Preferred Curricula: Specialized or General?

[iRebirth]

This is regarding specific courses required by the curricula of various school in their undergraduate programs.

I noticed that some schools tailor their programs in such a way that related preparatory courses for higher-level coursework are custom-fit for the field a student is majoring in.

One example would be DLSU where Business majors take "Buscalc" (business calculus) and Econ majors take "MatEco" (mathematics in economics) and are spared from handling trigonometric/hyperbolic functions, but are instead taught solely the theories that are most applicable to their respective fields. Similar cases exist in other schools like Ateneo where rudimentary courses such as in physics are specialized for certain people so you have courses like "General Physics for the Life Sciences".

It is also sometimes the case that it is faculty within a particular dept that teaches these related courses, and not people who are most knowledgeable about the theory.

So what do you think about this? Would it be better if everyone learned the 'basic' courses (college algebra, calculus, elementary statistics, general physics, general chemistry etc. etc.) in a manner that focuses on the applicable concepts and excludes not-very-useful theories? Is a biology major wasting time studying vector fields or what not? Do students benefit more from a specialized treatment of these subjects?

[Krayon]

For the more technical courses like math, biology, physics and the like, there is no need to learn the basic courses in high school. Afterall, the basic foundations of those subjects should have already been taught in high school. Those subjects at the collegiate level only add to the set of techniques a person has for solving those problems.

On the other hand, the 'humanities' courses like english lit, philosophy, sociology and the like, should be taught since the foundations of those subjects haven't been ingrained in most students. Those should be included in a college curiculum.

Krayon

P.S. But if your course is economics, for example, you should take as many math courses as possible because it is related to your field - economics without a strong math background is pretty much useless beyond the college level anyway.

[physicist]

Biology major or not, I think no one wastes time by studying vector fields. But that's just me. ;)

Seriously though, I think you pose a rather difficult question. As one who teaches physics, I would want nothing more than to be able to share with everyone the wonders of my subject with the exhaustiveness that I see fit. But obviously, in a world with constraints, this is often not a luxury. Hence, the need to be selective.

This problem is one that is especially felt by a school like Ateneo, because of its commitment to a substantially liberal education. In keeping its philosophy and humanities requirements, biology majors, for example, aren't required calculus. Thus the need for a physics class "streamlined" for them that doesn't use calculus (as opposed to what physics, chemistry, math majors take).

There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with a specialized class. If done right, it may prove to be even better. At the very least, a class like this -- say a physics class littered with biology applications -- should have a lesser burden keeping the attention of biology junkies. But of course the big IF is whether it's done right or not. Sometimes, these "physics for bio" classes end up being just watered-down (and thus shallow) versions of the ones the geeks take.

I'm not against them then per se, but I would strongly insist that they be done correctly. In this day and age, I suppose having to be selective is an inescapable necessity.

Turning my hat the other way though, I am also wary of overdoing it. Because I do still believe in the value of a comprehensive (or some would say liberal) education that also teaches what's "not-very-useful". How else is one to save the teaching of philosophy, poetry, music, etc.? I fear for the day when all we aim to be are mechanical cogs in this huge social machine -- technicians who are very good with specific tasks, but can do (or think about) nothing else.

To students who really value learning, these "not-so-useful" things invariably turn out to be useful after all, if not immediately, then later on in life. I, for instance, am glad that I seem to be capable of carrying a conversation with a professional philosopher over coffee, and that I often find myself gravitating towards the poetry isle when walking into a good bookstore. All this after a good long day of musing over physics. I feel I owe this to my being introduced to a lot of "not-so-useful" things back in college (and earlier).

Some would say it's a matter of taste. And I agree. For school administrators though, it's really an optimization problem, and one that promises migraines I'd rather avoid.

[Krayon]

LOL at "professional philosopher" - almost seems like an oxymoron. I also find that physicist types are pretty easy to talk to when it comes to philosophy/politics/ethics.

1. They can grasp abstract/inane topics more readily.
2. At the higher level, physics is very creative and not just '1+1' logical - open to more views
3. They can see connections that others may easily miss.

Those who aren't involved in the sciences don't really need the technical knowledge of most basic science courses. Rather, they need to learn how to think like a scientist (doctor/historian/anthropologist/etc.). The bigger issue here is that courses here are very inflexible when it comes to those required courses. Some students already have the right mindset, while others don't know anything at all. Why not offer both college algebra and college algebra (for biologists) as an option?

Krayon

[butch2koy]

science, engieering and IT fields should remain their focus on the technical side of the subject, even at the undergrad level. as for all the rest of the fields, a generalist outline would be better. If someone wants to devote more detailed and in-depth attention to their major, they should be encouraged to take up postgrad programs.

[math_techie]

the problem with our country's educational system, is that we have a short primary and secondary educational ladder. Only 10 years. Compare this to the 12 - 14 years in other countries. Hence, colleges are forced to offer general education coures, as they percieve that the students are not well-rounded enough.

[Krayon]

^^ I agree.

[zacharaiolsen]

the problem with our country's educational system, is that we have a short primary and secondary educational ladder. Only 10 years. Compare this to the 12 - 14 years in other countries. Hence, colleges are forced to offer general education coures, as they percieve that the students are not well-rounded enough.

tama. kung yung dalwang taon sa kolehiyo e ilipat sa hasykul, mas ayus. (6 yrs in HS tapos 2-3 yrs na lang sa regular college) mas mura na, mas handa pa ang stujante pag-apak ng kolehiyo, at hindi nade-delay! ang Law at Med, pwedeng maging 6 yrs na lang.

[paenggoy]

To repeat what Zach said, move the 60 units or so of GE courses for higher education to two additional years of secondary school (or to junior or preparatory college) for a total of twelve years of pre-tertiary education. Add one more year for technical or vocational training a la TAFE in order to remove the college degree as a requirement for several white- and even blue-collar jobs. If there is a problem with quality in pre-tertiary education, then work on that instead of requiring more years of education through college. Use college as part of requirements for more specialized work (the vocational or technical training plus work experience should be credited), such as management training, etc. This process saves lots of time and money for everyone.

[lifeline20]

I love UPs Revitalized General Educational Program. Like for my degree, Political Science and any other courses in UP I believe, you have units of required subjects, electives on top of RGEP from Arts and Humanities, Math-Science and Social Sciences-Philosophy. I know its easy to say that a combination of General or Specialized program will work... But again, i believe nakadepende sa course mo yan...

[muffin man]

This problem is one that is especially felt by a school like Ateneo, because of its commitment to a substantially liberal education. In keeping its philosophy and humanities requirements, biology majors, for example, aren't required calculus. Thus the need for a physics class "streamlined" for them that doesn't use calculus (as opposed to what physics, chemistry, math majors take).

Being a Biology alumnus from Ateneo, I'll agree that it is tough taking so many extra subjects as opposed to very little majors. Generally, 2/3s of the subjects in every course in Ateneo belong to the core curriculum which includes English, Filipino, various Social Sciences (History, Economics, SA, Pol Sci), Math, Philosophy, Theology and some more other stuff in comparison to 1/3 major subjects. In my case because of the many technical subjects I had plus the fact I was aiming for Ateneo Med which meant extra load, I felt like a double major when in reality I was only taking one course. I was always at full load every semester AND during the summer.

After all that, I then realized how important it is to have a good generalized education. It is key in being able to stay grounded and being able to relate with the world. It also allows a person to better adapt to change whether in the workplace or society at large. Ateneo believes in this and it is the reason why it produces very good graduates.