Don't Grade Humanities As Easy Stuff

Transfer Students
41

<p>Collegekid, nice post & insights but you're just missing the real point. Humanities classes ANYWHERE are easier than the sciences and mathematics at the same university. It's simple: there is more competition, and the work load is much more intensive. The entire point of this thread is to point out that humanities are, in fact, easier courses than their scientific counterparts. Anyone who has spent any time within earshot of a university knows this.</p>

<p>However, course difficulty has nothing to do with the greats in any field. Shakespeare and Einstein certainly are apples and oranges. But in the academy today, Shakespeare and Joyce would have their work cut out for them, as the courses are nowhere near as demanding.</p>

42

<p>This is my opinion:</p>

<p>Let's throw an average college kid straight from HS into a Calculus III course.
He has taken Pre-Calculus so far.</p>

<p>What are the chances that he or she will get an "A" in Calc III?</p>

<p>Let's throw an average college kid straight from HS into a History301 (generic).
He has taken some history classes along the way. No, he's not an ESL student.</p>

<p>What are the chances that he or she will get an "A" in History301?</p>

<p>I think an average student is competent enough to read, analyze, and put his thought into words to some extent. However I do not think that student is competent enough for a Calculus III straight from HS.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
Then again, there is also philosophy of physics, which is also, as you might guess, very mathematically rigorous.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's certainly good news. I will be majoring in Economics-Mathematics and minoring in Philosophy, so that should make for some very interesting and complementary material.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
That's certainly good news. I will be majoring in Economics-Mathematics and minoring in Philosophy, so that should make for some very interesting and complementary material.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh... definitely.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
I think an average student is competent enough to read, analyze, and put his thought into words to some extent. However I do not think that student is competent enough for a Calculus III straight from HS.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is just an epistemological deficiency. That says nothing about the apparent rigour of a discipline or the skills of the student.</p>

<p>I love the LSAT because it tests your ability to reason. If some of you were to take the test, I wouldn't be surprised to see most of you score below the 65th percentile.</p>

<p>That is just the thing: the preponderance of posters here boasting the rigour of the hard sciences and mathematics cannot even make a coherent argument.</p>

46

<p>Eh, perhaps i have a biased opinion.</p>

<p>I tend to like social sciences and literature more than hard sciences.</p>

<p>But mathematics and natural sciences entail one to study systematically and expect you to know many pre-req often step-by-step. Most likely you can't provide a solution to a problem from Calculus III if you have taken Pre-Calculus so far.</p>

<p>But wouldn't you agree that if you read a passage from a history book, you do have higher chances of answering questions derived from the passage?</p>

<p>If you were asked to read about Herodotus and write something out of it, would you be ABLE to do it?</p>

<p>If I ask you to provide a solution to a problem from a higher mathematics or physics class which you have never taken, would you be able to do it?</p>

47

<p>Why, jslee, that is just common sense ;) </p>

<p>Then again, I haven't taken philosophy courses yet like nspeds, so I don't know how he thinks...but I will soon enough. :D</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
If I ask you to provide a solution to a problem from a higher mathematics or physics class which you have never taken, would you be able to do it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, this is just an epistemological problem. Sure, I don't know certain things, but that doesn't speak to the rigour of a discipline or the skills of a student. It just means that I don't know certain things.</p>

<p>Analytical rigour does not constitute having an absurd amount of knowledge and being able to regurgitate it. Analytical rigour constitutes the ability ro analyze and perform highly abstract reasoning. Of course, with this definition, we are not limiting ourselves to the hard sciences and mathematics: philosophy (at least of the analytic sort, none of that Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, or Foucalt nonsense) and to some extent linguistics is also included.</p>

<p>It is not surprising that some of the greatest physicists also considered themselves to be philosophers: Einstein can be referred to as a philosopher, and, heck, Leibniz was a philosopher first and foremost.</p>

49

<p>eh :) i guess it's a common sense...</p>

<p>all things considered (btw, this is the title of one of my favorite radio programs of NPR 'WNYC' for those of you live around NYC)....</p>

<p>you can't compare difficulty of these two different fields...</p>

<p>it's like asking "Is Mercedes Benz 'C' Class better than Mercedes Benz 'E' Class"? Two different classes...depends on your preference</p>

<ol>
<li>do you like smaller cars?</li>
<li>are you willing to pay 60k ? or 40k?</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ol>

<p>btw, my family is thinking of buying a new car (not mercedes...haha) so that example isn't so unfamiliar to me :)</p>

<p>I don't think anyone can tell whether hard sciences are harder than social sciences.</p>

<p>My opinion is of course biased. My preference is social sciences. Therefore I feel hard sciences are much more difficult than social sciences.</p>

<ol>
<li>I don't like crunching numbers</li>
<li>i don't think i am a quantitative person...although i did better on math sat than verbal...weird...</li>
<li>i don't like physics, chem, or calc...</li>
<li>i like reading history books and etc. blah blah..have taken 3 history ap classes in hs...</li>
</ol>

<p>see? it depends on one's preference i guess...there is no right answer to this...</p>

<p>blah! :)</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
you can't compare difficulty of these two different fields...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes you can. Just define "difficulty" as "analytic rigour," and you will see why English and theology have been the biggest buckets of rubbish since the days of Einstein.</p>

51

<p>jslee thats what i used earlier</p>

<p>nobody seems to get it</p>

<p>all these humanities majors want to keep throwing out big words and random problems to prove humanities is as hard but in america, i beg to differ</p>

52

<p>First of all, everyone has his or her own definition for the term "difficulty".</p>

<p>I found several definitions for "difficulty"</p>

<ol>
<li> [n] an effort that is inconvenient</li>
<li> [n] a factor causing trouble in achieving a positive result or tending to produce a negative result</li>
<li> [n] a situation or condition almost beyond one's ability to deal with and requiring great effort to bear or overcome</li>
<li> [n] the quality of being difficult</li>
</ol>

<p>For an example:
If you consider history as a subject in which one needs to just memorize what had happened in the past history & if indeed that is all there is to the field of history...who wouldn't find that relatively easy assuming that the person does not have an unusual disability which hampers such process of memorizing facts and etc.</p>

<p>But that isn't true. It is amusing that college students are arguing over this. You have not yet pursued any specific field in depth. What makes you qualified to say this other than your little experience in social sciences and natural sciences? I am sure even Einstein, whom you tend to refer to quite often here, would not be able to provide a precise answer to this question.</p>

<p>Each person feels difficulty in certain areas but that does not mean that how you feel difficult in certain subjects relate to all other people.</p>

<p>This matter is rather subjective. Everyone has his or her own definition for "difficulty". I find natural sciences challenging. Does this mean that you should find natural sciences more difficult than other subjects?</p>

<p>This is becoming lame, but, my sister finds mathematics and physics relatively easy. She hates writing, though she likes reading, and in particular she hates economics, history, literature, and other social science subjects.</p>

<p>Her major is Chem/Bio and she is very good at what she does. If you ask me to follow her favorite courses, I would fail out every single one of them like it's nobody's business.</p>

<p>I think if you were to argue over this with one of your history or literature professors, he or she will literally rip you apart.</p>

<p>So far what we have learned is tiny compare to what those scholars have studied over. I really don't think you have any merit to judge which subject is difficult and which is not. Moreover, you cannot expect others to agree on something that is highly subjective.</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
I found several definitions for "difficulty"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>...and none of them have anything to do with the epistemological matter you raised. That one doesn't know the material required for another discipline does not mean that that discipline is more rigorous than any other.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is amusing that college students are arguing over this. You have not yet pursued any specific field in depth. What makes you qualified to say this other than your little experience in social sciences and natural sciences?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope, as a junior in college and a student already taking graduate level courses, and as a student who has done significant work in both philosophy and physics, I think I can safely argue my point.</p>

<p>Also, that one might not have mastered a discipline to any significant depth does not preclude that person from making an argument regarding the rigour of two disciplines. If you, as a person who has pursued multiple disciplines to any significant depth, can contribute anything in addition that another person without a similar experience cannot, then by all means, please do.</p>

<p>All I have read from you so far are some unrelated knowledge-arguments and another one begging for the incommensurability of disciplines. I boggle at those arguments, and not in the good sense.</p>

<p>And no, simply because you cannot find an objective definition for "difficulty," does not mean that there is no such definition. You are now arguing from ignorance, which is fallacious.</p>

54

<p>"Yes you can. Just define "difficulty" as "analytic rigour," and you will see why English and theology have been the biggest buckets of rubbish since the days of Einstein."</p>

<p>Riiiight. Ever taken even a semi-extensive literary theory class? The analysis of literature, if done properly, requires understanding of various psychological and philosophical principles. English is not a "bucket of rubbish," thanks very much. There's really no reason to be insulting; it doesn't exactly strengthen your argument. </p>

<p>And anyway, I'll be far more impressed with a philosophy or science degree once I see what is done with it. I have far more respect for great writers than I do for great physicists, which is a personal thing, anyway. I know that isn't directly related to this dicussion (the difficulty - or, if you will, "analytic rigor" - of these fields).</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
Ever taken even a semi-extensive literary theory class? The analysis of literature, if done properly, requires understanding of various psychological and philosophical principles.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No... it is more like the appopriation and bastardization of various philosophical concepts for the sake of literary analysis. Derrida would roll over in his grave because of what has been done to his notion of deconstruction, and that is just one example.</p>

<p>Oh, and philosophy requires an understanding of various philosophical and psychological concepts for the philosophy of mind. Big deal.</p>

56

<p>nspeds,</p>

<p>I am afraid my reply was offensive judging from your reaction. I apologize for that in advance.</p>

<p>But anyway, before even arguing whether which is difficult or not and before laying out the definition of "difficulty", one needs to understand that we are dealing with two different subjects that are indeed 'difficult' to compare to each other.</p>

<p>further, nspeds, I did not specifically target you for not knowing a particular subject and therefore you should not speak out your opinion. I did not mean that way.</p>

<p>My point is simple...and i will reiterate it.</p>

<p>You are comparing two different subjects...What I don't understand is that you are putting too much effort into arguing one against the other when in fact no argument is valid here.</p>

<p>If you compare Algebra to Calculus, I would side with Calculus for being more challenging than Algebra.
You are comparing Engligh 101 to Calculus I.</p>

<p>Much prejudice come into play if you were to compare the two.
Both subjects, of course, require some analytic skills. But these are two separate subjects and the skills you need for English 101 quite differ from those you need for Calculus I. </p>

<p>I gave you that example:</p>

<p>why would anyone compare BMW 3 series to BMW 5 seires? they are totally different classes. It would make more sense if you compare BMW 3 series to Mercedes C class.</p>

<p>nspeds, you are making this harder than it needs to be. You certainly seem to be a passionate 'debator' or 'thinker' however you might describe yourself to be. But it's a fruitless attempt when you compare an apple to an orange...</p>

<p>let me first ask you this:</p>

<p>Which tastes better?</p>

<ol>
<li>Apple?</li>
<li>Orange?</li>
</ol>

<p>I like apple over orange. how about you?</p>

57

<p>"No... it is more like the appopriation and bastardization of various philosophical concepts for the sake of literary analysis. Derrida would roll over in his grave because of what has been done to his notion of deconstruction, and that is just one example."</p>

<p>Derrida may have defined a concept, but once it's published, there are no laws as to how a concept can be applied or interpreted. And why is "for the sake of literary analysis" not a good reason for applying those concepts? Why exactly are you studying philosophy, anyway? If you don't want to see the concepts applied in different ways, you might as well just memorize them as they are, and that's about as difficult as memorizing historical facts or formulas.</p>

<p>Maybe everyone thinks their subject is the most challenging, and it should be left at that.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
Derrida may have defined a concept, but once it's published, there are no laws as to how a concept can be applied or interpreted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, but scholars cannot purport to be using a concept that is Derridian, when Derrida himself denounced such usage, and provided coherent reasons for why his concept cannot be appropriated as such.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And why is "for the sake of literary analysis" not a good reason for applying those concepts?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Apply it all you want, but it is not Derrida anymore. Therefore, you are not utilizing philosophical principles, you are just bastardizing them and then using some ersatz.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you don't want to see the concepts applied in different ways, you might as well just memorize them as they are, and that's about as difficult as memorizing historical facts or formulas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't mind applying a concept in different ways; however, if a specific use of a concept violates the principles considered essential to that concept, it cannot be used in that way unless it stands as a concept independent and distinct from the original concept.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Both subjects, of course, require some analytic skills. But these are two separate subjects and the skills you need for English 101 quite differ from those you need for Calculus I.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It doesn't matter. There can be a common scale by which one measures and compares the difficulty of both disciplies. That you cannot seem to find that scale does not mean that there is no scale.</p>

59

<p>erm, death of the author?</p>

60

<p>nspeds, then what are those precise metrics you use to measure different subjects and their associated difficulties?</p>

<p>What does not matter? and what does matter to you at this point? There is no logic in your argument from the get-go. You are comparing an apple to an orange...why do i need to repeat this?</p>

<p>What is the common scale that you mentioned? Do you mean your actual grades received in particular subjects? are you simplying arguing for and against something based on YOUR experience? if not, what is the precise metric you use to measure difficulties which everyone could relate to and not just you?</p>

<p>some might prefer math and science over history and literature. some might excel in history and literature but find themselves lost in literature and history.</p>

<p>nspeds, you overly elaborate on your biased opinion over a highly subjective matter.</p>

<p>Everyone has different experience...you just cannot expect others to experience the way you have. It all bogs down to whether YOU struggled in math relatively more than you did in English and etc. or vice versa.</p>

<p>nspeds, you can't start an argument without knowing what you are exactly arguing about...</p>

<p>There can be a common scale? ok, why not? but why should there be one? are you clinging onto something that isn't there? </p>

<p>sure, i can hope for anything and argue against anything else...what are your precise reasons for arguing that there is a common scale with which one can measure difficulties in different subjects?</p>