<p>i posted this is the ‘other college majors’ forum, but didn’t get much activity. so i thought i’d see what the parents thought:</p>
<p>i’m an english major, and was recently thinking that most of the major-related classes i’ve taken so far could be replaced with individual study. i feel as though this might apply to all english-related classes other than writing courses. all of my literature classes so far have consisted of reading the text and then discussing it. while this is certainly useful, i’m sure anything discussed is already written and published somewhere. feedback on one’s own comments as well as a push to further expand on them is the only thing i can think of that may be lost. material taught in classes dealing with mechanics seems readily available at bookstore. writing, and this is obviously the meat of the major, seems to be the exception. so i guess i’m wondering how much more valuable one school would be over the other for highly motivated individuals. if creative writing is the ultimate goal, it seems like success would come to those already talented and motivated, and i’m not sure how big of a difference the quality of faculty would make.</p>
<p>JMHO of course, but I believe humankind’s advances are the result of adding-to and building-upon a common body of existing work. What you get in class (if it’s a good class) is an appreciation for how other creative minds see literary issues. It’s hard to get that through self-study, unless of course you happen to be an omniscient impath.</p>
<p>i agree completely. but for the individual alone, do you think a that a similar sort of conversation and be entered into with written works? if i have a prejudice about one certain topic, and read a work about that subject, which alters my prejudice, and then read another work, which alters it in some other way, is this not very similar, just going about it a different way?</p>
<p>and, i’m not debating that it should be or has to be one way or the other. obviously both have advantages and disadvantages. i’m more interested in finding the degrees of difference between the two.</p>
<p>I think this is huge! Interacting with others is an important way to learn new things, see another points of view, take a point made by another and use it to come up with something new. I agree that it could be done by the written word–as in, having a written correspondence with another person. </p>
<p>Also, when it comes to living in the real world (that is, after college), the ability to communicate through the spoken word in addition to the written word is important. It’s a great skill to be able to communicate your thoughts orally and to be able to support your points in an analytical manner.</p>
<p>“do you think a that a similar sort of conversation and be entered into with written works?”</p>
<p>A conversation would be decidedly one-sided. Learning through interpretation (and what today is called imagineering)? Sure, but that approach limits you to a “lens” composed of your own prior experiences. Besides if your ambition is to write, it’s very helpful to have an idea of how all those anonymous readers will interpret your works. </p>
<p>I agree with ellemenope that self-study is better suited to science education … though even there it can be really helpful to learn how other science students manage to mentally store and organize all that material!</p>
<p>Depends on the type of learner you are: visual, verbal, aural, etc.</p>
<p>Don’t discount the value of discussion - it forces you to think real-time. Just being spoon fed other people’s ideas can only go so far to develop your critical thinking.</p>
<p>My son self studies a lot (math, science, social studies, etc) - he had some health issues, and wants to get ahead in some intro classes. I can see he is missing out on a lot of the nuances, but still has a good grasp of the big picture. For me, those nuances help fill in the picture and see the application of the subject outside of the classroom.</p>
<p>Finally, teachers tend to emphasize in the class what will be on the exams. It helps to focus what you have to master.</p>
<p>Notice that college requires fewer contact hours for its’ courses than HS. Someone pointed out the “real time” factor in discussions. Humans are social beings and classes are yet another way to interact. Self study can accomplish learning of material, but for most people is more boring than interacting with others. Unless you like being a recluse the time spent being with others far outweigh the inefficiencies in learning the written material. There is a lot of nonverbal input/learning in the classroom, including some totally unrelated to the subject being discussed. Networking among peers comes to mind.</p>
<p>Yes, talent and passion matter. And self-study is great for memorizing facts. But college is about much more than memorizing facts; most humanities classes attempt to develop your reasoning skills, and ability to make logical arguments. You won’t develop that through self-study, you need dialectic.</p>
<p>it seems like most people who have posted could reasonably agree that the material could be learned through self-study, but development of critical thinking and the ability to communicate analytically would suffer.</p>
<p>i’m not convinced the ‘conversation’ would be one-sided. when we are involved in class discussions, we are filtering everything through our own lens of prior experiences as well. the only thing, that i can think of, that would be lost is the ability to ask questions. an analysis given by a teacher or peer could be received in the same manner as it could by reading it. i couldn’t ask the article to further clarify or expand, but wouldn’t a good article try to accomplish the same thing in one take. and wouldn’t reading a multiplicity of articles cover the general spectrum? sure, conversing with the author of the article would be more beneficial than just reading it, but how close could one get with just reading it (as well as articles from other authors)?</p>
<p>i’m not sure it’s fair to reduce self-study as being spoon-fed other people’s ideas, and thus inhibiting critical thinking. when i read, i don’t necessarily accept it as doctrine and then be done with it. i would say much critical thinking is involved in reading and self-study.</p>
<p>also, as i posited in my op, for the highly motivated individual, how significant would quality of faculty be?</p>