“You would think this would be enough in academic-indulgences-bribery money to satiate and keep employed Bekerley’s ranks of worthless professors,theoreticians, and academians, but it’s not, because the University of Berkeley also has some class requirements of all their graduates, regardless of their college and degree. Like all graduation requirements, they don’t go into detail, hoping to get you to sign up for 3, 4, 7 classes you don’t need, but they fall into three categories.
“American History”
“American Institutions”
“American Culture”
These requirements are likely nothing more than additional and unneeded, rank leftist propaganda, but even if not, they certainly have nothing to do with business.”
These requirements are likely nothing more than additional and unneeded, rank leftist propaganda, but even if not, they certainly have nothing to do with business.”
There is nothing particularly wrong with requiring students to broaden their understanding with some exposure to other areas of knowledge outside their career field so the idea that such courses are ipso facto “unneeded” is a nonsense unless you are an acolyte of the dated and long-debunked ideology of technocracy.
As an arts student at university studying linguistics, I had to take courses in science, history and politics at the front end of my academic studies. It didn’t kill me.
However, given Berkeley’s record, I’d agree that courses like American History, American Institutions and American Culture are going to be charged with cant. But that too is university: my politics course was run by an unyielding Marxist and was an eye-opener for me – though not in the way the prof probably intended since, if anything, it turned me away from the political left.
The courses are important and contribute to the overall education IF the curriculum is not revisionist history and taught by Marxists.
Oh my, what is the world coming to when we raise students into well-rounded, world aware individuals rather than inculcating them into their determined profession like the good little worker drones they should be?
My favorite quirky classes at Rutgers back in the late 1980s:
Fruit Growing for Fun & Profit
Castles & Cathedrals
35MM Photography
Horticulture in the Residential Environment (OK, this was in my field of study)
Speaking as a UCBerkeley graduate, I can confirm the Captains research. Yes, even 40 years ago, I was required to take multiple Mickey-mouse classes to “round-out” my educational experience. However, there WAS a reasonable variety of useful “general-ed” classes that made the experience worthwhile. Actual History, English, and Science classes that added to my understanding of the world. However, 40 years ago, I was NOT taught that Shakespeare was an old, dead, misogynist white dude from a colonialist, racist country. No, we actually discussed the content and motivation behind Shakespeare’s writing … yes … even including Biblical references.
UCBerkeley’s mission statement, 40 years ago, was that it was determined NOT to simply be a “Trade School” … we have DeVry Univ. for that … where you can learn basic accounting principles. I also always interpreted UCBerkeley’s “general ed.” requirements as … well … racist. Why ? Because when I went to school there, the single largest “minority” represented in the student body were Asians. Lots and lots of Asians … all carrying 4.6 GPA’s from their High Schools. The University considered their smart, hard-working, disciplined, Asian student body to be … well … “too focused”. That they needed to “round-out” their educational experience. UCBerkeley didn’t want to graduate Doctors with no “bedside manner”, and no ability to converse with their patients on a variety of subjects. Nor did UC want Business majors who could ONLY calculate columns of numbers (on their HP11c calculator -hah!) … and not “communicate” with their clients. Not necessarily a useless goal (or degree) … until the brainwashing started … with classes like “The Sociology of Sport” , by Dr. Harry Edwards (who described black athletes as slaves to white team owners).
Fortunately, The Captain had no problem with “communication” or a well-rounded education. He didn’t need the curriculum elites at UC Bezerkeley to “guide” his education.
No university should ever strive to be a trade school; that’s just not a university mandate and besides, real trade schools can do that job far better anyway.
At my alma mater:
BA and BComm types all took, in addition to core courses, differential calculus, computer science, statistics, chemistry, and physics (aka the gong show).
ApplSci and Engineers had to take history, english, and other courses where they actually had to write things down. This proved fatal in some cases.
As if macroeconomics from the Dean of Arts wasn’t enough punishment. The bane for many engineers was “electro-mysticism.”
For the most part, except for the scholastics, we sucked at those courses designed to produce a more “well rounded” graduate.
Everybody took psychology/leadership, in addition to our heavy loads. Some engineers had over 35 hours of classes per week, plus homework.
We all got through it, for many it meant one course dogged them the entire four years and kept averages down and humility up.
While it wasn’t fun at the time, I can say I benefitted from taking difficult courses. While calculus et al was brutal, business math is now a cinch.
I think that’s the right way to educate. Too much specialization means people only know their discipline and are ignoramuses about everything else.
But since they have “higher education,” suddenly they’re wiser than the masses on politics and economics. My experience is the converse is true.
Why, oh why is it always assumed that science/business/engineering students need to have a “rounded” education while the arts/social sciences crowd don’t need the same “roundedness” when it comes to the STEM courses? Back in the day, when I was a science student, we had to take non-science courses to “round out” our education. Given we had an extra 9 – 12 hours per week of lab time over and above our regular 15 hours of lectures, we sought out “easy” options. Even then, though, the arts classes we took were regular classes, and we were up against students majoring in those subjects while trying to keep the GPA up. Did we ever see the arts/social sciences students in regular sciences courses? NEVER!! Those precious flowers were given special treatment and had their own “science for the non-scientist” courses (generally sans any lab requirements).
I don’t object to having the STEM crowd take courses to become more rounded, but the requirements should be equally rigorous for the non-STEM students. Indeed, it could be argued that – if anything – the general studies students are in greater need of some rigorous teaching in basic science (biology, chemistry, geology) and mathematics than their STEM confreres are in the other direction.
As an undergrad, I took my share of courses outside of my engineering discipline. Many, frankly, weren’t worth the bother and didn’t add anything to my education. (It was through one of those that I grew to hate the novels of Jane Austen and D. H. Lawrence.)
One problem is that they weren’t taught by engineering professors and, as a result, much of the significance of the course content for me went missing and came across as dull, dry, and drab.
For example, since I now like classical music and opera, a course in music appreciation might have been nice. However, it would have made more sense to me if someone with a background in engineering or physics had taught it.
There’s a reason for that. One thing I learned is that music has structure and has a lot in common with computer algorithms. Looking at, say, one of J. S. Bach’s Brandenburg Concerti from that perspective would not only make the subtleties in the music clearer, it would give some indication as to what Bach had in mind when he wrote it.
I used to sing with a university choral group during my final undergrad year. I don’t think it was coincidence that many of my fellow choristers were studying engineering or the hard sciences.
So true ! I would LOVE to see the “Arts” students have to take a REAL math or science class … call it a reverse “rounded” education … if that was ever done … our college graduation rate would drop by 80%. Since most college students are there learning various _ _ _ – studies bullpucky.
Would you be surprised to learn that my daughters FAVORITE class at UCLA was … “The History of Rock&Roll”. I told her she should have reimbursed me for THOSE credits that I paid-for.
And … BTW … I learned MORE about ART from watching Sister Wendy’s PBS series … than ALL the Art/Art History classes I ever took in college. Although, I DID have 2 of the most brilliant Architectural History Professors in the entire country led by Spiro Kostof … https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Kostof . The man was able to teach WORLD history through Architecture History … which echoed the political, technological, and religious advances of mankind There was never a single lecture that didn’t conclude with a standing ovation. It was the ONLY class I ever took where I planned to show up early by a half hour … if I wanted a good seat. I recall that Spiro went on to produce a PBS series on Archiecture History. I recall that I wasn’t as impressed by it as I was his live lectures … lots more nuance in his live lectures.
One of the best courses I ever took in university was the Physical Foundations of Music. It was a physics bird-course, designed for Artsies to get a science credit and Science majors to sleep through for an easy A.
I loved it. I learned all the -reasons- that musical scales are the way they are, how all the instruments actually work, even looking at electronic instruments, oscillators and so forth. It was even useful in my Anthropology major, because using the math I could know what scale an ancient reed flute was in just by measuring where the holes were.
As to the subject of the thread, I think that anyone going to UC Berkely for an education these days is sorely deluded. Its a combination baby sitter and Brownshirt factory.
We are in the end game.
Whenever socialists are put in charge, they destroy whatever they are in charge of. The mainstream media is a walking corpse, the universities are intellectual wastelands, and our judiciaries are rapidly becoming public enemies.
Interesting times are ahead.
When I was earning my B.A. in History, I had to take a science class. I chose Astronomy for Non-Science majors…possibly the most interesting class I ever took in University.
I turned my degree into a Commission in the Army, where I spent 23 years; 4 years Infantry, the rest Logistics. At various times in my military career, I ran Basic Training and truck driver courses; did some instructing; and was a Company Commander in a Battleschool…where I managed several Service Support courses. To prepare for all that, I had to take a 5 day course called Methods of Instruction, which teaches the instructor how to prepare lesson plans and evaluate students, among other things.
I enjoyed the teaching aspect enough that after the Army, I went back to school (University of Saskatchewan, College of Education), intending to become a teacher. There were perhaps 4 classes, out of 15 over a three year period, that actually did anything to prepare a teacher, all the rest were fluff classes. One of those 4 classes taught how to prepare a lesson plan, which was exactly the same format as used in the military. I can honestly say I learned more from my 5 day Methods of Instruction course than my 3 years in Education.
They do actually require students in other majors to take “STEM” classes. The STEM is in quotes because the classes are usually very low level survey classes.
I had to teach a physics without math class. I didn’t treat it as Mickey Mouse. Without math, I challenged the students to think logically to understand the application of the scientific method. I chose to have an oral finals to find out how much they actually learned. I believe they were the better for having taken my class.
One girl absolutely amazed me. For a non-science major, she had an incredible grasp of what physics was all about. More, I believe, then some STEM majors who only did things by rote, and got by classes because they knew how to do the math, without really an understanding of the subject at hand. She would never have had that grasp if she were not forced into taking STEM classes.
The only problem with these requirement classes is some professors feel having to teach those classes is demeaning, and they do treat it as Mickey Mouse classes with no value. Then of course they are. Otherwise, a university is supposed to stimulate the intellect, and isn’t supposed to be a vocational school.
Political correctness and indoctrination are another matter entirely. You get that from a place like UC Berkeley even in the STEM classes. I faced that over half a century ago. You just have to work harder and keep yourself well informed so the lefties (almost all the professors) can’t pull the wool over your eyes.
“Otherwise, a university is supposed to stimulate the intellect, and isn’t supposed to be a vocational school.”
Why not?
You have to pay for your education – why must you pay for a lot of arty padding?
If you really want to be ’rounded’ then do an extra course as voluntary act.
I n my day it was learn Latin and/or Greek to be fully rounded.
Very rounding.
I would agree.
My favourite course among the history courses at Athabaska University was a 3 credit propaganda course. It was about the history of propaganda and brainwashing during WWI and WWII, between the wars by the communists and others, and during the cold war. Particularly interesting was how the media influences the public by writing news or so-called news stories in a negative or positive slant to advance an ideology over a long period of times. We see this constantly in our media today and unfortunately most people fall for it.
A lot of the required courses are simply there for one thing: to line the coffers of the university without making the instructors, poor darlings, work too hard (and thus demand more money). So, classes designed to keep students in college who have no business there, be easy for the profs and thus not cause them to want more money, and will tie up the actual students (and their money) in chasing those required credit hours.
To paraphrase Smedley Butler: it’s a bloody racket.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe that a well rounded liberal arts education is good for you — but I’m speaking from the actual dictionary definition of the term (and that hasn’t shown itself in public schools for at least 50 years). And that would be an education which requires a student to take some survey classes to round out what they hopefully learned in primary and secondary school in ALL major academic areas and actual academic courses, not the dribble they teach now (that goes for STEM, business, and humanities — if you take a good look at what passes for the gen. ed. in any of those areas, well, be prepared to laugh or possibly cry).
It should not, however, be worth more credits, make more demands, than the student’s actual major field of study. And it should act as a process by which non-hackers are weeded out and uncommitted students can finally decide what area of study they really could be brilliant in. That isn’t happening, of course.
I’m presently guiding my own child through that minefield. I’m a college instructor, so I have an inside edge…have often thought of marketing my services, the swamp is difficult to negotiate, perilous too. And due to changes in the faculty line-up, I’m not sure if I can manage it 100% (it isn’t just the class you choose, it’s the instructor too; you have to be careful of that…scary, huh?).
I honestly at this point have thrown up my hands — everyone gripes about it, but nobody wants to tackle it. I’d like to teach actual academics in an actual academic environment, but it’s not happening…oh well, everybody has to get paid somehow…
And it’s more than just those three picks. Sit down sometime and read the local college/university’s course catalogs (all of the departments, focus on the gen. ed. courses which will be 101/201, and if there are any senior seminars required, those offerings too)…it’s pretty entertaining!
And sadly enlightening.
In regards to the STEM majors and being well-rounded. Yes, they should. Having some knowledge of things other than their specific area is a good thing; it can help a person to think holistically and outside the box as well as ground them in a knowledge of the civilizational paradigm they are working in. And as an English major I can tell you that at the very least they need to learn how to communicate clearly and accurately, although professionally and elegantly would be nice too (this is very important for STEM classes — reports have to be understandable at the least…and some of them have such horrific grammar that it isn’t. I’ve been paid to edit/proofread some of my STEM peers thesis that were…interesting to say the least; this was no way to write papers about technical things!).
It works the other way too. STEM curriculum focuses (or should focus) on accuracy, critical reasoning, logic, and good powers of observation, which helps Humanities students out quite a bit — both with reading (you really need to be able to read accurately) and in their writing (it isn’t all just about throwing huge words on a paper and “muh feelings”). And it helps them to think holistically and outside the box — grounding them in the civilizational paradigm in which they are operating (that would be called “Western Civ.” by the way, the very thing that created the college system– for better AND worse I might add– and goodness knows THAT doesn’t get the proper treatment anymore).
The problem is none of this is getting done.
yanks are still seriously dumbfcuks.
in a recent ‘Jeopardy’ episode none of the contestants knew the major city on Lake Superior formerly known as the twin cities of Fort William Port Arthur is now . . . . . this despite the name change being decades ago.
serious dumbfcuks when it comes to the *rest* of the world incl the next door neighbor.
Of course I am darling, and I have never voted for Justin Trudeau (or his buddy Barry) either — so I’ve got that going for me, which is nice.
A four year degree is really a 3 year degree plus one year subsidizing fields that can’t support themselves.