Immediately I would say specialize, pretty much along the same lines everyone else here does. As far as you being able to perform the technical aspects of your job aptly goes, you only need to train in your specific areas that you will be using, and it is a waste of time and money to be looking at an irrelevant subject with a professor.
but...There is more to learning than memorization of facts and methods. Education is about learning to be a functional member in society, not just in being able to perform your job in the technical aspect, but being able to be a competent person. Communication and problem solving skills are arguably more important that the technical aspects of any job you encounter, because you can work around what you don't know and find people who do.You can really get by with a fraction of what you learn even in your specialized classes at a job, so why bother to even take all the classes that pertain to your industry, and only the ones you need for the specific job you are going to have?
A college degree means more than technical competence. (In fact I'm sure we all know in many cases, it doesn't even mean that.) It means someone has the drive to get themselves to class enough to pass, the knowledge from either intuitive learning or long hours looking at books, and a diverse set of skills from all those "useless" classes that not only provide a broader knowledge base, but just a more interesting person to work with. When a company hires someone with a college degree they know that they are getting someone who not just has the majority of the technical training they need, they are getting a problem solver, a communicator, a hard worker.
Because really, no extremely narrow subject couldn't be conquered by a bum off the street in a year or two. We don't want illegal immigrants taking over our "skilled" labor force too now do we?
GorillaKing798 wrote:
Generalizing education wastes tax payer money and teaches to the middle of the road students. Higher level students don't thrive and lower students struggle to understand.
No, higher-level students are challenged by subjects that aren't their forte, and lower students generally struggle to understand period. Especially through high school core classes should be required across the board, there should just be distinct divisions of difficulty, for example at my school there are regulars, honors, and then AP (advanced placement) classes.
Personally I'm taking an AP history course right now that is really terrible. I don't enjoy the subject at all and would rather not take the class, but it's mostly because of how poorly the class is taught. On the other hand I'm taking an AP English class, another subject that isn't my favorite, but it is taught very well, and I know I'm getting something out of it. On the flip side I'm taking an honors Physics class, (not AP because I'm not allowed to take that until after honors physics) a subject that I excel at, that is taught extremely poorly. I know I could teach the class better than the teacher, even though he is the probably the best teacher in the honors physics team. The tests are generally very poorly worded, some real life application questions aren't actually accurate, and I actually have a retard in my class. Yes that's right, there is a slightly mentally retarded person in my
honors physics class.
My point is you can get something out of any class, it depends more on how the course is taught rather than the subject material itself.