Ocala.com Bloggers
- Broken News
- Bill Thompson
- Digital Editor
- Eric Barnes
- Frame 37
- Ocala.com Multimedia
- Marion Politics
- Newsroom
- Observations
- Naseem S. Miller
- OcalaDay
- Joe Byrnes
- Read My E-Mail
- Allen Parson
- Running Wide Open
- Joe Vanhoose
- Speaking of Business...
- Dr. Philip R. Geist
- The Bowling Blog
- Debbie Whitten
- The Green Zone
- Dave Rhea
- The Sports Blog
- Gregory Broome
- What is that?
- Newsroom
 |
Search Blogs
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Blog Archives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've wondered about this for a very long time...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location: Blogs Sly Comments |
 |
| Posted by: Emory Schley |
4/28/2007 5:44 AM |
One of the things that always bothered me about university curricula was all those mandatory courses one has to take that are outside the student’s major course of study.
I know a common argument is that all those other classes are necessary to ensure that students have a “well-rounded” education, and can be reasonably conversant in a number of intellectual areas. But, let’s face it – how many times do you ask your doctor what he thinks about ancient Greek pottery? At the rates he’s charging, you almost hesitate to ask him how your own health is doing!
Although the argument sounds good, on the surface, I’ve often thought there was probably a darker, more sinister reason for the requirement.
I fully realize many college students have no idea what area of enterprise they are going to enter after graduation, and a courseload that exposes them to many different disciplines tends to have value, I would think, in perhaps helping them to decide on a particular area of interest they would like to pursue. It could also help them discover some areas they definitely have no affinity for whatsover, and this too, can prove valuable.
But, still that nagging feeling of something not being quite right, has always gnawed away at me.
I have slowly come to believe that a good part of that multi-subject curricula stance is really nothing more than an employment protection scheme for college professors. Where else could they make a living from some rather obscure areas of knowledge? It’s been quite a few years since I’ve seen a Help Wanted ad for a mathematician specializing in tensor calculus, for example, but such a fellow could probably easily secure a position on a campus.
Academia offers insulation to those who trod paths far removed from those of the common man or woman. I guess it’s best to have a place for them somewhere.
It’s better than having them on welfare. |
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (2)
Add Comment
|
Re: I've wondered about this for a very long time... |
By Tommy F Thompson on
4/27/2007 11:08 AM |
| Yes, they used to use that phrase "Well Rounded" a lot back when they were pushing the Liberal Arts thing. Actually, I think there's a lot of truth to it, yet, yes, it ensures their jobs. At UF they don't work on Fridays. I'd say that's a pretty good setup. Yes, I know some are there, but essentially most are off. I would really jump on this issue but the fact remains that the colleges put out some really good students. Naturally, we could say that it's really good students going into college. That's probably closer to the truth. |
|
|
Re: I've wondered about this for a very long time... |
By Bill Noffsinger on
4/27/2007 1:41 PM |
Thanks, Emory for your thoughts on this engaging topic; you continue to show your talent for identifying news-worthy topics. I have also spent a lot of time and energy considering what a liberal (well rounded) education is and debating its value.
I think you are correct when you cite the self interest of academics and their leadership in continuing to require undergraduate students to complete a general education with broad subject area requirements. Ironically, despite the social mission of higher education to be innovative and progressive, university faculties and administration are quintessentially conservative, particularly in matters of curriculum. Yes, I think you are correct in suggesting that scholars in areas removed from immediate practical application are able to maintain their employment when undergraduates are required to take their courses. I also feel that the greater the reputation of the institution, the more conservative it is apt to be.
However, we should not be surprised about this, nor should we be too concerned about it. Historically, there has always been a natural tension between the goals of the academy and that of everyday commerce and society, which also includes the professions, such as law and medicine. I believe that those with a sound liberal education, particularly when obtained from an Ivy League school, have been best equipped to find leadership positions and exert significant influence. I don’t think it’s a great coincidence that the majority of the most recent US President attended the same Ivy League school (Yale). A cynic may reply that in most cases their achievement was largely due to a privileged background but in at least one instance that was not the case.
The gulf between immediate application and intellectual rigor manifests itself in other ways. For example, based upon quantifiable criteria (GRE scores for one), many of the “smartest” students on campus are those studying engineering, physics, mathematics and philosophy. Engineering is perhaps the exception but the data also show there are fewer direct “within field” job opportunities for mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers. However, many of these same people are able to move in different directions, with the best in the bunch often becoming quite successful. I’m thinking abut the emerging field of financial engineering wherein very skilled mathematicians and statisticians are making large amounts of money by developing innovative mathematical models of the financial markets. Many financial engineers were trained as theoretical physicists. On the subject of engineering in our universities, the US has experienced a 5-year decline in undergraduate enrollments in electrical engineering and computer science, particularly among American students.
In short, liberal democratic society has always depended upon an intellectual elite – at lease to some degree, and always with some degree of discomfort and even resentment.
|
|
|
|
|
|