Yale's breadth vs. Oxford's depth

[King of Kensington]

Do you prefer the American "liberal arts" or Oxbridge approach where you "read" a subject?  This article compares Yale vs. Oxford educations:

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/04/23/whats-better-oxfords-depth-or-yales-breadth/

In the UK and Europe, you really get your "liberal arts" education in high school.

Although I'm Canadian I did my undergraduate degree in the US at a LAC.  I really enjoyed my experience and took courses all over the place, but I did find when I began graduate school that students that did degrees in Europe or majors that were more extensive.

I guess it isn't surprising that American masters degrees are often less rigorous than elsewhere since in many ways they're just "catching up" with European BA holders.*

* And an academic MA is less often a respected stand-alone degree but rather something to "fill the gaps" for students who aren't prepared to go straight into a Ph.D. program.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Breadth, any day.

The modern obsession with hyper-specialization is not only killing academia, but poses a danger to the entire society. Democracy needs well-rounded citizens who are capable of understanding the basics of each issue, not super-duper-experts who ignore everything of what's going on outside of their fields. The latter is how you get neoliberal hegemony.

[King of Kensington]

Breadth, any day.

The modern obsession with hyper-specialization is not only killing academia, but poses a danger to the entire society. Democracy needs well-rounded citizens who are capable of understanding the basics of each issue, not super-duper-experts who ignore everything of what's going on outside of their fields. The latter is how you get neoliberal hegemony.

Like PPE at Oxford?:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-11136511

[Xing]

Breadth, any day.

The modern obsession with hyper-specialization is not only killing academia, but poses a danger to the entire society. Democracy needs well-rounded citizens who are capable of understanding the basics of each issue, not super-duper-experts who ignore everything of what's going on outside of their fields. The latter is how you get neoliberal hegemony.

I generally agree with this, though I think some depth in a particular field is good as well. The ideal would be a working knowledge of a wide variety of subjects, with more in depth knowledge of a specific field or two. So, if I had to pick one, breadth, though ideally students would have a bit more depth in their field of study.

[King of Kensington]

Ideally, I'd like to have high school end one year earlier, and then have something like 2 years of general education/liberal arts and 3 years of in-depth study of the subject.

[OSR stands with Israel]

for STEM/Business : Depth

for any other major: Breadth

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is comparing two quite atypical universities really the best way to do this though?

[Torie]

Is comparing two quite atypical universities really the best way to do this though?

Is the "Oxbridge" approach even followed in other universities in the UK?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is comparing two quite atypical universities really the best way to do this though?

Is the "Oxbridge" approach even followed in other universities in the UK?

No, it's either a bit different or very different in pretty much all respects.

[King of Kensington]

I've changed the title to reflect this is largely,  though not entirely, about the most elite institutions.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

for STEM/Business : Depth

for any other major: Breadth

I think this distinction is actually also very important to note. At least where I teach/study, it is much more typical for STEM students to be very depth-oriented whereas other fields are breadth-oriented, and their respective academic departments teaching philosophies follow accordingly.