Fantasy U

[sanantone]

Critical race theory (CRT) is a body of legal scholarship and an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States that seeks to critically examine U.S. law as it intersects with issues of race in the U.S. and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice.[1][2][3][4] CRT examines social, cultural and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the United States.[5][6]
Critical race theory - Wikipedia

Exactly. Teaching the history of racism in this country is not CRT. Teaching about the Black Codes, which were designed to imprison newly-freed slaves to provide free labor in jails and prisons, is not CRT. Most K-12 teachers have no legal education, and it's too complex of a theory to teach to kids. With all the standardized tests kids need to pass, schools don't have time to teach kids how to critically examine law.

[freeloader]

I am going to hold my tongue for now on the CRT issue and come back to the original purpose of the thread.

I understand the arguments that most of you have made, that different subjects have values in ensuring that college graduates are well rounded and able to think critically in important areas. On some level, I agree with that. That said, that is what the liberal arts portion of the university curriculum at pretty much every college and university already allows students to do. A couple of English classes, a math course or 2, a science course or 2, a couple of other courses in humanities, a couple of courses in the social sciences: that’s pretty much what people are already taking.

By giving students more say over the courses that meet those requirements, you often are making education available to more students. Statistics is awesome. It’s really valuable and, along with things like economics and political science, can be super valuable in understanding the socio-economy of a city, region, or country. Statistics is also hard for a lot of people. If you require it for a college degree, that means that many very smart, very capable people are going to be denied that diploma. The same is really true for any requirement that mandates a specific course.

I also read pretty much all of these posts and have the opposite reaction. My ideal university would be much more like many universities in Europe. If I want to study a particular discipline, why should I spend perhaps 2/3 of my coursework studying things that aren’t particularly relevant to my field of study?

My ideal university would offer a 3-year or a 4-year bachelor’s degree. The four year curriculum would be basically what we have now, with a broad liberal arts base and a major field that composes perhaps 1/4-1/3 of the overall coursework. The 3-year degree would be much more focused on the major subject. A biology student, for instance, would take biology course, of course, along with closely related and relevant courses in other disciplines (math, chemistry, physics, physical anthropology, etc). And before you say, “a person can’t take 15 hours of all science course each semester, it’s too much”, I don’t disagree that this would be really hard. That’s why I think there should be built-in, credit bearing lab work, internships, externships, field placements, etc.  Want to become a doctor?  How about you graduate a year earlier having spent a year working in a research lab (for credit), a year working at a local medical testing facility (for credit), and a year shadowing doctors (for credit)?  To me, that makes far more sense than what we have now. That is why it would never happen.

[ss20ts]

[quote pid='341367' dateline='1626020228']
The interesting thing ...

> Here's the thing about those topics. Everyone isn't great at them.
that's why he recommends taking classes in them              
>  Everyone isn't interested in them 
doesn't matter           
there are too many stupid people who vote and make decisions based on faulty understanding of statistics and economics             
there's even a thread on here now about people taking out $181k loans so they can get a Masters in Film LOL                
anyone who has even the most basic understanding of economics would understand how incredibly stupid that is             
> and has no desire to became subject matter experts in them.
no one's saying people have to be experts -- but my god, have a basic understanding             
having a basic understanding of statistics, economics and the history of different political cultures is as important as a basic understanding of chemistry and physics 
you shouldn't have people in government asking if Guam can flip over and other nonsense 
> The interesting thing he never talks about is helping the students land employment! 
if we really want to help people get employment the we need to stop degree inflation                    
a college degree should not be a requirement for most jobs                
and we should eliminate loans for all BS degrees , like that masters in film
[/quote]

Aren't you just a ray of sunshine?

Just because someone understands statistics doesn't mean they'll vote how you want.

[sanantone]

I am going to hold my tongue for now on the CRT issue and come back to the original purpose of the thread.

I understand the arguments that most of you have made, that different subjects have values in ensuring that college graduates are well rounded and able to think critically in important areas. On some level, I agree with that. That said, that is what the liberal arts portion of the university curriculum at pretty much every college and university already allows students to do. A couple of English classes, a math course or 2, a science course or 2, a couple of other courses in humanities, a couple of courses in the social sciences: that’s pretty much what people are already taking.

By giving students more say over the courses that meet those requirements, you often are making education available to more students. Statistics is awesome. It’s really valuable and, along with things like economics and political science, can be super valuable in understanding the socio-economy of a city, region, or country. Statistics is also hard for a lot of people. If you require it for a college degree, that means that many very smart, very capable people are going to be denied that diploma. The same is really true for any requirement that mandates a specific course.

I also read pretty much all of these posts and have the opposite reaction. My ideal university would be much more like many universities in Europe. If I want to study a particular discipline, why should I spend perhaps 2/3 of my coursework studying things that aren’t particularly relevant to my field of study?

My ideal university would offer a 3-year or a 4-year bachelor’s degree. The four year curriculum would be basically what we have now, with a broad liberal arts base and a major field that composes perhaps 1/4-1/3 of the overall coursework. The 3-year degree would be much more focused on the major subject. A biology student, for instance, would take biology course, of course, along with closely related and relevant courses in other disciplines (math, chemistry, physics, physical anthropology, etc). And before you say, “a person can’t take 15 hours of all science course each semester, it’s too much”, I don’t disagree that this would be really hard. That’s why I think there should be built-in, credit bearing lab work, internships, externships, field placements, etc.  Want to become a doctor?  How about you graduate a year earlier having spent a year working in a research lab (for credit), a year working at a local medical testing facility (for credit), and a year shadowing doctors (for credit)?  To me, that makes far more sense than what we have now. That is why it would never happen.

Intro to statistics is not hard and doesn't have to be math-based. There are concept-based statistics classes being taught to non-quantitative students. A lot of people fail English Comp I and II, but most would agree that these courses should be required. If you can't pass intro courses, especially ones watered down for non-majors, then maybe college isn't the best path for you. One thing that annoys me to no end is journalists writing news articles on research articles and getting it all wrong.

Here's the thing people get wrong when comparing the UK system with the U.S. system. There are different paths in the UK for those who want to go to college and those who don't. Those who want to go to college stay in high school after the age of 16. So, they're basically completing freshman-level college courses before entering a university. They have to do well on their A levels or so some other Level 3 qualification to get into a university. An Indian told me that pre-college requirements in India are even longer than UK requirements. Many people don't enter university until they're about 20. The U.S. system isn't designed like that, but you can take AP courses and exams, enter an IB program, and/or take dual credit courses. In Germany, they track their students. If they determine you are not cut out for college, you're put on a vocational track. So, those people you say wouldn't go to college if they were forced to take certain courses would probably be taken out of the college track in Germany altogether. 

The U.S. has a very loose system that allows everyone into college. On one hand, it gives everyone a chance to prove themselves. On the other hand, it leads to low college graduation rates, particularly at non-selective colleges.

[rachel83az]

In Germany, they track their students. If they determine you are not cut out for college, you're put on a vocational track. So, those people you say wouldn't go to college if they were forced to take certain courses would probably be taken out of the college track in Germany altogether. 

The U.S. has a very loose system that allows everyone into college. On one hand, it gives everyone a chance to prove themselves. On the other hand, it leads to low college graduation rates, particularly at non-selective colleges.

The problem with the German system, IMO, is that it starts incredibly early. You get sorted into your level in something like late elementary school and (from what I've heard) it's nearly impossible to switch to another track later. Some kids do really well in late elementary/early middle school and do terribly at the university level while other students are late-bloomers and don't really hit their stride until high school at the earliest. If it's not fair to young adults to have to pick a college major at the age of 18, I don't think it's fair to base a person's entire life on how well they did or did not do in elementary school.

[freeloader]

It is true that A-levels are basically like freshman-level courses in the UK, but to gain admission to a university in the UK, you apply to a specific major. Those majors have specific entry requirements that are relevant to the field you are studying. Science degrees require science and math exams, humanities/social sciences degrees require humanities/social sciences exams (and sometimes math for quantitative fields like sociology and economics). To get a physics degree, you don’t need an A level in English and for an English degree you don’t need an A level in physics.

[Kal Di]

My fantasy would be a non-religious, non-profit university that offers accredited 1 year doctorate degrees for a grand total of under $5,000.

Well that would be a fantasy! LOL I was going to say there sort of is an option that's kind of sort of but not really close now. LOL It's Virginia University of Lynchburg. But it's a Christian university. It is non-profit. It's NA accredited. It has a 1 year doctoral degree. It costs $15,000. I think that is as close as we'll get. That's s great fantasy though! I'd love a 1 year DBA without a dissertation and your price tag would be AMAZING.

There's another option that meets some of the criteria. It's Breyer State Theology University. It's a Florida state approved university, due to a religious exemption. However, that religious exemption limits the university to only award degrees with a religious modifier name (example: Ethereal Accelerated Doctorate in Business Administration). (In this case, they're using the word "ethereal" as the modifier).

They have three 1 year doctorate degree programs with each costing a grand total of $3,500.

They had some problems that caused Oregon and Texas to discourage people from enrolling there. In addition, they don't have a large social media following on LinkedIn or Facebook. If they can redeem themselves by building a good online reputation, I'll reconsider it in the future.

[Alpha]

My fantasy would be a non-religious, non-profit university that offers accredited 1 year doctorate degrees for a grand total of under $5,000.

Well that would be a fantasy! LOL I was going to say there sort of is an option that's kind of sort of but not really close now. LOL It's Virginia University of Lynchburg. But it's a Christian university. It is non-profit. It's NA accredited. It has a 1 year doctoral degree. It costs $15,000. I think that is as close as we'll get. That's s great fantasy though! I'd love a 1 year DBA without a dissertation and your price tag would be AMAZING.

There's another option that meets some of the criteria. It's Breyer State Theology University. It's a Florida state approved university, due to a religious exemption. However, that religious exemption limits the university to only award degrees with a religious modifier name (example: Ethereal Accelerated Doctorate in Business Administration). (In this case, they're using the word "ethereal" as the modifier).

They have three 1 year doctorate degree programs with each costing a grand total of $3,500.

They had some problems that caused Oregon and Texas to discourage people from enrolling there. In addition, they don't have a large social media following on LinkedIn or Facebook. If they can redeem themselves by building a good online reputation, I'll reconsider it in the future.

I think it's important to point out that Breyer State (Theology) University has been reported as being a degree mill.

[Johann]

Alpha: I think it's important to point out that Breyer State (Theology) University has been reported as being a degree mill.

Indeed it has. And the original Breyer State has been on the "State lists" etc. almost since inception - and that's well over 20 years ago.

It started in Idaho - on a Native Reservation, though neither the owner nor his wife were Native Americans. Some opined that perhaps the intention was to be immune to the White Man's Law. After that came a sojourn in Alabama, which was licensing unaccredited schools. When that stopped, BSU, an apt acronym, methinks, moved to California. "Sunset" legislation for the BPPVE meant that the Golden State was temporarily a "cowboy zone" for unaccredited schools. When the new BPPE was convened, Breyer State was not successful in getting permission, so, off to PANAMA - easy licensing. A time there, then back to Idaho - not the Reservation, this time. Throughout these peregrinations, I believe the owner resided continuously in Ohio. And now, a reconstituted successor school, in Florida...

I know of two people who did OK with Breyer State degrees. One resided in France and he got a good equivalency because the authorities saw "State" and figured if it had US State recognition (this was during Alabama licensing) they'd give it French State Recognition. Oh, mon Dieu. Quelle horreur!

The other was a South African - who had a good MBA and a successful business. He managed, with a Breyer Doctorate, to pick up some part-time teaching gigs. He also said it improved his dating life - which went from merely great to superb. His words to me: "Chicks know it isn't Harvard - but hey, it's a Doctorate. That sets me apart."

Maybe I should have tried it. 

[dfrecore]

Some of these are getting too specific I think. I wouldn't go to your universities - they're just more of the same. I think theories and concepts that you want people to learn is understandable, but some of that doesn't really need to be a semester-length course - you can teach a lot of what you want people to understand in a single sitting with some of those. How about you get a freshman-level course that meets 3x a week for an hour, with the basics of econ, bio, history, etc. Why does it have to take an entire semester?

I took econ, and then taught my kids lots of the concepts in it pretty easily -it's not hard to understand some of the basics. Stats is WAY to easy to manipulate - you can see what they did with Covid statistics when they would do a data dump over a weekend, putting weeks worth of deaths into the computer on a single day, and then reporting it, and the media reports how deaths went up last week, when it wasn't true. How about teaching people how to read stats, and how they lie with them as well?

I'm not taking Bio 2 (I didn't take Bio 1 either), I'm not certain there's anything there that I can't live without. I'm not taking Physics (loved it in high school but no longer interested).

Yes on World History and World Geography, although I want a teacher who will cover it without a shit ton of bias - or maybe multiple teachers might be better - and TONS of discussion from all sides. And teacher's that aren't just from the US here.

And separating kids into "yep, you're college-bound" and "no, it the trades for you" at a young age sounds awful to me. Just because our system doesn't work as well as it should doesn't mean that these other systems are better ones. Picking winners and losers early on in their lives - and some government bureaucrat or standardized test doing the picking at that - seems like the worst possible way to run things. Think about a doctor at one of the VA systems that let vets die being in charge of this program. Or an unhappy bored DMV employee. No thanks.