<p>
LOL, OK. I have been there. I have seen it. You just don’t understand what I am saying in the least, and are responding to an argument I never made, I guess. I tried to explain it in excruciating detail, so you understand exactly the terminology the way I was using it and the way it is commonly used. But you seem to want to ignore this. No problem. What you said isn’t an argument of your side, it is just an ad hominem attack. How about some facts to refute my point?</p>
<p>If you want to say that AU’s SCHOOL of International Studies is a trade school, have it your way. If you want to say that people attending AU’s SCHOOL of International Studies are not getting a broad based, liberal arts education as it is generally defined today (having at least one course in most or all of math, science, western civ., non-western civ., history, philosophy, and literature), have it your way. Interestingly their own web site says differently (or are you saying the information on that link is incorrect?), and MOST high level schools say that students not getting degrees in highly specialized areas such as engineering and architecture do still have this mission. I have no idea what you were arguing about in the first place, actually. This is pretty unassailable. You can disagree if this should be the mission, but it is inarguable that most still purport this mission, and that it is reflected in their graduation requirements.</p>
<p>Adding on a bit: So back to the OP’s original question and the point I was trying to make, what if the OP’s son does, in fact, decide on a different major, or at the least decide that a career in this area isn’t as much fun as just being active in it as a “civilian”? It happens, a lot. It is not unreasonable to suggest one pick the school one thinks is best for a broader education and other fit factors. In England you go to school because you have had to pick your career from 8th grade on or whatever. We generally don’t do that here.</p>