I have grown sceptical of humanities &c. degrees
Scroll to see replies
Original post by The Arsonist
I'm curious, would philosophy also probably fall under this category if you had not have studied it?
good question. There is very little philosophy in the newspapers or in ordinary intelligent conversation or adapted by Andrew Davies for the BBC or taught to us compulsorily at school. So in that regard it isn't like the subjects I suggested myself as capable of boning up on, since with them I'd only be topping-up.
And some philosophy is quite technical, I think of formal and philosophical logics and the philosophy of language. But then it is becoming ever more common for institutions to give a bye in these, where it would even a decade ago have been impossible to graduate without the formal logic that would be the sensible tester's first resort. So I dunno.
My degree was half in linguistics, and this I would certainly put in the second group, subjects that would confound the bluffer.
University is teaching you *how to think*, not the information itself. It is much, much harder to develop critical thinking skills in isolation. Once you have those skills you can self-teach yourself almost anything, although subjects which require access to resources and labs are sometimes harder.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Puddles the Monkey
University is teaching you *how to think*, not the information itself. It is much, much harder to develop critical thinking skills in isolation.
Rather, it teaches you to think like other people. Albeit, some of those people were great thinkers.
Original post by The Arsonist
Rather, it teaches you to think like other people. Albeit, some of those people were great thinkers.
... or does it?
I felt very, very strongly about this throughout A-levels and my degree. I still don't know for sure whether our process of peer review is too insular.
I find people who are negative about humanities degrees irritating.
Most people who study STEM degrees don't end up working in a field directly relevant to their degree. Proving you are able to learn and developing core skills is part of what any degree will give that person (provided they do well)
Most people who study STEM degrees don't end up working in a field directly relevant to their degree. Proving you are able to learn and developing core skills is part of what any degree will give that person (provided they do well)
Original post by cambio wechsel
good question. There is very little philosophy in the newspapers or in ordinary intelligent conversation or adapted by Andrew Davies for the BBC or taught to us compulsorily at school. So in that regard it isn't like the subjects I suggested myself as capable of boning up on, since with them I'd only be topping-up.
And some philosophy is quite technical, I think of formal and philosophical logics and the philosophy of language. But then it is becoming ever more common for institutions to give a bye in these, where it would even a decade ago have been impossible to graduate without the formal logic that would be the sensible tester's first resort. So I dunno.
My degree was half in linguistics, and this I would certainly put in the second group, subjects that would confound the bluffer.
And some philosophy is quite technical, I think of formal and philosophical logics and the philosophy of language. But then it is becoming ever more common for institutions to give a bye in these, where it would even a decade ago have been impossible to graduate without the formal logic that would be the sensible tester's first resort. So I dunno.
My degree was half in linguistics, and this I would certainly put in the second group, subjects that would confound the bluffer.
Perhaps we should create a metric: The cambio bluff test.
If you can reasonably pass yourself off as a graduate of a subject without prior study, we deem it irrelevant to universities
Original post by cambio wechsel
good question. There is very little philosophy in the newspapers or in ordinary intelligent conversation or adapted by Andrew Davies for the BBC or taught to us compulsorily at school. So in that regard it isn't like the subjects I suggested myself as capable of boning up on, since with them I'd only be topping-up.
And some philosophy is quite technical, I think of formal and philosophical logics and the philosophy of language. But then it is becoming ever more common for institutions to give a bye in these, where it would even a decade ago have been impossible to graduate without the formal logic that would be the sensible tester's first resort. So I dunno.
My degree was half in linguistics, and this I would certainly put in the second group, subjects that would confound the bluffer.
And some philosophy is quite technical, I think of formal and philosophical logics and the philosophy of language. But then it is becoming ever more common for institutions to give a bye in these, where it would even a decade ago have been impossible to graduate without the formal logic that would be the sensible tester's first resort. So I dunno.
My degree was half in linguistics, and this I would certainly put in the second group, subjects that would confound the bluffer.
Yeah.
Philosophy has been diluted these days and it ****ing pisses me off.
Why does someone get the same degree as me if I do meta-physics, meta-ethics, formal logic, philosophy of language and philosophy of science when they do normative ethics, philosophy of religion, some random theology optional modules, some form of aesthetics and political philosophy.
Totally different skill-set, totally different knowledge base. Not even remotely similar subject at all in data gathered; knowledge gained and methods used. Ridiculous.
Original post by The Arsonist
Perhaps we should create a metric: The cambio bluff test.
If you can reasonably pass yourself off as a graduate of a subject without prior study, we deem it irrelevant to universities
If you can reasonably pass yourself off as a graduate of a subject without prior study, we deem it irrelevant to universities
I think there are two types of course that fail the cambio bluff test:-
1 Anything that involves the acquisition of a significant skill:- Latin, mathematics, golf, the trombone. Something requiring a skill is only bluffable if the skill is trivial.
2 Anything that requires an arcana:- a method of discourse only known to initiates. Some subjects have an arcana which is non-compulsory:- English and history to name but two. You can get a perfectly satisfactory history degree without understanding any historical theory. You can get a perfectly satisfactory English degree by treating English literature as an historical rather than a theoretical construct. Philosophy, law, most true sciences, sociology and economics require the use of an arcana.
I look forward to taking my BA Juggling at Cambio University
Here is my PS http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/Personal_Statement:Juggling_-_what_not_to_do
Here is my PS http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/Personal_Statement:Juggling_-_what_not_to_do
Original post by The Arsonist
Perhaps we should create a metric: The cambio bluff test.
If you can reasonably pass yourself off as a graduate of a subject without prior study, we deem it irrelevant to universities
If you can reasonably pass yourself off as a graduate of a subject without prior study, we deem it irrelevant to universities
Hmmm. That's your test and not mine.
Mine differs in that:
1. The test candidate is already a university graduate, such that what is common to undergraduate degrees in the arts or social sciences - reasoning and register and so on - can be assumed to be in the skill-set.
2. The test candidate is a capable ********ter.
3. He is given a month before the viva.
Economics -> Politics = YES
Politics -> Economics = NO
Classics - > English = YES
English -> Classics = NO
Law -> History = YES
History -> Law = NO
Original post by cambio wechsel
Hmmm. That's your test and not mine.
Mine differs in that:
1. The test candidate is already a university graduate, such that what is common to undergraduate degrees in the arts or social sciences - reasoning and register and so on - can be assumed to be in the skill-set.
2. The test candidate is a capable ********ter.
3. He is given a month before the viva.
Economics -> Politics = YES
Politics -> Economics = NO
Classics - > English = YES
English -> Classics = NO
Law -> History = YES
History -> Law = NO
Mine differs in that:
1. The test candidate is already a university graduate, such that what is common to undergraduate degrees in the arts or social sciences - reasoning and register and so on - can be assumed to be in the skill-set.
2. The test candidate is a capable ********ter.
3. He is given a month before the viva.
Economics -> Politics = YES
Politics -> Economics = NO
Classics - > English = YES
English -> Classics = NO
Law -> History = YES
History -> Law = NO
It seems what is most important is those subjects that are contingent on cumulative knowledge like language acquisition are not able to be bluffed easily. Perhaps for similar reason this is why we see mathematicians able to move into other subjects so easily but not so much in the opposite direction.
Original post by TorpidPhil
Yeah.
Philosophy has been diluted these days and it ****ing pisses me off.
Why does someone get the same degree as me if I do meta-physics, meta-ethics, formal logic, philosophy of language and philosophy of science when they do normative ethics, philosophy of religion, some random theology optional modules, some form of aesthetics and political philosophy.
Totally different skill-set, totally different knowledge base. Not even remotely similar subject at all in data gathered; knowledge gained and methods used. Ridiculous.
Philosophy has been diluted these days and it ****ing pisses me off.
Why does someone get the same degree as me if I do meta-physics, meta-ethics, formal logic, philosophy of language and philosophy of science when they do normative ethics, philosophy of religion, some random theology optional modules, some form of aesthetics and political philosophy.
Totally different skill-set, totally different knowledge base. Not even remotely similar subject at all in data gathered; knowledge gained and methods used. Ridiculous.
No it's not ridiculous at all. what else should they have? An 'almost philosophy but not quite philosophy degree because the fields aren't that good?'
Most universities have things like formal logic, metaphysics, epistemology as part of their core modules before allowing students to specialise in their area of choice since a lot of the content permeates throughout other modules (Phil of religion for example). However, somebody who doesn't choose to specialise in the modules you list doesnt in any way dilute the subject in particular when you mention political philosophy and philosophy of religion. Indeed, you can answer questions relating to philosophy of science better than they can, but they'll be better at answering questions to do with the topic of politics than you, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Part of philosophy that it is so diverse -- at the end of the day it's all part of philosophy regardless of whether or not you like it. Aesthetics isn't my speciality or interest either, but it's required to answer aesthetic questions and has a significant cross over with other fields (ethics for example). Things like this have been emphasised by some important philosophers such as Heidegger or Wittgenstein. I doubt you'd be so quick to dismiss them. Philosophy of religion includes a variety of themes related to religion (e.g. religious experience), and even the question of whether God exists typically intersects and has informed a wide variety of philosophical topics (e.g. epistemology [e.g. Plantinga's engagement with foundationalism], metaphysics [e.g. the philosophy of causation in relation to cosmological argument], ethics [e.g. voluntarism in relation to divine command theory. So really, there isn't really some kind of digression as your post implies
Haven't seen any reputable place that leaves out the subjects that you mentioned and doesn't allow specialisation (the same time) to some other diverse fields. Of course, some of the weak universities might, but they're irrelevant when it comes to profession of philosophy- and they're not how an institution should operate
...Consider posting this question to
/r/askphilosophy and you'll get the same kind of reaction
(edited 8 years ago)
I wish we still studied Classics and Mathematics.
From my understanding, they encourage students to think more critically. You might be able to read books to your heart's content at a library but you wouldn't have an expert in your field critiquing your prose and rhetoric. And it's a high pressure environment where you have to consume a large amount of material -- more than might be reasonable doable using personal motivation.
Learning to effectively skim read, condense large amounts of material into a few lines as well as argue from different positions are skills which, I believe, have their uses in the workplace.
You mention STEM lab sciences but there are degrees like Computer Science which could be taught at home. Granted, perhaps not to the rigour that world class Universities demand but it's certainly mostly doable.
Learning to effectively skim read, condense large amounts of material into a few lines as well as argue from different positions are skills which, I believe, have their uses in the workplace.
You mention STEM lab sciences but there are degrees like Computer Science which could be taught at home. Granted, perhaps not to the rigour that world class Universities demand but it's certainly mostly doable.
If you're going to use that argument, then how about the creator of Tumblr who left school at like 15? He never needed a computer science degree - and arguably now he's more successful than those who do have a degree in computer science. Couldn't the same be applied to him, just like the Brontes and Shakespeare?
I think you misconstrued what I said - of course someone wouldn't choose a good book as an alternative to life saving treatment. That's not the point. The point is science and humanities coexist - we need books, art, literature just as much as we need life saving treatment and science.
Also I never said that a write would need to study humanities to be able to write. I said Harry Potter *probably* wouldn't have been created if JK Rowling had no taken a Classics degree. A lot of it is influenced by Classical mythology and Latin and Greek. I never said anything about her ability to write, nor that she would *never* be able to come up with the story if she hadn't taken a humanities degree. She may well have, but the story might have been very different.
I think you misconstrued what I said - of course someone wouldn't choose a good book as an alternative to life saving treatment. That's not the point. The point is science and humanities coexist - we need books, art, literature just as much as we need life saving treatment and science.
Also I never said that a write would need to study humanities to be able to write. I said Harry Potter *probably* wouldn't have been created if JK Rowling had no taken a Classics degree. A lot of it is influenced by Classical mythology and Latin and Greek. I never said anything about her ability to write, nor that she would *never* be able to come up with the story if she hadn't taken a humanities degree. She may well have, but the story might have been very different.
Original post by Maker
I doubt many people would choose a good book as an alternative to life saving treatment. Its a bit daft to conjecture a writer has to study humanities to be able to write. Many writer like Shakespeare, The Brontes and Jane Austen did not or could not go to university but that did not stop them writing fiction to a high standard. I am sure there are good reasons to study humanities but you haven't made a good case so far.
If you're going to use that argument, then how about the creator of Tumblr who left school at like 15? He never needed a computer science degree - and arguably now he's more successful than those who do have a degree in computer science. Couldn't the same be applied to him, just like the Brontes and Shakespeare?I think you misconstrued what I said - of course someone wouldn't choose a good book as an alternative to life saving treatment. That's not the point. The point is science and humanities coexist - we need books, art, literature just as much as we need life saving treatment and science.Also I never said that a write would need to study humanities to be able to write. I said Harry Potter *probably* wouldn't have been created if JK Rowling had no taken a Classics degree. A lot of it is influenced by Classical mythology and Latin and Greek. I never said anything about her ability to write, nor that she would *never* be able to come up with the story if she hadn't taken a humanities degree. She may well have, but the story might have been very different.
Original post by The Arsonist
It seems what is most important is those subjects that are contingent on cumulative knowledge like language acquisition are not able to be bluffed easily. Perhaps for similar reason this is why we see mathematicians able to move into other subjects so easily but not so much in the opposite direction.
If you look at my posting:
I think there are two types of course that fail the cambio bluff test:-
1 Anything that involves the acquisition of a significant skill:- Latin, mathematics, golf, the trombone. Something requiring a skill is only bluffable if the skill is trivial.
2 Anything that requires an arcana:- a method of discourse only known to initiates. Some subjects have an arcana which is non-compulsory:- English and history to name but two. You can get a perfectly satisfactory history degree without understanding any historical theory. You can get a perfectly satisfactory English degree by treating English literature as an historical rather than a theoretical construct. Philosophy, law, most true sciences, sociology and economics require the use of an arcana.
I don't think it is knowledge. Mathematics is a skill; a technique. Someone could learn Euclid as an author in the same way one learns Wuthering Heights, but that doesn't mean one could solve a typical problem in classical geometry.
I have to say I think the real world problem with humanities degrees is simply the extent to which applicants are misled about the employability of graduates,
Applicants do not understand how many graduates there are; how many of those graduates are likely to get graduate level jobs (it isn't that they are eligible to apply for 80% of graduate vacancies, or whatever the number is, but rather the proportion of humanities graduates who are converted into graduate level employees); how many of those jobs are in teaching humanities; and of the rest how many have required the deployment of significant levels of parental connections to achieve the role.
Likewise, they are misled as to the limited extent that the skills (as opposed to knowledge) they acquire are different to the life skills acquired by anyone who works in an office environment for a similar period of years.
Applicants do not understand how many graduates there are; how many of those graduates are likely to get graduate level jobs (it isn't that they are eligible to apply for 80% of graduate vacancies, or whatever the number is, but rather the proportion of humanities graduates who are converted into graduate level employees); how many of those jobs are in teaching humanities; and of the rest how many have required the deployment of significant levels of parental connections to achieve the role.
Likewise, they are misled as to the limited extent that the skills (as opposed to knowledge) they acquire are different to the life skills acquired by anyone who works in an office environment for a similar period of years.
From my experience, English Literature teaches you how to encounter texts, arguments, records, etc. and decipher/analyse them. It teaches you how to independently research, utilise archive materials appropriately and develop novel arguments and contributions.
But what it also does, is expose you to philosophy, cultural theory, history, sociology, psychology and science. I had a seminar last week about the 4th dimension. I've had seminar discussions and conducted research on cybernetics, trauma, attachment theory, medieval sexual ethics, social shifts in the post-atomic era, greek mythology, nuclear mutation, translating old English, post-humanism, late capitalism, etc. It's not just about reading stories and talking about what they mean or if they are good; it's about using literature as an access point to a whole host of other knowledge.
Personally, I think it's a valuable experience.
But what it also does, is expose you to philosophy, cultural theory, history, sociology, psychology and science. I had a seminar last week about the 4th dimension. I've had seminar discussions and conducted research on cybernetics, trauma, attachment theory, medieval sexual ethics, social shifts in the post-atomic era, greek mythology, nuclear mutation, translating old English, post-humanism, late capitalism, etc. It's not just about reading stories and talking about what they mean or if they are good; it's about using literature as an access point to a whole host of other knowledge.
Personally, I think it's a valuable experience.
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is London college of Fashion at UAL good?
- Anyone gotten into uni with an access course ? & which one ?
- OCR A physics question
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 + 2 (7172/1+2) 18th and 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Would you bother with uni knowing what you know now?
- Choice of university to study MSc in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)
- Is an Eng Lit and Creative Writing joint honours degree good for employability?
- Beard electric razor
- Can Muslims practice criminal law
- How to decide my degree?
- Can I go into biochem or work in the medical field with these alevels?
- Units help
- Digital & Technology Solutions Degree At University Of Exeter
- How exactly do univeristy exams work?
- Computer science or electronic engineering
- Common University Interview Questions
- Can I do an Animal Management degree?
- Dietetics and Nutrition ( 4 years ) switched to Human nutrition ( with foundation )
- Should I return for S6 or go to college?
- what can i do
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Edexcel A-level English Literature Paper 2 (9ET0 2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University of Bristol Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official Loughborough University - Applicant Thread 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 19 minutes ago
is it possible to go from a size 16 [L] to a size 12 [M] in five months?Last reply 20 minutes ago
How many days a week do you need to go to uni for foundation year?Posted 22 minutes ago
Sixth form for British citizen living aboardLast reply 22 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levelsTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levels
