Should Universities Have Required Courses?

[Az]

Figured out this much.

[GePap]

Every year at the beginning of the U of C year they have someone give a speech to the incoming freshmen, and they put it online. I read it, and it was very good, and I think part of it applies here. In essecence what the guy said was the notion that which college you go to having a major impact on your income was wrong. Anyone going into an elite college has already proven themselves and their work ethic..so what you learn in collge as an undergrad may very well have very little to do with your success outside of school. In fact, the only thing that makes a difference is the field you study, with an english major earning less than an econ major, so an eocn major at U Mass wil ean more than an english major from Harvard.

So in the end, the main adantage from the liberal education is that it helps you enjoy life more, becuase you gain a better perspective on life, with more diverse ways of looking at the world and the ability to understand more, and in a sense see more of it. I agree with that, and a core gives you an even wider scope and a greater understanding of the world overall.

[cinch]

Originally posted by GePap
So in the end, the main adantage from the liberal education is that it helps you enjoy life more, becuase you gain a better perspective on life, with more diverse ways of looking at the world and the ability to understand more, and in a sense see more of it. I agree with that, and a core gives you an even wider scope and a greater understanding of the world overall.

But if liberal education is to help me enjoy life, shouldn't I be able to take the courses I find interesting? I mean, chances are I will then find them more enjoyable, no? And since I am currently living... That seems like the path to take.

I don't think forcing english majors to take calculus and engineers to take polisci is something that needs to be considered necessary... but that might just be me.

[DanS]

Well, making the English major take calculus is not necessary (although I would recommend it nowadays), but having the engineer take a poly sci class or two is very helpful.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by GePap
Anyone going into an elite college has already proven themselves and their work ethic..

Or their athletic capability.
Or Daddy's contributing ability.

[Jon Miller]

I agree

JM

[Az]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Or their athletic capability.
Or Daddy's contributing ability.

We don't have either. That's why our sports suck: no motivation to be good at sports. I'd have little problem with top Athletes getting scholarships into our unis.

[IoT]

Here in the UK you start specialising at 16/17 when you spend 2 years studying 3 or 4 subjects in depth. At the end of the 2 years you take A level exams.

(I took A levels 20 years ago and they have been changed a bit since. When I took A levels no account was taken for course work - everything hinged on exams taken at the end of 2 years.)

At 18/19 you then go to University where you specialise in 1 or 2 subjects (2 subjects = joint degree = double the work). At the end of 3 years you get a bachelors degree. Again when I took my degree no account was taken of course work (except for lab).

A masters degree is an additional year and a PhD is 3 years. In many subjects you can do a PhD without a Masters.

I studied Physics at Imperial College and there were no elective courses in the first 2 years and the third year was completely elective. This tends to be the norm for sciences. In arts courses electives are generally available from the first year.

I would have hated to be forced to take courses that were not of any interest to me whatsoever. I agree with the posters who praise lifelong learning.