<p>But how many students select their school based on the breadth, core, or general education requirements (or lack thereof)?</p>
<p>Also, do others look at a school and its graduates any differently based on the school’s breadth, core, or general education requirements (or lack thereof)? For example, would anyone say “MIT or SJSU graduates are required to have a more well rounded liberal arts education than Brown, Grinnell, or Amherst graduates” and possibly base decisions of various sorts on that?</p>
<p>For the most part, I don’t think it affects how other people view a particular school’s graduates.</p>
<p>Among educated people who are familiar with colleges, in a very limited sense. it might affect how they view graduates of certain schools. For example, graduates of MIT or Caltech might be assumed to have a solid grounding in science and math, even if they majored in a social science or humanities field. As another example, graduates of Chicago or Columbia might be assumed to have read some of the classics of Western philosophy and literature. Graduates of Jesuit schools might be assumed to have a solid grounding in philosophy and theology (or, at least that used to be the case), and I’ve known such graduates to allude to the teaching they received in those areas. Perhaps, a graduate of Hamilton might be assumed to have good writing skills, or graduates of some selective liberal arts colleges might be assumed to be “well-rounded.”</p>
<p>On the other hand, I’ve known quite a few very smart grads of business or engineering programs, who evidence no intellectual interests or knowledge outside their professional fields. Accurate or not, I usually attribute that to their narrow educations.</p>
<p>I think there are some number of students who choose Chicago or Columbia specifically for their core curricula, but not the majority, and it seems a large number of students are attracted to certain schools for their open curricula, e.g., Amherst. At a few schools certain gen ed program might be an attractive feature, e.g., Directed Studies at Yale, but the school is chosen for many other reasons. I don’t think most students pay much attention to the gen ed requirements of the schools to which they apply, however.</p>
<p>Actually, ABET requires accredited engineering bachelor’s degree programs to include a significant amount of humanities and social studies (more courses than most humanities and social studies majors take from science type of fields).</p>
<p>Of course, the requirement of such courses does not necessarily cause a student to be interested in the subjects. A lot of students simply look for the easiest or least work courses for their breadth requirements, rather than trying to find something interesting. The same goes for humanities and social studies majors looking for science breadth courses, and universities often offer very watered down non-majors’ courses for those looking for an easy low work science breadth. (Perhaps one argument for an “open curriculum” with no (or few) breadth requirements is that the school unwilling to make students take “hard” breadth courses would not have to bother offering “fluff” courses. But that implies something not very complimentary about the students’ attitudes toward learning something new.)</p>
<p>But how many students select their school based on the breadth, core, or general education requirements (or lack thereof)?</p>
<p>That was something my daughter liked about Reed. All freshmen take Hum110. A year long intensive lit/history/philosophy/religion/art/politics class. It gives her something in common with her peers & with alumna.
Her school had distribution requirements, but there were no " rocks for jocks" courses or “english papers for techies” classes. ( not that I think there is necessarily anything wrong with a course that is suitable for those taking it)</p>
<p>One of the reasons D1 picked her college is because the core requirements were less restrictive than the other college she was seriously considering. She came from a liberal arts high school with somewhat limited (but rigorous) course offerings; she was fairly well rounded going into college, and having the opportunity to pursue areas she was interested in to the level of depth she wanted to was important to her. So some students do pay attention to this.</p>
<p>^^^ I’m aware of those ABET requirements. Certainly, not all engineering grads have narrow intellectual interests; those who do probably would be that way no matter what gen ed courses were required. I also agree with you that liberal arts majors know less about science and technology than they should, and, I daresay, there probably are many more engineering majors who are well-versed in humanities and social sciences than majors in those fields are well-versed in sciences and technology. </p>
<p>I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with science courses geared to non-majors. Done right such courses can serve their intended purposes well. Most science textbooks for non-science majors that I’ve seen, however, pale in comparison to the many excellent science books written for the general reader. </p>
<p>I also wouldn’t see anything necessarily wrong with humanities and social science courses specifically geared for engineering students. As you noted, a lot of students opt for the easiest way to fulfill breadth requirements. It seems there are better ways to engage such students, e.g., courses in the history of technology, for one example: [Syllabi</a> and Teaching Materials](<a href=“http://www.historyoftechnology.org/syllabi.html]Syllabi”>http://www.historyoftechnology.org/syllabi.html)</p>
<p>Current requirements for accredited business schools (and for the past 25 years) include more in the way of liberal arts classes outside of one’s business major than many liberal arts colleges do. </p>
<p>And, no, I don’t think anyone cares (other than students faced with requirements they have to meet).</p>