Table of Contents
Introduction: Re-evaluating the Core of the College Degree
The American undergraduate degree is built upon a foundational promise: that beyond the specialized knowledge of a major, students will receive a broad, liberal education.
This promise is embodied in the General Education (Gen Ed) curriculum, a suite of courses intended to be the philosophical soul of higher learning.
Yet, this core concept is currently facing an existential crisis of identity and value.
On one side stands the institutional ideal, which posits Gen Ed as a crucible for critical thinking, civic virtue, and the cultivation of durable, transferable skills essential for a life of meaning and a career of adaptability.1
On the other stands a growing chorus of discontent from the very students it is meant to serve.
They decry these requirements as a “money-making scam,” a “waste of time,” and an irrelevant, costly detour from their primary goal of career preparation.3
This chasm between institutional rhetoric and student reality has never been wider or more consequential.
The complaints are not merely anecdotal grumbling; they reflect a deep-seated and legitimate concern about the return on investment for a college education that has become financially burdensome for millions.
Students and their families, facing unprecedented levels of debt, are rightly questioning the value of every credit hour.
When a significant portion of that credit load—often up to half of a bachelor’s degree—is dedicated to courses that feel disconnected from their professional aspirations, the backlash is not only predictable but understandable.6
This tension forces a central question upon every academic leader: In an era of skyrocketing tuition and intense pressure for direct career preparation, is the General Education curriculum an anachronistic, costly indulgence, or is it, in fact, the most critical, adaptive, and career-resilient component of a 21st-century education?
This report argues that the fault lies not in the philosophy of General Education, but in its execution, its structure, and, most critically, its narrative.
The widespread “smorgasbord” approach to Gen Ed has created a fragmented, checklist-driven experience that fails to deliver on its own lofty promises, leaving it vulnerable to charges of irrelevance and exploitation.8
To salvage and revitalize this essential component of higher education, institutional leaders must move beyond defensive platitudes.
They require a new architecture and a new language to articulate its value.
This analysis will proceed in four parts.
First, it will deconstruct the architectural blueprint of General Education, examining its philosophical origins and common curricular structures.
Second, it will delve into the great debate, presenting the powerful indictments from students and faculty alongside the institutional and employer defense, analyzing the profound disconnect between the two.
Third, and most critically, this report will introduce three novel conceptual frameworks—Intellectual Portfolio Theory, Cognitive Cross-Training, and Academic Mise en Place—designed to reframe the narrative of Gen Ed from a bureaucratic requirement to an intentional strategy for lifelong success.
Finally, it will provide concrete case studies demonstrating the tangible return on investment of “irrelevant” knowledge, followed by a set of strategic recommendations for institutional leaders.
The objective is to provide a comprehensive, actionable guide for architecting a General Education program that is not only defensible but truly desirable in a complex and unpredictable world.
Section 1: The Architectural Blueprint of General Education
To understand the current crisis in General Education, one must first appreciate its intended design.
Like any architectural plan, the Gen Ed curriculum is composed of a guiding philosophy and a structural framework.
While the philosophy is remarkably consistent across American higher education, the structural implementation is wildly diverse.
This divergence between a unified ideal and a fragmented reality is the foundational crack in the system, a deep-seated paradox that explains much of the confusion and criticism surrounding its purpose and value.
The Stated Philosophy: From Civic Virtue to Critical Thinking
The intellectual lineage of General Education is deeply rooted in the classical liberal arts tradition, which aims to cultivate a “well-rounded” individual prepared for active and responsible citizenship.2
The historical purpose was not job training but the development of a free mind, capable of reasoned debate, ethical consideration, and an appreciation for the cultural and scientific achievements of humanity.
This philosophy was formally codified for the modern American university in the 1945 Harvard Committee report,
General Education in a Free Society, often referred to as the “Red Book.” This influential document established a model that most U.S. institutions would follow for decades, cementing the idea that a specialized education must be balanced with intellectual breadth.8
In the 21st century, this philosophy has evolved but its core tenets remain.
The contemporary articulation of Gen Ed’s purpose is to foster intellectual agility and prepare students for a complex, interconnected world.9
The primary goal is to promote critical thinking across a multitude of subjects, pushing students to engage with ideas and methodologies outside their chosen major.1
By doing so, universities aim to cultivate essential “habits of mind” and a suite of highly desirable transferable skills.9
These are the so-called “soft skills” that employers consistently demand: clear communication (both written and oral), quantitative reasoning, ethical analysis, teamwork, creative problem-solving, and intercultural competence.9
The curriculum is thus positioned as the primary vehicle for delivering these durable competencies, providing the necessary tools for students to not only succeed in their careers but also to positively impact society.9
It is meant to be the part of the university experience that challenges students to think broadly and deeply about the enduring questions and challenges of humanity, preparing them to live and learn in an ever-changing world.8
Common Curricular Structures: Distribution Models, Thematic Pathways, and Core Curricula
While the philosophical vision of Gen Ed is one of integrated, holistic development, the practical implementation is often anything but.
The structure of Gen Ed requirements, which typically account for one-third to one-half of the credits needed for a bachelor’s degree, varies significantly from one institution to another.6
This structural diversity can be broadly categorized into several dominant models.
The most prevalent model is the Distribution or Distributional Requirements system.
In this framework, students are required to take a certain number of courses from a broad menu of disciplinary categories.6
This is the “smorgasbord” approach criticized for its lack of coherence.8
Common categories include:
- Writing/Composition: Nearly universal, these courses (e.g., English Composition I and II) focus on foundational skills in analytical, argumentative, and research-based writing.6
- Quantitative Reasoning: Courses in mathematics, statistics, or calculus designed to improve numerical literacy and the ability to interpret quantitative data.6
- Natural Sciences: Selections from biology, chemistry, physics, geology, or astronomy to foster an understanding of the natural world and the scientific method.6
- Social Sciences: Courses in psychology, sociology, economics, or anthropology that provide perspectives on human behavior and social structures.6
- Humanities: The study of philosophy, literature, history, and religion, intended to develop analytical skills and engage with the enduring questions of human existence.6
- Arts: Courses in painting, music, theater, or dance that engage students in creative thinking and expression.6
- Diversity/Global Perspectives: A more recent addition, these courses focus on non-Western traditions, intercultural competence, and understanding diverse societal perspectives.6
In contrast to the loose distributional model, some institutions employ a more structured Core Curriculum.
Here, all students take a common set of prescribed courses, creating a shared intellectual experience.
For example, Gonzaga University’s core is built around a central humanistic question, ensuring that every student grapples with the same foundational ideas, regardless of their major.9
This approach prioritizes curricular coherence over student choice.
A hybrid model, the Thematic or Inquiry-Based Curriculum, attempts to balance structure and flexibility.
Instead of organizing requirements by discipline (e.g., “History”), this model groups courses around broad themes or “Habits of Mind.” American University’s AU Core, for instance, requires students to take courses in five areas of inquiry, such as “Creative-Aesthetic Inquiry” and “Ethical Reasoning”.9
This encourages an interdisciplinary approach while still allowing students to choose from a variety of courses that fit within each theme.
Finally, at the far end of the spectrum lies the Open Curriculum.
Practiced at a select few institutions like Brown University and Amherst College, this model eliminates Gen Ed requirements entirely, granting students maximum freedom to design their own course of study.8
This approach places the ultimate responsibility for achieving intellectual breadth on the student, reflecting a deep trust in their ability to self-direct their learning.
The vast differences between these models mean that the “General Education” experienced by a student at one university can be fundamentally different from that at another, contributing to a lack of a clear, shared identity for the concept nationwide.
Table 1: A Comparative Matrix of General Education Models at US Universities
The lack of a standardized approach to General Education is a primary source of its identity crisis.
The following table demonstrates the significant variation in philosophy and structure across different types of American universities, visually representing the spectrum from highly structured, philosophical cores to broad, flexible distribution systems.
This matrix allows for a clear comparison of how different institutions attempt to solve the same pedagogical problem, highlighting the absence of a single, universally accepted “best practice.”
| Institution | Program Name | Core Philosophy/Guiding Question | Key Structural Components |
| American University 9 | AU Core Curriculum | An inquiry-based liberal arts education designed to challenge curiosity and prepare students for a complex world. | Foundations: AU Experience, Written Communication, Quantitative Literacy, Complex Problems. Habits of Mind: Creative-Aesthetic, Cultural, Ethical, Natural-Scientific, and Socio-Historical Inquiry. Integrative Courses. |
| Gonzaga University 9 | Core Curriculum | “As students of a Catholic, Jesuit, and humanistic university, how do we educate ourselves to become women and men for a more just and humane global community?” | Five Learning Outcomes: Basic modes of inquiry, Intercultural knowledge/competence, Clear and persuasive communication, Reason from faith and spirituality, Formulate growth and social transformation. |
| UCLA 15 | General Education Requirements | To reveal how scholars create and evaluate new knowledge, introduce important ideas of human cultures, and foster appreciation for diverse perspectives. | Foundations of the Arts and Humanities: Literary/Cultural Analysis, Philosophical/Linguistic Analysis, Visual/Performance Arts. Foundations of Society and Culture: Historical Analysis, Social Analysis. Foundations of Scientific Inquiry: Life Sciences, Physical Sciences. |
| University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) 16 | General Education | To provide a foundation for lifelong learning across six distinct areas of knowledge. | Six Categories: Analyzing the Natural World, Understanding the Individual and Society, Understanding the Past, Understanding the Creative Arts, Exploring World Cultures, Understanding U.S. Society. |
| University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO) 10 | General Education Requirements | To provide grounding in essential skills, perspectives, and habits of mind necessary to navigate the challenges of the 21st century. | Three Areas: Fundamental Skills Courses (15 hours), Distribution Courses (25 hours across Sciences, Humanities, Social Sciences), Diversity Courses (6 hours, U.S. and Global). |
The existence of such disparate models reveals a fundamental tension within higher education.
While all these institutions espouse similar goals of critical thinking and intellectual breadth, their methods for achieving them are profoundly different.
This structural incoherence at the national level makes it difficult to mount a unified defense of Gen Ed, as an argument in favor of Gonzaga’s highly integrated core does not necessarily apply to a university with a loose, “smorgasbord” distribution model.
This leads to a foundational paradox: the philosophical aims of General Education are almost universally ambitious, holistic, and integrated, yet the most common method of implementation—the distributional model—is structurally fragmented and encourages a checklist mentality.
It is an architecture at odds with its own purpose.
A curriculum designed as a loose collection of unrelated parts cannot be reasonably expected to produce a coherent and integrated intellectual experience for the student.
This disconnect is the primary source of the chasm between the noble ideals espoused by university catalogs and the often-disappointing reality experienced by students.
Furthermore, the evolution of Gen Ed has been marked by a creep of bureaucracy.
In an effort to ensure quality, portability, and assessability, universities have created complex systems of Gen Ed committees, Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), and course approval processes.10
While well-intentioned, this bureaucratization can inadvertently shift the focus from intellectual inspiration to administrative compliance.
Faculty may design syllabi to “check the boxes” for a particular SLO, and students may view the courses as just another hurdle to clear.
This reinforces a compliance mindset that is antithetical to the spirit of genuine curiosity and exploration that Gen Ed is meant to inspire.
The administrative machinery designed to uphold the quality of Gen Ed may, in fact, be contributing to the very problem it seeks to solve by stripping the experience of its philosophical soul and turning it into just another set of requirements to be fulfilled.
Section 2: The Great Debate: Indispensable Foundation or Financial Exploitation?
The chasm between the philosophy and practice of General Education has fueled a fierce and increasingly polarized debate.
To its critics, particularly students bearing the financial burden, Gen Ed represents a costly, irrelevant, and often intellectually vapid set of hurdles.
To its defenders, primarily institutions and employers, it is the indispensable foundation for career success and engaged citizenship in a rapidly changing world.
Examining the core arguments on both sides reveals a profound disconnect, not just in opinion, but in the very language used to define value in higher education.
The conflict is not merely about which courses to require; it is a battle over the fundamental purpose of a college degree in the 21st century.
The Student and Faculty Indictment: A Critique of Cost, Relevance, and Rigor
The case against General Education is multifaceted, but it is most powerfully articulated through the lens of cost and perceived value.
The most severe and emotionally charged accusation is that Gen Ed is a form of financial exploitation.
Critics argue that mandating up to two years of courses unrelated to a student’s chosen career path is a deliberate strategy by universities to extend degree programs and maximize revenue.3
This sentiment was captured in a viral tweet declaring Gen Ed a “complete scam for your money to keep you paying for four plus years”.5
The argument is not abstract; it is grounded in tangible costs.
For example, one analysis calculated that out-of-state journalism majors at the University of Missouri were paying over $40,000 for their Gen Ed courses alone—a substantial investment in coursework they may never use professionally.5
For students already struggling with the affordability of higher education, this forced expenditure on “unnecessary coursework” can feel like a betrayal of the university’s mission.5
This feeling of exploitation is compounded by the persistent critique of irrelevance and redundancy.
Students frequently complain that Gen Ed courses have no bearing on their major or career goals and are often simple repeats of material they already covered in high school.4
An aspiring engineer forced to take a history class, or a future graphic designer mandated to take algebra, may view the requirement as a waste of time and energy that could be better spent honing their specialized skills.4
This sense of apathy is a natural response to being forced to study a subject one has no interest in, purely to satisfy a bureaucratic requirement.4
The argument is simple: if a student has already identified their career path, unrelated coursework feels like a detour, not an enhancement.3
The indictment is not limited to students.
Both students and faculty have raised serious concerns about the lack of rigor and coherence in many Gen Ed programs.
From the student perspective, these courses are often seen as “watered down” versions of their departmental counterparts, designed specifically for non-majors and easy to pass with minimal effort.3
Students openly admit to selecting Gen Ed courses based on low workloads and the likelihood of receiving a high grade, rather than for their intellectual content.19
This perception is alarmingly corroborated by internal institutional critiques.
A comprehensive review of Harvard’s Gen Ed program revealed a system in crisis, suffering from a profound lack of identity and coherence.19
The report found that many faculty were unaware their courses even fulfilled a Gen Ed requirement, and that the distinction between a true Gen Ed course and a simple distributional requirement was lost on both students and faculty.
Teaching assistants (TFs) found the courses exceptionally difficult to teach due to the wide variance in student expertise and, more damningly, student commitment.
The report also uncovered a perverse incentive structure, where some faculty in the humanities admitted to intentionally lowering workloads and promising high grades in their Gen Ed courses in order to attract large enrollments, which in turn helps support their graduate student funding.19
This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of mediocrity, where the system itself encourages the very lack of rigor that students criticize.
When the curriculum lacks a unifying philosophy and courses are not held to a high standard, the entire enterprise is devalued from within.
The Institutional and Employer Defense: Cultivating Durable Skills for an Unpredictable Future
In the face of these potent criticisms, defenders of General Education argue that its value is not immediate or obvious, but long-term and foundational.
The primary defense centers on the cultivation of career-ready “soft skills.” Proponents argue that the Gen Ed curriculum is the most effective mechanism for developing the transferable competencies that employers across all industries universally demand: effective written and oral communication, critical thinking, quantitative analysis, complex problem-solving, teamwork, and ethical reasoning.9
An English composition course is not just about grammar; it refines the ability to communicate clearly and persuasively.
A philosophy course is not an abstract indulgence; it challenges students to think critically and appreciate diverse viewpoints.11
These are not “fluff” but foundational abilities that are essential for long-term career growth and leadership.2
Beyond direct career preparation, the institutional defense emphasizes intellectual and personal development.
A broad education is seen as essential for creating well-rounded individuals and engaged citizens.12
Courses in the humanities, arts, and social sciences expose students to diverse perspectives, challenge their assumptions, and help them understand their place in a larger global and historical context.9
The goal is to develop “the capacity for self-understanding” and the ability to participate thoughtfully in civic dialogue, which are seen as core outcomes of a university education.2
Furthermore, defenders argue that Gen Ed provides crucial adaptability for the future of work.
In a world defined by rapid technological change, automation, and economic disruption, hyper-specialized knowledge can become obsolete quickly.21
A broad, liberal arts-based foundation, however, builds mental flexibility and resilience.
It teaches students
how to learn, preparing them to navigate multiple career changes and adapt to jobs that have not yet been created.20
Research shows that while STEM graduates may have higher starting salaries, the earnings gap often closes or even reverses by mid-career, as the durable skills honed in a liberal arts education—like communication, leadership, and strategic thinking—become more valuable.21
Finally, Gen Ed serves a vital exploration function.
Many students enter college without a declared major or with uncertainty about their career path.
The Gen Ed curriculum provides a structured opportunity to explore a wide range of subjects, allowing students to discover hidden talents, ignite new passions, and make a more informed decision about their major and future career.6
For these students, Gen Ed is not a detour; it is the map.
An Analysis of Curricular Disconnect: When Philosophy Fails Practice
Ultimately, the fierce debate over General Education reveals that both sides have valid points.
The core of the problem is not that one side is right and the other is wrong, but that a massive disconnect exists between the high-minded philosophy of Gen Ed and its often-flawed on-the-ground execution.
The institutional defense is based on what Gen Ed should be, while the student indictment is based on what it often is.
This disconnect is not a new phenomenon.
A large-scale quantitative study by Alexander Astin in 1993 concluded that, on the whole, General Education programs “do not seem to make much difference in any aspect of the student’s cognitive or affective development”.8
More recent analyses have echoed this concern, noting a troubling lack of empirical evidence to support the lofty claims made about Gen Ed’s transformative power.8
The problem is that the most common curricular structure—the “fragmented, smorgasbord” distribution model—is simply not designed to produce the integrated, coherent intellectual journey that the philosophy promises.8
The internal Harvard report serves as a stark case study of this failure in practice.19
Even at one of the world’s most elite universities, the Gen Ed program was found to be incoherent, poorly understood by its own faculty, and treated with cynicism by its students.
When faculty have an incentive to teach large, easy Gen Ed courses to support their departmental budgets, the entire program’s intellectual integrity is compromised.19
This creates a system where the curriculum’s structure and incentives are actively working against its stated philosophical goals.
The very language used to discuss Gen Ed exposes the chasm.
The charge of it being a “scam” is not a literal accusation of criminal fraud.
It is an emotional and, from the student’s perspective, rational response to a perceived value deficit.
When a student is forced to pay thousands of dollars for a course that feels like a low-effort, irrelevant repeat of high school, the feeling of being financially exploited is a direct consequence of the program’s failure to demonstrate its worth.3
The problem isn’t just the cost; it’s the perceived value received for that cost.
This perceived lack of value creates a faculty-student motivation death spiral.
Students, conditioned to see Gen Eds as unimportant requirements, approach them with minimal effort and a focus on getting an easy A.19
Faculty, faced with large classrooms of disengaged non-majors, may feel pressured to lower their expectations, simplify content, and grade leniently to manage the course and maintain positive student evaluations.19
This, in turn, reinforces the students’ initial belief that the courses are “GPA boosters” and not to be taken seriously, further devaluing the experience.
This vicious cycle, where student apathy and lowered faculty standards feed off each other, creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of mediocrity that plagues many Gen Ed programs.
In this environment, the traditional defense of creating a “well-rounded” individual has lost its persuasive power.
For a generation of students intensely focused on career outcomes and the return on their educational investment, abstract phrases like “intellectual breadth” and “appreciating diverse perspectives” ring hollow.8
They do not directly address the pragmatic concerns about debt and employability that are at the forefront of students’ minds.3
To bridge this gap, a new, more compelling, and more pragmatic narrative is desperately needed—one that can translate the abstract virtues of a broad education into the concrete language of strategy, resilience, and long-term professional success.
Section 3: Reframing the Narrative: Three Models for a Modern General Education
The defense of General Education has failed not because its purpose is flawed, but because its story is stale.
The language of “well-roundedness” and “distribution requirements” is passive, bureaucratic, and uninspiring.
It fails to connect with a student population that thinks in terms of investment, performance, and strategic advantage.
To revitalize Gen Ed, academic leaders must abandon this defensive posture and adopt a new, proactive narrative.
This section proposes three powerful conceptual models—drawn from finance, athletics, and culinary arts—that reframe Gen Ed from a set of compulsory hurdles into an intentional and indispensable strategy for building a successful and adaptable life.
These are not mere marketing slogans; they are robust analytical frameworks that provide a more accurate and compelling account of what a 21st-century liberal education truly offers.
The Intellectual Portfolio: Diversifying Cognitive Assets to Mitigate Career Risk
The first framework reframes a student’s education using the language of modern finance, specifically Modern Portfolio Theory.
In this model, a student’s collection of knowledge and skills is not just a transcript; it is an Intellectual Portfolio of cognitive assets.
The core principle, developed by Nobel laureate Harry Markowitz, is that an investor can minimize risk and optimize long-term returns not by picking a single “best” stock, but by diversifying across a range of different asset classes with low correlation to one another.27
Applying this to education, a student’s major represents their primary, high-growth asset.
It is a deep investment in a specialized set of skills—for example, in chemical engineering or computer science.
However, a portfolio composed solely of this one asset class is dangerously high-risk.30
If that specific industry is disrupted by automation, offshored, or rendered obsolete by a new technology, the value of the entire portfolio can plummet.
The student is left with a highly specialized skill set for a world that no longer needs it.
General Education, in this framework, is the essential strategy of diversification.
Each Gen Ed course is an investment in a different cognitive asset class.
A philosophy course adds an asset in formal logic and ethical reasoning.31
A geology course adds an asset in systems thinking and understanding scale.33
A literature course adds an asset in narrative construction and empathy.35
These assets have low correlation with the technical skills of the major.
The variance of the portfolio’s return, its stability over time, is a function not only of the individual assets’ variance but also, crucially, of the covariance between them.29
The less the assets move in tandem, the more stable the overall portfolio.
The formula for the variance of a two-asset portfolio,
σp2=λx2σx2+λy2σy2+2λxλyρx,yσxσy, mathematically demonstrates that as the correlation coefficient (ρx,y) decreases, the overall portfolio risk (σp2) is reduced.27
This model transforms the conversation.
A history course is no longer “irrelevant” to an engineering major; it is a strategic hedge against the future obsolescence of a specific programming language.
It is a non-correlated asset that provides intellectual capital and adaptability, ensuring the student is prepared not just for their first job, but for their fifth and sixth jobs in industries that may not exist today.
The goal of Gen Ed is to construct a resilient intellectual portfolio that minimizes the risk of career obsolescence while maximizing the potential for lifelong growth and adaptation.
Cognitive Cross-Training: Building Mental Agility and Innovative Capacity Beyond the Major
The second framework draws a powerful analogy from the world of physical fitness: Cognitive Cross-Training.
A professional athlete who only ever performs one specific set of motions—a pitcher who only throws, a weightlifter who only does bench presses—will develop powerful but highly specialized muscles.
This overspecialization leads to a lack of overall fitness, reduced flexibility, and a high susceptibility to career-ending injury.36
Elite athletes know that peak performance requires cross-training: engaging different and opposing muscle groups to build holistic strength, agility, and resilience.37
Similarly, a student who only ever engages with the intellectual frameworks of their major is performing a very narrow set of mental exercises.
An accounting major becomes adept at linear, rule-based thinking.
A creative writing major excels at metaphorical and narrative thinking.
While deep specialization is valuable, it can lead to cognitive rigidity.
The student becomes intellectually “strong” in one area but weak and inflexible in others.
General Education is the curriculum’s cross-training regimen.
It intentionally forces the brain to work in unfamiliar ways, stretching mental muscles that would otherwise atrophy.36
When a computer science major, accustomed to the formal logic of coding, takes an art history course, they are not just learning about painters.
They are being forced to engage in visual analysis, contextual reasoning, and the interpretation of ambiguity—a completely different mode of thought.38
This cognitive struggle is the point.
It builds new neural pathways and fosters mental flexibility.39
According to Hebb’s law, “neurons that fire together, wire together.” By creating connections between disparate fields of knowledge—linking a concept from economics to a pattern in sociology—the brain forges new, more robust networks, which is the very foundation of learning and memory.39
This model refutes the idea that Gen Ed courses should be easy.
On the contrary, their value lies in their difficulty.
As one analyst of the concept notes, “If it’s easy, it’s not helping”.36
The mental “burn” of grappling with an unfamiliar discipline is what builds cognitive strength.
This cross-training is what produces true innovation.
Breakthroughs rarely come from digging deeper in a single, narrow silo; they come from connecting ideas across different fields.
Cognitive cross-training equips students with the mental agility to see those connections and solve complex problems in creative ways that their overspecialized peers cannot.
The Academic Mise en Place: Preparing the Foundational Elements for Lifelong Mastery
The third framework reconceptualizes the educational journey using a core principle from professional culinary arts: mise en place.
This French term, meaning “everything in its place,” refers to the meticulous process of preparation and organization that a chef undertakes before beginning to cook.40
Every ingredient is washed, chopped, and measured.
Every tool is cleaned and laid out within arm’s reach.
This disciplined preparation is what enables a chef to perform with grace, efficiency, and creativity under the intense pressure of a busy service.42
To cook without
mise en place is to invite chaos, stress, and failure.43
In this model, a student’s undergraduate education is the process of becoming a master “chef” of their professional life.
The advanced, major-specific courses are the complex cooking techniques required to create a signature dish.
But those techniques are useless without the foundational preparation.
General Education is the academic mise en place.
- A Composition course is where a student learns how to “chop” an argument into its constituent parts and “mince” evidence for support.6
- A Quantitative Reasoning course is where they learn how to “measure” data accurately and “weigh” competing variables.6
- A History course provides the essential “pantry” of cultural context, without which any modern analysis is flavorless and uninformed.6
- An Ethics course provides the “food safety” principles that prevent a professional from causing harm.9
Without this foundational preparation, a graduate entering the fast-paced, high-pressure “kitchen” of the modern workplace will be fundamentally unprepared.
When a novel problem (a new “recipe”) is presented, they will be frantically trying to chop their onions while the oil is already smoking in the pan—a recipe for disaster.43
The student who has diligently prepared their academic
mise en place can calmly assess the new challenge, draw upon their well-organized set of foundational skills and knowledge, and execute with confidence and adaptability.
This framework casts Gen Ed not as a series of unrelated prerequisites, but as the essential, deliberate act of preparing one’s mental workspace for a lifetime of effective, creative, and masterful work.45
Together, these three frameworks—Intellectual Portfolio, Cognitive Cross-Training, and Academic Mise en Place—achieve a critical rhetorical and strategic shift.
They move the conversation about General Education away from the passive, uninspiring language of “requirements” and “checklists” and into the active, aspirational language of strategy, strength, and mastery.
They provide university leaders with a modern, pragmatic, and compelling narrative to articulate the profound and enduring value of a broad liberal education.
Crucially, these models also provide an inherent justification for both breadth and rigor.
A portfolio is only as strong as its assets; a “watered-down” course is a junk bond that weakens the entire portfolio.3
Cross-training is only effective if it is challenging; an easy course builds no new cognitive muscle.36
A chef’s
mise en place must be of the highest quality and precision; sloppy prep leads to a ruined dish.40
Thus, these frameworks give academic deans a powerful rationale to demand that Gen Ed courses be genuinely challenging, intellectually substantive, and philosophically distinct from the major.
They provide a clear argument against the “dumbing down” of the core curriculum and for the intentional design of a Gen Ed program that truly delivers on its promise.
Section 4: The ROI of Irrelevance: Case Studies in Cross-Disciplinary Value
The theoretical frameworks of the Intellectual Portfolio, Cognitive Cross-Training, and Academic Mise en Place provide a new language to articulate the value of General Education.
However, for these concepts to resonate with skeptical students and parents, they must be grounded in concrete, real-world evidence.
The charge that Gen Ed courses are “irrelevant” can only be refuted by demonstrating their tangible return on investment in the modern economy.
This section presents three case studies of stereotypically “useless” academic disciplines—Geology, Art History, and Philosophy—to illustrate how the specific cognitive skills they cultivate translate directly into high-demand, high-value professional competencies.
These examples serve as proof that the most valuable skills for a long-term career are often forged in the crucible of seemingly unrelated fields.
The Geologist’s Lens: How Studying Deep Time and Complex Systems Shapes Strategic Thinking
On the surface, a geology course is about rocks, fossils, and earthquakes.
For a business or computer science major, it can seem like the epitome of irrelevance.
However, beneath the surface, geology is a masterclass in several modes of thinking that are critically important in the 21st-century economy.
The discipline is not just a collection of facts; it is a unique way of seeing the world that provides a powerful cognitive toolkit.
First, geology provides unparalleled training in systems thinking.
Geologists are trained to understand the Earth as a set of complex, interconnected systems: the climate system, the tectonic system, the hydrologic cycle, and the biosphere all interact in intricate and often non-linear ways.46
To understand a single phenomenon, like a volcanic eruption, one must synthesize data from chemistry (magma composition), physics (fluid dynamics), and atmospheric science (ash dispersal).34
This ability to analyze how disparate parts of a complex system influence one another is directly transferable to understanding global supply chains, market ecosystems, or the intricate dependencies within a large software architecture.
Second, geology instills a profound understanding of scale, both in time and space.
The concept of “deep time”—the 4.5-billion-year history of the planet—forces students to think on timescales that dwarf a human lifespan.34
This perspective is an invaluable asset for long-term strategic planning in business or public policy, providing a corrective to the short-term thinking that plagues many organizations.
Similarly, geologists work across immense scales of space, from the atomic structure of a crystal to the movement of continents.34
This mental flexibility is crucial for leaders who must simultaneously consider granular operational details and broad global trends.
Finally, geologists are experts in working with incomplete and ambiguous data.
Unlike a controlled laboratory experiment, the Earth rarely provides a perfect dataset.
Geologists must construct coherent narratives and models from fragmented rock records, indirect geophysical measurements, and proxy data.
This skill—the ability to make reasoned judgments and build robust models in the face of uncertainty—is precisely what is required of data scientists, financial analysts, and intelligence officers.
The career outcomes for geology graduates bear this O.T. While many work in traditional fields like energy and environmental consulting, a significant number find success in a wide array of other sectors, including engineering, finance, environmental law, and technical writing, demonstrating the broad applicability of their skills.33
A geology course, therefore, is not just an asset for a future geologist; it is a strategic investment in systems thinking and complex problem-solving for any student, regardless of their major.
The Art Historian’s Eye: From Renaissance Canvases to Marketing Campaigns and Corporate Strategy
The art history major is perhaps the most stereotyped of all “useless” degrees, often invoked as a punchline for underemployment.
This caricature, however, belies a powerful reality: the discipline cultivates a set of sophisticated analytical and communication skills that are in high demand in the corporate world, particularly in fields that traffic in image, narrative, and persuasion.
The most fundamental skill developed in art history is visual literacy.
In a world saturated with images, from social media feeds to corporate branding, the ability to critically analyze a visual object, understand its formal properties, and decode its cultural meaning is a superpower.38
An art historian is trained to look at a painting and see not just a pretty picture, but a complex web of technique, symbolism, patronage, and historical context.
This is the same skill set required to deconstruct a competitor’s advertising campaign, analyze the user experience of a website, or develop a compelling brand identity.
Beyond visual analysis, art history provides rigorous training in synthesizing disparate forms of information into a coherent narrative.
To write a successful art history paper, a student must weave together visual evidence from the artwork itself, historical context from primary documents, philosophical ideas from the period, and critical interpretations from other scholars.52
This is an exercise in complex evidence-based argumentation.
This ability to construct a persuasive story from multiple, varied sources is precisely what is required of a market research analyst presenting to a client, a management consultant making a recommendation to a CEO, or a public relations professional crafting a corporate message.53
The career success of art history majors refutes the “starving artist” trope.
Graduates find employment not only in museums and galleries, but also in marketing, advertising, publishing, public relations, finance, and law.54
Grace Ehlers, a Director of Brand Strategy and an art history major, stated that her major was “key to my interest in marketing,” as the daily task of synthesizing “historical, financial and cultural sets of information into one reference point” was exactly what her education had prepared her for.53
Far from being a liability, data suggests that art history majors have higher average salaries than any other humanities major except U.S. history, and a surprisingly high representation among the top 1% of earners—more than majors like molecular biology or business economics.56
This demonstrates that the “soft” skills of cultural interpretation and narrative construction have hard value in the modern economy.
The Philosopher’s Logic: Structuring Code, Navigating AI Ethics, and Enhancing Problem-Solving
If art history seems disconnected from the world of business, philosophy can appear even more so.
Yet, for students entering technology fields, particularly software engineering, a background in philosophy can be a profound and practical asset.
The discipline provides foundational training in the very modes of thought that underpin all programming and systems design.
At its core, philosophy is rigorous training in logic and structured thinking.
Students learn to analyze arguments, identify unstated premises, define terms with precision, and follow logical chains of reasoning to their conclusions.32
This process of breaking down complex, abstract problems into their smallest, most manageable components—a method championed by philosophers like René Descartes—is directly analogous to the process of designing an algorithm or debugging a complex piece of software.60
A programmer with training in formal logic is better equipped to write code that is clean, efficient, and free of logical errors.31
As one commenter noted, programming is a unique beast that teaches “ordered thinking” with immediate feedback, making it one of the most “real” applications of logic.58
The connection goes even deeper.
Software engineering often involves modeling entities and dealing with abstractions, which is a practical application of the philosophical branch of ontology (the study of being and existence).32
When a developer creates a “user” class in their code, they are defining the essential properties and relationships of that entity, a fundamentally philosophical task.
Most critically, in the age of artificial intelligence, a background in ethics is no longer an academic luxury but a professional necessity.
As AI and machine learning systems become more powerful and autonomous, engineers and product managers are forced to confront complex ethical dilemmas about bias in algorithms, data privacy, and the societal impact of their creations.32
A student who has studied ethical frameworks—like utilitarianism or deontology—is far better prepared to navigate these “ethical minefields” than a purely technically trained peer.23
They have the vocabulary and the analytical tools to engage in nuanced discussions about the moral responsibilities of their work.
This is why many argue that a strong understanding of ethics is now invaluable in software engineering.32
The philosophical concepts of humility and a “servant mindset”—putting the needs of the project and the team above personal ego—are also directly reflected in the core tenets of modern agile development methodologies like Scrum, which emphasize respect, openness, and courage.31
Table 2: Mapping Transferable Skills from “Unrelated” Disciplines to High-Demand Professions
The true value of a broad education lies in its transferability.
The following table provides a practical translation, mapping the specific cognitive training provided by these “irrelevant” Gen Ed disciplines to the concrete skills required in high-demand professions.
This serves as a tangible demonstration of the return on investment, refuting the claim of irrelevance by drawing a direct line from the classroom to the career.
| Gen Ed Discipline | Core Skills & Cognitive Training | High-Demand Profession | Direct Application of Skill |
| Geology | Systems Thinking, Understanding Deep Time & Scale, Synthesis of Incomplete Data 34 | Supply Chain Manager | Uses systems thinking to model and optimize complex global logistics networks, anticipating disruptions based on interconnected variables. |
| Art History | Visual Literacy, Narrative Construction, Contextual Analysis, Synthesizing Diverse Sources 38 | UI/UX Designer | Applies visual literacy to analyze user behavior and design intuitive, aesthetically pleasing, and culturally resonant interfaces. |
| Philosophy | Formal Logic, Ethical Frameworks, Abstraction, Deconstruction of Complex Problems 32 | AI Ethicist / Software Engineer | Uses formal logic to structure efficient, bug-free code and applies ethical frameworks to assess and mitigate bias in machine learning algorithms. |
| Literature | Empathy, Narrative Intelligence, Understanding Human Motivation, Persuasive Communication 24 | Marketing Strategist | Employs narrative intelligence to craft compelling brand stories that connect with consumer motivations and build emotional loyalty. |
These case studies reveal a consistent pattern: the most durable and valuable professional skills are often “meta-skills”—the ability to learn, to analyze, to see connections, and to communicate.
The specific content of a course (the name of a rock, the date of a painting) is less important than the way of thinking it cultivates.
This is the true purpose of General Education.
This also highlights how Gen Ed functions as the essential antidote to the dangers of overspecialization.
In an economy that increasingly pressures students to specialize earlier and more narrowly, a broad education serves as a crucial corrective.
It prevents the intellectual monoculture that can stifle creativity, hinder ethical judgment, and make professionals brittle and unadaptable in the face of change.
The more specialized and technical a student’s major becomes, the more critical their investment in the cognitive cross-training and intellectual diversification of General Education becomes.
It is not a distraction from their primary field of study; it is the very thing that will make them a more innovative, ethical, and resilient practitioner of it.
Section 5: Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations: Architecting a Defensible and Desirable Core
The evidence presented throughout this report leads to an unequivocal conclusion: the crisis facing General Education in American higher education is not a crisis of purpose, but a crisis of design, execution, and communication.
The foundational philosophy—to cultivate critical thinking, intellectual breadth, and durable skills for a complex world—remains as vital as ever.
However, the dominant implementation of this philosophy, the “fragmented, smorgasbord curricula” that lacks coherence and a unifying vision, has failed to deliver on its promise.8
This failure has left Gen Ed vulnerable to legitimate charges of being a costly, irrelevant, and un-rigorous exercise in compliance.
To reclaim its central role, institutions must move beyond defending a broken model and begin the work of architecting a new one—a core curriculum that is intentional, coherent, and demonstrably valuable to the modern student.
Moving Beyond the “Smorgasbord”: A Call for Curricular Coherence and Intentionality
The path forward requires a fundamental shift in how General Education is conceived, from a passive set of distribution requirements to an active and integrated intellectual journey.
The “checklist” mentality, encouraged by incoherent course menus, must be replaced with a deliberate, architected experience where every component has a clear and articulable purpose within a larger framework.
The goal is not simply to expose students to different subjects, but to explicitly teach them how to think across disciplines, how to synthesize different modes of inquiry, and how to build a versatile cognitive toolkit for the future.
This requires moving away from the loose distribution models that currently dominate and embracing more integrated structures, such as the thematic pathways or first-year inquiry seminars that have shown promise at institutions willing to innovate.9
A coherent curriculum is a defensible curriculum.
Recommendations for Institutional Leaders: Articulating Value, Fostering Faculty Innovation, and Engaging Students as Authors of Their Education
For University Provosts, Deans of Undergraduate Studies, and other academic leaders, the challenge is twofold: to redesign the product and to rewrite the narrative.
The following strategic recommendations offer a roadmap for achieving both.
1. Adopt and Champion a New Narrative: The language used to defend Gen Ed is obsolete. Phrases like “well-rounded” and “intellectual breadth” no longer resonate with a pragmatic, career-focused student body. Institutional leaders must adopt and relentlessly communicate a new, more powerful narrative.
* Action: Formally integrate the frameworks of the Intellectual Portfolio, Cognitive Cross-Training, and Academic Mise en Place into all institutional messaging.
Use this language in admissions materials, new student orientation, advising sessions, career services workshops, and communications with parents and legislators.
Frame Gen Ed not as a requirement to be fulfilled, but as a strategy to be deployed for mitigating career risk, building mental agility, and achieving professional mastery.
2. Redesign for Coherence and Rigor: A new narrative is meaningless if the underlying curriculum remains fragmented and lacks rigor. The structure of the program must be redesigned to align with its strategic purpose.
* Action: Phase out “smorgasbord” distribution models in favor of more integrated approaches.
Implement common first-year inquiry seminars that explicitly model interdisciplinary thinking.
Develop thematic pathways that group courses around complex problems (e.g., “Sustainability,” “Global Health,” “The Future of Information”).
* Action: Create incentives for faculty to develop and teach innovative, truly interdisciplinary Gen Ed courses that are not simply “dumbed-down” introductory surveys.19 This could include course development grants, recognition for excellence in Gen Ed teaching, and counting the creation of such courses as a significant factor in promotion and tenure decisions.
This directly counters the perverse incentives that lead to a “race to the bottom” in terms of rigor.19
3. Empower Advising as Narrative Construction: Academic advising is a critical, yet often underutilized, lever for changing the culture of General Education. Advisors should be repositioned from mere schedulers to strategic coaches.
* Action: Train academic advisors to be “narrative coaches” who can help students understand and articulate the story of their education.62 Equip them with the language of the Intellectual Portfolio to help students consciously select Gen Ed courses as diverse “cognitive assets.” Their role should be to guide students in seeing the connections between their Gen Ed choices, their major, and their long-term personal and professional goals, thereby helping each student become the “author of their own, individual story”.62
4. Mandate Rigor and a Culture of Continuous Review: The perception that Gen Ed courses are “easy A’s” is corrosive to the entire enterprise. This must be addressed through a commitment to high standards and robust oversight.
* Action: Establish a strong, empowered faculty committee to review all Gen Ed courses, not just for checking boxes on a Student Learning Outcome rubric, but for genuine intellectual rigor and alignment with the program’s core philosophy.
This addresses the critical lack of oversight identified in the Harvard report.19
* Action: Publicly celebrate and promote the most challenging and transformative Gen Ed courses and the faculty who teach them.
Create a culture where intellectual challenge is seen as a mark of distinction, not a liability to be avoided.
This helps break the “faculty-student motivation death spiral” by signaling that the institution values rigor in its core curriculum.
A Final Word: General Education as the Engine of Adaptability
In the final analysis, a university education must prepare students for a future that is, by its very nature, unpredictable.
In a world of accelerating change, the most valuable skills are not those tied to a specific technology or job title, but the durable, transferable meta-skills of critical thinking, creative problem-solving, and lifelong learning.
A well-designed, coherent, and rigorous General Education program is the most effective engine for cultivating this adaptability.
It is the part of the curriculum that prepares students not for a single, linear career path, but for a life of continuous evolution.
For the modern university, a revitalized General Education program is not a liability to be defended or a legacy requirement to be tolerated.
It is the institution’s most powerful claim to enduring relevance—an indispensable asset to be championed.
Works cited
- shorelight.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://shorelight.com/student-stories/what-are-general-education-courses-at-us-universities/#:~:text=General%20education%20courses%20at%20US%20universities%20are%20designed%20to%20promote,of%20a%20range%20of%20topics.
- Why Gen Eds? – General Education @ Illinois, accessed August 12, 2025, https://gened.illinois.edu/choosing/why/
- General education courses at US universities are a money-making scam – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1i42hnf/general_education_courses_at_us_universities_are/
- What is the point of general ed classes???? : r/CollegeRant – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeRant/comments/ptguna/what_is_the_point_of_general_ed_classes/
- COLUMN: Universities use general education requirements to financially exploit students, accessed August 12, 2025, https://themaneater.com/64532/opinion/column-universities-use-general-education-requirements-to-financially-exploit-students/
- US Universities | General Education Curriculum explained – Kings Education, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kingseducation.com/kings-life/us-universities-the-general-education-curriculum
- What Exactly Are General Education Credits? – Pearson Accelerated Pathways, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.pearsonaccelerated.com/blog/what-exactly-is-general-education.html
- General Education Requirements: A Look at the Structure of Higher Education – Missouri Senate, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.senate.mo.gov/jced/GeneralEducationRequirementsRethinkingtheStructureofHigherEducation.pdf
- What Are General Education Courses at US Universities? – Shorelight, accessed August 12, 2025, https://shorelight.com/student-stories/what-are-general-education-courses-at-us-universities/
- GENERAL EDUCATION REFORM Background, Review, & Roadmap for Change – University of Nebraska Omaha, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.unomaha.edu/general-education/_docs/gened-reform-review-roadmap-3-9-23.pdf
- Why are General Education Courses Required? – Goodwin University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.goodwin.edu/enews/why-are-general-education-courses-required/
- Top Advantages of General Education Requirements in College | Walden University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.waldenu.edu/programs/resource/top-advantages-of-general-education-requirements-in-college
- General Education Course Options – Florida Department of Education, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.fldoe.org/policy/articulation/general-edu-core-course-options.stml
- General Education Requirements – Commonwealth University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.commonwealthu.edu/academics/undergraduate-and-first-year-students/general-education-requirements
- General Education Requirements – UCLA General Catalog, accessed August 12, 2025, https://catalog.registrar.ucla.edu/browse/College%20and%20Schools/CollegeofLettersandScience/College-Requirements/General-Education-Requirements
- General Education – Academic Catalog – University of Illinois Chicago, accessed August 12, 2025, https://catalog.uic.edu/ucat/degree-programs/general-education/
- CMV: Colleges should not require students to take general education courses that are irrelevant to their major. : r/changemyview – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/75qyex/cmv_colleges_should_not_require_students_to_take/
- Having to take general ed’s in college is pointless | Talon Marks, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.talonmarks.com/opinion/2023/11/30/having-to-take-general-eds-in-college-is-pointless/
- Harvard College general education criticized, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2015/05/harvard-college-general-education-criticized
- Why Are General Education Courses Important? – Inclusive Solutions -, accessed August 12, 2025, https://inclusive-solutions.com/blog/why-are-general-education-courses-important/
- The Benefits of a Degree in the Humanities and Social Sciences | Brooklyn College, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.brooklyn.edu/hss/benefits/
- ERIC – EJ1215421 – The Liberal Arts: Preparing the Workforce of the Future, Liberal Education, 2018, accessed August 12, 2025, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1215421
- New research shows how studying the humanities can benefit young people’s future careers and wider society | University of Oxford, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-06-21-new-research-shows-how-studying-humanities-can-benefit-young-people-s-future-careers
- Combining STEM and Humanities: Broaden skills and enrich learning, accessed August 12, 2025, https://citl.news.niu.edu/2025/01/10/combining-stem-and-humanities-broaden-skills-and-enrich-learning/
- Five Reasons Why General Education Classes Are Important – SUU, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.suu.edu/blog/2024/03/general-education.html
- “Gen-Ed classes are useless!” : r/Professors – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Professors/comments/fc776q/gened_classes_are_useless/
- Teaching Portfolio Theory: A tool for demonstrating the diversification effect and related issues – The Economics Network, accessed August 12, 2025, https://economicsnetwork.ac.uk/showcase/cook_portfolio
- Teaching modern portfolio theory to 10-year-olds | ORMS Today – PubsOnLine, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pubsonline.informs.org/do/10.1287/orms.2014.05.15/full/
- Portfolio Theory, an Application of Statistics in Finance – eScholarship.org, accessed August 12, 2025, https://escholarship.org/content/qt6bz698gh/qt6bz698gh_noSplash_e3a5c98f829871608a193e64353237b1.pdf
- EJ1167330 – Investment Portfolio Simulation: An Assessment Task in Finance, e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 2017 – ERIC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1167330
- ‘The excellent programmer’ and the philosophy of pragmatism | by Andreas Schultz, accessed August 12, 2025, https://medium.com/@aschultzme/the-excellent-programmer-and-the-philosophy-of-pragmatism-11e1d06fb425
- Learning philosophy to become a better software engineer : r/askphilosophy – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1ld5cjp/learning_philosophy_to_become_a_better_software/
- What can I do with a geology degree? | Prospects.ac.uk, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/geology
- Dear College Student: Why you should take geology | Article – Denison University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://denison.edu/feature/86528
- citl.news.niu.edu, accessed August 12, 2025, https://citl.news.niu.edu/2025/01/10/combining-stem-and-humanities-broaden-skills-and-enrich-learning/#:~:text=Humanities%20Complements%20STEM,Bourdeau%20%26%20Wood%2C%202019).
- Cross-Training For Your Brain – Becoming Better, accessed August 12, 2025, https://becomingbetter.org/cross-training-for-your-brain/
- How to Cross Train Your Brain | Herrmann, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.thinkherrmann.com/whole-brain-thinking-blog/how-to-cross-train-your-brain
- Careers – Art History Major | Illinois State University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://illinoisstate.edu/academics/art-history/careers/
- How Cross-Training Enhances Learning: The Power of Making …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://innovatorind.com/how-cross-training-makes-you-smarter/
- Understanding mise en place: What is mise en place? – Culinary Arts Academy, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.culinaryartsswitzerland.com/en/news/understanding-mise-en-place-what-mise-en-place/
- How to Explain Mise En Place to your Culinary Arts Students – Twins and Teaching, accessed August 12, 2025, https://twinsandteaching.com/2022/05/29/teaching-mise-en-place/
- Why is Mise en Place Important for Culinary Students? – ECPI University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ecpi.edu/blog/why-is-mise-en-place-important-for-culinary-students
- Master Mise en Place: How Prepping Ingredients Improves Your Cooking – The Reluctant Gourmet, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reluctantgourmet.com/mise-en-place/
- What is General Education? Its Purpose and Impact Explained, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.snhu.edu/about-us/newsroom/education/why-are-general-education-courses-important
- Preparing the study mise en place – Learning Fundamentals, accessed August 12, 2025, https://learningfundamentals.com.au/preparing-the-study-mise-en-place/
- Geology Careers for 2025: Degree Requirements, Cost & Salary | Research.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://research.com/careers/geology-careers
- Why I Majored in Geology | Pomona College in Claremont, California, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/geology/students/why-i-majored-geology
- Geology Careers | Department of Geological Sciences – CSUSB, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.csusb.edu/geology/geology-careers
- Careers in Geoscience | UC Davis Earth and Planetary Sciences, accessed August 12, 2025, https://eps.ucdavis.edu/students/careers
- Geology – KU Career Center – The University of Kansas, accessed August 12, 2025, https://career.ku.edu/geology
- Career pathways and opportunities for Art History majors, accessed August 12, 2025, https://historyarthistory.gmu.edu/undergraduate/career-pathways/usingyourarthdegree
- Art History Career Paths – Northwestern University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.northwestern.edu/careers/majors-career-paths/career-paths-by-major/weinberg-college-of-arts-sciences-majors/art-history-career-paths.html
- Connecting Art History and Marketing – Mount Holyoke College, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/news/news-stories/connecting-art-history-and-marketing
- What Can I do With a Degree in Art History? | Portland State University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.pdx.edu/careers/what-can-i-do-degree-art-history
- How Art School Made Me a Better Marketer | by Neta Dror – Medium, accessed August 12, 2025, https://medium.com/@NetaDror/how-art-school-made-me-a-better-marketer-29ac3b7e2c2
- Careers in the Field of Art History – Washington and Lee University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.wlu.edu/art-and-art-history-department/art-history/careers-in-the-field-of-art-history
- What can I do with a history of art degree? | Prospects.ac.uk, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/history-of-art
- Do you think programming should be taught in Philosophy, as an ordered way of thinking and expressing ideas? : r/askphilosophy – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6xmyrv/do_you_think_programming_should_be_taught_in/
- Philosophy-Induced Software Engineering: How Philosophy Can Make You a Better Engineer, accessed August 12, 2025, https://hussam.engineering/philosophy-induced-software-engineering-how-philosophy-can-make-you-a-better-engineer/
- 7.5 Must-Learn Lessons from Philosophy – Thinkers50, accessed August 12, 2025, https://thinkers50.com/blog/7-5-must-learn-lessons-from-philosophy/
- The Geosciences Advantage, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2021/11/the-geosciences-advantage/
- Encourage students to ‘write the story of their education’, says academic advising specialist Peter Hagen – Maastricht University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/news/encourage-students-%E2%80%98write-story-their-education%E2%80%99-says-academic-advising-specialist-peter-hagen
