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.
Yes, but that is at the primary/secondary level, at that level it does have a lot to do with "hard work". But things change once you get into advanced material, here natural abilities start to play an increasingly important role. Mathematics, like the arts, seems to be more dependent on natural ability than some other subjects as well. In lower division mathematics courses hard work can usually generate a good grade, indeed they almost orient the courses around this idea since a lot of your grade is dependent on homework, etc. But as you move past lower division courses hard work becomes less effective and your success becomes more dependent on natural abilities. I wasn't a good student by any means, I didn't study often for courses, I would often miss classes (especially if the teacher was boring), and I would only do "homework" if it was a strict requirement....and yet my mid-term/final scores were always one of the best. Meanwhile other students spent many hours in study groups and did much worse. Why?
Perhaps I'm a bit sadistic, but one amusing part of this was watching the majority Asian (who are often pressured by parents, etc to work hard) student body at one of my colleges work until their knuckles bleed and still get just average grades.... Parents should try to gear their kids towards what they are best at.
As a parent with an engineering background (and lots of Korean friends), I understand what you're saying about how the Asian work ethic can go overboard. I often see the very negative effects of the "Tiger Mom" scenario which can be overly focused on competition and perfectionism. However, I do believe many students are capable of a more rigorous level of instruction instead of the easier, watered down versions they often receive in elem/secondary schools.
At the very highest levels of mathematics, the space inhabitated by the profoundly gifted, innate ability does play a more crucial role. I have one child who always tests in the top 99.999% and her innate ability was very obvious at a young age. And maybe that is how you are. She may likely attend our state's (one of the nation's) most elite Math/Science academies.
But what about the kids who are still in the top 5% or top 10% or even top 20%? They are often left stagnating in regular, watered-down math classrooms and are not properly challenged (and their parents often don't know the difference - so they are incapable of "gearing their kids towards what they are best at"). Although the "high-ability" students may need to work harder than the profoundly gifted in some areas, they are still capable of a high degree of math literacy and may excel at calculations. They still have the potential to do very well in math-driven fields like engineering. But they are often not receiving the proper foundation for college coursework in these fields.
Anthropology IS humanities. An art expert needs an education in art, not anthropology. And btw, many have chemistry degrees to authenticate artwork.
Humanity students often develop deep knowledge of their subjects. Many get their PhDs. Many devote their lives to their study. Just because you don't like art, doesn't mean the rest of us don't
In the very general sense Anthropology is the humanities, but at the university level (which is what I'm talking about) it is not, its a social science and you will find it in the social science department. To say it once more, I'm talking about the subjects typically grouped in the "Humanities" at universities. That is, English, History, etc. In this sense the Humanities are rather distinct from social science and the arts.
Clearly you're not even bothering to understand what I'm saying, after all in the same post I refer to the arts and social sciences as serious disciplines.... But to say it again, I have no issue with an arts education, my issue is with the degree programs one typically finds in the Humanities department.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
So who are you to decide what is a 'serious discipine'. You are very narrow minded. I can't imagine what that contributes to society.
Its not an issue of who decides, but what decides. At the very least an academic study has to do something systematically to be valuable and the humanities don't seem to do any such thing.
Calling me names doesn't address anything though, just in case you weren't aware....
The Wall Street Journal just confirms what many have already known for generations: Degrees in math, science and engineering are much more demanding than degrees in English, history, education and business. It's really beyond dispute. ( I'am also saying this as a holder of a liberal arts degree).
Students who are interested in the hard sciences have always been in the minority, and those that are "interested" only because of the perceived financial benefits are soon weeded out, as well. You have to have both the innate ability to hand difficult math/science texts, and have some passion for your subject,to be a successful student in the sciences. You really can't "bluff" your way through...
This becomes even more evident at the graduate level. As a candidate in the sciences what we call "research" is wildly different than the "research" being done for the humanities.
I am not saying that it is EASY to get a humanities graduate degree but I will say it is easier to conduct graduate "research" in the humanities than it is in the sciences. I say this having completed my masters in science with a 2 year research thesis and having done masters work and research in education as well, both at a highly ranked university. It is literally night and day.
I found this thread during one of the many "English degree is worthless" Googlings I've taken to doing in between job searching just for, let's call it "****s and giggles." I just wanted to put my own take on things out here.
I have a BA in English with honors from Centre College (very popular college right now; one of the top 50 liberal arts colleges as ranked by US News & World Report and #34 on Forbes' list of top colleges), publications in magazines and experience working with various editing software including InDesign. I've been unemployed since I graduated (into the 6th month now). I've almost run out of money and no one anywhere will do me so much as the courtesy of sending me an automated rejection email. My life is nothing but jobs boards and I eat, sleep and **** resumes and writing samples all day and all night. The only thing I can do is be thankful that I have no debt because my grandmother left enough money to pay for my education when she died.
I've asked everyone I can think of for advice and it's all been worthless. I've sent letters to the American Association of Publishers, emailed their staff for a little help, anything. Everyone from HR staff to former professors has been useless.
This, I think, is reality. Did I realize it would be this hard for me to find a job with my degree? Nope. No one warned me. I knew it would be difficult, but this is absurd.
Perhaps you just may need to develop a specific skill that may require a little extra training? Have you thought about technical writing?
My Mother has a degree in Math, and was very successful in corporate business, when I graduated from school, and wanted to work with deaf-blind children like Helen Keller, my Mom told me I was crazy, and would never make any real money, or get a decent job. I majored in Special Education, Hearing Impaired and Visually Impaired. Hmmm, last year I made $80,000. And have a great job, and have enjoyed a wonderful career.
And have never had a hard time getting a job, even married to a man who was often transferred for his work. I have taught school, worked for state agencies, worked at a major university, and now in a hospital.
This becomes even more evident at the graduate level. As a candidate in the sciences what we call "research" is wildly different than the "research" being done for the humanities.
I am not saying that it is EASY to get a humanities graduate degree but I will say it is easier to conduct graduate "research" in the humanities than it is in the sciences. I say this having completed my masters in science with a 2 year research thesis and having done masters work and research in education as well, both at a highly ranked university. It is literally night and day.
This is completely absurd, the day that I believe research in the Sciences is any more rigorous than in the Humanities is the day that one of these alleged "egg heads" becomes the next literary greats such as Doyotevsky, Tolstoi or Solzhenitsyn. Face it folks, writers are just as unlikely to do combinotoric mathematics as Einstein would have been to author the next illiad. Some of you simply need to accept that they are different.
This is completely absurd, the day that I believe research in the Sciences is any more rigorous than in the Humanities is the day that one of these alleged "egg heads" becomes the next literary greats such as Doyotevsky, Tolstoi or Solzhenitsyn.
Funny since Doyotevsky was a mathematics student......
But what does literature have to do with research? Is writing literature a research activity? Gee, here I was thinking it was artistic expression!
Funny since Doyotevsky was a mathematics student......
But what does literature have to do with research? Is writing literature a research activity? Gee, here I was thinking it was artistic expression!
Considering that Einstein probably had his own favorite books, that's hardly a point worth mentioning.
The previous poster's viewpoint wasn't necessarily to demonstrate whether research between the Sciences was any more rigorous than it is in the Humanities than it was to further reiterate the belief that one field was more important than the other.
The previous poster's viewpoint wasn't necessarily to demonstrate whether research between the Sciences was any more rigorous than it is in the Humanities than it was to further reiterate the belief that one field was more important than the other.
I see, so you're suppose to imagine what you think the poster may have meant instead of reading what they actual stated?Anyhow, I've been reiterating the belief that the Humanities are useless for pages now....and its all be rather direct!
in terms of your Einstein comment, are you now suggesting that an education in the Humanities is equivalent to reading your favorite books? Not...that I would disagree...just curious because Doyotevsky was primarily educated in mathematics.....
I see, so you're suppose to imagine what you think the poster may have meant instead of reading what they actual stated?
Anyhow, I've been reiterating the belief that the Humanities are useless for pages now....and its all be rather direct!
Actually my comment was more so an observation of the comment that the poster responded to.
However, thanks for making my point. And btw I'll keep an eye out for the day that you come up with your version of Crime and Punishment.
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.
