4 ms·

Agree, outside of my comp sci. major, I took courses in cognitive psychology, history of science, and technical writing, and looking back, those were very usefu

Agree, outside of my comp sci. major, I took courses in cognitive psychology, history of science, and technical writing, and looking back, those were very useful. However, it's frustrating that it's regarded as perfectly fine to require STEM students to take courses in breadth subjects, but completely preposterous to require liberal arts students to take breadth courses in hard science.

hackuser 11y ago
> it's regarded as perfectly fine to require STEM students to take courses in breadth subjects, but completely preposterous to require liberal arts students to take breadth courses in hard science. Hmmm ... at my U. science was required for everyone. Are you sure that wasn't the case at yours? They weren't required to take the most difficult science classes but the same is true for STEM majors taking liberal arts courses. (I'm using "liberal arts" to mean humanities, social sciences, and the arts.)
- ForHackernews 11y ago
  The "Liberal arts" also include physical science and mathematics: https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberal-arts https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberal-arts If you mean "humanities and social sciences" then say that.
  - henrikschroder 11y ago
    Thanks for the correction, that's what I meant!
- henrikschroder 11y ago
  Interesting. I went to an institute of technology, so I'm pretty sure they didn't require science classes for humanities and social sciences majors (thanks for the correction!), since they didn't offer those majors. :-) But I know the neighbouring universities offered science classes for non-science majors students, although it was never a requirement, and mentioning that maybe it ought to would make most people upset. It's been twenty years now though, but I don't think the situation has changed, sadly.
douche 11y ago
I think at most colleges, you do have to get at least a couple of science credits. Of course, they are usually along the lines of "Stars for Stoners" (Intro to Astronomy), "Rocks for Jocks" (Intro to Geology), or "DNA for Dumbasses" (Intro to Biology) I'll be honest, I took Stars for Stoners, and it was a very interesting class. But it certainly was not hard, and given the choice to do it again, without having to fill the general reqs, I'd spend the time reading some good hard science fiction and taking another higher-level history or computer science course instead.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  The intro level humanities courses may not have as clever nicknames but they bear the same relationship to upper level courses and the discipline as a whole as those classes do. A 100 level history course aimed at non-majors looking for distribution classes isn't going to teach much "real history". Not even close. At best you are getting a small morsel of the methods and philosophies of the field buried deep inside a large scoop of crowd pleasing "and then, and then" readings and discussion. Not that there's anything wrong with that approach to pedagogy for either the scientists or the historians.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

hackuser 11y ago

> it's regarded as perfectly fine to require STEM students to take courses in breadth subjects, but completely preposterous to require liberal arts students to take breadth courses in hard science. Hmmm ... at my U. science was required for everyone. Are you sure that wasn't the case at yours? They weren't required to take the most difficult science classes but the same is true for STEM majors taking liberal arts courses. (I'm using "liberal arts" to mean humanities, social sciences, and the arts.)

ForHackernews 11y ago
The "Liberal arts" also include physical science and mathematics: https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberal-arts https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberal-arts If you mean "humanities and social sciences" then say that.
- henrikschroder 11y ago
  Thanks for the correction, that's what I meant!
henrikschroder 11y ago
Interesting. I went to an institute of technology, so I'm pretty sure they didn't require science classes for humanities and social sciences majors (thanks for the correction!), since they didn't offer those majors. :-) But I know the neighbouring universities offered science classes for non-science majors students, although it was never a requirement, and mentioning that maybe it ought to would make most people upset. It's been twenty years now though, but I don't think the situation has changed, sadly.

douche 11y ago

I think at most colleges, you do have to get at least a couple of science credits. Of course, they are usually along the lines of "Stars for Stoners" (Intro to Astronomy), "Rocks for Jocks" (Intro to Geology), or "DNA for Dumbasses" (Intro to Biology) I'll be honest, I took Stars for Stoners, and it was a very interesting class. But it certainly was not hard, and given the choice to do it again, without having to fill the general reqs, I'd spend the time reading some good hard science fiction and taking another higher-level history or computer science course instead.

bradleyjg 11y ago
The intro level humanities courses may not have as clever nicknames but they bear the same relationship to upper level courses and the discipline as a whole as those classes do. A 100 level history course aimed at non-majors looking for distribution classes isn't going to teach much "real history". Not even close. At best you are getting a small morsel of the methods and philosophies of the field buried deep inside a large scoop of crowd pleasing "and then, and then" readings and discussion. Not that there's anything wrong with that approach to pedagogy for either the scientists or the historians.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]