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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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'.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.]
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.]
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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? )
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
