In the UK, it's possible to specialise a lot more - in almost all cases, at University people only study what they applied for (e.g., I did solely maths). If people do do other subjects, it's only those that are closely related (e.g., having to study other sciences if you're doing physics, and even then that's only at some Unis). Doing completely unrelated subjects is unheard of, unless people choose some kind of mixed/general degree.

Is this a problem? No, because getting a rounded education is what school's for. If it's left to University, what happens to all the people who don't go to University? Even at 16-18, in the UK people specialise to just 3 or 4 subjects, which can be all the same area (e.g., I did double maths, physics and economics). (The school leaving age is 16, so again, the argument for getting a rounded education is better done before that age, not after.)

The fact that people are having to pay (especially in the US) gives an even stronger argument that people should have a say in the kind of courses available.

I don't think it's helpful to write the OP off as "whining". I think there's a perfectly good argument that at a University level, it doesn't help to make people do unrelated subjects, rather than specialising in a field. (I mean, how far do we take it? What about post-graduate? Here, PhDs get very specialised, should they have to balance that with completely unrelated subjects?)

If you disagree with the OP, then make your case - accusing people of "whining" because you disagree with them is not an argument.

My point about describing the UK is not to claim it's necessarily better, but to show that actually, a whole country does it the way that the OP wishes, so this isn't some ridiculous or unreasonable desire, or just some whining.

For people who aren't sure what they want to do or change their mind - well firstly, they are free to take a more general degree, that's not an argument for forcing everyone to do so. But I also find it odd that the OP should be criticised, just because some other people can't make their minds up. If other people don't even have a vague idea of the area they want to work or specialise in by the time they're 18, that's not the OP's fault. If I wanted to change my career direction, I still have my school education to fall back on - at some point though you have to draw the line.

Ah, the joys of being young and thinking everything else isn't important or worth knowing...

Young or not, he is an adult (I assume) - this isn't about school education. At that age, people should be able to make their decisions about their education and career. And I'm older now, and am still glad I did not have to do History or other subjects at University. As that comes at a cost of the time spent on the education that I did want.

Nobody wants to talk to a mindless Computer Science drone, nobody wants to date one, and for the most part, nobody wants to hire one either...

I'm not sure dating has anything to do with University courses. And if someone does meet your tired stereotyping of computer scientists, it isn't going to be fixed by making them take History or Art lessons. I wasn't aware that the market of History and Art graduates was so much better, by that logic, perhaps better not do computer science at all.

My point about describing the UK is not to claim it's necessarily better, but to show that actually, a whole country does it the way that the OP wishes, so this isn't some ridiculous or unreasonable desire, or just some whining.

A little context is important here, though. He isn't in the UK, he's in the US, where a liberal arts education implies just that, a comprehensive cross-section of the sciences and humanities.

It isn't as if he didn't have a choice (we have trade schools and polytechs that function as you describe), and it isn't as if he didn't know this going in (unless he refused to read the degree outline, in which case, it's on him).

OP, since you seem to be under the impression that college is just job training and just want to be a computer science robot then you should probably just drop out of whatever college you are in now and go to ITT/DeVry.

Here's a protip though: Employers don't want robots. They want people who can do their job as well as be able to interact with people from all walks of life. These are people that you have to deal with 8+ hours a day 5 days a week. It shouldn't be up to everybody else at the workplace to have to work around somebody else social problems. The job is hard enough as it is. With me being a tech lead I have to deal with my programmers as well as trying to corral the designers and artists in to something sane we can actually make. I also have the joy of dealing with my bosses who are worried about the bottom line. It is vitally important that I be able to communicate with them in a way they understand. The designers get lost in XMLs and the higher ups aren't tech heads in the least, if all I knew were computers then it would be near impossible. As it is now it's like trying to herd cats.

As for the actual humanities thing, I got to agree with swiftcoder. If you are in the US and go to a traditional university then you know that taking a bunch of random classes outside of your major to make you more "well rounded" is all part of the game. You know what you are getting in to.

I don't know about UK, but I heard that some countries (like Germany) do have problem with over-specialitzed personnel (I work in a subsidiary company of a German company). They just refuse to leave their profession in the slightest bit. Which would be pretty important in cooperation. Well, it is in mechanical engineering, I don't know about IT.

The "the world would never change if we wouldn't stand for ourselves" argument always comes up. But there is a huge difference between whining and changing the world. Whining is a useless thing, because you won't change anything with it. Changing would be impossibly hard in this situation compared to just sitting on those goddamn courses, especially since many student think totally the opposite way. It would be pretty much obvious to leave the particular school. MAybe I missed, and the OP said that he will do something useful about the situation. But I don't know why I try to explain it, it's pretty much impossible to explain whiners how useless and bad thing (for themselves) whining is.

I think the point of it is that you discourage criticism and critical thinking by saying "stop whining, it doesn't solves anything". Which may be true but one has to learn first how to critic rather than learn "just" to critic. Very offtopic though :P

I think the point of it is that you discourage criticism and critical thinking by saying "stop whining, it doesn't solves anything". Which may be true but one has to learn first how to critic rather than learn "just" to critic. Very offtopic though

Point is (more precisely one of the points): don't whine, but do something. Posting on a forum for reinforcement doesn't count. Well, maybe... hopefully he gathered enough """info""", so he can decide what to do.

By labelling his thread as whining you might end sending a signal that critical thinking is not allowed.

I did no such thing; I labelled ONE quoted segment of a reply as whining (because it was) NOT the whole thread.

Trust me, if I was going to call the whole thread out as whining then I would, as you may have noticed I tend not to pull punches

mdwh, on 28 Jan 2013 - 13:48, said:
I think there's a perfectly good argument that at a University level, it doesn't help to make people do unrelated subjects, rather than specialising in a field. (I mean, how far do we take it? What about post-graduate? Here, PhDs get very specialised, should they have to balance that with completely unrelated subjects?)

However I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier question in this thread about if you are told about this cross section up front.

If you aren't then the OP has a case for complaining about unrelated subjects, however if you ARE told up front and the OP STILL applied for the course knowing full what was involved... well... this whole thread takes a completely different turn.

So, I ask again; in the US are you told up front on course if you have to take non-major classes and are these choices spelt out anywhere? i.e. If I applied for a Comp. Sci major am I going to be told 'btw, you'll have to take an English Lit. classes too' up front?

I think the point of it is that you discourage criticism and critical thinking by saying "stop whining, it doesn't solves anything". Which may be true but one has to learn first how to critic rather than learn "just" to critic. Very offtopic though

Point is (more precisely one of the points): don't whine, but do something. Posting on a forum for reinforcement doesn't count. Well, maybe... hopefully he gathered enough """info""", so he can decide what to do.

Probably he had his mind set from the start. Anyway, the point is... Ah, seems we ran out of points. Too bad.

So, I ask again; in the US are you told up front on course if you have to take non-major classes and are these choices spelt out anywhere? i.e. If I applied for a Comp. Sci major am I going to be told 'btw, you'll have to take an English Lit. classes too' up front?

I suppose it is possible that you could manage to avoid ever reading it, but it's pretty unlikely.

It's spelled out in the course catalog they send out when your application is accepted, and it's spelled out on the university and/or department websites (by law). It also constitutes a gross failure on the part of your college adviser if they didn't explain what a "liberal arts college" means, since that parlance is consistent across the US...