Very interesting conclusion in this article. Fish says, "To the question 'of what use are the humanities?', the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject."
I don't agree with Fish's take on humanities studies. Studying humanities is a lot more than just learning to appreciate art and beauty. Humanities studies help you learn how to learn and think on a general level, not just in one area of expertise, and give you valuable tools for tackling other studies and vocations. By studying humanities you gain valuable perspectives on life and culture and can better see where both arts and sciences influence societies and thought.
I thought one poster brought up an interesting point: "He [the poster's uncle] said that people who majored in technical or professional subjects (e.g., accounting, engineering) tended to get jobs quicker out of college, and at higher salaries. He went on to say, however, that people who majored in “the humanities” (e.g., literature, philosophy, history) surpassed their more technical peers in salaries and job opportunities at about the 10 year mark as the job demands got more complex and they moved up into management."
I don't know how verifiable that is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true in many cases.
What do you think? Does humanities have more use to the world than just intrinsic worth? Should humanities departments receive more attention and better funding from universities?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I thought one poster brought up an interesting point: "He [the poster's uncle] said that people who majored in technical or professional subjects (e.g., accounting, engineering) tended to get jobs quicker out of college, and at higher salaries. He went on to say, however, that people who majored in “the humanities” (e.g., literature, philosophy, history) surpassed their more technical peers in salaries and job opportunities at about the 10 year mark as the job demands got more complex and they moved up into management."
That doesn't match my experience. I don't know anyone with a humanities degree (history, literature, philosphy) who has moved into a high paying managerial position with out a graduate degree in business or law. I could probably find some exceptions for people with Ph.D's in the humanities, but most of them would be academic positions.
As an undergraduate, I had a lot of friends who were majoring in the humanities. Many of them were very proud of the "purity" of the their academic pursuits and tended to look down their noises at people who were worried about getting jobs after graduation. Almost all of them ended up in either law school or business school after a couple of years of working in unsatisfying positions.
I do know a couple of people who majored in history and went on to get masters degrees both in history and library sciences. They've spent more than ten years trying to work their way into positions that pay less than a starting engineers salary.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Double-major in humanities and something that pays well. It doesn't have to be engineering - a double major in English and Business would work fine.
I would absolutely love to live a life dedicated to the "purity" of a humanistic subject. However, I see no virtue in being poor, I don't have a trust fund, and I don't think the world owes me anything anyway.
Maybe the problem is that people are using a major or a job to define themselves. You can be a poet and work as a programmer. A job or a major does not define a person. Americans have buckets of leisure time with plenty of time for the humanities if they just turn off the television.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I haven't got time to read the whole post that you link to at the moment (I look forward to doing so later), but I do have a first reaction based on your post.
Technical and professional subjects tend to train in quantitative thinking (there are exceptions; the first that comes to mind is law), while subjects in the humanities (and the social sciences, which I see as more akin to the humanities than to technical and professional subjects), I think, tend to train in qualitative thinking. Both are important.
This isn't to say that those whose schooling is in technical or professional subjects can't or won't think qualitatively, but on the other hand I have known engineering majors to argue that they don't need to know anything about literature or art or history because they are of no value at all to their planned careers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Define "use". Does it have anything to do with "worth"?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The humanities provide a common framework for all the "experts" in different fields to communicate over.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Now on to the real question. Whether or not the humanities have any "use" all depends on what you mean by "use". If what you mean by "use" is limited to what can be readily bought and sold on the market then the answer is probably no, at the humanities don't have any direct use.
But if what you mean by "use" is that it fills basic human needs then absolutely yes. Although my degrees are in engineering, I have an unusually broad education in literature, history, art, philosophy etc. Some of that is from formal classes but much of it is just through personal study and interaction with scholars. I believe that asthetics and ideas (central parts of the humanities) are as essential to human well being as material goods. The humanities are useful because they make our lives richer even if that richness can't be bought and sold on the market.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A BA in the humanities is rather useless. It's the easy path to a quick MBA, though, which is basically the modern equivalent of the high school diploma.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I should have posted Fish's initial question as well--"How does one justify funding the arts and humanities?" In the article he's mainly talking about universities and how they allocate their funding to different departments. Humanities departments often get the crumbs from the table.
Universities would tend to translate "use" as "immediate financial benefit for the university." But I think Fish is talking about both that kind of use and, at the end of the article, the worth of humanities to humanity in general.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, heck, the study of the humanities is what college is for. There's no reason engineers couldn't just move to a journeyman model.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I gave myself a raw deal by majoring in humanities, I believe.
:punches self in neck:
:dodges:
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I majored in English. It would have been a good base for going on to an MBA or law school. I've managed to have a fairly good career without going beyond my English degree, although probably without the pay of an engineer or lawyer.
I do sometimes wish I had studied something a little more tangible as an undergrad, and then used that to back up my career. I wasn't thinking that way in college, though.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: A BA in the humanities is rather useless. It's the easy path to a quick MBA, though, which is basically the modern equivalent of the high school diploma.
If an MBA is the equivalent of a high school diploma, what does a high school diploma equate to?
--j_k
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, heck, the study of the humanities is what college is for. There's no reason engineers couldn't just move to a journeyman model.
Perhaps in your imagination this is true. Reality is something somewhat different.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Obedience School Certificate?
--Enigmatic
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Enigmatic got it in one. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
A quick counterexample to the "humanities majors don't earn much without adanced degrees" meme: Abhi, who is now a year and a half out of college is currently earning over $70k, not including bonuses or stock options. He graduated with majors in English lit & religious studies. He didn't have any work experience prior to college, but made sure he got some while *in* college via summer jobs in order to develop marketable skills. To my mind, it's the skills you posses, not your specific majors, that matter. I'm starting to get resigned to the fact that he'll probably always be earning more than me, even when I've earned a ph.d in the most practical field of economics (unless I went into finance in a private firm but - uuugh! so boring).
(and for anyone who's been keeping track, I'm back from India! Currently sitting in Abhi's office at a quarter to 9, watching him earn his paycheck, using hatrack to keep me awake from bad jetlag. )
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Mind if I ask what he does? Be as general as you feel safe to say.
I'm also a major in literature and religious studies and will be graduating in May. Not quite sure what I'll be doing, not because I doubt my skills so much, but because I'm not sure what's out there in the job market for me.
My dad always tells not to worry because while he graduated from college with a degree in accounting, he quickly found his way into managerial work at his oil company and couldn't be happier. He's pretty high up in the financial division and is incharge of promoting employees and hiring new ones. He says he's hired LOTS of English majors because he finds that they're creative, analytical, and quick-studies. As he says, most of what business students learn in school is obsolete or their company just does things in their own way. So he gets stuck having to re-train these accounting majors who think they know so much and gripe about their entry-level positions. He's told me that his best employees have been English, Art, and History majors, and many of them now hold similar positions in other departments.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: As an undergraduate, I had a lot of friends who were majoring in the humanities. Many of them were very proud of the "purity" of the their academic pursuits and tended to look down their noises at people who were worried about getting jobs after graduation.
As an undergraduate double major in one humanistic field and one scientific one, I found that all my friends in the humanities sneered at folks in the sciences, and all my friends in the sciences sneered at folks in the humanities. It always made me sad that neither group could see the value in the other.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Enigmatic got it in one.
Ouch.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
At my graduation, the E-school folks chanted "We have jobs" at the humanities folks. The humanities folks chanted back, "We have souls."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*giggle*
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: I have known engineering majors to argue that they don't need to know anything about literature or art or history because they are of no value at all to their planned careers.
I have known far more humanities majors who refuse to have the first thing to do with math and science. There are a lot more people in my experience who can't do Math on a 9th grade level than people who can't read on a 9th grade level.
Oh, and
quote:We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.
-John Keating (DPS)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
While I would have loved to study humanities in college, there's no way I could justify the financial investment required to do so at that point in my life.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
In college, I loved the humanities courses I took, but did find the majority of the class actually needed to learn how to think. In my science courses, I did not feel that way. However, as a grad student in science, I find many of my peers think about nothing but science. I don't really think anymore, just follow protocols with minor variations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Way to make me feel good about being a history major people. Thanks. Though to be fair, I've been considering law school fairly seriously lately.
On the other hand, if we dumped the humanities entirely, who is going to teach your kids history and English in school? I don't think it's a matter of them not being any use, clearly they ARE of use, but studying them doesn't seem to be much use in life as a career when they are so undervalued that you can't make a decent living with them. In summary: teachers are underpayed.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It's okay, Lyr. I'm getting my MBA, which apparently means I only care about living in a cubicle.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I have known far more humanities majors who refuse to have the first thing to do with math and science.
In my experience, the numbers are about equal.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There are a lot more people in my experience who can't do Math on a 9th grade level than people who can't read on a 9th grade level.
In my experience, the numbers are about equal.
Reader's Digest, my friend. That's where most people are at.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Nah. TV Guide. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:destroys the Ivory Tower-- all of it-- with the Implacable Engine of Ultimate Destruction:
Who cares? Now. All of you eggheads that are still breathing, go find me some socks.
My sock monkey army will be the fear of the galaxy!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I have known far more humanities majors who refuse to have the first thing to do with math and science.
In my experience, the numbers are about equal.
Then I'd have to say your experience is nothing like mine. At nearly every University, the general education classes in the humanities are exactly the same classes as the first year classes for majors. In the sciences, there are separate courses for majors and general education because most students can't handle the math in the sciences courses. In both chemistry and physics there are typically three levels of courses, the general education courses that have no prerequisites, a course for nurses, premeds, education majors, etc that requires some algebra and trig, and a course for scientists and engineers that requires at least 1 (some times 2) years of calculus.
As a professor, I've worked with many humanities professors who have never taken a college algebra course let alone a calculus course, who don't know the fundamental physical laws, who don't know that molecular biology has a central theorem or that quantum theory is defined by a differential equation.
And while I've met many professors of science and engineering who aren't interested in the humanities, I have yet to meet one who hadn't read any Shakespeare or Dickens, who didn't know the rough outline of US history, or who wasn't familiar with Plato, Aristotle and Kant.
As an engineering professor, I can and do read the recent publications of many of my humanities colleagues, but I'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the humanities who understood enough math and science to read my latest publications.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There are a lot more people in my experience who can't do Math on a 9th grade level than people who can't read on a 9th grade level.
In my experience, the numbers are about equal.
Then once again your experience is very different from mine. I know of none who have graduated from college with a degree in math, science or engineering who can't read at a 9th grade level. Even within the technical fields reading and writing are essential skills and you couldn't pass your classes without them. In contrast, a good 90% of the humanities majors I know with PhDs can't do high school level math.
Reader's Digest, my friend. That's where most people are at. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Context man, context. The comparison going on here is between college graduates with degrees in math, science and engineering versus college graduates with degrees in the humanities.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have yet to meet one who hadn't read any Shakespeare or Dickens, who didn't know the rough outline of US history, or who wasn't familiar with Plato, Aristotle and Kant.
I've met a number of science professors who don't know these things, and several more who are completely incapable of reading/writing at a "high school" level. Heck, there are at least two at this college, and I've run into one or two from MIT.
quote:Even within the technical fields reading and writing are essential skills and you couldn't pass your classes without them.
That assumption only holds if you assume the professors (or TAs) grading the papers know how to read and write.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Socks, people! Or I vaporize your ramen.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I've met a number of science professors who don't know these things, and several more who are completely incapable of reading/writing at a "high school" level. Heck, there are at least two at this college, and I've run into one or two from MIT.
I quite frankly don't believe you! Please provide details to back up your assertion.
quote:That assumption only holds if you assume the professors (or TAs) grading the papers know how to read and write.
I also assumes that you can't pass a class unless you can read a textbook and read and understand problem statements. A very good assumption.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The aspects I find most ennobling in American history weren't developed by scientists working as scientists.
Studying the humanities may not immediately qualify one for an easy job, but I think it impoves the chances that one will grow into a person I like to be around, and since I constantly have to be around myself, I'd like to appreciate the company. Honestly, for reasons I won't go into here, I think that there is something a bit more insidious about the soft sciences than engineering. Check out the Dismal Science.
______
Here is a parallel: It doesn't seem to me that too many people get rich on mormon missions, or go in with the primary purpose of parlaying the language training into a fruitful career, but what missionaries receive in those two years seems to be not easily qualtifable in dollars or degrees, but is quite possibly more important to the human spirit than knowing differential equations or the central theorem of molecular biology.
[ January 10, 2008, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: Mind if I ask what he does? Be as general as you feel safe to say.
I'm also a major in literature and religious studies and will be graduating in May. Not quite sure what I'll be doing, not because I doubt my skills so much, but because I'm not sure what's out there in the job market for me.
My dad always tells not to worry because while he graduated from college with a degree in accounting, he quickly found his way into managerial work at his oil company and couldn't be happier. He's pretty high up in the financial division and is incharge of promoting employees and hiring new ones. He says he's hired LOTS of English majors because he finds that they're creative, analytical, and quick-studies. As he says, most of what business students learn in school is obsolete or their company just does things in their own way. So he gets stuck having to re-train these accounting majors who think they know so much and gripe about their entry-level positions. He's told me that his best employees have been English, Art, and History majors, and many of them now hold similar positions in other departments.
I don't mind at all, Shanna. He's a Product Manager at a (funded) internet start-up in the DC area. It's a very good job for a generalist with excellent computer skills - he does a little bit of graphical design, some programming, a lot of concept work on the product, writes user requirements, and generally has to interact with all of the different departments in the company in order to make sure the product is the best it can be.
And I think your dad is right. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I quite frankly don't believe you! Please provide details to back up your assertion.
1, 2, 3, 4, I declare an anecdote war!
This is the silliest stuff that ever I heard.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Though to be fair, I've been considering law school fairly seriously lately.
You should keep considering it - I think you'd be pretty good at it. I would only recommend it, however, if you intend to practice or teach law. There are far better ways to learn what you need to know about the law if your career goals are not being a lawyer.
I found my math (near) major to be far more helpful in law school than my political science major. It's not that I actually used the specifics of the degree, but much of the way of thinking I learned in math is incredibly useful in law. Systems analysis and data design were even more helpful.
Pure science and math people often did well, but many of them were hampered by their reading and writing speed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The aspects I find most ennobling in American history weren't developed by scientists working as scientists.
Studying the humanities may not immediately qualify one for an easy job, but I think it impoves the chances that one will grow into a person I like to be around, and since I constantly have to be around myself, I'd like to appreciate the company. Honestly, for reasons I won't go into here, I think that there is something a bit more insidious about the soft sciences than engineering. Check out the Dismal Science.
Hear, Hear!
I need to read that book.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
That was a disappointing essay, especially Fish's conclusion that the humanities "don't do anything, if by 'do' is meant bring about effects in the world. And if they don't bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them." If so, then why should we publicly fund the study of the humanities, any more than we should publicly fund the production of video games? Of course, maybe Fish is implying that we don't need to publicly fund such study, though that view is at odds with his first paragraph about how the New York State Commission on Higher Education's report neglects the humanities.
I always thought that the standard answer to why you should study the humanities was that they (here I'm thinking mainly of history and literature) show you how different people have valued different things at different times and thereby help you think more clearly about what you value. No, studying them won't necessarily make you as "generous, patient, good-hearted and honest" as a person can be, as Fish thinks humanities professors would be if the humanities made people better; but surely they make you more thoughtful about everything than you otherwise would have been. Of course, it would be hard to quantify this view.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I wasn't aware that video games were publicly funded.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
That's what I meant; they're not.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Ah, I see. Carry on.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The aspects I find most ennobling in American history weren't developed by scientists working as scientists.
Studying the humanities may not immediately qualify one for an easy job, but I think it impoves the chances that one will grow into a person I like to be around, and since I constantly have to be around myself, I'd like to appreciate the company. Honestly, for reasons I won't go into here, I think that there is something a bit more insidious about the soft sciences than engineering. Check out the Dismal Science.
Hear, Hear!
I need to read that book.
Wow. I haven't read the book, but if the excerpt is at all indicative of the contents of the book, the author clearly has not kept up with economics as practiced in the past couple of decades. As a student in an orthodox economics ph.d program, I can guarantee you that it is not true that
quote:Economists celebrate the market as a device for regulating human interaction without acknowledging that their enthusiasm depends on a set of half-truths
Maybe this was true in the 70's & 80's, but with the surge of behavior economics recently, among other things, it no longer is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, it is one of the biggest movements in economics (and has been for a decade or two) to investigate the ways in which rationality breaks down and assumptions of efficiency no longer hold (among other things).
The author is a professor of economics, so I can only assume he's been rather selective in his reading.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
He's tenured at Harvard, but it looks like his big papers were done in the 70's - something about combining Marxism with Keynesian demand theory. Guess he's one of the token minorities there - two for the price of one!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Though to be fair, I've been considering law school fairly seriously lately.
You should keep considering it - I think you'd be pretty good at it. I would only recommend it, however, if you intend to practice or teach law. There are far better ways to learn what you need to know about the law if your career goals are not being a lawyer.
I found my math (near) major to be far more helpful in law school than my political science major. It's not that I actually used the specifics of the degree, but much of the way of thinking I learned in math is incredibly useful in law. Systems analysis and data design were even more helpful.
Pure science and math people often did well, but many of them were hampered by their reading and writing speed.
To be perfectly honest, I don't really know all the different kinds of lawyering to know which one I'd want to do. But, I think if it came down to it I'd want to do something in research. Research is part of what I like about history so much, and it's a combination of the history of law and the fun construction of arguments by pulling together facts and historical precedent that has me so interested in law. Teaching law has a certain allure, but, I think that'd be a bit drier than I'd want. If I was going to do that I'd lean towards history professor. I still have a year or so before I'd need to make a real decision on a kind of grad school, but I really need to look into what lawyers actually do other than argue stuff in a court room before I make that decision. But I'm giving serious, serious thought to it. It'll be something to do until I'm 35 and run for president anyway .
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I would say that the education you receive from a humanities major can be among the most useful you can get, but I would also say that the piece of paper you get at the end is one of the least useful. So, if you go to college only to get the benefits out of that piece of paper that says you are a graduate, then you are probably better off with another major. But for those who are looking for an education they can apply to life in general, I might recommend humanities.
I'd emphasize "might" and "can", though, because it all depends on how you choose to use the major. If you take the easiest humanities classes available and do only what is minimally required, you probably won't learn that much and thus the major won't serve you very well. If you read a lot of books but don't think about what you are reading, or do think but don't apply what you learn to your real life, then reading the books won't help you much. In my experience from college, a lot of humanities majors fit into categories like these - and so it would not be a huge surprise to me if their major didn't end up helping them much. Humanities differs from more career-oriented majors because it requires more self-direction. For those who direct themselves well and then go on to apply the things they learn to their actual lives beyond college, I think a humanities major will likely make them a better person, or at least someone who can better define and achieve their goals. But it is only part of the puzzle. Humanities by itself will get you little; it is how you apply the things you learn from the humanities to other areas that matters.
Of course, there's still the issue of that piece of paper. Employers definitely favor other fields, so if you are just out to maximize your immediate earning potential, humanities aren't as useful. I'd say there are three flaws in that mode of thinking though... The first is what a humanities graduate probably knows: that there are more valuable things in life than money. The second is what a economics graduate probably knows: that advantages in the short-term doesn't always equate to advantages in the long-term. And the third is what a business graduate probably realizes: that wealth comes less from your starting salary than from the way you manage your money. So, practically speaking I can see how one would say having a humanities degree is not very beneficial financially, but I don't think it follows that the humanities is not a useful thing to study.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Plus, you know, not all people who study business do so just for the piece of paper. I know that's a widespread belief, but it's a pretty ridiculous one.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You can get a PhD in law, instead of a traditional law degree.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: ... not all people who study business do so just for the piece of paper...
Very true. Many do it for multiple pieces of paper, printed on both sides, and featuring pictures of dead primates Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Jhai,
His argument is that behavioral economics tries to address the fundamental problems of economics with structural solutions. For example, behavioral economics builds more sophisticated models to account for altruism or other externalities, instead of appreciating the profound sense of other-regarding duty one person can feel towards another. His secondary argument is that the study of economics only recognizes the individual and the state, the latter because the state can coercively check the market, but this dichotomy renders the unit of the community invisible.
[ January 10, 2008, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Then I'd have to say your experience is nothing like mine. At nearly every University, the general education classes in the humanities are exactly the same classes as the first year classes for majors.
I would like to see a source for the "nearly every University" claim, because not only does it not match my undergraduate experience, but I taught Freshman Composition and Freshman Literature at Clemson University, and these courses did not count toward the degree programs of English majors. I don't believe your claim is generally true of literature.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
That matches my experience, Icarus. At BYU, freshman writing was a 100-level English class. All the major classes were 200 and up. And after glancing over the different programs in the College of Humanities at BYU, it looks like that's true of the other programs, too.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I found my math (near) major to be far more helpful in law school than my political science major. It's not that I actually used the specifics of the degree, but much of the way of thinking I learned in math is incredibly useful in law. Systems analysis and data design were even more helpful.
Next time you're in town, please volunteer to give a speech to my classes.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Reader's Digest, my friend. That's where most people are at.
Context man, context. The comparison going on here is between college graduates with degrees in math, science and engineering versus college graduates with degrees in the humanities.
The context was this statement:
quote:There are a lot more people in my experience who can't do Math on a 9th grade level than people who can't read on a 9th grade level.
This was a general statement as far as I'm concerned, and not specifically about humanities and science majors.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's nothing in economic theories that contradicts or says others can't have 'other-regarding duty'. If people value that, it will be reflected in how they act given incentives. Economics works with that just fine.
The study of economics also recognizes a heck of a lot more than the individual and the state. Economists do research all the time related to coherent groups of people sharing common interest. I mean, there's even a category of good with a related name -- 'club goods'.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, I should say that your repeated litany about economics not explaining things somewhat frustrates me, Irami, when I cannot recall you proffering a single specific example of something economics attempts to explain when it cannot (and don't get me wrong, I think economics researchers sometimes overreach, but usually by applying economics theory to areas too far afield from economics). If you have any such specific examples, please list them that we might either agree with them or shoot them down with counterarguments.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Thank you for the elaboration, Irami. To address the two points - keeping in mind that I obviously haven't read the book:
It's not clear to me that the focus of economics as a field should be "appreciating the profound sense of other-regarding duty one person can feel towards another" rather than simply modeling altruism mathematically. I see it as similar to botany and, say, poetry about nature. Both are talking about the same subject, but in vastly different ways & for different purposes. For economics, the purpose of modeling is mainly to develop a systematic way to understand the "black box" of human behavior - what outputs to expect given certain inputs. I agree that appreciating duties towards others is important but I'm not certain that it must be included in the scope of economics.
For the second point, the author is simply wrong that economics only studies the individual and the state. There's plenty of work, particularly in development economics, that studies informal communal or family ties. Heck, in my study of immigration I've run across a number of papers regarding the role of informal networking in the finding of jobs in foreign countries.
edit: fugu beat me to it
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Then I'd have to say your experience is nothing like mine. At nearly every University, the general education classes in the humanities are exactly the same classes as the first year classes for majors.
I would like to see a source for the "nearly every University" claim, because not only does it not match my undergraduate experience, but I taught Freshman Composition and Freshman Literature at Clemson University, and these courses did not count toward the degree programs of English majors. I don't believe your claim is generally true of literature.
Like JonBoy, my experience is not consistent with this claim.
e.g., for U Illinois at U-C:
quote:ENGL 110 Intro Lit Study for Non-Majors
This course satisfies the General Education Criteria for a Literature and the Arts course.
Introduction to literary genres and literary interpretation, with an emphasis on close reading for non-English majors.
This holds true for other departments in the Arts & Humanities at UIUC, e.g.,
quote:ART 140 Introduction to Art
This course satisfies the General Education Criteria for a Literature and the Arts course.
Broadly based conceptual foundation for a critical understanding of the visual arts in contemporary society. Not open to students in art and design and architecture.
quote:DANC 100 Intro to Contemporary Dance
This course satisfies the General Education Criteria for a Literature and the Arts, and Western Compartv Cult course.
Overview of major works, figures, and trends responsible for shaping dance as an evolving contemporary art form. The course will have lecture, viewing, discussion and experiential (studio participation) components. For non-dance majors.
quote:THEA 101 Introduction to Theatre Arts
This course satisfies the General Education Criteria for a Literature and the Arts course.
Introduction to the arts of theater for non-majors, including acting, design, directing, dramaturgy, and playwriting, together with a survey of theatrical history, minority theater, and plays by women.
Italicization were added for clarity.
I could add similar examples for both of the other universities I have been affiliated with, and I doubt this is uncommon.
----
Edited to add: A quick skim of the course catalog for UAB indicates that English 101 & 102 will count towards the "core curriculum" requirements but do not count towards the major. At UW (Madison), nothing below the 200-level courses counts towards the major.
Of course, nothing stops a science major from taking the more rigorous courses in the humanities. The reverse is also true. However, there has been a demand (both from students and professors, at least at these institutions) for courses that are less rigorous to be offered to those who do not wish to study these areas as a primary focus.
[ January 10, 2008, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What CT, JonBoy, and Icarus said. There is a lot of demand for literature and theatre courses (for example) from people who are interested but majoring in something else, so (at least here) we hire lecturers to teach a version for non-majors. They tend to be somewhat less rigorous than the core major courses.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
In my 8 years of teaching philosophy at the university level, I taught well over 800 different students, almost all at the introductory level. Those who self-identified as science majors did not tend to think more clearly or write better than those who self-identified as humanities majors; rather, the reverse was true [to the extent that there was a difference, that is].
I think part of this is that it is easier to think you understand a topic if you are familiar with the symbols used in its language, and the humanities tend to use standard non-jargon English in the introductory level (instead of, say, mathematical variables or chemical symbols). However, this makes it harder to grasp the situation when you do not understand it.
Some (not all) science majors acknowledged to me that they came into my philosophy class expecting an easy "A." This proved frustrating for many of them, as the discipline requires less regurgitation of information (which is, in my experience, the most common practice in introductory science classes) and more synthesis and generative creation of tenable ideas and arguments. Regurgitation of the textbook, even verbatim, was not sufficient, and there were no standard formulae in the textbooks to follow. Instead there was the more nebulous (to the students) area of better and worse reasoning, not just right and wrong answers. Several found that extremely challenging.
Several did quite well though. There is nothing about [the typical teaching of introductory] undergraduate science that necessarily rules out critical thinking -- it just may not foster it, and almost certainly not to the extent that the humanities do.
[ January 11, 2008, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I found my math (near) major to be far more helpful in law school than my political science major. It's not that I actually used the specifics of the degree, but much of the way of thinking I learned in math is incredibly useful in law. Systems analysis and data design were even more helpful.
Next time you're in town, please volunteer to give a speech to my classes.
Absolutely. I posted in more depth about this here. I go into specifics about one use on the second page.
Someone (I think Glenn Arnold, but can't find the thread) said they showed that to a reluctant math student who wants to be a lawyer, and that it made an impression.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Some (not all) science majors acknowledged to me that they came into my philosophy class expecting an easy "A." This proved frustrating for many of them, as the discipline requires less regurgitation of information (which is, in my experience, the most common practice in introductory science classes) and more synthesis and generative creation of tenable ideas and arguments. Regurgitation of the textbook, even verbatim, was not sufficient, and there were no standard formulae in the textbooks to follow. Instead there was the more nebulous (to the students) area of better and worse reasoning, not just right and wrong answers. Several found that extremely challenging.
I recently read an editorial about the political divide in academia that stated that law school emphasized rote memorization and deemphasized creativity as compared to other fields. I was quite annoyed - rote memorization will get you a C at best in law school.
Your paragraph here articulates almost perfectly the response I wanted to write. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: There is nothing about undergraduate science that necessarily rules out critical thinking -- it just may not foster it, and almost certainly not to the extent that the humanities do.
I was all set to disagree, but thought I should clarify: do you equate "critical thinking" with "logic?" If not, is there a relation between the two and what is it.
My experience has been that excelling at advanced level humanities courses was easy for me because my science and engineering classes trained me how to reason about subjects logically. I generally found the humanities majors in my classes to be lacking in the ability to think at a high level in an organized, rational way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll admit right out that I haven't taken a lot of math or science classes beyond the freshman level, but my upper level history classes would be impossible to get past without both critical thinking, analysis and good organizational skills. I can't say if that's better or worse than math/science, since I have no basis for comparison, but it's there for sure. You can't get by just by spitting facts back out (which you'd think with all those names and dates you'd be able to do), though I think you could get a B or so just by doing that in the much easier classes, you have to be able to take large amounts of material, pull out the right pieces, analyze them and put together a cogent argument that isn't set out for you ahead of time, and it all has to make sense at the end on a case by case basis, there isn't always a right or wrong answer, you create right and wrong answers depending on how well you do. I guess maybe it also depends on which humanities major you are, as I would imagine some focus more on that than others.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I was all set to disagree, but thought I should clarify: do you equate "critical thinking" with "logic?" If not, is there a relation between the two and what is it.
My experience has been that excelling at advanced level humanities courses was easy for me because my science and engineering classes trained me how to reason about subjects logically. I generally found the humanities majors in my classes to be lacking in the ability to think at a high level in an organized, rational way.
I am delighted that you did well in whatever you did well in. That's great.
I decline to comment further on anything else on grounds that have already been alluded to in prior discussion. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I recently read an editorial about the political divide in academia that stated that law school emphasized rote memorization and deemphasized creativity as compared to other fields. I was quite annoyed - rote memorization will get you a C at best in law school.
I am extremely annoyed when similar ignorant statements are made about mathematics--particularly the suggestion that it does not require, reward, or emphasize creativity.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
For any class, it probably depends on how it is taught. My science classes tended to be here is a bunch of experimental data, come up with a hypothesis that incorporates everything and defend it in words. In 300/400 level courses, a commonly used test question would be here is a chemical composition of drug X, what might the drug be used for and how would it work? When I TA'd, I took off a bunch of points once because a student explained the answer on a test very badly and I had to reread it six times before I was convinced that he had answered correctly (that was SOP for that class). A science class can be taught as here is a bunch of info, memorize it. But so can a history class or literature or anything else. I enjoyed history and writing, so I took some 400 level major classes and there were times when I thought omigosh, where are your brains people?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I took very few introductory courses in anything because I had basically no electives. The class in which I felt I was surrounded by the weakest students was Computer Programming I. Now from that I don't conclude that computer programmers are dumb compared to people in other careers--just that a lot of weak students think at first, that programming is a great career because they'll play on computers and make six figure salaries. And then they get weeded out by how challenging it actually is.
I think the presence of weak students in a course doesn't actually prove much about the discipline.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Some (not all) science majors acknowledged to me that they came into my philosophy class expecting an easy "A." This proved frustrating for many of them, as the discipline requires less regurgitation of information (which is, in my experience, the most common practice in introductory science classes) and more synthesis and generative creation of tenable ideas and arguments.
I'll note as an aside that I specified "most common" practice (not always), "introductory" classes (not anything above introductory), and that I was discussing the method of instruction, not the intelligence or ability of the students or instructors. I was also speaking of philosophy, which is in some relevant ways quite different than other disciplines in the humanities.
And I did qualify this as "in my experience." I have taken a lot of introductory science classes, have taught a lot of introductory science classes, have taken a lot of introductory humanities classes, have taught a lot of introductory humanities classes, have taken and taught upper-level science classes, and have taken upper-level humnaities classes. I have, however, failed to teach upper level humanities classes, and I have only been involved with [four] universities.
However, in my experience, the introductory (read: "early 100 level, first unskilled freshman") courses of the sciences do indeed tend to be taught in such a way that they require more memorization and regurgitation than do their humanities equivalents, especially the field of philosophy. I think this is often a function of the material -- in the sciences, there is typically new language and jargon to be learned, and that familiarity must be tested. In the humanities (and particularly philosophy), there tends to be more use of natural language in the first level courses, and so there is both less that needs to be memorized and less that can be just memorized.
Of course some classes will not be taught in the typical fashion. Of course the upper level classes will be tend to be taught differently and cover more complex material than the lower level classes. Of course there will be weak students at the early levels in both disciplines.
Of course, of course, of course. But that does not speak to delineating the typical means of instruction at the introductory level -- that speaks to the range of instruction styles and to the characteristics of freshmen in general.
And, of course, I just may happen to have been affiliated with three [actually, four] universities, all of which were outside the norm. It could happen. I doubt the likelihood, but it is surely possible.
---
Edited to add: I was speaking in the context of a discussion of what is offered as introductory level courses at universities, particularly with reference to those classes satisfying general education requirements. This was not only the context in which I spoke, but it was the context that I took care specifically to delineate in my post, as I knew this would be a sensitive subject. Understandably so, and I would expect no less.
My last comment, if taken on its own, appears more generalized: "There is nothing about undergraduate science that necessarily rules out critical thinking -- it just may not foster it, and almost certainly not to the extent that the humanities do." Again, I was speaking in the context of introductory classes, but here I did not respecify that.
I would say that the differences in typical instruction at the introductory level (in my experience) do certainly diminish as classes become more specialized. I would certainly be happen to more explicitly limit that comment to "introductory" undergraduate science classes, and I will do so right now. I will also respecify there that my comments are regarding typical instruction styles.
[ January 11, 2008, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'd also like to mention that the courses should be evaluated not so much for the quality of students they attract, but for the growth the students experience through the course.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Now on to the real question. Whether or not the humanities have any "use" all depends on what you mean by "use". If what you mean by "use" is limited to what can be readily bought and sold on the market then the answer is probably no, at the humanities don't have any direct use.
I should say to the extent that Engineering is bought and sold "directly" on the market you could find a number of examples in which the skills taught in the humanities are also bought and sold almost as "directly" on the market.
For example, every time something is written, from copywriting, to screenwriting, to newswriting, to writing novels, to writing textbooks, it is written by somebody with a knowledge of writing. I'd say that at least some of those people have a humanities degree that has taught them more about writing than they would otherwise know. Many may even have an English degree. Writing is bought and sold in vast quantities every day.
Within that field, thousands of books are written every year in the field of humanities topics. Often those books are written by history, philosophy, political science etc. students. They too are bought and sold, sometimes in vast quantities, not to mention fiction which is also often written by people with humanities degrees who do use the knowledge and skills they have learnt at school, sell their work and get paid for it.
Historians provide a marketable skill for various industries outside of the obvious including governments, the scientific community, art and tourism and religion all of which are huge business.
Philosophers and religion specialists' work appears in the church and the clash between churches that is inevitable in our modern society, and the church is not a poor organization.
Language is also bought and sold in the translation of all this writing and in the act of live translation, as well as the obvious act of simply writing in another language. It is often crucial to the work of government, law and science.
This is completely aside from the millions of students in the world who pay daily for instruction in the humanities and social scientists.
When thinking about the market, we often think about the Fine Arts and Scientists and forget that we also buy and sell the work of humanities students as well, although perhaps the work is more often a part of a larger construct that we quickly categorise under science or arts or something else like law and government.
And, of course, it does not take into account the intrinsic worth of in-depth knowledge about these subjects that humanities students and social scientists have, which is of course the same or close to the same as the intrinsic worth of the knowledge of scientists- as far as you can measure such a thing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Like JonBoy, my experience is not consistent with this claim.
CT, The data you present is somewhat misleading. I looked at the requirements for English majors at the UICU. They state
quote:Introductory Literature: Courses in this group should be completed as early as possible. Students may choose one of the following options: 3 hrs Option A (preferred): English 200: Intro to Literary Study or 6 hrs Option B: English 101: Intro to Poetry and either
English 102: Intro to Drama or
English 103: Intro to Fiction
So the while the English department prefers students take the 200 level class for majors, they list as an official option taking the 100 level courses for non majors. You will also note that the first writing course specifically for English majors requires Comp I as a prerequisite, the same writing class for all students on campus.
This quite different from what is done in the sciences. For example in Chemistry at UICU, there is an introductory chemistry class (Chem 101), which does not count as chemistry credit for chemistry majors. The chemistry department then has two General Chemistry sequences, a 100 level sequence recommended for premed, prevet students and a 200 level sequence required for specialized chemistry majors and chemical engineering majors. The 100 level sequence can not be substituted for the 200 level sequence.
I could go through other programs and Universities if you really want to argue the point but what I found on the UICU website is consist with my experience at other Universities. Introductory courses in the humanities generally fill a requirement for majors, even when a special majors class is offered as an alternative. This is simply not the case for the physical sciences where introductory general education courses and even courses for medical professionals and teachers are not considered equivalent to the courses taught for majors.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Some (not all) science majors acknowledged to me that they came into my philosophy class expecting an easy "A." This proved frustrating for many of them, as the discipline requires less regurgitation of information (which is, in my experience, the most common practice in introductory science classes) and more synthesis and generative creation of tenable ideas and arguments.
CT, I know you addressed this in your later post saying that this was in reference specifically to introductory courses satisfying general education requirements. Which completely side steps the issue at hand. Introductory courses in Chemistry and Physics for science and engineering majors are not the same courses that are offered to fill general education requirements. Introductory courses in Chemistry and Physics for science and engineering majors don't focus on memorization and regurgitation of ideas. They focus on application of principles to the solution of problems.
Which brings me back to my original point, introductory courses for non-majors in the physical sciences simply are not remotely equivalent to the introductory courses designed for scientists and engineers. Students of all majors entering a University are required to take the same English composition classes, but they aren't required to take the same chemistry, physics and math courses. In fact, even students preparing for a profession in medicine or education aren't required to take the same chemistry and physics classes as scientists and engineerings. Why not?
Well I've been on some of the committees that discuss general education requirements so I'm not speculating when I give the answer. Most non-science majors can't handle the math in the introductory chemistry and physics classes for majors and most Professors in non-technical fields can't either so they don't see the value of scientific and mathematical literacy.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Which brings me back to my original point, introductory courses for non-majors in the physical sciences simply are not remotely equivalent to the introductory courses designed for scientists and engineers.
I agree, and I'm okay with that. I'm only ever going to be a partial engineer or scientist. I'm a full-time human.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You heard it here first, folks. JT, Rabbit, mph, you're not human. I knew it all along.
*adjusts tinfoil hat*
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Rabbit, I was disagreeing with your statement that
quote:At nearly every University, the general education classes in the humanities are exactly the same classes as the first year classes for majors.
Which is still incorrect for UIUC. Had you said there was some overlap, I wouldn't have batted an eye. But "exactly the same" is not true if there are differences between the sets.
(I am assuming you were looking at UIUC, by the way, but if not, I'd have to look at the other university to comment.)
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: CT, I know you addressed this in your later post saying that this was in reference specifically to introductory courses satisfying general education requirements. Which completely side steps the issue at hand.
*shrugs
My quibble was with what you said as was quoted above, nothing more. I'm not engaged enough to discuss other parts of the discussion -- which is why I quoted a particular section, the part where you were making a claim about "general education classes" -- but you are of course welcome to do so at your leisure, from my perspective.
The UIUC English major requirement checklist includes classes at the level that satisfies the gen ed requirements, but it also requires more course hours specifically in English than a Chemistry major is required to complete specifically in Chemistry. The English department requires the at least as many course hours in English at the higher levels to complete its major as the Chemistry department does for its major. The fact that English also lists its portion of the gen ed curriculum isn't a reflection on the rigor of its major, but on the centrality of English to general education requirements.
quote:I could go through other programs and Universities if you really want to argue the point but what I found on the UICU website is consist with my experience at other Universities. Introductory courses in the humanities generally fill a requirement for majors, even when a special majors class is offered as an alternative. This is simply not the case for the physical sciences where introductory general education courses and even courses for medical professionals and teachers are not considered equivalent to the courses taught for majors.
quote:Introductory courses in Chemistry and Physics for science and engineering majors are not the same courses that are offered to fill general education requirements.
quote:Which brings me back to my original point, introductory courses for non-majors in the physical sciences simply are not remotely equivalent to the introductory courses designed for scientists and engineers.
At UIUC, the Physics course requirements taken for a major in Chemistry Major in Science and Letters for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Liberal Arts and Sciences include Physics 101 and 102 ["either Physics 101 and 102 or Physics 211 and Physics 212," comparable to your example from the English Department], which also are counted towards the general education requirement.
Not only do both series of Physics classes (100 level as well as the 200 level) count towards the Chemsitry major, but Chemistry 202 does specifically count towards a general education requirement as well as toward a major in chemistry.
Rabbit, you are now using the word "generally" to modify your claims about introductory coursework in the humanities. Whether or not that current claim is correct, it isn't one I would have bothered to disagree with. What I disagreed with (and still disagree with) is the absolutest claim that the classes are exactly the same. This isn't necessarily so -- there may be some overlap, but the sets do differ. That is, non-major options are offered in the humanities (as is similarly done in the sciences) as an option for non-humanities majors to fulfill general education requirements.
And at UIUC, some general education curriculum classes in the sciences also can count toward a major in the sciences. There is not a purely clear-cut distinction between humanities and the sciences here; on both, there is some overlap between introductory and gen ed requirements, but on neither side is the overlap complete, either. I trust that different universities will have different balances, and I would never have argued with that claim.
[ January 11, 2008, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:Students of all majors entering a University are required to take the same English composition classes, but they aren't required to take the same chemistry, physics and math courses.
I think this is a key failing of college composition departments/programs [although to be fair, they often don't have the political and financial support they really need to operate on the level that they may (or may not -- I have not been impressed with some of the thinking that takes place in the comp field, but, then again, that's been the case for any field that I've taken the time to investigate) be able to].
In other words, they aren't required to take the same science and math classes; they are required to take the same comp classes so oftentimes the result is that the comp classes function in the same way as the 'science for the humanities' classes.
And really, first semester college comp tends to focus on competencies that should be there by the time they graduate from high school(let alone all the students who have to take remedial English courses).
Or to put this all another way: I'm not sure that looking at introductory college coursework is the proper way to assess the question of whether the humanities are of any use.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'll add that I myself saw more humanities majors doing poorly in intro science classes than the reverse. However, in general, humanities majors in that circumstance did not seem to me to be as surprised by this as were the science majors having difficulty.
Like Zalmoxis, I too would like to good rigor in the introductory comp classes. I was lucky enough to have taken mine from a true termagant of a professor. We turned in topic requests, highlighted topic sentences for each paragraph, first drafts, and second drafts, each for all three papers due. We were required to read our papers backwards, sentence by sentence, to make sure that each sentence made a point on its own to further the argument. It was a really good class.
I also had some excellent introductory science classes. With each, however, there was a good bit of memorization, as some of the symbolic language was likely to be unfamiliar to most students. I don't take that to be a fault of the instructors, but just a reflection of the fact that the sciences at the introductory level tend to reference more symbols not in use in the natural language of the students than do the humanities.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
At my school, none of the English majors I knew had taken Comp 101. Anyone interested enough in English to major in it had easily tested out.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think that was true for most of my classmates, too. For some reason we were not allowed to test out of it at UIUC at that time unless we had taken it as an AP class*** in high school. I was not eligible for AP high school classes, so I was left to do it at university. It happened to be a very good class, but my impression was that the other instructors taught it quite differently.
---
Edited to add:
***(as opposed to just taking the AP exam. I think the restrictions may have changed, and I think this may be because of increasing awareness of and accomodation to nontraditional schooling.)
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Did they get college credit for testing out -- i.e. were those 3 (or however many) GE credits they didn't have to take? Because if so, that says something right there.
[I have no idea how that all works because I never took any AP exams, and when I got back from my mission and went to college I figured that it would do me good to just start at the beginning and go straight through as I was a bit rusty academically.]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
rabbit, at this university, the Acting classes work pretty much the same way as the Chemistry classes you used as an example. So do the classes for Film majors.
CT, at the college I attended, you could test out of the most basic level of whatever we called the writing requirement class, but still had to take one of a series of courses that proved you could write. (Or in my case, just get an English professor to vouch for you with the registrar.)
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
The most charitable reading I can give of Stanley Fish's essay (getting back to the original topic), one that commenters on his blog mentioned, is that the humanities are "useless" in the sense that you don't think, say, "I need to become more empathetic to the rest of humanity, so I'll read some Shakespeare." That is, you don't read Shakespeare with the aim of achieving some goal that isn't necessarily related to Shakespeare, so in that sense reading Shakespeare is "useless". But that doesn't mean that there aren't external benefits to studying history and literature and that justify the funding of such study (even the benefit of making people calmer and more thoughtful would merit giving some funding to the humanities), and Fish should have made this clear.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Taking a good comp class apparently does not prevent one from triple-posting a quotation instead of an edit. *grin)
kmboots, that sounds right. I vaguely remember a discussion with my advisor that UIUC would not accept other classes for the comp requirement, but that this was unusual amongst universities, and this restriction may have been soon to change. I think it was something to do with intra- and interdepartmental politics.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Rabbit, I was disagreeing with your statement that
quote:At nearly every University, the general education classes in the humanities are exactly the same classes as the first year classes for majors.
Which is still incorrect for UIUC.
Unless of course you consider COMP I as an English class, in which case it is true for the English program at UICU.
quote:Had you said there was some overlap, I wouldn't have batted an eye. But "exactly the same" is not true if there are differences between the sets.
If your soul argument was with use of the word "exactly", then I am guilty of hyperbole. It would have been more accurate if I had said that in most cases, the general education classes in humanities fill or can substitute for a major requirement which is not true for the science and engineering courses. This is true ant UICU.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: CT, I know you addressed this in your later post saying that this was in reference specifically to introductory courses satisfying general education requirements. Which completely side steps the issue at hand.
*shrugs
My quibble was with what you said as was quoted above, nothing more. I'm not engaged enough to discuss other parts of the discussion -- which is why I quoted a particular section, the part where you were making a claim about "general education classes" -- but you are of course welcome to do so at your leisure, from my perspective.
quote:Certainly you are sufficiently trained in rhetoric to know that by disputing my wording. your point would also be taken to dispute my underlying claim. For someone who was not sufficiently engaged in the discussion, you certainly put alot of research into disputing what I'd said.
The UIUC English major requirement checklist includes classes at the level that satisfies the gen ed requirements, but it also requires more course hours specifically in English than a Chemistry major is required to complete specifically in Chemistry. The English department requires the same number of course hours in English at the higher levels to complete its major as the Chemistry department does for its major.
quote:I just checked the site and you are wrong. Both English and Chemistry offer a degree in the "Major in Sciences and Letters Curriculum". In both departments that degree requires 30 credit hours in the major field. Chemistry also offers a Specialized Chemistry Curriculum (the degree intended for those who will proceed to graduate studies in Chemistry) which requires 46 credit hours of Chemistry. The comparable degree from the English department would be the Bachelor of Art in Liberal Arts and English degree which requires 33 credit hours in English.
quote:The fact that English also lists its portion of the gen ed curriculum isn't a reflection on the rigor of its major, but on the centrality of English to general education requirements.
I never claimed that humanities majors were less rigorous than science majors or that the fact that many general education classes in the humanities double as classes for majors was a reflection of the rigor of those fields.
I was addressing comments by SenojRetep that there are as many science and engineering majors who "refuse to have the first thing to do with" the humanities and their are humanities majors who "refuse to have the first thing to do with math and science" and that there are as many people who can't read on a 9th grade level as who can't do math on a 9th grade level. My comments were aimed solely at refuting that claim by pointing out that you can't get a B.S. degree in science or engineering with out passing some of the same writing and humanities classes which are required by humanities majors. In contrast, you can get a B.A., M.A. and even a Ph.D. in most humanities programs without every taking a science or math class that would count towards a degree in those engineering of the physical sciences.
What that tells me is that science and Math literacy are a problem even for the majority of people who have college degrees.
quote:At UIUC, the Physics course requirements taken for a major in Chemistry Major in Science and Letters for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Liberal Arts and Sciences include Physics 101 and 102, which also are counted towards the general education requirement. [quote]Chemistry 202 does indeed count towards a general education requirement as well as toward a major in chemistry.
Yes, but those physics classes are the non-calculus based courses which still don't count for engineers or chemists who plan to proceed to graduate studies.
quote:Rabbit, you are now using the word "generally" to modify your claims about introductory coursework in the humanities. Whether or not that current claim is correct, it isn't one I would have bothered to disagree with. What I disagreed with (and still disagree with) is the absolutest claim that the classes are exactly the same. This isn't necessarily so -- there may be some overlap, but the sets do differ. That is, non-major options are offered in the humanities (as is similarly done in the sciences) as an option for non-humanities majors to fulfill general education requirements.
[/qb]
I am sorry if my absolutest claims distracted you from my point. I'll try in the future to qualify everything I say so as not to confuse.
So let me just reiterate my point. At every University with which I am familiar, it is not possible to get a degree in the physical science, math or engineering with out taking and passing at some of the same writing classes required of humanities majors and passing lower division classes that would full fill major requirements in the humanities. This is not true in the humanities. It is possible and in fact common at all the Universities with which I am familiar for a students to receive degrees in the liberal arts and humanities without ever passing a single math or physical science course that would fill a requirement for a science and engineering major.
Please do not misconstrue this statement as an indication that the humanities are less rigorous, less valuable or worse training than technical fields. I believe I have stated many times that I find the humanities to be valuable beyond price. I wish my engineering students were required to take more humanities course work. I wish more of them appreciated literature, art, philosophy and history.
But I also think that the ignorance of non-science majors with regards to science is far more extreme.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:At every University with which I am familiar, it is not possible to get a degree in the physical science, math or engineering with out taking and passing at some of the same writing classes required of humanities majors and passing lower division classes that would full fill major requirements in the humanities.
When I was at UVA undergrad, it was definitely possible to fulfill the humanities general education requirements with non-major-qualifying (including prerequisite-fulfilling) courses. I don't think it was a popular way to do things, because a lot of the major-prereq classes were insanely popular - the econ, poli-sci, and psych survey courses were taught by minor local celebrities, and most people took one or more of those.
I think that's still the case, based on a perfunctory examination, but they added some additional requirements that might make it no longer true.
I have no additional knowledge beyond that and am not commenting on which is more common.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I find the humanities to be valuable beyond price. I wish my engineering students were required to take more humanities course work. I wish more of them appreciated literature, art, philosophy and history.
But I also think that the ignorance of non-science majors with regards to science is far more extreme.
Hear, hear.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Unless of course you consider COMP I as an English class, in which case it is true for the English program at UICU.
sets of classes != an element of one [or even both] of those sets
quote:Certainly you are sufficiently trained in rhetoric to know that by disputing my wording. your point would also be taken to dispute my underlying claim. For someone who was not sufficiently engaged in the discussion, you certainly put alot of research into disputing what I'd said.
I disagreed with the specifics of what you said in the quotation, which is what I said I disagreed with. I was indeed engaged in that part of the discussion with you, but I was not engaged in the rest.
quote:I'll try in the future to qualify everything I say so as not to confuse.
[This reply was sheer pissiness, and I have removed it. My apologies to you.]
quote:
quote:At UIUC, the Physics course requirements taken for a major in Chemistry Major in Science and Letters for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Liberal Arts and Sciences include Physics 101 and 102, which also are counted towards the general education requirement. Chemistry 202 does indeed count towards a general education requirement as well as toward a major in chemistry.
Yes, but those physics classes are the non-calculus based courses which still don't count for engineers or chemists who plan to proceed to graduate studies.
The qualification of only those who are in specialized tracks which "plan to proceed to graduate studies" was not made initially, as we were speaking of "majors." Had it been, I would not have disagreed. Limited merely to "majors," or even "BS majors," though, it would not be correct.
I think you intended to claim less than I read you as claiming, and given what I now think you meant by what you wrote, I would not have posted disagreement.
---
Edited also to add:
quote:I just checked the site and you are wrong. Both English and Chemistry offer a degree in the "Major in Sciences and Letters Curriculum". In both departments that degree requires 30 credit hours in the major field. Chemistry also offers a Specialized Chemistry Curriculum (the degree intended for those who will proceed to graduate studies in Chemistry) which requires 46 credit hours of Chemistry. The comparable degree from the English department would be the Bachelor of Art in Liberal Arts and English degree which requires 33 credit hours in English.
The "English major" requires 33 hours in courses from the English department. The major in "Creative Writing/Rhetoric" requires 30 hours in courses from the English department.
[I referenced the minimum requirements for a chemistry major, which would be the degree in "Science and Letters." That requires [actually, 22] hours of courses taken in the Chemistry department, with the remainder taken in the Mathematics and Physics departments.
I consider "mathematics" and "physics" to be separate fields than "chemistry." You may not. My calculations and my comment took this distinction into account, and I am happy to leave it at that.]
[ January 11, 2008, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Could the University offer both a BA in Chemistry and a BS in Chemistry? I know that in some schools that offer both the requirements for a BA in Chemistry have much less math than those required for a BS.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I have attended a university that offered both a BA and a BS for both Biology and Chemistry, but I think it was UAB. In my posts above, I have been speaking about UIUC, where the minimal requirements for a BS (there is no BA for Chemistry there, AFAIK) in Chemistry include a minimum of 22 hours in the Chemistry department courses.
Of course this level of detail isn't very important to this discussion. I am correcting this particular point because when I make a statement of fact, I take care as much care as possible not to post inaccurate or misleading information, and I want that clarification on the record.
I answered the original point I took issue with because it was, I believed, inaccurate as stated, and it was the type of inaccuracy which tends (I think) to perpetuate itself.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: In my posts above, I have been speaking about UIUC, where the minimal requirements for a BS (there is no BA for Chemistry there, AFAIK) in Chemistry include a minimum of 22 hours in the Chemistry department courses.
CT, We aren't getting the same information for the UICU chemistry degrees. Where are you getting your information. My source was The UICU chemistry department website, which describes two undergraduate Chemistry degree options. The first requires a minimum of 30 hours in chemistry department courses and the second a minimum of 46 hours (35 core, 11 advanced).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Chemistry Major in Science and Letters for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Liberal Arts and Sciences
A major consists of not less than 30 hours in chemistry and biochemistry excluding Chemistry 101, 108, 121, and 199. The 30 hours must include:
- at least 12 advanced hours (courses numbered 499 or 300 or higher) in Chemistry and/or Biochemistry (including MCB 354 or 450) taken on this campus
- Chemistry 440 or 442 and two other 300 level courses, at least one of which is outside of physical chemistry
- Mathematics through Math 242 or 245
- either Physics 101 and 102 or Physics 211 and Physics 212
The page at one point refers to "not less than 30 hours in chemistry and biochemistry," but further reading shows that those 30 hrs are made up of:
-12 hrs in biochemistry and/or chemistry plus -4 hrs :one 4-hr course in chemistry plus -6 hrs: two other 3-hr courses in chemistry
The rest of the 30 hrs of requirements are in the math and physics departments. I think you may have come across misleading wording, and I think it is inaccurate when assessed more carefully.
Those math and physics courses may touch on some chemistry, but chemistry is not the primary focus by the course descriptions. The main focus is math or physics. Certainly the non-English-department courses for English majors are likely to touch just as much on English as these non-chemistry courses touch on chemistry. I think if you want to count the former for some reason, then the latter should also count, and the disparity remains.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Could the University offer both a BA in Chemistry and a BS in Chemistry? I know that in some schools that offer both the requirements for a BA in Chemistry have much less math than those required for a BS.
It is very common for chemistry departments to offer an ACS certified degree and a non-certified degree that is less rigorous. The way they are named differs from University to University, sometimes the non-certified degree is a BA, at UICU its called a Bachelor of Science in Liberal Arts and Sciences while the certified degree is called a Bachelor of Science. The non-certified degree tends to be directed toward premed/prevet/predental etc. students and gives these students more flexibility to take other non-chemistry classes required for professional graduate school.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(it's UIUC )
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe I went to a crap school, but there was this liberal arts system wherein there were core classes and distribution classes for science and Humanities, and possibly something else. I took Biology for science majors and Calculus for Humanities majors. I always thought it was a dumb system, though I am glad I took Evolution and the Fossil record, which I would not have otherwise done.
I think more people can read on a 9th grade level than do math, but English skills involve more than reading. I doubt most people can write something that would be rated as a 9th grade reading level, and even people who want to be writers often admit that they find English grammar to be mysterious (in my experience).
My story is that I wound up in accounting, and it turned out that I'm actually pretty good at it, even though I was terrified of numbers as a young woman. My terror was rooted in my talent, I think. My dad was showing me a bridge he'd helped design and all I could think was "a tiny mistake, and the whole thing could come crashing down". Numbers seemed so unforgiving. But I have attention to detail (or OCD, if you like). A brain can look at a sentence and say "That l should have been an n.". Steel can't do that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Could the University offer both a BA in Chemistry and a BS in Chemistry? I know that in some schools that offer both the requirements for a BA in Chemistry have much less math than those required for a BS.
It is very common for chemistry departments to offer an ACS certified degree and a non-certified degree that is less rigorous. The way they are named differs from University to University, sometimes the non-certified degree is a BA, at UICU its called a Bachelor of Science in Liberal Arts and Sciences while the certified degree is called a Bachelor of Science. The non-certified degree tends to be directed toward premed/prevet/predental etc. students and gives these students more flexibility to take other non-chemistry classes required for professional graduate school.
At UCLA the equivalent degree is the General Chemistry degree -- a BS, just as the other chem degrees are. However, the differences are almost exclusively at the upper-division level.
(Guess what my major was? )
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The page at one point refers to "not less than 30 hours in chemistry and biochemistry," but further reading shows that those 30 hrs are made up of 12 hrs in biochemistry and/or chemistry plus one 4-hr course in chamistry puls two other 3-hr courses, and the rest are courses in math and physics. I think you may have come across misleading wording, and I think it is inaccurate.
I suppose we may have to talk to an academic advisor to be sure. It is my understanding that the Math and Physics requirements are in addition to the Chemistry requirements not part of the chemistry requirements. That interpretation is consistent both with the statement "not less than 30 hours in chemistry and biochemistry) as well as the information here where the requirements are broken down into Core Chemistry, Advanced Chemistry, Core Science and General Education. Math and Physics are clearly listed as Core Sciences courses not Chemistry.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I will call and check. My advisor still works there (one of my minors was in chemistry).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here, the difference between a BS and a BA (in the majors that offer both) is that the BA has a foreign language requirement.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Which is a joke, because there is very little you can truly understand in physical chemistry without having differential equations, although this Physical chemistry would be adequate for someone pursuing a pre-med option. (It still blows my mind that MDs don't have to know differential equations when differential equations predict how much of the body operates)
A similar case in most colleges and universities there is a "business calculus" course, required for business majors. (They would have the option of taking true Calculus but most of them avoid that option like the plague) Most of them scramble and scrape through the business calc course plugging the formulas in without actually gaining a true understanding of calculus.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Here, the difference between a BS and a BA (in the majors that offer both) is that the BA has a foreign language requirement.
My university as well.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: (It still blows my mind that MDs don't have to know differential equations when differential equations predict how much of the body operates)
How would this detail of knowledge be necessary to all physician clinicians? *interested
I could do them, mind you, because I completed the full series of Calculus. But I have yet to have seen any need for calculating differentials in the actual practice of medicine as a whole.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I see the non-ACS track being useful for people who might want to teach chemistry at the high school level, as well as pre-med folks.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
CT, at a practical every day level, probably not much, (for general family practice and the like) and it has been decided by better people than myself that Diff Eq isn't necessary.
However, the way I look at it is that differential equations are the foundation of all fluid flow calculations. Fluid transport is one of the biggest things the body *does*. And even more than that differential equations are even more widely applicable as fundamental principles the universe runs on, be it normal, macro, or micro scales.
It's kind of like taking college Physics without calculus. It can be taught, but everyone who has had calculus understands what a fundamental "chunk" is missing by not using derivatives.
While the average doctor might only see the end result, differential equations are essential in predicting cardiovascular responses, and how veins and arteries will behave as they lose elasticity and/or gain fatty deposits. In my biomechanics classes we were using differential equations to do exactly that. However, you can't utilize these sorts of predictive and descriptive applications of differential equations if you haven't had basic exposure to them to begin with.
So an MD was going to be a specialist or researcher, I think DiffEq would possibly be much more useful. You can also use differential equations to describe research data once you've got it, and without that tool in your arsenal you might not actually catch patterns in your data.
AJ
P.S. In my Chemical engineering classes, you began working with fluid flow equations before you'd actually reached Differential equations in your math sequence. Those equations became much conceptually easier once we had the DiffEq under our belt to actually understand what the equations were doing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Fluid transport is indeed one of the biggest things the body does, but it can be described in other, more macro, ways than by differential equations (just as quantum physics describes a part of any physical work at a micro level, whether it be an automobile or the human body that is being described, or what have you, but may not be relevant to an auto technician).
quote:differential equations are essential in predicting cardiovascular responses, and how veins and arteries will behave as they lose elasticity and/or gain fatty deposits.
See, this doesn't seem to be so. The professional articles in the literature do not reference differential equations in predicting such things because the predictions work fine without them. I'm not saying that there isn't something interesting and relevant, but that is just one of many additional approaches that may be interesting and relevant, even if not necessary (including things from the humanities! ).
I'd certainly agree that differentials are interesting, and I'm glad I studied math at that level. I just don't see the *need* for them to understand the workings of medicine, since that level of description does not add to diagnosis or treatment. I don't think physicians who are not familiar with math at that level are missing out on more than physicians who did not study the philosophy of medicine, for example -- and you cannot do everything.
I can see the relevance for pharmacology, though, and I expect that ICU specialists need to know differentials for dealing with the kinetics of absorption and elimination for some medications. So it makes sense to me as a specialty issue, but not for the field as a whole.
The breadth and depth of knowledge needed to prepare for and complete medical school is so vast that I don't know what I'd cut out instead of differentials in particular, as a requirement.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also, I believe that the humanities are useful. I personally have recieved the majority of my exposure to them through osmosis, rather than through university education. I was able to matriculate with a degree in chemical engineering while only having written a total of 3 non-science term papers (2 for upper division history classes, and one for freshman english)
One problem with engineering in particular inhibiting a greater exploration of humanities options while in a university is that ABET dictates what you MUST have to graduate, and there isn't much room to squeeze in anything else.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: So an MD was going to be a specialist or researcher, I think DiffEq would possibly be much more useful. You can also use differential equations to describe research data once you've got it, and without that tool in your arsenal you might not actually catch patterns in your data.
Yeah, I'd agree wthat it would possibly be much more useful. I'm having a hard time of thinking of much published research data that would fall under this, though, but I'm sure it is there.
quote:P.S. In my Chemical engineering classes, you began working with fluid flow equations before you'd actually reached Differential equations in your math sequence. Those equations became much conceptually easier once we had the DiffEq under our belt to actually understand what the equations were doing.
I recall that differentials made other concepts easier to understand, though I don't recall the specifics. I found it intriguing enough to pursue regardless of the practical requirements. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I understand that the predictions work without perhaps using the differential equation "why" behind them. I always want to know the why, though. (And I suspect that you may use your own differential equation knowledge subconsciously sometimes in recognizing identifying the "whys".)
In other areas, that they are useful, are also areas where engineers and MDs are colaborating to begin with. So would it be absolutely necessary, again, no. Differential equations are definitely being used in artifical heart designs, they are also being used in modelling bone densities and such in order to improve bone replacements, and resurfacings. It is just one of those things where after having learned the wide variety of ways in which the world ticks using DifEq, I can't concieve of going back and *not* having the knowledge. Having the knowledge of differential equations has fundamentally altered my perspective on reality, like few other topics have.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: One problem with engineering in particular inhibiting a greater exploration of humanities options while in a university is that ABET dictates what you MUST have to graduate, and there isn't much room to squeeze in anything else.
Indeed!
Do you ever catch yourself wishing you were trained in a time where less was known and so less must be studied, so that you had more time to study elective interests? I'm ashamed to say the thought has occurred to me. Some 30 years ago, I doubt there were separate courses in genetics and immunology for med students, for example. And radiology would have been a subset of what it is now.
I do not think anatomy has changed much in recent years, though. There was the whole controversy over whether the lower esophageal sphincter had some muscle fibers after all, but that was over pretty quickly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I see the non-ACS track being useful for people who might want to teach chemistry at the high school level, as well as pre-med folks.
Ding!
<---
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Yeah, I'd agree wthat it would possibly be much more useful. I'm having a hard time of thinking of much published research data that would fall under this, though, but I'm sure it is there.
This doesn't surprise me. I'm guessing that because the majority of MDs *don't* have differential equations it isn't going to be in the published research data, because it isn't a tool available in their analytical arsenal to begin with. It isn't something that is a common language to all MDs because it isn't understood by all of them.
If you flip through an average engineering journal, you will find considerably more use of differential equation concepts because it is something that is in the common language set of all engineers.
I'm not saying that MDs should be engineers, far from it. What confounds me is how many MDs (present company excluded ) shudder when they hear I am an engineer and go "How did you survive differential equations?" as if they would rather be tortured on red hot coals (and indeed go through the torture of medical school residency) rather than attempt to understand differential equations.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
AJ, given how many practicing physicians of my acquaintance (and from all evidence, good ones) clearly don't remember much beyond basic chemistry (and that with loathing), the calculus issue doesn't bother me much.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: What confounds me is how many MDs (present company excluded ) shudder when they hear I am an engineer and go "How did you survive differential equations?" as if they would rather be tortured on red hot coals (and indeed go through the torture of medical school residency) rather than attempt to understand differential equations.
*smile
I imagine many disciplines have quite similar experiences. We all have our own bugaboos and blind spots.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yes I did wish I had time to take more electives, though I slightly shot myself in the foot on that by my own doing. But in engineering the whole "going to university as a time to explore and learn more about the world and be exposed to new ideas" didn't seem nearly to apply as much as in other disciplines.
Many traditional engineering students are taking 5 years to get their degrees just so they don't have to take semesters of 15-18 units without any respite.
The actual pre-med requirements, were pretty minimal, to me, compared do what was required for an engineering degree. Of course most places don't offer just a "pre-med" degree. It's got to be something else with the pre-med classes thrown in. There is a far wider cornucopia of major options and subsequent electives for a pre-med student, than there are for an engineering student.
Now I got around this somewhat because I went to a community college in high school, and took whatever I felt like then, which was an eclectic mish mash of classes. I know you sort of got around it in your own way also.
While I can read on my own now, I wish I had taken more history and philosphy courses. I've never had a formal philosophy course at all. Maybe more English lit as well, since beyond the two basic semesters I didn't have any. But I do have Hatrack instead Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: What confounds me is how many MDs (present company excluded [Smile] ) shudder when they hear I am an engineer and go "How did you survive differential equations?" as if they would rather be tortured on red hot coals (and indeed go through the torture of medical school residency) rather than attempt to understand differential equations.
I took diffeq 4 times without ever being in a position to pass it. I passed the 8 higher-level courses needed to get a math major, but not that one. So I understand that feeling.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I, OTOH, passed it (in no small part because my parents tutored me!) just fine. And have since manage to pretty much forget most of it . . Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think higher math depends on the prof.
I took linear algebra (where I went a slightly more "rudimentary" math class) with a professor that was well meaning, but mumbled to the board in a lecture hall in broken English. Not so fun. With DiffEq, I had an energetic associate prof from Australia and I did pretty well.
-Bok
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I guess I lucked out. I had an adviser who had an exaggerated sense of my ability who encouraged me to take it concurrently with Calc II during my freshman year. I dropped DiffEq that semester while still carrying an A average because I knew I was in over my head, and that my grade up to that point was illusory. I spent the next year or so living in fear of eventually taking that. Then I took a year off because I had the opportunity to go work for a year at ORNL in Tennessee, and the Lab was generous enough to pay for me to take a course at the University of Tennesee. So I had the unbelievable luxury of taking DiffEq when it was the single college course I was taking, while doing a job with no take-home work, and being able to devote all kinds of time to studying it. I also had an excellent teacher. I ended up with some ridiculously high average (like, quite possibly, a 100) and wondering what all the fuss was about. In hindsight, Calc III was much bigger nightmare than DiffEq. (My point is not to brag about getting a good grade, but about what a wonderful thing it was to be able to take a challenging course as my single course in a semester. What a great experience!)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I took my DiffEq class while engaged, which meant that school took a back seat. I don't know how I managed to pass it at all, because I didn't really absorb any of the information.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
DiffEq is, to me, one of the most boring math classes possible, since so much of it is just formulas to solve this sort of problem or that sort of problem. It doesn't hang together well mentally, at least for me. I managed to get an A- in the class, but I've forgotten almost all of the topic. It probably didn't help that my professor strongly emphasized the physics applications of the subject, which I just don't care about.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That's how I feel about most of my sophomore year, Porter, especially Calc III. I had a brutal job at the time, and I was in the throes of my first Really Huge Relationship.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Based on what Ic and Porter are saying, I'm almost glad I was in a long-distance relationship all 4 years of college. I got quite a bit done, particularly my first 3 years.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And here's little ol' me taking Algebra and it's the only thing standing between me and a BA in Political Science. It just does not come easily to me.
After all that I just don't know whether to go for government work, try getting an MBA, or do law school.
Sometimes I really wish I could just go live in China for about 2 years and read, write and speak nothing but Chinese. Then get a job at some up and coming Chinese company. I hear their legal field needs alot of work.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I really like Teshi's points about the usefulness of the humanities.
Me, I'm in a "useless" field. I study medieval social history, and there's not a big chance that what I research will have a tremendous impact on the world at large. I could use the buzzwords I put into my grant application, but they still don't describe my work's "usefulness." Does it really matter how impaired people lived a thousand years ago? Not in a practical sense, no.
But maybe it will matter to someone to know how their ancestors lived. Maybe it will make a difference to someone, knowing that the disdainful us-versus-them mentality hasn't always been the case. Who knows?
No knowledge is wasted.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
My diffeq prof was a Japanese guy who would stand in front of the room and carry on about how beautiful math is, then proceed to do the example problems from the book. Somewhere around ten people scored less then 10% on the first exam. There must have been a huge curve, since I had ~65% at the end and received an A. (In retrospect, the class had a similar feel to grad classes. Doing extreme amounts of work, still receiving failing percentages on test, that one jerk that had seen it all before so received perfects. Ending up with a grade that bears little relation to the scores from the term.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You just described my Statistics for Science class. Was the prof's name Segami, by any chance? Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I could use the buzzwords I put into my grant application, but they still don't describe my work's "usefulness."
As far as I can tell that describes everyone's grant applications in every technical field. How man thousands of papers have been published where the introduction makes ridiculous and grandiose claims about the possible uses of the work.
I find the idea of this overly hopeful predicting (feels like lying) that's required to receive grant money very distasteful. I also think it has contributed in a large way to the looming funding issues in my specific line of work.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You just described my Statistics for Science class. Was the prof's name Segami, by any chance?
I think it was Goh.
I'm also pretty sure that every graduate has had a class with a guy like this. I think its like a right of passage or something.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth:
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I could use the buzzwords I put into my grant application, but they still don't describe my work's "usefulness."
As far as I can tell that describes everyone's grant applications in every technical field. How man thousands of papers have been published where the introduction makes ridiculous and grandiose claims about the possible uses of the work.
I find the idea of this overly hopeful predicting (feels like lying) that's required to receive grant money very distasteful. I also think it has contributed in a large way to the looming funding issues in my specific line of work.
I was as honest as it's possible to be about research that's not yet done. I threw in the buzzwords, but I tried not to embellish much. I suppose I'm fortunate in that the current buzzwords ("interdisciplinary" being the biggest) suit my research perfectly.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You just described my Statistics for Science class. Was the prof's name Segami, by any chance?
I think it was Goh.
I'm also pretty sure that every graduate has had a class with a guy like this. I think its like a right of passage or something.
Actually, everyone in my MBA program (and most of the undergrads in the business college) has taken at least one class with a professor whose first language is obviously not English and who likes to go on rants about "chicken burger" on a regular basis. I think it's a rite of passage for everyone.
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I also found the quality of my university classes to depend in great part on the quality of (and my fit with) the instructor. I ended up chosing courses mostly based on who was teaching them, once my core requirements were filled.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Actually, everyone in my MBA program (and most of the undergrads in the business college)...
With graduates I meant college graduates, not graduate students. Perhaps I should have just said college students.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I think higher math depends on the prof.
I took linear algebra (where I went a slightly more "rudimentary" math class) with a professor that was well meaning, but mumbled to the board in a lecture hall in broken English. Not so fun. With DiffEq, I had an energetic associate prof from Australia and I did pretty well.
-Bok
I found linear algebra much easier once I realized that "verter" meant "vector" and "arga" was "alpha."
Edit: as for diffeq, I took it with all 4 professors who taught it while I was an undergrad. So it was definitely me, not them.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I agree with what Jhai said about DiffEq. All formula, no concept.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
DiffEq makes a whole lot more sense after the last few weeks of Physics II.
--j_k
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What's sad is, diffeq doesn't have to be taught that way. I've railed against it for years now (since I found out how WashU was teaching it). The way I typically see it is, students are taught methods, then told, apply them to these sets of problems. However, those methods exist for various reasons -- usually to solve one particular class of problems -- but the problem sets assigned are often ones better solved by other techniques!
When I taught myself diffeq out of an old textbook (predating the college of anyone who's talked about diffeq courses in this thread, I think, though I don't have the book handy to check the date), each method was presented along with context for how it had been derived, why it had been derived, and problems that made sense to apply that method too.
This made diffeq much more straightforward.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In every exam, the professors gave up to a third credit for setting up problems correctly. The rest was for solving the equations. I pretty much got full credit for the setup part.
In every class I do well in, there is a "snap" where the material takes shape. My brain orders it into a kind of diagram, and new information and techniques are added to the appropriate places in that diagram as they are learned. What this means is that the effort required to learn the new information is greatly minimized.
In numerical analysis and algorithm-oriented classes, the snap happened early on. In law school, the snap sometimes happened on the first day. It got to the point where I could take notes in a format that almost matched the framework, making the outlining needed for such classes a trivial task.
There was never such a snap in four tries at diffeq for me. Each new thing was basically like learning a new subject for me. The exception was setting up the equation for a given problem. I was always good at that.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I wonder if it's because there wasn't an overriding concept to use as a framework? When I was taught diffeq, it was just "here is a type of equation -- here is how to solve it." Over and over and over.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Setting up the differential equations for a real system is, in my opinion, the hard step.
Once you've got the equations up, you have to identify an appropriate method for solving them which is where alot of students get lost. Professors tend to see immediately what approach to use just jump to it. Because its so obvious to them, they have a hard time teaching students how to do it. There are relatively few types of differential equations that can be solved analytically, the rest have to be solved numerically. Once you've identified what type of differential equation you've got. Solving is just a matter of algebra for the problems that can be solved analytically or computer programming for those that can't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I am so glad that all this mathematics is completely irrelevant to my life.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Stanley Fish has followed up on his original article:
He says that by "the humanities" he was referring to "the academic analysis of works of literature, philosophy and history," not the works themselves. According to him (and he may well be right), "'the humanities' is an academic, not a cultural category," so saying that Shakespeare's works contain great wisdom does not justify the funding of Shakespeare scholars. At least this is what he seems to be saying; I always thought that academic study of Shakespeare was supposed to help you better apprehend Shakespeare's wisdom, but Fish knows more about literary studies than I do.
But I did get the implications of his first article correct: he says that the public funding of humanities departments can't be justified:
quote:What benefit do literary studies hold out to those asked to support them? Not much of anything except the (parochial) excitement experienced by those caught up in arcane discussions of the mirror stage, the trace, the subaltern and the performative. (Don’t ask.)
...
Nguyen Chau Giao asks, "Dr. Fish, when was the last time you read a poem ... that so moved you to take certain actions to improve your lot or others?" To tell the truth, I can't remember a single time. But I can remember countless times when I've read a poem ... and said "Wow!" or "Isn't that just great?" That's more than enough in my view to justify the enterprise of humanistic study, but I cannot believe, as much as I would like to, that the world can be persuaded to subsidize my moments of aesthetic wonderment.
I guess this is why he's now affiliated with a law department and is otherwise simply a Distinguished University Professor and dean emiritus.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The truth is that a mastery of literary and philosophical texts and the acquisition of wisdom (in whatever form) are independent variables.
This is a rather bold claim and a lot of his argument rests upon it, but he seems to state it as fact without really giving any evidence of it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)