4 ms·

I don’t understand this thing you do in the US of forcing you to do completely unrelated courses. You want to study computers and they put you through liberal a

by baiwl 10mo ago

I don’t understand this thing you do in the US of forcing you to do completely unrelated courses. You want to study computers and they put you through liberal arts or gender studies bullshit that is basically worthless. Why?

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
ta20240528 10mo ago
What’s telling is they don’t make the liberal arts student take any hard science electives.
- lapcat 10mo ago
  This is false.
  - ta20240528 10mo ago
    It would be nice if you could elaborate - I'm here to learn.
    - cindyllm 10mo ago
      [dead]
    - lapcat 10mo ago
      > It would be nice if you could elaborate To elaborate, you made a wildly false claim with no supporting documentation, such as links to undergraduate degree requirements from universities. These two go hand-in-hand: there wouldn't be documentation to support wildly false claims, just to refute them. But I'm not going to do your work for you, because your claim was both wildly false and also lazy. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you to support it. > I'm here to learn. That appears dubious, given the content of your previous comment.
      - ta20240528 10mo ago
        I stand corrected, its not what my country's universities do. But the thought of a theology student being forced to pass a course in evolutionary biology has made my day.
csa 10mo ago
> I don’t understand this thing you do in the US of forcing you to do completely unrelated courses. The framework for the current curriculum was developed when maybe 2% of the country went to college. The curriculum was meant to be broad, and it was meant to teach people how to think. It was not designed to train the students to do a specific job other than “lead” or “go to grad school and specialize”. And the high school curriculum is just as bad. It was designed for a time when 4% of a cohort went to high school. Half of those went to a 4-year school and the other half went to 2-year schools. The other 96% didn’t go to high school. That’s why we have some oddities like required 4 years of literature in high school. Nothing wrong with literature, but it’s not really appropriate (at least as currently taught) for a mass audience, imho.

by baiwl 10mo ago

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

ta20240528 10mo ago

What’s telling is they don’t make the liberal arts student take any hard science electives.

lapcat 10mo ago
This is false.
- ta20240528 10mo ago
  It would be nice if you could elaborate - I'm here to learn.
  - cindyllm 10mo ago
    [dead]
  - lapcat 10mo ago
    > It would be nice if you could elaborate To elaborate, you made a wildly false claim with no supporting documentation, such as links to undergraduate degree requirements from universities. These two go hand-in-hand: there wouldn't be documentation to support wildly false claims, just to refute them. But I'm not going to do your work for you, because your claim was both wildly false and also lazy. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you to support it. > I'm here to learn. That appears dubious, given the content of your previous comment.
    - ta20240528 10mo ago
      I stand corrected, its not what my country's universities do. But the thought of a theology student being forced to pass a course in evolutionary biology has made my day.

csa 10mo ago

> I don’t understand this thing you do in the US of forcing you to do completely unrelated courses. The framework for the current curriculum was developed when maybe 2% of the country went to college. The curriculum was meant to be broad, and it was meant to teach people how to think. It was not designed to train the students to do a specific job other than “lead” or “go to grad school and specialize”. And the high school curriculum is just as bad. It was designed for a time when 4% of a cohort went to high school. Half of those went to a 4-year school and the other half went to 2-year schools. The other 96% didn’t go to high school. That’s why we have some oddities like required 4 years of literature in high school. Nothing wrong with literature, but it’s not really appropriate (at least as currently taught) for a mass audience, imho.