Gen-ed requirements: part of a well-rounded liberal arts education or high school 2.0?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible to graduate in 3 years if you accumulate enough AP credits (at the schools that accept them)?

Yes. I know a ton of kids who have done it at UVA.

The T10s/Ivies and a lot of privates do not accept any AP credits. They are not equivalent to a college course in any manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible to graduate in 3 years if you accumulate enough AP credits (at the schools that accept them)?

Yes. If the stars align. I read about it on Reddit from time to time. And some people are pretty braggy about it. Until I came to DCUM, I didn't realize that some people just self-study and take the exams without even taking a class. That can be a way to rack up credits beyond what school districts offer for live instruction and online services.

At my kid's flagship, you probably could but you would likely be a liberal arts major. The APs would cover general requirements for history, science, social science, English, etc. For Engineering colleges, many courses can't directly transfer. For example, AP Physics does not get credit because it's algebra-based. And any curriculum with weedout courses raises the risk of retakes.

Many kids are capable of adding an extra class to the normal load. So over 6 semesters, that also shaves time off.

I bet there are a lot of people who have about a semester worth of credit but instead of graduating early, they do other things like go on study abroad or do an internship during a normal school semester. Schools can have total on-premises credit requirements and requirements for being on-premises for the last X credits.

People who are extremely budget conscious about undergrad view this as a practical solution at very expensive schools. It can obviously shave $10s of thousands off a total undergrad tuition bill. If people are headed for grad school directly after college, then it makes more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking about elite institutions like Yale or Columbia where the breadth requirements are part of a curated humanistic curriculum.

But it seems at say, UMCP or Penn State, a lot of time is spent on these requirements, more than a third of the degree in the arts and sciences. I can see the merit, but in practice it seems to lean to a lot of undisciplined and unfocused learning. In a lot of ways it's like high school again - take your English, take your math, take your foreign language, take your gym etc. In fact the gen-ed requirements are often more extensive than the major to which students are only devoting about 30% of the degree to.

Maybe this is why in a lot of countries the bachelor's degree is 3 years because gen-ed is mainly an American thing.

I'm all for social science requirements if they are part of a rigorous humanities curriculum of specific classes that are required, no options; and not just searching to see which useless class is the easy A. Similarly, everyone should have to take a set of science/math classes at the "general" level and not some watered down classes like "Algebra for non-majors." Americans have become a bunch of idiots who have learned nothing in high school, and college has become much of the same for many students at most schools. Ignorance is becoming so rampant that we may need to institute a basic fact-based intelligence test before voting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way the elite schools do it is best: they have requirements for classes across disciplines, but they can be taken anytime in the 4 yrs, they are typically seminar style that dive deep into an area, many times there are upper level courses that count toward it. They are much harder than AP across the board, as are 90% of courses at top schools, which is why no AP credit is given for most APs at these schools (AP or testing is used for placing into higher levels of calculus and sometimes sciences and foreign language).
The students do not have to complete them before starting courses toward their major(s) or concentration. Ivies, Hopkins, stanford, top SLACs, William and Mary, Wake, Duke, WashU and dozens more do it this way.
Only the large publics have it such that the first 2 yrs are predominantly gen-ed and there is high overlap with AP.

Not the case with my oldest at UMD. 1 to 2 gen ed classes a semester.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible to graduate in 3 years if you accumulate enough AP credits (at the schools that accept them)?

Yes. I know a ton of kids who have done it at UVA.

The T10s/Ivies and a lot of privates do not accept any AP credits. They are not equivalent to a college course in any manner.

How many is a ton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible to graduate in 3 years if you accumulate enough AP credits (at the schools that accept them)?

Yes. I know a ton of kids who have done it at UVA.

The T10s/Ivies and a lot of privates do not accept any AP credits. They are not equivalent to a college course in any manner.

How many is a ton?

About a half dozen average Americans these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way the elite schools do it is best: they have requirements for classes across disciplines, but they can be taken anytime in the 4 yrs, they are typically seminar style that dive deep into an area, many times there are upper level courses that count toward it. They are much harder than AP across the board, as are 90% of courses at top schools, which is why no AP credit is given for most APs at these schools (AP or testing is used for placing into higher levels of calculus and sometimes sciences and foreign language).
The students do not have to complete them before starting courses toward their major(s) or concentration. Ivies, Hopkins, stanford, top SLACs, William and Mary, Wake, Duke, WashU and dozens more do it this way.
Only the large publics have it such that the first 2 yrs are predominantly gen-ed and there is high overlap with AP.

Not the case with my oldest at UMD. 1 to 2 gen ed classes a semester.

They're still rather rudimentary courses, even if you wait 4 years to complete them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way the elite schools do it is best: they have requirements for classes across disciplines, but they can be taken anytime in the 4 yrs, they are typically seminar style that dive deep into an area, many times there are upper level courses that count toward it. They are much harder than AP across the board, as are 90% of courses at top schools, which is why no AP credit is given for most APs at these schools (AP or testing is used for placing into higher levels of calculus and sometimes sciences and foreign language).
The students do not have to complete them before starting courses toward their major(s) or concentration. Ivies, Hopkins, stanford, top SLACs, William and Mary, Wake, Duke, WashU and dozens more do it this way.
Only the large publics have it such that the first 2 yrs are predominantly gen-ed and there is high overlap with AP.

Not the case with my oldest at UMD. 1 to 2 gen ed classes a semester.

They're still rather rudimentary courses, even if you wait 4 years to complete them.

Can you tedious1 snobs stop dumping on intro and survey classes at schools you've never attended?

Stop acting like every class at a pricy school is made up of intensely meaningful dialogues with the genius professor. We know you think you sprang fully formed from the brow of Zeus...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking about elite institutions like Yale or Columbia where the breadth requirements are part of a curated humanistic curriculum.

But it seems at say, UMCP or Penn State, a lot of time is spent on these requirements, more than a third of the degree in the arts and sciences. I can see the merit, but in practice it seems to lean to a lot of undisciplined and unfocused learning. In a lot of ways it's like high school again - take your English, take your math, take your foreign language, take your gym etc. In fact the gen-ed requirements are often more extensive than the major to which students are only devoting about 30% of the degree to.

Maybe this is why in a lot of countries the bachelor's degree is 3 years because gen-ed is mainly an American thing.

Many kids can't write so classes with writing are good education.

In other words, remedial education. Why isn't this learned in high school?

Lucy Calkins and her "Writers Workshop" crap. Her "Readers Workshop" is why John and Jane do not read well.

The whole "workshop" approach to teaching -- common in elementary schools across the country until recently - is pedagogically unsound. Most students are unable to learn effectively with that approach.

George Bush and Common Core, which I believe was founded by a friend of his.

Profit

[Anonymous]

For state public flagship universities that require significant in state enrollment ie UNC, UT Austin, to some extent UVA and VAtech, the in state stats are lower than out of state. In order to have a large instate enrollment lower stats are getting accepted and enrolled compared to out state students who are much higher in quality. For these out of state students the classes might be too easy for form.

This is why the southern public schools are offering so much merit to out of state to bring in smart kids and entice them with honors college.

If you go to in state, it’s likely to be high school 2.0

[Anonymous]

I think part of a well rounded education - I think great. I actually have one student that didn't do the gen-ed requirements becuase at his school, the honors program didn't require it - he ended up doing a double major in a different school/area so that was good for being well rounded. Other kid is doing gen-eds at their school and taking some really interesting classes.

For example, one class selected by my gen-ed student last year during the election was election politics. Not related to major but super interesting and he goes to school in a swing state.

[Anonymous]

I absolutely believe it’s a money-grab to make it typically a four year program, when it could be done in 3 years.

I was an English major and had to take a lab science. I had just come out of high school with four years of science and college lab science was a complete waste of time. It didn’t help me be more “well-rounded.”

For a kid who is undecided (as both of my kids were starting college) great, take a breadth of classes in your freshman year to see what interests you. But otherwise it’s a great way to just get four years of tuition out of you and increase student loan debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way the elite schools do it is best: they have requirements for classes across disciplines, but they can be taken anytime in the 4 yrs, they are typically seminar style that dive deep into an area, many times there are upper level courses that count toward it. They are much harder than AP across the board, as are 90% of courses at top schools, which is why no AP credit is given for most APs at these schools (AP or testing is used for placing into higher levels of calculus and sometimes sciences and foreign language).
The students do not have to complete them before starting courses toward their major(s) or concentration. Ivies, Hopkins, stanford, top SLACs, William and Mary, Wake, Duke, WashU and dozens more do it this way.
Only the large publics have it such that the first 2 yrs are predominantly gen-ed and there is high overlap with AP.

Not the case with my oldest at UMD. 1 to 2 gen ed classes a semester.

It's not the case at many large publics. My kid only has one writing course they have to take outside of major requirements and there are lots of options to fulfill that requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible to graduate in 3 years if you accumulate enough AP credits (at the schools that accept them)?

I did in the late 90s from a crap school district (so not a ton of AP offerings). I had probably 5-6 AP classes & a DE? Then I did a few semesters of 18-20 credits (my school you paid per term, not by credit hour) to finish with a double major.

In general, I felt the gen eds were a waste of time. Certainly, everyone needs to read well & write coherently, even STEM majors. So, I can understand English requirements. But, my sociology, geology, chemistry, German, etc? Large lectures which left little impression on me & did not inform my future in anyway.

Instead, other than English (and, I think statistics. Everyone needs to understand what those mean. Or don’t mean), I wish there was just an empty pocket of credits. Students could take more in-major electives or those that want to explore, can.

[Anonymous]

Every single school we looked at for my child had some sort of core/gen ed requirements.

Having attended a school that was mentioned earlier in this thread where we couldn’t even declare a major until junior year, I am a fan of liberal arts education. I think kids should be exposed to many courses/disciplines before making a huge decision about their lives. I took many courses that made it clear how interconnected many disciplines are.