way to make schools interesting,,,,,,,,,,,,

what kind of mindset klings to outdated concepts that the only prople worth of History or Literature college degrees are those who pass required courses of dead langages {ancient latin and Greek) which the once the prevue of wealth elists aristocrats or boring science courses that instead of being models for serious and analitical thinking are just pass or fail cources for degrees so you can be a well rounded person?
The mindset that insists on outdated requirements for history and literature degrees—such as mandatory courses in "dead languages" like Latin and Ancient Greek and uncritical science courses—is rooted in academic traditionalism and elitism. This perspective views education not as an open exploration of knowledge, but as the transmission of an exclusive set of information reserved for a privileged class.
Key aspects of this mindset
Academic traditionalism
This view is a philosophy that often equates tradition with merit. Proponents believe that a narrow set of classical studies and scientific requirements should be at the core of a liberal arts education because this was the curriculum of the past.
Perceived academic rigor: From this viewpoint, learning ancient languages is seen as a sign of dedication and intellectual discipline. A degree earned without this "rigor" may be viewed as intellectually deficient or less valuable.
A "golden age" of education: Academic traditionalists may believe that higher education is in decline. They advocate for a return to historical teaching methods and subjects, which they idealize as superior to modern approaches.
Academic elitism
Elitism in academia centers on the belief that certain types of knowledge, affiliations with prestigious institutions, or cultural backgrounds are superior to others. This attitude can lead to snobbery and the exclusion of individuals and ideas from different perspectives.
Cultural gatekeeping: This mindset functions as a form of cultural gatekeeping, preserving the humanities as the "prevue of wealthy elites" as you noted. Because these traditional requirements are typically more accessible to students with a privileged background, they reinforce a class divide and a hierarchy of status.
Devaluation of modern knowledge: An elitist perspective often devalues or marginalizes newer, more inclusive fields of study in favor of the established, "canonical" texts and topics. This can manifest as condescension toward individuals who did not follow the same path.
Anti-modern and anti-progress sentiment
The mindset is often coupled with a deep suspicion of modernity and its emphasis on progress, equality, and democracy.
Critique of modern thought: Some traditionalist philosophies see concepts like equality and progress as dangerous illusions that have led to a decline from a supposed "golden age".
Mistrust of evolving disciplines: This view resists the evolution of academic disciplines. For example, it might distrust advancements in the humanities that incorporate new cultural perspectives, critical theory, or digital tools, seeing them as diluting the core curriculum.
A fixed versus growth mindset
This mindset contrasts sharply with a "growth mindset," where skills and intelligence are seen as something that can be developed. In contrast, the traditionalist view holds a "fixed mindset" that privileges a certain type of person or preparation from the outset.
Education as filtering: Instead of seeing education as a way to expand minds, this mindset uses it as a way to filter for a particular type of student, rather than encouraging learning and growth for a wider audience.
Prioritizing status over learning: In this view, the purpose of a liberal arts education shifts from an open-ended pursuit of knowledge to a credentialing process that grants membership in an exclusive club. The value of the degree comes not from the learning itself, but from the prestige conferred by meeting the narrow, "old-world" requirements.
The mindset that insists on dead languages for humanities degrees and views science courses as mere requirements often reflects a form of traditionalist or conservative academic elitism. This perspective romanticizes a historical model of education that is now largely outdated and has faced decades of criticism.
Key components of this mindset include:
A historical view of a "classical education": This perspective is rooted in a tradition that began with ancient Greece and Rome and was carried forward by Renaissance humanists and 19th-century elites. In this view, studying Greek and Latin was not just a means of accessing ancient texts, but a form of mental and moral discipline.
Intellectual gatekeeping: By demanding proficiency in "dead languages" like Latin and Ancient Greek, this mindset creates an unnecessary barrier to entry for many students. This effectively functions as a form of intellectual gatekeeping that reinforces the traditional association between a liberal arts education and privileged aristocratic or wealthy backgrounds.
A "culture over science" hierarchy: This viewpoint creates an artificial and snobbish hierarchy that places traditional humanities—specifically the classics—above the sciences. This devalues the scientific method's rigorous, analytical thinking by vi
ewing STEM courses as a box-ticking exercise rather than a serious intellectual endeavor.
The notion of a "well-rounded person": While a core principle of liberal arts education is to foster intellectual breadth, this mindset perverts the idea. It suggests that broad knowledge is valuable only if it is acquired through specific, traditionally valued courses, not through genuinely exploring diverse academic disciplines.

The decline of this perspective
Today, this rigid, traditionalist mindset is increasingly seen as outdated and harmful to the goals of modern higher education.
Growing focus on accessibility: Institutions and faculty now widely argue for making a high-quality humanities education accessible to all students, not just a privileged few.
Interdisciplinary and global approaches: Modern humanities programs have moved toward more interdisciplinary and globally-focused curricula that reflect a diverse and interconnected world.
Redefining the purpose of education: The conversation around general education requirements has shifted toward developing essential skills like critical thinking and communication, which can be acquired through many different subjects.
Despite these academic arguments, the "well-rounded person" justification is often criticized for being insufficient or even elitist.

Superficial exposure: Opponents argue that a couple of semesters of language instruction provide only a superficial acquaintance with a language and culture, rather than the deep, transformative experience that proponents describe.
Prioritizing breadth over depth: Critics also contend that forcing students to take courses outside their specialization distracts from the core purpose of a degree and can leave graduates with shallow knowledge in many areas. Many universities now seek "spiky" or "well-lopsided" students with deep expertise in one or two areas, rather than generalists.
Outdated rationale: Some academics and students feel that requiring all humanities students to learn a language is a legacy of a more elitist and antiquated educational model that prioritized classical languages, rather than serving a modern, practical purpose