How does US college work?

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't get it. I sometimes see mentions of US college system on TV and the students have to have like a credit in this field, and that field, and they have psychology class, and art history class at the same time (That 70s show), and you need a credit for a foreign language (Spanish) and biology to become a lawyer (Community). It's seems like you're not working toward anything. Is this really how it works, because it makes no sense.

[willowtooth]

its upsetting to say the least:mad:

I almost transferred to London (literally) when I was in college just because i couldn't understand, why if i'm studying economics that i have too take art history, psychology, or Latin american studies.

My business law class was by far the most influential class in my life, mostly because my professor was a genius, but my political science course was taught by a flat out moron, i ended up halfway teaching the class by the end of the semester, about Iraq, the history of the democratic and republican parties, damn near gave lectures about the history of nationalism in china, and the influence of the ottoman empire

i forget the terminology but basically american college students are forced to study a wide variety of topics, while Europeans get too concentrate on their core studies/majors

[Counterculturalist]

I'm in Canada, but...

Generally, for a Bachelor's degree you have to take some classes directly related to what you're studying, and some electives. For example, when I did my bachelor's in English Lit, I had to take 20 English classes, and 20 electives of my choice, although some were prescribed. For example, I needed at least 2 foreign language courses, 6 social science courses, etc... it was all pretty complicated. The specifics of what kind of electives you can take vary depending on what you're studying.

I like the idea of being able to take a lot of electives. Keeps you well-rounded and keeps you from burning out too much. If I had to take 40 English classes in a row, I'd probably hate literature now.

[Tim Cornelis]

Does it work the same in university, or are there different higher education types as in the Netherlands?

In the Netherlands there's universities of applied science (more like college I think) and 'actual' universities. I've gone to both. The classes are all prescribed, everyone goes to the same at universities of applied science. Universities, ditto, except you get to choose some minors and majors I think in the third year of your bachelor's degree. I don't know exactly what you mean by 40 English classes in a row. But I don't see a problem with that, unless you mean that it'd be basically the same class but with different levels?

Me studying political science doesn't mean I take 50 'political science' classes in a year (101, 102, 103 ... 153), but 50 classes directly related to political science, but very varied classes in the three different fields or disciplines of political science.

I would hate to waste time on unrelated classes. If you want to be all-rounded, do it in your spare time. "a jack of all trades, a master o' none"

[Redistribute the Rep]

Basically you have required classes and also you have to take some electives. You can use ap credits and test out of classes so you can get credits. I already have well over half the credits needed to complete a 4 year degree and I haven't even started college yet.

Every college is a little different, some of them have different schools, like mine. I'm going to engineering school and there's other schools like pharmacy and liberal arts at my college. But at some universities the different programs are part of the same school.

Really the only superfluous requirement for engineers where I will go is an English class, which I will get out of with my AP credits. If you have ap credits, you can use it to get out of a class, and start at a higher level class if you want, so I will start out in third year calculus and physics. If you have ap scores for classes you aren't required to take for your major you can use the credits for your electives. Also, if you know a lot of languages it is really helpful because you can take exams to test out of many years of a language and get a lot of credits for that.

Well, I guess it depends on your major and where you go to school, but in my experience it seems like if you did well in your high school classes you can cut out all of the bullshit.

[willowtooth]

Does it work the same in university, or are there different higher education types as in the Netherlands?in america there is no difference between college and university, it suggests more of a term in size rather than coursework


In the Netherlands there's universities of applied science (more like college I think) and 'actual' universities. I've gone to both. The classes are all prescribed, everyone goes to the same at universities of applied science. Universities, ditto, except you get to choose some minors and majors I think in the third year of your bachelor's degree. I don't know exactly what you mean by 40 English classes in a row. But I don't see a problem with that, unless you mean that it'd be basically the same class but with different levels?
40-50 classes in a row sound ridiculous too me, we will take about 12 classes in the course of a year dispersed over a wide variety of topics, a couple will have too do with your major if your lucky



Me studying political science doesn't mean I take 50 'political science' classes in a year (101, 102, 103 ... 153), but 50 classes directly related to political science, but very varied classes in the three different fields or disciplines of political science.again 50 classes in a year is ridiculous, we would have 5-6 classes per semester and we would have too complete certain requirments, like, humanities, math, english etc


I would hate to waste time on unrelated classes. If you want to be all-rounded, do it in your spare time. "a jack of all trades, a master o' none" i agree i fuckin hated taking these classes that had absolutely nothing at all too do with my major

[Hermes]

I'm going to a liberal arts college, so it's probably different for some others. I've heard that there are colleges in the U.S. more similar to what you're describing, in that you focus on your degree and nothing else, but I can't speak from experience.

At my college, you're pursuing a major, and that has a certain amount of required classes you need to take, as well as room for electives in that field. As well, every student, regardless of major, needs to complete "core" requirements, which are the same. Some health classes, english classes, foreign language classes, sciences, maths, etc.

And, yeah, in high school you can take advanced placement classes, which depending on how you score, will exempt you from certain requirements corresponding with that class.

[Tim Cornelis]

It sounds too much like high school to me. Prefer 'my' system.

[Counterculturalist]

I'm pretty sure that in the US, the words college and university can be used interchangeably. In Canada, "college" is what you would call a university of applied science, and in the US its rough analogue would be "community college." (I could be a bit off on that, though.)



Me studying political science doesn't mean I take 50 'political science' classes in a year (101, 102, 103 ... 153), but 50 classes directly related to political science, but very varied classes in the three different fields or disciplines of political science.

No, I meant that 40 different, varied English classes would probably have me burn out on the subject.


I would hate to waste time on unrelated classes. If you want to be all-rounded, do it in your spare time. "a jack of all trades, a master o' none"

It's just a matter of preference, I guess. I have a pretty wide variety of interests. It also helps you from seeing things with too much tunnel-vision.

In my case, learning about history, philosophy, popular culture, art history, psychology, etc. can only help understanding literature anyway, since it's not like literature is created in a vacuum. I think the same would apply for at least some other disciplines.

This is only for degrees at the undergraduate level... A masters or phd is going to be more specialized.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Education is generally pretty poor in the U.S. With many students not even learning the basics of things like English and biology, so I guess the burden is shifted to the colleges, it's almost like a second high school for a lot of people. Which is unfortunate since many cant afford college. I was lucky to go to a big public high school that offered many college level classes which saves me a lot of money since I don't have to take them in college.

[willowtooth]

It sounds too much like high school to me. Prefer 'my' system.

i prefer your system too. I always regretted not taking that acceptance letter to a London school when i was a freshman.

i think it speaks too the fact that american colleges are just high schools for adults, i know plenty of people who took the easiest courses and graduated with degrees meanwhile people who chose too study thermodynamics or theoretical physics ended up dropping out

[Cliff Paul]

It's seems like you're not working toward anything. Is this really how it works, because it makes no sense.

Yeh well you fascists don't know what liberal arts is!

[Tim Cornelis]

50 classes in three years I meant, the duration of your bachelor's.

Also to*.



In my case, learning about history, philosophy, popular culture, art history, psychology, etc. can only help understanding literature anyway, since it's not like literature is created in a vacuum.

"can only help understanding literature anyway", that's why literature courses include philosophy. At least here, my sister studying Dutch/Dutch literature and culture, had one book, Anthology of Criticism:

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail-contents.aspx?ID=11544

It includes Marx, Gramsci, Georg Lukakcs, Foucault, Oscar Wilde, Habermans.

It also includes medieval and modern literature, placing texts in their historical contexts a bit.

[Redistribute the Rep]

In the literature classes I've taken we read philosophical and historical texts, but they did not teach us philosophy and history. You're expected to have some knowledge of these already from your other classes.

[Antiochus]

The first two years of a University in the U.S are basically your general electives. THis means you have to take all the aforementioned courses (art, history) irrespective of your 'major'. In fact, you can just go undeclared (no specific major).

I think its a good IDEA, but it is highly inefficient. The point was to give each student a liberal education in varied subjects and make them worldly educated. In reality most students forget their 'course' a week after the course ends.

[L.A.P.]

I'm pretty sure that in the US, the words college and university can be used interchangeably. In Canada, "college" is what you would call a university of applied science, and in the US its rough analogue would be "community college." (I could be a bit off on that, though.)

"college" and "university" are used interchangeably in American English, but they're not actually the same thing. A college is just one school, while a university is made up of several colleges under one institution. For example, I'm enrolled in Florida Gulf Coast University, but my college is the College of Arts and Sciences, which is one among many colleges in the university such as: College of Business, College of Engineering, College of Nursing, etc.


It sounds too much like high school to me. Prefer 'my' system.

well yeah, any American professor will tell you the first two years of college is spent 'flushing your mind out with all the bullshit you learned in high school'. I mean, it's not like you have to take Biology in order to get a law degree, but you do have to take a couple classes in each major field (natural science, mathematics, social studies, literature) before you start to take classes towards your major. I honestly think it should be that way too; people should have to know some basic social studies, science, etc. before they get awarded with a higher education degree, and as long as high schools are failing at that, universities are going to have to pick up the tab.

[Funkentelechy]

I did my undergrad in the U.S., and some graduate work in Europe. In the country in Europe where I studied, in applying to university students would apply to study a particular major (in fact, there were quotas for each major for each university). So, you would basically already know what field you wanted to go into before starting at university. This is not the case in the U.S., where people will typically declare their majors during teh first two years (there are some exceptions, like engineering).

Now, as for taking courses outside of one's major, as is required in the U.S. system, I personally am grateful that I had to do this. You can of course learn about other subjects in your spare time, but it's difficult to acquire any sort of understanding of methodology on your own, in my opinion. The downside is that you have less depth in your major.

You have to be careful in saying that the U.S. education system is shit--it's shitty for a lot of people, but for the lucky ones like me it's quite good (perhaps one of the best). Two Marxist economists at UMASS-Amherst wrote a great book in the early 1970's, with tons of original research that I believe is still relevant, arguing (among other thigns) that the social class you're born into is a much better predictor of how well you will do in life (other things being equal) than the schools you attend, I.Q., grades, etc.

[Sibotic]

It is a bit directionless, but evidently this also gave capital a fairly free range of action vis-a-vis the futures of those concerned, although sometimes people are in any case pulled out when things become a bit too much for them. Not, of course, in terms of complexity or intellectual activity, of which there is little, which one could also say of high school teaching as well as teaching in universities. Obviously, I don't know why it would bother you to understand various fields, when in any case you are a person rather than a field and your intellect need not be tied to any particular one exclusively - in academia, of course, a person is held to derive and follow from a given academic community, and surely must undergo some weird distortions to manage this, nonetheless specialisation in such cases is a given and the rest merely serves this -, but evidently in the context of a university we are discussing 'trades' in a literal sense, or in brief you aren't there to understand things but probably for career reasons, you wouldn't learn much in humanities or literature classes, etc., anyway.

In a sense it expresses a degree of dependence, as also the fact that a student is to be pulled in many directions to the point of being given some sort of sense of approaching a subject anew and being deferent and strange to it, which gives the university's culture more slack. I think that US university culture does have the certain advantage that people generally might generally take on a slightly humorous mode towards the uni thing or not take it particularly seriously, that is students, although why they would be taking it at all seriously or so in the first place is a mystery, and certain aspects of universities are just an attempt to avoid this through various manipulations of student life which attach many students to it somewhat too strongly - an analogy might be that students turn to drink out of obedience in order to continue taking uni seriously.


well yeah, any American professor will tell you the first two years of college is spent 'flushing your mind out with all the bullshit you learned in high school'.
They say this in about every year of high school as well, university is basically the same thing and that's generally not going to be much more than posturing, unless you mean that you aren't working for 6 hours or so each day, which needn't mean much if you were imbibing too much from high school. High schools can be more direct because people are assumed to reach there more often and in university the connection with academia means that people are sort of assumed to be shills at that point in any case, in university discipline is enforced more through grades, which is a problem. Obviously at a certain point you have a state institution set up for 'education' whose actual purpose for students and otherwise becomes just determining their outcomes and so on in a practical or worldly sense, so in a sense education is hardly relevant to begin with - it instead acts as more of a front for the distributing of outcomes according to a certain social system or whatever you might call that - and hence the possibility of relativism implicitly or, more commonly, explicitly becoming a norm - in which case, they can hardly hold people to have learnt much rubbish in high school.


If I had to take 40 English classes in a row, I'd probably hate literature now.Surely it should usually only take one, if indeed you do hate academic English literature as a subject. One shouldn't conflate it with actual literature, which isn't worse. That said, vis-a-vis workload and such, one generally gets the sense that one is expected to believe that people are writing essays and doing such for years without it really having any purpose or going anywhere from there, which not only is a bit depressingly myopic but seems unlikely, although there might be a reason for not elaborating.

[Working Class Hero]

Basically, the financial aid office applies a large syringe to your vein and begins extracting your life force :)

At most undergrad schools, you need to get around 120 credits in order to graduate, plus 30 or so in your major.

[breadnroses]

US education is sort of funny that way. Rather than specialize as undergraduates, they first must take core credits in humanities, sciences, maths, etc. This usually takes the first two years. The next two are primarily done completing credits in one major. Majors, like core credits, require that a certain amount of credits are completed to attain a degree.

[Troika]

I don't get it. I sometimes see mentions of US college system on TV and the students have to have like a credit in this field, and that field, and they have psychology class, and art history class at the same time (That 70s show), and you need a credit for a foreign language (Spanish) and biology to become a lawyer (Community). It's seems like you're not working toward anything. Is this really how it works, because it makes no sense.

They try to round out people's education by introducing subjects not central to their major. I think it's a good thing. We could use more people in STEM fields taking more sociology classes, for instance. Imagine if business majors were forced to take some class that covered a Marxian analysis of market forces. Shit would be great.

That said, the entire university system in the US is garbage and should probably be dissolved in favor of a system that isn't dedicated to profit and that doesn't privilege the wealthy.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think you overestimate the lasting impression one introductory class makes, or would make.

[Ele'ill]

there should be some accepted appeal process to get out of shit classes that you don't want to take, the main reason I am not going back is because I hate math. I am okay or maybe even good at it but come time for cumulative tests I can't do it my mind goes blank. It is frustrating and insulting when you have A's across the board but several classes unrelated to your interests are keeping you from moving forward and hopefully learning a ton more. Especially when there's the previous history of this all throughout your many years in school and suddenly some person is telling you that it's a weak point that you need to work out, so that your effort and time goes into several classes that you will immediately forget a few days after they're over and never have to remember anything from ever again

For a while I had friends who dived a lot, both scuba and free diving and I had no problem with the dive physics/physiology/gas mixtures because it was something I was actually involved in.

[Troika]

I think you overestimate the lasting impression one introductory class makes, or would make.

I don't know. I know a lot of it is a bunch of bullshit term learning but usually you have to take at least two classes in a field. Hopefully a STEMlord would get an introductory class plus something with some meat to it.

Imagine if redditors had actually taken a couple classes in gender studies. I think a lot would change within the nominally educated class. I mean, as I said before, I'm opposed to the university system, but foreveralone manchild nerds with undergraduate IT degrees or whatever really need someone correcting their shit.

[Tim Cornelis]

In my experience, a class or two on a subject doesn't translate well into practice. We've done a bit of Marx at political science here, but I'm sure if you press anyone on what he believed you wouldn't get a straight answer. 'Material conditions determine superstructure' or whatever they remembered, to them it's just words, they don't grasp the concepts behind them. So they'd, guaranteed, use the same old uninformed arguments against Marxism/communism that someone who's never taken a class where Marx is mentioned.

So probably the same with redditors, they'd memorise what feminists believe without regard for the meaning of concepts and continue spouting uninformed drivel. Except maybe now with an even more inflated sense of authority "I know what feminism is, okay?"

[Troika]

You're probably right. Redditors do strike me as the kind of people who regurgitate words without knowing what they actually mean.

[Cliff Paul]

In my experience, a class or two on a subject doesn't translate well into practice. We've done a bit of Marx at political science here, but I'm sure if you press anyone on what he believed you wouldn't get a straight answer. 'Material conditions determine superstructure' or whatever they remembered, to them it's just words, they don't grasp the concepts behind them. So they'd, guaranteed, use the same old uninformed arguments against Marxism/communism that someone who's never taken a class where Marx is mentioned.

So probably the same with redditors, they'd memorise what feminists believe without regard for the meaning of concepts and continue spouting uninformed drivel. Except maybe now with an even more inflated sense of authority "I know what feminism is, okay?"

I think the main benefit of taking introductory level courses for various subjects is it allows for people to go into college and "test out the waters" or something before picking their major. Not everyone knows what they want to major in at 17-18 years old obviously, and although I don't know the stats off the top of my head, I think that probably a majority of US college students major in something different than what major they originally declared for. Allowing students to take classes both inside and outside of their discipline gives students a chance to 1. see if they actually want to major in whatever it is they declared for and 2. see if there is something different they'd prefer to major in - and generally speaking if you are a freshman or sophomore in college you can change your intended major without the first year or two of college end up not counting towards earning your final degree.

As for you comment about Marxism and Feminism - yes that's definitely the case with most college courses (especially in Europe where I imagine it being monotonous lecture after monotonous lecture), but that doesn't mean that is how it has to be.

Edit: Also, universities were founded on the principles of liberal arts - you had to master the trivium and then the quadrivium before undertaking "serious scholarly research" (philosophy and theology) so it's not that bizarre of an idea.

[lutraphile]

Yes, there are some really stupid requirements. I'm currently in the process of transferring from a (shitty, private) college to a (better, public) different one. Like half of the useless classes I have taken at my first one don't transfer (You mean the mandatory two weeks we spent reenacting Charles Darwin's consideration for an award wasn't useful?) and now I have to do a whole bunch of different requirements. To make matters worse, Virginia, where I'm transferring, only allows transfers to stay 4 semesters for some reason. So a lot of summer classes in my future.

[L.A.P.]

I think you overestimate the lasting impression one introductory class makes, or would make.

Gen ed/introductory classes dont really function like that honestly, now that I think about it. They're more like meant to cut out students who arent "college ready". Its common thought that if you can't pass a College Algebra class (a gen ed course almost everyone in US colleges will have to take), then you arent suited to go on to take any other classes.