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.
tho, and until education at the high school level changes I don't see the point of discouraging college education outside financial considerations.
I'm speaking from a purely educational point of view, the degree can have some monetary value because a large part of society also thinks these degrees have some sort of value. So in that sense its a matter of conformity.
Also, I'm sure which profession you think I'm in. I have in the past been involved in university level education, but I only casually work in this area now (its a hopeless endeavor).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
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.
You appear to be suggesting that science is "harder to grasp", which is silly. You said "Of course" science is more difficult and I don't get the "of course". You mention the "content that is taught", yet my whole point here is that the liberal arts programs at most universities offer a poor liberal arts education.
I also don't know what the "philosophy of political science" is, much all the intellectual meat in political science comes from Philosophy. Political science, like many other liberal arts programs are essentially sub-fields of Philosophy that have been created into their own "field" to make them seem official. The name for political science is particularly amusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
I'm not sure why you consider science programs as more demanding in the context of this conversation.
Science programs are just as lacking in scholarship, but they more rigorously teach the material within the field. I believe this makes them better choices for your average kid going to your typical public university.
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
The classroom is just a room filled with people, in what sense is it "controlled"? Because you have some (usually highly biased) instructor interjecting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcb1025
But what's an employer going to take more seriously when reviewing your resume
What an employer does depends on the nature of the job and company. Not everyone has duped themselves into thinking these pieces of paper have value.
But in many cases one is benefited from conforming and getting a degree and looking good on paper, of course the benefit is usually becoming a wage-slave in a lower end job... But still there can be some advantage to it, but I'm talking about education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcb1025
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.
Companies offering run of the mill jobs may not take you seriously, but any company that actually has interesting jobs is not going to be particularly concerned whether you have a degree in computer science or not . They are concerned with how good you are and there are a number of ways you can demonstrate that outside of getting a degree in computer science. In fact, unless your degree is from CMU, MIT, Stanford, etc, your degree really does not demonstrate much at all.
But simply believing you are "good" is not going to cut it.
I'm speaking from a purely educational point of view, the degree can have some monetary value because a large part of society also thinks these degrees have some sort of value. So in that sense its a matter of conformity.
Also, I'm sure which profession you think I'm in. I have in the past been involved in university level education, but I only casually work in this area now (its a hopeless endeavor).
I knew you did something in education, but not only teaching. I got the feeling that it was some kind of research in higher education. This is all guess work on my part and poor recall.
Quote:
You appear to be suggesting that science is "harder to grasp", which is silly. You said "Of course" science is more difficult and I don't get the "of course". You mention the "content that is taught", yet my whole point here is that the liberal arts programs at most universities offer a poor liberal arts education.
I'm confused about what you are trying to say. When you state 'programs' I don't know if you're referring to the design, individual subjects, how they are taught, etc. When I think of course content I'm comparing the basics. For example, undergrad biochemistry or biology is much easier to grasp than physical chemistry simply because there's no need to derive equations in biochem. Or learning to understand what constitutes a cell is not as challenging as understanding pKa or Log P/D.
Perhaps if you could provide some examples I'd understand what you mean.
Quote:
I also don't know what the "philosophy of political science" is, much all the intellectual meat in political science comes from Philosophy. Political science, like many other liberal arts programs are essentially sub-fields of Philosophy that have been created into their own "field" to make them seem official. The name for political science is particularly amusing.
This is where I get confused. I have never taken a course in philosophy, unfortunately, so I'm having a hard time following along. What it looks like to me is that perhaps these programs were initially subsets of philosophy, they've become something else.
Quote:
Science programs are just as lacking in scholarship, but they more rigorously teach the material within the field. I believe this makes them better choices for your average kid going to your typical public university.
The classroom is just a room filled with people, in what sense is it "controlled"? Because you have some (usually highly biased) instructor interjecting?
What an employer does depends on the nature of the job and company. Not everyone has duped themselves into thinking these pieces of paper have value.
But in many cases one is benefited from conforming and getting a degree and looking good on paper, of course the benefit is usually becoming a wage-slave in a lower end job... But still there can be some advantage to it, but I'm talking about education.
Companies offering run of the mill jobs may not take you seriously, but any company that actually has interesting jobs is not going to be particularly concerned whether you have a degree in computer science or not . They are concerned with how good you are and there are a number of ways you can demonstrate that outside of getting a degree in computer science. In fact, unless your degree is from CMU, MIT, Stanford, etc, your degree really does not demonstrate much at all.
But simply believing you are "good" is not going to cut it.
What metrics are you using to back up your claim that the quality of most liberal arts programs is poor? See, a sound argument requires that you provide some form of credible evidence to support your claim. Thus far, you have provided no data to support this claim. I think all you have is an opinion that is unfounded.
For instance, if I claim that the quality of American automobiles is generally poorer than the industry standard, I might use data that shows that there are actually significant engineering flaws in the vehicle in comparison to the industry standard. But if I claim that American cars suck with no proof that they have any engineering flaws, well then, I just have myself an opinion that may very well be contrary to the facts.
I'm confused about what you are trying to say. When you state 'programs' I don't know if you're referring to the design, individual subjects, how they are taught, etc. When I think of course content I'm comparing the basics.
I'm using word how its usually used in this context, namely to refer to the degrees (ahem...programs) offered by universities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
For example, undergrad biochemistry or biology is much easier to grasp than physical chemistry simply because there's no need to derive equations in biochem.
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".
I'm not sure what you want me to give examples of, I'm disagreeing with something you stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
This is where I get confused. I have never taken a course in philosophy, unfortunately, so I'm having a hard time following along. What it looks like to me is that perhaps these programs were initially subsets of philosophy, they've become something else.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
An example here would be great.
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.
What metrics are you using to back up your claim that the quality of most liberal arts programs is poor? See, a sound argument requires that you provide some form of credible evidence to support your claim.
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.
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.
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. First off, nobody's arguing with you that a liberal arts degree is more challenging than an engineering degree. Secondly, a program is not poor simply because it has fewer requirements than another program. If anything, it may merely suggest that you need fewer classes to understand the subject in comparison to the other program, but then, when did quantity ever become a necessary condition for quality?
Let me break your argument down so you can see for yourself how silly you sound. So, your premise-premise-conclusion is such:
If Program A requires less course work than Program B, it is poor.
Program A requires less course work than Program B.
Therefore, Program A is poor.
Hmm, so then with your logic, I can argue that:
An associates degree in physics or computer science or nursing requires less course work than a bachelor's degree in art history. Therefore, an associates degree in physics or computer science or nursing is poor.
Your logic is absolutely flawless!
Your conclusion is that liberal arts programs are poor, but your points only suggest that they require less pertinent course work than the sciences or engineering. Though this may be true at certain schools, it does not imply that the quality of the liberal arts program in itself is poor. Rather, it means exactly what it sounds like it means: that it has fewer pertinent course work requirements than programs in the sciences and engineering.
In addition to that, you're ASSUMING that everyone in liberal arts takes the easiest classes possible. Case in point: you suggested in an earlier post that students take classes like basket weaving. That's absolutely ridiculous and is only a reflection of your true ignorance on this topic. Nobody I know with a liberal arts degree ever took such a class. In fact, I know several liberal arts majors who took classes in calculus and the hard sciences. A liberal arts curriculum, after all, is intended to be well-rounded.
political science sure why not. yep ye ol 4 year college, college is a wonderful place to escape reality for 5 years. pretty girls, 100 ways to dodge core classes, italian 101 body building ethnic studies. 1000 miles from VE or other job related training.
Especially, if remaining ignorant is your goal in life.
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.
