For the level of student development the introductory courses I had to take were quite difficult. Not worthless at all. The advanced classes were only more focused, which in its own way presented a challenge. I don't know that they expected less of us academically in the early years-- they just didn't expect us to have a knowledge base to work from.
So that's to blame for this?Adams_BJ wrote:
I still have my bonerFatherTed wrote:
me and adums are sexes chatting
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/i … t-sinkhole
the point is to make sure that guys like jay leave with a degree and can actually read and write half decently. literacy and basic rhetoric is a problem for science grads just as numeracy can be tricky for some humanities grads. you have the minor electives to at least maintain basic competency. there's no weakness to the modest aims of these courses – they are supplementary.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well there is a point there - if low level undergraduate classes for humanities and other general ed. requirements are not as intensive as the advanced classes in those respective fields (and it's kind of silly to think they would be), what's the point of taking them?
the problem is, jay in his treatment and thinking about humanities subjects, thinks he knows what he is talking about when he dismisses them as easy and 'not rigorous' subjects. he confuses the book report segment of his science degree with the theses of an english finalist.
You shouldn't be going to university if you can't read and write half decently.
Do people studying humanities subjects have to do maths, physics etc in any kind of depth?uziq wrote:
the point is to make sure that guys like jay leave with a degree and can actually read and write half decently. literacy and basic rhetoric is a problem for science grads just as numeracy can be tricky for some humanities grads. you have the minor electives to at least maintain basic competency. there's no weakness to the modest aims of these courses – they are supplementary.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well there is a point there - if low level undergraduate classes for humanities and other general ed. requirements are not as intensive as the advanced classes in those respective fields (and it's kind of silly to think they would be), what's the point of taking them?
the problem is, jay in his treatment and thinking about humanities subjects, thinks he knows what he is talking about when he dismisses them as easy and 'not rigorous' subjects. he confuses the book report segment of his science degree with the theses of an english finalist.
I'd say that its the humanities graduates who are the least rounded, in my experience, in that they really do rarely have even the most basic knowledge outside their specialism, and very rare for a humanities type to become a polymath.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
We're talking about freshman and sophomore courses here. They're not hard. I mean, if you thought english 101 and 102 were difficult I can see why you're so touchy about defending the validity of your degree...uziq wrote:
the point is to make sure that guys like jay leave with a degree and can actually read and write half decently. literacy and basic rhetoric is a problem for science grads just as numeracy can be tricky for some humanities grads. you have the minor electives to at least maintain basic competency. there's no weakness to the modest aims of these courses – they are supplementary.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well there is a point there - if low level undergraduate classes for humanities and other general ed. requirements are not as intensive as the advanced classes in those respective fields (and it's kind of silly to think they would be), what's the point of taking them?
the problem is, jay in his treatment and thinking about humanities subjects, thinks he knows what he is talking about when he dismisses them as easy and 'not rigorous' subjects. he confuses the book report segment of his science degree with the theses of an english finalist.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Maybe this is my disconnect. I never assumed that I knew what a full degree in English literature was like because basing my opinion on my few intro courses would be as preposterous as someone taking physics 101 and business calculus and saying he knew what an engineering degree entailed. Maybe the difficulty peaks in English 101 which is why he's so angry I called it easy...Dilbert_X wrote:
Do people studying humanities subjects have to do maths, physics etc in any kind of depth?uziq wrote:
the point is to make sure that guys like jay leave with a degree and can actually read and write half decently. literacy and basic rhetoric is a problem for science grads just as numeracy can be tricky for some humanities grads. you have the minor electives to at least maintain basic competency. there's no weakness to the modest aims of these courses – they are supplementary.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well there is a point there - if low level undergraduate classes for humanities and other general ed. requirements are not as intensive as the advanced classes in those respective fields (and it's kind of silly to think they would be), what's the point of taking them?
the problem is, jay in his treatment and thinking about humanities subjects, thinks he knows what he is talking about when he dismisses them as easy and 'not rigorous' subjects. he confuses the book report segment of his science degree with the theses of an english finalist.
I'd say that its the humanities graduates who are the least rounded, in my experience, in that they really do rarely have even the most basic knowledge outside their specialism, and very rare for a humanities type to become a polymath.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I can't think of a particularly good reason a STEM major shouldn't pursue a minor in humanities, or that a humanities major shouldn't pursue a minor in math. It should broaden a student's perspective and, for the job-minded, add an extra bit of flair proving that they aren't slaves to one particular talent.
It sucks that our embarrassment at falling so far behind has placed so much pressure on so many prospective students from so many quarters (even the presidency) to buy into exaggerated projections and sometimes willful deception, and possibly set aside their own personal desires to commit to the national obsession over STEM without any real guarantee of job security. Thanks to these vile circumstances, humanities have become something of the butt of cultural derision in the United States.
"I think they should cut all those stupid courses." "English? What, do you want to be a schoolteacher?" Oh yes, because we know how practically useless teachers are. "History? You seriously had to go to college for that?" "Couldn't go for a real major, huh?" Or this wonderful attempt at soft redirection to a "more useful" branch: "why didn't you go into law?"
Pfft.
I got the barest personal taste of it while attending college myself. Computer electronics? Pats on the back to go around. After returning later for media design? Way less enthusiasm, in spite of it having involved computers. I could just imagine if it were something like musicology or traditional art instead. I'm almost tempted.
It sucks that our embarrassment at falling so far behind has placed so much pressure on so many prospective students from so many quarters (even the presidency) to buy into exaggerated projections and sometimes willful deception, and possibly set aside their own personal desires to commit to the national obsession over STEM without any real guarantee of job security. Thanks to these vile circumstances, humanities have become something of the butt of cultural derision in the United States.
"I think they should cut all those stupid courses." "English? What, do you want to be a schoolteacher?" Oh yes, because we know how practically useless teachers are. "History? You seriously had to go to college for that?" "Couldn't go for a real major, huh?" Or this wonderful attempt at soft redirection to a "more useful" branch: "why didn't you go into law?"
Pfft.
I got the barest personal taste of it while attending college myself. Computer electronics? Pats on the back to go around. After returning later for media design? Way less enthusiasm, in spite of it having involved computers. I could just imagine if it were something like musicology or traditional art instead. I'm almost tempted.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3716
Does anyone here watch fear the walking dead?
nobody has to do any stuff from other disciplines in the uk or European system so I think it's fair to say that both groups are equally disadvantaged. STEM grads do very few pieces of long writing or analytical argumentation, and humanities students don't get many chances to break out statistics or experiment. it's a system based on specialisation rather than broadness. pros and cons. in any case, I distinctly recall a few articles in the THE guide saying that graduate employers in the City are less satisfied with literacy skills than numeracy skills. I remember reading that it's a much wider problem that their employees have poor written and verbal skills and cannot present themselves or their ideas effectively. how often do you think a humanities grad in a consultancy or management role will need to use hardcore math, stuff that can't be figures on a calculator or excel command? come on, think about it. there aren't programs or computer applications to fix a STEM grad's hapless command of english or writing style. it's not like your average corporate-graduate role demands university math anymore than it requires French literary deconstruction. there are ways for people to supplement their lack of numeracy (this ties in with recent studies that concluded that the professions least liable to be affected by machine automation in the near future are dentists, surgeons, and... translators/editors. it's hard to replace qualitative literacy aptitude in a way that it isn't with arithmetic).Dilbert_X wrote:
Do people studying humanities subjects have to do maths, physics etc in any kind of depth?uziq wrote:
the point is to make sure that guys like jay leave with a degree and can actually read and write half decently. literacy and basic rhetoric is a problem for science grads just as numeracy can be tricky for some humanities grads. you have the minor electives to at least maintain basic competency. there's no weakness to the modest aims of these courses – they are supplementary.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well there is a point there - if low level undergraduate classes for humanities and other general ed. requirements are not as intensive as the advanced classes in those respective fields (and it's kind of silly to think they would be), what's the point of taking them?
the problem is, jay in his treatment and thinking about humanities subjects, thinks he knows what he is talking about when he dismisses them as easy and 'not rigorous' subjects. he confuses the book report segment of his science degree with the theses of an english finalist.
I'd say that its the humanities graduates who are the least rounded, in my experience, in that they really do rarely have even the most basic knowledge outside their specialism, and very rare for a humanities type to become a polymath.
Last edited by uziq (2015-09-30 05:27:18)
jay I have a distinction at masters level from a college 100x more prestigious and elitist than yours. let that sink in. a distinction award postgraduate degree from an institution the likes of which you have never graced or gained entry to. I think it's fair to say I didn't find English 101 'hard'. I have been published in a peer reviewed academic journal. keep making snide remarks. the fact is the furthest you got on the back of your intellectual strength is installing air conditioning in high rises. what recognition of your towering intellect!Jay wrote:
We're talking about freshman and sophomore courses here. They're not hard. I mean, if you thought english 101 and 102 were difficult I can see why you're so touchy about defending the validity of your degree...uziq wrote:
the point is to make sure that guys like jay leave with a degree and can actually read and write half decently. literacy and basic rhetoric is a problem for science grads just as numeracy can be tricky for some humanities grads. you have the minor electives to at least maintain basic competency. there's no weakness to the modest aims of these courses – they are supplementary.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well there is a point there - if low level undergraduate classes for humanities and other general ed. requirements are not as intensive as the advanced classes in those respective fields (and it's kind of silly to think they would be), what's the point of taking them?
the problem is, jay in his treatment and thinking about humanities subjects, thinks he knows what he is talking about when he dismisses them as easy and 'not rigorous' subjects. he confuses the book report segment of his science degree with the theses of an english finalist.
oh and go do one of your little fridge-magnet book reports on Derrida and post-structuralist semiotics if you want to see how 'easy' English becomes after the introductory 'read a novel and tell me how it made you feel' classes you took in pog oblivion.
Last edited by uziq (2015-09-30 05:35:16)
even when trying to defend the humanities you just recycle inane factoids. most English grads don't become teachers so your valiant defence of the teaching profession is a bit cringe. similarly asking why most history or philosophy students didn't do something useful like law instead is terminally stupid: a large swathe do go on to do law school!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I can't think of a particularly good reason a STEM major shouldn't pursue a minor in humanities, or that a humanities major shouldn't pursue a minor in math. It should broaden a student's perspective and, for the job-minded, add an extra bit of flair proving that they aren't slaves to one particular talent.
It sucks that our embarrassment at falling so far behind has placed so much pressure on so many prospective students from so many quarters (even the presidency) to buy into exaggerated projections and sometimes willful deception, and possibly set aside their own personal desires to commit to the national obsession over STEM without any real guarantee of job security. Thanks to these vile circumstances, humanities have become something of the butt of cultural derision in the United States.
"I think they should cut all those stupid courses." "English? What, do you want to be a schoolteacher?" Oh yes, because we know how practically useless teachers are. "History? You seriously had to go to college for that?" "Couldn't go for a real major, huh?" Or this wonderful attempt at soft redirection to a "more useful" branch: "why didn't you go into law?"
Pfft.
I got the barest personal taste of it while attending college myself. Computer electronics? Pats on the back to go around. After returning later for media design? Way less enthusiasm, in spite of it having involved computers. I could just imagine if it were something like musicology or traditional art instead. I'm almost tempted.
also art and musicology are far more respected than media design. what world are you living in? clearly not at the yacht club.
Last edited by uziq (2015-09-30 05:42:26)
Many companies these days have a significant proportion of employees for whom English is their second or third language, and conduct business internationally with people who are more likely to use google translate than have a stab at working it out themselves.uziq wrote:
nobody has to do any stuff from other disciplines in the uk or European system so I think it's fair to say that both groups are equally disadvantaged. STEM grads do very few pieces of long writing or analytical argumentation, and humanities students don't get many chances to break out statistics or experiment. it's a system based on specialisation rather than broadness. pros and cons. in any case, I distinctly recall a few articles in the THE guide saying that graduate employers in the City are less satisfied with literacy skills than numeracy skills. I remember reading that it's a much wider problem that their employees have poor written and verbal skills and cannot present themselves or their ideas effectively. how often do you think a humanities grad in a consultancy or management role will need to use hardcore math, stuff that can't be figures on a calculator or excel command? come on, think about it. there aren't programs or computer applications to fix a STEM grad's hapless command of english or writing style. it's not like your average corporate-graduate role demands university math anymore than it requires French literary deconstruction. there are ways for people to supplement their lack of numeracy (this ties in with recent studies that concluded that the professions least liable to be affected by machine automation in the near future are dentists, surgeons, and... translators/editors. it's hard to replace qualitative literacy aptitude in a way that it isn't with arithmetic).
Try communicating professionally simultaneously with people whose first language is French, German and Japanese. Simplicity, brevity and unambiguity are the key skills here, not a wide vocabulary and the ability to insert obscure references - although I did manage to slip in a holocaust reference once. Germans find use of different words with the same meaning very taxing - did he mean the same thing or something different?
Numeracy and technical skills are prime however - get something technical wrong and there is no way to talk out of it.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
From what I've found at least at my uni is that they prefer academic writing in plain english, especially in law school. pretty much every assignment the requirement is 'plain legal language'. Same when I did my business major as well. It's all about an ability to communicate clearly.
that's what I'm talking about... well done cybergs
I need a degree in physics for my job of riding snowboards down hills and putting fires out.
Well, a degree in physics could take you into predictive modelling of fire initiation and propagation, testing of mitigation strategies etc. Riding around on a snowboard likely won't.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3716
SuperJail Warden wrote:
Does anyone here watch fear the walking dead?
This DAST needs to GTFO of EE
Skills if you can do that at the same time mateAdams_BJ wrote:
I need a degree in physics for my job of riding snowboards down hills and putting fires out.
That would be a fantastic, undermining little scorcher of a dig if:uziq wrote:
even when trying to defend the humanities you just recycle inane factoids. most English grads don't become teachers so your valiant defence of the teaching profession is a bit cringe. similarly asking why most history or philosophy students didn't do something useful like law instead is terminally stupid: a large swathe do go on to do law school!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
blah blah blah
also art and musicology are far more respected than media design. what world are you living in? clearly not at the yacht club.
a) My estimation of STEM and the humanities hinged upon your approval (it doesn't).
b) Factoids such as going STEM not guaranteeing you a job were incorrect and didn't even reflect my experiences/personal opinions.
c) The paragraph full of quotes were quotes of my opinion (they aren't), and not paraphrasing the ungainly things I've actually heard people say.
d) I said anywhere that I thought art and music weren't respectable, which begs the following question:
Where in the royal fuck did you get that idea? In a lot of circles, including some who've actually been to college, they're just one more "soft liberal arts" pursuit to be scoffed at.
Yacht club? Not quite sure you were going for there, but they are not all homogeneously appreciative.
I did not say that English majors were doomed to teaching, but I did defend teaching as a respectable career option. An ugly catchphrase you hear a lot here is "if you can't do, teach," and other varieties of essentially the same thing.
But of course, I gotta roll back at some point and remember that you're trolling. How could you not be?
no both the walking dead and that show are stupid.SuperJail Warden wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
Does anyone here watch fear the walking dead?
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3716
I don't like TWD. I kinda like FTWD.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
no both the walking dead and that show are stupid.SuperJail Warden wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
Does anyone here watch fear the walking dead?
TWD is pretty stupid and I don't bother watching dramas that aren't on HBO or Showtime.
FTWD is different in that it wasn't tied down by the source material and could be written with absolute creativity. I really like disaster and pandemic movies where the military is patrolling the streets and everything is all fucked up like that. Unfortunately, FTWD skipped over a lot of that already for some reason.
If anything changes, I will keep you updated.
Watched the last episode of G.O.T's last night, wtf is going on, that nasty half cast king guy is dead and then is blonde Mrs walks into the fire, and comes out of it with a baby dragon on her shoulder going nuts, giving it the big one.
It will fuck me right off if this goes all Dungeons and Dragons on me, I dont like shit which is too far fetched.
I couldnt find the other series on 'Now Tv' - I will be massively pissed if the full box set isnt on there.
It will fuck me right off if this goes all Dungeons and Dragons on me, I dont like shit which is too far fetched.
I couldnt find the other series on 'Now Tv' - I will be massively pissed if the full box set isnt on there.
It plays a large part in firefighting actuallyDilbert_X wrote:
Well, a degree in physics could take you into predictive modelling of fire initiation and propagation, testing of mitigation strategies etc. Riding around on a snowboard likely won't.