So few liberal arts majors

[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:

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?

This is the whole point everybody. The math major isn't doing well, but at least they are getting a D. They aren't handing in a blank term paper or not even trying to answer questions on an exam.

I don't think you understand that the converse just doesn't hold true. The humanities major that on a lark decides to take some of these advanced Math classes will literally score a zero on the tests. They will hand in a blank piece of paper because they won't have any clue what is being asked.

Rant over!

But that’s because the humanities major would presumably be missing foundational knowledge necessary to grasp the basics of the class, not because the humanities major is inherently stupider than the STEM major, or because their existing knowledge base is less valuable. A better analogy would be considering how a STEM major would do if dropped into a 300 or 400 level foreign language class. And, for the same reason, I don’t think the STEM majors inability to comprehend the basic texts being read in the class would be that meaningful.

Is reasoning by analogy a humanities skill? Do they not teach it in STEM?

I'm a humanities proponent but this analogy is not great. The bulk of humanities majors are in field like English that do not require advanced foreign language skill. An English or Africana studies or gender studies major dropped into abstract algebra would get a literal 0. A math major dropped into an advanced seminar for one of those fields could probably squeeze out a C. Classics, East Asian, Near Eastern studies would be different.

What makes an East Asian studies class more rigorous than an Africana studies class?

That PP was so biased, it's nuts. So many assumptions and bias for hosts of reasons. Just an example of their very limited perspective and consumption of false premises.

[Anonymous]

Make your kids double major in STEM and Liberal Arts.

[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:

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?

This is the whole point everybody. The math major isn't doing well, but at least they are getting a D. They aren't handing in a blank term paper or not even trying to answer questions on an exam.

I don't think you understand that the converse just doesn't hold true. The humanities major that on a lark decides to take some of these advanced Math classes will literally score a zero on the tests. They will hand in a blank piece of paper because they won't have any clue what is being asked.

Rant over!

But that’s because the humanities major would presumably be missing foundational knowledge necessary to grasp the basics of the class, not because the humanities major is inherently stupider than the STEM major, or because their existing knowledge base is less valuable. A better analogy would be considering how a STEM major would do if dropped into a 300 or 400 level foreign language class. And, for the same reason, I don’t think the STEM majors inability to comprehend the basic texts being read in the class would be that meaningful.

Is reasoning by analogy a humanities skill? Do they not teach it in STEM?

I'm a humanities proponent but this analogy is not great. The bulk of humanities majors are in field like English that do not require advanced foreign language skill. An English or Africana studies or gender studies major dropped into abstract algebra would get a literal 0. A math major dropped into an advanced seminar for one of those fields could probably squeeze out a C. Classics, East Asian, Near Eastern studies would be different.

What makes an East Asian studies class more rigorous than an Africana studies class?

That PP was so biased, it's nuts. So many assumptions and bias for hosts of reasons. Just an example of their very limited perspective and consumption of false premises.

East Asian Studies, in the colleges I'm familiar with, typically involves advanced foreign language study, whereas Africana studies does not. Obviously if you're taking senior seminars in Swahili or Touareg, this does not apply to you.

[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:

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?

This is the whole point everybody. The math major isn't doing well, but at least they are getting a D. They aren't handing in a blank term paper or not even trying to answer questions on an exam.

I don't think you understand that the converse just doesn't hold true. The humanities major that on a lark decides to take some of these advanced Math classes will literally score a zero on the tests. They will hand in a blank piece of paper because they won't have any clue what is being asked.

Rant over!

But that’s because the humanities major would presumably be missing foundational knowledge necessary to grasp the basics of the class, not because the humanities major is inherently stupider than the STEM major, or because their existing knowledge base is less valuable. A better analogy would be considering how a STEM major would do if dropped into a 300 or 400 level foreign language class. And, for the same reason, I don’t think the STEM majors inability to comprehend the basic texts being read in the class would be that meaningful.

Is reasoning by analogy a humanities skill? Do they not teach it in STEM?

I'm a humanities proponent but this analogy is not great. The bulk of humanities majors are in field like English that do not require advanced foreign language skill. An English or Africana studies or gender studies major dropped into abstract algebra would get a literal 0. A math major dropped into an advanced seminar for one of those fields could probably squeeze out a C. Classics, East Asian, Near Eastern studies would be different.

What makes an East Asian studies class more rigorous than an Africana studies class?

That PP was so biased, it's nuts. So many assumptions and bias for hosts of reasons. Just an example of their very limited perspective and consumption of false premises.

East Asian Studies, in the colleges I'm familiar with, typically involves advanced foreign language study, whereas Africana studies does not. Obviously if you're taking senior seminars in Swahili or Touareg, this does not apply to you.

So…just learning another language? A lot of East Asian studies majors don’t even need to learn another major, they likely speak the language.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yet many study the sciences...Not to be anti-intellectual, but many scientific pursuits are purely meaningless, require a PhD, and pay $30k-40k

So friggin true it hurts. Studying physics was great but possibly one of the most useless things I have done in my life. It is mostly a field that generates no profit and has been consistently a mess for the pass 50 years with little progress to the fundamental questions still lurking. Overall, I would not recommend a science degree over a mathematics or engineering pursuit.

Yea, my sibling studied physics at Cal. Couldn't get a decent job, so went back to school and got a masters in engineering, then found a job.

They loved physics, but it wasn't practical. We don't come from money. We needed to be practical.

[Anonymous]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcperna/2025/01/14/best-college-degrees-to-avoid-underemployment/

According to the data from higher education research group Degreechoices, these are the ten degrees with the highest rates of underemployment:

Criminal justice: 71.5%
Performing arts: 65.9%
Art history: 62.3%
Leisure and hospitality: 57.6%
Liberal arts: 56.7%
Animal and plant sciences: 56.3%
Fine arts: 55.5%
Miscellaneous technologies: 54.8%
Business management: 53.6%
History: 53.5%



https://www.newsweek.com/four-college-majors-most-likely-leave-students-unemployed-1972513

liberal arts majors had early-career median wages of $38,000, an underemployment rate of 56.7 percent, and an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcperna/2025/01/14/best-college-degrees-to-avoid-underemployment/

According to the data from higher education research group Degreechoices, these are the ten degrees with the highest rates of underemployment:

Criminal justice: 71.5%
Performing arts: 65.9%
Art history: 62.3%
Leisure and hospitality: 57.6%
Liberal arts: 56.7%
Animal and plant sciences: 56.3%
Fine arts: 55.5%
Miscellaneous technologies: 54.8%
Business management: 53.6%
History: 53.5%



https://www.newsweek.com/four-college-majors-most-likely-leave-students-unemployed-1972513

liberal arts majors had early-career median wages of $38,000, an underemployment rate of 56.7 percent, and an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent.

Liberal arts by itself as a degree is unspecialized and usually at a community college level (like the 2-year School of Liberal Studies at NYU). When people say they are going to a liberal arts college, they are majoring in a specific area within the liberal arts (math, biology, literature, history, etc.) not called "liberal arts."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcperna/2025/01/14/best-college-degrees-to-avoid-underemployment/

According to the data from higher education research group Degreechoices, these are the ten degrees with the highest rates of underemployment:

Criminal justice: 71.5%
Performing arts: 65.9%
Art history: 62.3%
Leisure and hospitality: 57.6%
Liberal arts: 56.7%
Animal and plant sciences: 56.3%
Fine arts: 55.5%
Miscellaneous technologies: 54.8%
Business management: 53.6%
History: 53.5%



https://www.newsweek.com/four-college-majors-most-likely-leave-students-unemployed-1972513

liberal arts majors had early-career median wages of $38,000, an underemployment rate of 56.7 percent, and an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent.

Liberal arts by itself as a degree is unspecialized and usually at a community college level (like the 2-year School of Liberal Studies at NYU). When people say they are going to a liberal arts college, they are majoring in a specific area within the liberal arts (math, biology, literature, history, etc.) not called "liberal arts."

Yes, and history on the list.

[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:

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?

This is the whole point everybody. The math major isn't doing well, but at least they are getting a D. They aren't handing in a blank term paper or not even trying to answer questions on an exam.

I don't think you understand that the converse just doesn't hold true. The humanities major that on a lark decides to take some of these advanced Math classes will literally score a zero on the tests. They will hand in a blank piece of paper because they won't have any clue what is being asked.

Rant over!

But that’s because the humanities major would presumably be missing foundational knowledge necessary to grasp the basics of the class, not because the humanities major is inherently stupider than the STEM major, or because their existing knowledge base is less valuable. A better analogy would be considering how a STEM major would do if dropped into a 300 or 400 level foreign language class. And, for the same reason, I don’t think the STEM majors inability to comprehend the basic texts being read in the class would be that meaningful.

Is reasoning by analogy a humanities skill? Do they not teach it in STEM?

I'm a humanities proponent but this analogy is not great. The bulk of humanities majors are in field like English that do not require advanced foreign language skill. An English or Africana studies or gender studies major dropped into abstract algebra would get a literal 0. A math major dropped into an advanced seminar for one of those fields could probably squeeze out a C. Classics, East Asian, Near Eastern studies would be different.

What makes an East Asian studies class more rigorous than an Africana studies class?

That PP was so biased, it's nuts. So many assumptions and bias for hosts of reasons. Just an example of their very limited perspective and consumption of false premises.

East Asian Studies, in the colleges I'm familiar with, typically involves advanced foreign language study, whereas Africana studies does not. Obviously if you're taking senior seminars in Swahili or Touareg, this does not apply to you.

So…just learning another language? A lot of East Asian studies majors don’t even need to learn another major, they likely speak the language.

Stereotype. What about Near Eastern Studies majors? Do they all grow up learning Akkadian from their nannies?

[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:

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?

This is the whole point everybody. The math major isn't doing well, but at least they are getting a D. They aren't handing in a blank term paper or not even trying to answer questions on an exam.

I don't think you understand that the converse just doesn't hold true. The humanities major that on a lark decides to take some of these advanced Math classes will literally score a zero on the tests. They will hand in a blank piece of paper because they won't have any clue what is being asked.

Rant over!

But that’s because the humanities major would presumably be missing foundational knowledge necessary to grasp the basics of the class, not because the humanities major is inherently stupider than the STEM major, or because their existing knowledge base is less valuable. A better analogy would be considering how a STEM major would do if dropped into a 300 or 400 level foreign language class. And, for the same reason, I don’t think the STEM majors inability to comprehend the basic texts being read in the class would be that meaningful.

Is reasoning by analogy a humanities skill? Do they not teach it in STEM?

I'm a humanities proponent but this analogy is not great. The bulk of humanities majors are in field like English that do not require advanced foreign language skill. An English or Africana studies or gender studies major dropped into abstract algebra would get a literal 0. A math major dropped into an advanced seminar for one of those fields could probably squeeze out a C. Classics, East Asian, Near Eastern studies would be different.

What makes an East Asian studies class more rigorous than an Africana studies class?

That PP was so biased, it's nuts. So many assumptions and bias for hosts of reasons. Just an example of their very limited perspective and consumption of false premises.

East Asian Studies, in the colleges I'm familiar with, typically involves advanced foreign language study, whereas Africana studies does not. Obviously if you're taking senior seminars in Swahili or Touareg, this does not apply to you.

So…just learning another language? A lot of East Asian studies majors don’t even need to learn another major, they likely speak the language.

Stereotype. What about Near Eastern Studies majors? Do they all grow up learning Akkadian from their nannies?

I mean that’s great and all, but that doesn’t make it more sophisticated than any other area study- just happens to be that we don’t speak those languages. The actual methods of most area studies degrees are quite similar and are a smorgasbord of tools learned from late anthro, history, occasionally English/critical studies, etc.

[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:

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?

This is the whole point everybody. The math major isn't doing well, but at least they are getting a D. They aren't handing in a blank term paper or not even trying to answer questions on an exam.

I don't think you understand that the converse just doesn't hold true. The humanities major that on a lark decides to take some of these advanced Math classes will literally score a zero on the tests. They will hand in a blank piece of paper because they won't have any clue what is being asked.

Rant over!

But that’s because the humanities major would presumably be missing foundational knowledge necessary to grasp the basics of the class, not because the humanities major is inherently stupider than the STEM major, or because their existing knowledge base is less valuable. A better analogy would be considering how a STEM major would do if dropped into a 300 or 400 level foreign language class. And, for the same reason, I don’t think the STEM majors inability to comprehend the basic texts being read in the class would be that meaningful.

Is reasoning by analogy a humanities skill? Do they not teach it in STEM?

I'm a humanities proponent but this analogy is not great. The bulk of humanities majors are in field like English that do not require advanced foreign language skill. An English or Africana studies or gender studies major dropped into abstract algebra would get a literal 0. A math major dropped into an advanced seminar for one of those fields could probably squeeze out a C. Classics, East Asian, Near Eastern studies would be different.

What makes an East Asian studies class more rigorous than an Africana studies class?

That PP was so biased, it's nuts. So many assumptions and bias for hosts of reasons. Just an example of their very limited perspective and consumption of false premises.

East Asian Studies, in the colleges I'm familiar with, typically involves advanced foreign language study, whereas Africana studies does not. Obviously if you're taking senior seminars in Swahili or Touareg, this does not apply to you.

So…just learning another language? A lot of East Asian studies majors don’t even need to learn another major, they likely speak the language.

Stereotype. What about Near Eastern Studies majors? Do they all grow up learning Akkadian from their nannies?

I mean that’s great and all, but that doesn’t make it more sophisticated than any other area study- just happens to be that we don’t speak those languages. The actual methods of most area studies degrees are quite similar and are a smorgasbord of tools learned from late anthro, history, occasionally English/critical studies, etc.

Yes, it's a smorgasbord. This is why a math major dropped into an advanced area studies class could get a low C. Because the background techniques and information aren't rigidly scaffolded but just sort of here and there and can be picked up. Whereas math is rigidly scaffolded, so an area studies major without the background would get close to zero in number theory 2.

The same doesn't apply to foreign language humanities, especially difficult ones.