Do we really educate college students to be better citizens?
 

Most US colleges and universities have a core curriculum in arts and sciences that is typically justified with the claim that a broad education better prepares a person to be a citizen in a free democratic society. When I was in Turkey this summer, I observed that their colleges lack such a curriculum and there are serious questions about how democratic Turkey is. On the other hand, the UK also lacks such a broad college curriculum but most people think it is pretty democractic and their citizens no less prepared for freedom than US citizens.

Can anyone think of a simple question or test that might verify or falsify the claim that our broad college curriculum helps college graduates be better democratic citizens? The question or test would have to be posed to college students who have taken at least some of these core courses.

As a graduated college student I'd have to say that college's effect on that is pretty minimal.......in many cases it shelters people from the real world too. Especially those that go to college on mommy and daddy's money and just live in a dorm/goof off for 4+ years....then when (if) they graduate they are hit hard by reality....unless the parental contributions keep on comin'.....:rolleyes:

Do you think the core courses you were required to take, had any effect on how you behave in a democratic society?

Well...How about:

Do you feel that your broad college curriculum has or will help you to be a better democratic citizen upon graduation? Explain.

IMO, one of the great failures of education (lower and higher) over the last couple of decades has been the emphasis as "job traing" as opposed to what might be called "life training".
If you look at the ads run by colleges, they seem to push the better job/ better pay aspect. Maybe, with the high cost involved, they are forced to show an economic benefit to that amount of debt.
Like many people, I am not working in a field closely related to either my Bachelor's, or Master's degrees. Yet, I feel that my college experience prepared me as a person to deal with the changes that happen in life.
Bring back the Liberal Arts curricula, and teach them HOW to think; not WHAT to think.

(Goodness-- I DO sound like a raving liberal, don't I?)

most of these artsy farsty classes I have to take really cut into my schedule and I could use the time for classes I need for my degree. I find it pointless to sit through classes such as music appreciation, film appreciation, or ceramics when I am an engineering major.

Yes, that question has been at the forefront. One problem is that reading the answers will be very time consuming (although perhaps worth the effort) The other is that it's possible that the person is not consciously aware of what difference it has made yet the difference might be detectable by another method rather than a direct question.

How do you teach life without having real life in kollege? Just because I read a book about skiing doesn't mean I won't break both legs on the slope. In kollege, you can fail a course and take it over. In life, the opportunity once gone may never return again. In kollege, you can do average work and get along. In real life, you might get fired.

It will be very hard to ask someone to put aside money for a metaphysical gain. Much easier to say "Give me $10 and I give you a shovel". as opposed to "Give me $10 and you will lead a more fulfilled life.".

I have had a liberal arts education. Do I think it will help me think better? Probably not. Looking back, would I rather go for a different type of school? Probably. Way too much fluff, IMO. When I have a good job, well fed, good roof over my head, etc, etc, if I want to pick up a book and educate myself, I can do it.

I'm not necessarily sold on the implicit premise that a college education, broad Liberal arts or otherwise, makes one a better citizen than not having one.

"better democratic citizens"? Too broad a concept to nail down.
Take this true scenario. My daughter graduated from high school in 2000. She heads to the Univ.of Delaware. During the summer, she introduced me to a male classmate who has enlisted in the Marine Corps. She goes to Newark DE; he goes to Paris Island.
I run into him once or twice over the next four years. Comes May 2004, daughter graduates and as sheer coincidence would have it, the same fellow happens to be coming home on leave and helps her move her things home, some which end up in my house.

I couldn't help but wonder who had seen and accomplished more and had more "life shaping experiences" -- a kid studying biology in college or a young man who traveled from Okinawa to Iraq and a few other places in between.
Granted, statistics say she'll earn more more over her lifetime than he will, other things being equal. But that's not what you are looking for.

Back to the citizen profile. She works in the Counthy Health Department (for now) and he works in the County Sherriffs's Department K-9 unit. I guess I'd have to say they are both good "democratic citizens". (law abiding, self supporting,etc,) I'm sure you would agree with that assessment.

I think citizenship values are shaped at home, in the community and in primary education more so that by college education, whether Liberal Arts or a specific discipline.

Put another way, whose a "better democratic citizen": the Marine recruiter in Berkeley or the protester who pickets their presence? Impossible to objectively quantify, in my humble opinion.

First off- MS Fowler - you DO sound like a liberal, Apply for a teaching position now =)

TehDon - No offense dude, but I could not disagree more, but no matter how many examples I pull out, you wouldn't buy it until you see it yourself. just find out who an "industrial designer" is and find a company without any of them =)



To directly address your point Kerry, I'd argue that the classes taught in college do not teach you as much as the time spent in college. Time spent broadening your horizons in a "broad-based curriculum". Time spent cleaning up after friends, time spent hurting peoples emotions and seeing the aftermath (college affords unique oppurtunities for this)

I was an engineering technology major who took all the accursed=) history and art classes and while I didn't enjoy them, I got through it because it was required- I now believe that there is learning in this. Beyond just the facts that you learn (about history or art) you learn that there is ***always*** more to your world than you think. And if you look around, you'll find that those outside worlds (art/music/history/human psychology) affect your current world more and more each day.
You can close your world in, forget art (a life without beauty or creative expression?) forget history (repeat the same mistakes!) and human psychology (not get along well with others...) but your life will be worse for it.

More to the point again...

Does it make you better prepared to live in a democratic society ? yes. It opens your world, and if you choose to keep your world open, then you can fully understand/appreciate the struggle/work to change the democratic society that you are in (because, presumably, in a non-democratic society, you dont have the freedom to work for changes) You can just as easily keep your mind closed, and have no more effect on the world than the non-college educated guy.
I guess that you could say that a broad-based college curriculum has a synergistic effect with people in democratic societies that when combined, produces a person more capable of effecting positive change than a non-college educated person. hmm....I think I like that definition. I'm open to rebuttal on that one since I just penned it.

College opens eyes. Keep the liberal artsy fartsy classes intact, our brains depend on it.

-John

seriously, I do not need these stupid classes. I am glad they offerend me alternative that are somewhat useful in this world. Ethics, Logic, and Philosphy in the place of those three lame classes. At least in my alternatives I can use them somewhat.

I'm an electrical designer with 6 weeks in Junior college?
Used to was, you could learn how to perform an occupational skill, by learning to do it. Now, you can't learn how to, without a degree. Everyone's stupid. The general classes are biased and outright wrong. It's all just filler, you can read about the history of education in this country, but you might have to do so outside of a classroom, which is why nobody knows. Not to mention, it didn't happen, because there was a plan (conspiracy) involved. :eek:

A bunch of people running around with papers that can barely read, write and certainly can't do a damn thing. Look into Left vs. Right brain thought, you'll see what's happening. Just parrots coming out of college nowadays. So no, it doesn't prepare anyone to live in a democratic society. Especially this one, since the ideals of the once free nation were based on natural rights. All that has to be removed, not instilled. Think about it, politically there are -2- opinions in the entire country. One big damn sporting event...:confused:

Education is a tool. How you use it depends on you. I can kill you with a hammer or make a house with it. Education in the right direction gives them a better tool, with which to make a living. If you cannot do that, we have nothing to discuss. If you have a PhD in say Sherlock Holmes. What will you do with it besides become a parasite or at best work in McDs?

Used to be as a nurse (met an old retired one), you'd have 15 drugs to remember. Today you have more than 15 classes of drugs and numerous procedures and numerous tools. Things have changed. Used to be you crapped in your pants too. Do you want to go back to those days?

I think you hit the nail on the head with that paragraph John.
Living in society is the best training for living in society.

There is no doubt in my mind that broad based studies make a person a better more rounded thinker, a likely useful tool in democratic participation, but I fail to see how mandating the importance of abstract knowledge can contribute to the underlying intent of freedom.

Kerry, I think the better method would be to survey university administration as to the potential financial impact on operations if the requirements were removed.

Kerry- Maybe you can pose the question and the answer be a short essay of so many words. Democracy is first learned in the home then enriched in either the scolastic arena or by day to day living observing those around you.

Ergo what you want is training, not education. One is not better than the other, and there is a great difference between the two.

This thread should be titled "Do we really educate college students?" I'd say no - not when one can now "earn" a "college degree" on line without ever attending a class or interacting with fellow students.

I always thought that college education should, among other things, prepare graduates to be good citizens. In the last 10-15 years I don't believe most colleges have been fulfilling this. The process should start in high school, if not earlier.

Glad you singled out one profession. And who says you need 15 classes etc, etc. People are living shorter lives, when you remove infant and child death, which have their own class of doctors anyway? Who says a nurse should be doing those things? The doctor has 8 or more years of BS that should be doing it. Not to mention, you pulled an aklim. Did I say "no job requires college!!!!!!!!!"? :rolleyes:

Kerry, "good citizenship" is rather obtuse. The philosophical goals of higher academics encompasses such principles, such as service, the greater good and shared results for the advancement of knowledge.

Sorry. I should have listed out 10000 professions. :rolleyes:

15 classes of drugs. There may be several drugs in a class.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe a couple of classes in school would have helped.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't even know what you are talking about there.

Better than the AustinsCE that you just pulled.

No but I am saying that many jobs require some sort of training because of the complexity of the jobs today. Also, when someone like you walks in with a few OJT experiences and something goes wrong, it might present more of a liability because it might be said that I did not hire qualified people which, if I did, might not have resulted in a problem. Further to that, a college degree tells me that you can stick to something for a longer time as opposed to a someone who might or might not be able to stick to something for the long haul. Kind of a difference between a Chef de Cuisine vs a "short order cook".

No.

The proof is in the polity.

No, you're trying real hard, just stop. I got what you said and responded to it. Grow up.

Oh, sitting in a classroom reading Shakespeare better prepares someone to be a doctor. I get it now, sorry.

Somehow, I think YOU need to grow up and try Hooked on Phonics. I don't think you understand what I am saying. I never said that reading Shakespeare better prepares you for anything more than a discussion of literature. In fact, I have always considered that fluff in a person's academic career if they are pursuing a medical degree.

That's nice. Thanks for telling me.

Anytime

You guys should run for office against each other.

Don't like that sort of work though.

Yeah my thoughts exactly, not on my dime. I learned all the crap in HS, now as they say $$$ speaks. I need $$$$ not BS.


As a side note I find most people in my classes to be dull nitwits. Its scary what they don't know, so maybe for them learning basic US history again is a good thing.

Is there something wrong with engineering students, business college or pre-med college students being exposed to "the liberal arts?" Universities should be more than merely an industrial arts school or apprenticeship program.

I hold the following degrees:
AS Aviation Maintenance Technology - Embry Riddle Aeronautical University.
BS Aerospace Engineering - Texas A& M University.
BS Aviation Maintenance Management - Embry Riddle Aeronautical University.
AS Aviation Business Administration - Embry Riddle Aeronautical University.
MBA - Texas Christian University (TCU – NSB).
MBA(Aviation Management) - Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, DBC online.

Though I agree 100% with MTI. I will add the following:

Not during the acquisition of any of these degrees, did I feel that I was ever being educated in any direction related to being a better citizen in a free democratic society.Not that I noticed, anyway. And trust me. I took a boat load of base-curriculum courses.

There were a few that I thought were interesting. Human Sexuality at A&M, for one, comes to mind. Some of the older history and English courses were interesting as well. But I can not recall any, even Sociology, that I feel were intended to help me be a better citizen. Not saying they weren’t. Just that I didn’t feel that at the time.

One thing I do know, that I will pass on to those still in school. Save these non-prerequisite courses for the end of your senior year. Pile them into a Tuesday/Thursday only class schedule. Enjoy the hell out of the 4-day weekends with a day off in between easy class days.
Because when you finish school…. Your whole world changes…. And not necessarily for the better. (At first, anyway.)

Yes, I get hippie stink on me!:eek::D;)

I don't think any teacher of any specific class intends to do anything other than convey the content of that class, so I don't think that anyone would notice this. But why do we require young people to take this broad array of courses? In other words, why take them if your interest is in aviation unless it makes you a better person in some way not directly related to your profession?

Do you know Greg Feith? I think he went to Embry Riddle and was an investigator for the NTSB for a long time.

Having never dones the research, I think I recall some of teh argument concerning citizenship. It's from the late 19th century, IIRC.

The core curricula are supposed to provide educated people, with a common understanding of western thought and culture, the tools of science, and mathematics. If every educated citizen has this common framework then their commonality overwhelms whatever differences they may have in state or regional origin, ethnicity, etc. Therefore, they will have a common vision of life in a liberal democratic republic. In a word, citizenship.

I've seen that argument as late as the 20th century. Sidney Hook was making it in the 1960's.

Seems to be roughly, that instead of finding group unity in religion, skin color, food, or ?? we find it in what we read and talk about.

If that's the rationale, then I'm not convinced it works since college educated people in the UK don't see less unified than college educated people in the US. But, the UK is a geographically smaller country so things may be psychologically different there.

Is there a unified core curriculum through the US? ..if so what is it?

There isn't. There is a council committed to achieving such a thing. Colorado has a statewide 'core' of some kind, requiring all students in state colleges and universities to take a certain specified number of credits in the areas of Communication, Natural Sciences, Math, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities. The specific courses vary from university to university but there is a lot of commonality.
This core was driven by right wing political interests fto some degree, aiming to achieve what Bot described.

Not personally, but I met him at an ERAU function a few years back. I think he went to the Daytona Beach campus well after I was done there in ’83. Seems to have done well with the NTSB. Does a lot of lecture work as well, I believe.

Is he a friend of yours?

I continue to fail to see the relevance to citizenship in particular, or by addition of some element not commonly available elsewhere.

I can understand the inclusion of core studies as part of a process intended to produce more versatile graduates, and in that I would imagine it is successful. Perhaps a better educated person would be a better citizen as well as a better professional, and man about town.

We used to be neighbors back in the late 80's and early 90's. He was the Homeowner's Association president of the condo's I managed. Nice guy. I think he's retired from the NTSB now.

I think the argument goes as follows: Democracy requires a wide range of critical, analytical citizens when compared to monarchies or aristocracies which can get by with a highly educated elite clustered at the top and obedient subjects below. A core curriculum gives college graduates this ability which is supplementary to the specific critical analytical skills necessary for their chosen professional field. Without a broad range of knowledge and critical thinking skills, democracy can degenerate into mass rule based on immediate selfish interests, the kind of thing that Plato despised.

The whole "vote yourself money from the treasury" idea =)

-John

Exactly, and this is where the conflict between democracy and capitalism arises. Capitalism presumes the superiority of the satisfaction of desire thru the marketplace as an economic system. Democracy as self-rule does not.
This goes to the conflict between education as the obtaining of a 'marketable skill' to advance one's interest in the labor market and education as the essential function of a complete human being which transcends the view that a person is equal to their marketable labor.

My interest in the question is related to my recent experiences in Turkey where I was contemplating the question of whether Turkey can become a 'modern democracy'. They have no 'liberal arts' college curriculum, the curriculum being specialized in the sciences and engineering (marketable labor). This leaves a large portion of the critical and analytical thinking skills residing in an authoritarian religious system (Islam). I'm wondering whether the transition to a 'modern democracy' in Turkey might be advanced by the kind of college curriculum that is typically seen in the US. Hence my question as to whether the US curriculum is actually doing its job.

In 2002 "The national college graduation rate was 25.9 percent."
College grads are 10-20% more likely to vote than less educated citizens ( http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/vote.html )
So balanced governors are a 1/3 minority to the selfish mass.

Is this the right venue to improve citizenship?

I think that education is one factor. Shared laws through a written constitution is another. The framers promoted a one-god theism as another necessary attribute.

Also, much of this cultural concept of liberal democracy is derived of course from England. That the UK is currently in turmoil while concomitantly undergoing a huge assault on the previously accepted cultural paradigm argues in support of, not in opposition to, the shared-education argument.

B

B

Not so sure on point one, mainly because I think the founders deism (not theism) was mainly a way of pushing traditional religious law and political theory out of the debate on social and political organization.

Point two is possibly correct, although the UK has survived for a long time without the shared common college curriculum. However, it has had far more cultural homogeneity compared to the US until recently. So the argument for a shared college curriculum might be stronger in a multicultural nation (like Turkey??--with Kurds, Sufis, Alevis, Armenians, Christians etc)

I think a better comparison would be say the US to the EU. We are so large and deverse that its kind of like apples and oranges comparing us to the UK.

Would a more broad education possible help the EU move along? Maybe, hard to say. You could make a good argument either way.

> Do we really educate college students to be better citizens?

The first question ought to be: What makes for a better or worse citizen? After that a sense of how higher education does or doesn’t serve that end would be logical. The discussion so far puts all the emphasis on education and none on citizenship.