I've been at UCLA for two quarters now, and I've taken Anthropology, Psychology, Math, History, Astronomy, and a public speaking class.

I'm an ~aspiring~ Communications major, yet none of these classes are off course for me, thanks to the lovely general education requirements, or GEs. These courses are designed to give students basic skills that educators believe to be necessary later in life, but when you see the wide range of classes that fulfill these requirements, their purpose is dimmed.

Maybe an introduction class on human anatomy could provide some good basic knowledge, but is material learned in an oceanography class really vital ? While giving students the choice to dabble in a wide array of scientific classes, for example, they are also given the choice between what might be a very difficult and a very easy class. Rather than picking a class that might be of interest to them, students pick the class that has either the best grade distribution, the easiest tests, or the lightest workload. I can't blame anyone though, I'm the same way.

You can find me in Astronomy 3 (sometimes… or rarely) not because I thought I might find interest in it, but because it was a) ranked easiest GE at UCLA by several bloggers, and b) one of the only science GEs with spots left. These classes are perceived as being mandatory, and by definition, teenagers don't take pleasure in doing things they have to do. I tried going against this logic when I enrolled in my classes for Fall quarter.

As I scrolled through the wide array of classes I could choose from, I couldn't understand why my older brother complained so much about having to take this "useless classes"; they sounded fun ! I wish I knew how wrong I was. I took a so-called interesting GE and ended up putting more time and effort into that class than any other. I ended up dropping the class, telling myself that "it was way too much work for a GE". If I had treated it like any other class rather than just something that fulfills a requirement, I wouldn't have thought twice about the workload. The problem is that I know that I'm not the only one that thinks this way, because even among those who actually show up to Astronomy lecture, very few are actually stimulated by the material.

Students are only concerned about checking that box and not having to worry about it later, and the professors, quickly enough, figure this out. It's not fair to these professors, either. They have essentially devoted their lives to what they teach, and it cannot feel good to be faced with a lecture hall full of students who might not think twice about the material once they pass the class. Nothing stops students from enrolling in classes that are way out of range for their majors, but still sound interesting to them, so why tarnish these classes by making them mandatory ? Even though the class sizes would be smaller, it would be more beneficial to both the students and the teachers to be surrounded by people who share the same interest.

Because students consider GE's to be something to get over with, they are most likely to focus on completing them during their first two years of college. This time would be better spent taking classes in areas that students might actually find interest in, and could want to pursue in the future. I'm not saying it's impossible to have an epiphany in a GE, but some could easily be ruled out. I know that I don't want to be pre-med, just like a neuroscience major might have absolutely no interest in visual arts. I understand the logic behind the GE system, but I don't think either students or their GPAs are actually benefitting from them.

Beyond the issues of time and interest, GE classes are also a waste of money. I have to fulfill ten requirements to graduate, which is equivalent to a year of classes at UCLA. That's upwards of $60,000 that could be spent elsewhere. If I took only the GE courses that were somewhat related to my major, I would only have to take five, which not only seems more fair, but also more logical. We should have a broader range of knowledge to better grasp our major, but connecting Communications to Physics is too much of a stretch. European college students typically graduate in three years and pay significantly less money simply because they do not have these requirements, and I doubt that one could argue that they all lack the basic knowledge necessary to go on in life.

All I'm saying is, my aunt and uncle are both licensed doctors, and neither of them ever had to take a class under the "Philosophical and Linguistic Analysis" category.