Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never contended that it is easier or quicker to study outside of school, just that the studying completed in school carries a certification that can be essential.
And yet your argument hinges on it being easier, if there is no material difference between informal vs formal studies then there is no difference between a Philosophy student getting an Engineering degree latter in life and a Engineering student learning Philosophy informally latter in life.
I have never suggested that Philosophy students can get any job, or denied that there are some engineering jobs that have rigid degree requirements. I'm not sure why you keep stressing the point, perhaps to avoid the real issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
You say the basis of "most fields." Which fields are we talking about here?
Economics, Science, Business, Politics, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
What constitutes a "solid undergrad education," and why is this the standard?
I already addressed this, a "solid undergrad education" would be one with in-depth education in mathematics, philosophy and science while also addressing artistic and historic matters as well.
What standard? Its not the standard anymore, universities have degraded over the years and now you have a collection of departments that compete for financial resources, instead of joining hands to create a unified education.
And yet your argument hinges on it being easier, if there is no material difference between informal vs formal studies then there is no difference between a Philosophy student getting an Engineering degree latter in life and a Engineering student learning Philosophy informally latter in life.
I have never suggested that Philosophy students can get any job, or denied that there are some engineering jobs that have rigid degree requirements. I'm not sure why you keep stressing the point, perhaps to avoid the real issue?
My argument is very simple. There are fewer limits on what is possible for a person with an engineering degree, precisely because some jobs require this degree while very few jobs require a philosophy degree.
I have no clue why you continue arguing that there is no difference between formal and informal studies if you concede that education can be used as a benchmark in hiring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Economics, Science, Business, Politics, etc.
Is a formal understanding of logic really the basis for most business or political decisions? If so, why aren't there more business positions that require formal training in logic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I already addressed this, a "solid undergrad education" would be one with in-depth education in mathematics, philosophy and science while also addressing artistic and historic matters as well.
What standard? Its not the standard anymore, universities have degraded over the years and now you have a collection of departments that compete for financial resources, instead of joining hands to create a unified education.
You misunderstand me. I am wondering why your definition of a solid undergrad education is the standard we should use to determine whether someone has flexible skills. Like, why is a philosophy major sufficient while a philosophy minor is not?
Also, your only connection was based on logical reasoning. This clearly applies to mathematics and philosophy, but not the others. I will allow that the scientific method has value as well, but it is not at all clear to me that a philosophy degree is superior on this score. For example, let's look at the Stanford program you mentioned earlier. Only three science courses are required, and they actually recommend that intro courses in bio, chem, and physics be used to meet this requirement. Most engineering majors will take just as much science.
Finally, do you have any reason to believe that your views are widely held? That is, will a student in the job market actually find themselves disadvantaged because of a lack of training in these areas?
Some degrees are more marketable than others but the fact of the matter is there are alot more graduates being produced in practically every single field, even the supposed good fields like nursing or accounting. Likewise the business trend these days is pushing wages down. You might end up getting that accounting job but it will only pay 12/hr instead of the 25/hr you expected. Most will take the low pay because they think they are getting, "valuable experience."
Labor in america is abundant so employers are using that to their advantage. It doesn't matter, degree or no degree.
Yeah, we are in a college bubble that is about to burst. Even nurses and accountants are abundant. Dont even get me started in lawyers. I have friends who have engineering degrees and cant get good jobs.
My argument is very simple. There are fewer limits on what is possible for a person with an engineering degree, precisely because some jobs require this degree while very few jobs require a philosophy degree.
This isn't an argument, its an assertion and its an assertion that is wildly inaccurate. It is true that there are few jobs that explicitly require a Philosophy degree, while it is false that there are few jobs that require the underlying skills taught by Philosophic studies.
The underlying assumption here seems to be that "generic jobs" exist that just require "any degree" and the Engineering student and the Philosophy student are equally applicable to such jobs. But, these jobs don't exist, all decent paying jobs by definition require some particular skill set and the person with the appropriate skill set will be hired.
The reason why Engineering jobs typically require an Engineering degree is due to the fact that Engineering is academically isolated, that is to say, the only way you're going to learn Engineering is by studying engineering. On the other hand, strong analytic abilities can be obtained by a few different paths so jobs that require these skills rarely mention particular degrees, this in no sense means they don't recognize the fact that an Engineering student is likely to be a bad match while a Philosophy student would be a good match.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
Is a formal understanding of logic really the basis for most business or political decisions?
No, but it is the basis of any good business or political decision. After all, what else would it be? Mystic voodoo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
I am wondering why your definition of a solid undergrad education is the standard we should use to determine whether someone has flexible skills. Like, why is a philosophy major sufficient while a philosophy minor is not?
I've addressed this, the skills I mentioned are those that are broadly required by a large class of careers and are the foundation to numerous disciplines.
A Philosophy minor just isn't rigorous enough..
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
For example, let's look at the Stanford program you mentioned earlier. Only three science courses are required, and they actually recommend that intro courses in bio, chem, and physics be used to meet this requirement. Most engineering majors will take just as much science.
You are mistaking the point of those requirements, the point is so the students understand the basic language of key areas of science so this language can be taken for granted in other courses. The real meat, in terms of understanding scientific methodology, comes from their courses in the Philosophy of science and logic.
In terms of how widely held the view is, that is irrelevant, reality doesn't care what people think. Those that can out reason their competitors will win in business, getting hired by a dullard corporation that lacks a proper understanding of these matters just means you'll be looking for a new job in the future.
Warning: This post is quite long and detailed. I'm going to go beyond refuting user_id's ideas and develop the topic a little further.
My assumption: Critical thinking skills are important for career flexibility. This assumption has been accepted by user_id in post #68, among others.
My assertion: In addition to providing access to specific careers, engineering curricula by and large develop critical thinking at least as well as any other major.
My warrants:
The first two questions to answer are: what is critical thinking, and how can it be taught? For the answers, I turn to Diane Halpern's analysis in 1999:
http://education.gsu.edu/ctl/FLC/Foundations/criticalthinking-Halpern.pdf (broken link)
Quote:
Critical thinking refers to the use of cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. Critical thinking is purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed. It is the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions. Critical thinkers use these skills appropriately, without prompting, and usually with conscious intent, in a variety of settings. That is, they are predisposed to think critically. When we think critically, we are evaluating the outcomes of our thought processes—how good a decision is or how well a problem is solved (Halpern, 1996, 1998).
Quote:
This definition is broad enough to encompass a variety of viewpoints, so critical thinking can be taught as argument analysis (see, for example, Kahane, 1997), problem solving (Mayer, 1992), decision making (Dawes, 1988), or cognitive process (Rabinowitz, 1993). Regardless of the academic background of the instructor or the language used to describe critical thinking, all of these approaches share a set of common assumptions: there are identifiable critical thinking skills that can be taught and learned, and when students learn these skills and apply them appropriately, they become better thinkers.
Halpern concludes with her four-part model. Briefly, she argues that students must be given: a) specific critical thinking skills, b) the inclination to use those skills, c) the ability to recognize a need for those skills in a novel situation, and d) the ability to self-monitor thinking.
Engineering logic is not the same as formal mathematical or philosophical logic. Nor is it identical to scientific logic, though there are many similarities. There are three key points I'd like to draw from Klimenko's work:
1. The unique quality of engineering logic is a focus on reasoned, structured discovery of a functional solution even in the absence of scientific research:
(Rather than give a small quote, I strongly recommend reading page 2 of the linked pdf; it is fascinating)
2. Some engineering curricula feature intensive scientific study:
Quote:
Differences between engineering and scientific curricula are less pronounced in advanced engineering education fostered in leading engineering education institutions (MIT, Cal Tech, MPhTI, etc.). In these institutions, engineering students are expected not only to learn traditional engineering disciplines but also obtain a broad scientific background that is comparable with the scientific knowledge required for the conventional university degrees in science.
3. Engineering education produces a unique emphasis on practical, can-do problem solving in addition to scientific inquiry:
Quote:
An engineering graduate is more likely to pay most of his attention to the issue that seems to be the key element of the problem while ignoring everything else. The ability of not only conducting quality research and publishing papers but also quickly solving the problem ('can do' attitude) is an important part of the engineering profession and this is reflected in engineering education.
Summary: Klimenko's description of engineering is remarkably similar to the qualities described by Halpern as critical thinking, and engineering education relates strongly to her recommendations for education. Engineers are taught problem-solving skills (A), encouraged to use those skills (B), programmed to find uses for those skills even in unfamiliar situations (C), and required to hold themselves to a standard of functional success (D).
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
This isn't an argument, its an assertion and its an assertion that is wildly inaccurate. It is true that there are few jobs that explicitly require a Philosophy degree, while it is false that there are few jobs that require the underlying skills taught by Philosophic studies.
The underlying assumption here seems to be that "generic jobs" exist that just require "any degree" and the Engineering student and the Philosophy student are equally applicable to such jobs. But, these jobs don't exist, all decent paying jobs by definition require some particular skill set and the person with the appropriate skill set will be hired.
The reason why Engineering jobs typically require an Engineering degree is due to the fact that Engineering is academically isolated, that is to say, the only way you're going to learn Engineering is by studying engineering. On the other hand, strong analytic abilities can be obtained by a few different paths so jobs that require these skills rarely mention particular degrees, this in no sense means they don't recognize the fact that an Engineering student is likely to be a bad match while a Philosophy student would be a good match.
First, you concede that some jobs do require formal education in engineering at the level of at least an undergraduate major.
Second, you are making an empirical rather than an analytical argument with no empirical evidence. You are saying that employers in the status quo are actually biased against graduates trained in engineering.
More below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
No, but it is the basis of any good business or political decision. After all, what else would it be? Mystic voodoo?
This is the critical point. There is no doubt in my mind that a rigorous training in formal mathematical or philosophical logic is a good thing that can be useful in many fields. However, when it comes to real-world business and political decisions, Klimenko's engineering logic is a much more relevant foundation. Business leaders must a) make decisions in the absence of firmly proven evidence, b) act quickly and cost-effectively even at the expense of rigor, and c) meet empirical and functional requirements. Engineering provides excellent training in all of these areas.
I want to be clear: I am not saying that engineering logic is "better" than mathematical or scientific reasoning. Neither is Klimenko. My argument is that the requirements of business and politics are ultimately more closely related to engineering logic than those other fields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
A Philosophy minor just isn't rigorous enough..
As a philosophy grad, I'm surprised you were satisfied with the lack of rigor in this response. Your claim that a minor "isn't rigorous enough" must be warranted with discussion of exactly what qualities are necessary in order for an education to be "rigorous enough." What standard do we need to meet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
You are mistaking the point of those requirements, the point is so the students understand the basic language of key areas of science so this language can be taken for granted in other courses. The real meat, in terms of understanding scientific methodology, comes from their courses in the Philosophy of science and logic.
In terms of how widely held the view is, that is irrelevant, reality doesn't care what people think. Those that can out reason their competitors will win in business, getting hired by a dullard corporation that lacks a proper understanding of these matters just means you'll be looking for a new job in the future.
On the first point, why can't a good science course also teach scientific reasoning and methodology?
On the second, our economy and government are not adequately described by your simplistic neoclassical theory. The market is distorted in many ways; Wikipedia has a fairly good list.
Engineering logic is not the same as formal mathematical or philosophical logic. Nor is it identical to scientific logic, though there are many similarities.
Phrasing this in terms of different "logics" makes no sense, Philosophy and Mathematics are using the same underlying logic, what is different is the sort of problems they are applying the logic to. Mathematics is entirely focused on formal systems of a particular character, philosophy has a much more general scope. The real issue here is difference in methodology not logic, but Philosophy and Mathematics have very similar methodologies. On the other hand, science is rather different methodologically and logically. Hence the importance of understanding both...
Now, Engineering employs a different type of skill and calling it "logic" is totally misplaced. Although on some level engineers employ basic logic (everyone does), the sort of problem solving they do goes well beyond it.
My argument here has been that Engineering utilizes very specialized skills, skills that aren't portable to many other things. The information you are citing doesn't conflict with this at all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
First, you concede that some jobs do require formal education in engineering at the level of at least an undergraduate major.
Second, you are making an empirical rather than an analytical argument with no empirical evidence. You are saying that employers in the status quo are actually biased against graduates trained in engineering.
1.) Yes, 2.) I have said nothing about biases, instead I stated that an Engineering education doesn't provide general analytic skills and as a result an employer is not going to consider an Engineering degree as evidence that the applicant has these skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
However, when it comes to real-world business and political decisions, Klimenko's engineering logic is a much more relevant foundation. Business leaders must a) make decisions in the absence of firmly proven evidence, b) act quickly and cost-effectively even at the expense of rigor, and c) meet empirical and functional requirements. Engineering provides excellent training in all of these areas.
Umm...no...and you are distorting the very things you are cited!
"structured discovery of a functional solution even in the absence of scientific research"
The key is the bold phrase and you are also changing the terms, he refers to an absence of scientific research not evidence in general. Business and political decisions are not structured, rather they are extremely open ended. How you measure success, how you understand the concepts to begin with, etc are all fuzzy. Engineers deal with concrete things, Philosophers, Mathematics deal with abstract things and business, politics, economics, finance, etc are all of the latter sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
On the first point, why can't a good science course also teach scientific reasoning and methodology?
It can, but they don't because that isn't the focus. In the university environment introductory science courses are primary taking by non-science students, as a result they focus is on the more or less "matter of act" aspects of the field than the underlying methodological structure.
American Universities have almost entirely stripped general education from its curriculum, instead each degree program only requires "necessary" courses. This is largely in response to the large prole-drift seen in higher education, they don't want to take courses they will "never use", etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
On the second, our economy and government are not adequately described by your simplistic neoclassical theory.
What in the world are you talking about? My comment had nothing to do with macroeconomic theories.
Also, I'd like to add, even if you weren't distorting the views of the people you are citing it would be irrelevant, not only is it an attempt to appeal to authority but the definitions provide no logical support for your conclusion, its entirely a non-sequitur. Its terribly ironic that you keep utilizing logical fallacies while advocating that Engineering is the most flexible degree program.....
Phrasing this in terms of different "logics" makes no sense, Philosophy and Mathematics are using the same underlying logic, what is different is the sort of problems they are applying the logic to. Mathematics is entirely focused on formal systems of a particular character, philosophy has a much more general scope. The real issue here is difference in methodology not logic, but Philosophy and Mathematics have very similar methodologies. On the other hand, science is rather different methodologically and logically. Hence the importance of understanding both...
Now, Engineering employs a different type of skill and calling it "logic" is totally misplaced. Although on some level engineers employ basic logic (everyone does), the sort of problem solving they do goes well beyond it.
My argument here has been that Engineering utilizes very specialized skills, skills that aren't portable to many other things. The information you are citing doesn't conflict with this at all...
Logic is a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference. Different disciplines hold different standards of proof. Here's the relevant paragraph from Klimenko's paper:
Quote:
Engineering knowledge is not necessarily fully interconnected but it certainly does not represent a long list of separate intuitive recipes. Engineering knowledge is, essentially, a structured knowledge that not only tells an engineer what to do but also explains why. Only structured knowledge forms a good basis for continuous, progressive development – one of the prime goals in engineering --- while a 'recipe book' can not offer anything beyond things that are already written there. Blocks of engineering knowledge are linked and interconnected by logic --- a set of formal, intuitive or commonly accepted rules and an understanding of what we can accept as a valid explanation, proof or link. Hence, the engineering discipline is linked to logic but is the logic practiced in engineering essentially identical to the scientific logic?
...
You've ignored Halpern's ideas on critical thinking. This is very important, because in my last post I drew parallels between the engineering education discussed by Klimenko and pedagogical methods relating to critical thinking. That's the logical connection: critical thinking involves solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions, all of which are deeply involved with the field of engineering; and, the four-part model proposed by Halpern to teach these skills resembles an engineering education.
This supports my overall contention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
1.) Yes, 2.) I have said nothing about biases, instead I stated that an Engineering education doesn't provide general analytic skills and as a result an employer is not going to consider an Engineering degree as evidence that the applicant has these skills.
Again, that's an empirical claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Umm...no...and you are distorting the very things you are cited!
"structured discovery of a functional solution even in the absence of scientific research"
The key is the bold phrase and you are also changing the terms, he refers to an absence of scientific research not evidence in general. Business and political decisions are not structured, rather they are extremely open ended. How you measure success, how you understand the concepts to begin with, etc are all fuzzy. Engineers deal with concrete things, Philosophers, Mathematics deal with abstract things and business, politics, economics, finance, etc are all of the latter sort.
In that portion, Klimenko is talking about engineering in comparison to science. His point is that engineers may have to design solutions to technical problems without a strong base of scientific research. As a result, engineering programs teach students to focus more on functionality than on a high standard of rigorous proof.
This latter argument is what I extend. Because effective action is often necessary in business even if full rigor cannot be obtained, this kind of thinking is a valuable asset.
Next, I strongly disagree with the notion that achieving success in business cannot be assessed with some objectivity. There is extensive research in the subjects of operations research and management science to the contrary.
As for the establishment of general goals for an organization, this has far more to do with personal values and obligations than analysis.
Further, while philosophy and mathematics may be abstract in the sense that they are removed from physical phenomena, your arguments are contradictory. Reasoning rooted firmly in formal, logical proof has lower tolerance for "fuzzy" concepts than anything else. Our discussion right here is an example of this; while there is some data and reasoning on both sides, it is ultimately impossible to reach a rigorous proof on pedagogical value.
And this is a key point. Engineering reasoning is not focused on establishing a flawless, rigorous chain of thinking as much as on the development of a solution that can be empirically shown to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
It can, but they don't because that isn't the focus. In the university environment introductory science courses are primary taking by non-science students, as a result they focus is on the more or less "matter of act" aspects of the field than the underlying methodological structure.
American Universities have almost entirely stripped general education from its curriculum, instead each degree program only requires "necessary" courses. This is largely in response to the large prole-drift seen in higher education, they don't want to take courses they will "never use", etc.
Perhaps this is true at some small liberal arts schools, but at many universities with large engineering and science programs there will be many different lower-division science courses. Engineering majors don't take "rocks for jocks" type gen ed science classes; they take courses mostly chosen by science-related majors.
Ironically, it is the philosophy major who may be able to get away with taking a less rigorous science class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
What in the world are you talking about? My comment had nothing to do with macroeconomic theories.
Your claim was that companies with analytical approaches will ultimately outmaneuver weaker competitors; thus, that status quo hiring practices are irrelevant and more logical companies will ultimately triumph. I'm saying that market distortions make this faith in the markets highly questionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Also, I'd like to add, even if you weren't distorting the views of the people you are citing it would be irrelevant, not only is it an attempt to appeal to authority but the definitions provide no logical support for your conclusion, its entirely a non-sequitur. Its terribly ironic that you keep utilizing logical fallacies while advocating that Engineering is the most flexible degree program.....
There are warrants and citations in the internals of both articles. The quotes I selected are intended to give a brief summary of the reasoning involved, not to explain the entire paper. Feel free to point out any specific claims you disagree with (as you did above) and I will find the relevant explanations.
Further, the appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if a) the source is either unauthoritative or is an outlier amongst authorities or b) the argument is used to prove that something is absolutely true. You have presented no evidence supporting A, and as for B I am not using this evidence to prove beyond all doubt that engineering teaches critical thinking. Indeed, that is an impossible burden that neither of us can ever meet. What I am doing is presenting some strong evidence supporting that conclusion as a general principle.
Finally, you failed to address the issue of educational standards. How much education in the fields you support is necessary, and why?
. A lot of people my age were raised in a manner that suggests money and power are necessary cornerstones of success. It's in direct contrast to the lessons we in the States tell children-- It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you're happy, when the revered and exalted idols are people in positions of power and influence, not humility and obscurity. And it's very difficult to get anyone, even children, to do as you say, not as you do. So there you go, you have a group of people who value money, financial success, and a life in suburbia, while being told that the means to this end is whatever they want it to be, rather than a specific set of career paths.
You nailed it, esp. the part in blue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManOnTheMoon
. It doesn't matter how you want to make your living. If you want to take the road less traveled, well, Robert Frost is good company to have. If you want to go into the rat race for money, there is certainly a fortune to be made. Only you know what you truly value, but keep in mind you can't always have it all.
This is the problem we have in America. Starting with the Baby Boom generation, we started telling people they could "have it all" (however that was defined) and that things would always magically work out the way we wanted them to. It's time to give up that destructive delusion.
You're wise beyond your years. I wish I had been this smart when I was 22. BTW, I majored in liberal arts. i definitely would have majored in something else if I could do it all over again.
My comment about English majors? Its based on the educational qualities of the English programs which has more than to with (intellectually) sticking your head in the sand than actually learning and developing skills.
Firstly, you have obviously not read what I have written here, my points have had nothing to do with "college as job training", instead with pedagogical matters. Secondly, I said nothing about liberal arts majors in general, my comment was about English and English only. Its a terrible degree program that teaches pretty much nothing, English majors even get bested in the one thing they should be really good at (writing) by other liberal arts programs.
Really? And what is that based on? For someone who accuses others of arguing with anecdotes, your own efforts seem confined to nothing but a bunch of weak, baseless generalizations and ad hominem statements.
A English major must actually work in a variety of disciplines, from history to writing to language to philosophy to politics--and the list goes on and on. For it is impossible to study any period of literature without completely understanding the world in which it was written. With this in mind, an English major in a program with any rigor must read exhaustively and fully understand the forces that shaped a given writer's approach.
One of my two specialties was Medieval literature, which meant that I had to fully understand the history, politics, art, architecture, music, and religion of the period. It required that I understood thoroughly the iconography of the time as shorthand reminders of complex concepts in faith. I was forced to master this area to the point that I can now walk into a cathedral and tell you the point behind almost every single sculpture and stained glass window. It meant that I had to be able to pick my way through Old Norse, read and write Middle English easily (Plus speak it fluently), and come to grips with the French of the period as well. I learned in detail the ongoing ferment in Europe, the evolution of Catholic theology, the slow evolution of nation states, and even the effect of the longbow on the shaping of our language.
And as far as your statement is concerned that English majors get bested in writing by those in other disciplines, I would be fascinated to find out where you got your information. I mean, heck, most philosophy majors have execrable prose styles. Is there some competition that we don't know about, a Writing Bowl if you will? Has someone developed an index of writing effectiveness with a statistical assessment per major? Is there an arbitrary point system, one that rewards simple sentences and detracts for every use of a semicolon? If not, then you are a simple blowhard, expressing your own prejudices without anything to back it up.
Last edited by cpg35223; 07-17-2011 at 06:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
