▲ | aleph_minus_one 8 hours ago | |||||||
> Even if I enjoy learning, there were absolutely courses that were just a waste of time. My university experience is somewhat different, and I believe whether this holds true or not depends a lot on the degree course: - In mathematics, there are barely any "filler courses". Basically all of them were interesting in their own right (even though because of your own interests, you will likely find some more exciting than others). - On the other hand, computer science more felt like every professor had their own opinion how the syllabus should be, and the hodgepodge that came out of it was adopted as syllabus (design by committee). Thus, there were quite a lot of interesting things to learn, but also "filler courses". Additionally, the syllabus did not feel like a "consistent whole" with a clear vision, but rather like lots of isolated courses that you had to pass. | ||||||||
▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
[deleted] | ||||||||
▲ | eitally 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
I suspect even many math majors probably believe "general ed" required classes to be a waste of time. Point well taken, though: there are some subjects that do not lend themselves to editorializing or opinion. I majored in history & comparative religion as an undergrad and most of my lower level courses I'd consider to be "fact retention" efforts. Lots of reading, but not a lot of analysis or synthesis. I took mostly graduate level courses because of this for most of my last two years (and this was at a top 5 public university). | ||||||||
|