So few liberal arts majors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

“Inconceivable?” Really? I dropped physics for history, because, frankly, 3 courses in quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and QED taught me that physics wasn’t going to magically become interesting to me, no matter how much I tried to lie to myself that it could. Most of my coursework involved applying knowledge from a textbook and once you learn the lingo (or really the principles of linear algebra), you could easily get at least a B in the class.

No math or STEM major would call that an advanced Math class. Hence the fallacy of the argument.

DP but you seem to be the ignorant one. Stanford Quantum Field Theory course is a 330 level class: “300 and above: courses for graduate students” according to Stanford. Quantum mechanics alone is an upper division undergraduate course.

Linear Algebra. Hence what was highlighted.

They were explaining that you need to understand linear algebra to get QM. Also linear algebra doesn’t stop at your baby intro you took freshman year. It has upper division and graduate level coursework that is foundational to Machine Learning, Quantum Mechanics, etc. A math major who dismisses linear as non important or easy…isn’t a math major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

Unless you are requiring I read it in French, I gather anyone can actually read the English translation. Correct?

What's bold is that you think you could walk into these very high level Math classes and even understand what is written in front of you. I think that's the difference of what you don't understand.

[Anonymous]

These past two pages are anti-intellectualism on steroids, likely by a stem freshman barely passing his coursework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These past two pages are anti-intellectualism on steroids, likely by a stem freshman barely passing his coursework.

There's the capitulation!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few kids live in the DCUM bubble and can afford to major in something frivolous knowing that their school’s prestige and parental connections will ensure they do well anyway. Most kids are forced to be practical.

False dichotomy. You can have a rigorous liberal arts education AND major in something “practical”.

+100

I don’t understand why people think they can’t get a good job or meaningful career with a liberal arts education. I would hire a liberal arts graduate over a business degree undergrad any day.

+100. Early specialization is not necessarily good. Many LAC graduates build foundational skills in writing, critical thinking, math, presentation, communication etc and go on to be senior leaders of multi national companies.

The top undergraduate majors by far for top execs are business and STEM.

I don’t really get why there is this argument when it comes to average outcomes or what humanities folks end up doing for a living.

The reason STEM is a donator and 70% of people leave the STEM workforce, is because the work life sucks and employers are ruthless--burn and churn, replace older workers with new graduates rather than train, etc. People with STEM degrees, *and* people skills get out. Non-STEM course work often helps with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

I was a philosophy major with a math minor. I'm very confident that the average math major could manage to earn a far better grade in a 400 level english or history class than the average religious studies or art history student could earn in a 400 level math class.

I am going to trust this person the most. Unless you have actually attempted both, there is no way to comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few kids live in the DCUM bubble and can afford to major in something frivolous knowing that their school’s prestige and parental connections will ensure they do well anyway. Most kids are forced to be practical.

False dichotomy. You can have a rigorous liberal arts education AND major in something “practical”.

+100

I don’t understand why people think they can’t get a good job or meaningful career with a liberal arts education. I would hire a liberal arts graduate over a business degree undergrad any day.

+100. Early specialization is not necessarily good. Many LAC graduates build foundational skills in writing, critical thinking, math, presentation, communication etc and go on to be senior leaders of multi national companies.

The top undergraduate majors by far for top execs are business and STEM.

I don’t really get why there is this argument when it comes to average outcomes or what humanities folks end up doing for a living.

The reason STEM is a donator and 70% of people leave the STEM workforce, is because the work life sucks and employers are ruthless--burn and churn, replace older workers with new graduates rather than train, etc. People with STEM degrees, *and* people skills get out. Non-STEM course work often helps with this.

I have read that 50% of women leave the STEM workforce and far fewer men do the same (probably for obvious reasons around tech bro culture)...where are you getting your 70%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

Unless you are requiring I read it in French, I gather anyone can actually read the English translation. Correct?

What's bold is that you think you could walk into these very high level Math classes and even understand what is written in front of you. I think that's the difference of what you don't understand.

You know what, you should test your hypothesis! Crack open Speech and Phenomena or Of Grammatology, these are easy primers, and come back with your findings! Doesn’t matter that most people need multiple courses in epistemology, existentialism, or phenomenology, Heidegger, Plato, de Saussure, etc. all trash, you’re a stem grad, presumably, so this is easy work!


On a serious note, I’ve known many math-philosophy majors who’d choke laughing at your comments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

Unless you are requiring I read it in French, I gather anyone can actually read the English translation. Correct?

What's bold is that you think you could walk into these very high level Math classes and even understand what is written in front of you. I think that's the difference of what you don't understand.

You know what, you should test your hypothesis! Crack open Speech and Phenomena or Of Grammatology, these are easy primers, and come back with your findings! Doesn’t matter that most people need multiple courses in epistemology, existentialism, or phenomenology, Heidegger, Plato, de Saussure, etc. all trash, you’re a stem grad, presumably, so this is easy work!


On a serious note, I’ve known many math-philosophy majors who’d choke laughing at your comments

Like the PP just two posts up that directly took a shit on what you just wrote?

[Anonymous]

Physics and philosophy grad smiling hard at this conversation. Most undergrads would fail if they had to attempt either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

Unless you are requiring I read it in French, I gather anyone can actually read the English translation. Correct?

What's bold is that you think you could walk into these very high level Math classes and even understand what is written in front of you. I think that's the difference of what you don't understand.

You know what, you should test your hypothesis! Crack open Speech and Phenomena or Of Grammatology, these are easy primers, and come back with your findings! Doesn’t matter that most people need multiple courses in epistemology, existentialism, or phenomenology, Heidegger, Plato, de Saussure, etc. all trash, you’re a stem grad, presumably, so this is easy work!


On a serious note, I’ve known many math-philosophy majors who’d choke laughing at your comments

Like the PP just two posts up that directly took a shit on what you just wrote?

Not sure why you wouldn’t at least peer into what people are talking about if you want to speak boldly on the topic. You can find Derrida’s work for free. It really isn’t anywhere as simple as you think, and philosophy being treated as some simple subject is a sad state of affairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

Unless you are requiring I read it in French, I gather anyone can actually read the English translation. Correct?

What's bold is that you think you could walk into these very high level Math classes and even understand what is written in front of you. I think that's the difference of what you don't understand.

You know what, you should test your hypothesis! Crack open Speech and Phenomena or Of Grammatology, these are easy primers, and come back with your findings! Doesn’t matter that most people need multiple courses in epistemology, existentialism, or phenomenology, Heidegger, Plato, de Saussure, etc. all trash, you’re a stem grad, presumably, so this is easy work!


On a serious note, I’ve known many math-philosophy majors who’d choke laughing at your comments

I was a philosophy major with a math minor. I'm very confident that the average math major could manage to earn a far better grade in a 400 level english or history class than the average religious studies or art history student could earn in a 400 level math class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

A math major could bs their way to a C or a D in a Derrida seminar. Could a philosophy major do the same in Number Theory 2?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was just trying to read my car manual this weekend because I had a question about something and it was gibberish. Clearly, the world needs more English majors who can write clearly. It was just shockingly bad.

That is why someone with a STEM background with very strong communication skills and writing skills can go far. Every company needs a strong marketing team, someone who can write the manuals, etc. But it's hard for an English only major to be strong in the products of many companies . Hence by both skill sets are important

LOL I’m but a lowly English major but I’m pretty sure I could write a car user manual without an extensive background in STEM. Of course I also took advanced math and science classes because I went to a liberal arts college so maybe that qualifies me to explain what the various lights on the dashboard signify.

STEM people always think they can easily master the humanities and that humanities folks can’t do STEM but that’s just arrogance.

My guess is the "advanced math and science classes" you claim you took aren't what a STEM person would consider advanced math and sciences.

I don't think people think they can master the humanities, but they are fairly certain that if they take an upper level English course they will understand the language in which the course is taught and will be able to answer the questions.

I was an econ major (which is a liberal arts major) and took some "advanced math" classes and decided to take a relatively low-level advanced math class for STEM kids. I couldn't even understand what the professor was writing on the board. It would be the equivalent of taking an English class where I first had to learn 7th century English prior to even attempting to read the texts and answering the questions.

It's inconceivable that any English major would take such a class...if you actually did and did very well, then you would have switched majors or at least pursued a dual-major because you would have to really love the material to do well.

Maybe if you go to a trash school. The average stem student would struggle in a levinas seminar, would stumble through any upper level seminar for religious studies, would fail writing an upper level history paper with proper format, wouldn’t even have the pre reqs needed to begin coursework in the classics or comparative literature, and maybe would be okay with the demanding coursework of an upper division lit class.

Correct...they could stumble through the classes which means they would be able to read the books and answer the questions. This wasn't about doing well in the classes.

The converse is the English lit kid or religious studies couldn't even stumble through the advanced STEM classes. They might be lucky to score 5 points out of 100...but the reality is they would drop the class on Day 1.

I really don’t think the average engineering student can comprehend Baudelaire, Ezra Pound, Agamben, Hegel, Derrida, close reading of any ecclesiastical writing or the Quran or really any theology, nor could they catch up in a Ulysses seminar. Why I’m having to defend that upper division coursework is, well, upper division? I don’t know.

But, I bet they could stumble through while a humanities kid taking the equivalent Math class would get a zero on the tests. They couldn't even stumble through. They wouldn't understand a single thing written on the board.

Do you understand Derrida? Seriously you seem way out of your element right now but you are talking very boldly. It’s a bit naive thinking you can begin to comprehend fields of study you haven’t actually dug into.

Unless you are requiring I read it in French, I gather anyone can actually read the English translation. Correct?

What's bold is that you think you could walk into these very high level Math classes and even understand what is written in front of you. I think that's the difference of what you don't understand.

You know what, you should test your hypothesis! Crack open Speech and Phenomena or Of Grammatology, these are easy primers, and come back with your findings! Doesn’t matter that most people need multiple courses in epistemology, existentialism, or phenomenology, Heidegger, Plato, de Saussure, etc. all trash, you’re a stem grad, presumably, so this is easy work!


On a serious note, I’ve known many math-philosophy majors who’d choke laughing at your comments

I was a philosophy major with a math minor. I'm very confident that the average math major could manage to earn a far better grade in a 400 level english or history class than the average religious studies or art history student could earn in a 400 level math class.

+1 I majored in engineering with a dual major in history (solely due to interest)...no comparison at all.