What bothers me-- assuming there's still a preference for a full degree over a bootcamp certificate-- is that even clearly career focused degree paths are still burdened down with an "academia" mindset that feels dated and quaint.
The old "college is about being well rounded/learning how to learn" narratives made sense 50-100 years ago, when people were going to university as more a "cultural elite" thing. The rich 20-generation legacy who attends to build his social network, mixing with the top-5%-of-his-class scholarship student and social-climbers powering their way through school, had a different set of needs. Yeah, let them study Latin and great thinkers so they can schmooze in the corridors of power. It was fine when only a few percent of the population went on to university, and the actual degree content was less important than that you got a degree.
However, the kids signing up today-- especially in well-known high-revenue programs (CS, EE, etc) are in it because they either 1) love the subject matter or 2) are bootstrapping their careers. These kids have neither use nor interest in becoming cultured or well-rounded. They'll go further referencing Dennis Ritchie than William Blake.
There might be a case for a writing course or two, but all those 100-level survey humanities or "fun sciences" classes you're taking to hit general studies requirements? I doubt it. Or the requirement some programs have of "at least NNN total credit-hours" even if you can technically hit all the content requirements on fewer.
I'm surprised you aren't seeing legitimate universities responding to the market and producing a 2-3 year BSc program, stripped of almost all general-studies courses. You want to fight tuition increases? Get kids out in 2.5 years!
I assume the endgame of this would be that a lot of literature and philosophy professors will be out of work, but this surely leads into some sort of punchline about them working at Starbucks..
> I'm surprised you aren't seeing legitimate universities responding to the market and producing a 2-3 year BSc program, stripped of almost all general-studies courses.
Funnily enough this is how it works in the UK. All BSc/BA degree are 3 years long without any GenEd requirements.
Actually, that is generally only true in England and Wales. Scottish universities generally have 4-year programs with Gen Ed requirements. It's the system the US system is based on.
> However, the kids signing up today-- especially in well-known high-revenue programs (CS, EE, etc) are in it because they either 1) love the subject matter or 2) are bootstrapping their careers. These kids have neither use nor interest in becoming cultured or well-rounded. They'll go further referencing Dennis Ritchie than William Blake.
Except it's a pretty common lament that most people who major in CS/EE/whatever don't actually learn the skills in college that they use daily on the job. Honestly, the most important thing I got out of my EE degree was comfort reading research papers and confidence that I can learn whatever I want with time and effort.
The old "college is about being well rounded/learning how to learn" narratives made sense 50-100 years ago, when people were going to university as more a "cultural elite" thing. The rich 20-generation legacy who attends to build his social network, mixing with the top-5%-of-his-class scholarship student and social-climbers powering their way through school, had a different set of needs. Yeah, let them study Latin and great thinkers so they can schmooze in the corridors of power. It was fine when only a few percent of the population went on to university, and the actual degree content was less important than that you got a degree.
However, the kids signing up today-- especially in well-known high-revenue programs (CS, EE, etc) are in it because they either 1) love the subject matter or 2) are bootstrapping their careers. These kids have neither use nor interest in becoming cultured or well-rounded. They'll go further referencing Dennis Ritchie than William Blake.
There might be a case for a writing course or two, but all those 100-level survey humanities or "fun sciences" classes you're taking to hit general studies requirements? I doubt it. Or the requirement some programs have of "at least NNN total credit-hours" even if you can technically hit all the content requirements on fewer.
I'm surprised you aren't seeing legitimate universities responding to the market and producing a 2-3 year BSc program, stripped of almost all general-studies courses. You want to fight tuition increases? Get kids out in 2.5 years!
I assume the endgame of this would be that a lot of literature and philosophy professors will be out of work, but this surely leads into some sort of punchline about them working at Starbucks..