The Purpose of Universities, Broader Education or bigger pockets?

[General Novoa20]

Jappers raised an important topic which had been in my mind for a while.

What is the purpose of the university education system (B.A. and B.S. degrees)?

I had a talk with my Logic professor for some minutes. He mainly argued in favor of the general requirements of universities. His point was that universities were much more than just places from which to obtain paper degrees. To him, universities are supposed to enlighten the mind of the person not just on his field of study, but also other important aspects of life.

Essentially, the university is meant to make a person as knowledgeable on different cultural aspects as possible. Up to a certain point, I agree. Imagine, for example, that people only studied their field and nothing else. Sure, they would probably finish their years of study faster (and possibly cheaper); but on other cultural aspects they would more-than-likely be lacking.

In this imaginary world, a math major would know little or nothing on economics, accounting, or statistics; economics majors would hold little to now knowledge on philosophy and political science; science majors would lack the understanding of economics and history.

Even courses such as Art History can bring some knowledge into the minds of otherwise ignorant students. Even if students don't care much about the class, they will end up learning something important from it.

However, then there is the argument in favor of a more specific study. One which follows only the necessary courses to get the degree.

Since I seem to be more-so inclined towards the pro-traditional university argument, it would be unfair and silly for me to explain the other side of the picture. So, if anybody would like to bring in their opinion, feel free to do so.

[Jap88]

The first real Western universities didn't appear until the Enlightenment. These were places of great knowledge for the time, and most were quite prestigious. These universities were a place where people would go to learn for the sake of learning. The students were almost always on course for a PH.d from the beginning, and the vast majority of them came from wealthy families so it was unneccessary for them to find a job. A degree from a university in these times was to show that you had learned a great deal - but it is no longer so today.

The credit-elective system that we know today was first adopted by Harvard in the 1800s. Before this time, there were no undergraduate majors, and all courses were already selected for the students. The professors believed that they knew best what it is that students need to learn. Thankfully, universities' grip over a standardized curriculum has significantly slipped since the adoption of the current system.

Obviously, a major needs to have specific courses to be taken in order to graduate with a degree in that subject (How could somone have a mathematics degree without taking math courses?), however I have decided that the general education requirements are a relic of the old system of schooling.

This old system, that would be alien to us today, was at a time where large numbers of people couldn't even read, no education was needed to get a job, and there was no mass dissemination of information. Universities have continued to argue in favor of old traditions despite a world that is drastically changed from 100 or 20 years ago. The internet and high literacy rates make lots of information easily accessible, as do public libraries and other government-funded resources. An education is almost required to get a job to make a living.

There also rests a number implicit assumptions in this thinking: that people are unable to decide for themselves what is important, that they cannot learn on their own, and, most importantly, that it is the role of the university in this era to force upon its students knowledge that they do not want in order to make them "well-rounded" or "better citizens."

Why can't economics also be a lesson in philosophy? The two are almost intrinsically connected as economics is a behavorial sciences and has much to do with human nature. Students today are better prepared for post-secondary education than they ever have been in the past, yet they continue to be babied by school administrators as though they are not educated enough to make their own decisions as to their course of study. What was even the point of public school if it did not make us well-rounded and knowledgable individuals? The entire curriculum was a mess of general courses. Why do we need to repeat this again at a university level?

The role of the university to their students is no longer the same role as it was: It is now a role of supplier and consumer. The students are paying large sums (that they can barely afford) to have a better chance at high future income. University is no longer about knowledge for its own sake, but to have a better life.

General studies not only make university more expensive, but also extend how long a student must stay in school. We could all be graduating in 3 years if we wanted to and cut what we spend on education by a quarter compared to a 4-year program. And while some people can easily afford that 4th year of school, many struggle to do so (such as myself).

[General Novoa20]

Excellent argument Jappers.

I also gave thought to the knowledge provided by resources such as the Internet.

The only bit I am not in agreement with is the idea that courses such as economics can substitute others subjects such as philosophy. The basic purpose of the general requirement courses, from my POV, is just to get a general idea of the central concept being taught. This differes from the major-related coursework in the sense that major-related coursework should be studied and understood beyond the concepts.

For example, economics majors should understand the concept of the economics courses they study, such as supply and demand, but also understand additional material such as formulas, important definitions, and additional advanced concepts that hold no purpose outside of economics.

Non-economics majors should only be focused on understanding only the basic concepts. In this manner, science majors should understand the importance of the market in relation to their field (such as funding, or even supply and demand of chemicals). History majors would understand how market forces shaped the development of human cultures and politics.

To be more direct, philosophy provides several concepts that economics does not. For instance, understanding the concept of Logic (knowing how to distinguish valid, sound, and invalid arguments) is an important part of philosophy; but economics does not focus on this subject. Logic itself goes far beyond economics. It helps humans think; it helps people avoid being fooled. It also teaches people how to manipulate arguments, how to falsify arguments and yet make them valid. So it really depends on how one uses their knowledge.


The part of your argument that I agree with the most are the expenses. It takes too much money to pay for the university. Books are a part of this problem...people are paying for professors to teach them the material, not for books to teach them.



This post has been edited by General Novoa20 on May 5 2011, 07:16 PM

[Custergrant]

I'm tired right now, lol, but I'm leaning with Jappers on this. I'm not sure about other high schools, but high schools around here fed you your schedule. Yes, you had X amount of credits (something along the equation X=2015-Current Year) to use as you please, but the state-mandated curriculums required all students to be "well-rounded". Not to mention, either, that these high school (generally year long) courses are basically equivalent to the semester-length introductory courses that universities require you to take as a general education course.

Now sure, there are classes that are intrinsically linked to other majors. For instance, I'm a chemistry major, but I am required to take a couple of physics courses and so many math courses. I don't have to take them to be well-rounded, per se; rather, I take them because I actually use them in my chemistry courses. I mean, most majors build from one another (take any science class, for example, and that branch of science will claim it's the underlying basis for all the sciences).

And again, the state comes in for the general education. I attend a state-run school (and this is true for all universities receiving state funding in Missouri), and I'm not sure if this applies in other states, but Missouri requires all state-funded schools to take an assessment test to make sure its students are getting a well-rounded education.

Now don't get me wrong, I do like being required to have X amount of credits to graduate given <X credits actually apply to my major. I like that because I can spend the electives where I want to. If I only took chemistry courses (and the required courses in other majors that apply to chemistry), I probably would never think of spending money on a German class, or programming classes, which are actually quite fun. But at the same time, I don't like being required to take certain electives, because that defeats the purpose of electives. I'm talking about being forced to have X amount of credits in literature, Y amount of credits in humanities, Z amount of credits in social sciences. I would much rather have so many credits I can spend as electives and apply them where I feel they would benefit me the most. Sure, it may be helpful to take a British literature class, but chances are if you're not interested in a class like that, you're not going to take the time to actually read the books, especially if you had the class in high school already. Or if you were really into your major, just spend the credits on graduate-level courses, which my university, at least, allows you to do.

Just my thoughts.