Many Colleges Dont Require Students to Take Classes in Basic Areas

Many Colleges Don't Require Students to Take Classes in Basic Areas A report commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) reveals that colleges are not requiring students to take courses in several core areas. And as a result, these students are less prepared to be successful in life. The report, â€Å"What Will They Learn?† surveyed students in over 1,100 U.S. colleges and universities – public and private – and found that an alarming number of them were taking â€Å"lightweight† courses to satisfy general education requirements. The report also found the following about the colleges: 96.8% don’t require economics 87.3% don’t require an intermediate foreign language 81.0% don’t require a basic U.S. history or government 38.1% don’t require college-level math 65.0% don’t require literature The 7 Core Areas What are the core areas identified by ACTA that college students should take classes in – and why? Composition: writing-intensive classes that focus on grammar Literature: observant reading and reflection that develops critical thinking skills Foreign language: to understand different cultures U.S. Government or History: to be responsible, knowledgeable citizens Economics: to understand how resources are connected globally Mathematics: to gain numeracy skills applicable in the workplace and in life Natural Sciences: to develop skills in experimentation and observation   Even some of the most highly-rated and expensive schools are not requiring students to take classes in these core areas. For example, one school that charges almost $50,000 a year in tuition does not require students to take classes in any of the 7 core areas. In fact, the study notes that the schools that receive an â€Å"F† grade based on how many core classes they require charge 43% higher tuition rates than the schools that receive a grade of â€Å"A.† Core Deficiencies So what’s causing the shift? The report notes that some professors prefer to teach classes related to their particular research area. And as a result, students end up choosing from a wide-ranging selection of courses. For example, at one college, while students are not required to take U.S. History or U.S. Government, they have an Intercultural Domestic Studies requirement that may include such courses as â€Å"Rock ‘n’ Roll in Cinema.†   To fulfill the economics requirement, students at one school can take, â€Å"The Economics of Star Trek,† while â€Å"Pets in Society† qualifies as a Social Sciences requirement. At another school, students can take â€Å"Music in American Culture† or â€Å"America Through Baseball† to fulfill their requirements. At another college, English majors don’t have to take a class devoted to Shakespeare.   Some schools don’t have any core requirements at all. One school notes that it â€Å"does not impose a particular course or subject on all students.† On one hand, perhaps its commendable that some colleges are not forcing students to take certain classes. On the other hand, are freshmen really in a position to decide which courses would be most beneficial to them? According to the ACTA report, close to 80% of freshmen don’t know what they want to major in. And another study, by EAB, found that 75% of students will change majors before they graduate. Some critics advocate not letting students choose a major until their second year.   If students aren’t even sure what degree they plan to pursue, it might be unrealistic to expect them – especially as freshmen – to effectively gauge which core classes they need to be successful. Another problem is that schools don’t update their catalogs on a regular basis, and when students and their parents are trying to determine the requirements, they may not be viewing accurate information. Also, some colleges and universities don’t even list definite courses in same cases. Instead there is a vague introductory phrase â€Å"courses may include,† so the classes listed in the catalog may or may not be offered. However, the glaring lack of information gained from taking college-level core classes is evident. A Payscale survey asked managers to identify the skills that they thought college grads lack the most. Among the responses, writing skills are identified as the top skill missing in action among college grads. Public speaking skills are in second place. But both of these skills could be developed if students were required to take core courses. In other surveys, employers have lamented the fact that college graduates don’t have critical thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills – all issues that would be addressed in a core curriculum. Other disturbing findings: 20% of students who graduated with a bachelor’s degree were unable to accurately calculate the costs of ordering office supplies, according to the National Survey of America’s College Students.   While schools, boards of trustees, and policy makers need to make the necessary adjustments to require a core curriculum, college students cannot wait for these changes. They (and their parents) must research schools as thoroughly as possible, and students must choose to take the classes they need instead of selecting lightweight courses.

Scapegoat, Scapegoating, and Scapegoat Theory

Scapegoat, Scapegoating, and Scapegoat Theory Scapegoating refers to a process by which a person or group is unfairly blamed for something that they didnt do and, as a result, the real source of the problem is either never seen or purposefully ignored. Sociologists have documented that scapegoating often occurs between groups when a society is plagued by long-term economic problems or when resources are scarce. Scapegoat theory is used in sociology and psychology as one way to intercept conflict and prejudice between individuals and groups. Origins of the Term The term scapegoat has Biblical origins, coming from the Book of Leviticus. In the book, a goat was sent into the desert carrying the sins of the community. So, a scapegoat was originally understood as a person or animal that symbolically absorbed the sins of others and carried them away from those who committed them. Scapegoats and Scapegoating in Sociology Sociologists recognize four different ways in which scapegoating takes place and scapegoats are created. Scapegoating can be a one-on-one phenomenon, in which one person blames another for something he/she or someone else did. This form of scapegoating is common among children, who blame a sibling or a friend for something they did, to avoid the shame of disappointing their parents and the punishment that might follow a misdeed.Scapegoating also occurs in a one-on-group manner, when one person blames a group for a problem they did not cause: wars, deaths, financial losses of one kind or another, and other personal struggles. This form of scapegoating may sometimes be unfairly blamed on racial, ethnic, religious, class, or anti-immigrant biases.Sometimes scapegoating takes a group-on-one form, when a group of people singles out and blames one person for a problem. For example, when the members of a sports team blame a player who made a mistake for the loss of a match, though other aspects of play also affected the outcome. Or, when someone who alleges an assault is then scapegoated by me mbers of the community for causing trouble or ruining the life of the attacker. Finally, and of most interest to sociologists, is the form of scapegoating that is group-on-group. This occurs when one group blames another for problems that the groups collectively experience, which might be economic or political in nature- like blaming a particular party for the Great Depression (1929-1939) or the Great Recession (2007-2009). This form of scapegoating often manifests across lines of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. The Scapegoat Theory of Intergroup Conflict Scapegoating of one group by another has been used throughout history, and still today, as a way to incorrectly explain why certain social, economic, or political problems exist and harm the group doing the scapegoating. Some sociologists say that their research shows that groups that scapegoat occupy a low socio-economic status in society and have little access to wealth and power. They say these people are often experiencing prolonged economic insecurity or poverty, and come to adopt shared outlooks and beliefs that have been documented to lead to prejudice and violence. Sociologists who embrace socialism as a political and economic theory argue that those in a low socioeconomic status are naturally inclined to scapegoat due to the unequal distribution of resources within the society. These sociologists place blame on capitalism as an economic model and exploitation of workers by a wealthy minority. However, these are not the viewpoints of all sociologists. As with any science involving theories, study, research, and conclusions- its not an exact science, and therefore there will be a variety of viewpoints.