<p>I agree that some programs are more theoretical than others, but I don’t see how that changes the fact that most programs are this mixed bag of theory and practice. I mean, clearly Harvard might be an exception to the rule. I am not intimately familiar with HYPS, but I imagine they are closer to that LA ideal than most state schools. Still, I think there need to be more options than HYPS for LA education…</p>
<p>“This varies from school to school and professor to professor.”
Sure, but I imagine it’s not by as much as you’d think.</p>
<p>"Some employers want a mix of practical and theoretical. "
See the associates/vocational idea in the quote. That would be ideal in that scenario and not commit the sin of mixing education and job training.</p>
<p>"Right, and you shouldn’t pretend that talking about art in a clasroom at Auburn makes you cultured.</p>
<p>Personally, I’d much rather experience Art in person, in it’s own environment, than sit in a classroom and discuss it with a bunch of undergrads. If that is being a “scholar”, then I’d rather not being one."
I don’t know if that was meant as a dig at Auburn or not, but in any event, I think this post points to a troubling anti-intellectualism in your outlook on life that is, yet more troubling, all too common among Americans today. I’ve read a lot about it and (you can appreciate this) experienced it every day that I talk to people.</p>
<p>Uhh… that’s a pretty bad misinterpretation of what he was saying. You’re missing the point.</p>
<p>Going to a museum, seeing artwork, and getting educated by the people who work there is much more “intellectual” than sitting in a classroom with a bunch of 20 year olds taught by
a) a professor who most likely doesn’t specialize in the subject
b) a TA who obviously isn’t an expert
c) both use slides on a powerpoint.</p>
<p>Society needs to encourage more engagement with art and the world, not more engagement with text books in classrooms.</p>
<p>^ No, you’re missing the point. When you go to a museum or art gallery, you’re not “learning” - if you can call it that - anything academic at all. Perhaps you can appreciate it, and perhaps if you have studied art before, you can have thoughts of an academic nature to yourself, or discuss them with your friends, but a university can offer so much more.</p>
<p>“Society needs to encourage more engagement with art and the world, not more engagement with text books in classrooms.”
This is the <em>same</em> anti-intellectualism expressed in BIGeastBEAST’s post. I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t go to museums and art galleries and the like; you should! But this is no substitute for academic study of the same, just as academic study isn’t a substitute for going to see art. They are separate things, and one of these things should be done in a university (well, I suppose both can).</p>
<p>Right. So the only way to “learn” something is to sit in a classroom and regurgitate facts on a test. </p>
<p>Of course there is a difference between intense academic analysis of art and going to the museum. But for the average person, who neither needs nor cares about intense academic study, going to a museum is much more effective in teaching about art. Leave the “intense academic study” to the academics, where it belongs. You can’t seriously expect everyone in society to delve deeply into every single subject.</p>
<p>The average person neither needs nor cares about any sort of high art. This is why the average person does not go to art museums, any more than they care about any art courses they may take.</p>
<p>Trust me, seeing the Sistine Chapel in real life, in it’s own environment is more inspiring and special than any discussion you can have in a classroom.</p>
<p>It’s one thing to be taught something, experiencing it is more important. There is no substitute for it, especially none in academics.</p>
<p>^ Well, we’re only talking about people who are going to college. I would content that if you don’t have any academic interest in anything, you don’t have any business clogging up universities. That doesn’t mean you have to be an expert at everything, but I think it is important to be exposed to a variety of areas of academic interest. That’s part of it.</p>
<p>"Right. So the only way to “learn” something is to sit in a classroom and regurgitate facts on a test. "
I would agree the current system has problems; but that’s the point of this thread. Fix the problems, don’t just say it’s worthless and be done with it. Make universities LA institutions and this problem eventually goes away. Can’t you see how this is anti-intellectualism?</p>
<p>“Trust me, seeing the Sistine Chapel in real life, in it’s own environment is more inspiring and special than any discussion you can have in a classroom.”
I do not trust that, not for a minute. The inspiration which can be drawn from the academic study of a subject is immense indeed. In any case I’m not saying that you should do one or the other; ideally, do both.</p>
<p>“It’s one thing to be taught something, experience is more important.”
BIGeastBEAST, you’ve just summarized anti-intellectualism in one paradoxical statement. Learning is experience. This is the one key truth which anti-intellectuals either have not realized or ignore.</p>
<p>Nursing is hardly considered “simple”…but yeah it isn’t a hard science, but there is a decent amount of science involved.</p>
<p>Anyway, I didn’t mean for this to become a technical vs. liberal arts “which is better” debate. I just wanted to know if technical degrees really do limit your job prospects and if liberal arts degree (i.e. English) is really as flexible as people make them out to be.</p>
<p>“almost a half of MIT’s enrollment. I’d say that MIT is an engineering school, but maybe not Stanford.” </p>
<p>While this may be true, MIT’s prominence is not monolithic, like say, Harvey Mudd, U of Illinois or Purdue. MIT, in my opinion, is more famous for theoretical, liberal sciences and, some humanities than the above schools mentioned.</p>
<p>Well first of all, most Art History classes are kept small on purpose so that there is little to no need for a TA (at least, that’s how it is at Vandy and my friends’ various other schools). Secondly the professor probably DOES specialize in the subject–maybe not Michaelangelo from 1650-1650.73, or whatever, but probably knows fairly enough about the Renaissance to be considered an expert in that area. </p>
<p>How do you expect them to get around the powerpoint slides? What other way is there for them to teach it, barring getting the actual painting/building/etc and bringing it to the classroom?</p>
<p>First semester last year, I took an art history class on the evolution of Western Architecture, and it’s been one of my favorite classes to date. I have always appreciated buildings, but now I have the proper vocabulary and background to truly enjoy their nuances. Without the class, I would have lost a lot of the cultural background & significance had I happened upon one of the buildings. For example, I knew that the Pantheon is an important building in Rome, but now I have seen its complete past, so I can understand the need to preserve it more readily than someone who says “Oh look at that pretty building with columns.”</p>
<p>One thing to consider is that a good percentage of engineers could have pursued a liberal arts degree, but chose not to because of the greater career opportunities supplied by a technical degree. This is why engineering majors are pretty split between social people who can appreciate art and such and the technical people who can’t really do anything but science.</p>
<p>I would contend that the first breed of people have a much better chance of advancing farther with a technical degree than a liberal arts degree, because they can do both. Whereas those who can’t really do technical degrees because of a complete lack of interest/aptitude in science or math would be much better off with a liberal arts degree. And those who can’t do anything but technical should go with, well, technical.</p>
<p>The point is that for the average student, there is nothing that inherently requires the academic classroom. I can take an online course, a community college course, or just read online about western architecture and learn just as much about the subject.</p>
<p>Why pay 4k a class when it’s easier, cheaper, and more effective (read: you learn more) to take an online course and actually visit the museum itself?</p>
<p>I said from my experience, they’re small. Mine was 35 students, which is about normal for our art history classes, and a few friends I’ve talked to elsewhere said that theirs were relatively small. Anyways, this is erroneous.</p>
<p>How could you possibly learn more in an online course? You’re not having interaction between you and the other students and the professor; the most feedback you can get is from your tests. A large part of our class was discussion–postulating on causes of the building being erected, comparing/contrasting various styles & techniques, etc.
As for community college courses: I’d consider that “the academic classroom,” so you’re being rather self-contradictory with that statement.</p>
<p>Also:
How are people supposed to become academics in a given field if the intro course isn’t intriguing enough to keep them going, while being hard enough to make them really evaluate their reasons for choosing that major? I don’t understand your point here at all. Everyone has to start somewhere. I’ve always enjoyed architecture, but not to the extent I do now.</p>
<p>@karabee
You go to Vanderbilt, which, as I’m sure you know, is a pretty upper-class private school. The typical state school doesn’t have 30 people in an introductory lecture class. </p>
<p>Again, the point is that the internet is making subjects that are knowledge-based (and not-hands on based) easier to learn at a significantly less cost. Justify it however you want, but no one really believes that the 200-person lecturehall course is worth $3,000 more. </p>
<p>@amarkov
So the solution is to just charge 4,000 for the same information? Psh, don’t be surprised when the education bubble bursts.</p>
<p>If your argument is that you can learn stuff just as well by reading books, then I disagree. I get way more out of an hour lecture, especially if the stuff in the lecture isn’t found in (many) books, than from an hour of reading a book. </p>
<p>If your argument is that the average student doesn’t benefit from discussion in classes, well, if someone isn’t interested in the subject enough to participate during class, how is he going to be motivated enough to get a lot out of self-study?</p>