My grades SUCK

[90sNickelodeon]

Anyone else frustrated with their grad school grades?

Edited July 29, 2011 by 90sNickelodeon

[theregalrenegade]

I received a B+ for a history theory course that I wished was higher, but after I took the three hour essay final I was thrilled with it! After the midterm even all the PhDs were freaking out. I learned quite a bit, but I'm glad I won't have to go into that much depth over methodology again! Phew

Edited July 29, 2011 by theregalrenegade

[Just me]

I think I did bad in my aesthetics class. Dammit, the last thing I want to do in art school (besides being there at all, of course) is needing to study and take written exams. I took more than enough art history classes in undergrad that were worthless and this class was equally ridiculous. We even got a quiz on the first day of class and were still taking notes the day of the final and were expected to have stuff memorized from those notes because that information would be on the final!

I'm not going to be an art historian, so I fail to see why I need more art history classes. Especially something as specific as aesthetics - my instructor was a smart and funny guy, but I don't give a damn about the triangular forms in Raphael's 'mother and child' paintings. I love how colleges jam-pack their programs with completely useless classes - I bet if you cut down on the BS in any program and at any degree level, people could get their degrees a lot faster. But then the school can't milk you for more money, so they keep you there and tell you that dumb shit like dolphin hugging and glass blowing are required credits for a geology degree.

IMHO, I think the bullshit classes should all be electives and maybe offer an incentive to take them. Like if you take that class and do well, you get a little shaved off next semester's tuition costs. Or the class itself costs less than core classes. It was the bloody "normal" exam and notes classes that made me not get straight A's more than once in undergrad too. But that's a rant for another day. My GPA in grad school has gone down from 4.0 to 3.6 in less than a year and I know it's going to go down even more once I get my grades for this year's summer semester.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Just me

[Mal83]

I think I did bad in my aesthetics class. Dammit, the last thing I want to do in art school (besides being there at all, of course) is needing to study and take written exams. I took more than enough art history classes in undergrad that were worthless and this class was equally ridiculous. We even got a quiz on the first day of class and were still taking notes the day of the final and were expected to have stuff memorized from those notes because that information would be on the final!

I'm not going to be an art historian, so I fail to see why I need more art history classes. Especially something as specific as aesthetics - my instructor was a smart and funny guy, but I don't give a damn about the triangular forms in Raphael's 'mother and child' paintings. I love how colleges jam-pack their programs with completely useless classes - I bet if you cut down on the BS in any program and at any degree level, people could get their degrees a lot faster. But then the school can't milk you for more money, so they keep you there and tell you that dumb shit like dolphin hugging and glass blowing are required credits for a geology degree.

IMHO, I think the bullshit classes should all be electives and maybe offer an incentive to take them. Like if you take that class and do well, you get a little shaved off next semester's tuition costs. Or the class itself costs less than core classes. It was the bloody "normal" exam and notes classes that made me not get straight A's more than once in undergrad too. But that's a rant for another day. My GPA in grad school has gone down from 4.0 to 3.6 in less than a year and I know it's going to go down even more once I get my grades for this year's summer semester.

This last paragraph is a joke right? Yes, it must be...good one! I mean it's not funny haha, but it's definitely good for a chuckle..."bullshit classes...do well...a little shaved off of...tuition.." Damn, that's rich.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Mal83

[Just me]

Well, definitely glad I could give you a chuckle...but no, I am being quite serious. I will give grad school credit in the sense that they don't offer bullshit classes nearly as much as undergrad, though. In undergrad, waaaaay too much unnecessary nonsense. For example, I needed to take two English classes, a math class, two art history classes, and at least one elective every semester. I think I know how to read and count by the time I get to college; I think if all I had were core art classes (okay,I'll bend and say give me one obligatory art history class), my degree would not have been as expensive and I wouldn't have needed to be there as long. That degree could have cost thousands less and took maybe one year less to obtain without the cushy nonsense classes.

But colleges have to make money somehow, so they tack on unnecessary courses and say they are required credits in order to get the degree being sought. But like I said, I think colleges could probably convince people to take those unnecessary classes by offering an incentive. That way, they can milk a little more money out of each student while maybe only losing a tiny bit if they offer a reward in the form of lowered tuition the following semester. But hell, colleges aren't interested in losing money, so they'll throw a year's worth of extra crap at you and call it required credits. Helping students to learn is a priority, but so is wringing a student's wallet dry. I wonder if it won't be too long before four-year degrees turn into five-year degrees.

On the other hand, I also understand that, more and more, you need a college degree in anything in order to even be considered for the crappiest, lowest-paying janitor job in town. So I think it's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of thing.

[Two Espressos]

Well, definitely glad I could give you a chuckle...but no, I am being quite serious. I will give grad school credit in the sense that they don't offer bullshit classes nearly as much as undergrad, though. In undergrad, waaaaay too much unnecessary nonsense. For example, I needed to take two English classes, a math class, two art history classes, and at least one elective every semester. I think I know how to read and count by the time I get to college; I think if all I had were core art classes (okay,I'll bend and say give me one obligatory art history class), my degree would not have been as expensive and I wouldn't have needed to be there as long. That degree could have cost thousands less and took maybe one year less to obtain without the cushy nonsense classes.

But colleges have to make money somehow, so they tack on unnecessary courses and say they are required credits in order to get the degree being sought. But like I said, I think colleges could probably convince people to take those unnecessary classes by offering an incentive. That way, they can milk a little more money out of each student while maybe only losing a tiny bit if they offer a reward in the form of lowered tuition the following semester. But hell, colleges aren't interested in losing money, so they'll throw a year's worth of extra crap at you and call it required credits. Helping students to learn is a priority, but so is wringing a student's wallet dry. I wonder if it won't be too long before four-year degrees turn into five-year degrees.

On the other hand, I also understand that, more and more, you need a college degree in anything in order to even be considered for the crappiest, lowest-paying janitor job in town. So I think it's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of thing.

Oh look, another person with a foolishly Utilitarian view of a liberal arts education. If universities didn't require a broad, liberal arts education, they'd cease to be universities: they'd be trade schools.

[IRdreams]

Oh look, another person with a foolishly Utilitarian view of a liberal arts education. If universities didn't require a broad, liberal arts education, they'd cease to be universities: they'd be trade schools.

I'm a huge defender of liberal arts education. I went to a SLAC and it was one of the best experiences of my life to date. I also think a utilitarian view of education really misses the point. But then again, my class background also gives me that luxury. However, I disagree with the assertion that if universities didn't offer LA they would be trade schools. I spent time at Oxford where students take classes for 3 years only and all of their classes are tightly focused on their "major." Would you consider this university a trade school?

That being said, I do see a strong trend towards turning our larger universities in the US into trade schools. This is true even at schools with a well developed backcore. I think the issue is the increasing prevalence and popularity of pre-professional majors. At my school, we had none of these and yet people were still deemed well qualified for med school and ibanking but also got to experience 4 years of their life dedicate to enriching the mind.

In the end, I don't think the presence of a backcore is enough to arrest the trend towards trade school in our universities. I think the bigger issue is that pre-professional degrees undermine the ideals upon which university culture was founded and has flourished for the last several centuries. And it is has been this undermining of this culture which has lessened the value of degrees in so called "useless" humanities that were before well regarded.

[Mal83]

There are all kinds of options for education beyond high school...community colleges, technical schools, vocational schools, trade schools, and maybe even apprenticeships if they still exists in some fields. So college is a choice, sure a BA or BS is pretty standard nowadays as far as job requirements go, but it's not the only thing that will get you hired, if you have major problems with the structure of higher education then college isn't the place for you and you have to make a living some other way...that's on you though, not the system. Not everyone loves every single class that they are required to take, I too had those "why exactly do I need this?" moments, but generally speaking I cannot agree that taking away everything but the "core" classes from a Bachelor's degree is even remotely a good idea. The point is to end up with a well rounded education, to become knowledgeable in subjects beyond your ABC's and 123's, to be able to draw on that knowledge in all aspects of life. If we did change to core classes only what happens if you change your mind? I wouldn't be qualified to do anything else because I only studied biology classes or history classes, no math, no social science, no languages, no this, no that....sorry, that's not a Bachelor's degree and that's not the kind of education you pursue as a college student. Like I said, there are other options if college isn't for you. If you're in higher education only to stick it out and complain about costs, class requirements, and length of time, that's not the fault of the school or an indication that the entire system needs some kind of major stripped down overhaul, it's more likely a sign that you should get out and move on to something else.

And as for the lower cost for "bullshit" courses, how would you determine what's a bullshit course and what isn't? Isn't that a little subjective? If you're an art major but are required to take a math class, which I guess you wouldn't like, so that would be the bs class? But if I'm a math major and have to take the same class why would that class be a different cost for you then me? The credits are still worth the same no matter the major, you're still taking up space in the room, you're still getting the same instruction, and the same resources are being consumed by you as by me. You're saying that the required classes that you feel you don't need should be discounted for you? That would mean that just about every single class offered would cost differently for every major...what if the class is completely irrelevant to one major but a little more relevant to another, like a calculus class would be useless to an art major but it would be less useless to say a psychology major (I'm sure there's math involved for research statistics and what not), but still not completely necessary as it is to a mathematics major. So how much would the calculus class cost for the completely irrelevant major, the somewhat relevant major, and then the completely relevant major? Help me out with this.

[qbtacoma]

Just me, you really should have chosen Eeyore as your screen name.

[robot_hamster]

Sometimes seemingly irrelevant classes are really not that irrelevant. You may know how to "read and write", but many incoming college students do not know how to write professionally or how to cite sources correctly. In most areas of study, it is important to know how to write professionally. You never know when you'll be out in the real world and are asked to write a proposal or whatever. I think English courses are important for all majors and that is probably why they have remained a core requirement.

[jblsmith]

Oh look, another person with a foolishly Utilitarian view of a liberal arts education. If universities didn't require a broad, liberal arts education, they'd cease to be universities: they'd be trade schools.

Dare I say that I may actually agree with Just me, however, I'll try to restrain my cynicism to a light trickle. As an economist, I strongly believe in the benefits of specialization. I feel that people become more productive when they pick a trade and devote to it. I also believe that by the time one reaches college they have (or should have) all the broad knowledge they need to function in society. That's what primary and secondary education is for. In my opinion post-secondary education should be a time for specialization and differentiation where students gain an in-depth knowledge of a particular field thereby becoming more productive members of society. The Liberal Arts philosophy obviously believes the opposite, that "well-rounded" individuals are more valuable. With that, I don't feel that LAC's make art majors take math classes because there is some sort of profit motive but I do feel there is some misplaced sense of altruism.

I also agree with Two Espressos, that if LAC's offered more specialized course schedules they would begin to look more like trade schools. But so what? What's wrong with vocational training? It gives students the skills they need to lead happy and successful lives. Just because their talents are more aligned with plumbing than with English literature doesn't make their education any less valuable. Maybe the trade school model is more efficient; instead of apprentice electricians spending time analyzing Chaucer their learning how to wire a house. This lowers the overall cost of education by cutting tuition and getting them into the workforce sooner.

One wonders what an Econ trade school would look like...

[jblsmith]

There are all kinds of options for education beyond high school...community colleges, technical schools, vocational schools, trade schools, and maybe even apprenticeships if they still exists in some fields.

What about fields where there are no technical/vocational/trade schools? Like International Development, English Literature, or Econ? How would someone wishing to pursue these degrees go about getting a trade school-style education?

...sure a BA or BS is pretty standard nowadays as far as job requirements go.

I think this is another huge problem with the job market, especially in the US. I feel that there are too many students spending too much money on degrees which, in reality, they don't need and it's all because jobs which have no reason to, require a BA/BS. In short the market for higher education is over-heated which is why you see such high tuition costs. But this is a topic for discussion in another thread.

The point is to end up with a well rounded education, to become knowledgeable in subjects beyond your ABC's and 123's

But as I said in an early post, that is what K-12 education is for. The whole premise of primary and secondary education is that it prepares people with all the skills they need to function in society.

[Just me]

I don't think there would be a such thing as a universal bullshit class...if you attend a college where there is a large variety of majors, what would be a BS class to one field might be essential for another. For example, if you intend to be a marine biologist, then biology and science classes would be a must for you. But if you're an art student, do you really need science at all? And if English classes were totally about improving one's grammar,learning to write resumes, learning MLA and APA writing styles, then that wouldn't be too bad. But why do culinary students need to read things like One Hundred Years of Solitude? Offer English as an elective to people who don't speak it as a first language, and maybe change what we now call English to "Writing" or something like that.

I cannot paint any one class with the bullshit brush because very very few classes are worthless to all majors. Why does a person need a generally well-rounded college education when they are majoring in a certain area of study? As an art student, I learned a very broad range of art skills in my classes - web design, digital design, illustration, and so on. So while I may have gotten a well-rounded ART education, I fail to see why throwing in a bunch of high school classes like English and math are necessary to become an artist. I understand other fields might need those "typical" classes, but some don't and I think it's a big waste of time, money and effort to have to worry about answering questions on some obscure novel no one's ever heard of when you could be dedicating that time to doing better on a core class that will help you in your field.

But like I said, I know colleges need to get a little more buck for their bang, so they force stupid shit down every student's throat. Some folks are overachievers and might decide to take a few extra BS classes - good for them. That's what bullshit classes should be - optional. And what if a photography student has to keep a certain GPA to, say, maintain a scholarship? And they're very bad at math. That math class could easily drag down their GPA if they do bad - if they fail, they have to take it again and possibly risk getting their GPA dragged down even more and maybe lose their scholarship. If eliminating these unnecessary classes turns a college into a trade school, then why is that a bad thing? That's what you go to college to learn, isn't it? A trade? A skill set? Grooming for a possible career? IMHO, it's all the same thing with different names.

Let students focus on their chosen field without the burden of academic add-ons.

[Mal83]

What about fields where there are no technical/vocational/trade schools? Like International Development, English Literature, or Econ? How would someone wishing to pursue these degrees go about getting a trade school-style education?

I think this is another huge problem with the job market, especially in the US. I feel that there are too many students spending too much money on degrees which, in reality, they don't need and it's all because jobs which have no reason to, require a BA/BS. In short the market for higher education is over-heated which is why you see such high tuition costs. But this is a topic for discussion in another thread.

But as I said in an early post, that is what K-12 education is for. The whole premise of primary and secondary education is that it prepares people with all the skills they need to function in society.

1. If you want to pursue something that doesn't have a corresponding trade/vocational school option then that's when you have to suck it up and go to college and fulfill the requirements of the particular degree. Again, if you have such huge problem with the way the college system is set up then it's on you to do something else.

2. I would agree on that, it's not necessary to have a Bachelor's degree for every job out there that requires one. But I feel like the requirement is a reflection of the type of person that is wanted and needed. Generally speaking, someone who has a degree vs. someone who doesn't is more knowledgeable in basically all areas. They should have better writing skills, more experiences working with people, and more skills they can bring to the table. Plus there's a level of maturity that comes with a 22 year old college graduate that might not come with an 18 year old high school graduate. I absolutely know that's not always true, but I just feel that's the prevailing idea.

3. I believe also that you can function in society after completing high school, but the point of a college education is not to just function and get by in life. It's for your own betterment and to increase your options in almost every way. What if you didn't do so well in high school? What would you be qualified to do? I just wouldn't give up all of the non core classes I had taken during my college career, I appreciate them, maybe not so much at the time, now more then ever. Those subjects, those professors opened my eyes to things I never would have seen, thought about, or encountered. I think all of us draw on those experiences more than we know. The idea we'd be more productive to focus solely on the classes that fall under our majors is certainly a valid point, but as someone who was driven anyway, I felt like I was productive and I value the education that I have received. A Bachelor's degree requires 4 years and/or a certain number of credits, that's what we sign up for when we go to college. So like I said, if this is something that you can't deal with then you can decide to not go and make do with whatever job prospects you have or you can embrace it as part of the process of becoming more educated and therefore qualified for the majority of white collar jobs that require the degree. That's my take on it...but yes, I too agree that tuition costs are quite a hindrance and perhaps there's something that could be done about it, but I don't think reducing a BA or BS to focus classes only is the right way about it.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Mal83

[Mal83]

JustMe, we all know your take on higher education and you have a very particular reason for feeling that way, that's fine. My issue with your assessment is that you use words like bullshit, stupid shit, and academic add ons...for those of us who value education this is mildly insulting...I don't consider the "extra" classes I have taken to be bullshit or that I've been swindled by my school to get more money out of me. Like yeah those bastards, making me take a math and science class as an International Studies major...you're right, all that useless information taking up space in my brain...bastards! Those classes, whether they pertain exactly to your major or not, are part of the degree. You can't get a degree without them so they are parts of the whole, take them away and it's not a bachelor's degree anymore. That's why I don't quite understand the "I've been conned, swindled, and jilted" sentiment. If you don't like the system you have to find a way to work around it or not in it at all...because after all, college is still a choice and taking part in it while complaining about the most basic requirements and fundamentals seems more unproductive than taking a bullshit class.

[jblsmith]

1. If you want to pursue something that doesn't have a corresponding trade/vocational school option then that's when you have to suck it up and go to college and fulfill the requirements of the particular degree. Again, if you have such huge problem with the way the college system is set up then it's on you to do something else.

Whoa, easy there partner I never said I had "a huge problem" with it, obviously I've revealed that I'm willing to fulfill the requirements of a liberal arts education because I went to a small, private LAC. But wouldn't it be nice if there were schools that offered a more specialized 4 year degree as well? Variety is, as they say, the spice of life. Then one wouldn't have to choose between their field and type of education.

2. But I feel like the requirement is a reflection of the type of person that is wanted and needed.

I agree with this too. A degree no longer tells employers what you've learned, rather it merely acts as a signal that you are capable of learning and have the maturity and work ethic necessary to complete some set of requirements.

I'm not trying to attack LAC's I'm just suggesting another way of thinking about education. Indeed, many other countries value the specialized approach and it's something that US institutions might want to consider.

[Mal83]

@jblsmith...I meant "you" in general, not you specifically (sorry)...anyone who has an aversion to the 4 year LAC system should pursue something else...that is, if they really can't accept and deal with every step of the process, not everyone fits the college mold, and that's OK, but if they choose not to go then they have to be content with making a living by some other means.

I'm not saying that a more specialized course of study is necessarily a negative thing, I just feel that the "other" classes are valuable enough to be experienced and have them count for something. But it's not as if you choose a major and then you just end up with a smorgasbord of randomness, you'll have a degree that qualifies you on some level to enter that field or at least move up the next phase of advanced study. Sometimes those extra classes make students see that what they've chosen right out of high school isn't actually for them. I feel like keeping an open mind and taking different classes is a good thing at least for a semester or two. I changed my major from biology to international studies, but because I took a few humanities as a bio major it's not like I was starting from scratch credits and requirements wise...if I had only biology related classes then I would have essentially been a freshman all over again. What struck me the wrong way was the sense (not from you) that any class that's not completely related to your major is a waste of time or just a "bullshit" scam run by the school. That sentiment doesn't belong in a forum dedicated to higher education.

Anyway, if some other type of educational path were to be introduced into the system I'd be perfectly fine with that and would consider it a positive thing. Who wouldn't?

[Ennue]

I kept starting a post and stopping again because I didn't feel like getting in the middle of this discussion, but I do want to say this:

I am from the Netherlands, where most university bachelor degrees focus on only the major (with the option to take a few other classes if you want). I feel that elementary and middle/high school is intended for broad education and showing students important things from the world around them, and higher education is intended to train somebody in a specific field in order to work in that field (i.e. a marine biologist at university, an elementary school teacher at hbo (comparable to college I think) or a baker at mbo (comparable to trade schools I think)). The downside of this system has been mentioned here: after high school you might not know exactly what you want to do and switching majors costs time and money. This does happen, but most people stick to their choice and enjoy what they learn.

I'm not saying one system is better than the other - I do see the value of LAC education and I did think about going to University College Utrecht, one of the few Liberal Arts Colleges in the Netherlands, but I decided I personally wanted to learn a lot about my subject, psychology, rather than learn a bit about a lot of things. I guess I just wanted to say that the Dutch system has worked for me and most people I know

Edited August 1, 2011 by Ennue