AP: Student tracking finds limited learning in college

[SkinsHokieFan]

After being in the work force and running my own business the past few years, I tend to agree partially.

College is great for seeing real competition and networking and meeting motivated people.

Learning? I dunno, I think you get a lot more out of running your own business. To be honest, I think its one hell of an over priced racket with students ending up in 6 figure debt after college

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihzU805is7Y-Mov3q1He2zx12lHQ?docId=7e6fdb1d813e4debbb327e4ad3c d707c


Student tracking finds limited learning in college
(AP) – 4 hours ago
You are told that to make it life, you must go to college. You work hard to get there. You or your parents drain savings or take out huge loans to pay for it all.
And you end up learning ... not much.
A study of more than 2,300 undergraduates found 45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years.
Not much is asked of students, either. Half did not take a single course requiring 20 pages of writing during their prior semester, and one-third did not take a single course requiring even 40 pages of reading per week.
The findings are in a new book, "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses," by sociologists Richard Arum of New York University and Josipa Roksa of the University of Virginia. An accompanying report argues against federal mandates holding schools accountable, a prospect long feared in American higher education.
"The great thing — if you can call it that — is that it's going to spark a dialogue and focus on the actual learning issue," said David Paris, president of the New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability, which is pressing the cause in higher education. "What kind of intellectual growth are we seeing in college?"
The study, an unusually large-scale effort to track student learning over time, comes as the federal government, reformers and others argue that the U.S. must produce more college graduates to remain competitive globally. But if students aren't learning much, that calls into question whether boosting graduation rates will provide that edge.
"It's not the case that giving out more credentials is going to make the U.S. more economically competitive," Arum said in an interview. "It requires academic rigor ... You can't just get it through osmosis at these institutions."

Click link for rest

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I definitely learned plenty in college. I'm not sure if I was better prepared for my career, but I certainly learned and retained information.

I think learning on the job is the only way you can be prepared for most careers, though I think I was much more well-informed coming out of college than I was going into it.

[ibarramedia]

I learned a great deal in college. Lawyers and Doctors need to go to college before law school and med school. Most good jobs also require a college degree.

[DjTj]

A study of more than 2,300 undergraduates found 45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years.So they're saying that 55% do show improvement? That actually sounds pretty good to me.

The college graduation rate is only around 50%.

http://www.examiner.com/education-in-national/college-graduation-rates-average-53-percent

50% of people go to college, screw around, and drop out. That is no surprise. But the other 50% who take it seriously can learn a lot, gain valuable skills, and earn diplomas. That's on the students, not the schools.

[Darth Tater]

As far as knowledge that is not directly applicable to ones social value, college at best provides a structure where gaining that knowledge is considered productive. It also usually provides a "safer" atmosphere to practice social networking. Anything you learn in college you can learn on your own but unless that knowledge clearly relates to your social value, its usually not considered very valuable. A college degree acts more as a signal than anything else.

[PeterMP]

So they're saying that 55% do show improvement? That actually sounds pretty good to me.

The college graduation rate is only around 50%.

http://www.examiner.com/education-in-national/college-graduation-rates-average-53-percent

50% of people go to college, screw around, and drop out. That is no surprise. But the other 50% who take it seriously can learn a lot, gain valuable skills, and earn diplomas. That's on the students, not the schools.
Yeah, anybody that knows much about college knows the 1st 2 years aren't high impact, which is why most 4 year institutions allow you to pretty easily transfer in credits, even from much more inexpensive community colleges for the first 2 years.

For most students, the first year is just trying to make sure people really knew the stuff they should have learned in high school.

Sophomore year is when you are really just starting to be exposed to new information, and you really see the first round of "weed" out classes.

The other thing I have an issue with is, what is so big about 20 written pages?

I can easily assess, comment, and help a student with their writing skills given 2 or 3 pages.

Generally, college is what you put into it. If you want to be a C/D student that has to retake classes to graduate, then the college is going to take your money, but I doubt anybody ever said that was a good use of your money (and I've told students it wasn't).

[Riggo-toni]

I learned quite a bit in college, but wish I had picked my courses differently..20-20 hindsight. Still, I can't say anything I learned in college found any useful application career-wise.

[RansomthePasserby]

Huh, as an engineering student, I've definitely learned a lot and realized how much I don't know, haha!

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I learned quite a bit in college, but wish I had picked my courses differently..20-20 hindsight. Still, I can't say anything I learned in college found any useful application career-wise.

Same here. I was able to apply two or three of my major courses to my current career. Even with that, only parts of those courses were applicable and useful. But, technically, I learned something in school that I didn't have to learn in the real world.

Overall, I learned far more from my liberal arts classes...I learned much more about history than I ever did in high school. It's probably because I was actually interested in history and soaked up anything new I could find.

[Predicto]

Depends on what you are studying, and where you are studying it.

If you are going to college to learn how to run a small business, you are correct - it would probably be better to just start a business and learn that way.

For what I do, college was an absolutely necessary step. My writing and thinking was so much better after college than before... orders of magnitude better.

[TheLongshot]

I think college did do a lot to improve my work habits. I also think it helped me deal with with work world: unreasonable expectations by higher ups, politics, etc.

[Prosperity]

All in all, taking classes, reading books, meeting new people, gaining a degree of independence... area really useful things

the problem is the sky rocketing costs

[adam@section118]

A college degree acts more as a signal than anything else.

:yes:

I agree for the most part with what everone else has said, though I do agree with the OP as well.

Granted I had a libral arts major as well as a business major, so having that mix of classes was amazing for me.

[jpillian]

All in all, taking classes, reading books, meeting new people, gaining a degree of independence... area really useful things

the problem is the sky rocketing costs

Yep. It's definitely a useful endeavor. I don't know if for most careers it is worth the debt incurred. The average amount of debt a college undergad graduates with today is just shy of $25k. (http://www.finaid.org/loans/)

For those on the low side of that number, it's probably worth it. For those on the high side of that number, unless it's a profession that requires it -- I'm not so sure it's worth the money.

If you did need a 4-year degree for your career path, then the community college - to big brand school seems like the most cost effective way to go.

[PokerPacker]

It depends on what you go in to study. You go in for Comm or Poli-sci, yeah you've earned a piece of paper and had a college experience. I'm studying Computer Engineering. That's not stuff you can just pick up as you go.

[RansomthePasserby]

It depends on what you go in to study. You go in for Comm or Poli-sci, yeah you've earned a piece of paper and had a college experience. I'm studying Computer Engineering. That's not stuff you can just pick up as you go.

Yeah, that's hxc.

[Pwyl]

If you are going to college to learn how to run a small business, you are correct - it would probably be better to just start a business and learn that way.



I would actually disagree. I personally know people who have failed at small business who would have succeeded had they taken some business classes in college.

And for me, I learned a lot in my undergrad degree that translated directly into productivity in my job, both in directly technical and applied theory, and in basic business. I've found that many of the subjects that corporations want to cover in in-house training I have already seen in the basic business portions of my college curriculum.

I think that DJTJ is most correct, and this is akin to managers complaining that 30% of sick days are used on mondays and fridays :)

[Predicto]

It depends on what you go in to study. You go in for Comm or Poli-sci, yeah you've earned a piece of paper and had a college experience. I'm studying Computer Engineering. That's not stuff you can just pick up as you go.

LOL. I love the arrogance of engineering and science students. They are sure they are the only "real" students. :)

In many places, you go in for Poli-Sci, and you work just as hard and learn just as much as any engineer. It's just different stuff. I wrote at least a hundred papers in college, and my writing and analytical skills got honed in the process.

I used to help math and physics majors with their writing assignments, and they would be in tears, asking "what do you mean I'm not making any sense? Math problems have formulas and answers, period. I just want to find the answer and be done. What's the ANSWER?"

[RansomthePasserby]

LOL. I love the arrogance of engineering and science students. They are sure they are the only "real" students. :)

In many places, you go in for Poli-Sci, and you work just as hard and learn just as much as any engineer. It's just different stuff. I wrote at least a hundred papers in college, and my writing and analytical skills got honed in the process.

I used to help math and physics majors with their writing assignments, and they would be in tears, asking "what do you mean I'm not making any sense? Math problems have formulas and answers, period. I just want to find the answer and be done. What's the ANSWER?"

Mhmm, both poli-sci and engineering majors have to write papers (and yes, poli-sci are generally better at it)... but do they both have to solve engineering problems? ;)

Yeaahhh... math and physics majors are a little... "different"...

[No Excuses]

I wish they would get rid of general curriculum requirements in the future. Besides my religious and cultural study courses, I've hated every elective I've had to take. They make you waste brain power, time and energy on so many useless courses.

[MattFancy]

I wish they would get rid of general curriculum requirements in the future. Besides my religious and cultural study courses, I've hated every elective I've had to take. They make you waste brain power, time and energy on so many useless courses.

That's what I've been saying. I majored in Business, why did I need to take Chemistry? It would've been more beneficial to me to take more business related classes and less filler classes.

[jpillian]

It depends on what you go in to study. You go in for Comm or Poli-sci, yeah you've earned a piece of paper and had a college experience. I'm studying Computer Engineering. That's not stuff you can just pick up as you go.

If you're referring to the Electrical Engineering side, I definitely agree.
If you're referring to CompSci, I don't know if I'd agree.

Most of the best programmers I know either didn't go to college or didn't major in CompSci.

[Predicto]

Mhmm, both poli-sci and engineering majors have to write papers (and yes, poli-sci are generally better at it)... but do they both have to solve engineering problems? ;)

Yeaahhh... math and physics majors are a little... "different"...


Of course they are different. I would have been a lousy engineer, I suspect. But I wrote ten times as much as they do, and it was hard work too.

Not knocking guys who do that stuff - I'm just responding to the idea that liberal arts is just "picking up a piece of paper and having a college experience."

[bcl05]

I think having general curriculum requirements is generally good. I'm a physician now, but I think the most useful undergraduate classes for me were probably the film studies classes I took. Granted, all the biochemistry/etc was important to get into medical school, but the critical thinking, analytical skills, and work habits I learned in film studies probably made the most impact. I likely wouldn't have taken them without the general requirements. On the other hand, their success has everything to do with having a phenomenally dynamic and inspiring professor, not the material itself...

[adam@section118]

That's what I've been saying. I majored in Business, why did I need to take Chemistry? It would've been more beneficial to me to take more business related classes and less filler classes.

I see both sides.

I hated some gen ed classes (mostly math, I do not do anything math related) but at the same time I loved some of my history clases and my english classes have proved incredibly important. I had to wake some WI (writing intensive) classes in school, but nothing helped me out as much as english 110-114

That said, I am also biased because I was a fine arts major (who switched to a theatre and film minor my senior year) so a lot of my "acting, film, writing, directing" etc classes were not clases but instead a boatload of fun for me.

---------- Post added January-18th-2011 at 04:40 PM ----------


I think having general curriculum requirements is generally good. I'm a physician now, but I think the most useful undergraduate classes for me were probably the film studies classes I took. Granted, all the biochemistry/etc was important to get into medical school, but the critical thinking, analytical skills, and work habits I learned in film studies probably made the most impact. I likely wouldn't have taken them without the general requirements. On the other hand, their success has everything to do with having a phenomenally dynamic and inspiring professor, not the material itself...

Well said

[Predicto]

I wish they would get rid of general curriculum requirements in the future. Besides my religious and cultural study courses, I've hated every elective I've had to take. They make you waste brain power, time and energy on so many useless courses.


That's what I've been saying. I majored in Business, why did I need to take Chemistry? It would've been more beneficial to me to take more business related classes and less filler classes.

My college required that you take a year of social science, a year of humanities, a year of biology, a year of physical science, a year of Western Civ, a year of Non-Western Civ., a year of a foreign language, and math through Calculus. No matter what you were majoring in. Wherever possible, they used original sources rather than textbooks, and we wrote a TON.

There are different approaches to education. A laser focus on your major is not the only way to do it. Again, not knocking the other approaches either. They all serve their function for the right people.

[MattFancy]

My college required that you take a year of social science, a year of humanities, a year of biology, a year of physical science, a year of Western Civ, a year of Non-Western Civ., a year of a foreign language, and math through Calculus. No matter what you were majoring in. Wherever possible, they used original sources rather than textbooks, and we wrote a TON.

There are different approaches to education. A laser focus on your major is not the only way to do it. Again, not knocking the other approaches either. They all serve their function for the right people.

I see what you're saying and some of the classes I took outside of my major were interesting and learned stuff in. But overall, I just think its a way to add another year or so to college. You could probably graduate in 2-3 years if you didn't have to take all the gen-eds and stuff. Maybe instead of classes like Chemistry, Spanish, etc. they could have classes that apply to real world situations. Such as setting up a budget, learning the stock market, etc.

[RansomthePasserby]

If you're referring to the Electrical Engineering side, I definitely agree.
If you're referring to CompSci, I don't know if I'd agree.

Most of the best programmers I know either didn't go to college or didn't major in CompSci.

The computer engineering majors I know have to take most (if not all of) the core EE courses plus programming courses.


Of course they are different. I would have been a lousy engineer, I suspect. But I wrote ten times as much as they do, and it was hard work too.

Not knocking guys who do that stuff - I'm just responding to the idea that liberal arts is just "picking up a piece of paper and having a college experience."

In all seriousness, I totally agree with you.

I have noticed the type of work is different though. My liberal arts friends tend to alternate between "I have nothing to do" and "OMG, I HAVE A 12 PAGE PAPER DUE TOMORROW!!!" and back again. Engineering is more of a steady trickle of smaller amounts of work.

[No Excuses]

My college required that you take a year of social science, a year of humanities, a year of biology, a year of physical science, a year of Western Civ, a year of Non-Western Civ., a year of a foreign language, and math through Calculus. No matter what you were majoring in. Wherever possible, they used original sources rather than textbooks, and we wrote a TON.

There are different approaches to education. A laser focus on your major is not the only way to do it. Again, not knocking the other approaches either. They all serve their function for the right people.

I don't think a laser focus is necessary either. Forcing certain requirements such as taking social sciences, fine arts, qualitative reasoning etc. is a bit unnecessary though. I remember when I had a mid term in Physiology and Organic Chemistry on back to back days with a useless history exam sandwiched in the middle. Situations like that really irked me. I took Calculus my sophomore year and did great. If I had to retake any of my Calculus exams again right now, I'd fail them.'

Ideally we should have a free choice of what we want to do with our electives lol.

[Prosperity]

My philosophy classes gave me direction and ethics, they'll never get me a job, but they've enabled me to be a much better overall human, better personal relationships, harder working, better communication, generally happier etc... Will they help land me a job? Well not really, but I am confident that once I do become a productive member of society I will be able to rapidly gain new responsibilities because of the advantages my liberal arts education gave me.

My Chemistry, Biology, and Calculus classes? Don't really remember them to well to be honest. Learning the scientific method was useful and enlightening, but I didn't need 16 science classes to do that.


Still, I think too many people go to college to get **** faced and not have to work... hell, I did, I outgrew that sort of ignorance, thankfully, but lots of people don't. Do we really want universal access to education for these folks? Not at the cost of making college an inefficient for people who would otherwise benefit from it. (this doesn't mean I think our educational system is bad, just think that this issue could be resolved and yield lots of benefit for most people).

[RansomthePasserby]

My Chemistry, Biology, and Calculus classes? Don't really remember them to well to be honest. Learning the scientific method was useful and enlightening, but I didn't need 16 science classes to do that.

A lot of the higher end science classes (especially physics) focus less on the scientific method as a theory and more on the mechanics of how our universe functions. Which is actually quite fascinating.:)

[PokerPacker]

If you're referring to the Electrical Engineering side, I definitely agree.
If you're referring to CompSci, I don't know if I'd agree.

Most of the best programmers I know either didn't go to college or didn't major in CompSci.

Computer Engineering is its own program these days. Its very closely related to Electrical Engineering, though. I agree that the programming part does not require college, but the circuit analysis, binary logic (when it gets to the actual microprocessor design stuff), signals and systems... that's stuff you'll need to go to college for.

[Predicto]

Ideally we should have a free choice of what we want to do with our electives lol.

I guess that is where choosing the college that best fits you comes into play.

[PeterMP]

Most 4 year institutions in this country offer what is called a liberal education:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_education

"It has been described as "a philosophy of education that empowers individuals with broad knowledge and transferable skills, and a stronger sense of values, ethics, and civic engagement ... characterized by challenging encounters with important issues, and more a way of studying than a specific course or field of study" by the Association of American Colleges and Universities"

The objective is to give the person a broad background in information so they at least have some exposure to a wide range of topics. The general idea is that people that are broadly educated are better able to participate in real society, beyond just their jobs.

It also offers the advantage of exposing people to things that they didn't realize they might really like. My wife is an excellent example of that. She changed majors like 5 times as a freshman, finally thought that she settled on secondary ed and even switched schools to a better school for secondary ed., there she took a chemistry class and really liked. That made her decide to be a chemistry major. Today, she has a PhD in chemistry and teaches at a University.

(Of course, for me they were a "waste of time", as I've known I wanted to do science from like the 5th grade, and even something in the area of chemistry/biology since 8 th grade (I didn't even know at the time that there was such a thing as biochemistry)).

There is also an economical/political/societal part to this.

For example, if the institution I'm at did away with the foreign language gen. ed. requirements, it wouldn't make sense to keep the current number of faculty because they don't have enough majors/people just interested in foreign languages. The people in the Foreign Language Dept. then clearly don't see that happen (and depts. that are in a similar situation don't want to see it happen to them because if we do it to the foreign language dept, they might be next). And if we gutted the department, we wouldn't have the ability to offer some languages because in some cases the people that teach those upper-level classes would be gone.

What might make sense is for us to do away with the foreign language department, and select some (one) of the languages that gets a lot of interest and have only that (e.g. a Spanish Dept.)

And while I'm as a hard core science person as you'll ever meet, even I will acknowledge that foreign languages do have their place, and having some people trained in them and even teaching them is probably good for society in general. This is likely to be ESPECIALLY true for the more rare ones.

So the question is as a institution to do we want to move in a direction that most of us agree, if it becomes part of a larger trend, will likely be bad for society.

Then of course there are institutional issues in terms of changes in interest. While the economy was booming, there weren't that many people interested in chemistry. We partly supported a higher faculty numbers than needed for majors because of gen. eds. Now that the economy stinks, we've seen a multi-boom in our number of majors (class sizes have doubled), and we are even strained to meet their needs based on our number of faculty.

So the gen. eds do give the institution some flexibility in terms of responding to changes in student desires more quickly than if they weren't there.

[dfitzo53]

The other thing I have an issue with is, what is so big about 20 written pages?
The study probably didn't say what they wanted it to say when they looked at the number of students writing 10-15 page papers. I'm only partially joking.


Mhmm, both poli-sci and engineering majors have to write papers (and yes, poli-sci are generally better at it)... but do they both have to solve engineering problems? ;)

Yeaahhh... math and physics majors are a little... "different"...
As someone who started out in mechanical engineering and transferred to a double-major in history and anthropology, I think a lot of engineers draw an artificial distinction that their kind of work is the important kind of hard work. They're by and large quick to point out how difficult the math is (and that's true) while simultaneously dismissing the difficulty of things which they are often less good at. I had to take on sole lab report duty for my honors engineering classes because no one else in the group could write a good paper to save their lives. It's much easier and self-congratulating to say, "Look how hard our math and science is!" than "I'm really not a very good writer, but math comes easily to me."

That said, someone's point about 15 days of light work punctuated by 2-days spurts of "OH CRAP THAT PAPER IS DUE!" is right on the money. I was able to double-major after changing into liberal arts my junior year because taking 21 credit hours generally wasn't a problem. If I had been working on a single-major in liberal arts I'd probably have graduated in 3 years, and that's without more than 15 credit hours per grading period. It is a lighter program in that respect.

[heyholetsgogrant]

I think I learned a lot (better critical thinking/writing skills), however taking classes in Music, science i'll never use, forced electives, etc is a waste of time and money. Our college education system is running on a 19th century model, that based on the so called "complete student." All that time spent in the dumb classes could be used to gain real experience in your field and/or obtaining another major. I am back in community college now for a degree in IT (career change) and the stuff we are learning you would never see in most 4 year institution class catalogues. BTW im taking classes in Information/Network Security.

[Drew_Fl]

i'm a double major Comp/Electrical Engineering and i'm not trying to put anyone down but i get quite jealous when i see the assignments that liberal arts and education majors are working on. some of these things seem like junior high assignments and i definitely see why they get the bad rap.

it's all about finding what makes you happy b/c they always say if you're in your major for the money you probably won't last long. if you're happy studying and expanding your mind and social qualities, who cares what other people think?

[Prosperity]

A lot of the higher end science classes (especially physics) focus less on the scientific method as a theory and more on the mechanics of how our universe functions. Which is actually quite fascinating.:)

I agree for the most part but I had more breadth and depth as far as the sciences went. But honestly, I didn't even like my upper level bio classes too much. On an abstract level, yes, an organism, any organism is a beautiful thing. The systems and rules of the universe in general are cool to think about, and I can discuss them in a more articulate way thanks to studying science. But that's all big picture.

How does a batter work, when will the car accelerate to 65 mph?

don't care

[elkabong82]

Certain fields a college degree is absolutely necessary, doctor, lawyer, professor, to name a few.

However, there are a lot of people who's college degrees don't match the career field they choose, which gives the article some credence. However, the article seems to suggest that not going to college and going directly into the workforce may be a better idea. I think that's impractical because most high-paying professions require a college degree just to get in the door for an interview. Regardless of the value of learning/education, which depends on your major, most employers for salaried jobs in the US require a college degree

[PeterMP]

I think I learned a lot (better critical thinking/writing skills), however taking classes in Music, science i'll never use, forced electives, etc is a waste of time and money. Our college education system is running on a 19th century model, that based on the so called "complete student." All that time spent in the dumb classes could be used to gain real experience in your field and/or obtaining another major. I am back in community college now for a degree in IT (career change) and the stuff we are learning you would never see in most 4 year institution class catalogues. BTW im taking classes in Information/Network Security.
1. There's a little more to do it than that as I've already described above.
2. I'm not sure the idea of a "complete student" doesn't still have some validity to it.
3. I'd be curious what community college you are at that you are taking classes that you wouldn't see in 4 year institution class catalogues.

Certainly, the tech schools are hitting a market not filled by a 4 year institutions, but they aren't community colleges (and more expensive than most community colleges).

[RansomthePasserby]

I agree for the most part but I had more breadth and depth as far as the sciences went. But honestly, I didn't even like my upper level bio classes too much. On an abstract level, yes, an organism, any organism is a beautiful thing. The systems and rules of the universe in general are cool to think about, and I can discuss them in a more articulate way thanks to studying science. But that's all big picture.

Yeahhhhh, I honestly didn't even use any of my science electives on bio... Chem, Physics, and Geo all the way.


How does a batter work, when will the car accelerate to 65 mph?

don't care

Me either. That's why I'm doing Civil. ;)

[Slacky McSlackAss]

Yeah, I've definitely learned a great amount during my college time as an Engineering and Computer Science student. But I'm guessing that most of the people who this article is referring to are the Communications/Marketing/Criminal Justice group, who just pick bull**** majors just so they can get a college degree.

[ibarramedia]

Don't diss Criminal Justice now. It's not like Basket Weaving. People from Criminal Justice go on to Law School or get their masters and work for the Bureau or go to Langley. They also become cops.

[Slacky McSlackAss]

Don't diss Criminal Justice now. It's not like Basket Weaving. People from Criminal Justice go on to Law School or get their masters and work for the Bureau or go to Langley. They also become cops.
I've seen some of the work those Crim Justice majors have to do...don't go comparing it to Business or a Sciences field.

[ibarramedia]

It may not be rocket science but it is not a BS major. Especially if they are from the University of Maryland which is #1 in the country in Criminal Justice and Criminology. A lot of the theories taught in the field are by UMD professors doing their research.

[Sticksboi05]

LOL. I love the arrogance of engineering and science students. They are sure they are the only "real" students. :)

In many places, you go in for Poli-Sci, and you work just as hard and learn just as much as any engineer. It's just different stuff. I wrote at least a hundred papers in college, and my writing and analytical skills got honed in the process.

I used to help math and physics majors with their writing assignments, and they would be in tears, asking "what do you mean I'm not making any sense? Math problems have formulas and answers, period. I just want to find the answer and be done. What's the ANSWER?"

Yeah, I'm Journalism and my friends are mostly Engineering. They obviously outclass me in science and math but that's where it ends. Writing, history and other social sciences, no contest.

AP Biology and IB Physics was enough for me though.

---------- Post added January-19th-2011 at 12:09 AM ----------


I think I learned a lot (better critical thinking/writing skills), however taking classes in Music, science i'll never use, forced electives, etc is a waste of time and money. Our college education system is running on a 19th century model, that based on the so called "complete student." All that time spent in the dumb classes could be used to gain real experience in your field and/or obtaining another major. I am back in community college now for a degree in IT (career change) and the stuff we are learning you would never see in most 4 year institution class catalogues. BTW im taking classes in Information/Network Security.

It is not a bad thing to be well-rounded in many areas. It allows you to think outside the box and on many subjects and gives you more flexibility later in life.

[SloppyOneXXVI]

A teacher in high school gave me some valuable information before I left for college: College teaches you how to teach yourself. It gives you the ability to think critically, become efficient, look at things from a different point of view, etc. These skills, regardless of major, are extremely necessary and valuable in any field. I don't care if you're a CFO, an engineer, lawyer, non-profit activist, etc. you need those skills, and college teaches them.

As for the engineer vs. poly sci/criminology debate.... Engineers look at "writing papers" and assume any idiot can do it. That's true, to an extent. However; the poly sci/criminology majors that are competent are the ones who become policy makers, FBI agents, lawyers, run non-profits, etc. Believe me, I wouldn't be able to do my job as well as I do without my poly sci degree and my masters. Could I be an engineer? Probably not... but I doubt most engineers have the skills to work in my career field. It's about finding what you are passionate about and working hard to achieve your goals.

For the record, I think engineers work harder in college, but that doesn't mean poly sci degrees are worthless. Again, college is about teaching yourself how to learn.

[Hubbs]

I wish they would get rid of general curriculum requirements in the future. Besides my religious and cultural study courses, I've hated every elective I've had to take. They make you waste brain power, time and energy on so many useless courses.


I think I learned a lot (better critical thinking/writing skills), however taking classes in Music, science i'll never use, forced electives, etc is a waste of time and money. Our college education system is running on a 19th century model, that based on the so called "complete student." All that time spent in the dumb classes could be used to gain real experience in your field and/or obtaining another major. I am back in community college now for a degree in IT (career change) and the stuff we are learning you would never see in most 4 year institution class catalogues. BTW im taking classes in Information/Network Security.

I couldn't agree more. My little sister is a freshman, and when she was looking at colleges I told her that one thing she should be looking for is schools that have a very small number of "core" classes. I was undecided until midway through my sophomore year, and then switched majors (then added a second major) at the end of my sophomore year, but even I knew as a freshman what classes might contribute to my eventual major and what classes were complete wastes of time because I would never choose to major in any related subject in a million years. If I ran a college, I'd completely eliminate the core curriculum. (I believe Brown how no core, so that's at least one Ivy school that agrees with me.) In fact, I was only able to double major because I knocked a bunch of SAT II and AP tests out of the park, which allowed me to opt out of half of my core classes. I happen to be good at standardized tests. I know plenty of smart kids who aren't. The fact that they'd have a harder time double majoring at most major universities is a travesty.

[No Excuses]

I don't know if engineering majors have to write extensive papers but Biology majors definitely have to. If you suck as a writer and don't have a knack for writing, you'll struggle in Biology. Especially in the labs.

[ixcuincle]

They probably do

Bunch of engineering papers related to math and science and physics and stuff they have to write

[Henry]

I was a History/Poly Sci major in college. I think even with a double major I didn't work as hard as the Engineering students did. Then again, they had jobs lined up before they even graduated and I never did find a job in my field. I really enjoyed my classes, and to this day I still like to read up on history, but the most useful experience in college for me (towards getting a job, anyway) was being the art director for one of the campus magazines. That's what got me my first job, and I've been working in the field of Graphic Design & Print Production for the past 20 years.

Does that mean college was a waste for me? I don't think so. Like I said, I really enjoyed my classes. I tried a lot of new things. I acted in plays, I interned for a US Senator ... I met my wife. If you do it right you get more out of college than just a piece of paper, even if your major isn't in Engineering. :)

All that said, the costs have gotten way out of control. 20 years ago my parents could afford to send me to college and I didn't have to take out any loans. If I graduated $20-30K in debt I may have had a different attitude about it's value.

[rictus58]

There sure is a lot of "major snobbery" going on in here.

FTR: I was a literature major in college. College didn't really prepare me for what I do now. But that's not college's fault. That's my fault and the path i took after college. There is a lot college can offer even to a lazy student. But it's not a path for everyone.

[Corcaigh]

Less important than the "major" is the level of rigor in the courses.

[Slacky McSlackAss]

They probably do

Bunch of engineering papers related to math and science and physics and stuff they have to write

Depends on the courses, but usually lab reports are quick 1 page write ups mainly showing calculations. Most professors will grade down for huge grammatical issues, but minor ones are usually disregarded.

[endzone_dave]

I spent four years as an engineering student just basically solving equations. I never solved an equation once I got out of college. What a waste.

[pointyfootball]

Depends on the courses, but usually lab reports are quick 1 page write ups mainly showing calculations. Most professors will grade down for huge grammatical issues, but minor ones are usually disregarded.

Really? My lab reports rarely were shorter than 3-4 pages and in my advanced eng'g labs they could be 8+. Trying to sound like you knew what the hell you were doing, and actually understood the results of an experiment/study takes some serious b.s'ing.

Student loans and the availability of money for college has allowed universities to push costs up at rate increases higher than can be reasonably explained. Hence, the college I graduated from in 1995 now costs $55k PER YEAR to attend, and IMO is only worth 1/2 that.

As to students learning in college, it's a joke how little studying friends of mine had to do to obtain decent grades. If you're able to spend more time socializing/goofing off than classes & studying in college, you're most likely wasting a golden opportunity (and you, or your parents', money)to get a good education to help you out later in life. Just my opinion anyway.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm alarmed by the people saying that a well-rounded education is a waste of brainpower, resources, time, etc. I completely disagree. That is the aspect of college I enjoyed the most (well, the educational aspect). I loved that my history classes went deeper into history and a couple of my literature classes went much further into the meanings/symbolism of the novels we read. I enjoyed thinking about those types of things and not answering a one-page multiple choice test about a great novel.

I believe that there is plenty of time, once you're in the workforce, to focus your attention on the 1% of your education that you're going to draw from to do your job. Of course, as I got deeper into my major, I was taking all business-related courses and pretty focused on it. But, do believe in the "complete student" concept. I think having a well-rounded education says a lot about someone and is a benefit more often than you'd think throughout your life...even professionally.