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.
Increasingly? Hasn't your ability to pay your bills, go on vacation, save for retirement, live in a safe neighborhood, etc always depended on your income?
I think the real issue is prole drift, that is in order to accommodate a larger spectrum of American society colleges had to significantly change to better align themselves with the desires and attitudes of the new entrants. That is especially true of public institutions as there is greater influence from the masses.
The same things instructors in other content areas are doing? Just a thought.
The same things? So you believe that all fields have no "measurable and definable way" to gauge talent? Everything is subjective? Cool.....then I'm one of the world's greatest physicists!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa
Well, in the instances of the fine arts programs in which I participated (in my case, theatre and music-based, rather than visual art)....
How exactly does your personal story address the philosophic claim you asserted as a fact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa
Are you suggesting that the point of an arts program is, to you, merely to assign a definitive ranking and value to creative endeavors?
No, the point of an arts program is to teach the underlying skills required to professionally pursue the art in question, not to vaguely gain "experiences" of such and such....as I suppose one would do in an liberal arts program.
So, you suggested you went around the world singing, did you just randomly open your mouth? Did someone randomly, without any theoretical guidance, write notes on a page for you? Wait....but music notation itself is a skill that is measurable....gosh.
The arts aren't like the liberal arts, there are actual skills being learned and loads of theoretical support. Out of curiosity, how much time did you spend learning music theory? Or was your program strictly dedicated to vaguely gaining experiences without learning any real skills?
And what is your experience in psychology? Your commentary here seems uninformed and you appear to be thinking of clinical psychology and not the sort of science based psychology that occurs on universities campuses.
The project I was specifically involved in was on a uni campus under the guidance of a prof. I interviewed students about the topic we were investigating, rather than using questionnaires, painstakingly transcribed those interviews, used a word scoring method that was arbitrary from my pov and sought out an appropriate statistic to give the findings meaning. IIRC, my prof was a behavioral psychologist. In an effort to refresh my memory on qualitative research methods my feelings on the experience are confirmed reading about the weakness of that kind of qualitative research, in that interpretation of data may be subjective, no clear strategy in data analysis, etc. Again, it's a different animal all together.
Quote:
You're right though, there is a divide, but its solely the creation of those in the "hard sciences" that don't understand what others are doing, heck, probably don't even understand what goes on in the "hard sciences" either.
The "soft sciences" and the "hard sciences" use the same methodology, the only difference is the subject material.
I disagree. I get that the data has to be teased out at times, but with the work I was doing the teasing enveloped the project. I was quite shocked by the data analysis. OTOH, the work I was doing in a biochem lab while an undergrad simply didn't involve those shenanigans. It made no difference who collected the data to test the hypothesis or who interpreted the data, where it makes a difference who is interviewing people because the interviewer can guide a conversation, people will respond differently to different people, as well as who is interpreting it. That's problematic in behavioral research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
If I buy a microscope at the toy store and look at some samples am I now a scientists? No...right? So then why is one an "artist" if they put some paint on a canvas, take some photos, or whatever else?
If one isolated their attention to real artists, that is those with actual talent in art, and compared them with real scientists you'd find that the intersection of the two groups was pretty small.....
Looking at samples under a microscope does not make you a scientist. Spending your time creating art does make you an artist. The determination of talent is up for debate. The likes of Hunter Cole (without the recognition of course), for example, are pretty common in my social circles.
It's a B.S.E. (Bachelors of Science in Engineering) in Computer Science (which the school I went to offers). Compared to a BS or BA in Computer Science. What's so difficult for you to understand? I can't believe I had to explain that to someone.
I had no idea that a B.S.E could be awarded for comp sci. Now I do.
No, the point of an arts program is to teach the underlying skills required to professionally pursue the art in question
,
And herein lies the disconnect between the things we are talking about, and the major philosophical difference between those who consider education to be strictly for the purpose getting a job, versus simply learning.
You feel that education is only worthwhile as direct vocational training. Understood. There are others who feel differently, who experienced differently, and who realize that fulfilling and useful employment can be obtained even by those who went to college for something beyond simply workforce prep. (I know, I know, those of us who aren't, in fact, suffering due to our dreaded "vague" educational experience, but who are instead happily employed doing things we love are either anomalies, or outright lying to make others feel badly about themselves and their choices...oh, wait...nope).
Why such resentment exists toward those are fine with learning simply out of a spirit of curiosity and inquiry for the joy of learning about themselves and the world around them is something I suppose with which I suppose I'll never really identify. I realize the assumption is that people who value education primarily for the experience of learning about the the things they love is that "those damn kids will never get a job," but it's not really the reason that the unemployed are unemployed.
,
I realize the assumption is that people who value education primarily for the experience of learning about the the things they love is that "those damn kids will never get a job," but it's not really the reason that the unemployed are unemployed.
Didn't you know? You should be miserable, poor, and indebted to the banks forever. You pursued an area of academia that you actually enjoy? You slacker!
Again, it's the competitive nature of human beings that brings that sort of degradation and pomposity to the surface. Everybody wants to be the alpha.
And herein lies the disconnect between the things we are talking about, and the major philosophical difference between those who consider education to be strictly for the purpose getting a job, versus simply learning.
You feel that education is only worthwhile as direct vocational training. Understood. There are others who feel differently, who experienced differently, and who realize that fulfilling and useful employment can be obtained even by those who went to college for something beyond simply workforce prep. (I know, I know, those of us who aren't, in fact, suffering due to our dreaded "vague" educational experience, but who are instead happily employed doing things we love are either anomalies, or outright lying to make others feel badly about themselves and their choices...oh, wait...nope).
Why such resentment exists toward those are fine with learning simply out of a spirit of curiosity and inquiry for the joy of learning about themselves and the world around them is something I suppose with which I suppose I'll never really identify. I realize the assumption is that people who value education primarily for the experience of learning about the the things they love is that "those damn kids will never get a job," but it's not really the reason that the unemployed are unemployed.
With all due respect, your arguments would have more merit if a college education in the U.S. was free or inexpensive, like it is in some European countries. However, we know that's not the case.
If you pay a high cost for an education, then you expect a good return on your investment. If you don't get that, then your money has been wasted.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 11-01-2011 at 07:29 AM..
I disagree. I get that the data has to be teased out at times, but with the work I was doing the teasing enveloped the project. I was quite shocked by the data analysis. OTOH, the work I was doing in a biochem lab while an undergrad simply didn't involve those shenanigans. It made no difference who collected the data to test the hypothesis or who interpreted the data, where it makes a difference who is interviewing people because the interviewer can guide a conversation, people will respond differently to different people, as well as who is interpreting it. That's problematic in behavioral research.
Oh this is good, you have been involved in a single "experiment" and from that singular experience you are going to make general claims about the structure of psychological methodology? Nice...
Like I said, you are more or less thinking of clinical psychology which makes heavy use of qualitative methods and seem to be wholly ignorant of what goes on in most of psychology departments which do indeed employ quantitative methods just like the "hard sciences".
I wonder, do you typically employ inductive conclusions from a single example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Looking at samples under a microscope does not make you a scientist. Spending your time creating art does make you an artist.
Oh I see, so doing something that you can roughly describe as "art" makes you an artist regardless of the quality and scope of the work, but to be a scientist you have to do something, well, important and in-depth? Yeah...that double standard sure makes sense....
The egoism here is funny, apparently one can gain sufficient knowledge of a "soft" science by being involved in a single experiment and one can become an "artist" by well...doing just about anything. But I'm glad you've found a nice home in your chemistry lab.
With all due respect, your arguments would have more merit if a college education in the U.S. was free or inexpensive, like it is in some European countries. However, we know that's not the case.
If you pay a high cost for an education, then you expect a good return on your investment. If you don't get that, then your money has been wasted.
Europeans actually do pay for it in the form of higher taxes. Americans aren't usually in favor of higher taxes unless it's associated with blowing things up in other countries (but even then...). That's likely attributed to the fact that individuality is held in higher regard here than in a lot of other places.
I had no idea that a B.S.E could be awarded for comp sci. Now I do.
I'm not surprised.
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.
