Why does it take 4 years to get a college education?

[chisnpeke]

Well, if you had mastered the skills needed in high school English, why were you unable to test out of the required 100 level English classes? Students who take AP English in high school usually do test out of the first two English Composition courses. Since you apparently did not test well enough to get out of the courses, chances are good that your results were found lacking in some way.

As someone who regularly teaches English Composition and higher level writing courses at the university level, I can honestly say I see many students who manage to get through the 100 level courses without being able to write a simple paragraph, much less a research paper. My brother teaches high school history and has shared the horrible papers the students turn in -- SHOCKING. So your claim that the 100 level English classes are redundant and not needed falls flat with me -- I have seen the lousy writing skills college freshmen come into university with -- English Composition is clearly needed.

As I said before, if you were already an excellent writer, then you should have tested high enough on the placement test to avoid the English Comp requirement -- clearly you didn't, so your view of your writing skills and the university's view are at odds.

Because you can't. Every student in the college has to take three english comp courses. The rest of the english requirements are yours to pick. If you do not test into the 100 level they have a "center for access and transition" you can get into, for students who are quite ready for college level work.

I find it a bit out there to assume that I am not good enough to "test out" of the english comp classes. I am a good writer, have been told by many teachers that I am a good writer. I know there are idiots in college who can't write proper sentences but I am not one of them.

ETA: Here are the requirements for the major I am in. As you can see I am REQUIRED to take English Comp 101, 102 and English Comp 289to fulfill the degree requirement. No testing out. http://www.uc.edu/degreeprograms/Program.aspx?program=15BA-HIST

 

[Schmeck]

I think this is an excellent post.

I think the post you quoted cracked me up, as the spelling mistakes and the part about being illiterate were right on... Couldn't figure out if you were being sincere or sarcastic!

 

[chisnpeke]

actually in my NJ town... they have a dual enrollment program with a community college and a local college... our High School students can finish their first year of college while they are attending HS... so they will be starting in their Sophmore year of college after graduation...

This is what my friend did. She took English comp her senior year of h.s. at the branch of the major university here so she got that requirement out of the way.

 

[tar heel]

I find these threads sad. I was the first person in my family to get a college degree, and the experience was so far beyond professional training. It was life changing and life enhancing, as well as providing me for the work world. I feel so fortunate to have been able to have the opportunity.

ches -- I'm so glad you started capping English in the latter posts. I'll go on record as saying that, while I was not a weak writer entering college, my freshman composition course was nevertheless useful. My oldest son placed out of all English except "English for Engineers," and I thought it was a travesty. He did take a Shakespeare class as an elective.

 

[luvsJack]

Exactly.

Also with doctors the level of understanding they need in biology and chemistry is very high. I don't want a doctor handing out a lot of prescriptions and giving nutritional advise that doesn't have a good handle on biochem. It takes years to build that understanding. My husband was originally going to get his bachelor in biology and changed him mind fourth year, I couldn't make heads or tails of the things he learned in fourth year. We both were in first year together and both did well, but it builds year after year. High school biology is so basic compared to what you know at the end of a science degree. Without that foundation going into med school we'd have weaker doctors.

Not only that not all schools teach it well, it's VERY spotty, I remember watching a 20-20 where some grads came out of high school and didn't know how to use a microscope. Med school doesn't need to waste time weeding out who didn't learn high school facts properly for whatever reason. And honestly that goes for every field. When I was in school first year was almost a review and a way to weed out people who couldn't work independently, second year started building, and the upper levels were very specialized....and this was history. Even in arts and language you needed that background to successfully move forward.

As for jobs that don't need a degree, I think they'd often prefer a degree. Who would you rather have? The candidate that stuck it out and got their degree or the one that dropped out first year or just didn't bother? It's viewed as an indicator of work ethic...and this is coming from somebody who is one semester shy of finishing her degree so I totally understand life gets in the way.

Even beyond jobs I wouldn't give up my schooling. My pre-ed courses have come in very handy when my son fell behind in math, and I'm sure I'll be able to help them with their history when they reach that level.

Just on the bolded part: As someone who has been in a position of hiring those with a degree vs. those without; that all depends. In some cases a person who has worked their way up in a field are much more desirable than someone who has a degree but little experience. In the positions I hired for, I wanted someone who could think and react from experience not from what they learned in a classroom.

As someone who is now in a position to work with college students every day, I wouldn't say that having a degree necessarily proves a person has a good work ethic. It all depends on the student.


But, I do agree that no education is wasted. OTOH, I think that there really are some classes that could be cut from some curriculum plans with little to no difference in the quality of the graduates.

 

[goofy!]

around here a kid can graduate from high school and get their bachelor's degree in 2 years.

the high schools and state colleges have agreed with some of those posting on this thread-that the general ed courses are largely a repeat of what the high school grads have just learned. so the schools got together and set up a program where a junior whose maintianed a decent gpa in their 2 prior years can take (at the physical college or on-line) their lower division general ed courses so that they earn dual credit (college and high school).

some kids do all their general ed this way, some pick and choose which courses.

we are attending a graduation party next week for a neighbor's daughter-she's graduating from high school, has been accepted at college and will enter directly into the upper division course work. she will graduate with her degree in 2 years.

the bonus is-those 2 years she did as a high school student were tuition free

dh got his degree in less than 3 years. he did an excellerated program that included him clepping out the maximum allowable courses (but he had an excellent high school education that realy served him well on those cleps).

Exactly.

DS is in an extremely rigorous engineering/pre-med option program at his University. In fact, only one person in the history of the school who was enrolled in this degree program has not been accepted into Med School. So, it has about a 99.99% acceptance rate.

He walked into this intensive degree program as a Junior and was able to start taking upper level courses immediately.

Why?

Because his high school has a program where the University classes are taught on the high school campus. So, you not only get high school credit, but University credit also. And unlike AP or CLEP courses, his transcripts show that these were full University courses. He took bio, chem, physics, la, and history and was able to do his first two years of prereqs at his high school.

We did have to pay tuition to University, but it was far, far less than what we pay now. Basically we paid for a whole class what a single credit costs on campus. And there were not extra fees that Universities like to charge or books that had to be purchased.

It can be done. As many states do, our state also helps out with tuition if you go to a in state university. Also with the expanded tax benefits implemented by this administration, we were able to recoup a significant part of his tuition back in a tax refund.

There are a ton of ways to go to school without going into the poorhouse. One only has to do the research and take advantage of the opportunities out there. Yeah, it may take hours and hours to write out hundreds of scholarship applications, but those $500 here and there add up. If you are committed, it can be done.

 

[Quiksilvr]

Why does it take 4 years to get a college education and then another few years to specialize in something? For example, if a high school student wants to be a doctor why can't they go into medical school right after high school (like they do in India)? Why is pre-med necessary? Want to be a lawyer? Why not go to law school after high school? (Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer on the job and did not go to school). Want to be a TV producer...there can be communications schools.

I feel like college is such a scam. People are drowning themselves in debt just becuase they need more and more and more schooling.

Please tell me I'm being ridiculous.

I browsed some of the posts and there was really too much to respond to, so I'll respond to you directly, OP.

I'm a lawyer. I've got several degrees. Went to one of the best law schools in the country. I think I'm qualified to respond, at least re lawyering. Anyway, my thoughts:

1. The American Bar Association requires accredited law schools to require a bachelor's degree from an accredited four-year college or university. This rule acts as a barrier to entry to the legal profession, i.e., it makes it harder to become a lawyer. In many other common law countries, law is a baccalaureate level program (e.g., the UK). That said, the UK requires a significant amount of post-graduate work before one is actually admitted to the bar. For a solicitor especially, there is a trainee period that is kind of like a medical residency. So, at the end of the day the length of training is not really all that different, but the training method is different.

2. A college education is helpful for law training, but I believe that it isn't absolutely essential. The writing one does in undergrad is probably the most helpful part, plus learning philosophy, any poli sci, etc. Some business courses are useful as well, because practicing law often involves running a business. Courses in basketweaving, archery, film studies, and far-north-middle-south eritrean studies are irrelevant to law practice.

3. Although you make a good point re Lincoln, keep in mind that Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer 150 years ago. The law is much more complex and developed than it was in the 1850s when he was doing most of his law practice. There wasn't nearly as much government regulation in place.

Law school, at least the first year or so, is quite useful in learning what you need to know to pass the bar and function like a lawyer. However, the Lincoln method of law study is still legal in a few jurisdictions. For example, in Virginia one may "read" for the law (which is what Lincoln did) and be eligible to take the bar exam, so long as you satisfy a number of other requirements. Very few people do this, because the bar passage rate is much lower.

I think that one of the problems is a dichotomy in the academic world. There is a group that believes in educating for jobs (I think of them as "vocational"), and there is a much larger group that believes in educating for the sake of education and "broadening horizons" and "growing minds" and all of that associated crap. I think of the latter group as the "academic" folks who sit around and argue and think and dream on college campuses while the rest of us work for a living.

A lot of the academic folks resent the idea of training children to be workers. They love the process of teaching and learning so much, that they emphasize that and try to ignore the reality of the situation (i.e., that their students need to be able to provide for themselves). That's where all this "follow your heart" crap comes from in freshman seminars. I think it comes from a noble place and ideal, but at the same time, reality is reality. We need far more engineers out there than we need psychology majors.

At the end of the day, law school, med school, business school, dental school, et. al., are just glorified vocational schools. It's similar to calling up some school advertising on TV that it will teach you how to be a parole officer or a medical assistant. It's job training. It's much more complicated and difficult than most other vocational training, but it's still just vocational training.

However, because of its complexity, the "academic" world of thinkers, dreamers, and researchers have tried to separate the complex vocational programs from the others and treat them like traditional "academic" programs. The last two years of law school are a joke. Just like college, we were informed that we should follow our hearts and learn things about the law that we found interesting. We were provided with many opportunities to learn about "therapeutic jurisprudence" or about gender law issues or about law and history, etc., but none of those classes were designed to make us better lawyers.

I took personal tax. I took corporate tax. I took corporations. I took securities. I took bankruptcy. I took classes that would help me be a better lawyer, because I never lost sight of the fact that I was there to learn how to do a job.

I guess the point of this lengthy screed is that many of the people who control our post-secondary education system only pay lip service to the fact that their students need to provide for themselves. I think that the idealists have an important place in academia, but I also think that until there are a few more pragmatists in academia who understand that not every student should be an art major, we won't see any improvement in the system.

 

[crewmatt]

I tested out of the first year of my engineering degree for the most part (math, sci, english, and history requirements). I'm currently getting my masters in Computer Science while working full time. I will say that while yes there are quite a few jobs out there in the world that require a college degree and clearly dont need one, I would not, however discount the value of a college education. Certainly not for a science or technology field, where having a broad base in science and math will serve you very well. I work in Computer Science for the most part, and its very easy to tell the people on my team who studied Computer Science in college vs. the people who simply picked it up.

Group 1: Fresh out of college - generally have a good understanding of algorithms and theory and know how to accomplish a given task efficiently at a theoretical level. Usually write efficient programs, however tend to not think about maintaining the code (as college you never really have to keep your projects working, simply make them work once at the performance level your professor requires)

Group 2: Worked in technology for years, no college - generally very good at providing a working product, might not be especially efficient (takes a long time to do a simple task), however generally tend to be more maintainable

Group 3: Both College and Experience - obviously combine the best of both worlds.

1) Maturity - yes you do grow up quite a bit at college. No parents, no one telling you what you need to do. You figure out how to exist among a crowd of your peers. I had a lot of fun as well.

2) Theoretical Knowledge - You get to not only learn the theoretical underpinnings for the field you want to study, but time is spent learning the peripherals. I got into the position I am on my team because of a class I hated, was so on the edge of my major, I got a B- in, but taught me quite a bit about ways to solve different types of problems that can't be solved cleanly. I pulled out one of the tricks, and boom, fast track.

3) Diversity of Knowledge - Very often in a job in engineering your job wont necessarily send you to learn about cell biology, or comparative literature, but you never know where you'll get your best idea. What put Apple on the map - it was a calligraphy couse that steve jobs auditted while he was still in college. First computer with fonts, up until then no one even thought about interchangeable fonts. I would say this is one of the more important factors, if you become too much of a specialist you might be missing out. By going straight into a graduate school type of education where you are very narrowly focused I would've missed out on the physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, psychology, etc that I took in college and I still think serve me well today.

 

[TheZue]

Just on the bolded part: As someone who has been in a position of hiring those with a degree vs. those without; that all depends. In some cases a person who has worked their way up in a field are much more desirable than someone who has a degree but little experience. In the positions I hired for, I wanted someone who could think and react from experience not from what they learned in a classroom.

As someone who is now in a position to work with college students every day, I wouldn't say that having a degree necessarily proves a person has a good work ethic. It all depends on the student.


But, I do agree that no education is wasted. OTOH, I think that there really are some classes that could be cut from some curriculum plans with little to no difference in the quality of the graduates.

Ya I totally agree with everything you said. But if you have 2 candidates where all things are equal, I think the degree would give the edge. Oddly enough it happened to my husband and his buddy a few months ago. They had both worked for the same company together for 3 years, then both moved on to the same position at Starbucks, then both applied for the same management job at a different chain. My husband got the call, his buddy did not. The only difference was that my husband has a bachelor's of arts majoring in marketing...with the best minor ever...field and stream biology

I think right now their is such a surplus of labour places CAN ask for the degree just because they have so many people to choose from.

 

[TheZue]

When I was a manager at Casa Bonita in Denver we required our managers to have degrees.

In general someone with a college degree has proved they are self motivated, has advanced problem solving skills, can read/write/speak at a high level, understand teamwork, has time management skills, and has at least a general understanding of history, math and science.

A entry level customer service job might not need all those skills but a customer service team leader or manager does.

Why would you want companies to hire people that have a built in glass ceiling?

Hang on.............CASA BONITA is REAL?????? I thought it was just a South Park fake restaurant

 

[tasha99]

Hang on.............CASA BONITA is REAL?????? I thought it was just a South Park fake restaurant

Me too!

 

[goofy!]

Hang on.............CASA BONITA is REAL?????? I thought it was just a South Park fake restaurant

Oh, it is very real.

You can't have out of town visitors without subjecting them to Casa Bonita. Most of your guests will not want to return - which might be a good thing

Here is a fun blog about it:

http://blogs.westword.com/cafesociety/2009/01/casa_bonita_a_survivors_guide.php

and there are plenty of youtube videos of it.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

3) Diversity of Knowledge - Very often in a job in engineering your job wont necessarily send you to learn about cell biology, or comparative literature, but you never know where you'll get your best idea. What put Apple on the map - it was a calligraphy couse that steve jobs auditted while he was still in college. First computer with fonts, up until then no one even thought about interchangeable fonts. I would say this is one of the more important factors, if you become too much of a specialist you might be missing out. By going straight into a graduate school type of education where you are very narrowly focused I would've missed out on the physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, psychology, etc that I took in college and I still think serve me well today.

I think this is the most important part of an education.

Perhaps that history class or that physics class won't help you one whit in your job. However, it will help you in life.

Just think about it. Have you ever read a post here and wondered if that person ever took a physics class because what the just posted is so crazy in the real world? Or a biology class, or any class?

Having a diverse education may not help you program computers better, but it helps you understand the whole world you live in much better.

Educated people make educated decisions.**


**And I want to acknowledge those that value continued education without formal education. There are people out there that read, study, and do their own research outside of a classroom and outside your line of work. Education doesn't have to be in the form of a BA or BS, but for the majority of people that are not self learners, it helps to have that broad horizon from which to go out into the world with.

 

[tar heel]

Well said Mickey's Minion.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

What is your degree?


College has one sole purpose - it teaches you how to think. I want my doctor to be able to think outside of the box, to draw on previous education to problem solve my illness. I do not want some kid who has only had 4 years of medical school to regurgitate what is in the medical textbooks.

If you had a life threatening illness, are you going to choose an American schooled doctor or are your going to fly to India to use a doctor who has not had the benefit of a foundation of education?

Uhhhh.....I've known quite a few college graduates who had absolutely no common sense. At all. Couldn't think for themselves and could only do what someone else told them.


That being said, I did attend college for 3 years before finally quitting. I was bored. Bored of being re-taught crap I was taught in the 6th grade. Bored of having to take classes that had nothing to do with my major or minor. By the time I left college after 3 years, I had taken a total of 3 classes that involved my major and 2 that involved my minor. All due to the courses I was required to take to get any degree. And I took a full load each semester. Talk about a rip-off. I incurred debt that I still owe and have nothing to show for it.

While I do believe that doctors and lawyers need to complete college before continuing on with their "real" studies, I believe that it needs to be a little less generic and a bit more specialized towards a person's real goal.

If you don't know what you want to major in, I really don't think you do go to college yet. It just costs too much money.

I also can't understand why simple jobs are requiring such high degrees of education now. If our schools were actually better at teaching kids, maybe this wouldn't be happening. But who really knows.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Bored of being re-taught crap I was taught in the 6th grade.

Respectfully snipped.

Many moons ago, when I graduated High School, we made the joke that the only REAL requirement for making sure you got your diploma, was knowing how to line up in alphabetical order...a skill we all learned in Elementary school.

 

[Praying Colonel]

I see the importance of a 4-year degree in order to pursue becoming a lawyer. And I see the importance of someone passing a bar exam and being licensed to practice law. However, I wish we could dispense with the need for a J.D.

I still have PTSD flashbacks from my law school days , and I just typed out a lengthy screed on the negatives of law school, but instead of posting it I'll just sum it up by saying that IMHO law school is a poor way to teach law and an even poorer way to measure how much a law student knows.

I've always thought it would be better to "read law" (intern) under an attorney and be permitted to take the bar exam when the attorney certifies to the state bar association that the applicant is ready to do so. I learned so much more clerking for attorneys than I did in class.

 

[wickedstepmother]

Uhhhh.....I've known quite a few college graduates who had absolutely no common sense. At all. Couldn't think for themselves and could only do what someone else told them.


That being said, I did attend college for 3 years before finally quitting. I was bored. Bored of being re-taught crap I was taught in the 6th grade. Bored of having to take classes that had nothing to do with my major or minor. By the time I left college after 3 years, I had taken a total of 3 classes that involved my major and 2 that involved my minor. All due to the courses I was required to take to get any degree. And I took a full load each semester. Talk about a rip-off. I incurred debt that I still owe and have nothing to show for it.

While I do believe that doctors and lawyers need to complete college before continuing on with their "real" studies, I believe that it needs to be a little less generic and a bit more specialized towards a person's real goal.

If you don't know what you want to major in, I really don't think you do go to college yet. It just costs too much money.

I also can't understand why simple jobs are requiring such high degrees of education now. If our schools were actually better at teaching kids, maybe this wouldn't be happening. But who really knows.

You are so right. The trouble with school is they always try to teach the wrong lesson. Believe me, I've been kicked out of enough of them to know. They want you to become less callow less shallow. But I say: why invite stress in? Stop studying strife, and learn to live the unexamined life.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

I think this is the most important part of an education.

Perhaps that history class or that physics class won't help you one whit in your job. However, it will help you in life.

Just think about it. Have you ever read a post here and wondered if that person ever took a physics class because what the just posted is so crazy in the real world? Or a biology class, or any class?

Having a diverse education may not help you program computers better, but it helps you understand the whole world you live in much better.

Educated people make educated decisions.**


**And I want to acknowledge those that value continued education without formal education. There are people out there that read, study, and do their own research outside of a classroom and outside your line of work. Education doesn't have to be in the form of a BA or BS, but for the majority of people that are not self learners, it helps to have that broad horizon from which to go out into the world with.

And this should be in our schools before we graduate high school. There should be a diverse education in our elementary, middle, and high schools. Maybe this would also help people to learn more about what they might want to do after school and would help to curb the drop out rates in colleges and curb the debt incurred by these people.

Also, an English class is required to take in college. Why? I would imagine that all American's at least have already taken English courses throughout their previous schooling. It's superfluous in college unless your first language is not English. Not to mention, Math is also required. Unless your major/minor involves these two areas of studies, why are they required?

 

[bluesaturn]

You are so right. The trouble with school is they always try to teach the wrong lesson. Believe me, I've been kicked out of enough of them to know. They want you to become less callow less shallow. But I say: why invite stress in? Stop studying strife, and learn to live the unexamined life.

what a great response to that post!