What are your thoughts on Political Science? (career, anthropology, geography)

[mcb1025]

Originally Posted by Wingfoot

Especially, if remaining ignorant is your goal in life.

Yes, because ALL liberal arts majors take easy classes like body building, basket weaving, and knitting.

[Sandpointian]

Originally Posted by user_id

A sound argument requires no such thing, rather an argument is sound if the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Regardless, the part of my claim that is quantifiable I've already cited information that supports it. Namely, that liberal arts programs require considerably less work than science, engineering, etc. There are two possible explanations here, 1.) Liberal arts are really easier to understand and require less work, 2.) The programs are poor. There are other things we could look at, like the total hours worked by people in the programs. How the students do on testing in their field after they graduate, etc.

But largely, the argument I'm making is not empirical rather conceptual so asking about a "metric" misses the point entirely.

Your arguments would be more powerful if you stuck to the specifics of the decision over whether to pursue poly sci. For when you push on to sweeping denouncements of all liberal arts and suggest the inherent supremacy of science and engineering, you strengthen the options of the opposition.

* There are several liberal arts programs that are as (or perhaps more) intellectually challenging than science and engineering
* I know plenty of PhDs in science, and engineering would are unable to understand defining debates in philosophy, economics, or human sexuality and plenty of social scientists and humanities scholars who can understand the findings of scientists (although not necessarily the math)
* While many programs are poor, there are a number of excellent ones. If your experience is such that the liberal arts programs are weak, then you are likely from a pretty weak school or a uni with weak liberal arts.
* total hours worked is a highly imperfect measure. Influence on society is better. Getting top jobs is another. Well trained liberal arts graduates, if they truly received a top notch training in the liberal arts, can do extremely well on both measures.

I go back to early discussions shared. I would concede that the barrier to entry in the liberal arts is extremely low and quite high in science and engineering. However, the highest bars in both are exceptionally high. The real studs (& studettes?) are those who not only cleared both bars, but found ways to advance each side of their brain via training and experience from the other side.

This means that for the OP, a degree in poly sci can be crap or it can be something very special. That user_id likes to paint the picture of all liberal arts degrees being worthless defies credulity in terms of those with big salaries and influence in our society, most of whom received a liberal arts background.

S.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

I'm using word how its usually used in this context, namely to refer to the degrees (ahem...programs) offered by universities.

Your issue isn't clear, then.

For you perhaps, but suggesting that there is something inherently more difficult about it does not make that much sense. And your comment about liberal arts seemed to suggest such, that is you believe they are inherently "easier to grasp".

If that's not the case then lets use specific examples. Since I don't have any experience with philosophy I don't know. I can say that the social sciences are far easier to grasp, course for course, than the physical sciences. At least in the programs I was involved in.

The type of examples I would like to see is course material. Since poly sci is the topic, we can use that I guess. Pick a class, a topic discussed in that class or one that should be according to you, and then we can compare. Lets use a first year undergrad class in that major and we can compare it to general physics I&II or general chem I&II.

Everything was initially a subset of Philosophy, and in the case of Science the separation makes good sense (Although, when science is in crisis it must revert back to Philosophy). But in the case of Political science, Humanities, English (minus, the actual language part of it), etc the separation makes little sense. Political science is essentially Philosophy with dogma, Humanities and English are the place where work is done on matters that are even too incoherent and ridiculous for the Philosophy department.

IIRC, you mentioned in the past that an English program was suitable for the purpose of teaching English, but not beyond. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. I don't see what the problem is. If all students take home from an english degree is to write well, read well, and gain an eye for picking out sought (sp?) after information, that seems worthy to me. It has use outside college.

My point regarding the liberal arts, is that in reality there is only one liberal art. The separation of the liberal arts into individual programs makes little sense, its done for the masses. Even the sciences are taught far more independently of each other than they should be, but with the sciences a separation makes some deal of sense.

It makes total sense to me for the simple fact that it would be quite difficult to cover enough material for any kind of expertise to develop. A biology major is going to have a difference experience compared to a chem, physics, genetics, clinical, neuroscience, etc major.

I already gave an example with UCLA's physics program. It requires around 1/3 more course work and it has significant prep work. That is all I mean when I say its more rigorous, namely they are teaching the subject in a bit more depth.

I didn't realize you were being general. I thought you had specifics in mind. You have a point, tho. Liberal arts programs could/should be more rigorous. I suppose they're not to meet a need.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by mcb1025

You did not provide any quantifiable evidence that liberal arts programs are poor. Rather, you've dubiously shown that at ONE school there are fewer pertinent course work requirements than programs in science and engineering.

The same can be found at the vast majority of other colleges. So what does it mean if the course requirements are 1/3 less? Are the political science courses just more effective in teaching the material?

Originally Posted by mcb1025

Let me break your argument down so you can see for yourself how silly you sound.

What you meant to say was "Let me create strawman because I have nothing better to say", the argument (which is comparative) is as follows:

If Program A requires significantly less course work than Program B, it is most likely poorer than Program B within the same university.
Program A requires significantly less course work than Program B.
Therefore, Problem A is likely poorer than Program B within the same university.

But as I said before, my argument is largely not quantitative.

Originally Posted by mcb1025

A liberal arts curriculum, after all, is intended to be well-rounded.

The requirements of liberal arts programs are in no sense "well-rounded". Ironically, not even within the liberal arts

Just tell me, how many courses in Epistemology, Ethics and political philosophy did you take?

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Sandpointian

Your arguments would be more powerful if you stuck to the specifics of the decision over whether to pursue poly sci. For when you push on to sweeping denouncements of all liberal arts and suggest the inherent supremacy of science and engineering, you strengthen the options of the opposition.

I have no idea why people have trouble separating a subject matter from a program at a university, but I'm talking about liberal arts programs not the subject matter in itself. In fact I've suggested that liberal arts programs, if done correctly, would be just as rigorous as science programs! Such programs are hard to find in the US though, but they are pretty easy to find in Europe.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

If that's not the case then lets use specific examples. Since I don't have any experience with philosophy I don't know. I can say that the social sciences are far easier to grasp, course for course, than the physical sciences. At least in the programs I was involved in.

Again, they are far easier for you to grasp. But are the sciences inherently harder to grasp than the liberal arts? I think that is a silly claim.

You are asking me for examples to justify my position, yet my position is that this matter is completely relative. What sort of "example" would demonstrate this? But, hey since you like "examples". Calculus is completely trivial and trite, I remember taking Calculus I and sleeping (it was in the morning) and instead of taking Calculus II + III, I flipped through the books and went onto to the more interesting classes. Now, I had to at least think a little bit in entry level liberal arts classes. So I guess liberal arts must be higher to grasp?

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

IIRC, you mentioned in the past that an English program was suitable for the purpose of teaching English, but not beyond. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. I don't see what the problem is. If all students take home from an english degree is to write well, read well, and gain an eye for picking out sought (sp?) after information, that seems worthy to me.

Except for that is not really what one gains from an English program. You don't learn how to "write" in a general fashion, rather you learn how to write in a dogmatic fashion. If English programs just focused on language and how to write I'd have no problem with them, but they actually spend little time on such things (some colleges do have writing emphasis though). Instead they spend the majority of their time on analyzing literature in a bizarre and inane fashion (e.g., critical theory). The skills are completely useless outside of English.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

It makes total sense to me for the simple fact that it would be quite difficult to cover enough material for any kind of expertise to develop. A biology major is going to have a difference experience compared to a chem, physics, genetics, clinical, neuroscience, etc major.

I'm speaking about the liberal arts, as I stated some sort of separation in the sciences makes sense. And in the case of liberal arts (not science), what expertise exactly? That is just my point, there is only ONE subject matter in reality and this subject matter has been diced up to fit the fancy of university admins and public consumption of crap education.

But science education is too separated every field has a common core, namely its methodology and philosophy. Little (if no) time is spent on these things, as a result Science majors rarely have an understanding of science rather just the banal details of their specific major.

Education at your typical public university is pretty rancid regardless of the major, but science, engineering, etc programs end up being more effective as tech programs and they are more likely to lead to reasonable careers. On the other hand liberal arts removed from true scholarship is a complete disaster. This is why I recommend science over liberal arts for most people.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

Again, they are far easier for you to grasp. But are the sciences inherently harder to grasp than the liberal arts? I think that is a silly claim.

I don't know. That's why I'm asking for specific comparisons.

You are asking me for examples to justify my position, yet my position is that this matter is completely relative. What sort of "example" would demonstrate this? But, hey since you like "examples". Calculus is completely trivial and trite, I remember taking Calculus I and sleeping (it was in the morning) and instead of taking Calculus II + III, I flipped through the books and went onto to the more interesting classes. Now, I had to at least think a little bit in entry level liberal arts classes. So I guess liberal arts must be higher to grasp?

I didn't think calc I was particulary interesting either. I did think physics I was very interesting and it certainly requires thought, imo. What freshman year liberal arts class are you speaking of, tho? I haven't taken many, what I have taken, outside basic gen eds, was a geography class, an intro to humanities class, and soc. I thought aristotle's poetics was a bit of a pain, but only as something that had to be muscled through.

Except for that is not really what one gains from an English program. You don't learn how to "write" in a general fashion, rather you learn how to write in a dogmatic fashion. If English programs just focused on language and how to write I'd have no problem with them, but they actually spend little time on such things (some colleges do have writing emphasis though). Instead they spend the majority of their time on analyzing literature in a bizarre and inane fashion (e.g., critical theory). The skills are completely useless outside of English.

Again, I don't know what critical theory is in an English program. I took a beat literature class as a junior to fill a requirement. I thought it was interesting. I saw the merit in having to read a book a week and write about what we read as a comprehension exercise. I realize this doesn't speak to the merit of a program.

But science education is too separated every field has a common core, namely its methodology and philosophy. Little (if no) time is spent on these things, as a result Science majors rarely have an understanding of science rather just the banal details of their specific major.

While it is true that an undergrad degree does not make a person a scientist, these banal details are necesssary. Perhaps there is too much ground to be covered. OTOH, many undergrads engage in research and are mentored. This is certainly the case in grad school, imo.

Of course, maybe I don't really know what science is since I'm not familiar with the philosophy of science. I can say that it's entirely possible to participate in science, to contribute to the body of knowledge, if a person is creative enough.

[kek1993]

Political science is good, if you are interested in the subject, it is better than sociology, or anthropology. You can do some good internships, and land a fat government job. Think about business or accounting as a minor.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I don't know. That's why I'm asking for specific comparisons.

Specific comparisons from who's point of view? Again, you are speaking as if there is something inherently more difficult about X vs Y, but it is this idea that I'm rejecting. It very well may be that Political science is easier for you to grasp than science, but that is a statement about yourself.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I didn't think calc I was particulary interesting either. I did think physics I was very interesting and it certainly requires thought, imo. What freshman year liberal arts class are you speaking of, tho? I haven't taken many, what I have taken, outside basic gen eds, was a geography class, an intro to humanities class, and soc. I thought aristotle's poetics was a bit of a pain, but only as something that had to be muscled through.

The question is not about what is interesting, but what is "easier to grasp". I was really only giving you an "example" to mock your question which I find unsound. What is "easier to grasp" is entirely an individual issue, for example I found entry level physics so easy I did not even attend the lectures (just the labs which were mandatory).

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

While it is true that an undergrad degree does not make a person a scientist, these banal details are necesssary. Perhaps there is too much ground to be covered. OTOH, many undergrads engage in research and are mentored. This is certainly the case in grad school, imo.

The details are necessary to some degree, but when you build an entire program on it it lacks scholarship and is no different than going to a tech program. But unlike the liberal arts, a science can be made into a reasonable tech program (since, the latter has many boring details you can "teach" and the former has few such details). This is pretty much the point I'm making here. The undergrad education provided at your typical prole university (e.g, public university) is atrocious regardless of program, but certain programs (e.g., science, engineering) can at least be quasi viable economically when taught in this fashion where as a liberal arts program is largely worthless.

And just to be clear, I'm only talking about undergrad. Although the vast majority of public universities have horrible undergrad programs (especially in the liberal arts), they often have reasonable graduate programs and in some cases excellent grad programs.

[heeha]

This Boeing executive has a B.S. in Political Science....

Boeing: Timothy Keating - Executive Biography