Is a college degree really necessary?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Many of the courses you're mentioning are targeted to Freshmen right? It seems reasonable to have a curriculum that gives incoming students an opportunity to sample things. I really think we are overestimating how many 18-year old students enter college sure of what they want to do as a career. 

 

I don't have an issue with your idea to have two paths...my only concern would be the pressure applied for kids to pick the shorter/cheaper options and commit to a career path before they really know. But, that's more of a personal issue, not a systemic one. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

11 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Many of the courses you're mentioning are targeted to Freshmen right? It seems reasonable to have a curriculum that gives incoming students an opportunity to sample things. I really think we are overestimating how many 18-year old students enter college sure of what they want to do as a career. 

 

I don't have an issue with your idea to have two paths...my only concern would be the pressure applied for kids to pick the shorter/cheaper options and commit to a career path before they really know. But, that's more of a personal issue, not a systemic one. 

 

There are options like community college for those that don't know what they want to do as a career.  And it's a lot cheaper than going to a four year university while figuring out if college is even for you or what you want to do.  

 

Not to mention, a lot of students change their major after they have been exposed to the core classes in a particular field of study.  Reasons being they realize they don't enjoy it or don't think they would say 10-20 years from now or they simply realize they aren't cut out because it's too hard for them, etc.  If they went to a four year university as a freshman and was tossed into core classes they would make that decision sooner instead of later and save time and money.

 

 

[Elessar78]

57 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Not in here, but in other threads where I've blasted the current system, I have pointed out that there are a few non-related classes that I believe all college students should be required to take:  Technical Writing, Speech.

 

But.......I'm going to stop my rant as I looked up the current required classes at my alma mater and they have greatly adjusted in favor of related core classes.  There are still 15 hours of classes that I feel should be left out, but that's only one semester worth.  

 

For the record, I earned a BSME degree and never worked in that field, so I am part of that 73%.........and none of those bull**** classes I took did squat for me in the real world.  Unless I was going to be a teacher (English, History, Phys Ed, etc.), those classes were of zero help in preparing me for the real world.  I did benefit from the speech class and technical writing class.  

 

Your standard world history class is not going to provide any more insight or knowledge for an engineering student.  I know, I took those classes and got that degree.  Architect, sure, as they design different looks from different eras.  But I'm sure that is taught to them in core classes given that's what they do.  I'm sorry bro, but in your world history class, your learning about history, not studying actual designs of buildings, etc.  

 

 

But they are electives, correct? If you didn't want a certain class (saw no point) then you didn't have to take THAT class. 

 

Ugh, so learning about the Romans in World History 101 doesn't have any implication to what a Architectural Engineer or Architect may want to know? What, for example, the Romans believed and the way they thought informed how and what they built. World History is much more than just memorizing and regurgitating a bunch of linear dates for a test. 

 

I'm sorry none of your electives helped you in the real world. I had the opposite experience, I use a lot of the general knowledge from those electives in my day to day life both professionally and personally. 

[Elessar78]

57 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Not in here, but in other threads where I've blasted the current system, I have pointed out that there are a few non-related classes that I believe all college students should be required to take:  Technical Writing, Speech.

 

But.......I'm going to stop my rant as I looked up the current required classes at my alma mater and they have greatly adjusted in favor of related core classes.  There are still 15 hours of classes that I feel should be left out, but that's only one semester worth.  

 

For the record, I earned a BSME degree and never worked in that field, so I am part of that 73%.........and none of those bull**** classes I took did squat for me in the real world.  Unless I was going to be a teacher (English, History, Phys Ed, etc.), those classes were of zero help in preparing me for the real world.  I did benefit from the speech class and technical writing class.  

 

Your standard world history class is not going to provide any more insight or knowledge for an engineering student.  I know, I took those classes and got that degree.  Architect, sure, as they design different looks from different eras.  But I'm sure that is taught to them in core classes given that's what they do.  I'm sorry bro, but in your world history class, your learning about history, not studying actual designs of buildings, etc.  

 

 

But they are electives, correct? If you didn't want a certain class (saw no point) then you didn't have to take THAT class. 

 

Ugh, so learning about the Romans in World History 101 doesn't have any implication to what a Architectural Engineer or Architect may want to know? What, for example, the Romans believed and the way they thought informed how and what they built. World History is much more than just memorizing and regurgitating a bunch of linear dates for a test. 

 

I'm sorry none of your electives helped you in the real world. I had the opposite experience, I use a lot of the general knowledge from those electives in my day to day life both professionally and personally. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, Elessar78 said:

But they are electives, correct? If you didn't want a certain class (saw no point) then you didn't have to take THAT class. 

 

Ugh, so learning about the Romans in World History 101 doesn't have any implication to what a Architectural Engineer or Architect may want to know? What, for example, the Romans believed and the way they thought informed how and what they built. World History is much more than just memorizing and regurgitating a bunch of linear dates for a test. 

 

I'm sorry none of your electives helped you in the real world. I had the opposite experience, I use a lot of the general knowledge from those electives in my day to day life both professionally and personally. 

 

You know what I meant.  I'm fine with making a technical writing and speech classes required, for all majors, because those actually can be applied in the real world, in just about every occupation.  

 

The history behind why they designed structures the way they did is not needed to design a modern day structure themed to a particular group/culture.  I'm sure there are plenty of occasions where an architect will be presented with a job in which the customer is wanting it to be influenced after a particular culture that they do not know the history behind.  

 

As far as the major influences, they already are studying those topics in core classes.  I just looked at the required classes for a a BA in Architecture and classes include:  Architectural History I, II and III, Architectural Design Studio (every semester), Rome Design Studio, Italian Architecture and Urbanism, Urban Analysis, European Field Study.  

 

The point I'm trying to make is that all those English, History, etc. classes were already taught to students throughout school, especially in high school.  They already learned about it and in my opinion, it shouldn't be necessary for them to take it again in college.  Any interest in those topics would already exist and they can pursue additional education on their own time.  

 

But I'm done debating/arguing/defending/etc. this topic.  It's not going to change my overall belief, nor are you and others going to change your beliefs on this.  And that's cool, it's what makes us individuals.  If we all thought the same, what a boring world we would live in.  Now get back in the RTT and post some funny **** broski 

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 hour ago, Elessar78 said:

But they are electives, correct? If you didn't want a certain class (saw no point) then you didn't have to take THAT class. 

 

Ugh, so learning about the Romans in World History 101 doesn't have any implication to what a Architectural Engineer or Architect may want to know? What, for example, the Romans believed and the way they thought informed how and what they built. World History is much more than just memorizing and regurgitating a bunch of linear dates for a test. 

 

I'm sorry none of your electives helped you in the real world. I had the opposite experience, I use a lot of the general knowledge from those electives in my day to day life both professionally and personally. 

 

So, I'm much more aligned with you in this discussion, but I would assume that the debate is less about someone having a well-rounded education and more about who should be accountable for that. 

 

So, I'm guessing those who think college should be a fast-tracked, focused sprint in a relevant field would say that it's incumbent on us to read up world history or sciences or other general education courses. I like the idea of people who "know enough to be dangerous" about non-professional topics. So, I loved the college Religion and History courses that I took.