They don’t have to. But if someone is dumb enough to major in Grievance Studies and graduates with a degree and tens of thousands of dollars of debt and no job, then they vote for Bernie Sanders. So from the POV of the gender studies department, it’s a win.
Regards,
Shodan
I’d like to go back to the tech school programs I mentioned above. HERE is the curriculum for “Wind Turbine Technician”. As you can see that while the focus is almost all on the field, they are required to take coursework in computers, math, behavioral science, social science, communications, and interestingly - first aid including the use of AED’s. Do you think this is enough general education?
And you know, there is no reason a student interested in that subject could not take an online course in that. But why should the college have to have a full department for it?
And thats another thing. With online courses a student can get a degree in stuff like “Grievance studies” but the particular school they are attending need not have a department or even teachers for that.
People with the money should be able to spend years learning the fine history, culture and craft of underwater basket weaving if they so desire. Colleges should offer those courses to people who are motivated and have the money and free time to pursue a degree in that field, or in any other field for that matter.
But bankers offering ~$100k loans to inexperienced middle class children to pursue a degree in underwater basket weaving are doing a huge disservice to their employers, their stockholders, the child taking the loan, and to society in general. Making it easy to discharge these ill advised loans in bankruptcy would go a long way towards making the bankers think twice about handing enough money to buy a house (with no down payment or collateral) to 17 year olds to spend on an undergrad degree in sociology or theater, who have no plan to ever pay it back.
On the other hand, loaning some money to an engineering major with a history of working hard and getting good grades might be a judicious and profitable investment for the bank. So yes, banks that offer college loans should focus more on students who have a reasonable chance of paying it back and coming away better for the investment. Students who want to spend four years learning art history, however, while that’s a valuable and respectable field of study for those who have the money and time to spend on their passion, are not good investments for banks to offer loans to. It isn’t that colleges should stop offering these courses, it’s that bankers and students should stop investing large sums of money into these courses which will offer no return on their investments, and often saddle the students with crippling debt for the rest of their lives.
Why not let colleges and universities decide what programs are worthwhile for them to offer. Every school is different, are we really trying to force one size fits all type of big-government restrictions on them? What if we said conservative religious schools should not offer religious studies anymore since if the students wish to work in religion they can just go to the seminary? I say let schools decide for themselves what to offer and if not enough students enroll in those programs they can get rid of them. I’m surprised to see conservatives that usually support all things free market trying to interfere in this particular one.
They don’t ‘have to have it’. They have it because there is demand for it. If people were not willing to take the courses they would disappear from the catalogue. What’s it to you if they are willing to put in the time and the money because they see value in it?
Do you care if your contractor has a degree in chemistry or your caterer has a degree in math? I know both, and quite happy in their jobs, don’t regret their education.
There are already schools focused entirely on jobs. There is demand for, and room for, the type of education universities provide as well.
How are the conservatives interfering? It does not seem to me to be saying that a degree in English or theater is less likely to land you a job is “interfering”.
Regards,
Shodan
It can. But a good, well-rounded education gives you at least some exposure to different ways of thinking (thinking like a scientist, thinking like a historian, thinking like a mathematician, thinking like an artist, thinking like an economist, etc.).
I didn’t say it was. But if you don’t favor Universities offering less programs and degrees, then what are you arguing for in this thread? I’m saying schools should offer whatever they like and if they find they are not getting enough applicants for a particular field then they should think about whether its worthwhile to offer. However that is up to the schools, so I’m not sure what we are actually debating here.
No, they did get something from that course: a passing grade.
That actually means something. Not that they learned something about the history of jazz (as you point out, they could have learned that from a book). What they did was demonstrate they could complete a project in an acceptable manner. The students showed that they could absorb information, process it, and they use that information to produce a product in a manner directed by somebody else.
Those students may never use their new knowledge of jazz in the workplace. But they will use the skills they demonstrated in acquiring that knowledge.
At the speed of economic and social change, what is the point of higher education training people for a specific
career that might be replaced within years by new career paths that can barely imagined now? The important thing is that students are trained in how to learn, how to communicate what they’re learning, and how to persuade others to adopt the new ways of working that their (continual) learning and re-learning lead them to develop. Transferability of skills through exposure to a range of disciplines and methods of learning is the essential
You could learn a lot more. You might, or not. A university degree is at least partly for learning, discussing, and critiquing the latest most up-to-date opinions in the field, and should hopefully not be just one big “English 101, First Semester - A Survey of the Classics” for three years.
University English programs should be available only to people who have already done what you’re suggesting before they arrive, and entrance exams should reflect that. But it isn’t that way, for a lot of reasons (the reasons may be good, bad, or indifferent, but that’s how things are).
Interfering by (in essence) trying to force all universities to stop being universities and become community colleges instead.
Well I dont know too many career fields which are going to go away completely. For example if you train to be a wind turbine technician, and they suddenly quit using wind turbines (doubtful) you could quickly retrain to install and maintain other equipment.
Having a degree in english wont make it easier to learn a new skill.
No, it means they sat in a class, maybe took notes, and passed some tests.
Now, if this was a class they actually had to pick up a saxophone and show they could now play a classical jazz piece, then yes THAT proves they actually could learn something. If I was someone looking at a person who was say a computer major BUT the said person also proved they could learn and play jazz, that I would admire.
For example, back in college I tool ballroom dancing. We didnt just watch people dance, we had to dance,. We had to show we learned the steps, moves, in order to get a grade. And dang, that woman graded tough! To get a B you had to do everything right. To get an a you had to show some finesse and showy moves.
Well for one, colleges have a budget to consider. While their may be demand for a certain degree, it might not be enough to jusify its cost.
But what I see here is the school looking at their budget, looking at what the market wants, and then deciding which programs to drop. Enrollment in certain humanities was already dropping so why not cut them?
And dont you see, they are NOT trying to be one size fits all. They want to pair down their schools course offerings to focus on specific, career driven areas.
Their is nothing wrong with a college deciding to be focused on just a few degree fields.
I’ll give you an example. Missouri S & T is a school focused on science and technology. Another would be an art school.
Again, no need to pay for whole departments for degrees not needed.
So this whole thread is about one school deciding that its not getting enough applicants for certain programs and deciding to drop those programs? What is the debate then, if you aren’t advocating other schools drop the same things as this one? I’m saying just because something might be right for UW Stephens Point, it doesn’t follow that this means anything at all to any other schools.
I am not and have never been an English major. But if you think reading the classics is the same as being in a class about the classics, your view is very shallow. I’d hope a college level class would include the background of the classic book, similar books, major themes (something you might not get the first time through) debates about its meaning, and its influence on English literature. None of which you get from just reading the book.
I’ve listened to all the Beethoven symphonies, but my appreciation and understanding of them was much enhanced by listening to 32 CDs going through them in detail.
Boiling down the work of those who have spent their lives studying the classics is worthwhile. It might not get you a job, but it will make you think differently and in more depth about what you read outside the class.
Definitely. Lots of business people want college to produce people they can hire right away without the useless expense of training them. When that specific knowledge is obsolete in 10 years, fire them and get a new batch.
I got a CS degree nearly 50 years ago, and almost none of the specific languages and operating systems I learned back then are of the slightest use today. The basic principles kept me employed throughout my life.
Conservatives rightly say that government should not pick winners. Focusing a college on specific career goals is doing exactly that.
There are two points of view:
Learning stuff is worthless, unless what you learn is guaranteed to get you a job. No school should be allowed to focus on learning stuff; every school must get you a job in the end.
Jobs are important. Learning stuff is important. Some learning gets you a job; other learning gets you something else. Both kinds of schools are OK, and so are schools that use both approaches if they do it right.
The trouble is, the first point of view is a stupid one.