing our children with marx and freud and nietzsche instead of teaching them about nuclear bombs and nerve gas WUT EFRUNTARY!!!

This is how I feel when I hear all my coworkers complain about how colleges in the US are "a bunch of liberal propaganda."

[Jo498]

But why not have the propaganda (for the IMPERIUM, the CATHEDRAL, the PARTY or whatever) in the last two years of high school. Younger = more malleable.

[sologdin]

secondary education in the US is subject to idiosyncratic local control in directly elected school boards. board members need have no particular credentials generally; the results are generally worse than one might imagine. funding is also local, via property tax--also worse results than one might readily imagine. difficult to control the yahoos who end up on boards, then, and to fund all of these for high tech training, maybe. the federal statutes require a certain basic literacy from secondary schools, and certainly there's plenty of jingoism and animalistic fuctive individualism (repeat after me in life-of-brian mantra: we are all individuals! we are all different!). their function is to sort into proletarian ranges (huxley's epsilons through alphas, say), sending some to university and others into other employments. it also, despite its universalist propaganda, has the function to reject bataille's accursed share by discharging and thereby lumpenizing disciplinary cases, disabled students, and others whom capitalism prefers to bury.

[Ormond]

Every college and university in the USA sets its own "core" curriculum.

It's my observation that the core has gotten less rigorous and that there is more choice for students in what to take as part of their "core" almost everywhere. Back when I was an undergraduate in the early 1970s most universities had a foreign language requirement. I think that is now rare outside of elite schools. The huge majority of Americans now get a college degree without having any foreign language at all. The amount of math and lab science required has also been lessened in most places. I think one or two basic courses in English composition are about the only "core" subject that's still nearly universal. The rest of the "core" actually involves a lot of choice, where students have to take some courses in specified areas such as the humanities, the social sciences, and the physical sciences, but get to choose exactly which course to take among those broad categories.

Gee, it would be nice to have a German-like system in the USA where college bound students actually get what in the USA is the equivalent of a two year community college education before they go on to university. But there just isn't any support for that among the general public in the USA. The idea that any public high school in the USA would add a 13th grade is just about as probable s the moon really being made of green cheese.

People who work in university administrations these days are more and more dominated by those who see higher education just as a business and are focused on the "bottom line", even at public and supposedly non-profit private schools. Students are seen as "customers" and there is pressure on faculty to not drive the "customers" away by requiring anything that's too hard or that students might not like. The idea that it might be a good thing for most people to have to take several courses in subjects they don't like is itself foreign to a lot of Americans these days. The majors that many universities offer have also become much more specific to very particular jobs as a result. The university where I teach has majors in "Advanced Manufacturing in the Business Enterprise" and "Investigations" but has dropped its traditional majors in English, History, Political Science, and Sociology. A lot of what American universities offer now are the sorts of very specific job training which is done by the apprenticeship programs in Germany.

[Jo498]

Thanks for your information.

I spent one year as a visiting student in the US almost 20 years ago (UW, Seattle, Dept. of Physics, academic year 95/96) and because I had some freedom I took an introductory Spanish class. Most fellow students there took that class for their foreign language requirement and had completely different majors. One guy was majoring in French and wanted or had to take another romance language.

While this was a decent course with one lesson per day during the term, it seems rather meagre if this is the only certified foreign language exposure someone gets. And one would hardly be reading Cervantes after this year...

(I have to add, though, that most Physics grad students there were both very good at their subject and also quite well-rounded, and some even spoke a foreign language fairly well ;) But this was certainly a somewhat elite subset of the (academic) population.)

As I said in Germany foreign languages used to be simply required for even passing the academic HS track and being admitted to university. This has been relaxed to the point that some people are admitted with only one foreign language from high school but have to get some foreign language certificate before graduating university.

Of course there are still specific requirements, although there has been some relaxation as well. You cannot become a Latin teacher if you do not have basic Ancient Greek and I think you still need basic Latin if you want to be a teacher of French or Spanish and maybe also history (of course everyone doing ancient/medieval history has to). Some traditions die very slowly. You can take those Latin classes at university accompanying your studies but, interestingly, the exam you take for Latin is formally a supplement to your HS diploma (and taken at a secondary school with a focus on Latin/Classics while the preparatory class is offered by the university). Of course most people forget this stuff immediately afterwards...

[Whitestripe]

Liberal Arts is literally going to get you nowhere.)

Somehow, my husband and I managed to do just fine in spite of our liberal arts degrees. (From UNC, no less)

[sologdin]

that gets-you-nowhere stuff is the cold war narrative talking. hard to believe that anyone truly believes it, as opposed to parroting it as officially sanctioned self-serving non-monetary compensation.

[Liffguard]

This thread makes pretty interesting reading from the UK perspective since it seems we have some major differences in the way higher education is run. Obviously different universities vary, but I didn't have to study anything that wasn't related to my actual degree subject.

[AverageGuy]

I wonder what each of UNC's board of governors majored in?

[Altherion]

I wonder what each of UNC's board of governors majored in?

This is public knowledge. Some of them don't state the major, but it's a mix of business and liberal arts with a smaller number from economics, applied sciences and medicine.

[Aemon Stark]

I really dislike the "STEM" term as there's nothing intrinsic to a degree in, say, biology or pure math that conveys tremendous job opportunities. As ever, it's what you do with a degree that matters and, of course, how well you did in say degree. Someone scraping through a math degree with a C average is probably not going to do as well as another student graduating with an honours history degree and an A average.

We probably have too many students going to four-year university programs who would be better with vocational/apprentice training. And too many business/commerce majors who don't learn any "hard" skills, but probably are decent enough at giving presentations (not that I think you need much formal training for that).

In terms of the actual situation in the OP, I find government interference in course content pretty disturbing. That universities receive government funding is irrelevant, as the purpose of said funding is not to enforce partisan ideology.

[dog-days]

I left university in 2009 after doing a four year degree in Scotland. A liberal arts degree in American terms.

To get into university, I certainly didn't need two languages or maths as in Germany. In the UK, at A-Level/Abitur level most people take three or four subjects. They can take pretty much whatever they want, as long as their school offers it and it fits into the timetable. Maths is compulsory up to GCSE level (at sixteen), after which many people, including me, drop it. I didn't doubt it's usefulness, but I thought it was for people who weren't me i.e. crap at maths. And maths/science just seemed much less exciting than the options in the humanities. It was only really after I graduated from university that I learnt to feel any enthusiasm for the sciences through the work of writers such as Richard Holmes.

I think the UK government is very keen on pushing stem subjects now. The increase in student loans may make people think harder about their choices at university. The universities themselves are keen to invest in STEM and business facilities, in order to attract lots of wealthy international students. Go into the business building where I work and even the toilets smell of lilac and peach blossom. (In the humanities building, the toilets smell of toilet.)

I'm not sure how I feel about the humanities being left to a handful of confident rich kids while everyone else studies STEM or vocational subjects. Sad, I suppose. Even if rationally, I can't argue against it. I worry that the time of the humanities is over. "Eheu fugaces, Postume Postume, labuntur anni..."

My life since graduating has been fairly turbulent (seven + addresses in six years in 4.5 different countries, after having had just two in the first twenty-two), and certainly the vast majority of power has been in the hands of job providers - I've been the beggar at the gate in every job interview. My degree wasn't totally useless - it led into the language-related work I did after graduating, and is currently helping me at the start of my new career path as well. I would quite like to go back and do a Master's in my old subject, but financially that's just not going to happen.

[Larry of the Lawn]

We probably have too many students going to four-year university programs who would be better with vocational/apprentice training.

Yeah, I majored in Liberal Arts, but dropped out with about a semester left, because I was young and stupid. I enjoyed the material I studied and while it wasn't very applicable to my field in any direct way; I think it was great for just giving the brain a workout. Maybe I would have been better off just spending the money getting an electrical license to diversify what services I provide now. I seriously doubt a business degree would have helped me run my own business any better than 7/8 of a BA in Liberal Arts.

I don't really know what a business degree does unless it's econ or accounting, but it seems like a weird concept to me. Everyone I know that has one just did it do get a Wall Street type job.

Like Ormond mentioned, it's a shame there isn't a bigger push to expand the community college system. I feel like a lot of people end up trying to get a BA or a BS just because it's the thing to do and it's a giant business with huge marketing and recruiting initiatives. There seems to be a vacuum waiting to be filled with more school to job vocational training, especially considering how specialized the world we live in has become.

[Aemon Stark]

I actually had a double major in political science and math. Then later went into medicine so it's fair to say that it was the epitome of a "general" degree.

On the other hand my brother did an engineering undergrad and then got an MBA. Now he does insurance derivatives or something. It's his quantitative training that matters, though, not the "business" training.

[dog-days]

Like Ormond mentioned, it's a shame there isn't a bigger push to expand the community college system. I feel like a lot of people end up trying to get a BA or a BS just because it's the thing to do and it's a giant business with huge marketing and recruiting initiatives. There seems to be a vacuum waiting to be filled with more school to job vocational training, especially considering how specialized the world we live in has become.

I do really admire how well-developed the German system is, with its Praktika and Ausbildungen. And I think that's not just because of government initiatives, it's because German companies really get involved in taking on apprentices and trainees - to a greater extent than they do in the UK, and probably in the States too.

[Pecan]

While it seems a good thing to have the opportunity (and obligation) to study things outside of one's major at college level, I wonder why not more of "general education" can be done in 12 years of primary/secondary school. For some reason the US who undoubtedly has some of the finest universities apparently cannot manage this with its secondary school system.

I think it's something of a miracle that in the US, that our K-12 system is as strong as it is. In the US, there are 50 states, and every state has many school districts. In Washington State, for instance, we have 297 separate school districts (source wikipedia). Every school district has it's own elected school board and while there are state standards for curriculum, there are obviously huge differences in how well the education mission is executed from district to district and school to school. Funding varies widely from district to district as well.

[Jo498]

What really amazes me about the UK is the extremely early specialization. I you have only 4 subjects for the last 2 years of school, do you have 7-8 hours per subject each week, or what? This seems to me the opposite of the US with "English 101" for everyone in College, regardless of major. Sure, the early specialization seems very efficient but what if you do not know what you want to do or where you are really good at with 16?

Interestingly, in Germany there have been two developments in the last 20 years or so: The possibility for specialization in the last two school years was reduced; in the 80s one could actually drop maths I guess, now they made it a compulsory examination subject. One still has to pick two "majors" with about 5 hours/week instead of 2-3 as for the ordinary subjects. But overall one has to keep an almost comically broad range of subjects, at least about 10 or so: German, maths, one foreign language, history, one natural science, social/political science are all compulsory, I believe. You cannot even drop sports/PE or religion (you can take philosophy/ethics instead but the slot has to be filled)

The other development is that, even if theoretically the "Abitur" might be more demanding now (I think this applies just to the freedom of choice, not to the difficulty) we are at about 50% of students as opposed to 25-30 in the 80s/early 90s. And correspondingly more students at college/university.

As the strength of the German system used to be the trade/apprenticeship + trade/technical school I am not sure whether this development is as great as it may sound. Politicians tend to compare sheer numbers of graduates of certain tracks of education with more/longer always counting as "better". This seems rather naive. Better a happy and competent car mechanic than a struggling chemistry or history student.