When students start college, they usually pick a major for a pretty clear reason. Maybe it’s journalism, business, biology, education—whatever it is, that choice reflects what they want to do, what they can afford, and what they’re genuinely interested in. So, it feels a little confusing that, after making that decision, we still have to spend a big chunk of our time and mainly tuition on general education classes that don’t always seem connected to what we actually want to study or do in a specific career field.
The biggest problem with it I believe is the cost. College is already expensive, and every extra class just adds to student debt. When students have to take a bunch of gen ed classes outside their major, they end up spending thousands of dollars on credits that most likely don’t help them in their future careers. For a lot of students — especially those working part‑time jobs or relying on loans — that’s more than just annoying. It’s a real financial strain. If someone already knows what they want to go into, for example, sports media, they are required to take classes such as biology or calculus, when neither have nothing to do with their primary study, which only takes away both their time and money.
Many degree programs are already packed with required major courses and internship requirements. Adding unnecessary layers of general education requirements often means heavier semester costs or even extra semesters. In a job market where jobs have become scarce and there is a lot of uncertainty following graduation, students are eager to start their careers, earn an income, and not be overwhelmed by the extra dollars spent on gen ed classes.
I’ve heard the argument before that general education courses form “balanced” graduates who are well versed in a variety of topics. But that assumes all students benefit similarly from the same model. In reality, learning methods and career paths change. As a journalism student, I may benefit from courses in political science, but that connection isn’t always made in the gen ed structure. Instead of providing flexibility, students often are subject to fixed requirements that don’t fit their goals.
I do think college today feels progressively career-focused — with the institution of internship requirements and courses focused on the job hiring process. Students are facing rising living costs, competitive job markets and difficulty to support their investment into college. If universities market themselves as the first step before the real world, then degree paths should reflect that guarantee. Requiring broad coursework that doesn’t clearly link with professional skills sends mixed signals about what college is supposed to accomplish.
That doesn’t mean general education has no worth. Exposure in different subjects can generate interest and expand knowledge. But the key word is exposure — and I really believe exposure should be a choice, not a mandate. That’s what high school is for. If students want to explore philosophy, literature or science outside their major, they absolutely should, just not for the price students are subjected to pay in the end.
A better solution would be flexibility. Instead of fixed general education requirements, colleges should allow students to design introductory courses to complement their major. Or schools could reduce the number of mandatory credits and give students more control over how they build their academic experience. That approach respects both intellectual growth and financial reality.
Ultimately, students are adults investing in their futures. I think they should be trusted to shape and have a say into how their education should align with their goals. General education may have been designed with good intentions, but in today’s economic climate, mandatory gen ed requirements feel outdated.
