(Note to Zombie: I know you've posted on education & the importance of history & civics, etc. before, so this isn't directed at you. It's more about the terminology.)When I told my parents that I wanted to minor in Religious Studies at DePaul, Dad thought it was cool and Mom said I should do something 'useful' like business (barf). Again, this idea that an education is a training program for little robot drones to go out into the workforce, earn their pension and die.
Whatever happened to the idea of education as being a means to better oneself, as an activity of enjoyment? Exploration, personal growth, critical thinking... all of those things are economically viable and all of them can only be attained by taking courses in a multitude of fields, not just your major.
I see this all the time in student comments in my work. Some student complaining: "Why do I (a business major) have to take philosphy (or art or religion or sociology, or whatever)"
It's generally students who are in these "vocational" type programs (Business and Computer Science are the biggest culprits) that complain about the "usefullness" of their liberal arts education. Guess what fuckwit - if you wanted to simply be "trained" go to a vocational school - there's plenty of them out there.
The point of higher education, especially at the undergraduate level, is not about training in your major field. It is about broadening horizons. That's why the bulk of your courses are general education requirements. It's about teaching you think critically about a variety of subjects, including art, and to be able to synthesize all those subjects together. It's about learning how to analyze the world in a multitude of ways, and learning to appreciate things that are beyond your realm of experience.
This is why I think there is a backlash in this country about the "liberalization" of higher education. After all, one definition of "Liberal" is :
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Hmmm. That sounds a lot like the focus of many undergraduate core-curricula out there - gaining a broad understanding of the world through various lenses - be they economics, business, art, literature, philosophy, social science or politics.
The people who are screaming about the "culture wars" and some liberal conspiracy taking over higher education are the same people who don't want to, or are afraid to learn about anything outside their bubble of experience. Why? Well, for one, to really put forth effort to analyze and learn about something different from your own views, you have to be able to let go of your beliefs for a time and give sincere consideration to another point-of-view. To a lot of people, this is simply impossible. For people like that, there is no way but their way, so there is no point considering alternatives or putting in effort learning about something that is wrong.
20 comments:
I completely agree with you. When I went to school for engineering, the classes I enjoyed the most were my philosophy and history classes. Having worked in a software company, I've seen too many products of technical schools (like Devry) that have no clue how to relate to the world or anyone else. I'd argue that the so-called "liberal" disciplines are more valuable in a practical sense. This goes beyond the obvious merits of a broad-based education.
Furthermore, the tendency to put music and art programs on the cutting block first in public schools is a great disservice to the kids. What you end up with is a bunch of neutered intellects with no appreciation for beauty, nuance or subtlety.
What you end up with is a bunch of neutered intellects with no appreciation for beauty, nuance or subtlety.
And just think -- these are the kinds of people who will be running the world one day. God help us.
One day? How about TOday?
Nuance is for pussies! What we need are bull-headed, single-minded people to make bad decisions and have the fortitude to stick behind them no matter what!
Sigh....
I have a sister-in-law that majored in photography. She graduated and is now a stay-at-home mom. She is making little use of her parent's money spent on her "higher education". She does a side job for a local photographer--just touching up portraits with some software (something I could learn without going to school).
I think it's up to the idividual to make their education work for them.
I just see so many people wasting money and screwin' around with majors that are going to serve them in their future.
I'm with you though, nobody should generalize a major and assume it won't amount to anything.
Holy crap that's disturbing sadie lou... so, because she's a stay-at-home mom she screwed around in college? People change. Their priorities change. Hell, I had 3 different majors at different times in college. I wound up getting degrees in two of them and I use neither of them. Am I a failure? Did I screw around with my parents money? No and No.
Sadie: I couldn't disagree with you more. Like I said in the post, undergraduate education is about a lot more than your major field. I'm sure your sister learned a lot about things other than just photography. She grew as an individual, met new people, and learned about the world around her.
Education is never wasted, except on those who choose not to learn. If she learned anything, it's not wasted.
Excellent post Laura.
I have problems understanding the idea that Adult education has to be 'for' something. Whatever happened to the idea of education for its own sake? My 1st Degree was in Social Ethics - you can tell how 'useful' that's been... but it covered a huge area of study and introduced me to interests I still follow today. So I ended up working in an IT department which is about as far away from my 'training' as you can get.. Did I waste my time @ University? Well, there was those 6-8 weeks when.... But no, I certainly didn't.
I've just completed a Masters degree in Religious Studies. The first thing my parents asked...? "What is it for & will it be useful in your job?" That's not exactly why I did it... It was to learn things - which I most certainly did.
Education should be for learning new stuff & expanding your mind. I for one am not a drone nor a number. I am a free-thinking man.....
I'm rather torn on this issue.
I agree that education is NEVER wasted, and I DO love to see schools turning out well-rounded individuals. I've heard that Business majors with a minor in Psychology are MUCH sought after.
However, low income students have a difficult time paying for "fluff" classes that don't pertain to their chosen field.
In a perfect world, I would suggest that students get their degrees in classes related to their field. THEN continue their fine-arts education when they're able to truly enjoy it.
Interesting comments. On a side note life is one continuous educational process. From the time we are born we learn and continue to do so until we die. The important thing in my mind is that do we actually let what we learn improve us for the better or do we let lifes lessons bounce off our cranium without ever sinking in? Life, like college, can allow you to grow and become a better more rounded person if you only use what you learn.
PERFECT point, neal!
I didn't mean what I said the way it sounds. I'm a stay at home mom as well so I meant no disrespect with that information.
What I'm trying to express is that she certainly DID waste money and I'm not judging her--this is from her own addmission.
She said she wished she would have taken a break from school to set her prioroties instead of jumping right into college before she even knew what she wanted out of life.
She explained to me that she would have much rather saved that money for a down payment on a house or to go to seminary school.
She's actually quite bored with photography and she said all the other classes she had to take were a waste of time.
I don't see how this wasn't a waste of her parent's money. As it is, they still had to loan her and her new husband money to help put my brother-in-law through the fire academy...
Sadie said: "all the other classes she had to take were a waste of time"
That's my point though. Those are the types of arguments I can't stand.
"why do I have to take _____"
Undergraduate education is about general education, not your major. If she didn't get anything out of any of her other classes, then that's really unfortunate, but it's also her own fault. There's something to be gotten out of every subject, just as Neal said "do we actually let what we learn improve us for the better or do we let lifes lessons bounce off our cranium without ever sinking in?"
You mean to tell me she thinks her entire undergrad curriculum was "useless"? To me that's extremely sad, and illustrates the point about how education is being viewed in our society as of late.
She's not using any of it and yeah, the way she treated education was much like a spoiled child in a candy store.
She was just there because she graduated from highschool and the next thing was college and mom and dad were offering the fundage.
Huge difference than where I came from. I wasn't ready to balance a job and school, so I didn't and I got married instead.
I've slowly been taking college courses--on my own time and my own money and it's amazing the difference the desire to be there can make on your "learning".
I think there are a couple of things going on.
One is that colleges have consciously accepted a more business-like philosophy. College presidents talk about being the CEOs of their schools. Consequently, they're more focused on the tangibles than the intangibles. Cornell West has some very interesting stuff to say about this. I highly recommend reading/listening to him.
The other is that higher education used to be for people who were already rich. I.e. they could afford to study something "impractical" in college since they were going to have a cushy career (or no career) anyway. This is still the case if you go to Yale or Harvard. You can major in art history and make 150-200k a year on wall street right out of college. Or, you can live off your parents and friends for a couple of years before going to law school and getting hooked up with a fancy-pants law firm three years later.
JA: That is true that colleges are starting to get more corporate. I left one because of that. However, it's like the chicken and the egg - colleges respond to what the potential students (and their parents) want. The parents and students now think like customers who are purchasing a product. I've ranted about this before and how it turns education into a commodity for "I paid my money, I deserve an "A" entitlement brats". So are the colleges responding to what the students are asking for? Or are the students asking for it because the college offers it? This education-as-commodity really started in the 80s, so I blame the greed and materialist driven people who spawned during that selfish decade and whose kids are now in college, thinking that since they paid their money they don't have to work, or earn their degree.
As for education for the rich - that is true. And it will be true again if we don't stop bleeding our public education dry.
You have hit on one of my biggest pet peeves! The lack of a 'classical" education, that rewards society with well rounded, thoughtful people who are able to reason in all situations.
Today we train specialists, people with one specific area of knowledge, but who are pretty much worthless outside their area of expertise.
If you want to see the damage this educational philosophy has done to the nation, take a look around you. There are no more "men for all seasons" There are no more statesmen. Businessmen have no idea of their responsibilities to their community and country because their was little or no emphasis on the social studies (history, civics, social science) in their education. We are so busy creating robots for the work force we are neglecting teaching the things that make us better citizens, and more well rounded people capable of enjoying life.
People with a narrow range of knowledge are easy prey for every demagogue, conspiracy theorist, and extremist pol looking for scapegoats to blame their own failures on. Our educational philosophy is perhaps the single biggest danger to our own freedom!
Sorry this rant could go on for ever, but I'll take no more space!
When I told my parents that I wanted to minor in Religious Studies at DePaul, Dad thought it was cool and Mom said I should do something 'useful' like business (barf).
Heh, I think a RS major is way more interesting to talk to than a Business major.
As for college education, the problem is the students. In any degree, the General Ed is so broad that you should be well-rounded with any degree. The problem is, students dismiss GE courses as "they're only GE courses" and don't take them seriously. They're missing out on a big world out there.
Whoops, didn't mean to hit the Return button yet.
It's generally students who are in these "vocational" type programs (Business and Computer Science are the biggest culprits) that complain about the "usefullness" of their liberal arts education. Guess what fuckwit - if you wanted to simply be "trained" go to a vocational school - there's plenty of them out there.
Very true. These majors are so specific that when that industry gets hit, they're screwed. Something broad like History or English can adopt to other things.
For the record, those people are also the most boring people in conversations. When I used to hang out with fellow students, I often had to tell my fellow CS people to shutup when there were women around or else they'll scare them away. I'm serious too. I ordered them to neither talk about computers nor mention their major.
Bravo Laura! You hit the nail on the head. What can I say, when you have made and carried your point with clear vision. I am willing to bet my hard earned pennies that you are a damn good teacher.
Nuance is for pussies! What we need are bull-headed, single-minded people to make bad decisions and have the fortitude to stick behind them no matter what! --- Isn't George Bush, Jr. Still president?
I totally agree with you on this one, Laura. However, I don't think that's a stretch, considering your posts and viewpoints expressed on other websites I happen to frequent. My degree (bachelor's and master's) is in Communication Disorders and we had to take classes outside our "field". The two most useful classes (that I benefit from daily) were stats and public speaking. Also, if anyone wants to argue "economically viable", see what happens to a person who applies for a tech job (say at Microsoft) who has no college education versus a person who applies for same job but has a degree (doesn't matter what the degree is in). They will hire the person who has more education 99% of the time.
Post a Comment