> University students don't become experts in anything.
You're absolutely right. A bachelor's degree is supposed to be a mark of well roundedness, not specialization.
> English literature students, for example, just leave with some long essays under their belts, they don't graduate as well-read authorities on different epochs of literature.
They're not supposed to be authorities - if they wanted to dedicate time to become authorities, it's well understood that you'll have to specialize in English lit, likely in some kind of subfield, which is what a masters/PhD is for.
> As in, if a member of the public needed any of those skills/knowledge to do their job, they could acquire them privately without much difficulty.
That doesn't necessarily mean that University education is all for naught. University education purports to teach us how to be better thinkers, not necessarily produce people who are skilled in one kind of thing.
The latter definition that I gave above is what the article is trying to defend.
Maybe it's different where you live, but doing an Honours degree means specializing in the subject. For instance with English lit, you would typically choose 7 or 8 modules (spread over two years), each representing a different period of literature. For those classes you should read one or two books per week (but you have all summer to prepare), and write 3 essays for each module. You should also seek out criticism on the books, and for the ones you do essays or presentations on, read a lot of the related work. There will probably be a whole module on Shakespeare, so why not read all of Shakespeare? Max out. And since you're in university anyway, you might as well attend the lectures for modules you didn't choose, just to augment your knowledge. There is ample time to do all this.
That would certainly make you an expert on your subject. Not a leading academic, obviously, but someone very well informed and educated on the matter. Of course, none of that really happens. Students do the minimum number of essays required (one, instead of three). They don't bother reading the books except the really short ones and the ones they need to write or present on. They barely even attend the lectures for the modules they did choose. Basically they finish having accomplished a fraction of the learning that was supposed to take place. Really no better than the average person who reads a lot of books.
> Really no better than the average person who reads a lot of books.
That might be true, but of course the "average person who reads a lot of books" is not even remotely average. Most people don't read a lot of books, so if college were to make an average person nearly as knowledgeable as self-motivated individuals interesting in spending their personal free-time reading books, as opposed to watching American Idol, it is pretty successful.
A bachelor's degree is supposed to be a mark of well roundedness, not specialization.
What is "well-roundedness" and why is it a good thing? I went to a good school, and I was forced to take all of the worthless general requirements that had nothing to do with anything I cared about. The only thing I still have from those classes is debt. Most people I know tell me that they've had the same experience I did.
What is "well-roundedness" and why is it a good thing?
A serious question: Have you ever, since you graduated, wished you knew more about a topic outside the field you got your degree in? Why? Ever wish you had more background in economics, history, politics, or science so you could have more informed opinions on the news or make better choices in your life or at the voting booth?
Now, imagine you could go back and take a good intro course in some of those fields of interest, instead of the "worthless" ones you had. Would that kind of "well-rounded" be more satisfying?
I was a science major. Yet every topic I wish I had spent more time studying turned out to be technical. For example, I never took linear algebra, or a course on polymers.
Why not let people be "well-rounded" in a field of their own choosing? We don't insist that every college applicant learn Greek and Latin anymore. Following this further, I can't think of a justification for insisting on any particular requirement at the university, other than to ensure that every graduate should complete a certain number of credit hours with some minimum average course difficulty level. If someone wants to study nothing but chemistry, physics and math, why get in their way? Who is anyone to get in the way of someone who knows what he wants? For those that don't know, how is telling them what they want a legitimate answer?
I graduated ten years ago. I am just now starting to regret not paying enough attention to those general education classes that I thought were wastes of my time. I wasn't mature enough to realize how important economics, marketing, political science, and sociology would be to me in 2011.
Whats funny is at my university, they are making degrees more specialized. An example of this is Applied Computer Science having several areas (Geography, Game programming, etc). In my program of IT there are four concentrations (network security, database programming, web design, and networking). Based on this, a bachelors is not as well rounded as it used to be.
I don't see anything wrong with specialization at all - it's just that college usually appeals to this notion of "well-roundedness", and even if it doesn't, I'd say that it might be great to try taking that weird underwater basket weaving class for shits and giggles, or an English lit class (outside of your requirements, IMO - you'll get a better experience in the classroom when you don't have a ton of people in the class trying to fill basic requirements), or whatever else.
I've personally taken a couple of film and English classes when I didn't need the credits - it doesn't help me one bit in my career, but at least it had helped me think of things in a different way than what I'm used to.
You're absolutely right. A bachelor's degree is supposed to be a mark of well roundedness, not specialization.
> English literature students, for example, just leave with some long essays under their belts, they don't graduate as well-read authorities on different epochs of literature.
They're not supposed to be authorities - if they wanted to dedicate time to become authorities, it's well understood that you'll have to specialize in English lit, likely in some kind of subfield, which is what a masters/PhD is for.
> As in, if a member of the public needed any of those skills/knowledge to do their job, they could acquire them privately without much difficulty.
That doesn't necessarily mean that University education is all for naught. University education purports to teach us how to be better thinkers, not necessarily produce people who are skilled in one kind of thing.
The latter definition that I gave above is what the article is trying to defend.