why is it that...

[swinginchandra]

see that's my gripe. they have to take some sort of science to satisfy general education requirements, and we have to take some sort of liberal arts to satisfy general education requirements as well. they get the watered down version of an introductory class while we get the 'roided up body builder version. but that is only for the science classes. they get to take the easy class and concentrate on their REAL classes while we take the our real classes AND their real classes. it just seems, to me, like a system set up against science.

If it is so set up against science, then why is there such a disparity between employability of scientists and liberal arts types? (in a field related to our major, making descent money)
Perhaps it's not set up AGAINST scientists, but rather for us? We are more challenged true, but when we defeat that challenge - it's awesome.

Also, seriously and practically, how the heck much more could ENG 101 type of classes be dummed down? They are already taught to the lowest common denominator of frosh students... I think I may have spent 6 hours total on an english class this semester which I FLEW through. I seriously think I have the highest grade in the class. I can't imagine that class being any easier - if it was, I might have to take up recreational drug usage to keep myself from dying of boredom & dizzy-ness from eye rolling.

Here's something weird for you - I strongly dislike "easy" classes. I would take our physics class again any semester over my "easy" calc class, or the ridiculous english class.

I once took an english class that was a true challenge. And guess what, I actually didn't hate it, and got a lot out of it. So I thoroughly disagree with you - I would be VERY unhappy if they made english classes easier.

*disclaimer - by "hard" classes I don't mean unbelievable work load - I mean legitimately challenging material.

 

[swinginchandra]

What an absolute load of bull painted with a very broad brush. I was an English major, sports journalism concentration because my school at the time did not have a journalism major. Guess what I do for a living?


What another absolute load of bull. I can guarantee you aren't required to take my 'real' classes. I'm fairly certain you didn't have to write a thesis on the incestual themes running through F. Scott Fitzgerald's work, particularly "Tender is the Night."

So it has no practical application. So what? If that's what us English majors chose to pursue, who are you to denigrate that?

No offense intended. I meant that statistically, and stereotypically. I absolutely agree that there are MANY liberal arts type majors employed in their field of study. While I don't know the statistics, I can say that through personal experience, MOST of the people I know that graduate with a liberal arts degree take a longer time to figure out what they want to do, and take longer to get there. That's not a bad thing. It's just that most liberal arts degrees aren't "career oriented" - they don't lead to a specific path of employment. So many people graduate from college lost ... not saying everyone, but I would bet a larger quantity of liberal arts majors than engineering majors.

My perspective on this, is that without a degree, just through happenstance, I hold a job most of my friends graduating with liberal arts degrees would kill for. I hold an office job with which I can support myself in san diego. I can't imagine going to school, and then graduating with that as the best option. Granted that's a little bit of luck, but it's also alot bit of determination.

I also think that specific career oriented liberal arts degrees are a different story (sports journalism would be a good example). I also think a liberal arts degree is a great precursor to a masters degree if you know you are planning on pursuing it.

I also think it's great if you don't know what you want to do yet. So few people go into school knowing what they want to do with their life, that I'll admit judging none career oriented degrees is un-fair.

S'yah

 

[passedpawn]

I believe that eventually most people will see liberal arts as the most important part of any advanced education.

It takes a lot of years of living to get this, especially for the engineers and science-minded, but it's true.

 

[kaiser423]

I believe that eventually most people will see liberal arts as the most important part of any advanced education.

It takes a lot of years of living to get this, especially for the engineers and science-minded, but it's true.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!

Sorry. Maybe I'll see it your way when I'm your age at 10 years, but I doubt it. The engineering part of my advanced education gives me a quite advanced quality of life that I thoroughly enjoy. I doubt that liberal arts is going to eclipse that soon.

Maybe I'm laughing because I have a strong grasp of the English language, and a better grasp of liberal arts than most liberal arts majors, and I take it all for granted.

My advanced education thoroughly taught me how to learn _anything_, that I have the ability to do so, and that I should. That was quite simply far and away easily, bar-none the most important discipline I was taught: How to learn and conceptualize. From serious literary dissections to designing satellites or energy weapons I feel pretty chill within a week or two after starting.

 

[Baja_Brewer]

and it isn't a terrible thing to learn calculus to understand better how the world around you works. In fact, it can only help.

to me, it just seems that we're held to different standards. I took the same English literature class that English majors have to take, the same critical thinking courses...

Originally Posted by Pappers View Post
That's not true. You do not have to take the same upper level liberal arts courses (history, english, literature) that those majors take. You may have to take the same general requirements courses, but that's because they're general requirements.
Perhaps you need to take a logic course or two

Taking Cal 1 or Cal 2 so that you can understand Physics is not asking non-science students to take Differential Equations... there are also upper level science/math courses that the liberal arts students are not required to take. Yes, they will take upper level communications/writing/critical thinking/whatever courses that we (science based majors) may not, but they're not even taking our low level courses.

You miss my point. Perhaps you need to pay attention in those liberal arts courses, work on reading comprehension

What you (and everyone) are required to take are general requirements - what you need to take to be an educated person. If you don't want a general liberal arts education, to be what western society has decided is a well-educated person, then go to a tech school.

Enlighten me then as to what I missed? Our low level science/math courses are also considered Gen Eds (requirements)... maybe while you're so busy forgetting how "whiny" the science types are, you've neglected to see that science and mathematics courses are also Gen eds? And if people consider Algebra and Geometry level math comprehension an adequate amount to be a "well-educated person", I'll drop out of this conversation and discontinue my argument -because they're just plain wrong. I learned that **** in 9th grade.

Maybe you need to put on your reading glasses, because I responded to exactly what you posted.

 

[jmendez29]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to side with Shecky on this one. I understand what you are saying. Non-engineering types get the "watered down" version of your science and math based gen ed classes, but you have to take the same "full strength" version of theirs. But having a broad sense of the world around us really is critical to consider yourself an educated person.

So what would the average person do with statistics. Assuming we're talking about non-engineering types here, then unless you play poker for a living, statistics is pretty useless. And why would I need to find the surface area of, well, anything that isn't in my backyard? Most advanced mathematics is pretty useless in an "average" persons daily life. Balancing a checkbook, sure. Converting american measurements to metric, yeah. But anything beyond finding the surface area or volume of a sphere is pointless.

And when it comes down to it, you need those gen ed classes anyway. If you didn't have it, then we might as well revert back to a society where children do the same job that their parents do. Or just start vocational school at age 14 where you choose your career and start training for it. That would never work for the betterment and advancement of a society. Granted, I've got a handful of credits, but no degree. But I couldn't tell you the number of people I've met who have changed their major while in college. I work in an engineering type field but two of my best friends/coworkers have human resource degrees. Because of taking those math/science based classes, they realized (after they got their degrees, of course) that they would rather do something else.

Overall, it opens your mind to other possibilities. Helps you think out of the box and contemplate the world around you, not just figure out how it all works. Besides, I'd hate to think how impersonal some of the engineers I work with would truly be if they didn't have to interact with others in some of those classes. They're bad enough as it is.

 

[RDWHAHB]

I think it comes down to entrance requirements. Engineering schools generally require calc as a prerequisite, so those students already have had calc. Liberal arts schools generally don't generally require AP english as a prereq, so everybody takes English 101. Even though it is a huge waste of time for well prepared & intelligent liberal arts majors. Be glad you don't have to do the same and take algebra before you get to real classes; catering to the least common denominator is no fun.

I went to a college for engineers. My only "english" class was a technical writing for engineers. Which is why my argument here is likely poorly communicated.

 

[GregR]

Overall, it opens your mind to other possibilities. Helps you think out of the box and contemplate the world around you.

take a classical mechanics, e&m, or modern physics class and try to tell me they don't require outside the box thinking and opening your mind to other possibilities.

 

[ndsgr]

I believe that eventually most people will see liberal arts as the most important part of any advanced education.

It takes a lot of years of living to get this, especially for the engineers and science-minded, but it's true.

1) "I believe", with no data to draw such a conclusion.
2) Make an argument that can not be proved, or only be proved by pointing back at an argument you propose yourself. Ex: It takes a lot of years of living to get this, especially for the liberal arts majors, but science is the most important subject to understand.

I did learn one valuable thing from liberal arts, how to analyze an argument. Turns out, it has served me well in my line of work. Wouldn't say it's "the most important" though. EDIT: This isn't a personal attack, by the way. I just remember people in liberal arts classes using your method to make arguments.

Also, English was valuable for the sheer amount of reports we have to write after getting results. The more expensive the project, the more people in your chili, the better written your report has to be.

Bottom line, this is the token "why can't we all get along" post. Engineers will always complain about English/liberal arts majors and all non-engineers will be bored with what we have to say.

I complained about the GRE because I do think it is unfairly biased, if you are being compared against all majors. The math is something ANY major should be able to do well on, but an engineer doesn't have a shot at doing excellent on the verbal section. An English major should be able to ace it. Put some vector calc or diff eq on it and we may see a better stratification. Personally, I would like a general science section too, but that might be pushing it.

One class EVERYONE should take is a basic thermodynamics class though. I think it would solve a lot of issues before they come up. That is for another post though...

 

[GregR]

What another absolute load of bull. I can guarantee you aren't required to take my 'real' classes. I'm fairly certain you didn't have to write a thesis on the incestual themes running through F. Scott Fitzgerald's work, particularly "Tender is the Night."

So it has no practical application. So what? If that's what us English majors chose to pursue, who are you to denigrate that?

of course I don't have to write a thesis on that. that has not been my argument from the get go and you know that. my argument is that while all majors have to take introductory science and English classes as general education requirements, science majors have to take the same introductory courses in English and history as an English/history/liberal arts major AND have to take a much harder introductory course into chemistry and physics while the others get, essentially, a free pass in the science department. that's all I'm saying.

and let me clear this up. I love the English and history classes that I have taken and do consider them a very important part of a well rounded education. in fact, I have been told numerous times in my "liberal arts" classes that I am the best writer in class. in my critical thinking/second semester English class, my professor told me personally that I write at a level beyond anyone in the class and that he simply cannot grade me on the same level as the other students. the liberal arts are a very import part of a well rounded education. I'm not asking to take the easy route in the liberal arts department. All I am saying is that science is an equally important part of a well rounded education and provides a vast understanding of the world around us (especially the world not observable to the naked eye) that simply cannot be obtained through a watered down 'easy' version of a class that I feel is essential everyone's education.

 

[Pappers_]

Enlighten me then as to what I missed? Our low level science/math courses are also considered Gen Eds (requirements)... maybe while you're so busy forgetting how "whiny" the science types are, you've neglected to see that science and mathematics courses are also Gen eds? And if people consider Algebra and Geometry level math comprehension an adequate amount to be a "well-educated person", I'll drop out of this conversation and discontinue my argument -because they're just plain wrong. I learned that **** in 9th grade.

Maybe you need to put on your reading glasses, because I responded to exactly what you posted.

Sorry, I meant whiny and sensitive

And yes, to be a well educated person you need a grounding in literature, history, languages, humanities, and social sciences. Sorry, I agree with your university (and every other university that I know) that calculus is not a part of that foundational education.

 

[z987k]

If you look around you should be able to find non enlgish major english classes. For my Comp II, I took a class on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It was a physics class that involved lots of writing and no actual math that I can remember. Just concepts.... but lots of writing.

 

[jmendez29]

take a classical mechanics, e&m, or modern physics class and try to tell me they don't require outside the box thinking and opening your mind to other possibilities.

I have. But by taking those classes, you already have the ability to think outside the box. How will learning about quantum physics and string theory help you learn how to do that? It will help reinforce the ability and teach you to take it in new directions and on different planes, but it doesn't really help with that first step of observing the world through things that can't be physically observed.

 

[passedpawn]

1) "I believe", with no data to draw such a conclusion.
2) Make an argument that can not be proved, or only be proved by pointing back at an argument you propose yourself. Ex: It takes a lot of years of living to get this, especially for the liberal arts majors, but science is the most important subject to understand.

I'm a electronic design engineer with my own company, so I speak from that perspective.

I'm betting that one day you'll agree with my comment about the liberal arts part of an education. I'm not going to argue or try to prove my point.

 

[shecky]

of course I don't have to write a thesis on that. that has not been my argument from the get go and you know that. my argument is that while all majors have to take introductory science and English classes as general education requirements, science majors have to take the same introductory courses in English and history as an English/history/liberal arts major AND have to take a much harder introductory course into chemistry and physics while the others get, essentially, a free pass in the science department. that's all I'm saying.

Are you absolutely certain you're taking the same introductory classes? It just seems to me that you want to feel put upon.
I'm failing to see the issue. Science is more difficult. Fact. If you major in it, you should be held to a higher standard than those who don't. Those who don't need only a basic understanding (as part of their, gasp, liberal arts pursuit), thus a bare-bones introductory course.

What I find most interesting in this thread is the division between old/young. The fogies among us (me, passedpawn, pappers) are defending the liberal arts pursuit while the youngsters who know everything (I've been there) scoff at liberal arts.

 

[Pappers_]

What I find most interesting in this thread is the division between old/young. The fogies among us (me, passedpawn, pappers) are defending the liberal arts pursuit while the youngsters who know everything (I've been there) scoff at liberal arts.

And they won't stay the hell off my lawn

 

[ndsgr]

I'm a electronic design engineer with my own company, so I speak from that perspective.

I'm betting that one day you'll agree with my comment about the liberal arts part of an education. I'm not going to argue or try to prove my point. Just sayin.

Great, for your electronics company, go hire a bunch of Liberal "Artists" and have them design circuitry for you. After all,

liberal arts as the most important part of any advanced education.

What I find most interesting in this thread is the division between old/young. The fogies among us (me, passedpawn, pappers) are defending the liberal arts pursuit while the youngsters who know everything (I've been there) scoff at liberal arts.

I love this. My Uncle is 56. His neighbor is 75. They have this same debate every weekend over beers. They became neighbors in the late 80s. According to the neighbor, my uncle is a young know-it-all and unseasoned. I guess it's a catch all way to win arguments. Problem is, the only way the "young" guy can win is when the old guy is dead. It's a brilliant tactic to avoid getting into a real debate, but is a bit played out. My FIL is an expert at this argument, but is pretty clueless about everything. Ex: "a transistor is a 3 phase power device because it has 3 terminals." He is dead wrong, but because he is older and I am young (kind of) he is correct? When I call him on it, he sits back and says, "you'll see". Used to drive me up a wall, now I just laugh and dismiss the BS. I guess that's where the "getting older" argument falls into play, you stop giving a rat's ass.

Perhaps taking everything/everyone at face value is more important... Liberal Arts classes included. Sorry, I don't buy they have some deeper meaning and when you get older, the deeper meaning all of sudden hits you and "is like, wow."

 

[passedpawn]

Great, for your electronics company, go hire a bunch of Liberal "Artists" and have them design circuitry for you. After all,



I love this. My Uncle is 56. His neighbor is 75. They have this same debate every weekend over beers. They became neighbors in the late 80s. According to the neighbor, my uncle is a young know-it-all and unseasoned. I guess it's a catch all way to win arguments. Problem is, the only way the "young" guy can win is when the old guy is dead. It's a brilliant tactic to avoid getting into a real debate, but is a bit played out. My FIL is an expert at this argument, but is pretty clueless about everything. Ex: "a transistor is a 3 phase power device because it has 3 terminals." He is dead wrong, but because he is older and I am young (kind of) he is correct? When I call him on it, he sits back and says, "you'll see". Used to drive me up a wall, now I just laugh and dismiss the BS. I guess that's where the "getting older" argument falls into play, you stop giving a rat's ass.

Perhaps taking everything/everyone at face value is more important... Liberal Arts classes included. Sorry, I don't buy they have some deeper meaning and when you get older, the deeper meaning all of sudden hits you and "is like, wow."

You'll see.

 

[Baja_Brewer]

What I find most interesting in this thread is the division between old/young. The fogies among us (me, passedpawn, pappers) are defending the liberal arts pursuit while the youngsters who know everything (I've been there) scoff at liberal arts.

Right, so now that you're older you actually know everything? Or you realize and admit you don't know everything (I never made the claim that I know everything, and I don't intend on doing that, why even bother putting words in our mouths?) but in telling us that you're older than us you're implying.....??? That you've seen first hand how a liberal arts education is doing more for the world than advanced technical educations ever will?

I can see the value in the liberal arts, but I feel that a little more focus on the fundamentals of science and mathematics would be largely beneficial to the general population...

 

[shecky]

Right, so now that you're older you actually know everything? Or you realize and admit you don't know everything (I never made the claim that I know everything, and I don't intend on doing that, why even bother putting words in our mouths?) but in telling us that you're older than us you're implying.....??? That you've seen first hand how a liberal arts education is doing more for the world than advanced technical educations ever will?

Apologies for putting words in your mouth. I reacted emotionally to what, to me, feels like a supreme smugness coming from some in this thread. I realize now, at 41, that I know far less than I thought I knew at 25. Every day I learn something. In being older I'm implying that the young folks here really have no idea what lay ahead.

What is annoying me is the implication that liberal arts have done less for the world than 'advanced technical educations.'

I can see the value in the liberal arts, but I feel that a little more focus on the fundamentals of science and mathematics would be largely beneficial to the general population...

Isn't that the argument here? The liberal arts majors are getting the fundamentals of science and mathematics. They are getting what they need for practical application. The simple fact of the matter is a fundamental knowledge of a broad base of things is beneficial to the general population. I have dealt with far too many of those with 'advanced technical educations' who can't spell or construct a sentence correctly, two things that are in my mind the most fundamental of all.

 

[ndsgr]

You'll see.

You're a good dude.

 

[Baja_Brewer]

Apologies for putting words in your mouth. I reacted emotionally to what, to me, feels like a supreme smugness coming from some in this thread. I realize now, at 41, that I know far less than I thought I knew at 25. Every day I learn something. In being older I'm implying that the young folks here really have no idea what lay ahead.

No worries. I recognize at my slight age of 23 that there is more out there in the world than I would ever have comprehended at 15 or 18. I've also gained humility that allows me to go to others when I'm in over my head instead of believing I can handle everything on my own, and other such life lessons.

What is annoying me is the implication that liberal arts have done less for the world than 'advanced technical educations.'

This isn't merely an implication, as I see this attitude fairly constantly from my peers and I find it unfortunate. I can't say that I have never felt it- I've sat in classes before where people are coming up with severely absurd interpretations of literary works (ie Shakespeare,) and I've wondered why people can't let it drop to the fact that he may have just written some of it while he was drunk/stoned/whatever and that it has no deeper meaning. (Of course I realize this is not the case with the majority of that kind of work, but some of the stuff people come up with is asinine.) The smugness exists and can sometimes be justified, but that smugness goes both ways.

Isn't that the argument here? The liberal arts majors are getting the fundamentals of science and mathematics. They are getting what they need for practical application. The simple fact of the matter is a fundamental knowledge of a broad base of things is beneficial to the general population. I have dealt with far too many of those with 'advanced technical educations' who can't spell or construct a sentence correctly, two things that are in my mind the most fundamental of all.

I guess where I am going with my part of the argument is their is so much stress being put on the arts part (My University requires 2 English, 2 Fine Arts/Literature, 2 Foreign Language, 2 Letters, 2 Social Sciences) that there is very little room left for mathematics/science (1 Math, 2 Natural Sciences.) Not enough emphasis on the science fundamentals.

I too have dealt with the technical types who can't construct a sentence - I dread group papers because I spend more time editing than writing because these kids are changing verb tenses mid-sentence, don't know their/they're/there, two/too/to, your/you're, were/we're- but my roommates graduating with their communications degrees can't balance a checkbook! I had to show one of them how to figure out what grade they needed on the final to pass the class- single variable arithmetic. And taking the science courses like GEO 102- Dinosaurs or PLS 233- Floral Art or TMD 113- Color Science will not help teach them science basics that will allow them to understand things like why they shouldn't burn plastic or overload their pickup or why they will hydroplane on water covered roads and spin out on ice or why not just any liquid will put out a fire.

 

[kaiser423]

Isn't that the argument here? The liberal arts majors are getting the fundamentals of science and mathematics. They are getting what they need for practical application. The simple fact of the matter is a fundamental knowledge of a broad base of things is beneficial to the general population. I have dealt with far too many of those with 'advanced technical educations' who can't spell or construct a sentence correctly, two things that are in my mind the most fundamental of all.

Yea, and I deal with liberal arts majors that can't put a sentence together either. Cuts both ways. If you hire a quality technical person they will be able to put a sentence together. If you hire a quality liberal arts person they will be able to put a sentence together. If you do not hire a quality person, irregardless of the field, they will not be able to put a sentence together.

Yes, putting a sentence together is about the most fundamental item that a person should be able to do, and no one should get an advanced degree without being able to do so.

But I don't think that you have what is considered a well-rounded education without being even introduced to the vague idea of what calculus is. Seriously, the sheer idea of an integral and derivative or differential equation aren't even introduced at the most basic of level, and they're bloody simple as can be as a concept. Seriously, algebra is typically even hardly touched many times.

But the concepts of some of these maths are so amazingly elegant that the basics should be fleshed out to anyone with an advanced education in much the same way Joyce and others authors that can construct amazing prose are at least required reading for anyone with an advanced education.

I think that we're hitting a wall with old versus young, because it seems to me that a lot of younger science-type guys in this thread also have an amazingly strong liberal arts backgrounds and thoroughly appreciate how amazingly helpful it is every day. But we also realize how amazingly helpful having a basic abstract/numbers comprehension of problems and items is to everyone, not just engineers, and they see the liberal arts getting the short end of the stick.

Seriously, I hang out with grad student level liberal art types more often than I hang with engineers typically and I communicate with them liberal-arts wise at or above most of their levels. I'm typically sought out for my opinion because I typically provide a very strong counter-point, and know how to play devil's advocate well. But if I compare something to an integral or use words like inflection point or orthogonal I am always asked to re-structure my sentences to use words they know.

I'm probably biased though, being an engineer. I'd love for everyone to have a strong liberal arts education and a strong science education, and I saw how hard my department tried to ensure that all science types had strong liberal arts backgrounds, and how little liberal arts programs try to incorporate science.

 

[shecky]

Don't want to quote both of you, but you make fine points with which I can't disagree. You obviously have taken all aspects of education seriously (though irregardless is a terrible word ).

 

[kaiser423]

Don't want to quote both of you, but you make fine points with which I can't disagree. You obviously have taken all aspects of education seriously (though irregardless is a terrible word ).

Let us drink

You obviously have taken your education quite seriously also :rockin:

 

[shecky]

Let us drink

You obviously have taken your education quite seriously also :rockin:

Yeah, I do now. Twenty *cough cough* years ago, when I was in the midst of it, I should have taken it a bit more seriously.

Here is what I've learned: life will kick you in the balls repeatedly. In the end, it's not what you know or how you came to learn it but rather how you recover from the kicks.

 

[kaiser423]

I guess where I am going with my part of the argument is their is so much stress being put on the arts part (My University requires 2 English, 2 Fine Arts/Literature, 2 Foreign Language, 2 Letters, 2 Social Sciences) that there is very little room left for mathematics/science (1 Math, 2 Natural Sciences.) Not enough emphasis on the science fundamentals.

This. In my department we also had multiple ethics classes, multiple advanced writing classes, technical writing, essay writing classes, etc as part of my engineering degree in addition to the gen ed quoted above. Not to mention the hard-ass professors that required extemporaneous speaking, writing news articles for local papers, press releases, essays on integrating technology and modern life, etc as part of the standard classes like advanced electromagnetics or algorithms 2.

My 5 years (CS/EE double major) was really 2.5 years liberal arts, 2.5 years science. Which is probably about the right balance.

Liberal arts seems like .15 years science, 4.85 years liberal arts, and I really think that they're missing out on some parts of being a well-educated individual.

 

[GregR]

This. In my department we also had multiple ethics classes, multiple advanced writing classes, technical writing, essay writing classes, etc as part of my engineering degree in addition to the gen ed quoted above. Not to mention the hard-ass professors that required extemporaneous speaking, writing news articles for local papers, press releases, essays on integrating technology and modern life, etc as part of the standard classes like advanced electromagnetics or algorithms 2.

My 5 years (CS/EE double major) was really 2.5 years liberal arts, 2.5 years science. Which is probably about the right balance.

Liberal arts seems like .15 years science, 4.85 years liberal arts, and I really think that they're missing out on some parts of being a well-educated individual.

thank you. this is what I've been trying to say all along but anything I said about liberal arts being a fundamental part of an education but science being equally as important seemed to get ignored.

and geez this thread got way too serious for drunken rambling! to lighten things back up, here is a video of a cat waggling its tongue.

 

[blizzard]

There's a lot of interesting debate here. I have to admit that as an employed engineer who went to an engineering school to avoid liberal arts classes, I do A LOT of writing. Similarly, a lot of my friends from school are now getting MBAs and moving into management positions.

I think we can all agree that english, writing, and critical thinking skills are important. The difference is, you are expected to understand basic grammar and reading comprehension by the time you graduate high school (or sooner, I would expect). You are not expected to understand basic physics, chemistry, and/or calculus (or in some cases algebra!). I think that is a major flaw in our educational system. Just because our educational system works that way doesn't mean that is how you become well-rounded.

The point of intro classes is to get everyone at the same level of understanding on a breadth of topics so that you are then prepared to proceed into a specialty, be that liberal arts or science and math. I have to stick with the OP here. He never said liberal arts classes were not important or that they should not be a part of the curriculum. He said that the basic introductory courses should be the same for everyone. I completely agree.

 

[passedpawn]

I shepherd electrons around for a living, but I use this to get through life:

Desiderata

Discovered it a long time ago, and I keep it with me always. I guess one can be an engineer, libertarian, agnostic, and still have a liberal outlook.