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'm not talking about the total credits required by the university to graduate, rather the courses required by the particular program. Now if you spent even a few minutes looking up, you'd see what I'm talking about. But I'll do it for you.
Undergraduate Major — Political Science (http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/undergraduate-program/undergraduate-major - broken link)
UCLA's political science program requires a total of 76 units.
Gee, the political science program requires around 1/3 less classes just as I stated. The same thing can be observed at any other large public university.
As far as "evidence" goes one simply needs to look at the banal nature of the course requirements to see how unsophisticated the programs are. Teaching politics outside of the underlying philosophic tradition makes no sense at all, yet that is what is done at your typical large public university. The same can be said for many other liberal arts. This sort of treatment of the liberal arts is fairly unique to the US though, rigorous liberal arts programs are fairly easy to find in European universities.
Ah, there you go. You have finally provided some data to support your argument. I'm not familiar with the unit system (I'm guessing units = credit hours). I have looked at your links and here is what I found (copied directly from the site):
Political Science, B.A. Degree Required: Ten upper division courses (40 units) selected from Political Science 102 through 199 taken for a letter grade. Students are also required to complete four upper division courses (16 units) in one or two of the following social sciences: anthropology, communication studies (only Communication Studies 160), economics, geography, history, management (only Management 150, 190), psychology (except Psychology 115, 116), sociology
The Major in Physics (B.A. Degree)
Required: Physics 105A,105B, 110A, 110B, 112, 115A, 115B,115C, 131
One course from the Physics 180 laboratories
(TOTAL 40 UNITS)
Heck, I'll even compare with a Physics BS Degree,
The Major in Physics (B.S. Degree)
Required: Physics 105A, 105B, 110A, 110B, 112, 115A, 115B, 115C, 131
Two courses from the 180 Physics laboratories.
Three upper division elective courses selected from: Physics 108, 114, 117, 122, 124, 126, 132, 140A, 140B. (These courses are strongly recommended for students intending on pursuing graduate careers in Physics.)
The upper division electives need not be in Physics. However, it is expected that the courses will fit into a coherent structure. A plan must be worked out five terms prior to graduation in conjunction with a departmental advisor and must be done in writing.
Special studies courses (Physics 199) may be applied towards the major upon departmental approval.
(56 UNITS TOTAL)
This data is directly from the links you provided. Am I missing something, because to me it looks like the following:
***BA Political Science requires 40 units of upper level political science coursework and 16 units of social science coursework (which even includes business-oriented courses like economics and management, believe it or not).
***BA Physics requires 40 units of upper level physics coursework
***BS Physics requires 56 units of upper level physics coursework
Where are you getting 76 units for PolySci and 110 units for Physics?
My assessment of this information is that a BA in Political Science requires the same amount of upper level PolySci coursework as a BA in Physics requires in upper level Physics coursework. In fact, a BA in PolySci is also required to take 16 units of social science coursework (which includes courses in Economics and Management). I do like the slight of hand you tried pulling by comparing the requirements for a BA in PolySci with those of a BS in Physics. Of course there will be more rigorous requirements for a BS as opposed to a BA. Are you in sales, by the way? Companies do this all the time, comparing their best product with the industry's base product in order to make consumers believe that they offer more when in fact they don't.
To sum it up for you, your point that there is a more rigorous requirement for Physics majors as opposed to Political Science majors is moot. Unless, of course, you can point out where you found the numbers that you provided.
Where are you getting 76 units for PolySci and 110 units for Physics?
Its called addition. Ignoring the lower division requirements makes no sense at all. A physics major will spend a large part of their first 2 years doing significant lower division work, where as the political science major can take electives in basket weaving. Your talk about "slight of hand" is just drivel, the BA physics program is clearly less rigorous. Remember, my claim is that science programs, engineering programs, etc are more rigorous than your typical liberal arts program. Therefore a comparison to the BS program makes perfect sense. Perhaps your claims would make sense if there was another more rigorous offering from the Political science department, but there is not.
Simply counting the units does not even account for the differences in difficult between the course work. Your typical liberal arts class is a cake walk and requires less time than your typical science, engineering, etc course.
Simply counting the units does not even account for the differences in difficult between the course work. Your typical liberal arts class is a cake walk and requires less time than your typical science, engineering, etc course.
I probably asked you this question in the past and don't remember, but why does it matter to you, user_id? Are you concerned about the direction of the US, or the pickle liberal arts majors may find themselves in once graduated? IIRC, you do have some experience with the education system, so I imagine that's playing a role.
Any way, of course science degrees are more difficult to obtain. I don't think anyone would argue that. And it has been my experience that there are far less core requirements for a liberal arts degree (in my case, a social sci degree). My chem degree (with concentration) was around 85-90 credits. There's also the fact that many classes are 400 level, rather than typical 2-300 level courses. OTOH, my psych degree was only ~40ish credits. With that said, as science majors students are not exposed to an array of subjects like liberal arts students. I had minimal gen eds, but I learned a few things that I thought were pretty cool at the time. Unfortunately, out of sight, out of mind, so I don't remember much.
Its called addition. Ignoring the lower division requirements makes no sense at all. A physics major will spend a large part of their first 2 years doing significant lower division work, where as the political science major can take electives in basket weaving. Your talk about "slight of hand" is just drivel, the BA physics program is clearly less rigorous. Remember, my claim is that science programs, engineering programs, etc are more rigorous than your typical liberal arts program. Therefore a comparison to the BS program makes perfect sense. Perhaps your claims would make sense if there was another more rigorous offering from the Political science department, but there is not.
Simply counting the units does not even account for the differences in difficult between the course work. Your typical liberal arts class is a cake walk and requires less time than your typical science, engineering, etc course.
There will always be individuals seeking the path of least resistance, no matter which field you are studying. Though I think basket weaving is a negative (and even ludicrous) stereotype, you may very well be right. There are individuals that insist on taking easy classes so that they can breeze through college. I don't think my university offered a basket weaving course, though I may be wrong.
I'm not sure why you've developed such a negative perspective on the liberal arts. Perhaps you knew some liberal arts majors who sought the easiest way to a degree and you despised them for it. Perhaps you yourself took this route and you despise yourself for it (I still don't know where you went to school or what you majored in). I think I look at it in a positive light because I know that I challenged myself in college. I personally opted for the difficult courses, because I enjoyed the challenge. I took courses in a plethora of subjects including computer science, accounting, business, economics, statistics, calculus and even in the sciences (geology/biology). I had no interest in certain technical fields like pre-med, engineering, or accounting, so that's why I avoided majoring in them. My interests were computers, economics/business, and political science (hence why I switched majors three times).
I think somewhere along the lines we got to arguing two different points. I cannot argue that the degree requirements in English or Political Science are more rigorous than a degree in Molecular Biology or Aeronautical Engineering. I highly respect individuals who hold degrees in these fields. The point I was making before I got side tracked with this silly debate is that liberal arts majors develop a certain set of skills that can be used in certain administrative/sales/management positions. I speak from personal experience on this. Right out of college, I got an entry level position in supply chain management with a large US telecom company. I'm even paid a higher salary than some of my friends with business management/MIS degrees. I also personally know people with English/Fine Arts degrees that have good paying jobs in fields such as marketing or public relations. One guy I know had a degree in economics and started working for Facebook as a software developer right out of college.
Yes, we will never be able to demand high-paying engineering or medical jobs that an engineer or a doctor can. But there are plenty of mid-level administrative/management jobs that need to be filled in this world (though maybe not during this recession).
Are you concerned about the direction of the US, or the pickle liberal arts majors may find themselves in once graduated?
Both. But my comments are often misinterpreted, its not that I think the liberal arts are bad rather its that I think liberal arts programs at most universities are bad. They are largely worthless and exist to feel a demand from an eager supply of proles who have been convinced they need to go to college to succeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Any way, of course science degrees are more difficult to obtain. I don't think anyone would argue that.
Why "of course"? There is no good reason why science degrees should be more difficult to obtain in the US, its just the way the education system has structured itself in the US.
The majority of "universities" have become something more akin to tech schools than places of actual scholarship. This is just as much true of the Science programs as it is of the Liberal arts programs, but at least the science programs are a bit more demanding within the field they are teaching.
I'm not sure why you've developed such a negative perspective on the liberal arts.
I don't have a negative perspective on the liberal arts, rather liberal arts programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcb1025
The point I was making before I got side tracked with this silly debate is that liberal arts majors develop a certain set of skills that can be used in certain administrative/sales/management positions.
And my response to this as before is that the skills you are referring to really can't be taught. You realize you can read books and discuss things with people without going to college right? Can you describe how these skills are better developed by paying X amount of dollars and sitting in classes rather than simply reading books and discussing matters with people?
The only liberal arts that actually makes any attempt to teach critical thinking is Philosophy. Which, brings me to my previous question. What does political science add above and beyond Philosophy except dogma? Repeat the same question for the various other liberal arts programs.
And my response to this as before is that the skills you are referring to really can't be taught. You realize you can read books and discuss things with people without going to college right? Can you describe how these skills are better developed by paying X amount of dollars and sitting in classes rather than simply reading books and discussing matters with people?
I understand what you're saying, and believe it or not, I agree with you that these skills can't be taught per se. On the other hand, the classroom discussions provide a controlled environment where you can practice these skills and learn to develop them on your own (in other words, you're getting experience). I believe that how well you develop them is highly dependent on your preexisting abilities and effort. The same goes for learning any set of skills. An instructor can provide examples, but it's up to you to develop the skills. How do you do that? Experience, of course.
On to your next point... You're certainly right, you can have similar discussions outside of a college classroom, just like we are now. But what's an employer going to take more seriously when reviewing your resume: a) that you had these discussions in a controlled environment in a college classroom where you are critiqued and graded on your performance, or b) that you had discussions at coffee shops/Internet forums with your friends/neighbors/etc. where you have little or no accountability for your performance? To be frank, I'm not sure they're concerned with the discussions you have on your own private time.
Do I agree with this system? Not necessarily, as you can see from some of my other threads on this forum. But when it comes down to it, I think the majority of employers are going to take a candidate more serious when they can show them the piece of paper that supposedly proves to them that they have the skills that they say they have. Now whether you want to believe that these skills can be developed in a particular academic program is totally up to you. But hey, I got a job after college, so apparently my employer believed that I did develop these skills in my academic program. That's all that matters to me.
I would eventually like to get into a computer programming career. To be a programmer, one must have decent reasoning skills and a concrete understanding of how computers work. I'm pretty confident that I possess both. I've studied computers and programming languages in my own free time for many years. Yet, unfortunately, I don't think many companies will take me seriously as a candidate simply because a) I don't have relevant work experience, and b) I do not possess a degree in computer science.
I think it's silly, because I know that I am capable of doing most programming/IT jobs. Unfortunately, rather than take my word for it, they want to see that over priced piece of paper that supposedly proves that I know my stuff. Regardless of whether you like it or not, it is what it is.
Both. But my comments are often misinterpreted, its not that I think the liberal arts are bad rather its that I think liberal arts programs at most universities are bad. They are largely worthless and exist to feel a demand from an eager supply of proles who have been convinced they need to go to college to succeed.
Perhaps they are. You would know better than I given your profession (as I understand it). OTOH, these degrees do have application in some settings in our society. Ideally, current liberal arts education in college should be covered in high school and rigorous study would in turn be found at uni. That's not the case, tho, and until education at the high school level changes I don't see the point of discouraging college education outside financial considerations.
Quote:
Why "of course"? There is no good reason why science degrees should be more difficult to obtain in the US, its just the way the education system has structured itself in the US.
We're not talking about the philosophy of poly-sci, etc, but the content that is taught, which is not as difficult to grasp. So, yea, of course.
Quote:
The majority of "universities" have become something more akin to tech schools than places of actual scholarship. This is just as much true of the Science programs as it is of the Liberal arts programs, but at least the science programs are a bit more demanding within the field they are teaching.
But where there is demand, there is supply.
I'm not sure why you consider science programs as more demanding in the context of this conversation. If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't appreciate how subject matter is approached in the liberal arts. Ime, there isn't a philosophical bent in science programs either. My old boss tended to complain about how science classes were approached, taught, etc. He didn't like the idea of students memorizing material or simply being able to plug and play equations. And 'weed-out' classes, in his opinion, were an affront to education, but that's how it went ime at uni. Still, the information and experience is necessary. It has application post-college and professionally, tho, I agree that it's not scholarly.
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.
