Should Universities Have Required Courses?

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Some people bash the liberal arts

Of cource they do, it's liberal.

[Jon Miller]

lets see

I had 9 courses required for a physics major
5ish more for honors physics

12 or so for math

than I had 16 or so required for my degree (the bachelors)

I also took a couple physics and a philosophy courses that didn't cover any requirements (plus took a couple easy semesters and a january off)

Jon Miller

[Alexander's Horse]

[Jon Miller]

lets see

I was on a semester system

I had

6 semester hours of a writing course
6 hours of us history
8 hours of french
4 hours of sub sahara africa
4 hours of a first term seminar 'physics and science fiction' (dealt with SR, mechanics, and SciFi)
4 hours of Chemistry + Lab (more class time than a regular 4 hour class because of the lab)
4 hours of Bible
4 hours of Macro-Economics
4 hours of US Politics
4 hours of appreciating literature
4 hours of ballet

and tennis, rachetball, and personal fitness to complete

I think that is all (there were also a couple of requirements I finished with my math and physics classes)

Jon Miller

[Alexander's Horse]

4 hours of bible?

[Jon Miller]

I went to a Lutheran School

we were required to take one Western Religion's Course

I took one that was imaginatively known as 'The Bible'

Jon Miller

[Pekka]

Well since everyone is showing their plans and courses, here are mine for this fall and spring (we divide full year to two semesters).

I translated some of these myself, so excuse me for that:

Programming I
Data Systems basics
Computer basics
A look into information technology
Mathematics I
Business Project
English Business Conversation
Mathematics II
A deeper look into information technology
Programming II
Data Systems II
Digital Design I

Should total about 40 credits of the 160 I need to get my MD. Note that we have different credit system etc, so these numbers etc are not equivalent to other systems.
But DON'T worry. I know this looks kind of boringish.. but basic studies (first year) are usually same within the faculties comp students.. so after this I get released from my cage, the rest of the losers will be learn about teaching and knitting purses and feeding little kittens while I'll be doing heavy programming the rest of my studies.. So second year I have absolutely NO courses that is not needed. I need all I take. I'm not about to take a course about saving the environment or how to make my own red wine. No sir. I use the opportunity of slacking off to get more courses that supports directly what I'm studying. It's not for sissies!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap

I call them trade schools cause the only thing you learn in Law school is how to be a lawyer, and in Med school, how to be a doctor of some sort..that is waht trade schools are, fully focused on getting you the skills needed in one particular field.

I have to disagree somewhat here-- law school can often be a very academic place which bears little resemblance to the daily activity of being a lawyer. In fact many law students are disappointed with the law school's focus on the minute details of complicated and often obscure legal arguments instead of practical " trade school" type courses that would help with the day to day practic of law.

[Giant_Squid]

I say no.

Anyone who wants can take classes in whatever subjects they want. I'm in the first semester of my sophomore year and have already taken math, foreign language, two sciences, philosophy, political science, religion, and english, and I hope to take some more stuff. This is because I am the sort of person who likes to do that. I am glad I am allowed to do this rather than being forced, like some of my friends in Europe, to concentrate entirely on a single subject, which there they say is "for your own good".

Likewise, there might be someone who is very interested in only a single subject (or in ten subjects, none of which are the ones you want to require), and while they may respect mathematics or history or whatever, they may be more interested in concentrating on something more appealing to them, and I would be a hypocrite if I wanted to tell them to study philosophy "for their own good".

Another point is that there are some very good reasons not to want to take a certain subject beyond being an incomplete human being who only cares about one subject. I haven't taken any history yet because I think our history department here is awful and because all the 100 level classes are things which mostly I already know and one isn't allowed to start with a 200 level. A lot of people are already happy with how they are in a specific subject and don't want to waste time going over that subject again. Another good example is that I had to take a class last semester to fill a PE requirement. The only class that fit into my schedule was golf, and it was at the time of day when I usually go to the gym and lift weights and use the treadmill. If they had let me out of that requirement, I would've gotten a lot more exercise than I ended up with.

Further, there's the question of what exactly should be required. A lot of people seem happy with the idea of there being some requirement - in whatever they happen to think is the important area. I have a philosophy professor who thinks everyone should be required to take philosophy but doesn't think math or english is important enough to merit that kind of distinction. A lot of Catholic schools make you take Theology, even if you're a non-Catholic who's just going there because the public schools in your area are awful, just because the people who control the school are priests who think theology is what's important. I'm sure there are professors in every subject who feel the same way about their own subject. As it is, the only requirement my college has is a class on "cultural diversity", which I think most of us can agree is a pretty dumb idea, at least when you realize it's preventing us from learning calculus or linguistics or particle physics or whatever.

A requirement is basically a college's way of saying "You don't know what you want - we know what you want". It's a slap in the face of students who they're trying to pretend in most other ways are responsible adults. If you want to be a well-rounded full human being, fine. If you just want to know everything about a specific subject, then at least you know what you want. Any college that tries to limit you to one or the other isn't just educating you, it's trying to propagandize you.

I bet there are a lot of people who wish they had taken different classes in college, like Adam. But I think it was Gandhi who once said that the essential element of freedom is the freedom to make mistakes, and that's a whole lot better than having some college bureaucracy enforce mistakes on you.

[Solly]

This semester..

Taxation
Industrial Organisation and Policy
Political Theory
Oligopoly and Game Theory

First year was the time for diversification, where I did introductions to Maths, Accounting, Marketing etc - all within the SMBA though.

[Az]

Pekka: an MD? wtf?

[Pekka]

Azazel, yep. ?

[Az]

What is this degree. Are you becoming a doctor? And if so, why do you need programming?

[Pekka]

No doctor. Masters Degree, yes? We consider Bachelors Degree a shameful failure .

Just kidding with the failure thing. Besides after that I'd be like almost maybe 3 years away from that doctor .

[SpencerH]

Every arts student should be forced to take (and pass) calculus in their first year at uni (which has 50% failure rate for science students). After all, I was forced to pass english placement exams, english courses, and the english requirement (exam).

Most artsy-types took psychology as their 'science' requirement (yeah right psychology=science) while the science-types took the same course as one of their arts requirements.