At my college engineering students must complete 5 liberal arts/non-major related courses along with completing at least a concentration (3 additional courses) in a subject of their choice. While this adds to the rigor, these courses are generally easy and don't add much to acquiring a job out of college. If anything, they prevent students from being able to graduate earlier than scheduled. I feel it's a matter of viewpoint, but I don't feel that engineering students should be forced to take say, cultural anthropology, in order to fill a requirement.
My undergraduate was in physics, however when the professor was good, I found my liberal arts electives to be very valuable. I actually had a 'music appreciation' class that I got a lot from, just because the instructor was so knowledgeable and passionate. My biggest problem is with fluff that costs a lot. But I do feel that a proper education is a well-rounded one.I feel it's a matter of viewpoint, but I don't feel that engineering students should be forced to take say, cultural anthropology, in order to fill a requirement.
|My biggest problem is with fluff that costs a lot. One solution would be to charge different rates for different subjects. Of course, that would likely end with engineering and science credits costing more, not music appreciation credits costing less.
I agree with this, what I dislike is how some of the requirements are defined. I don't believe that a student should be forced to take x number of humanities courses, along with y number of arts of expression courses. I think the system would be better served having a requirement for general education, but not defining the subjects that must be taken. Allow the student to explore his/her interests. I have taken some very useful and interesting courses, but have also taken some worthless ones due to being forced to choose between a narrow selection to complete some requirements.