American College systems is such a waste of time and resources!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The longer I observe the American college system, the more I am confused by it. In America, an average college major requires you to take 10-12 classes. You get 4 years to complete them. It takes 2 years tops to complete those courses and the other two years are usually squandered away by students because college here is a 4 year vacation paid for by mommy and daddy. Most schools do not really provide much academic rigor and are just easy diploma factories. Also, whats up with the "college experience?" What does that even mean? You go to school to specialize in a field so you can get your degree and join the workforce.

Don't even get me started on the medical education system here. A student takes 4 classes in undergrad to qualify as "premed" and then spends another 4 years getting a medical degree. Most other countries have medical colleges where students get MDs after graduating college!

So send your kids to another country for college if you don't want them to spend the time or the money.

The US is the best university system in the world for a reason. All of the things that you cite as extras are part of the reason.

[Anonymous]

I think this is one of those rare DCUM moments where a large crowd has come to an agreement that the general education requirements of a degree are valuable to the student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are you from OP?

I am from Pakistan. We do not have a public school system to speak of but we do have some really well regarded private schools which are actually more rigorous than most American public schools and probably some privates. We also have solid medical and STEM colleges where students actually go to learn.

But it is a very small sliver of the population who gets to actually attend these schools. I have no doubt your education system is tops -- for the top people.

Here are some academically rigorous, elite private schools in Pakistan:

International School Choueifat
International School Islamabad
Karachi American School
Lahore American School
Lahore Grammar School

Each of these schools is an International School (curriculum taught in English language, modeled according to an American or British type system). Each of these International Schools is comprised of over 70% local Pakistani students (from the most wealthy families). If Pakistani private schools are so great, why do so many of the wealthiest, most elite Pakistani families choose to put their children into schools that were created to support children of foreigners? Why aren't these elite families taking advantage of the superior local Pakistani school systems, OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is one of those rare DCUM moments where a large crowd has come to an agreement that the general education requirements of a degree are valuable to the student.

Agreed. There's a lot wrong with the US educational system, but it's not our universities. They are by and large the standard-setters worldwide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are you from OP?

I am from Pakistan. We do not have a public school system to speak of but we do have some really well regarded private schools which are actually more rigorous than most American public schools and probably some privates. We also have solid medical and STEM colleges where students actually go to learn.

*that are actually more rigorous

Fixed it for you

[Anonymous]

Before you disparage OP's any further, there is a valid argument for making colleges offer 3 year undergraduate degrees, limiting "waste of time and resources". 3 year undegraduate degrees are pretty much the standard world wide. Only the $$$ North American colleges insist on making parents pay through the nose for four years.

"Reducing the time it takes for a student to complete college could add trillions of dollars in wealth to the U.S. economy. Changes in the labor market and educational institutions mean that now is the perfect time to alter the required time to attain a college degree, says Reuven Brenner, the Repap Chair at McGill University's Desautels Faculty of Management.

Assume that after graduation the average salary would be just $20,000 and remain there.
With 4 million students finishing one year earlier, this would add $80 billion to the national income during that year.
Or at an average annual income of $40,000, it would add $160 billion.
Assume now that the additional $80 billionin national income would be compounding at 7 percent over the next 40 years.
This would then amount to an additional $1.2 trillion of wealth -- for just one generation of 4 million students joining the labor force a year earlier at a $20,000 salary.
At $40,000, this would amount to $2.4 trillion by the 40th year -- again, for just one generation of 4 million people joining the labor force a year earlier.
The added wealth depends on how rosy one makes the assumptions about salaries or compounding rates.
Add 10, 20, or 30 generations, each starting to work a year earlier, and the numbers run into the tens of trillions of dollars.
The indirect impacts may be as significant. One or two years of additional, compounding earnings could do a lot to shore up entitlement programs, with a more positive impact than requiring people 65 and older to stay in the labor force much longer: the magic of resulting compounding would start earlier.

Over the past few decades, students have taken too many years to graduate, having plenty of fun along the way (financed mostly by parents or taxpayers) while students in other countries practice greater discipline. For example, students in Israel finish their undergraduate education in three years and exit with skills that companies are looking for. In the United States, 63 percent of employers said that recent college graduates don't have the skills they need to succeed[i].

Today, we should focus on accelerating learning and on providing youth with real world experiences that match the job market. The government should stop subsidizing schools and universities, and higher education institutions should once again become more selective in who they admit to study.
"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before you disparage OP's any further, there is a valid argument for making colleges offer 3 year undergraduate degrees, limiting "waste of time and resources". 3 year undegraduate degrees are pretty much the standard world wide. Only the $$$ North American colleges insist on making parents pay through the nose for four years.

"Reducing the time it takes for a student to complete college could add trillions of dollars in wealth to the U.S. economy. Changes in the labor market and educational institutions mean that now is the perfect time to alter the required time to attain a college degree, says Reuven Brenner, the Repap Chair at McGill University's Desautels Faculty of Management.

Assume that after graduation the average salary would be just $20,000 and remain there.
With 4 million students finishing one year earlier, this would add $80 billion to the national income during that year.
Or at an average annual income of $40,000, it would add $160 billion.
Assume now that the additional $80 billionin national income would be compounding at 7 percent over the next 40 years.
This would then amount to an additional $1.2 trillion of wealth -- for just one generation of 4 million students joining the labor force a year earlier at a $20,000 salary.
At $40,000, this would amount to $2.4 trillion by the 40th year -- again, for just one generation of 4 million people joining the labor force a year earlier.
The added wealth depends on how rosy one makes the assumptions about salaries or compounding rates.
Add 10, 20, or 30 generations, each starting to work a year earlier, and the numbers run into the tens of trillions of dollars.
The indirect impacts may be as significant. One or two years of additional, compounding earnings could do a lot to shore up entitlement programs, with a more positive impact than requiring people 65 and older to stay in the labor force much longer: the magic of resulting compounding would start earlier.

Over the past few decades, students have taken too many years to graduate, having plenty of fun along the way (financed mostly by parents or taxpayers) while students in other countries practice greater discipline. For example, students in Israel finish their undergraduate education in three years and exit with skills that companies are looking for. In the United States, 63 percent of employers said that recent college graduates don't have the skills they need to succeed[i].

Today, we should focus on accelerating learning and on providing youth with real world experiences that match the job market. The government should stop subsidizing schools and universities, and higher education institutions should once again become more selective in who they admit to study.
"

Agree with this. There are lots of great things about American universities but I think the undergrad degree is a year too long. That said, the impression I have is that the first 1-2 years are studies at a level that in some countries in Europe are studied in the last year of school, so perhaps that is why. That was my experience (coming from UK school to US university - overall a great experience though)

[Anonymous]

You do know the British are considering lengthening their college system because there is not enough taught outside of the specific degree. They are finding that the workers are not well rounded and are not adaptive enough for the changing job market.

[Anonymous]

I found the courses taken outside of my field to be very broadening, and I still find them useful today, decades later. The world is becoming more interdisciplinary, not less. Witness archaeology, which used to be about learning about ancient civilizations, and maybe a little geology. Now that field uses biology, including genetic analysis, materials science, and linear algebra.

I am an economist, but I have to speak to a lot of scientists. When I speak to European scientists, who studied one subject at university, they can't define economics, and have no clue what I do. They also seem shocked that I know anything about their fields. My American scientist friends all understand what an economist does, as they took economics courses in college. In turn, I understand what they do, at least in a general sense.

I also find that when I speak to Europeans, some are having a hard time with living in a multicultural society. Prejudice and stereotyping run rampant, as does discrimination in the job market. We of course still have discrimination, but we have 60 years of case law to assist its victims. I think European universities could use some of the immigration history and multicultural studies courses that all US university students have to take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found the courses taken outside of my field to be very broadening, and I still find them useful today, decades later. The world is becoming more interdisciplinary, not less. Witness archaeology, which used to be about learning about ancient civilizations, and maybe a little geology. Now that field uses biology, including genetic analysis, materials science, and linear algebra.

I am an economist, but I have to speak to a lot of scientists. When I speak to European scientists, who studied one subject at university, they can't define economics, and have no clue what I do. They also seem shocked that I know anything about their fields. My American scientist friends all understand what an economist does, as they took economics courses in college. In turn, I understand what they do, at least in a general sense.

I also find that when I speak to Europeans, some are having a hard time with living in a multicultural society. Prejudice and stereotyping run rampant, as does discrimination in the job market. We of course still have discrimination, but we have 60 years of case law to assist its victims. I think European universities could use some of the immigration history and multicultural studies courses that all US university students have to take.

Apparently you would have needed a couple more years of undergrad to transcend your little American bubble. Your last paragraph is hilarious in its complete lack of self-awareness and rampant stereotyping.

[Anonymous]

I'm not reading all of the responses but I went to 2 different colleges. I had to take 5 courses per semester times 8 semesters (fall and spring for 4 yrs). Not sure where the OP got 10-12 courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found the courses taken outside of my field to be very broadening, and I still find them useful today, decades later. The world is becoming more interdisciplinary, not less. Witness archaeology, which used to be about learning about ancient civilizations, and maybe a little geology. Now that field uses biology, including genetic analysis, materials science, and linear algebra.

I am an economist, but I have to speak to a lot of scientists. When I speak to European scientists, who studied one subject at university, they can't define economics, and have no clue what I do. They also seem shocked that I know anything about their fields. My American scientist friends all understand what an economist does, as they took economics courses in college. In turn, I understand what they do, at least in a general sense.

I also find that when I speak to Europeans, some are having a hard time with living in a multicultural society. Prejudice and stereotyping run rampant, as does discrimination in the job market. We of course still have discrimination, but we have 60 years of case law to assist its victims. I think European universities could use some of the immigration history and multicultural studies courses that all US university students have to take.

Apparently you would have needed a couple more years of undergrad to transcend your little American bubble. Your last paragraph is hilarious in its complete lack of self-awareness and rampant stereotyping.

Actually there's a good bit of truth in the last paragraph. Europeans seem to preach diversity but not actually practice it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found the courses taken outside of my field to be very broadening, and I still find them useful today, decades later. The world is becoming more interdisciplinary, not less. Witness archaeology, which used to be about learning about ancient civilizations, and maybe a little geology. Now that field uses biology, including genetic analysis, materials science, and linear algebra.

I am an economist, but I have to speak to a lot of scientists. When I speak to European scientists, who studied one subject at university, they can't define economics, and have no clue what I do. They also seem shocked that I know anything about their fields. My American scientist friends all understand what an economist does, as they took economics courses in college. In turn, I understand what they do, at least in a general sense.

I also find that when I speak to Europeans, some are having a hard time with living in a multicultural society. Prejudice and stereotyping run rampant, as does discrimination in the job market. We of course still have discrimination, but we have 60 years of case law to assist its victims. I think European universities could use some of the immigration history and multicultural studies courses that all US university students have to take.

Apparently you would have needed a couple more years of undergrad to transcend your little American bubble. Your last paragraph is hilarious in its complete lack of self-awareness and rampant stereotyping.

Actually there's a good bit of truth in the last paragraph. Europeans seem to preach diversity but not actually practice it.

+1. I've run into prejudice in Switzerland and Britain. Because I'm American, some Europeans seem to think they can whisper their prejudices to me, wink wink, nod nod. They're disappointed by my reaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With all due respect OP you are from Pakistan, those in glass houses should not throw stones. Yes there may be many flaws in our system but there is equally a reason that throngs about the world including from your country dream and aspire to be educated here.

Do you really want me to start talking about the education system in Pakistan? I didn't' think so.

Well, I for one think it's noble that the OP is here to get good education for her kids in our amazing system, and will be very excited when they become doctors and go back to Pakistan to practice or to teach to help uplift that country and give back. Isn't that what they are going to do, OP? Or are you just leaving Pakistan in the dust?

[Anonymous]

[quote ]

What kind of university program requires P.E. classes? Really, I truly want to know. I was not required to take ANY P.E. classes in college, and the only person I know who WAS taking P.E. type courses in college was training to be a P.E. teacher. Tell us, OP, where did your children go to college and what programs did they complete? I went to a s hooligans which required 2 semesters of PE plus swimming...you couldn't graduate without passing your swim test unless you are physically compromised