Don't Grade Humanities As Easy Stuff

Transfer Students
61

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am going to make this painfully clear, and I hope this time you will understand: the notion that you are comparing "apples and oranges" presupposes that there is no common standard by which they can be compared.</p>

<p>You are arguing that there is no standard by which physics and english can be compared, therefore they cannot be compared. HOWEVER, the basis of your claim – that there is no standard by which physics and english can be compared – is based on your NOT knowing that there is such a standard.</p>

<p>So you are arguing that there is NO standard because you don't know of one. That is an argument from ignorance. It is fallacious, because there could be a standard even though you don't know about it.</p>

<p>The burden is not on ME to prove that there is a standard. The burden is on you to prove that there is NO standard, because you are claiming there isn't one. That you don't know of one is insufficient to prove that there IS NONE.</p>

<p>Gosh, there are so many idiots in this thread, I don't even know where to start.</p>

<p>One thing I WILL recommend is that none of you should plan on going to law school or doing anything remotely requiring proper methods of reasoning.</p>

62

<p>Even if you are referring to me as one of the "many idiots in this thread" I can't help but appreciate your argument. Takes me back to many critical debate rounds in the past four years.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
The burden is not on ME to prove that there is a standard. The burden is on you to prove that there is NO standard, because you are claiming there isn't one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is this the standard you were looking for? But then, nspeds, by saying that English and theology are "buckets of rubbish," yet physics and philosophy are not, are you not saying that there is a standard of comparison that you are using and keeping from the rest of us?</p>

<p>If the standard of comparison (difficulty) is assumed to be analytical rigor, then I would agree that mathematics, sciences, engineering, and yes, philosophy, are more difficult than most of their peer subjects.</p>

<p>Nspeds, I would venture to say that yours is also an argument from ignorance as you are assuming that something exists simply because jslee cannot prove that it does not.</p>

64

<p>Exactly. The burden IS on you, nspeds, to prove that there is a standard, AND to tell the rest of us what it is, if you're going to say that English and theology are "buckets of rubbish" and treat that badly-supported statement as an obvious fact. </p>

<p>Your resorting to insults ("there are so many idiots on this thread...") seems like a sign not so much of frustration as of an indirect acknowledgement of faulty logic. It isn't necessary, and frankly, it's surprising, coming from you. I hope that YOU'RE not going into a field in which "proper methods of reasoning" are required, because your definition of them seems radically different from any other I've ever heard.</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
Even if you are referring to me as one of the "many idiots in this thread

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wasn't.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Is this the standard you were looking for?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No. I was just making a suggestion.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I would venture to say that yours is also an argument from ignorance as you are assuming that something exists simply because jslee cannot prove that it does not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No. I would agree with you, had I made that claim, but I don't think I did in this thread. At least I don't remember doing that!</p>

<p>
[quote]
like a sign not so much of frustration as of an indirect acknowledgement of faulty logic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The burden IS on you, nspeds, to prove that there is a standard, AND to tell the rest of us what it is

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just like a good ol' follower: you are eager to jump on any argument opposing arguments that oppose your interests, without assessing that argument's merits. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Your resorting to insults ("there are so many idiots on this thread...") seems like a sign not so much of frustration as of an indirect acknowledgement of faulty logic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, it might seem like a sign that I am using "faulty logic." Of course, it could equally be possible that it is a sign of my frustration at there actually being many idiots in this thread. Your point?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I hope that YOU'RE not going into a field in which "proper methods of reasoning" are required.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? Because my philosophical focus is in advanced logic, which is the paradigm case of normative theorems of how to reason.</p>

<p>In fact, I just completed a practice LSAT in which I scored in the 99th percentile. Obviously, I am not doing anything wrong here.</p>

<p>Edit: It is not surprising that most of my professors agree with me on this issue, that English is a load of nonsense.</p>

<p>Brian Leiter, a chaired professor at UT-Austin's Law School stated it himself:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Whatever the limitations of "analytic" philosophy, it is clearly far preferable to what has befallen humanistic fields like English, which have largely collapsed as serious disciplines while becoming the repository for all the world's bad philosophy, bad social science, and bad history. (Surely English professor "celebrities" like Stanley Fish and Andrew Ross are fine contemporary examples of "the man of letters who really is nothing but ‘represents' almost everything, playing and ‘substituting' for the expert, and taking it upon himself in all modesty to get himself paid, honored, and celebrated.…") When compared to the sophomoric nonsense that passes for "philosophizing" in the broader academic culture—often in fields like English, Law, Political Science, and sometimes History—one can only have the highest respect for the intellectual rigor and specialization of analytic philosophers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/analytic.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/analytic.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

66

<p>
[quote]

No. I would agree with you, had I made that claim, but I don't think I did in this thread. At least I don't remember doing that!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which is fine...it just seemed like you had implicitly adopted some sort of standard by comparing English to Philosophy earlier (for ex.). </p>

<p>Like I said, whether you would like to adopt that standard of comparison or not, I would agree with what was said earlier and consider difficulty = analytical rigor. Previous arguments aside, why does one go to college? At first I was on the pre-professional track to go to business school, but am leaning towards a liberal arts education in Economics-Math and a minor in Philosophy. Regardless of the field that I go into, these majors will, first and foremost, teach me how to think analytically and logically. I'm not sure I could say the same if I were to major in History, English, etc. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, I just completed a practice LSAT in which I scored in the 99th percentile.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is very good! I decided to take a gander at an LSAT and did 3 problems on a practice test before my mind exploded. :D At least I got those three correct...but with finals week near, I wasn't really up to going through the entire test. It's very different from any test I've ever taken.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
Like I said, whether you would like to adopt that standard of comparison or not, I would agree with what was said earlier and consider difficulty = analytical rigor.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I personally agree with you, but I do not have enough patience or evidence to foist this claim on others who post here.</p>

68

<p>I hate to digress, but didn't you say earlier that you'd scored a 180 on the LSAT? Isn't that perfect?</p>

69

<p>Yea..but you can actually miss one (or two?) and still get 180</p>

70

<p>Congratulations on the practice LSAT score.</p>

<p>I have to wonder, though, if you think that everyone (or most people) on this board are so painfully inferior to you intellectually, why you are wasting your time discussing this with them, to the point of frustration. There is just no discussion in which using insults is appropriate. Sorry. </p>

<p>And the quotation from the law professor is lovely, but as he's a law professor, perhaps he does not speak without an agenda?</p>

<p>My great aunt was a professor of logic at Columbia University for almost thirty years, and did not think that comparing the difficulties of a largely creative (but also analytical) discipline, like English, and a more analytical one, like philosophy, made much sense at all. I'm not anticipating that you'll care much about that at all, but there it is.</p>

71

<p>Wow this is a great discussion. It is really interesting to hear everyone's opinion.</p>

<p>As someone who has only taken undergraduate humanities and science courses, I am not sure how much gravity I bring to the discussion.</p>

<p>That aside, I think that both topics provide thier own challenges and they both train your mind in different ways.</p>

<p>I think that is one of the strengths of a good core curriculum is that a person can get the chance to do that very thing.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
And the quotation from the law professor is lovely, but as he's a law professor, perhaps he does not speak without an agenda?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>...yeah, that is why he insulted his own... field...</p>

<p>
[quote]
When compared to the sophomoric nonsense that passes for "philosophizing" in the broader academic culture—often in fields like English, Law, Political Science, and sometimes History—

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's a good thing to know that you actually read the passage!</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not anticipating that you'll care much about that at all

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aww shucks! Marta is growing up!</p>

<p>
[quote]
I hate to digress, but didn't you say earlier that you'd scored a 180 on the LSAT? Isn't that perfect?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but there is no 100th percentile on the LSAT. A 180 is pretty much 99.998th percentile or something of the sort.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yea..but you can actually miss one (or two?) and still get 180

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It varies. As of the last administration (September), you could only miss two.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Congratulations on the practice LSAT score.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thanks:)</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, but there is no 100th percentile on the LSAT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, duh. There's no 100th percentile on any standardized test to my knowledge, since there are always multiple people that score a 2400/36/180 etc. Still, that's incredibly impressive. What law schools are you looking into? You're pretty much competitive at all of them, eh?</p>

74

<p>You're welcome. You're also a condescending jackass. </p>

<p>I really have to wonder - I'm not saying you're not helpful very often on these boards, because you ARE, but why would someone who isn't actually in the process of transferring devote quite this much time to this forum? (ARE you in the process of transferring?) Don't you have work to go do, since you're studying analytical philosophy, apparently the most rigorous and prestigious field in the history of mankind?</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
apparently the most rigorous and prestigious field in the history of mankind?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lmao. Nspeds has worked some kind of bug into the program so his average number of posts hovers between 5 and 6, while mine never go below 15. But seriously...he doesn't really post that much. I must say though, once I transfer out of this hell hole, I won't be frequenting the boards near as much until it's time for grad school...wait - actually that won't be far away.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
What law schools are you looking into?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I haven't decided yet.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You're pretty much competitive at all of them, eh?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Without an LSAT score, I am only, as of yet, competitive at the St. Thomas School of Law. They just sent me a merit-based fee waiver.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but why would someone who isn't actually in the process of transferring devote quite this much time to this forum?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm really bored, and I need a break sometimes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
philosophy, apparently the most rigorous and prestigious field in the history of mankind?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh please, I don't believe that. I think mathematics and physics, as fields, probably deserve that status, though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You're also a condescending jackass.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Eh, you can't win 'em all.</p>

<p>And no, I'm not transferring. If I were, then I would have to spent another year in school. I cannot afford and am definitely not willing to do that.</p>

77

<p>nspeds you are the most condescending person that i've ever encountered on collegeconfidential.</p>

<p>first of all : if your going to use big words, make sure they're relevant and not just a tool so you can try to prove your superiority.</p>

<p>second of all: stop saying things like 'none of you should plan to attend law school'</p>

<p>thats just rude. you think you are some sort of genius at winning arguments, but this is a discussion board. You dont need to take every topic and make it one big philosophical debate to prove your intelligence.</p>

<p>Do us all a favor, and find another forum so you can get your daily dose of egotism out of the way.</p>

78

<p>Sorry. I'm sure much of that post was uncalled for, but I get SO much flack about my major, mostly from people who think that because they can tell me what the theory of relativity is, they work ten times as hard as I do. English is a difficult field, perhaps for different reasons than those for which philosophy and the sciences are difficult. And again, I think it depends at least in part on the individual. It might be as difficult for me to derive an advanced philosophical theory as it would be for nspeds to write the next great American novel. But not for the same reasons.</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
first of all : if your going to use big words, make sure they're relevant and not just a tool so you can try to prove your superiority.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If those are "big words" for you, you don't belong at schools like Cal and UCLA. It is simply inexcusable. Brush up your vocab or do something; just don't transform your lethargy into a problem that others must have.</p>

<p>
[quote]
second of all: stop saying things like 'none of you should plan to attend law school'

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's true. Especially you. You shouldn't apply to law school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
make it one big philosophical debate to prove your intelligence.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't. I know you would love to place all the blame on me, but perhaps you can escape your myopia for one minute and think... well darnit... perhaps others contributed to the problem as well!</p>

<p>
[quote]
nglish is a difficult field, perhaps for different reasons than those for which philosophy and the sciences are difficult.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can respect that.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
Without an LSAT score, I am only, as of yet, competitive at the St. Thomas School of Law. They just sent me a merit-based fee waiver.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lmao...what an accomplishment that would be. I'm sorry, I was mistaken. I thought you had already taken the LSAT and scored well. In that case, good luck! </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think mathematics and physics, as fields, probably deserve that status, though.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Agreed.</p>

<p>P.S. the words used in this thread have not been unnecessary or "too big." If anything, you should look them up and learn them. It's a gratifying process to learn a new word that someone else has just used against you and use it against them later. ;)</p>