Hacker News Reader

Comment by carlob | Hacker News Reader

Coming from a European country, I really have a hard time understanding this no-major thing. As a matter of fact I even have trouble understanding majors at all. Across the pond, when you go to university to study X you study X (and if X requires Y as a prerequisite also Y). Nobody prevents you from walking into a lecture hall in comparative linguistics if you are studying biology, you just won't get any credits for it. Experiencing a large range of topics, helping you understand what you want to do, and teaching you to think is supposed to be the role of high school around here.

View on HN

The goal of a liberal arts education (which is not unique to the United States) is to provide a well-rounded base of knowledge combined with critical thinking skills. For college students on this track, specifying a major becomes less important.

Majors are still important in a liberal arts education, unless you're majoring in Liberal Arts, in which case your career prospects are probably going to suffer substantially.

Can you graduate without a major? It never even occurred to me to try or ask anyone about it.

Some schools have an interdisciplinary degree which is close, I think. If I recall, you essentially have an advisor that oversees the classes you take and makes sure that you have "enough" credits in each subject (STEM, literature, humanities, etc) but you don't have to declare that X subject will be the focus of my studies.

If you don't have a major, then what are you really graduating from? Some schools have majors called "University Studies" that lets you essentially be undeclared for awhile until you figure out what you want to do but you can't graduate with this on a diploma. You still have to pick something. If you want a liberal arts education, then choose majors like English. If you want something specific, pick something specific.

There are many people that think they know what they want to do in high school, and maybe even get some experience doing it, but then begin to hate it once they've been doing it intensively for more than a year. The purpose of being a student isn't to restrict yourself to a specific set of knowledge you expect to learn; it's to explore knowledge and develop important skills for use in the workplace. Granted things vary depending on the profession you end up applying for.

Actually, at my uni, you probably could attend comparative linguistics. It wouldn´t help you get the biology degree much, but you still would receive credits.

I.e. my wife, as she completed her molecular-genetics masters (120 credits, after 180 credit bc. in biology), would have over 20 credits in choir singing and additional 20 in finish language?

agree. The 2 years core curriulum in the US college majors is an indictment of US high schools IMHO. I like the system here in Germany a lot better, its not perfect but it doesnt waste your time as much and gives you way more options.

I think most Americans have a lot of resistance to the idea of a system that consigns you to a particular fate by age 10.

Seriously. What happens if, as I did in the US, I'm convinced I want to be a doctor but at age 19 realize I really don't like chemistry, nor am I particularly good at it, and want to do something different?

In the specific example, you'd probably noticed that you don't like chemistry in your high school chemistry classes already.

And if you didn't, you'd switch to a different university/specialization after the first year or so, transferring credits for overlapping courses if there are any. That's not a very big deal, at least in Germany switching once even means you'll get the state education loans for longer if you need them.

In Europe if you wan't to be a doctor and you were 19 you'd already be in first year of a specific medicine degree.

The US doesn't track people early into career-focused educations but prefers a broader - or depending on your viewpoint, less focused - education.

For example, someone studying computer science in college may be required to also take courses in fine arts, history, and English literature.

This can feel like a waste of time for those who are definite that they want, say, a CS degree. I think the US should have more technical/career colleges, along with a higher respect for them.

But it can also give more options to change fields as an adult.

Parent's point is that high school should serve as the broad base of understanding in civics, arts, history, lit, etc. and by the time you're in university, you should be focusing on your major.

Yes, I believe I got that.

My point is that I don't agree. I think the US system "gives you way more options" because students aren't specializing so early.

Why should you focus on your major though all of college, to the (near) exclusion of other topics?

While I look at the sample schedules at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Timetable... and wonder about all the time wasted in religious studies.

I wouldn't say "wasted," even if you are not religious. A lot of European and early American history was somewhat difficult for me to penetrate until, as an adult, I developed an interest in learning about Christianity (its history, doctrines of different denominations, etc.) and suddenly a lot of things made more sense to me. If the "religious studies" courses include other religions, so much the better, as I don't doubt that having more understanding of the world's religions would illuminate world history in a similar way for me.

How much time do you think is needed?

In the "Sample grade 10 Gymnasium timetable", there's as much time spend on "religious studies" as "biology" (2 periods per week). In the "Sample grade 12 Gymnasium timetable", it's also 2 periods per week, and equal to the time spent on "Politics-Economy".

This seems well more than needed in order to understand the history.

Is the high school-level religious education in Germany really taught as a comparative religion that includes the world's religions?

The discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_education#Germany says that most of the German states teach "religious (Christian) education in close cooperation with the churches", and the teachers are "paid by the state and are bound to the German constitution, as well as answerable to the churches for the content of their teaching."

The discussion at https://www.german-way.com/history-and-culture/germany/relig... :

"A standard part of the public school curriculum in Germany is religious instruction (Religionsunterricht). For the most part, this is confined to Catholic or Protestant students, but some states also offer instruction for Jewish students. In Berlin three public schools also offer instruction for Buddhists. Although religious instruction is a required subject (according to the German Constitution!), students above a certain age (or by parental request) can opt out for personal reasons.

"Only in recent years has there been any discussion of offering Islamic instruction for students belonging to Germany’s largest non-Christian religious minority, but no German state (Bundesland) currently offers instruction for Muslim students in German, in the same way that Christian instruction is offered. ... What about the various forms of the Muslim religion (Sunni, Shiite, Alevite, etc.) and ethnic divisions (Turk, Albanian, Pakistani, etc.)?"

This makes it sound like the German courses teach the tenets of a specific faith, and are not a comparative/world religion training.

Lastly, understanding religious is important to an understanding of history. Does the German religious history really cover some of the negative sides of religion like the (early) Christian justification for slavery (eg, the Romanus Pontifex, Dum Diversas, and Inter Caetera)?

I make no warrants about what they teach in Germany because I'm not German, nor particularly well versed on the topic.

You were responding to my statement "While I look at the sample schedules at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Timetable.... and wonder about all the time wasted in religious studies" so I thought you were still on the topic of education in Germany.

Even if we shift topics, my first question still stands - how much time do you think should be spent on comparative religion classes at the high school level in the US?

As a follow-up, which course should it replace?

The question doesn't make a lot of sense since there is no standardized curriculum, nor am I saying that we necessarily need to have religious education for the entirety of schooling (although I think more than we get would be reasonable considering the importance of questions like iconoclasm to early settlers). The sentiment I was responding to was specifically that time spent learning the subject is wasted. Time doesn't have to be spent in a 100% optimal way, however we measure that, to not be wasted.

Everything I said is in regards to the top-level comment by jfaucett at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15706042 . I used the term "wasted" because that jfaucett wrote that "the system here in Germany ... doesnt waste your time as much" as the US.

You changed to a different topic. I did not argue "that time spent learning [comparative religious studies] is wasted", yet you bring it up again.

Since there is no required religion courses in public schools in the US (that I know of), I of course agree that there is no standardized curriculum.

It appears that most federal states in Germany has religious education for the entirety of schooling. It also appear that you may think that is excessive, compared to your preferences.

Does this mean that we agree?

> Since there is no required religion courses in public schools in the US (that I know of), I of course agree that there is no standardized curriculum.

Not what I mean. There is no federal, standardized curriculum at all in the US (although all the standardized tests with competencies, Common Core, etc. are strides in this direction), so asking me what course I think should be put aside doesn't make a lot of sense, since there isn't one set of courses to think about in the first place. But, sure, while it makes sense for religious schools (e.g., Catholic private schools), I don't think public schools need to be making religious studies a core subject on par with science, math, English, etc.

I know that there is no federal curriculum in the US. Then again, I wasn't being that restrictive. I was referring to any required religion courses in public school, including state and local level.

Some schools have voluntary courses like "Bible as literature". I believe some states teach world religions as part of a history or social studies course - that may be required. I remember learning about the basic tenets of Islam in world history class in 9th grade.

I also know that it makes sense for religious schools, which is why I wrote "public schools".

In most German states (which also has a federal system), public schools do make "religious studies a core subject on par with science, ...." The point of my original reply was that I felt that this was not needed.

I'm glad that we have concluded that we both agree, even if it took quite some time.

I don't know why you have to be so condescending. You don't have to keep replying if you don't think the conversation is productive.

??? I keep thinking you don't understand what I'm saying, and hoping that with a bit more explanation it becomes clear.

I do find it annoying that you seem to be constructing counter-arguments to statements I never made, and indeed thought I specifically avoided.

It looks like we are both on the same page (regarding the importance for mandatory religious education classes in the US), while at the beginning it seems like you were opposed to my original comment.

I thought this conversation was at an end.

Alright, then let it be so.

> Across the pond, when you go to university to study X you study X (and if X requires Y as a prerequisite also Y). Nobody prevents you from walking into a lecture hall in comparative linguistics if you are studying biology, you just won't get any credits for it. Experiencing a large range of topics, helping you understand what you want to do, and teaching you to think is supposed to be the role of high school around here.

Do you only get credit for X and its prerequisites?

In the US, it generally works like this. If you want to get a degree in X, you "major" in X. There will be four kinds of classes you have to take to get that degree.

1. Classes in X and its prerequisites. You will need to take a certain number of units of X. That will come from a mix of classes that are required for all X majors, and classes you can choose freely from the school's X classes. There may be things kind of in between optional and required, such as multiple sequences of related classes where you have to choose one of the sequences.

2. Specific classes that everyone has to take regardless of major. This set may be empty in some schools.

3. Breadth classes. For example, at Caltech everyone has to take a certain number of units of humanities and social sciences, equivalent to taking one humanities or social science class per term. 1/4 must be humanities, 1/4 social sciences, and the remaining 1/2 whatever mix you want.

4. The school may have a total unit requirement, that may be higher than the sum of the number of units required by #1, #2, and #3. You can generally choose these from anything the school offers.

So, over here you probably would get credit as a biology major if you decided to take comparative linguistics.

You "have a hard time understanding"? What's your question? You just seem to be stating it's different.

Part of the European system is that you are admitted to a certain college and only to study a certain subject.

I got into my college ('university') to study computer science, and I had interview and tests to check aptitude for that specific subject, but I wouldn't have been admitted to study something like medicine or music instead as I wouldn't have had the aptitude for that.

When you go to college in the US does one of the departments have to say 'yes this person had aptitude for our major'? Is it possible to get into a college and then realise you don't have aptitude for any of the majors?

Typically, when referring to college in the US, people mean university. Universities are made up of colleges (College of Business, College of Arts & Science, College of Fine Arts, etc). Colleges within universities can have their own admission criteria so if, for example, you started majoring in History and failed all of your classes and wanted to study Finance, the College of Business could reject your application to change majors into their college. However, what usually happens is someone starts majoring in X, eventually realizes that they want to major in Y and there is no problem with them switching.

Different universities work differently in the US. Some have categories of majors, like UW [0], where some are free to declare but others have requirements/prerequisites.

[0]: http://www.washington.edu/uaa/advising/academic-planning/maj...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com