Featured image: (Pacer Graphic / Sophia Phillips), Pacer story by Keenan Wilson & Cathleen Whitson

There’s a moment every college student has at least once in their academic career.

Imagine sitting in a class completely unrelated to your major. Maybe it’s a math lecture for a journalism student, or a biology lab for an English major, and you cannot help but think: Why am I even here?

It is not dramatic; it’s more practical.

Between rising tuition, tight schedules and the pressure of graduating on time, every second in college matters. These classes are not just academic; they are financial, and that is where general education classes cause the most debate.

For those who don’t know, gen eds are classes every college student is required to take. They are designed to expose students to different fields and help create critical thinking, adaptability and a broader understanding of the world.

On paper, this idea is genius, but in practice, many will argue they are a waste of time.

In practice, students aren’t just trying to learn; they are trying to actively manage money and time in an unstable environment. This is especially amplified in the United States, where the cost of going to college is exponentially climbing higher and higher.

Each required course means more tuition, more textbooks and, in some cases, longer graduation times. According to Inside Higher Ed, 61 percent of college students graduate in six years. This means that only four out of every 10 students graduate on time, if they even graduate at all.

Because if college is increasingly framed as an almost religiously required thing kids do after high school and are constantly told by their family and peers to think about a job, then why are they required to spend time and money on classes that don’t help their goal at all?

That’s the tension in the gen ed debate.

However, that doesn’t mean the other side of the debate is wrong.

This side of the base stems from the fact that only about 27% of college graduates actually work in the field they majored in, according to Expert Beacon. That means that nearly three out of every four college graduates end up in a career where their major-specific knowledge is not used.

In a context such as that, having that broad understanding and adaptability makes sense and can be incredibly useful in today’s ever-changing job market.

The real question is which side is correct if both sides have valid points. Maybe the answer is both, and the wrong problem is being addressed.

The problem is not the idea of general education and whether it should exist altogether. The problem is the way it’s applied. When gen eds start to feel disconnected, rushed or irrelevant, their purpose starts to fall apart. Instead of creating well-rounded students, they create frustrated ones.

So the best solution wouldn’t be to get rid of gen eds—it would be to evolve them. Gen ed classes need to be more relevant and inflexible in a way that connects them to the reality of students every day.

Because when you’re paying thousands of dollars, that’s debt you owe to get a piece of paper or a degree that is supposed to solve your problems if it hangs on your wall. Being well-rounded should not have to feel like a requirement.

It should feel like something that’s actually worth something.