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.
Gizmo -- Don't be offended. Math and computer science often appeal to people who lack basic social skills, as in these fields you can work pretty much by yourself. Perhaps that's one reason why you don't see many math/computer science people in positions of general leadership, say as university presidents, high political office, and the like.
I so not have a horse in this race besides being someone with a math/science degree. I think your overly broad generalizations are neither particularly kind nor correct.
Additionally, many, many people in leadership positions come from the math/science/engineering disciplines. Shirley Tighlman, president of a little school not far from me, Princeton, maybe you have heard of it. She has a PhD in chemistry. And one of the reasons, there maybe more administrators holding humanities degrees is because of the nature of the academic beast. Science and math PhDs are frequently overseeing labs and doing primary research. Not a lot of time to administrate in those situations.
Sure, I lack a "gentle hand", but that is just how I operate. Being able to communicate things to people in an emotionally sensitive manner is just not a skill that I posses, my brain just doesn't work that way.
Anyhow, so yes, I agree with what you're saying but my "delivery" unfortunately isn't going to get any better.
Perhaps that's why you WERE more suited for studying math/science, as those subjects require analytical minds over sensitive ones. I, on the other hand, am quite the opposite... I've always been a writer, a teacher, and "counselor" to those who know me. So I was more suited for a career along those lines, and generally lack the analytical/technical skills that would be required for certain professions.
As I said earlier, to each his/her own! Isn't it wonderful that we have choices in life, and can choose to study or practice what appeals to us the most?
I so not have a horse in this race besides being someone with a math/science degree. I think your overly broad generalizations are neither particularly kind nor correct.
Additionally, many, many people in leadership positions come from the math/science/engineering disciplines. Shirley Tighlman, president of a little school not far from me, Princeton, maybe you have heard of it. She has a PhD in chemistry. And one of the reasons, there maybe more administrators holding humanities degrees is because of the nature of the academic beast. Science and math PhDs are frequently overseeing labs and doing primary research. Not a lot of time to administrate in those situations.
Ikb, I apologize to you and to others with your credentials reading this thread. My post was over the top. But regarding correctness, I would like to note that I specifically mentioned computer science, rather than science in general which indeed produces many leaders (not that this excuses my rudeness). By the way, I also have math/science-based degrees. Best wishes -- HF
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 11-08-2011 at 04:59 AM..
A university should be a place someone goes to become educated, not a place someone goes to gain experiences that may or may not have some sort of personal value.
Interesting.
"education" = "experiences that may or may not have some sort of personal value"
Ikb, I apologize to you and to others with your credentials reading this thread. My post was over the top. But regarding correctness, I would like to note that I specifically mentioned computer science, rather than science in general which indeed produces many leaders (not that this excuses my rudeness). By the way, I also have math/science-based degrees. Best wishes -- HF
I feel I must point out that Computer Science is a rather new academic discipline that has only been broadly available at universities in the last 25 - 30 years. That would explain why most university presidents (who got their degree approximately 30 - 40 years ago) do not have the degree.
Also, some of the best writers and thinkers I have known majored in this field. They were often avid readers, reading all sorts of fiction, non-fiction...etc.
I think it's funny that we have 43 pages going, here, most of which are devoted to one person's assertion that something as completely subjective and personal as "value" of a course of study, which is by its very nature going to vary according to the holder's wants, desires, goals, and particular set of values, can be quantified by any one solid, set, measurable definition that applies to all people and all situations. Makes the continuous "fuzzy logic" rants more than a little smirk-worthy.
The fuzzy logic comes in pretending that value is "personal" and "subjective" in an industry that takes in hundreds of billions of dollars from people.
It is to laugh.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 11-08-2011 at 11:33 AM..
Perhaps that's why you WERE more suited for studying math/science, as those subjects require analytical minds over sensitive ones. I, on the other hand, am quite the opposite... I've always been a writer, a teacher, and "counselor" to those who know me.
Firstly, just to say, I think talent in mathematics and science is for the most part separate. That is, one doesn't necessarily entail the other. I really have no idea to what degree I'm suited for science.
It is popular to create this divide between "analytic minds" and "sensitive minds" (or "creative minds", etc) but I think this division is fundamentally mistaken. Being analytic doesn't preclude emotional sensitivity, creativity or anything of that nature. Similarly, being emotionally sensitive doesn't preclude being analytic.
Regardless, this division is dangerous as well, people will self categorize themselves and it will define their choices later, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
and can choose to study or practice what appeals to us the most?
Yes, variety is good, but bankruptcy academic programs are a waste of resources and hurt students. That isn't good. You and others continuously set this up as if its just a matter of "choice", but I'm questioning the soundness of the academic programs themselves so this response is really just begging the question.
"education" = "experiences that may or may not have some sort of personal value"
Sorry, I seemed to have missed the interesting part. What is the purpose of the equality? Is it suppose to be definitional? If so, the definition is absurd.
Education has to be systematic to be effective, the material has to be teachable on some fundamental level. Any insight one gains from "experience" is not systematic and due to its personal nature...not teachable. As I've said before, exposing kids to literature, art, music, etc is great, but this exposure does not constitute an education.
I'm not suggesting that society should burn literature, that people should stop reading, etc. I'm suggesting that universities stop wasting money on academic programs that aren't systematically educating their students, those academic programs are almost exclusively in the Humanities department. Though some are in the arts, "art history" comes to mind.
Additionally, many, many people in leadership positions come from the math/science/engineering disciplines.
I have to concur with that based on my industry experience. My instinct is that there are more people in business leadership positions (e.g Corp. CEO's, entrepreneurs) from this background than from other disciplines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I'm suggesting that universities stop wasting money on academic programs that aren't systematically educating their students, those academic programs are almost exclusively in the Humanities department.
I actually agree with the gist of your posts on this thread. But I think the problem starts before the university - at the secondary and even elementary school levels. Universities are responding to the ability and motivations of the students who enter their halls.
From my own experience, it can be difficult to obtain an appropriate and rigorous educational foundation for your child in the elementary/secondary school systems. I have gone through many hurtles to obtain this for my own child.
Here is an interesting article today in the WSJ today:
Generation Jobless: Students Pick Easier Majors Despite Less Pay
"Ms. Zhou withdrew before the lab ended. Since switching majors she has earned almost straight A's instead of the B's and C's she took home in engineering. Students who drop out of science majors and professors who study the phenomenon say that introductory courses are often difficult and abstract. Some students, like Ms. Zhou, say their high schools didn't prepare them for the level of rigor in the introductory courses.
Overall, only 45% of 2011 U.S. high-school graduates who took the ACT test were prepared for college-level math and only 30% of ACT-tested high-school graduates were ready for college-level science, according to a 2011 report by ACT Inc.
If you haven't been given the proper foundation early on, you fall farther and farther behind as the material gets more difficult. It's discouraging, demoralizing," says Claus von Zastrow, the chief operating officer and director of research at Change the Equation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit group that seeks to improve science and math education. It has led professors to anticipate the high levels of attrition.
I get direct emails from a handful of students who say, 'I struggled in this class. I realize that I'm not cut out to be a [computer science] major,' " says professor Adam Klivans, who teaches an introductory math and computer science class at the University of Texas, Austin. Science classes may also require more time—something U.S. college students may not be willing to commit. In a recent study, sociologists Richard Arum of New York University and Josipa Roksa of the University of Virginia found that the average U.S. student in their sample spent only about 12 to 13 hours a weekstudying, about half the time spent by students in 1960. They found that math and science—though not engineering—students study on average about three hours more per week than their non-science-major counterparts."
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...
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.
