Stickin' it to the man

I've been thinking about my schooling lately and, in retrospect, I've wasted many hours and dollars on required general education courses that were unworthy of my time. Now, if well taught, I would not have a problem with most of the gen. ed. courses because many do, or rather should, have something to offer. There are a couple, however, that serve only to put money in the university's hand and leave me with nothing gained. My upcoming oral communications requirement, for example, is not only redundant with respect to high school graduation requirements, it is taught in a manner of rote memorization and mindless fill-in-the-blank type speech writing/giving. There isn't even a prospect of gain from this class.

I'm looking for an outside, objective viewpoint on this. My question to you fine folks is: am I just being a whiny student trying to get out of a class I don't want to take or is this a legitimate battle worth fighting?

I am a bit inclined to think that this is a battle worth fighting and my rough plan was to make an appeal to the reason of whichever higher-up is in charge of such things. My argument would involve my high school experience of formal debate participation and my recent experience giving multiple presentations of my physics research done as an undergraduate. And perhaps I could try to include the countless hours I've spent discussing various topics in informal debates with like- and unlike-minded friends.

I can see a number of pitfalls in this battle. First, they could be completely dismissive and I, refusing to back down, am left with out a degree. That doesn't mean I don't have the knowledge I did gain while here, but it would prove to be a bit of a problem getting into graduate school. Second, they are completely dismissive and I back down and stoop to their standards. Would a failure be worse than not trying? Both are an admission of their rightfulness in demanding that I take any course they see fit, no matter how ridiculous (walk/jogging anyone?).

I suppose, in the big picture, this is just a microscopic hiccup in the battle of minds against irrationality, but I'm new blood to the battle and I've got to start somewhere. So what do you think? Should I stick it to the man?

Post 1

Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:32pm

Sorry, what are 'general education courses'?

Post 2

Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 11:01pm

To John:
General education courses are university courses that are designed to give the students ample background in general knowledge (i.e. math, science, literature, fine-arts, civics, etc.).

To Jason:
I sympathize with you myself. I have to take a speech communication course next spring at SIU Carbondale, which is redundant to what I took in high school. You're best bet would be to test out of it if you can, or arrange to speak with a department head or professor or academic advisor about the possibility of demonstrating proficiency over the subject. Granted, I'm sure you'll probably get the same runaround that I'm getting over it, but at least try if you haven't already. Other than that you can write the president of your school about this situation and you can write to the editors of the school newspaper. If all else fails, go through it using whatever crap they throw at you and learn more about it on your own.

Adam

Post 3

Friday, September 24, 2004 - 12:44am

My university (the University of Montana) also teaches the inane, lifeless style of speech you mentioned Jason. Fortunately, I was able to substitute an acting class for communications as my "Expressive Arts" credit. I have just a few comments about your strategy for "stickin' it to the man."

quote And perhaps I could try to include the countless hours I've spent discussing various topics in informal debates with like- and unlike-minded friends.

I think that's a bad idea. Your official high school and undergraduate speaking experience is great. Mention it and play it up. But if you bring up your bull sessions with friends (and perhaps I'm being unfair, but in my experience that is what such "informal debates" usually amount to), you're just likely to weaken the rest of your case and give the administration a reason not to take you seriously.

quote Would a failure be worse than not trying? Both are an admission of their rightfulness in demanding that I take any course they see fit, no matter how ridiculous (walk/jogging anyone?).

Well of course failure is not worth than trying. If you think having to take that course would waste precious moments of your life, and if you are passionate enough about this issue, of course it's worth it to risk failure in order to fight the administration on it. We risk failure every time we attempt something truly great in life.

And I don't think giving up and taking the course would necessarily represent an admission that the administration was in the right, it's more of an acknowledgement that they have some power over you and can make you jump through certain hoops to get a degree. Acting on principle doesn't demand that we sacrifice greater values in our battles against injustices that threaten lesser ones.

If you do take up this fight and lose, you could always be creative and go the "bitter" route. Give a speech exposing the course's required methods as a stifling fraud. If possible, turn your every appearance at the podium into some expression of dissatisfaction with the course. Your professor will either have to grudgingly give high marks (if you are indeed a polished speaker) to a viewpoint he may despise, or he may give you poor marks out of spite, in which case you can play the victim and cause a scandal that will draw even greater attention to your cause.

I hope this has been helpful. Good luck!

-Andrew

(Edited by Andrew Bissell on 9/24, 12:45am)

Post 4

Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:31am

Such insane "general ed" requirements are actually what led me to the college I go to...the Gallatin School of Individualized Study (part of NYU). I stick out like a bit of a sort thumb at Gallatin--most of the other students who are drawn to the school are extremely liberal types who just want to futz around academically and not be held to much of a standard. But the reason why I am studying at Gallatin is because I'm allowed to create my own "concentration" (basically equivalent to a major), and the only requirements I have to fulfill are some distribution requirements (i.e., I have to take eight credits of social science, eight credits of humanities, four credits of math, etc.)

Brown University is also very well known for their COMPLETE lack of requirements (not even distribution requirements). And the really interesting thing is that according to the statistics, Brown students usually do fulfill all of the distribution requirements that students have to fulfill at other schools, but (and this is the important part) they do it of their own free will.

I say, stick it to the man!

Jana

Post 5

Friday, September 24, 2004 - 11:50am

Jason,

I don't know what to tell you... Too many colleges are worse than worthless nowadays; they're actually designed to cripple the mind and build automatons.

I think you stick it to the man much more effectively, if you do not persist in feeding his illusions of adequacy by staying at his college. Shop around and find a better one for you, and if none exists, either stay and look for oases or don't finish college and prepare a justificational argument to anyone who asks, as to why you judged college to be counterproductive.

Post 6

Friday, September 24, 2004 - 8:37am

quote: You're best bet would be to test out of it if you can

I would if I could, but oddly enough it is one of the only g.e. classes that can't be tested out of. There aren't any alternatives to it either. A poorly devised system if you ask me. The course is part of the state requirement for a degree so the battle would be up an almost vertical hill, but that doesn't mean I'm going to back out of it.

quote: But if you bring up your bull sessions with friends...

I can see your point and that's why I was hesitant to bring it into my argument. However, one of the goals of the class is to "improve students' conversational, presentational and problem-solving skills." So I'm still undecided there. It would be a fluff argument if I brought it in though. Maybe by conversational they mean job-interview type conversation. I would think that'd be a safer assumption and I could demonstrate it when speaking with "the man."

Jana: I wish I had known about places like that before I started applying. Though, if I had gone there I would have the chance to fight the system, which I always enjoy. Since this is a state school I doubt most of the students would have voluntarily fulfilled their requirements. Unfortunately, by enacting these requirements they actually prevent people from taking the more interesting, and more informative, courses in subjects. My roommate, for example, received credit for physics and calculus through college testing exams, but since he is an art major those classes are "too narrow" to apply to the general education curriculum. He was forced to take College Algebra (which isn't college level at all, the stuff should have been learned in middle school) and Descriptive Astronomy. Easy A's, but mind-numbing. The only exception is the philosophy department where you only need teacher consent to take a higher level class. Unfortunately, the philosophy department tends to take in bright young folks and spit out socialists (I had a close friend of mine whose opinion I respected greatly try to save me from my evil capitalist ways. We're still close friends but my respect for him has dropped quite a bit.).

Post 7

Friday, September 24, 2004 - 3:36pm