How to get a real education

[DarkLink]

Here's a great article from Scott Adams (the guy who writes Dilbert) on what our schools should be doing instead of wasting our time with junk like art history.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704101604576247143383496656.html


Here's an exerpt:

The drinking age in those days was 18, and the entire compensation package for the managers of The Coffee House was free beer. That goes a long way toward explaining why the accounting system consisted of seven students trying to remember where all the money went. I thought we could do better. So I proposed to my accounting professor that for three course credits I would build and operate a proper accounting system for the business. And so I did. It was a great experience. Meanwhile, some of my peers were taking courses in art history so they'd be prepared to remember what art looked like just in case anyone asked.

[MaltonNecromancer]

He raises some valid points, but loses all credibility with me by bashing "pointless" subjects like art history. If people have put their own money into their education, for their own reasons, how dare he make sweeping judgements without the slightest knowledge of their personal situations? Yes, some people make bad choices about their education, but that's no reason to go "All people who make X choice have made bad choices".

I can't stand that kind of anti-intellectual snobbery. Who the frak is he to say which courses are valid and which aren't? Art history may well never make you a fortune, but why does that mean it isn't valid? I have a degree in Film Studies. Ostensibly completely useless; I don't work in film and never have or will. However, it set me up very successfully for my adult life, and gave me skills which I use every day in both my work and private life like time-management, working to a deadline, intellectually engaging with a subject, looking at things from numerous angles, and so on. I wouldn't be where I am today, or nearly as happy or well-off without my degree. I certainly wouldn't have the well-paid job or careers options it afforded me, despite the fact it's "useless".

Usefulness isn't decided by him or people like him. It is decided by the people who have the qualifications and the use to which they put them. Not all of us want to be entrepreneurs, work with others, or have high-powered jobs. Anti-intellectualism is the scourge of society; telling us we are only worth the money we make is reductionist and facile. Not to mention disturbing; it implies that otherwise we have no value at all, and that's something I fundamentally disagree with, what with not being a nihilist or a psychopath.

Making money and the ability to make money are not the be-all and end-all of life, the universe, and everything; the insane belief that they are is something that we as a species need to grow out of. Scott Adams has gone waaaay down in my estimation after reading this.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Why do we make B students sit through the same classes as their brainy peers? That's like trying to train your cat to do your taxes?a waste of time and money. Wouldn't it make sense to teach them something useful instead?

or we could spend a little more time with them to bring them up to the same level

Asshat :mad:

[MaltonNecromancer]

or we could spend a little more time with them to bring them up to the same level

Exactly. Hear, hear.

[eldargal]

I read Art History and it has been one of the most useful subjects I've ever done, not just for my chosen field of archaeology but for all sorts of things. No least of which is gaming.

I agree with MaltonNecromancer, this sort of anti-intellectualism, anti-humanities claptrap disguised as rationalisation is truly deplorable. Not to mention that a student studying economics or what have you can just as easily have an interest in Art History to. University is (supposed) to be about providing people a well rounded education, not training up corporate tools.

Getting back to Art History, the idea that having an advanced grasp of aesthetics is a useless skill is anathema to me.Because no one uses aesthetics to sell products, right?:rolleyes:

Profoundly dissapointed in Scott Adams, I wouldn't have pickd him as an anti-intellectual bigot. Honestly that article would have disgraced the Daily Mail. And yes, I get the sarcasm and the satire, that doesn't change the fact that running a college coffee shop doesn't give you the right to label an entire field of humanities as useless.

[Hive Mind]

Not that I agree with the article but I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that if you're taking state funding (read taxpayer's money) to pay for your education then the state has a right to demand that you take courses that is useful in some way to the society that paid for it.

No more getting a bunch of C's at A-level and taking sociology or media studies just so you can bum around for another three years.

[eldargal]

The problem with that is you are dictating what a person studies, and in my experience people who are told to study something seldom do as well compared to those who choose their own subjects.

[Hive Mind]

The solution is to deny funding to students who don't reach a certain level of scholastic achievement and/or use clearing to get a university place.

In an age of austerity I don't see why someone who is going to university just to toss it off for a while and/or is likely to drop out should get ca. £8k of public money p/a.

I had a similar argument with the missus a few days ago, she's up in arms that public funding of the arts has been cut while I'll gladly cut all arts funding to pay teachers, police officers, doctors, nurses et al running.

When push comes to shove you keep the most socially useful programs.

[eldargal]

True enough. I have a particular horror for the funding cuts to English Heritage, but I have a pesky sense of perspective which tells me it is necessary in the short term.

[Hive Mind]

Ya, Mother Dear's boyfriend works for English Heritage and he's pretty peeved. Still, needs must...

[DarkLink]

Something to keep in mind, for those that don't know more about Scott Adams, it that he's not opposed to educations in the arts or other areas. If you want to do that for your job (I'll point out that Adams is a cartoonist), then go ahead. I doubt he would have any problem with that.

What he's saying, however, is that the normal idea of a "generalist" education should focus on skills and abilities that you will use every day in your life. The ability to create and run a business would be extremely valuable to 99% of the people out there, and yet I've never taken a class that so much as teaches me to fill out my taxes.

Basically, instead of having to take art history (which is completely useless for someone like me) for your general education, both in high school and college, you should be able to take something you will actually use.




For example, I'm an engineering student. Being able to tell the difference between a Picasso and a Da Vinci painting is of absolutely no value to me, unless I decide to take up something related to painting as a hobby. Likewise, I don't need to know that

And yet I have to take 72 units of general education classes on these subjects. Most of those classes will never do me any good, yet I have to pay for them and waste time sitting in them. Not that I don't enjoy some of them (I rather liked my anthropology class), but nothing about the class makes me either a better person or a better engineer.

At the same time, I get to take 24 units of technical electives. This is where I actually learn to be an engineer. This is where I learn to design buildings and foundations and manage projects. And you know what? 24 units isn't a fraction of what I need.

I can understand the whole "broad education" thing, but I'm going to college to be an engineer. I should be taking 72 units of tech electives and 24 general ed, not the other way around. 24 tech electives has only provided me a baseline ability to solve real world problems. As an engineer, I can only perform very basic tasks within my field, despite the fact that I have spent so much time in college. I have all the tools I need, but I have been required to 'waste' so much time in general ed classes that I, and none of my classmates, are appropriately prepared to handle all but the most basic real world problems. And my college is one of the highest ranked in the entire USA, including private schools. I am getting just about the best education in civil engineering that is available in the USA, public or private. And despite that, I do not feel I am appropriately prepared for real world demands. When I get a job, I will need to take time to study and expand my knowledge base when I should already know how to do all that stuff.

There is something fundamentally wrong about that.




So, if you think this is just about bashing art history, you're missing the point. The point is, a lot of people out there will never use art history. Some will, yes, and that's fine. But most won't. So requiring it as a general education class over something that everyone will use is idiotic.

[scadugenga]

The "B" student comment was funny.

In the sense that several of my professors actually went on the hook to say that they thought the "B" students were actually more well-rounded and interesting people than the "A" student overacheivers.

Meaning the "B" students still cared about their grades, but still found time to go out and do other things outside of class.

And let's get down to brass tacks:

1) If you're taking Physics, Calculus & Classical Literature--you're already well into your chosen field of study. They're in those classes because they want to be, not because they're forced to be. (Though if I could've avoided Milton...)

2) Class grades are not indicative of learning. That's a failure in the system as a whole. Absorbing knowledge and test-taking skills are not the same thing. (Particularly if one has a learning disability re: testing)

3) By his own examples, Adams not only firmly entrenches himself in the "less brainy" category, but essentially he appears to be a scumbag loophole rules-lawyer manipulative type. How disappointing.


Edit:

I am getting just about the best education in civil engineering that is available in the USA, public or private. And despite that, I do not feel I am appropriately prepared for real world demands. When I get a job, I will need to take time to study and expand my knowledge base when I should already know how to do all that stuff.

The truth is that your college education is going to do very little in preparing you to be a professional in your field. Most fields are very "hands-on" in really getting to know how to do your job. That's why internships can be so very important.

What I found most interesting, in my college career, is what ultimately led me to keep Anthropology as my minor and not a dual-major: A BA/BS in Anthro only qualified me to be a blue-collar worker in my field...

[DarkLink]

Oh, and something else about Scott Adams you should know. He likes playing around with ideas. He himself will be the first to admit that he isn't always right. Sometimes (regularly, in fact), he will propose a ridiculous idea on his blog just because he found the idea interesting.


So if you come out of this thinking that he's just bashing art majors, you're missing the point. He might be poking fun at them, but that has nothing to do with the core idea of his article.


Edit:
In fact, here's a quote from his blog post that is relevant:


I'll pause here to acknowledge that both history and trigonometry are useful for students who plan to become historians or rocket scientists. For the other 99.9% of the world, little from those classes will be retained. The only benefit from much of what is taught in school is generic training of the mind, and for that we now have a better and more complicated option: the real world.


In fact, I'd say that the whole point of his article is that key skills like leadership, running a business and similar abilities are all just as intellectual as math, science, art or history, but unlike each of those subjects every single person in the world benefits from an education in those areas. Despite this, however, these skills are severely neglected by traditional education.

So the point of his article isn't that art history sucks. It's that in our general education we should be focusing on skills like entrepreneurship that are useful to everyone, rather than art history which is only useful to a few.

[eldargal]

But there is no focus on art history, history or humanities. Hell in most universities these faculties struggle to exist in comparison to the economics and science faculties. Students choose their own subjects afterall. If students choose their own subjects how can one argue their is a focus on humanities at the expense of business skills?
Also given that art history teaches you how to analyse the visual world I question its 'uselessness' to anyone at a time when we are being increasingly bombarded with visual messages. It isn't about recognising one artist from another.

By all means teach basic money management and accounting skills at the high school levels, but to shoehorn it into further education seems absurd.

I mean you are supposed to have a generalist education through to University so you can discover what things you are good at and what fascinated you etcetera. Then you go on to further your education in your chosen area at University. The whole point of a general education is to produce well rounded human beings, it isn't a factory for little corporate automata.

Oh and nevermind that art history and history can be of vital importance in many heritage and tourism based businesses.

I've not slept much and I fully admit I may be missing something, but it seems like Scott Adams is chasing a strawman and betraying his own bigotry of humanities by labelling them as less important than business simply because they aren't a ticket to riches.

[DarkLink]

I went to college to be an engineer. Instead, I'm stuck sitting through art classes when my college should be preparing me for my job. There absolutely is a focus on things like art history, if not only art history itself, and it directly and negatively impacts the quality of my education.

As scag pointed out, there are a lot of fields out there where a BS is not sufficient for anything more than an entry level job. You need a Masters or better. But looking at my schedule of classes, it would be easy to reorganize the required classes and drop some of the useless (for me) requirements



Once again, this isn't about bashing a particular area of education. Adams claims that mathmatics is just as useless for many people as the humanities. If you're getting hung up on "oh, Adams just hates art classes", you are missing the point. And Adams isn't even claiming that Art can't meaningfully contribute to society, business or no. Adams himself makes his money drawing stuff.

What he is saying is that there is a broad category of skills, like time management, accounting, money management, business savvy, ect, that are severly negelected in the modern education system. These are all vital skills. Every single person in the world is better off with these skills, and trying to pass them off as some silly little high school level class is foolish.

In fact, I took a finance class in high school. It was worthless, just as much so as the english poetry class I was forced to take last quarter. It was poorly taught, and failed to touch on any useful skills.



I can't reiterate this enough. This isn't about "art classes suck". This is saying that there is a broad area of eduaction, an area that is vitally important to the success of every working person, one that is in every measure of worth just as valuable as an education in the arts, sciences or humanities, and it is severly neglected. I doubt it's even well covered by business majors.

How did Bill Gates found microsoft? He dropped out of college and started the company. You can be the best engineer or artist or historian in the world, but if you lack all these other skills Adams is talking about then that education is useless.

[eldargal]

Well, fair enough. You are really forced to sit through art classes at university? What a perverse system, he may have a point.

What I don't get is how replacing compulsory art classes with compulsory business classes would be a good thing. If I were you (as in, university admin) I would abolish compulsory classes and let students focus on what they want to focus on, be it art history or business.

[DarkLink]

I think that's actually the core point, that we get so bogged down in all these compulsory classes when instead we should have a set of projects, internships and classes that fully teach us how to be effective within our chosen field.

So, for example, an engineer like me would come to college and spend the first two years learning the math, physics and mechanics of materials required to be a good engineer, along with leadership, teamwork and economics classes that are integral to running an engineering business. After completing that, we would then move on to a combination of design classes and separate labs and group project designed to simulate a real world project, teaching us how to take a request to build a school or something, and turn the request into a set plans that we could turn over to a contractor. We currently get a bit of this, but not on the scale required to fully prepare us for a job.

An art major, on the other hand, would replace all the physics and math with art classes and whatever you artsy people do. I don't know enough to plan out an art schedule. But it would probably include some stuff on how to start your own business so you can sell your art.


And I'm not sure that I would call the economics part of the education "business" classes. It would be more like some of the projects that Adams describes like running the cafe and his dorm building. That sort of experience doesn't require you to calculate supply and demand and things like that, but is still valuable to pretty much anyone. Really, any job you can think of involves 2 things: doing work, and selling your work. Adam's work is drawing cartoons and writing some books, but none of that would do him any good if he couldn't manage the business to sell and fund the cartoons and books. The best engineer in the world will never have more than an entry level job if they don't know how to organize and lead a team to tackle a big, complex project on time and under budget and meet client demands.


You are really forced to sit through art classes at university? What a perverse system, he may have a point

Yeah, it kinda sucks for someone like me. We have a series of general education slots we need to fill, and there's a limited number of classes that fulfill each of those requirements.

For example, I need to take a C1 class (british lit or american lit classes), C2 (philosophy), C3 (jazz, art, theater classes) and C4 (more english classes).

For reference, each of these classes is 4 units. These requirements total to 72 units. The average student here takes ~14 units per quarter (I've averaged ~18, and I'm one of the few who will actually graduate in 4 years), and everyone is required to take these classes. That's about 2 years of nothing but occasionally interesting but ultimately unrelated classes. Some of these classes are useful, but there are just so many different requirements that inevitably everyone will end up with 40-50 wasted units. That's $10,000 in tuition and a full year of my life spent on stuff that I won't really ever use, even if I find it interesting.

Most of these classes are only really useful for someone within the major. I'm in history of architecture right now, and while it's interesting it's not very useful for me to know the name of the guy who designed the Louvre. And architect, however, would find it much more useful. Now, writing classes are useful for everyone. However, very few of the english classes we have to take actually focus on teaching advanced writing. They're more about jerking off dead poets than teaching me how to write and communicate effectively. I'm still learning a bit, but it's not ideal. My high school classes (and the engineering tech writing classes) were more effective at teaching me how to write effectively.


This is pretty typical for American colleges, and frankly it's very inefficient. It's not like I'm getting a bad education (far from it, we have excellent professors and programs here), it's just that there are other things I could be doing that would get me a much better education. That, I think, it the core issue that Adams is talking about. It's not that art or humanities or math classes are useless (far from it), they're just not useful for everyone, and there are other neglected areas that we ought to focus on instead.



Now that I think about it, I can see where the miscommunication here comes from. I've been reading Adam's blog for a couple years now, so I can tell that he's not really trying to bash art history. Someone who's never read any of his stuff before, however, might see a lof of his stuff as art-bashing. Adams is far from what anyone could consider conventional, so I can see how it sounds like he is attacking something when his intent is more to say "here's a flaw, and here's an idea that I think could solve it. Discuss".

[DarkLink]

Incidentally, I think (actually I know) that physical education is another vital but poorly taught subject, at least in America. There are so many sever myths and misconceptions about physical exercise and nutrition that it's no wonder America is so obese.

Now, I'm not talking about making students run the mile twice a week instead of once a week, or something like that. But providing everyone a better understanding about healthy movement and nutrition will do everyone a lot of good, and schools do a horrible job at doing it. This would require more of a reorganization of middle/high school PE classes than higher education programs, but it would be a valuable change.


Just a bit of an aside, and a very big topic as well.

[scadugenga]

Dark,

That's kinda crazy about all the lit classes you have to take as an engineering major...and that's coming from a former English Lit grad student.

My uni did finally make a push to require more writing classes, as they discovered that the non lib-arts majors were perilously close to becoming functionally illiterate. So I certainly see the need to make sure people can communicate effectively. And judging from some of the correspondence from attorneys that I deal with day-to-day, there is still a problem with literacy in our higher educational system. :rolleyes:

I think the general mindset of college is that before you specialize in a specific field you should have a broad understanding of the basics. Partially to make you a more well-rounded educated adult, and partially (I think) to make you cognizant of other career/study paths out there.

I knew all too many people in college who were shoe-horned (either by themselves, or by peer/family pressure) into a specific field and were abjectly miserable until they found something more suited to their talents/desires, etc. Gen ed requirements provide that (hopefully) broad selection of classes to open people to alternate educational choices.

But still...requiring advanced Lit classes for gen eds? Bah...

Now I do like what you propose re: nutrition, health and exercise. If I didn't have fencing, swimming and martial arts in college...there wouldn't have been much to counteract the gaming, pizza and barhopping.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, I think I've had to take 4 english classes, two of which were useful. One was a tech writing class (useful), and another was intro level english class (so we actually talked about how to write essays, so once again useful).

My other two classes were about reading books and poetry, respectively. I can't stand 95% of poetry (there are a few that I like, such as Invictus), and I can't stand the genre of books we read (though Le'strange and In Dubious Battle were pretty good). I do plenty of reading with some very good writers on my own, and I learned nothing new about structuring writing or essays or the like, so I got nothing out of these two classes.


And what's even worse, is that despite all this english we still have to take this random little test, a 500 word essay. You could get an A+ in every one of those english classes, but still fail this one test and have to delay getting your diploma if you don't retake it in time.


Edit:
And I could see having a short series of GE classes freshman year to get some variety. Maybe a writing class, an art class, a humanities class, a math/physics class, a kineseology/nutrition class, and maybe one or two others would give you a good variety, and you could take your pick of a variety of options so you could take sculpture or painting or drawing for your art class. That way you would get to play around a bit and ease into your college classes, without wasting too much time.

[scadugenga]

And what's even worse, is that despite all this english we still have to take this random little test, a 500 word essay. You could get an A+ in every one of those english classes, but still fail this one test and have to delay getting your diploma if you don't retake it in time.

Okay, that's just messed up.

Even with my emphasis in creative writing and literature--I'm not a huge poetry fan. It depends upon the era. Some Romantic poets are great. Then you have some modern poets. (Ted Hughes, RIP--fantastic poet.)

But the really (imo) good stuff? Early English period. We're talking pre-1066 stuff. That's some damn fine poetry.

At least, to my semi-barbarous tastes. ;)

I'll give Rothfuss a try, btw. Thanks for the rec. If you like good fantasy and haven't tried Erikson's Malazan series, give it a go. Same with Joe Abercrombie--he's a few degrees off the regular path with his writing, but it is fantastic.

And if you like noir sci-fi--definitely read Altered Carbon. (http://www.amazon.com/Altered-Carbon-Takeshi-Kovacs-Novels/dp/0345457692/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302836301&sr=8-1) It's that good.

[DarkLink]

I've been meaning to get the first Malazan book for a while, and I've read a few of Abercrombie's books and liked them. Carbon sounds interesting, never heard of it before. Seems almost like a mix of Ghost in the Machine meets Surrogates (recent Bruce Willis film, low budget but pretty good).

I do mostly read fantasy, but I do read the occasional sci-fi book when I find a really good one (so I've read a lot of the classics like Ender's Game). Ever read anything by John Scalzi? He has some great books. Old Man's War is great, and follows the tradition of book like Enders Game and Armor (http://www.amazon.com/Armor-science-fiction-John-Steakley/dp/0886773687/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302841305&sr=1-1) with an interesting take on military sci-fi.

Scalzi also has some humorous books, The Android's Dream (which is a reference to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), and Agent to the Stars.



As for fantasy books, if you liked Joe Abercrombie you'd probably like Matthew Stover. His Acts of Caine (http://www.amazon.com/Heroes-Die-Matthew-Woodring-Stover/dp/0345421450/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302841561&sr=1-2) series is hard to find, but it's a fantastic mix of gritty fantasy with plenty of gore mixed with dystopian sci-fi. In fact, you could describe it as "Conan the Barbarian meets 1984", with some subtle philosophical themes mixed in.


Brandon Sanderson is also an excellent writer. His Mistborn series is one of the other set of books I'd rank right up at the top.

[scadugenga]

I've been meaning to get the first Malazan book for a while, and I've read a few of Abercrombie's books and liked them. Carbon sounds interesting, never heard of it before. Seems almost like a mix of Ghost in the Machine meets Surrogates (recent Bruce Willis film, low budget but pretty good).

I do mostly read fantasy, but I do read the occasional sci-fi book when I find a really good one (so I've read a lot of the classics like Ender's Game). Ever read anything by John Scalzi? He has some great books. Old Man's War is great, and follows the tradition of book like Enders Game and Armor (http://www.amazon.com/Armor-science-fiction-John-Steakley/dp/0886773687/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302841305&sr=1-1) with an interesting take on military sci-fi.

Scalzi also has some humorous books, The Android's Dream (which is a reference to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), and Agent to the Stars.



As for fantasy books, if you liked Joe Abercrombie you'd probably like Matthew Stover. His Acts of Caine (http://www.amazon.com/Heroes-Die-Matthew-Woodring-Stover/dp/0345421450/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302841561&sr=1-2) series is hard to find, but it's a fantastic mix of gritty fantasy with plenty of gore mixed with dystopian sci-fi. In fact, you could describe it as "Conan the Barbarian meets 1984", with some subtle philosophical themes mixed in.


Brandon Sanderson is also an excellent writer. His Mistborn series is one of the other set of books I'd rank right up at the top.

The first Malazan book took a bit for me to get into, but then it took off fast. I've only gone about 6 books or so into the series, but the author has done an excellent job overall.

If you like Abercrombie, you'll like Morgan's Altered Carbon. The writing is fast paced and charged. It was the author's first book, and it was immediatly optioned for a movie for a million dollars. That is unheard of in the publishing world.

Surrogates was an okay movie. Surrogates is actually a graphic novel and no surprise, the original story is better.

I love Stover's Caine series. It's smart, and the author's a martial artist from Chicago. What's not to like? Has he published anything beyond Caine Black-Knife yet?

[DarkLink]

I don't think so, unfortnately.

[Necron2.0]

Sorry for coming late to the party. I wanted to address this:


By all means teach basic money management and accounting skills at the high school levels, but to shoehorn it into further education seems absurd.

I mean you are supposed to have a generalist education through to University so you can discover what things you are good at and what fascinated you etcetera.

... and this:


I went to college to be an engineer. Instead, I'm stuck sitting through art classes when my college should be preparing me for my job.

Part of this issue here is we are all talking with the assumption that our cultural education system is the norm, and based on eldargal's comment, it must not be. I'm not sure how things work across the pond, but in the US High School is almost a joke in some places. In the US it has become common to see High School graduates who cannot read, who have no critical thinking skills and who have never developed study skills. Largely this is due to the "progressive" education programs of the past 40 years. The idea that HS would provide students with a generalist education and University would be free for a refined education has fallen by the wayside. I agree with eldargal that this is how it should be, but it's not how it is, not in the US.

In the US, the first year or two of college are usually taken up with courses designed to salvage what students they may. They are crash courses in things students should have learned in High School, and are often referred to as "weed out" classes, because they end up washing out those freshmen and sophmores who simply have no ability to learn. In the remaining two to three years, every student is expected to fill one-quarter to one-third of their curriculum with strictly liberal arts classes. Again, you can thank the social "progressives" for this. The idea is that these are to create "better, more well rounded human beings." For myself, I found them to either be wastes of time and money, or attempts at political indoctrination. The remainder of your time, assuming you are not pursuing a liberal arts degree, is what you have left to apply towards your degree.

Now, like DL, I went to college to become a software engineer. My degree is in computer science and engineering (which is a combined major of electrical engineering and computer systems). My course load included the norms of chemistry (I & II), Physics (I & II), Electrical Engineering (I & II), Circuits (I & II), Calculus (I, II & III), Differential Equations, Numerical Methods, Discrete Math, Engineering Analysis, Statics, Dynamics, Operating Systems, Pascal, C, C++, Assembly Language, System Analysis and Senior Design. I also took Mathematical Statistics for fun.

Beyond this, as part of my Liberals requirements, I took English (I & II), German (I, II & III), English Composition, Creative Writing, World History (I & II), History of Western Civilization, Anthropology (I), Asian Images (India), Art Appreciation (Western Art, pre-renaissance), and Visions of Utopia. Those are the ones I remember. I know I took a couple others, but for the life of me I cannot remember what they were. I just remember sitting through several boring lectures over some subject I could not possibly care less about.

So, when Mr. Adams is saying Colleges should focus more on things that will actually be useful to students, to some degree I have to agree.

[DarkLink]

On top of all that, there's quite a few studies that show that most of the traditional teaching methods used in schools don't work very well. For example, students with low grades become psychologically disinteresting in school, because there's a mechanism in your brain that causes you to shy away from things you do poorly at. So you fail a test, then can't focus in class, then fail more tests, then stop paying attention, then fail more tests. On the other hand, students with good grades were immune to the effect, because they did well. They had a much easier time focusing on learning the material.


For another, physical activity helps students focus better. So while schools are cutting more and more recess time and PE classes, I've heard a few studies say that they should do the exact opposite.


Basically, the much vaunted "classical education", as implemented in the US, doesn't work very well. Schools aren't failing, but they could do a much better job if they underwent a significant re-organization.



And teachers/professors need to be accountable for how well they teach their students. They need to be. In the US, at least, horrible teachers can hide behind tenure and continue to waste everyone's time and money.

[Hive Mind]

That's an incredibly stupid way to run a degree program.

I'm a law student about to sit my exams to end my second year. My degree consists of six first year compulsory modules, one compulsory and three elective modules in the second year and one compulsory and three elective modules in the third year. Surprisingly, all the compulsory and elective modules are law courses. The furthest that I have the option to stray is Law and Political Theory.

You guys in the U.S go straight to university from high school, right? Here in Blighty, well England at least, we finish high school at sixteen and then, if we want to go to university, take between three and five what used to be called A-Levels which are two year courses that are less generalised than high school classes but not as specialised as university courses.