The US vs The UK System Of Higher Education

[Travis_King]

I keep hearing about culture but frankly who cares?

The universities in the U.S.

So what if I'm not cultured? How will that slow me down in life or in my career?

Nobody says that you have to learn anything from the classes. It might be useful one day chatting with a history buff who's deeply interested in greek mythology, but generally the lessons are there just for the sake of learning.

As I said, if you don't care to learn the stuff, it's just as acceptable to grin and bear it and show that you can do well even in those things that you don't enjoy. It's pretty useful outside of your academic life as well, usually.

No it was the one I chose but it was the best of the worst really. The others were even more drab. Here's how the distribution requirements go: http://as.cornell.edu/academics/degree-req.cfm

Cornell is an ivy league school lol do you really think that you'll get away without a "classical" education in social sciences and history/culture from an ivy? These schools are especially geared toward graduating professionals who are cultured and educated in an array subjects; especially social issues. If you wanted a technical education alone, you chose the wrong school. You can't blame them for that, they've been doing pretty much exactly that since like 1860.

Well that's nice for people who want such a detour. I don't and it sucks that I have no leeway in this regard. Cultural topics are meaningless to me. But like dadface said earlier, it's not really productive for me to sit around and complain about this. I should just grin and bear it, like you said as well. I don't really have any choice in the matter.

You selected the school...you have to take the good with the "bad". They probably make poli-sci students take some science classes as well; I'm sure they hate it just as much as you hate social sciences.

The bottom line is, these rather extensive general education requirements present me with two choices: I don't get to take all the advanced physics and math classes I would absolutely love to take in order to finish the requirements on time or I go ahead and take the advanced major specific courses I want to and fail to graduate on time.

That is of course a dilemma. It would be nice to be able to take all the classes that you are interested in, and some universities are set up that way. Ivy's typically aren't. They leave the advanced and specific courses for graduate school, where you don't have the social classes.

I don't get why the system wants to make me face such a dilemma, for the sake of being cultured.

because for the most part, people aren't faced with the same dilemma as you. Most people take their curriculum courses, take the social courses, and study a few extra/advanced courses in their free electives. The issue really doesn't come up as far as limiting your time to take advanced courses. Or, as was my case, many schools (even extremely old ones like my alma mater) offer truly free electives, where you can select as many social science or advanced physics classes that you like. Generally, schools like this require as set number of humanities/social science electives over the course of the program, rarely bothering to care which one's you select.

 

[cristo]

Where are you getting such an idea? What possible useful perspective could I be exposed to or learn from a Spanish class? Or a Greek mythology class? Yes I learn that Grecian gods have insatiable sexual appetites. My world view has now been greatly enhanced. Or, god forbid, a philosophy class? I'm at least happy I'm not forced to take philosophy classes. Just thinking about it makes me uneasy. I truly envy the UK system in this regard. The only liberal arts classes I enjoy are those pertaining to western literature. Mind you I haven't gained any perspectives from such classes, I just enjoy western literature.

In the UK these sort of classes are no omitted but, rather, are taught during high school. University is a place to study a specialised subject, building on your broad, general education, that you obtained while in high school. The reason that this works is that we are a small country, and therefore can have a national curriculum for high school students. So every student has (roughly) the same background knowledge when attending university, since they have all taken the same exams at GCSE level (age 16), and all students applying for the same course have taken the same course and exams in that specific subject at A level (age 18).

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I am, and will forever be, more "cultured" from reading random books and the news via my own capriciousness than any class purporting to acculturate me will.

I'm trying my best not to come off as a whiny, ungrateful college-bound student who stomps his feet when he is told he needs to take a class he doesn't want to. My point, rather, is that when shelling out $40,000+/yr on tuition and living accommodations, I would expect a slightly more choose-your-own-adventure style of schooling a la the United Kingdom.

Travis, the curriculum I would prefer is one set forth by your school. Obviously a liberal education is more endowing and successful at creating a well-rounded student body, but there still needs to be freedom of choice in doing so. Being told that without Classes A, B, and C, I can't graduate is frankly stifling.

And yes, I could've chosen to attend Carnegie Mellon or some school that says anything beyond science can piss off, but I doubt I would've been accepted to any of them. Regardless, those schools are very rare, and most schools expect you to confine yourself to their pre-set curriculum with little room for customization beyond picking [Insert Major Here] and [Insert Minor Here].

Summary: I think being "cultured" and "well-rounded" is abusing empty terms that really hold no meaning. I've met a plethora (as all people have) of college graduates, and "cultured" and "well-rounded" never comes to mind. It's more so a mindset of wanting to be accepting and erudite than it is a class you sit through.

 

[AlephZero]

What cristo said. The UK high school system has changed over time, in particular becoming more "fragmented" as the older "end-of-course" examinations have been replaced by modular exams (which can be re-taken without much downside) and assessment of coursework.

In the "traditional" version of the UK system, most aspiring university entrants would have taken the national GCSE exams in 9 or 10 subjects at age 16, covering the complete spectrum of liberal arts, science, English (language and literature) and foreign languages. As a personal example, at that level I took exams in maths, physics, chemistry, geography, history, English language, English literature, French, Latin, and music. Good grades in maths and English Langauge are prerequisites for education beyond age 16 (which is the minimum school-leaving age) in any subject.

At 18 they would take the A level exams in three or four subjects directly relvant to their intended degree (e.g. a selection from of pure and applied maths, physics, chemistry, biology for scientists).

The downside of this is that students can be making decisions at age 13 or 14 which will affect their entire future education. The upside is that if you enter university for a degree in subject X, the only courses you are required to take are in subject X.

 

[WWGD]

I am, and will forever be, more "cultured" from reading random books and the news via my own capriciousness than any class purporting to acculturate me will.

I'm trying my best not to come off as a whiny, ungrateful college-bound student who stomps his feet when he is told he needs to take a class he doesn't want to. My point, rather, is that when shelling out $40,000+/yr on tuition and living accommodations, I would expect a slightly more choose-your-own-adventure style of schooling a la the United Kingdom.

Travis, the curriculum I would prefer is one set forth by your school. Obviously a liberal education is more endowing and successful at creating a well-rounded student body, but there still needs to be freedom of choice in doing so. Being told that without Classes A, B, and C, I can't graduate is frankly stifling.



Summary: I think being "cultured" and "well-rounded" is abusing empty terms that really hold no meaning. I've met a plethora (as all people have) of college graduates, and "cultured" and "well-rounded" never comes to mind. It's more so a mindset of wanting to be accepting and erudite than it is a class you sit through.

I agree one should have enough freedom to choose one's classes. I think you're misunderstanding a causation-correlation issue in my posts: other things being equal, people who are exposed to a liberal education are more likely to be "cultured" ; outliers do not detract from this t(statistical) fact/statement. If you do not cultivate what you learned , it will not flourish. Conversely, even without a formal education you may become "cultured" , but it does not happen often, since this is not the path of least resistance most tend to take.

 

[lisab]

So BOAS - were you looking for a philosophical discussion about the +/- of each system, or were you looking for a nuts-and-bolts comparison?

IMO: Arguing about whether we individually like or dislike either system is fruitless. Let's compare things we can measure -- things the business world calls "metrics".

Proportionately, the UK has won more Nobel Prizes than the US (# Nobels / current population - I'm not motivated enough to correct for the population change over time ).

But it's also true that many technological advances come from the US (Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc.). Not much has come from the UK, in this area (prove me wrong...?). But that could be because of differences in the business environment, not differences in the educational system.

So what other metrics can we use? George Jones had some good articles arguing for requiring stringent general education requirements to earn a Bachelor's degree.

 

[ModusPwnd]

The UK has more Nobel prizes in physics, science or overall? I don't doubt it. I think that as a culture they have more respect for and are more likely to study and pursue physics than most other cultures and countries. I went to school in the states, but surprisingly (for me) nearly half of my physics professors were British! (or N. Ireland)

If the metric is for a kind of scientific output I would think that publications and citations are more relevant than nobel prizes. (Im not saying that the UK wouldn't "win" in that, I think they might.)

 

[WWGD]

Sorry for some of my posts, I am writing using the OSK (On-Screen Keyboard), and it is difficult to write with it, so I take shortcuts.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... IMO: Arguing about whether we individually like or dislike either system is fruitless ...

But I'm upset

The UK has more Nobel prizes in physics, science or overall? I don't doubt it. I think that as a culture they have more respect for and are more likely to study and pursue physics than most other cultures and countries. I went to school in the states, but surprisingly (for me) nearly half of my physics professors were British! (or N. Ireland)

If the metric is for a kind of scientific output I would think that publications and citations are more relevant than nobel prizes. (Im not saying that the UK wouldn't "win" in that, I think they might.)

I agree with the sentiment that publications and citations are more important, as it's more indicative of the overall scientific output of a country, as opposed to which country nurtures the lucky few who get to bow to the Swedish King (or in Eric Cornell's case... forget to bow).

The following I just did out of boredom:

The US has nearly 3x as many Nobel Prizes as the UK, but as Lisab pointed out, their populations are obviously not the same; the US has a population more than 3x larger than the UK.

Nobel Prizes in Physics Per Country (people listed with two countries is a +1 for each country):

UK - 24 laureates, over 21 different years. One prize per 2,625,000 people in the UK.
US - 90 laureates, over 53 different years. One prize per 3,477,777 people in the US.

I'm lazy like Lisab and won't be looking up the population of the US/UK in the respective years that they won a Nobel prize.

The laureates per year implies that folks in the UK are more apt to work alone, whereas physicists in the US tend to be lumped together in groups. This may also be because most of the UK's Nobel Prizes in physics were in the first half of the 20th century, whereas many of the US's Nobel Prizes followed in the second half, and as our technology and experimental equipment becomes more complex, more people must work together to achieve Nobel-worthy results.

 

[BOAS]

In the US, at the undergraduate level, you usually (there are always exceptions!) apply to the school as a whole. Departments are not involved in the admissions process. At the small undergraduate-only school where I work, the application form includes a space for specifying the intended or possible major(s), but this is used only for assigning the student's first faculty advisor. If a student changes his interests, he changes to a different advisor when he officially declares his major, no later than the end of the second year.

Large universities usually have an intermediate administrative level, the "college" or "school", between the university-as-a-whole and the individual departments, e.g. "college of arts and sciences", "college of engineering", etc. I think usually each "college" does their own admissions, and students have to apply to the "college" that contains the department(s) that they are interested in.

Different "colleges" in the same university also tend to have different gen-ed requirements.

Ah, this makes sense.

I always thought that in the U.S the word 'college' was equivalent to university, but it's actually similar to the way in which we would use it to describe the constituent 'colleges' of Cambridge for example (as opposed to it's more common use to mean a vocational school, which is why I tend to stick to 'university').

 

[BOAS]

Yes, it's not at all unusual for students to change their major mid-stream, or at least early-stream. If they do it early enough, they can often still squeeze in all the required courses for their new major without having to stay in school longer. The four-year time frame for a bachelor's degree here usually leaves enough room for several "elective" courses if a student sticks with the same major, over and above the major and gen-ed requirements. That extra room also makes it easier to switch majors if you do it early enough.

If you have to switch from one "college" to another in the same university, things would probably be a bit messier, but still do-able.

This is one of the largest benefits as I see it of the system. When I realized Architecture wasn't doing it for me, I finished the year with decent grades to show that I wasn't dropping out due to difficulty, had to change universities altogether because my own didn't offer a physics degree, and then do a foundation year within the department. So my change ended up costing me 2 years and the best part of £25,000...

Some of my friends do get to study an elective, which I think is nice, but I personally don't have the option. My course takes up more hours per week than their own (Business, International Relations, Politics etc).

 

[BOAS]

To clarify a few things for OP:

- AP classes are one of the better ways to bypass gen-eds in university in the US, varying of course upon the rigor and prestige of different universities. My mediocrity prevented me from applying to Ivy-tier schools (although I'll be attending a so-called "public ivy"), yet because of all the AP tests I signed up for, I racked up 32 credit hours and, for registration purposes, am considered a sophomore. Were I to attend Cornell like my esteemed colleague WBN, they likely, and rightly so, wouldn't have accepted any of my AP credit.

- Larger universities are divided into different schools, aka Arts and Science, Engineering, Business, etc. Some schools will go so far as to require certain grades to be, say, a chemical engineer, yet have no outstanding requirements to be a civil engineer. Others count on people finding chemical engineering too difficult and dismissing themselves from the field. So while there is certainly a large amount of leniency and time allotted to students when determining their major, there is a definite benefit to knowing what one wants to study from the beginning.

- In the college of Arts and Sciences at my university, they have a neat option for science majors regarding foreign language: If at some point I can prove proficiency in reading science articles in a foreign language, I will have satisfied my foreign language requirements. So not all schools are entirely unreasonable.

All in all, the U.K., as far as I can tell, is more forthright in letting students specialize in their intended area of study, whereas in the U.S., if you want to specialize, you have to work around a stupid system via AP classes in high school, testing out of certain subjects, or just biting the bullet and sitting through a lecture on some boring gen-ed.

Thank you.

I like the idea of AP classes, but without the need for gen-eds here, they would be redundant.

"The School Of Arts And Sciences" seems bizarre to me... My subject (physics) is part of my universities school of mathematical and physical sciences. The arts are entirely separate.

 

[BOAS]

What cristo said. The UK high school system has changed over time, in particular becoming more "fragmented" as the older "end-of-course" examinations have been replaced by modular exams (which can be re-taken without much downside) and assessment of coursework.

In the "traditional" version of the UK system, most aspiring university entrants would have taken the national GCSE exams in 9 or 10 subjects at age 16, covering the complete spectrum of liberal arts, science, English (language and literature) and foreign languages. As a personal example, at that level I took exams in maths, physics, chemistry, geography, history, English language, English literature, French, Latin, and music. Good grades in maths and English Langauge are prerequisites for education beyond age 16 (which is the minimum school-leaving age) in any subject.

At 18 they would take the A level exams in three or four subjects directly relvant to their intended degree (e.g. a selection from of pure and applied maths, physics, chemistry, biology for scientists).

The downside of this is that students can be making decisions at age 13 or 14 which will affect their entire future education. The upside is that if you enter university for a degree in subject X, the only courses you are required to take are in subject X.

Whilst it is true about the changing nature of our school system, the process does remain very similar, the main change being the way in which children are examined.

I don't think that I made any choices at 13 or 14 that affected my education massively. Maths, Science and English are mandatory and as you mention, they are the key subjects to do well in before starting A-levels.

We were given a choice at around the age of 13 to 'drop' a few subjects. I stopped Home Ec/Textiles, History, Graphics, Art etc and took French and German GCSE's early to accommodate a timetable of 'triple science' rather than a usual double award.

I think I would have been able to pursue any A-levels I wished even though I had discontinued them earlier. My grades in English, Geography and RE would serve as evidence that I'm capable of studying History for example.

It was my experience that the real choice is made at 16 years old, where you must decide upon A-levels (and now, vocational courses because 18 is the new school leavers age). Ironically, the A-levels I chose were geared towards STEM subjects and I ended up studying architecture and then coming back to science...

 

[BOAS]

So BOAS - were you looking for a philosophical discussion about the +/- of each system, or were you looking for a nuts-and-bolts comparison?

A bit of both. I think some interesting discussion has been generated so far, and I know I've learned some things already :)

IMO: Arguing about whether we individually like or dislike either system is fruitless. Let's compare things we can measure -- things the business world calls "metrics".

Proportionately, the UK has won more Nobel Prizes than the US (# Nobels / current population - I'm not motivated enough to correct for the population change over time ).

But it's also true that many technological advances come from the US (Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc.). Not much has come from the UK, in this area (prove me wrong...?). But that could be because of differences in the business environment, not differences in the educational system.

I'm not convinced that Nobel prizes are the most relevant way of measuring the two systems. It is clear that both are capable of producing brilliant people, but I suspect these people were brilliant beforehand.

As for technological advances, the key player in the field you mention is ARM. They're not widely known outside of the industry because they don't manufacture their own products, but rather sell the designs to all the big guys like Apple and Google. But believe it or not, they compete with companies like intel.

So what other metrics can we use? George Jones had some good articles arguing for requiring stringent general education requirements to earn a Bachelor's degree.

I think it would be useful to really nail down what the goal of earning a bachelor's degree is. If you take something as simple as "to make a person employable", I suspect both systems perform similarly. If the mission statement is to produce well rounded, cultured young men and women, perhaps this system of gen ed requirements does the trick.

It is my own personal experience though that I pick up a lot from just talking with my housemates. Together we cover a broad range of subjects and often get into very interesting discussions pulling ideas in from everywhere. That's my gen ed :)

 

[jtbell]

I always thought that in the U.S the word 'college' was equivalent to university, but it's actually similar to the way in which we would use it to describe the constituent 'colleges' of Cambridge for example (as opposed to it's more common use to mean a vocational school, which is why I tend to stick to 'university').

Actually we use the word "college" in both senses, in different contexts.

1. As noted above, universities usually have subdivisions which are often called "colleges."

2. Many academic institutions call themselves "Colleges". They're usually small (often 1000-2000 students), and they usually grant only or mostly bachelor's degrees. I got my B.A. at such a college, and I work at one now. There's been a trend during the last 25 years or so, for many of these institutions to re-brand themselves as "Universities," basically for promotional reasons. Several of our competitors in this region have done that during the time I've been here.

An exception to the "College = small" rule is Boston College (neighbor to Harvard and MIT) which has 8700 undergraduates, 4500 graduate students, and a number of Ph.D. programs including one in physics. Its Wikipedia page begins: "Boston College (BC) is a private Jesuit research university..."

3. In American English, "college" is colloquially used as a generic term for undergraduate education. People say things like "I'm going to college next year" or "he's in college now", regardless of whether the institution is formally a "College" or a "University". We never say "going to university" or "at university". (Or "uni".) When people write such things on PF, I assume they're not from the US.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... "The School Of Arts And Sciences" seems bizarre to me... My subject (physics) is part of my universities school of mathematical and physical sciences. The arts are entirely separate.

Oh, it's bizarre to me, too. That school is invariably the largest in any university since it encompasses anything from physics and chemistry to history and Black World Studies--my school has Architecture, your previous field, in the domain of CAS too.

What's more, the College of Arts and Sciences always offers two different degrees: Bachelor of Arts and the Bachelor of Science. They really ought to be separate.

They may be together for historical reasons, though. What would the elite (the only people who used to be allowed to get education) study in college if not something like classical humanities or hard sciences?