[AnimalMuppet]

I took a class in Library Science. It didn't change my outlook on anything. It only confirmed my belief in the wastefulness of certain general ed requirements.

Economic history didn't do much for me, either. (Now, granted, that could be eye-opening, for at least some people, if taught well and with solid content. But in my case, for that class... meh.)

[p1esk]

It didn't change my outlook on anything

Someone can say this about any single lower undergraduate subject :)

p.s. Library Science course would have been an eye-opening experience for me, given my fascination with books and libraries when I was a teenager.

[vonseel]

I’m not sure how fascinating it gets beyond the Dewey Decimal system, lol. There’s probably some cool stuff with document preservation and archiving. But so much of library science seems outdated now that most information is on the internet.

What they really need is a better system for internet research, the UIs those systems use last time I worked in a library on a project was terrible.

[JSavageOne]

Counterpoint: my 2 favorite classes in undergrad were both general education courses - "World Regions" (had a super charismatic professor so wouldn't necessarily recommend this course at any random university) and "Morality & Justice".

[mcguire]

"Contemporary Moral Problems" with a professor who resembles Captain Kangaroo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Kangaroo).

[DoofusOfDeath]

Did you really mean "World Regions", or instead "World Religions"?

[JSavageOne]

Yes "Regions". The course covered geopolitics, current events, etc. The course and professor were famous at the university. The course material itself was interesting because it covered current events in detail, but the real reason for the class's popularity was that the professor was incredibly entertaining. Attending a lecture was sort of like watching an episode of Stephen Colbert, except deeper with more focus on learning than just pure entertainment.

[gowld]

Hageography ;-)

[agumonkey]

should we (could we) compress higher education ?

I found a lot of redundancy by splitting things in modules. (uml, oop, sql felt like 3 sides of the same hypercoin, granted the first 2 may disappear from books soon).

algorithmics and mathematics (and other topics) may be merged into one ?

or maybe that would be pedagogically detrimental.. I feel that it would allow more time to spend on a concept since you don't have to see bits scattered in different courses.

[tsimionescu]

I'm not sure how oop and sql would be the same thing - they are famously incompatible (object/relational impedance mismatch). UML is just a graphical notation, I would agree it doesn't make sense as a separate course.

When you say algorithmics and mathematics, do you mean all of computer science and all of maths? Do you think a single course should cover, say, Dijkstra's algorithm and partial differential equations?

Usually, each course already covers a wide array of concepts. I can't think of a single concept that was explored by different bits in different courses. The closest I can think of are 2 courses I had, one of which was focused on analytical solutions for linear algebra (matrices), and the other focused on numerical solutions to the same problems. Even then, the split did make sense, since they were focused on different concepts (mathematical objects, their properties and how to work with them in the first case, computation and more applied mathematics solutions for the second).

[gizmo686]

No student learns everything that university teaches; there is simply not enough time. It would be ideal if each student received a perfectly customized curriculum; but that is simply not practical to do. Instead, universities have a modular system; where different students can mix and match modules to cover what they are interested in. Similarly, different majors can mix and match required module to cover the material that is nessasary for said majors.

In the case of subjects with a very large number of students, it is possible to produce specialized modules, so you might have a university offer a separate probability-for-scientists and probability-for-mathematicians classes that it considers to be interchangable, but differs in how it covers the subject/what background it assumes.

[mnemonicsloth]

It turns out the brain actually likes to see concepts broken into pieces and spread out all over the place. To use your example, a better way to learn those things would have been a couple of projects where you used them all together, over and over.

[mcguire]

Was Library Science required, or was it a general requirement that you picked Library Science for?

(Having a hard time seeing Library Science as a specific requirement.)

[charlesdaniels]

FWIW I completed my undergraduate degree in 2019, and I was required to take library science specifically. It was a half-semester course that taught students how to use the library.

I guess the value is it means the students have no excuse to not know how to find library resources, but I feel like most people in the class were generally familiar with the idea of a library and how to use it.

[ocdtrekkie]

This sounds somewhat similar to other "college success" first year courses that are more about how to do research papers than anything else.

A proper introduction to Library Science is about how to run a library...

[p1esk]

Good point. It would be an utter disappointment for me to take this class only to sit through explanations on how to find a book in a library (something I was able to do when I was 8).

[AnimalMuppet]

It filled a general ed slot, I think. Or else I just wanted a super-easy class. It wasn't required.

And yes, it really was "how to use a card catalog". (Hey, I'm old. It really was cards.)

[alexbanks]

If you go into something with a set of beliefs and are only looking to confirm them, you probably won't gain anything.