Getting a "Minor" in College:
What it Means when Someone says "I minored in that"
Brady Norvall, M.A. (with four minors, of course)
Founder and C.E.O. at FindaBetterU®
This is going to be short and sweet, people:
Most universities (note: not all) have three requirements for graduation:
1) That the student has completed the required number of credits. Credits correspond to courses taken. But just because a student has the required number of credits does not mean they can graduate. Indeed, they must also have …
2) General curriculum/general education/core curriculum requirements completed. This is most often going to resemble more or less the following, 1 lab science, 1 social science, 1 math, 1 foreign language, 1 writing seminar, 1 humanities course. It varies a bit from one school to the next. There are some schools which don't follow this same structure but they do offer a core, nonetheless, that which comes to mind is Columbia University, which is entirely humanities-driven (read about it here, http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/core). This leaves us with the third component of a student's classroom efforts …
3) The major. When a student gets a degree, that piece of paper does not say anything about the credits achieved or the core curriculum requirements met. What it says is that the student has completed the requirements for a Bachelor degree of either Science (B.S./S.B.) or Arts (B.A./A.B.) with some other options possible, as well (Bachelor of Fine Arts, BFA; Bachelor of Science, Engineering, B.S.E.; Bachelor of Business Administration, B.B.A.). Let's just take English as the example (because literature is so popular these days, obviously). If a student wants to pursue English, she must fulfill the major requirements from her university's English department. Thus, an English degree varies from institution to institution. Even within the institution, if 10 people graduate one year with degrees in English (B.A./A.B.) it's quite possible that none of them took all the same courses. It's more than possible, in fact, it's probable. Because to get the degree, one must take somewhere around 12-14 courses, on average, in that field. But in English, for example, those 12 courses could be broken up into 4 areas, wherein a student must take 3 classes from each. It could look like this
| Area 1 | Area 2 | Area 3 | Area 4 |
| European Literature | American Literature | Poetry/Film | Contemporary Lit. |
| 25+/- options | 25+/- options | 15+/- options | 25+/- options |
Under each of the 4 areas, there can be easily twenty-five different courses from which one could select (depending on the size of the institution). So each student selects the 3 courses under Area 1 that most appeal to her. Then, she does the same for Areas 2-4. After the 12 courses are completed from the 4 areas, the student has completed the necessary requirements for the English department to confer her Bachelor degree.
Seeing that the other two requirements are met, as well, the student can then graduate.
But this article is not about graduation requirements, (and please now forgive my statement about this being "short and sweet"). Rather, it's about what "a college minor" actually means. But we can't understand the minor without understanding the rest … or perhaps I just like to watch myself type.
What is a minor then, you ask?
A minor can be anything from someone taking 5 philosophy classes of his choosing (not following any area-type requirements, as in the chart above), that could qualify in certain departments, at certain institutions, as a minor. Some universities will have students follow a certain regimen, such as 1 class from each of the 4 areas and then 2 other classes of your choice. That means 6 classes, in total. For minors, there is no standard rule. A minor is something one should pursue simply because they're fascinated with a subject and want to use a few elective courses to delve more deeply into that area. Twenty years ago, the same thing could have been said for majors. But now that everyone has become so outcome-oriented and majors are expected to lead to a professional skill-set (this is not my hope, but it is the expectation of many these days), majors no longer are the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge-sake. Minors are. Minors do not show up on a diploma. Let me repeat this, MINORS DO NOT SHOW UP ON A DIPLOMA! They typically aren't even listed on a transcript. Anyone could show you her diploma (let's say a B.A. in Biology) and include that she also had three minors: Chemistry, French, and Political Science, and you would be none the wiser (until you speak to her in French about global policy around the chemical consequences of … okay, I've been outed. I do NOT have a minor in any of those three areas). You get the point.
I'm not "revealing" a trick. Rather, it's a clarification I want people to understand. Minors are great. They show more depth of interest in an area than most university students without that minor would likely have. At the same time, they're not indicating any general knowledge in a specific sense. In other words, one could get a minor in philosophy without ever studying William James or Immanuel Kant. That's not possible if one pursues a philosophy major. In this regard, minors are exactly what they sound like "a minor amount of critical knowledge". A minor in anything is best for these reasons (in no particular order):
1) Dinner party banter
2) First date braggadocio (assuming one does not want a second date)
3) Strictly because the material is exciting and/or the professors teaching it, great.
If you have another reason why a minor would be beneficial, feel free to leave it in the comments.
Top 5 Television Shows of All-Time:
Building Empathy through TV
Brady Norvall, M.A.
Founder and C.E.O. at FindaBetterU®
In honor of the Golden Globes, I want to make a list of a few great television shows which anyone can watch and while doing so, could increase their cultural intelligence and/or empathy. Empathy is key in the world and it's something that I find gets lost in the push for professionalization of our young people at an early age. I don't want to make this "another article about the value of a liberal arts degree", but let's be honest, once you've taken one film studies class (liberal arts) no one ever watches a movie the same again. Same thing with literature, history, anthropology, these are what build the context which so richly enables our understanding of ourselves and others. So, without further ado, let's talk about the television shows which do the same.
1) Mad Men – This is the show which helped to reveal the cultural shifts the world has undergone in the past 50+ years. Not only is the workplace defined in an entirely different way now, as Google is a 180 degree contrast to Don Draper's space, but the relationships (between the sexes, and from parent to child, in particular), the patriarchy, sexism (and entitlement), and all-around schedule of how a day in the lives of our parents or our grandparents might have been, reveals much to anyone born after 1970. What was the sexual revolution and how did it alter the landscape of everything we do/have today? Watch Mad Men and you'll begin to understand.
2) Orange is the New Black – It's what most people (hopefully) never see or experience, but it's a tremendously broken system of oppression and expense in the United States. At the same time, the characters in this show enlighten us to the humanity of inmates. One cannot help but feel that perhaps the prison system IS NOT the best place to rehabilitate a person. And let's face it, the responsibility to reform the world's most troubled systems, be it finance, education, politics, or prison, will be up to the generation of those born in the last 40 years: (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/08/the_most_entitled_generation_isnt_millennials_its_baby_boomers_125184.html).
3) Glee – It's really a show about people on the fringe of social acceptance. This is critical for people to come to understand and is the only way to build compassion and empathy. The fact is that with growing economic inequality- and inequality with regard to race and gender issues being exposed much more regularly as a consequence of this- many more people are becoming "on the fringe" of society. Plus, any show about teenagers is a great opportunity for parents to tune-in and come to realize how much times have changed and, perhaps, how saying things like "when I was your age …" is sometimes just impossible to conceptualize for a young person.
4) The Sopranos – I'm putting it on this list for one reason: Tony Soprano was a depressive (and possible sociopath). His mental illness was not critical to the show it WAS the show. It was not a coming and going choice he made, like too many misunderstand mental health issues to be, rather a part of Tony Soprano he had to learn to understand and accept. Nowhere was this better illustrated than Soprano's relationship with his therapist. In their time together, we can see the struggles and volatility of a man afflicted with himself. It is a topic that we all should work to better understand and this show does much, in my opinion, to bring such a topic into popular culture.
5) Transparent – It's not just about the issue which the title blatantly refers to: the transsexual parent, the patriarch of the family. This show is about secrets, shame, and how families can exist but not really be present for each other. Many of the actors who are in the show have some intimate connection with the main theme, so it feels very personal at almost every turn. It is, by far, the best television I have EVER seen, period.
Remember, the most important thing we have to do as responsible citizens of a global world is to continue to educate ourselves to the differences and challenges others face. Is television the best way to come to understand others? No. As a stand-alone tool, nothing is. But it is able to create a dialogue and heighten awareness in such a way that we slowly learn (or for some people, unlearn) about ourselves. Happy watching.
Let's Not Shame the Kids
Brady Norvall, M.A.
Founder and C.E.O. at FindaBetterU®
A discussion I find myself often in with parents revolves around what is too revealing when it comes to how much colleges should "really know". The issue at stake is always the same and it's expressed like this: parents tell me (and their teenager who is inevitably sitting with us) that vulnerability equals weakness and weakness is something of which we should be ashamed. I was reminded of this today when I had to go to a hospital pharmacy to pick up a prescription for an infection which has nothing to do with the story.
I was sitting in the waiting room of the hospital's pharmacy, with at least seventy-five other people, when an old man in a wheelchair, in a far corner, fell forward- and out of- his wheelchair. When I looked up from my book, everyone was staring but none were moving. He was completely helpless and his caretaker was the only one acting. I put my book down and went over to help, working with the caretaker to try to get the man in a seated position. His legs were tangled, he could not speak or move his head or hands. He was completely incapacitated. Everyone else seemed paralyzed, also. I left him sitting down; pharmacy techs and a security guard were now moving and talking in vigorously hushed whispers, circulating the air around the man as he sat, alone, on the floor. I sat back down with my book, waiting again for my name to be called. I could not focus on the pages, though. I could only think about my students. Because this room was full of adults, many of whom looked quite healthy and alert, I began to wonder about all the teenagers and young adults I know. Who of my students would have jumped up to help in this situation? And you know what, I could only think of a handful … who MAY NOT have been at this man's side. Hundreds from my decade working with adolescents would have been right there with this man. I know this because I've seen them act. I know their most intimate hopes, all of which are good. I know their inhibitions, their vulnerable egos. These kids are people of action, yes. But they're just good people who have not (yet?) been numbed or, perhaps, "enlightened" to the shamefulness of whatever was so bad here: old age? loss of capacities? a person in a hospital who needed help?
Say what you may about the "Me Generation" and their growing "disconnect" with the world outside of their technology, but most young people want good and hope to be good. Perhaps they get confused sometimes at what "doing good" means, but I would bet most 16 year olds have a stronger "good navigator" than the rest of us. Perhaps it's just over time that we become exposed to so many strange ideas of what a "good life" means, so many different definitions of success that we suddenly lose track of the people who fall outside our periphery. Yet, the students I come into contact with on a daily basis are value-driven and aspirational. As I write this, I think about how my students remind me of a story Louis C.K. tells about different perspectives and their contrasting views toward a homeless man: (best clip I could find) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH6N_qqFywY
The metaphor: most adults are Louis and his friend, and young people are the cousin from out-of-town. Young people are inherently good and at some point it's us, parents, coaches, pop culture who confuse their sense of "good", who convince them that vulnerability is shameful. This is something I really believe universities in the U.S. can help reconcile- and have for decades. But it seems we're getting precariously close to a tipping point; it's too little, too late. Universities build community and create an environment which fosters empathy and mentorship, yes. But they can't create miracles, and re-create an understanding of what is and isn't "shameful" or "good", if we have distorted these concepts for young people since birth.
I have a lot of faith in young people. We all have a great deal invested in them, to be sure. I am certain had that pharmacy today been full of teenagers instead of adults I would have witnessed a very different response. No shame, just truth. No stigma, just acceptance.