Economic history didn't do much for me, either. (Now, granted, that could be eye-opening, for at least some people, if taught well and with solid content. But in my case, for that class... meh.)
Someone can say this about any single lower undergraduate subject :)
p.s. Library Science course would have been an eye-opening experience for me, given my fascination with books and libraries when I was a teenager.
What they really need is a better system for internet research, the UIs those systems use last time I worked in a library on a project was terrible.
I found a lot of redundancy by splitting things in modules. (uml, oop, sql felt like 3 sides of the same hypercoin, granted the first 2 may disappear from books soon).
algorithmics and mathematics (and other topics) may be merged into one ?
or maybe that would be pedagogically detrimental.. I feel that it would allow more time to spend on a concept since you don't have to see bits scattered in different courses.
When you say algorithmics and mathematics, do you mean all of computer science and all of maths? Do you think a single course should cover, say, Dijkstra's algorithm and partial differential equations?
Usually, each course already covers a wide array of concepts. I can't think of a single concept that was explored by different bits in different courses. The closest I can think of are 2 courses I had, one of which was focused on analytical solutions for linear algebra (matrices), and the other focused on numerical solutions to the same problems. Even then, the split did make sense, since they were focused on different concepts (mathematical objects, their properties and how to work with them in the first case, computation and more applied mathematics solutions for the second).
In the case of subjects with a very large number of students, it is possible to produce specialized modules, so you might have a university offer a separate probability-for-scientists and probability-for-mathematicians classes that it considers to be interchangable, but differs in how it covers the subject/what background it assumes.
(Having a hard time seeing Library Science as a specific requirement.)
I guess the value is it means the students have no excuse to not know how to find library resources, but I feel like most people in the class were generally familiar with the idea of a library and how to use it.
A proper introduction to Library Science is about how to run a library...
And yes, it really was "how to use a card catalog". (Hey, I'm old. It really was cards.)
I can say that one of my Calculus classes and my other English classes made me want to quit school. The teachers were horrible; either arrogant and condescending or incompetent at teaching (which made us a bad pair because I was an incompetent student at times).
I'd echo the vote for Physics.
A good philosophical ethics class is mostly uncomfortable...
> People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
They went over fallacies, truth tables, tautology, and other things.
I took that with a great professor that wanted you to learn and be able to make strong arguments. You had to be able to break apart anything thrown at you and call out what it was.
Everyone would be able to see how others are trying to take advantage.
The other is also doable. How to phrase things in a way to get what you want. I think he’d approve...