Why the us should cut useless courses from college degrees.

[The Republic of Fore]

Sounds like a personal problem.

My point is that they're already doing it on their dime.

Not really. Student loans, grants, tuition discounts, It's pretty rare that any student 100% self funds. And besides, I was talking to someone who wanted to make college free.

[Cisairse]

Yes, it is a reasonable position to take that one should have knowledge of something they criticize.

And the only way to acquire sufficient knowledge to criticise a field of academia is actually taking the course?

No. There are other ways. However, the other ways usually sum up to trusting the views of people who have taken the course.

Wonderful, so I better not hear any criticism of the field of economics, of MBAs, of jurisprudence, of legal theory, nothing, unless you've gone to university and taken those precise courses or taken those particular degrees.

I agree.

For example, in my experience having taken tax and trust planning classes in law school, those courses tend to focus disproportionately on teaching law students how to help future clients avoid taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, often through dubiously ethical avoidance strategies. Do you disagree with that teaching method?

If people familiar with the matter made a logically sound argument against it, and there didn't seem to be overwhelming views from other experts that said argument was invalid, then I probably would. Currently, I have no opinion on the matter.

Too bad! I better see your law school degree first, and I better see that your transcript shows you've taken classes in trust law, tax law, and estate planning, otherwise you are not entitled whatsoever to level any criticism of any material or content or substantive idea or theory taught in law school. Sound fair?

With the exception I posited above, yes.

You may not realize this yet, but academia basically lives only to criticize itself. Pick up any peer-reviewed journal and the majority of papers you'll find within are either supportive or critical of extant research and opinion, rather than mostly new ideas. If something is wrong with academia, the experts in academia will criticize it (because getting papers published is the most important job of an academic, and having an actual opinion about something is the easiest way to start a paper), and other ardent members will defend themselves, and on a long enough time span a consensus will be achieved.
The other major vector for change in academia is successful alumni choosing to involve themselves with university affairs (usually just a matter of expressing opinions formally or something of that nature) as a condition of their continued donations. This mostly true of private schools, but not unheard of in public schools. Most private universities have an alumni journal or newsletter or something similar, and you will occasionally find prominent (generally wealthy) alumnae writing in these journals their opinions on the programs they took.

[Major-Tom]

"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.

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?

[Saiwania]

Like I said, no one cares what you want for Europe. European right wing movements aren't going to enact your American vision of Europe remaining European, because they're generally not interested in any kind of pan-European identity, they're nationalists.

It is better for European nations to be nationalist than multiculturalist, so that is a good outcome in my eyes compared to the status quo for Europe now. But Europe's right wing parties almost certainly know that they face an existential threat externally, primarily the Middle East and North Africa. The metaphorical "barbarians at the gate" happens regularly at the border between Spain and Morocco as one example.

[The Republic of Fore]

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.

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.

[Ifreann]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Donald Trump. You can tell by his climate change denialism that he doesn't respect the physical sciences much; if any; more than the social sciences or the humanities.

A few months before he became President of the USA, videos like these became viral...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Rix7dojnQ

...yes, the context is omitted from these clips, but a greater deal of it is associated with content relating to the humanities and social sciences than content from the more useful physical sciences.

You're talking like what I would like education to focus on, but which is not actually the focus of institutes of education in the US, has somehow lead to Donald Trump being elected. You're proposing that an effect followed from a cause that exists only in my head, that my desires travelled backwards in time to have real world consequences for the American political landscape.

---

Twelve years in which they were learning other, more foundational things.

---

Like I said, no one cares what you want for Europe. European right wing movements aren't going to enact your American vision of Europe remaining European, because they're generally not interested in any kind of pan-European identity, they're nationalists.

---

School shouldn't be about preparing people for a career, it should be about learning for its own sake.

---

It isn't wrong for the government, which has the power to fund education, to fund education. If people don't like how the government uses that power, well, that's what elections are for.

If someone can't learn how to write in 12 years then that is their issue.

But that's just it, they were learning how to write during some of that twelve years. As in, how to form letters. And that's just the very first thing people learn. It takes years of learning the basics of writing before one is able to learn how to communicate most effectively through the written word in various contexts. So it's disingenuous to say that people in third level education had twelve to learn the kinds of writing skills being talked about.

And besides, what if I don't need a writing class? I can express my thoughts just fine without it. Just because someone else needs something doesn't mean I should be forced to study it.

Who is forcing you to go to college?

And no, school should 100% be about preparing for a career. If people want to learn for learning's sake, then they can spend their time doing that. Some of us have better things to do.

No, school should be about learning. What students what to do with that learning is their own business. If you want to learn something so that you can apply it in your career then go right ahead, but education is about becoming educated, not about becoming employed.

---

Like I said, no one cares what you want for Europe. European right wing movements aren't going to enact your American vision of Europe remaining European, because they're generally not interested in any kind of pan-European identity, they're nationalists.

It is better for European nations to be nationalist than multiculturalist, so that is a good outcome in my eyes compared to the status quo for Europe now.

That's not going to happen, though. Just as we have experience with the kinds of social spending that Americans are only now beginning to experiment with, we have experience with the horrors of unchained nationalism.

But Europe's right wing parties almost certainly know that they face an existential threat externally, primarily the Middle East and North Africa. The metaphorical "barbarians at the gate" happens regularly at the border between Spain and Morocco as one example.

I'm sure they share some of your false beliefs, but they don't operate according to your American ideas about Europe.

[The Republic of Fore]

Donald Trump. You can tell by his climate change denialism that he doesn't respect the physical sciences much; if any; more than the social sciences or the humanities.

A few months before he became President of the USA, videos like these became viral...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Rix7dojnQ

...yes, the context is omitted from these clips, but a greater deal of it is associated with content relating to the humanities and social sciences than content from the more useful physical sciences.

You're talking like what I would like education to focus on, but which is not actually the focus of institutes of education in the US, has somehow lead to Donald Trump being elected. You're proposing that an effect followed from a cause that exists only in my head, that my desires travelled backwards in time to have real world consequences for the American political landscape.

---

If someone can't learn how to write in 12 years then that is their issue.

But that's just it, they were learning how to write during some of that twelve years. As in, how to form letters. And that's just the very first thing people learn. It takes years of learning the basics of writing before one is able to learn how to communicate most effectively through the written word in various contexts. So it's disingenuous to say that people in third level education had twelve to learn the kinds of writing skills being talked about.

And besides, what if I don't need a writing class? I can express my thoughts just fine without it. Just because someone else needs something doesn't mean I should be forced to study it.

Who is forcing you to go to college?

And no, school should 100% be about preparing for a career. If people want to learn for learning's sake, then they can spend their time doing that. Some of us have better things to do.

No, school should be about learning. What students what to do with that learning is their own business. If you want to learn something so that you can apply it in your career then go right ahead, but education is about becoming educated, not about becoming employed.

---

It is better for European nations to be nationalist than multiculturalist, so that is a good outcome in my eyes compared to the status quo for Europe now.

That's not going to happen, though. Just as we have experience with the kinds of social spending that Americans are only now beginning to experiment with, we have experience with the horrors of unchained nationalism.

But Europe's right wing parties almost certainly know that they face an existential threat externally, primarily the Middle East and North Africa. The metaphorical "barbarians at the gate" happens regularly at the border between Spain and Morocco as one example.

I'm sure they share some of your false beliefs, but they don't operate according to your American ideas about Europe.

1. That's still their issue. Not everyone requires writing skills. If you want to improve your writing, then do it. The rest of us shouldn't be forced.
2. I can't get the salary I want without college. Besides, why do you care so much? It hurts you exactly 0% if someone else isn't forced to study the things you think they should.
3. I would have loved to learn things I could have applied to my career. And I now am. But I was forced to waste my time in undergrad learning things that will never benefit me. That's the issue. I should have the right to not waste my time. I don't care what you think education should be about. If people just want to learn things, they can get on google.

[Ifreann]

You're talking like what I would like education to focus on, but which is not actually the focus of institutes of education in the US, has somehow lead to Donald Trump being elected. You're proposing that an effect followed from a cause that exists only in my head, that my desires travelled backwards in time to have real world consequences for the American political landscape.

---

But that's just it, they were learning how to write during some of that twelve years. As in, how to form letters. And that's just the very first thing people learn. It takes years of learning the basics of writing before one is able to learn how to communicate most effectively through the written word in various contexts. So it's disingenuous to say that people in third level education had twelve to learn the kinds of writing skills being talked about.


Who is forcing you to go to college?


No, school should be about learning. What students what to do with that learning is their own business. If you want to learn something so that you can apply it in your career then go right ahead, but education is about becoming educated, not about becoming employed.

---

That's not going to happen, though. Just as we have experience with the kinds of social spending that Americans are only now beginning to experiment with, we have experience with the horrors of unchained nationalism.

I'm sure they share some of your false beliefs, but they don't operate according to your American ideas about Europe.

1. That's still their issue. Not everyone requires writing skills. If you want to improve your writing, then do it. The rest of us shouldn't be forced.
2. I can't get the salary I want without college.

So no one is forcing anything. Wonderful.

Besides, why do you care so much? It hurts you exactly 0% if someone else isn't forced to study the things you think they should.

I'm not proposing to force anyone to do anything.

3. I would have loved to learn things I could have applied to my career. And I now am. But I was forced to waste my time in undergrad learning things that will never benefit me.

No you weren't. You chose to go to college knowing what would be asked of you there. Have you never heard the phrase "caveat emptor"?

That's the issue. I should have the right to not waste my time.

You should have a right to dictate how businesses that you do not own operate? What kind of libertarian capitalist are you?

I don't care what you think education should be about. If people just want to learn things, they can get on google.

If Google was a sufficient teacher then you would have saved your money and gone on Google.

[Valrifell]

You will be dragged to better understanding.

That you cannot see the benefit into taking these courses is not evidence that no benefit exists.

[Saiwania]

Who is forcing you to go to college?

The fact that too many employers asked for degrees for a long time, even though most of it has nothing to do with the actual work strictly speaking. If college costs too much, I say enough is enough. People are starting to realize that college is overrated at best and elitist at worst. Its a barrier to entry and not an opportunity for growth or whatever claptrap Liberals use to defend the status quo regarding higher education.

I figure that perhaps one of these days, college will be so expensive in the US and people just aren't going to go or still be willing to borrow massive amounts of money in order to do so.

Becoming a doctor, lawyer, accountant, that fits within a traditional university education. It makes sense in that context. Most other things, not so much. There are usually alternate paths that could be taken to reach the same career point but no- everyone by default is too caught up about requiring some piece of paper as opposed to or in addition to real world experience.

Its asking too much if its unaffordable to most people and the wages for it haven't kept up with the cost of training for it.

[The Republic of Fore]

1. That's still their issue. Not everyone requires writing skills. If you want to improve your writing, then do it. The rest of us shouldn't be forced.
2. I can't get the salary I want without college.

So no one is forcing anything. Wonderful.

Besides, why do you care so much? It hurts you exactly 0% if someone else isn't forced to study the things you think they should.

I'm not proposing to force anyone to do anything.

3. I would have loved to learn things I could have applied to my career. And I now am. But I was forced to waste my time in undergrad learning things that will never benefit me.

No you weren't. You chose to go to college knowing what would be asked of you there. Have you never heard the phrase "caveat emptor"?

That's the issue. I should have the right to not waste my time.

You should have a right to dictate how businesses that you do not own operate? What kind of libertarian capitalist are you?

I don't care what you think education should be about. If people just want to learn things, they can get on google.

If Google was a sufficient teacher then you would have saved your money and gone on Google.

1. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to refuse to take useless classes. Ergo, you're forcing them to take those classes. Yes, you can just refuse to go to college at all. But why do that when we can just not take useless courses? What would it hurt if we allowed people to go to college and only take courses in their major? Life would go on.
2. Do you know what the word forced means? In order to graduate college, you have to fulfill credit requirements in several subjects. So yes, you are forced to take those classes if you attend college.
3. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Whether I chose to go to college is irrelevant. I could not graduate without taking several useless courses. So I was forced to take those courses. Period. People act like any criticism of these courses is a personal attack. Don't worry, your precious writing classes will exist whether or not people are forced to take them.
4. Any business that takes federal funds has to follow federal law. (Which is why private universities get away with so much). So, it should be federal law that students have the right to only take courses in their major. Refuse to obey? Don't get your funding. I could have saved an entire year that way. I save money, other taxpayers save money. Everybody wins!
5. I'd be perfectly happy just learning online and being taught by google, but there are no online medical schools. And they don't accept online degrees. Because it would take away their excuse to extort you. As far as information not related to my career, google is a much better teacher. Hell, I've learned more from watching history youtubers than I have any class I've ever taken on the subject.

[The Republic of Fore]

You will be dragged to better understanding.

That you cannot see the benefit into taking these courses is not evidence that no benefit exists.

No, I won't. I pretended to care about the useless garbage I was being taught long enough to get the grade, then moved on and forgot about it. I had to take a communications course lust last year. Couldn't tell you a single thing that I learned. Just because you think there's a benefit to something doesn't mean other people need to study it. Every single university in the US offers optional side courses. It won't hurt your precious humanities classes to become those.

[Valrifell]

You will be dragged to better understanding.

That you cannot see the benefit into taking these courses is not evidence that no benefit exists.

No, I won't. I pretended to care about the useless garbage I was being taught long enough to get the grade, then moved on and forgot about it. I had to take a communications course lust last year. Couldn't tell you a single thing that I learned. Just because you think there's a benefit to something doesn't mean other people need to study it. Every single university in the US offers optional side courses. It won't hurt your precious humanities classes to become those.

Again, that you don't percieve a benefit is not evidence that no such benefit exists, even generally.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Kids. They may not be thrilled about a tax return class but they need to learn it,

Weird example, given that it's trivially easy to make it so that the overwhelming majority of people never need to fill in a tax return in their lives.

I'm not sure you can add anything to the long list of extracurricular activities you Americans need to do.

Doing so has no impact on admissions standards. To raise admissions standards you'd need proper qualifying exams. And probably to allow people to specialise earlier.

If my worldview is wrong, it is because its impossible for everyone to benefit from government policy. Any system by its very nature, is going to have winners and losers. What you see as societal progress I see as regression and vice versa. Because it is the case that we live in a fundamentally zero-sum world, the entire purpose of politics is to screw over or push aside any out groups or opposition and pursue whatever will benefit you and your in group.

Who ultimately wins and loses in the end, will be determined by the course of history.

Yeah, no. Government policy is not a zero-sum game.

It is perhaps partially my fault in that I just didn't do enough with my life. But the US' K-12 system in my locale has objectively speaking, failed to prepare me for any job. The same is true for a state community college I went to and successfully got a 2 year degree from.

This is clearly not a failure of the system, given how many people do get prepared for, and obtain, jobs by such means.

Anyone who has gone to trade school can do that, they're not hard, you just need training. It's certainly not superior to other forms of education.

I mean things like engineers, chemists, and even physicists will soon be completely outdated by computers.

Also, machines exist or are being developed that can do all of those things.

I read this out in an office full of AI researchers, and they all started laughing, so it's safe to say that you're wrong. There is zero possibility of anything like this happening in any period of time that can reasonably be called "soon".

To elaborate on this, machines may be able to do work for people in the humanities such as gathering data, but they can only do what they're programmed to do. Repetitive tasks like mathematics are easy for a machine, critical thinking tasks like philosophy, interpreting historical events, or even modeling legal systems and international affairs, are much more difficult because they require a degree of imagination that machines are not capable of.

Your idea of what mathematics is bears no relationship whatsoever to reality.

Since when do they encompass so much? Because I could've sworn they didn't. Some of those I'm pretty sure fall under other categories as well.

And considering most of those are neither "Liberal" nor "Arts", why is it labelled as such? It's a misnomer.

It's from the Latin Liberalis Ars, with a literal meaning of roughly "free pursuits", which are the descendents of the seven classical arts worthy of a free person - grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. The weird usage of the words "liberal" and "arts" in the US these days does not apply retroactively. Specifically, the liberal arts are those subjects that have been considered essential to have a basic grounding in for literal millennia.

The fundamental problem is that it costs extra money that people don't want to be spending. People sacrifice a lot to go to college to begin with. The courses might as well have some worth and not be wasting your time/efforts as a student wanting to get ahead.

The solution, then, is obvious, and it's not changing the courses required.

Ditto.

If I ever go back to school I’m picking a degree program that is centered solely around my choice of major and other closely related fields. I learned about humanities and the arts in high school. The purpose of college should be practical job training for one’s chosen career, not to cultivate a modern renaissance man.

Fuck that shit. Employers don't get to offload their training costs onto the university system. They can do their own damned training. We'll carry on with educating people.

Plenty of ways to expand your horizon without being forced to waste a not insignificant amount of time and money on stuff you have no interest in that will not impart job-specific skills dearly needed for the post-college transition to the work force.

I recommend traveling, or better yet participating in an exchange program.

If you can't make your courses sound impressive on your CV, you clearly should have taken more of these supposedly useless courses to learn how to do so.

Yes, but the people clamoring for school choice aren't the ones with the countries best schools. It's poor people who are stuck with the failing ones.

No, they're overwhelmingly the people who stand to make profits from it.

So what you're saying is the only people who can validly criticise something are those who expend significant time, labour, and money supporting the thing in question, and only after providing said financial support and patronage are they then allowed to legitimately criticise that thing? Yeap, okay, this sounds like a totally reasonable position to take.

It's more like "if you don't know what you're talking about, your criticism isn't worth shit". Which yes, is a pretty reasonable position to take.

And the only way to acquire sufficient knowledge to criticise a field of academia is actually taking the course?

You're specifically criticising the course, not the field. And yes, it's essentially impossible to gain knowledge of the details of a particular course without at least sitting in the fucking course.

You didn't blast anything to atoms. I call for the removal of those majors due to the field being saturated with leftist propaganda. I'm fine with replacing them with something more impartial, but the current degrees should be scrapped. No, this ain't me backtracking either, as I never said that gender and race don't matter in society, nor did I call for an end to all research into those topics.

If all of the experts in a field disagree with you, it isn't propaganda, it's you being wrong.

There's an inverse to that though, once a person has invested their time and money into something they become more likely to defend it because they won't want to admit that they made a bad investment.

That's only loosely to do with the topic.

If this were a significant effect, you'd expect significant differences between the US and countries with free education. Is there any evidence of such?

An enlightened citizenry doesn't do a country any good if there are no jobs for them. The EU in general is doing very poorly, which is why various European nations want to leave or end it to begin with. Europe is heading towards becoming a poorer continent, especially if they take in too many people from North Africa/Middle East.

Stop lying.

If I am wrong, then why are these field already largely dependent on computers to aid humans in their calculations?

[The Republic of Fore]

No, I won't. I pretended to care about the useless garbage I was being taught long enough to get the grade, then moved on and forgot about it. I had to take a communications course lust last year. Couldn't tell you a single thing that I learned. Just because you think there's a benefit to something doesn't mean other people need to study it. Every single university in the US offers optional side courses. It won't hurt your precious humanities classes to become those.

Again, that you don't percieve a benefit is not evidence that no such benefit exists, even generally.

Again, you saying that there's a benefit doesn't mean other people should be forced to study it. Even if there is one, so what? is this benefit so great that we'll all die without it? Will society collapse into nuclear holocaust if everyone doesn't take a humanities course? Because I rather doubt that. Unless this benefit is so amazing that humans can't possibly survive without it, then it can be optional.

[Ifreann]

So no one is forcing anything. Wonderful.

I'm not proposing to force anyone to do anything.

No you weren't. You chose to go to college knowing what would be asked of you there. Have you never heard the phrase "caveat emptor"?

You should have a right to dictate how businesses that you do not own operate? What kind of libertarian capitalist are you?

If Google was a sufficient teacher then you would have saved your money and gone on Google.

1. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to refuse to take useless classes. Ergo, you're forcing them to take those classes.

I'm not arguing anything of the sort. I'm saying that I think it's generally beneficial for people to get experience with subjects outside their chosen field of study. No part of that involves forcing anything on anyone.

Yes, you can just refuse to go to college at all. But why do that when we can just not take useless courses?

I don't accept that the courses you are referring to are useless.

What would it hurt if we allowed people to go to college and only take courses in their major? Life would go on.

Who said anything about anyone being hurt?

2. Do you know what the word forced means? In order to graduate college, you have to fulfill credit requirements in several subjects. So yes, you are forced to take those classes if you attend college.

In order to get something from a business, you have to abide by their terms of service. If you don't like the terms, take your business somewhere else. Vote with your wallet. Isn't that how capitalism works?

3. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Whether I chose to go to college is irrelevant. I could not graduate without taking several useless courses. So I was forced to take those courses. Period.

If someone was threatening to hurt you if you didn't go to college then you should call the police. If you just don't like the content of the course you paid for, that's your problem.

People act like any criticism of these courses is a personal attack. Don't worry, your precious writing classes will exist whether or not people are forced to take them.

I keep telling you, I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything.

4. Any business that takes federal funds has to follow federal law. (Which is why private universities get away with so much). So, it should be federal law that students have the right to only take courses in their major. Refuse to obey? Don't get your funding. I could have saved an entire year that way. I save money, other taxpayers save money. Everybody wins!

Federal regulation? You're not a libertarian capitalist, you're one of those statists who wants to force your agenda on businesses.

5. I'd be perfectly happy just learning online and being taught by google, but there are no online medical schools. And they don't accept online degrees.

If all you want is a degree then buy one from a diploma mill. Free up space in your school for people interested in being taught.

Because it would take away their excuse to extort you. As far as information not related to my career, google is a much better teacher. Hell, I've learned more from watching history youtubers than I have any class I've ever taken on the subject.

Cool.

[Saiwania]

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.

If its not a law, I think it could easily be implemented as an executive order. I'm writing a letter to Donald Trump as we speak, about how the colleges and universities of the US, are ripping students off and setting them up with life long and burdensome debt they won't be able to pay off. And that with a tiny bit of relief, we can have the students vote for his reelection next year.

It is only because of the greatness of the Trump economy, that we're finally seeing some employers no longer require degrees and are willing to hire people on the lower end of the economic ladder for skills growth and progression. We're seeing wage growth for the forgotten and left behind of previous decades. But if a Democrat becomes president in 2020, it can be virtually guaranteed that the credential inflation will return right back to where it was, and keep many people from getting ahead in life that could otherwise be the case.

[Cekoviu]

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.

If its not a law, I think it could easily be implemented as an executive order. I'm writing a letter to Donald Trump as we speak, about how the colleges and universities of the US, are ripping students off and setting them up with life long and burdensome debt they won't be able to pay off. And that with a tiny bit of relief, we can have the students vote for his reelection next year.

It is only because of the greatness of the Trump economy, that we're finally seeing some employers no long require degrees and are willing to hire people on the lower end of the economic ladder for skills growth and progression. We're seeing wage growth for the forgotten and left behind of previous decades. But if a Democrat becomes president in 2020, it can be virtually guaranteed that the credential inflation will return right back to where it was, and keep many people from getting ahead in life that could otherwise be the case.

Source for literally all of this please

[USS Monitor]

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.

[The Republic of Fore]

1. You're arguing that we shouldn't allow students to refuse to take useless classes. Ergo, you're forcing them to take those classes.

I'm not arguing anything of the sort. I'm saying that I think it's generally beneficial for people to get experience with subjects outside their chosen field of study. No part of that involves forcing anything on anyone.

Yes, you can just refuse to go to college at all. But why do that when we can just not take useless courses?

I don't accept that the courses you are referring to are useless.

What would it hurt if we allowed people to go to college and only take courses in their major? Life would go on.

Who said anything about anyone being hurt?

2. Do you know what the word forced means? In order to graduate college, you have to fulfill credit requirements in several subjects. So yes, you are forced to take those classes if you attend college.

In order to get something from a business, you have to abide by their terms of service. If you don't like the terms, take your business somewhere else. Vote with your wallet. Isn't that how capitalism works?

3. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Whether I chose to go to college is irrelevant. I could not graduate without taking several useless courses. So I was forced to take those courses. Period.

If someone was threatening to hurt you if you didn't go to college then you should call the police. If you just don't like the content of the course you paid for, that's your problem.

People act like any criticism of these courses is a personal attack. Don't worry, your precious writing classes will exist whether or not people are forced to take them.

I keep telling you, I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything.

4. Any business that takes federal funds has to follow federal law. (Which is why private universities get away with so much). So, it should be federal law that students have the right to only take courses in their major. Refuse to obey? Don't get your funding. I could have saved an entire year that way. I save money, other taxpayers save money. Everybody wins!

Federal regulation? You're not a libertarian capitalist, you're one of those statists who wants to force your agenda on businesses.

5. I'd be perfectly happy just learning online and being taught by google, but there are no online medical schools. And they don't accept online degrees.

If all you want is a degree then buy one from a diploma mill. Free up space in your school for people interested in being taught.

Because it would take away their excuse to extort you. As far as information not related to my career, google is a much better teacher. Hell, I've learned more from watching history youtubers than I have any class I've ever taken on the subject.

Cool.

1. Well good for you then. But whether you accept it doesn't change that for some people, they are.
2. Then what's the issue? Let people only study within their major if they so choose.
3. Terms of service can and have been changed. So, legally force colleges to let students opt out of studying non relevant courses. We already force colleges to do lots of things. One more won't break their back.
4. Are you even reading my post? Whether I chose to go to college is irrelevant to whether they required me to take a class. Just repeating "but you chose to" is meaningless. There's no reason we can't give students the choice to opt out. And why are you getting so defensive? If I don't like the course I was forced to take that's my problem? I'd like you to try that argument in a different situation. "Well nobody forced you to go over to his house, so if you didn't like what happened there that's your problem!" See how well that goes over.
5. You are though. By not supporting students having the option to refuse to take whatever classes you please, you are supporting them being forced to take them.
6. Public universities aren't businesses.
7. Diploma mills don't get you a job. I am interested in being taught. When It's not useless shit. Just let me refuse to waste my time. Life will go on.

[The Republic of Fore]

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.

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?

[Alvecia]

It ceased to be your money when you paid it to someone else (government/school). It's our/their money now.

No it doesn't. It doesn't cease to be my money just because it was stolen from me. But even if we do argue that, fine. The government shouldn't waste It's money to give free college either.

Counterpoint: It's neither a waste nor objectionable.

[The Republic of Fore]

No it doesn't. It doesn't cease to be my money just because it was stolen from me. But even if we do argue that, fine. The government shouldn't waste It's money to give free college either.

Counterpoint: It's neither a waste nor objectionable.

It is though. It's your problem if you want to attend college. You pay for it.

[USS Monitor]

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.

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?

Nobody is required to take any specific class. You choose what college you go to and different colleges have different requirements.

If you think we need to have more specialized colleges that don't do gen-ed requirements, start one. It is legal to do so.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

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.