7 ms·

"To complete the education of young men and women and permit them to think." Yes. Perfect. This is important, they're doing it right. I would venture to say th

"To complete the education of young men and women and permit them to think." Yes. Perfect. This is important, they're doing it right. I would venture to say that the specialization of the US education system, and the increased specialization especially in Engineering and Computer Sciences and in the sciences in general, is one of the largest problems in higher education today. It's so important to learn how to think, to learn how to learn, to learn how fields are connected and interrelated even in indirect ways, and simply to learn that knowledge you cannot directly use still has value in its ability to train your mind to think about problems and make connections in new ways. I am supremely thankful for my Bachelor of Arts in Comp Sci, for it gave me the freedom to take classes outside Engineering, in the arts. This liberal (aka comprehensive, varied, generous) arts education makes my computer science education flourish, and I believe has made me into the well-balanced person I am today. What we need today are not people who can think intensely about one subject—we need people who can think about how to think, and apply that to anything. Well, we need both, surely, but we need some more generalists, or perhaps specialists who aren't myopic. We're getting overspecialized in the US, I think. En d'autres termes, bonne travail France!

cheez 13y ago
I would hardly call sitting down and writing a 4 hour test "doing it right" when it comes to philosophy. In my opinion, philosophy is a mandatory subject but it should be focused on debate, not essay-writing.
- calinet6 13y ago
  The material is one thing, testing on it is another... a 4 hour test sounds bad, but one would think that if they're teaching philosophy in the first place, then they sort of know what they're doing.
  - nnq 13y ago
    there's nothing wrong with a 4 or even a 6 hours test for a subject such as philosophy! there's no point in adding time pressure to a philosophy test - the point is not to think efficiently (it's not math or science!), but to think deep, think wide/laterally and to be creative in confined area of thought and to express your thought in a finished and refined form. If you add time pressure, they will just memorize the "correct interpretations" for the test, the "correct way to talk/write about topic x" and so on, just to be able to do things in time (and those who don't memorize ...or cheat, will get worse test scores, so there will be no incentive do things the right way) nulling the whole point of it! ...otoh, having a "philosophy test" in school kind of kills all the use or fun of the subject, but if you do it, at least try to get something out of it by not adding unnecessary constraints!
    - eru 13y ago
      > the point is not to think efficiently (it's not math or science!), That's not the difference between philosophy and math. The difference is one of effectivity, not efficiency. Science adds real-world relevance, but substracts rigour.
- epo 13y ago
  Perhaps the French educational system teaches pupils how to write, something that seems to be missing from the US curriculum.
  - meowface 13y ago
    The US curriculum attempts to teach students how to write, they just don't do a particularly good job at it most of the time. Also, it's very frequent that highschool teachers will still give decent grades to poorly written essays and papers, which may give many students a false impression that they're decent at writing when they really aren't. (Usually this illusion is shattered once/if they attend university, thankfully.)
  - cocoflunchy 13y ago
    It definitely focuses on writing a lot. The other thing to take into account though is that nearly every test in the Baccalaureat lasts 3 hours or more, including the science ones (4 hours for Maths and Physics, and 3 1/2 hours for Biology/Geology).
    - pcrh 13y ago
      Not to mention the infamous dictée. See for example: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-21/news/mn-20246_1_french-teacher http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-21/news/mn-20246_1_frenc...
      - cocoflunchy 13y ago
        The article is from 1987 though, don't know if you noticed that ;) The dictée is not as prevalent today as it was 20 years ago, and I don't think I have done one after the age of 11.
  - temp453463343 13y ago
    Are you kidding? The US system is completely devoted to writing. All my English classes were centered around writing essays (usually about the books we read). In fact, I'd argue the opposite. The French system places a big emphasis on learning grammar, conjugations, spelling and things like that - which frankly is a waste of time. I don't think I ever took a grammar course in the US. I couldn't tell you what a prepositional phrase is, but I can write a good essay.
- daveid 13y ago
  I am from Germany, and philosophy was pretty much the main topic of the ethics class for the two last grades when I was at high school. We had debates of all sorts as part of the curriculum, but we had also learned how to collect and present our arguments in the written form. So I think writing an essay for 4 hours may very well be suitable for a philosophy exam.
- rtpg 13y ago
  The 4 hour test is usually a 4 hour essay , where you're expected to write around a 6 page dissertation on the subject. At least when I took it , there was also the option to read a text and do an analysis on that. The problem with oral debate is that its too easy to fall into the "persuade" aspect instead of "convince". And the last thing we need is pupils yelling at each other all the time. By forcing the argumentation in a written form, you make it a lot harder to write fallacious reasoning without being called on it.
  - astrobe_ 13y ago
    Also, it should be remembered that is a country-wide exam with a 2 or 3 months deadline for the marks (with of course, not enough teachers to do such a huge job), and the students are supposed to be evaluated equally. That said, the typical dissertation includes a synthetic part where the ideas of the previous parts, which expose one thesis and its opposite. So there is a form of debate there, but again what is judged is the consistency rather than the opinions supported by the student (at least that's how it was when I took it, in the scientific-oriented version of the "Bac").
- JackFr 13y ago
  You're talking about rhetoric, not philosophy.
otibom 13y ago
*"bon travail" :)
- calinet6 13y ago
  Ahhh desolée! Vous avez trouvé le française d'un Américain. :)
  - S4M 13y ago
    Le Francais (je n'ai pas de cedille sur ce clavier)
    - allan_s 13y ago
      le français (though in English it's always upper-case, in French it's only when talking about the people) Ce jeune Français parle français.
      - S4M 13y ago
        Err... I am French, but haven't written in my mother tongue for sooo long... The GP wrote "le francaise d'un Americain", and that's what I wanted to correct.
        calinet6 13y ago
        Ah yes I confused genders yet again. Embarrassing. I'll just stop now.
simondlr 13y ago
Reminds me of my university (Stellenbosch University). Also had an odd combination. Started studying a Bachelor of Commerce in Computer Science (lots of maths, financial stats, etc). Then I switched to a Bachelor of Commerce in Socio-Informatics and Marketing (less technical programming, more applied work). However, socio-informatics is actually an Arts degree (it includes courses such as management theory and systems design). So during my time at university I did science (maths, computer science, stats, programming), finance/business (accounting, financial planning, marketing, entrepreneurship) and arts (philosophy of systems, sensemaking, organization theory). Loved it!
jsonne 13y ago
This is totally anecdotal, but isn't the US (especially at the college level) more focused on a "broader" education? My cousin got a BA in international relations in the US and then went and attended school in Spain. Something like only 1/4 of his credits counted towards his degree there even though nearly all of them transferred. His explanation was that they expect less of a broad education and more specialization. Recalling my own experience I got a BA in political science and I spent something like 30 hours in my major, and 90+ in general education. It seems as though many people on HN (and in general) talk about how we need more STEM majors, but then complain that a degree that's very highly technical isn't broad enough. If you want people to graduate in a reasonable amount of time than it almost has to be one or another.
- meowface 13y ago
  My experience with public research universities would say that yes, in general you are required to take quite a few courses in many fields that may be outside the realm of your major. I'm an Information Systems major (BS) and I took two philosophy and two psychology courses, plus archaeology and a bunch of other things in other subjects. I agree with you: that's about the best you can do if you want to graduate in 4 years. At least at the universities I know of, majors being too specialized isn't really considered an issue.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    My Informatics degree (also BS) required 1 philosophy and 1 psychology. The philosophy course was focused on ethics, and the psychology course on business relations, though they were both professor-dependent (the topic changed with different professors). They were part of the "human-centric" track of the curriculum.
- calinet6 13y ago
  It depends on the school, and even further the major and sub-department. For example, at Berkeley the L&S (Letters and Sciences) department was in charge of Computer Science (hence the BA) while the Engineering department was in charge of EECS (the more technical CS/EE major). The Engineering department is one-track technical with very few outside electives, almost pure specialization. The L&S department was extremely broad and had great depth as well. I greatly enjoyed the latter, but both had great reputations. I think diversity is important—some individuals will want to specialize, and the best you can do is offer them opportunities to branch out. Some people will naturally generalize. Encouraging a good variety of education is important and I think extremely valuable, but it isn't the best path for everyone. However 18 year olds aren't always the best ones to make decisions about their education and/or future ;)
wdewind 13y ago
I completely disagree. If anything we are under-specialized. We are pumping out liberal arts grads who have no skills that can pay back their loans. We have created a culture of middle managers without people to manage.
- jckt 13y ago
  I used to believe this under-specialisation was a good thing. That a more general college education was better. But as I see it now, a liberal education has mostly just given us liberally educated people, but not liberal learners. I'd say, if you think yourself intellectually motivated, eager to learn things outside your field already, then paradoxically you should specialise, for this innate drive to learn will not perish after uni, and IMO unlikely to be affected in any way by a liberal arts environment. Rather, go to someplace more focused, and if you are not American, perhaps consider other great schools in places that are not the USA. Big money, big technology may be in the USA, but your average undergrad really doesn't need too much of that. (Of course, America has the best schools. If you're going to attend one of those, by all means, and work hard!)
  - calinet6 13y ago
    "a liberal education has mostly just given us liberally educated people, but not liberal learners." I would argue this is a specific problem, and not the intention or desired result of a Liberal Arts education. The intention is as this article states: to learn how to think correctly across boundaries of fields and within them. To solve problems better, not just be more general. Of course this is sort of a No True Scotsman, but arguably any kind of education isn't working if it's not creating a positive impact on the value and ability of the person being educated.
- kijin 13y ago
  Is that a problem with the idea of liberal arts in particular, or a problem with higher education in general that happens to manifest itself most obviously in liberal arts graduates? In other words, is liberal arts a hopeless idea in the first place, or is it simply the way that American colleges teach it that is problematic? There are plenty of colleges that offer a B.S. in computer science, for example, whose graduates can't pass the fizzbuzz test. Meanwhile, hundreds of art history majors go on to have productive careers. Specialization is orthogonal to competence.
mathattack 13y ago
As someone who has observed European education from afar, my impression is that the Bac (more like a high school diploma in the US) is broad, but their college is very specialized. This is true in both the UK (from the source of the admiring article) and France. This isn't to say better or worse - it's just a tradeoff.
draggnar 13y ago
Today I believe we stand on the edge of a new age of synthesis. In all intellectual fields, from the hard sciences to sociology, psychology, and economics—especially economics—we are likely to see a return to large-scale thinking, to general theory, to the putting of the pieces back together again. For it is beginning to dawn on us that our obsessive emphasis on quantified detail without context, on progressively finer and finer measurement of smaller and smaller problems, leaves us knowing more and more about less and less. - Alvin Toffler
wslh 13y ago
I always find that "learning how to think" idea as an elusive concept. It is being a skepticist? An ultrarascionalist agent? A relativist? In general it is a paradox, because educational systems would try to teach you how to think and at the end you realize that there was a hidden agenda that makes you think and combat them. While others combat you too.
- calinet6 13y ago
  You're looking at the "learning how to think" problem from a specialized viewpoint, trying to define it and pin it down. I don't think it works that way. It's hard to define, but it's more about understanding how to learn and how to be productive with your brain. However you do that is fine by me, as long as you're using your brain to its full capacity and creating value from it. I recognize greater value in people who focus on a field and have a diverse and broad knowledge background than in those who are specialists alone. Surely the depth of the specialists is required, but the adjunct skills of the generalist turn out to be more important for knowledge work such as software and business, and important in unmeasurable and undefinable ways. They are all around more productive people, better problem-solvers, better learners, more collaborative, more well-rounded, and many more buzzwords which actually turn out to have true meaning in this case.
- saraid216 13y ago
  I highly recommend this book: http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2237-educating-the-democratic-mind.aspx http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2237-educating-the-democratic-min...
Nursie 13y ago
While I have no issue with this in younger students, forcing some folks to continue to study subjects in which they have no interest, would simply have driven us round the bend and made us lose interest in education entirely. I specialised to mathematical and scientific subjects exclusively at the age of 15, and would have it no other way. Cultural learning I can pick up informally as and when I want to.
- calinet6 13y ago
  Yes, this is certainly the route some people will follow, and we need you to! People studying specific subjects at great depth is still entirely necessary. I just think it's ultra-common and over-encouraged these days, so we should tip the balance in the other direction. Or at least provide the opportunity and encouragement to those for whom generalist knowledge is an appealing route. We have the specialists. We need the generalists to make sense of them.

cheez 13y ago

I would hardly call sitting down and writing a 4 hour test "doing it right" when it comes to philosophy. In my opinion, philosophy is a mandatory subject but it should be focused on debate, not essay-writing.

calinet6 13y ago
The material is one thing, testing on it is another... a 4 hour test sounds bad, but one would think that if they're teaching philosophy in the first place, then they sort of know what they're doing.
- nnq 13y ago
  there's nothing wrong with a 4 or even a 6 hours test for a subject such as philosophy! there's no point in adding time pressure to a philosophy test - the point is not to think efficiently (it's not math or science!), but to think deep, think wide/laterally and to be creative in confined area of thought and to express your thought in a finished and refined form. If you add time pressure, they will just memorize the "correct interpretations" for the test, the "correct way to talk/write about topic x" and so on, just to be able to do things in time (and those who don't memorize ...or cheat, will get worse test scores, so there will be no incentive do things the right way) nulling the whole point of it! ...otoh, having a "philosophy test" in school kind of kills all the use or fun of the subject, but if you do it, at least try to get something out of it by not adding unnecessary constraints!
  - eru 13y ago
    > the point is not to think efficiently (it's not math or science!), That's not the difference between philosophy and math. The difference is one of effectivity, not efficiency. Science adds real-world relevance, but substracts rigour.
epo 13y ago
Perhaps the French educational system teaches pupils how to write, something that seems to be missing from the US curriculum.
- meowface 13y ago
  The US curriculum attempts to teach students how to write, they just don't do a particularly good job at it most of the time. Also, it's very frequent that highschool teachers will still give decent grades to poorly written essays and papers, which may give many students a false impression that they're decent at writing when they really aren't. (Usually this illusion is shattered once/if they attend university, thankfully.)
- cocoflunchy 13y ago
  It definitely focuses on writing a lot. The other thing to take into account though is that nearly every test in the Baccalaureat lasts 3 hours or more, including the science ones (4 hours for Maths and Physics, and 3 1/2 hours for Biology/Geology).
  - pcrh 13y ago
    Not to mention the infamous dictée. See for example: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-21/news/mn-20246_1_french-teacher http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-21/news/mn-20246_1_frenc...
    - cocoflunchy 13y ago
      The article is from 1987 though, don't know if you noticed that ;) The dictée is not as prevalent today as it was 20 years ago, and I don't think I have done one after the age of 11.
- temp453463343 13y ago
  Are you kidding? The US system is completely devoted to writing. All my English classes were centered around writing essays (usually about the books we read). In fact, I'd argue the opposite. The French system places a big emphasis on learning grammar, conjugations, spelling and things like that - which frankly is a waste of time. I don't think I ever took a grammar course in the US. I couldn't tell you what a prepositional phrase is, but I can write a good essay.
daveid 13y ago
I am from Germany, and philosophy was pretty much the main topic of the ethics class for the two last grades when I was at high school. We had debates of all sorts as part of the curriculum, but we had also learned how to collect and present our arguments in the written form. So I think writing an essay for 4 hours may very well be suitable for a philosophy exam.
rtpg 13y ago
The 4 hour test is usually a 4 hour essay , where you're expected to write around a 6 page dissertation on the subject. At least when I took it , there was also the option to read a text and do an analysis on that. The problem with oral debate is that its too easy to fall into the "persuade" aspect instead of "convince". And the last thing we need is pupils yelling at each other all the time. By forcing the argumentation in a written form, you make it a lot harder to write fallacious reasoning without being called on it.
- astrobe_ 13y ago
  Also, it should be remembered that is a country-wide exam with a 2 or 3 months deadline for the marks (with of course, not enough teachers to do such a huge job), and the students are supposed to be evaluated equally. That said, the typical dissertation includes a synthetic part where the ideas of the previous parts, which expose one thesis and its opposite. So there is a form of debate there, but again what is judged is the consistency rather than the opinions supported by the student (at least that's how it was when I took it, in the scientific-oriented version of the "Bac").
JackFr 13y ago
You're talking about rhetoric, not philosophy.

otibom 13y ago

*"bon travail" :)

calinet6 13y ago
Ahhh desolée! Vous avez trouvé le française d'un Américain. :)
- S4M 13y ago
  Le Francais (je n'ai pas de cedille sur ce clavier)
  - allan_s 13y ago
    le français (though in English it's always upper-case, in French it's only when talking about the people) Ce jeune Français parle français.
    - S4M 13y ago
      Err... I am French, but haven't written in my mother tongue for sooo long... The GP wrote "le francaise d'un Americain", and that's what I wanted to correct.
      - calinet6 13y ago
        Ah yes I confused genders yet again. Embarrassing. I'll just stop now.

simondlr 13y ago

Reminds me of my university (Stellenbosch University). Also had an odd combination. Started studying a Bachelor of Commerce in Computer Science (lots of maths, financial stats, etc). Then I switched to a Bachelor of Commerce in Socio-Informatics and Marketing (less technical programming, more applied work). However, socio-informatics is actually an Arts degree (it includes courses such as management theory and systems design). So during my time at university I did science (maths, computer science, stats, programming), finance/business (accounting, financial planning, marketing, entrepreneurship) and arts (philosophy of systems, sensemaking, organization theory). Loved it!

jsonne 13y ago

This is totally anecdotal, but isn't the US (especially at the college level) more focused on a "broader" education? My cousin got a BA in international relations in the US and then went and attended school in Spain. Something like only 1/4 of his credits counted towards his degree there even though nearly all of them transferred. His explanation was that they expect less of a broad education and more specialization. Recalling my own experience I got a BA in political science and I spent something like 30 hours in my major, and 90+ in general education. It seems as though many people on HN (and in general) talk about how we need more STEM majors, but then complain that a degree that's very highly technical isn't broad enough. If you want people to graduate in a reasonable amount of time than it almost has to be one or another.

meowface 13y ago
My experience with public research universities would say that yes, in general you are required to take quite a few courses in many fields that may be outside the realm of your major. I'm an Information Systems major (BS) and I took two philosophy and two psychology courses, plus archaeology and a bunch of other things in other subjects. I agree with you: that's about the best you can do if you want to graduate in 4 years. At least at the universities I know of, majors being too specialized isn't really considered an issue.
- saraid216 13y ago
  My Informatics degree (also BS) required 1 philosophy and 1 psychology. The philosophy course was focused on ethics, and the psychology course on business relations, though they were both professor-dependent (the topic changed with different professors). They were part of the "human-centric" track of the curriculum.
calinet6 13y ago
It depends on the school, and even further the major and sub-department. For example, at Berkeley the L&S (Letters and Sciences) department was in charge of Computer Science (hence the BA) while the Engineering department was in charge of EECS (the more technical CS/EE major). The Engineering department is one-track technical with very few outside electives, almost pure specialization. The L&S department was extremely broad and had great depth as well. I greatly enjoyed the latter, but both had great reputations. I think diversity is important—some individuals will want to specialize, and the best you can do is offer them opportunities to branch out. Some people will naturally generalize. Encouraging a good variety of education is important and I think extremely valuable, but it isn't the best path for everyone. However 18 year olds aren't always the best ones to make decisions about their education and/or future ;)

wdewind 13y ago

I completely disagree. If anything we are under-specialized. We are pumping out liberal arts grads who have no skills that can pay back their loans. We have created a culture of middle managers without people to manage.

jckt 13y ago
I used to believe this under-specialisation was a good thing. That a more general college education was better. But as I see it now, a liberal education has mostly just given us liberally educated people, but not liberal learners. I'd say, if you think yourself intellectually motivated, eager to learn things outside your field already, then paradoxically you should specialise, for this innate drive to learn will not perish after uni, and IMO unlikely to be affected in any way by a liberal arts environment. Rather, go to someplace more focused, and if you are not American, perhaps consider other great schools in places that are not the USA. Big money, big technology may be in the USA, but your average undergrad really doesn't need too much of that. (Of course, America has the best schools. If you're going to attend one of those, by all means, and work hard!)
- calinet6 13y ago
  "a liberal education has mostly just given us liberally educated people, but not liberal learners." I would argue this is a specific problem, and not the intention or desired result of a Liberal Arts education. The intention is as this article states: to learn how to think correctly across boundaries of fields and within them. To solve problems better, not just be more general. Of course this is sort of a No True Scotsman, but arguably any kind of education isn't working if it's not creating a positive impact on the value and ability of the person being educated.
kijin 13y ago
Is that a problem with the idea of liberal arts in particular, or a problem with higher education in general that happens to manifest itself most obviously in liberal arts graduates? In other words, is liberal arts a hopeless idea in the first place, or is it simply the way that American colleges teach it that is problematic? There are plenty of colleges that offer a B.S. in computer science, for example, whose graduates can't pass the fizzbuzz test. Meanwhile, hundreds of art history majors go on to have productive careers. Specialization is orthogonal to competence.

mathattack 13y ago

As someone who has observed European education from afar, my impression is that the Bac (more like a high school diploma in the US) is broad, but their college is very specialized. This is true in both the UK (from the source of the admiring article) and France. This isn't to say better or worse - it's just a tradeoff.

draggnar 13y ago

Today I believe we stand on the edge of a new age of synthesis. In all intellectual fields, from the hard sciences to sociology, psychology, and economics—especially economics—we are likely to see a return to large-scale thinking, to general theory, to the putting of the pieces back together again. For it is beginning to dawn on us that our obsessive emphasis on quantified detail without context, on progressively finer and finer measurement of smaller and smaller problems, leaves us knowing more and more about less and less. - Alvin Toffler

wslh 13y ago

I always find that "learning how to think" idea as an elusive concept. It is being a skepticist? An ultrarascionalist agent? A relativist? In general it is a paradox, because educational systems would try to teach you how to think and at the end you realize that there was a hidden agenda that makes you think and combat them. While others combat you too.

calinet6 13y ago
You're looking at the "learning how to think" problem from a specialized viewpoint, trying to define it and pin it down. I don't think it works that way. It's hard to define, but it's more about understanding how to learn and how to be productive with your brain. However you do that is fine by me, as long as you're using your brain to its full capacity and creating value from it. I recognize greater value in people who focus on a field and have a diverse and broad knowledge background than in those who are specialists alone. Surely the depth of the specialists is required, but the adjunct skills of the generalist turn out to be more important for knowledge work such as software and business, and important in unmeasurable and undefinable ways. They are all around more productive people, better problem-solvers, better learners, more collaborative, more well-rounded, and many more buzzwords which actually turn out to have true meaning in this case.
saraid216 13y ago
I highly recommend this book: http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2237-educating-the-democratic-mind.aspx http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2237-educating-the-democratic-min...

Nursie 13y ago

While I have no issue with this in younger students, forcing some folks to continue to study subjects in which they have no interest, would simply have driven us round the bend and made us lose interest in education entirely. I specialised to mathematical and scientific subjects exclusively at the age of 15, and would have it no other way. Cultural learning I can pick up informally as and when I want to.

calinet6 13y ago
Yes, this is certainly the route some people will follow, and we need you to! People studying specific subjects at great depth is still entirely necessary. I just think it's ultra-common and over-encouraged these days, so we should tip the balance in the other direction. Or at least provide the opportunity and encouragement to those for whom generalist knowledge is an appealing route. We have the specialists. We need the generalists to make sense of them.