# How would you redesign certain college courses?



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

This is similar to the "which courses do you think are useless" thread. Except, instead of simply saying in which way a course is useless, do the following:

-List a course you found useless
-Explain why you found it useless
-Make suggestions as to how the course could be more useful


----------



## jay_argh (May 27, 2011)

Half of the humanities. Get rid of a lot of them.

Create 3 year degrees that focus on one's major. Quality, accredited degrees, none of this horseshit "for profit university" 18 month degree business.

That's it. I am paying for my degree as I go because I refuse to let some bankster own my income for the next 10 or 20 years. This would help me the most.

I know there are proponents of the "well rounded" types. Maybe create 2 types of degrees. Focused, or "specialized" ones that cover all the bases in a major, and then the "enriched" degrees that have all the bells and whistles. Makes everyone happy.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

I'm curious why you find the humanities useless?


----------



## jay_argh (May 27, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> I'm curious why you find the humanities useless?


It's my personal opinion-I'm sure art history majors might not relish taking college level math classes or physics. I actually was pretty interested in them when I was younger. Today I'm a bit more "goal oriented" now than back then, and have less time to "explore" areas I am not quite interested in. The problem is, I've started school up again a little late. Having to work, and having a bit of a wakeup call to the fact that I'm a behind makes having to take these extraneous classes irritating to me. It's not the humanities themselves, just the fact that a 4 year degree requires them, and 2 year AA/AS aren't enough, and I'm not sure there're any legitimate "accelerated" programs.


----------



## bibimbap (Jun 12, 2011)

Information Technology.

It was like taking a computer class for senior citizens at the library.

Make it more advanced, obviously, university level students have the ability to copy, paste, and create powerpoints. If they don't, they can consult google, I mean seriously. Waste of time.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

jay_argh said:


> Create 3 year degrees that focus on one's major. Quality, accredited degrees, none of this horseshit "for profit university" 18 month degree business.


I don't want to make you too jealous, but that's how it is in Australia. Our optional 4th year is a 'honours' year, consisting of advanced courses and a research thesis.


----------



## FreeSpirit (Jun 1, 2011)

-psychiatry/psychology is useless
-it is useless because most (if not all) 'mental
disorders' are no disorder at all. It is merely an
attempt to destroy individuality.
-The course would be more useful as occult
studies and should also teach tarot cards,
palm reading, etc FOR FUN


----------



## Coppertony (Jun 22, 2011)

Introductory economics needs to be overhauled. They don't teach you any of the actual meat of economics like the theory of consumer behavior that we've been trying to fix for fifty years or all the assumptions and derivations that build up into things like market clearing (units supplied = units demanded). Then people walk out of Econ 101 thinking they know how to run the world, while all the math, stats, and physics people who would have been interested in actual economics are driven away by the non-quantitative bullshit.

So add math, add theory, make it less about 'this is how the economy works' and more about 'this is how we *think* people *might* function'


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

So in undergraduate economics, all they teach you is that people are fully represented by a few graphs/differential equations?

In the same way that in psychology they teach you that most people are fully represented by self report questionnaires. :wink:


----------



## cheesecake (Dec 7, 2011)

Music through the ages... yes I actually had to take this for my major.

In order to make it more useful, I would say just get rid of it  lmao.

I like music as much as the next person (actually more) but the class was just about histories of people who were musicians.


----------



## Coppertony (Jun 22, 2011)

Snow Leopard said:


> So in undergraduate economics, all they teach you is that people are fully represented by a few graphs/differential equations?
> 
> In the same way that in psychology they teach you that most people are fully represented by self report questionnaires. :wink:


Haha, well, intro econ is pretty much like that (out of a sample size of UChicago, Northwestern, and Dartmouth). The 'real' econ comes in intermediate econ classes, but 1) you still have to take the intro classes to get there, and 2) for many non-majors, especially people who are required to have some econ exposure (public policy, political science, etc.), intro econ is the only class required and their only exposure to econ.

And differential equations? More like 6th grade algebra . . .


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

Coppertony said:


> Introductory economics needs to be overhauled. They don't teach you any of the actual meat of economics like the theory of consumer behavior that we've been trying to fix for fifty years or all the assumptions and derivations that build up into things like market clearing (units supplied = units demanded). Then people walk out of Econ 101 thinking they know how to run the world, while all the math, stats, and physics people who would have been interested in actual economics are driven away by the non-quantitative bullshit.
> 
> So add math, add theory, make it less about 'this is how the economy works' and more about 'this is how we *think* people *might* function'


I'd love to see that. The problem is, North American high schools suck at teaching math. So people taking 1st year Econ just don't have sufficient comfort with math, and the Universities are forced to avoid most of the meat to make it more accessible to people who just want to dip their feet in the water and see what Economics is about.

The same problem exists in teaching Physics. People should know way more math before learning any high school physics. If someone tries to teach you kinematics and dynamics for the first time and you already know calculus and vector algebra, it's a hell of a lot easier to pick up. You can summarize an entire year's worth of work and a textbook worth of equations in just a few basic differential equations. The rest of it is just applying specific instances of those equations, which are easy to derive if you can do calculus. But the math facility just isn't there so teachers are forced to beat a dead horse and teach things in an inefficient order. Not only that, it ends up boring a lot of people and driving them away from the topic.


----------



## kittychris07 (Jun 15, 2010)

There's a lot of college classes that I would attack in my business major with an accounting concentration. 

First, I thought that Principles of Management and Principles of Marketing were basically bullshit. At least in my university, both of these classes were so easy that they could have been condensed into one three-credit course. All we did was memorize definitions and theories but we didn't think about them so much. All we did was multiple choice/true-false tests in this class. 

Second, for the accounting majors, Managerial/Cost Accounting was a joke. The class covers a ton of material that was already covered in Principles of Accounting, and the rest of it was rediculously easy. The class could have been condensed, or more advanced managerial accounting topics could have been added to it. 

Third, the idea of having a Business Strategy seminar where we played a game where we managed a business as a group was kind of stupid. A lot of universities do this. I think that some major research assignment where people were required to learn about a business or industry in-depth might have been more effective.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

art appreciation--really? is this to show me how to appreciate something that i am already subjectively _appreciating_? 

i realize it's to shed light onto different perspectives... but why is that necessary? i could see one arguing that "well, if one were to shed light onto different ways of looking at things, then maybe it could translate to other people viewing each other and society differently", as i've heard it stretched to... i want to fucking slap people sometimes... sure that'd be great, but you plan to do it with an art appreciation class? really? 

it should be a completely optional class, just like, in my opinion, every class should be that doesn't directly pertain to your major.. i hate all this talk of people being balanced and what not--taking a diverse study approach doesn't really do it... i mean look at the average four-year college graduate--do you think they're very well-adjusted and well-rounded, and if you do think so, do you believe it's because of "diverse studies"?

anyhow, if i semi had my way, and the class had to remain but i was given a say-so in how it was ran... first off i would fire my half-ass teacher--every question is met with an incredibly vague answer that contradicts what was said before hand; second, i would design the class around _appreciating art_ and not try to make it a hybrid of my art history class because i'm too damn lazy to do my job; third, the class would revolve around underlying principles and not start with some obscure form of art and then move onto line variance, and then to the renaissance--basically, it wouldn't be this random-assed, flustered attempt at teaching, as if i spent to much time admiring myself as an artist last night to do anything other than wake up and "hurridly" scanned through the art book for a lesson at the last minute... and then expected the students to take my class, or myself seriously. 

or, like i said earlier, make it optional--a nurse doesn't need calculus, an engineer doesn't need western civ., an architect doesn't need english lit.--after a while i find myself questioning the reason behind the "reason" of why "we" do the things "we" do.


----------

