Why the us should cut useless courses from college degrees.

[Katganistan]

"squandering"

Go on then, explain how it's "squandering tax dollars" to support the humanities.

You're paying for degrees that produce overqualified Starbucks employees. Who then turn around and cry It's societies fault that they're 120 grand in debt with no job prospects.

State schools are significantly less money and no less accredited.
Scholarships are a thing for people who took the time to study in K-12.
Student loans are nothing more than usury, and Betsy De Vos, who made her money on them, should not be the Secretary of Education. Like other, more historical usurers, her tables should be flipped and she should be driven from the temple of education.

With that logic, just let them be overqualified Starbucks employees. Isn't that how the mantra goes, that people are responsible for their own actions and don't need nannying from the state?

No, because those said over qualified employees are the reason that bunk like free college gets popular in the first place. Telling the average person to take responsibility for their own choices is like telling a dog to stop licking themselves. It's never going to happen, don't waste your breath. Colleges should have to be upfront about the career prospects of all degrees.

My parents went to college for free. It was a thing, at least in New York. All you paid was a minimal administration and student activity fee.

Then people started baying about it not being necessary, you could get a perfectly good job in the factory or at the docks like they did, and the free city and state college model went out the door, transforming into the ugly money-pit it is now.

Oh, the utter irony.

I have a good law in mind that'd incentivize colleges away from forcing non-related courses onto students. My idea is basically to make it so that for any non-major related courses students incur, the equivalent amount has to be deducted from their tuition. If colleges know they'll lose money from requiring students to take certain courses, they'll stop that behavior very quickly because those colleges want the most profit possible. The federal government will just stop funding that portion of any student loans.

Or you could start your own college with hookers and blackjack and no distribution requirements, and let the free market decide if that is what people want.

Undoubtedly it would be very popular until the market was saturated with hookers and blackjack, and neither being a sex worker nor gambling were profitable anymore.

Or we could just not require people to take classes they don't need. Why is this such a horrible idea to so many people?

Ok, that’s not bad, I guess, if you only want a one dimensional professional.

One whose career is over should the market shift and their skill set become obsolete.

So this is ok because it doesn’t suit you but others can fuck off? No wonder we keep graduating illiterates, what with that mentality. Smh.

It's okay because it doesn't suit a lot of students. Why do you care so much? How does it impact you if people aren't forced to take a class that they don't want to? Do you just really enjoy the idea of making people pretend to care long enough to pass a test? And sorry, but yes I am going to always work towards my best interest. Someone has to keep my benefit in mind. Might as well be me.

It impacts society to have ill-educated entitled individuals who try to drag everyone down to their level of ill-education and entitlement.

Repeating to multiple people "why do you care so much" in a debate about a broadly-educated populace says a great deal about one's ability to even debate the question and the need for a more broadly-educated populace.

I care because I’d like to think that if my kids go to uni, their education is not a one track mind one. That their higher education is more well rounded. Why wouldn’t I care?

Wouldn't you care more that they're making enough money for a stable living or better yet, more money than you and thus will be able to go farther than you got to? The benefit of not requiring being "well rounded" is that the education itself will take less time and cost less money to complete. Thus the student gets a better ROI if fewer courses are needed.

No one is keeping you from employment. There are jobs. The difference is deciding you're too good to take a particular job.

Because a college education implies more than a vocational degree.

Yeah, that you can memorize facts long enough to pass a test. Woopity-do dah.

Then go to a vocational college and stop complaining.

Those aren't mutually exclusive nor binary. Want to try again?

I’m not sure I understand this answer.

Why are college degrees necessary in so many fields past a certain level if the point of college is not to prepare one for that particular career? Or is it?

It demonstrates that you have the discipline to learn new information you will need, that you can complete training they will give you, and that you have the capacity to read, write, and speak and think at better than an eighth grade level.

From the liberal arts degree I earned, which people sneer at, I have worked in publishing, advertising and education, shifting gears without much trouble when the market shifted and made the previous careers less desirable.

If I had majored in video game design, I'd be up shit's creek. Game design houses are closing down or downsizing. What could I do with that degree other than seek another?

Oh, so now we're cutting core K-12 curricula because people don't want to do it. Fantastic.

By the time someone is in highschool, they have years of experience with being an idiot. Once again I went to school with a bunch of numbskulls, and what you're all suggesting is that the total wastes of shit I had to sit next to for years on end shouldn't have been separated from the smarter kids and put in a class more fitting for them.

Why do we have a person who's main hobby is popping addies in a class about ancient mesopotamia? Can you really say that makes sense without laughing at the idea?

Tell us some more about the superiority of your ideas about college education while constantly referring to high school, and while painting everyone but you is inferior.

Indeed. And having a broad understanding of different subjects also helps people switch gears when they find the particular job they've studied for has more applicants than positions -- and lo and behold, you might discover an aptitude/love of something you would not have thought to try on your own.

But how are people going to have the luxury to just change their degree if they're too far along in it? Its too damn expensive to take every class you want to take, if you don't have a full ride scholarship or something special.

I never had to change my degree.
THAT is the point of a liberal arts education.

I've worked for well over thirty years on a BA in English and then, an MA in Secondary Education (which takes roughly a year and a half to two years to complete).

In other words, you have no idea what education is for, and condemn a lot of other people for being stupid/inferior to you.

considering that we once had a kid get up in my science class and challenge the teacher on evolution, claiming the pope said it never happened (the pope hasn't denied evolution btw so it's even dumber that he said that) I 100% believe folks like him should not be forced into a class that's out of their league.

Education is so kids can become functioning adults in the world. Teaching evolution to a guy who doesn't even know his own religion's opinion on the issue is a waste of resources, and he should instead be steered toward something on his level, like woodshop

And again, 'don't educate people, give them manual labor!' while simultaneously not realizing that an experienced cabinet-maker or carpenter will make a fortune.

[Luminesa]

I’m not sure I understand this answer.

Why are college degrees necessary in so many fields past a certain level if the point of college is not to prepare one for that particular career? Or is it?

It demonstrates that you have the discipline to learn new information you will need, that you can complete training they will give you, and that you have the capacity to read, write, and speak and think at better than an eighth grade level.

From the liberal arts degree I earned, which people sneer at, I have worked in publishing, advertising and education, shifting gears without much trouble when the market shifted and made the previous careers less desirable.

If I had majored in video game design, I'd be up shit's creek. Game design houses are closing down or downsizing. What could I do with that degree other than seek another?

I honestly don’t understand why people sneer as hard as they do at liberal arts, I think we need more writers and artists. I think the issue is that higher education shoots really hard to compete with the international community, and that’s why US colleges push for STEM so hard. The only other reason to dislike liberal arts is if you’re not that into writing or...art or whatnot.

[Valrifell]

It demonstrates that you have the discipline to learn new information you will need, that you can complete training they will give you, and that you have the capacity to read, write, and speak and think at better than an eighth grade level.

From the liberal arts degree I earned, which people sneer at, I have worked in publishing, advertising and education, shifting gears without much trouble when the market shifted and made the previous careers less desirable.

If I had majored in video game design, I'd be up shit's creek. Game design houses are closing down or downsizing. What could I do with that degree other than seek another?

I honestly don’t understand why people sneer as hard as they do at liberal arts, I think we need more writers and artists. I think the issue is that higher education shoots really hard to compete with the international community, and that’s why US colleges push for STEM so hard. The only other reason to dislike liberal arts is if you’re not that into writing or...art or whatnot.

Like someone earlier said, the STEM and Humanities majors should join forces to get back at the real force that so meticulously kept us fighting each other.

The business majors.

[Totenborg]

Certain jobs are beneath me unless I have no choice and I've exhausted all means of avoiding it. I didn't pay a boatload of money and time to flip burgers, wait tables, work in hotels or whatever else. What is the point if I won't afford the gasoline to go to the place of work? I'm thinking that instead, I should conclude that college is worthless unless you're becoming something like a doctor or lawyer and instead borrow money to go to a trade school.

The college path is a bust, but picking up a real skill can be the ticket to prosperity. Dentists for example, can become employed absolutely anywhere because there are always people with teeth problems. It is just a matter of somehow being able to execute on it, even if you don't like it strictly speaking.

No, your path was a bust. Largely due to your attitude. College is still objectively the financially optimal path on average.

I can feel that. My degree ended up being a bust, so went into a trade. Though, if I'm being honest, I like doing my trade way more than what I would've been doing through my degree. That degree did open up the door for companies to even give me a shot, though.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And people who want to do that can take optional side courses. I like not wasting my money. Education shouldn't be about anything but what the student wants it to be.

So the uneducated should decide what their education should encompass.

They get to decide this anyway, at the ballot box. Most Americans do not have a degree.

[The New California Republic]

Or you could start your own college with hookers and blackjack and no distribution requirements, and let the free market decide if that is what people want.

Undoubtedly it would be very popular until the market was saturated with hookers and blackjack, and neither being a sex worker nor gambling were profitable anymore.

[Ethel mermania]

But how are people going to have the luxury to just change their degree if they're too far along in it? Its too damn expensive to take every class you want to take, if you don't have a full ride scholarship or something special.

I never had to change my degree.
THAT is the point of a liberal arts education.

I've worked for well over thirty years on a BA in English and then, an MA in Secondary Education (which takes roughly a year and a half to two years to complete).

Well I work in communications engineering, and I have a liberal arts degree. If I need technical course work on a topic I have never been shut out of that course work because of my background. I could even go get my P.E. or F.E. with my current course background. I would have to take some calculus for the P.E., even that is mainly so I could pass the calculus section of the test, not because it is lacking from my undergraduate degree.

[Ethel mermania]

considering that we once had a kid get up in my science class and challenge the teacher on evolution, claiming the pope said it never happened (the pope hasn't denied evolution btw so it's even dumber that he said that) I 100% believe folks like him should not be forced into a class that's out of their league.

Education is so kids can become functioning adults in the world. Teaching evolution to a guy who doesn't even know his own religion's opinion on the issue is a waste of resources, and he should instead be steered toward something on his level, like woodshop

And again, 'don't educate people, give them manual labor!' while simultaneously not realizing that an experienced cabinet-maker or carpenter will make a fortune.

My plumber gets 375 for a hour. What do you get paid? Hell what do I get paid...... I will be at the bar.

[Jebslund]

It doesn't. Either their money does, the university's money does, or the government's money does. There's no possibility of your money being involved.

There's no such thing as the governments money. The only money they have is what they took from me and other people who pay taxes. Or, who purchase debt bonds.

There's no such thing as the apartment's money. The only money they have is what they took from me and other people who pay rent.

There's no such thing as Food City's money. The only money they have is what they took from me and other people who pay for groceries.

Do I need to go on, or do you understand how stupid that "taxation is the government spending MY money" argument is yet?

[Diopolis]

School should be about preparing you for a career. If you want to take classes like that, then they should be an optional side course.

Then take career training courses. Go to trade school, if you want a trade.

Which raises the question of why careers require college degrees.

[Ethel mermania]

Then take career training courses. Go to trade school, if you want a trade.

Which raises the question of why careers require college degrees.

It shows an ability to learn different things and apply them. Dont you want your medic to have. Strong understanding of biology, chemistry, and the ability to communicate their thoughts clearly and directly to both their patients and other staff?

Dont you want your plumber to know to connect cold water ground to the cold water pipe and not Line?

[Saiwania]

It shows an ability to learn different things and apply them. Dont you want your medic to have. Strong understanding of biology, chemistry, and the ability to communicate their thoughts clearly and directly to both their patients and other staff?

No, because it means that they'll be more expensive than would be the case if they only know enough to do their job well enough. A medic probably needs a biology and anatomy background, but why chemistry unless they'll be using medicines?

[Salandriagado]

It shows an ability to learn different things and apply them. Dont you want your medic to have. Strong understanding of biology, chemistry, and the ability to communicate their thoughts clearly and directly to both their patients and other staff?

No, because it means that they'll be more expensive than would be the case if they only know enough to do their job well enough. A medic probably needs a biology and anatomy background, but why chemistry unless they'll be using medicines?

You have an idea of how salaries work that bears literally no resemblance to reality.

[Ethel mermania]

It shows an ability to learn different things and apply them. Dont you want your medic to have. Strong understanding of biology, chemistry, and the ability to communicate their thoughts clearly and directly to both their patients and other staff?

No, because it means that they'll be more expensive than would be the case if they only know enough to do their job well enough. A medic probably needs a biology and anatomy background, but why chemistry unless they'll be using medicines?

That's a reason right there. And when it comes to my medical care I want a medic who can tell me why I am being wheeled into the cath lab without panicking the shit out of me

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Then take career training courses. Go to trade school, if you want a trade.

Which raises the question of why careers require college degrees.

Depends on the career.

[Diopolis]

Which raises the question of why careers require college degrees.

Depends on the career.

I am speaking specifically about careers for which the education requirements have recently risen dramatically- eg, nurse(now requires a bachelor instead of an associate), police officer.

[Militant Costco]

Depends on the career.

I am speaking specifically about careers for which the education requirements have recently risen dramatically- eg, nurse(now requires a bachelor instead of an associate), police officer.

My guess is the technological and other breakthroughs and advances that forces these jobs to have more knowledge. I'd be surprised if anyone could finish the amount of chemical and biological studies needed to be a competent modern-day nurse in two years.

[Jebslund]

It shows an ability to learn different things and apply them. Dont you want your medic to have. Strong understanding of biology, chemistry, and the ability to communicate their thoughts clearly and directly to both their patients and other staff?

No, because it means that they'll be more expensive than would be the case if they only know enough to do their job well enough. A medic probably needs a biology and anatomy background, but why chemistry unless they'll be using medicines?

I mean, when has a medic ever had to administer any sort of medicines to stabilise someone on the way to a hospital?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Depends on the career.

I am speaking specifically about careers for which the education requirements have recently risen dramatically- eg, nurse(now requires a bachelor instead of an associate), police officer.

We've seen what happens when police officers aren't educated in psychology. Sure, police officers aren't necessarily going to find psychology "convincing" any more than the rest of us, but it helps to cut down on outright not having even heard of a particular psychological theory.

[Ethel mermania]

Depends on the career.

I am speaking specifically about careers for which the education requirements have recently risen dramatically- eg, nurse(now requires a bachelor instead of an associate), police officer.

Technology to a point, the science beyond the forensics can be complicated.

Also civil liberties enforcement, it's good to have street cops who have a solid understanding of the theory of law.

Given your choice as a city or police administrator, why wouldnt you give preference to a more broadly qualified candidate?

[Diopolis]

I am speaking specifically about careers for which the education requirements have recently risen dramatically- eg, nurse(now requires a bachelor instead of an associate), police officer.

We've seen what happens when police officers aren't educated in psychology. Sure, police officers aren't necessarily going to find psychology "convincing" any more than the rest of us, but it helps to cut down on outright not having even heard of a particular psychological theory.

My city’s police academy is the same length as a year in college- more than long enough to include a college course on psychology.

[Valkalan]

There's often a lot of talk about how to improve the education system in the US. Personally, there's one simple idea we can start with. Stop forcing classes on students that have nothing to do with their chosen field of study, or have little real world application like art or humanities. Not only would it save them time and money, but high schools could replace them with more useful subjects, such as teaching students how to file taxes. What say you NSG?

Yes, the education system is painfully stupid. And yes, the humanities are merely a testament to the wastefulness and pretentiousness of academia. However, colleges have the right to offer whatever curriculum they so choose, and students have the right to take whatever courses they like. Therefore, the answer is not force colleges to change their curriculum, but rather for the state to refrain from offering funds to colleges or to students. When the state stops funding college education, people will begin favoring trade schools. Ironically, trade schools help fight the inequality that academics complain ceaselessly about by offering students marketable skills and very little debt. If students are still interested in the humanities, they can easily acquire relevant material from many reputable online sources for a tiny fraction of the cost of a college education.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Don't be silly. Arts and humanities are useful and I shouldn't need to go into why. As for having a whole class devoted to teaching tax forms, what kid is going to listen to any of that, let alone an hour a week, every week of school?

What kid is going to listen to arts and humanities? Hell if we're going with the argument, why have any classes at all? Most kids just pretend to know the subject long enough to pass the test then forget it all. Don't believe me? Watch Jesse Watters ask Harvard students basic US history questions. And no, they're not useful. School should be about preparing you for a career. If you want to take classes like that, then they should be an optional side course.

>history isn't useful
>knowledge isn't inherently valuable
Pull the other one, der boomer.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, that’s not bad, I guess, if you only want a one dimensional professional.

One whose career is over should the market shift and their skill set become obsolete.

In essence.

[Krasny-Volny]

Ok, that’s not bad, I guess, if you only want a one dimensional professional.

One whose career is over should the market shift and their skill set become obsolete.

This is the best point I’ve seen made on this thread in favor of higher education.