Don't Grade Humanities As Easy Stuff

Transfer Students
121

<p>Academic difficulty, in this case, cannot be equated with analytic rigor. Philosophy courses are, doubtless, very rigorous. But they are nowhere near as intensive as a chemistry or engineering course of similar level. The competition and workload aren't there. The average engineering course is about as difficult as four softer counterparts. And that should be the crux of any discussion as to the difficulty of the humanities vs. the sciences in the university. </p>

<p>While they are hilarious, all of these epistemological discussions really have no place here.</p>

122

<p>Wilderr,</p>

<p>I think if all programs graded on a curve, you'd see the humanities students working a bit harder.</p>

<p>Oh, and philosophy is doubtless an outlier in the humanities scatterplot.</p>

123

<p>Or you'd see a lot less humanities students, what's your point?</p>

124

<p>I don't think so. Where else would they go? </p>

<p>In the end, people will do what they enjoy. But why shouldn't we challenge them a bit more? I think one of the reason that so many science and engineering courses are so darned "hard" isn't the material, but the curving of the grades.</p>

125

<p>As I said, this is true of most current Humanities departments. But it wasn't always that way. I think you're shortchanging the difficulty of advanced literary, historical and philosophical analysis. On average, I would say math and science classes are more difficult, but they really shouldn't be THAT much more so.</p>

<p>This is an obscure example, but somewhat relevant. In high school, I took AP Physics and IB English. The English teacher was rather old, and hadn't fallen victim to the current intellectually-lazy fads. And she was a ball-buster. I had a MUCH harder time with Shakespeare in her class than any of the Physics material. I'm pretty sure the Valedictorian ended up getting a B in her class, and it was probably his only one ever.</p>

126

<p>Freakonomist,</p>

<p>What you see as intellectually-lazy fads I see as sometimes good in some fields.</p>

<p>I tend to eschew the older view of history education, for example. I think that more contemporary trend-based analysis is more important than the older "dates, dates, and more dates"-style that I sometimes was subjected to.</p>

<p>Of course, you may feel otherwise. </p>

<p>
[quote]
On average, I would say math and science classes are more difficult, but they really shouldn't be THAT much more so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know that it's a "should or shouldn't be" situation here. I think it's more of a "that's just how it is." No matter how "deep" you get into literary analysis, it's hard to argue that it requires more brainpower than philosophical analysis.</p>

127

<p>Well, memorization of historical facts is different than their analysis. I'm speaking more about things like deconstructionism, relativism, "revisionist" history, etc., and how they've had a pernicious influence.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't know that it's a "should or shouldn't be" situation here. I think it's more of a "that's just how it is." No matter how "deep" you get into literary analysis, it's hard to argue that it requires more brainpower than philosophical analysis.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, first of all, philosophy falls under the umbrella of Humanities. But now we're really speaking in terms of things that are pretty hard to quantify.</p>

<p>Also, the reason it's "should or shouldn't be" is the crux of my argument. Sure, humanities courses, taken as a whole in their current manifestation, are almost a joke in comparison to, say, 50 or 60 years ago--thus the difference in difficulty compared to the sciences. What I'm saying is that "proper," rigorous humanities study is at least in the same order of magnitude--to the point where the differences in difficulty are probably more subjective than anything.</p>

<p>If you haven't read "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom, I highly suggest it. He makes a lot of these points more eloquently than I ever could.</p>

128

<p>I've read Bloom, but never completely agreed with him. For one, I think that while his arguments a la Tocqueville and Nietzsche regarding the mediocrity inherent in a Democratic population are straightforward enough, I don't know that I agree with the "collapse" and doom and gloom that he portends.</p>

<p>For one, I don't think that the move away from a strict "Great Books" education is all that bad. American students should not just be focusing on Western civ, but should be getting educated in a wide variety of civilizations-- it's key in the so-called "flat world."</p>

<p>I also question whether or not humanities courses are really that much easier today than they were in the past. I mean, what an impossible thing to really quantify or even qualify.</p>

129

<p>
[quote]
Humanities shouldn't be a great deal easier than the scientific disciplines, but because of the now pervasive postmodern and Marxist influence, and the resultant lack of intellectual rigor, many of these departments have simply gone to ****

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is so true.</p>

130

<p>sciences are certainly difficult, but they are very insignificant in terms of bettering our understanding of ourself. in fact, hummanities is more difficult because WE CAN'T MAKE SENSE OF THE DATA. math and science, everything is understandable because u are learning the concepts humans have created to make sense of natural phenomenons. </p>

<p>let me give u a taste of what hummanities is like:
imagine that u are a philosophy major and u are given two choices. one is to understand the FULL meaning of the below quote. ur second choice is to read a ten-volume 19th century work. these two choices are the only way to understand spencer's theory. </p>

<p>“Evolution is an integration of matter and a concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation” </p>

<p>let's just put it this way: Darwin collected the data and Spencer explained it. i cannot get into the details of this theory, because it is apparently disturbing, or at least too extreme compared to darwin's version of evolution.</p>

<p>besides understanding dfficult concepts like decline of Rome or the cosmic entities of plotinus, the hummanties person is faced with the constant battle: agnosticism versus christianity (or other relgion). u read the Bible on one day and u read shopenhaur on the other. now, we are trying to make sense of spiritual chaos, not just the trends in history.</p>

<p>for u science majors, if u think u know what evolution is without knowing spencer then u are seriously deceieved by the folly of today's society. science, NO MATTER HOW ADVANCED AND DIFFICULT THEY ARE, cannot in ANY WAY compete with the might and spendour and glory and greatness of the past. none, not even einstein or newton, can compete with the greatness of Alexander. u all probably heard the saying or the likeness of it: the modern world has utterly failed in its attempt to emulate the classical age. don't EVEN THINK ABOUT KIDDING ME WITH THE CONCEPT OF progress. i know better. and i KNOW that the golden age of mankind is past and we are at a decline. civilization will end not because of failure of science, but because of it's INEVITABILITY. PERIOD.</p>

<p>as for money. science majors can offer good jobs with high salary. but in hummanities, u sutdy or work because U WANT TO, not because u have to. do u think those guys in the big museums like louvre or d'orsay or getty are working because they are paid alot? no, it's because they are content witht he fact of living substantial part of their lives surrounded by masterpieces and the glorious height of modernist architecture.
also, u rarely find a uncommitted classicist. most of them are total fanatics and worshippers of the ancients.</p>

<p>and hummanities can offer big money. in america there is a huge number of readers for history books. and it really is not that difficult to make alot of money from even fictional books like The Historian or Da vinci code. actually the da vinci code is factually correct (in art history sense) and The Historian probably described Dracula's downfall accurately--but of course, the notion that jesus's bloodline survives or Dracula and his enemy Turkish secret society surives today is preposterous. if work to make money, u wont make much. if u work because u ARE TOTALLY PASSIONATE ABOUT IT, then it is a probability that u make lots of money.</p>

131

<p>
[quote]
For one, I don't think that the move away from a strict "Great Books" education is all that bad. American students should not just be focusing on Western civ, but should be getting educated in a wide variety of civilizations-- it's key in the so-called "flat world."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Depends on what you mean by "strict." I believe other cultures have a lot to offer, but look at what, for example, Herodotus did. He studied other cultures to enrich and supplement his own--to see what lessons they had to offer. Instead, today the attitude is more about nullifying this entire idea, claiming that no culture, no ideas, no values are "better" or "right." Someone, I can't remember who, claimed that we were "murdering our past" by doing this, and he's essentially correct. What we seem to be doing today is declaring there is no "right," rather than trying to discover what that right may be.</p>

<p>I understand what you're talking about with the "flat world," but what I described above I feel is the wrong way to go about it. Have you ever noticed the similarities between stoicism and samurai philosophy (like Musashi)? This is an interesting cultural link between east and west, and just one example of how such study can enrich our culture, rather than simply replace it.</p>

132

<p>
[quote]
everything sauronvoldemort said in this entire thread

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I were a mod, I would delete all your posts so no one else would have to suffer reading them. There's just a point where there are so many fallacies, contradictions and outright falsehoods that it's better to just avoid analysis altogether. If you are a product of a current humanities department, thank you for making my point.</p>

<p>Edit: Someone please tell me that his posts are just an elaborate joke. If so, he's a genius.</p>

133

<p>greatest quote of a french neoclassical artist:</p>

<p>LET ME HEAR NO MORE OF THAT ABSURD MAXIM: "WE NEED THE NEW, WE MUST FOLLOW OUR CENTURY, EVERYTHING CHANGES, EVERYTHING IS CHANGED" SOPHISTRY--ALL OF THAT! DOES NATURE CHANGE, DO LIGHT AND AIR CHANGE, HAVE THE PASSIONS OF THE HUMAN HEART CHANGED SINCE THE TIME OF HOMER?</p>

<p>please don't kid me with the progress of science. the sicentific nations were always the victims of the virtuous nations: for most of history, germanic europe was under the oppression of the latins (italy, spain, france, england)-- and don't kid me with the notion of english people being totally germanic. they look more italian than german to me. anyway, rome never really fell. the pagan rome fell, and the pope merely assumed the authority of caesars. the germanic rise was only brief (1860-1945) while the latin opression existed the time Europa was born. 5 centuries ago, u would admire spanish society's disdain for science and its religious fanaticism. because it was FAITH THAT ALLOWED SPAIN TO RULE THE WORLD AND CONTROL EUROPE THROUGH ITS FEARED ARMIES. FAITH WAS THE ULTIMATE WEAPON OF MANKIND. IN FAITH SPANIARDS WIPED OUT INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS. IN FAITH SPANIARDS TERROIZED NETHERLANDS WITH INQUISITION AND IN FAITH SPAIN PARTICIPATED IN THE RAVAGE OF GERMANY. IN FAITH ALEXANDER CONQUERED ASIA. IN FAITH JESUITS CREATED THE FIRST MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION. IN FAITH DID THE MOHAMMAD II TOPPLE ROME ONCE AND FOR ALL IN 1453. IN FAITH DID HUMANITY KILLED EACH OTHER AND PRAYED TO GOD.</p>

134

<p>don't make any sort of triflings and toys with me. i know exactly what i am talking about</p>

135

<p>
[quote]
Edit: Someone please tell me that his posts are just an elaborate joke. If so, he's a genius.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, they are complete nonsense. I agree.</p>

136

<p>Sauron, that's exactly the problem. Of course you know what you're talking about, but you don't know what THIS debate is about. It's a classic introductory english mistake and you should always be on the look out for it. You post about European history relative to faith, random babblings about the formation of Darwinism and other miscellaneous topics, but you forget to tie it with your thesis, which seems to be "we can't make sense of the data."</p>

<p>You explain how spencer explained Darwin's data. Didn't you just say we can't explain the data? How does that make sense? Plus, the following sentence where your supposed to tell your readers why it's relavent you simply say: "i cannot get into the details of this theory."</p>

<p>If you don't want to explain it, then why bother posting it?</p>

<p>Everything else...</p>

<p>What do quotes about European have anything to do with making sense of data? What does Faith have anything to do with the comparison of humanities and science? You talk about Alexander the Great, what about him? You say we're at a decline, but what does that have anything to do with our discussion? What does money have to do with the debate? </p>

<p>You have lost sight of the main argument here in this thread, and decided to write impulsively. Granted, I hijack this thread and other threads periodically, but I'm conscious of it. You need to be able to understand what is relevant and what's not. Don't add useless tidbits to your writing...cause it's useless!</p>

137

<p>
[quote]
You need to be able to understand what is relevant and what's not. Don't add useless tidbits to your writing...cause it's useless!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I'm definitely not reading all the crap he wrote!</p>

138

<p>Hahahahahahaha. Sauron, you're really not helping...I'm not really sure what your point was, and I don't think I want to wade through all that babbling to find out, either.</p>

<p>I agree with the (more pertinent) earlier point made about humanities programs TODAY and how they've gone to s***. I definitely agree that the amount of rigor has declined, and with it, the seriousness attributed to the programs. But I was arguing for the very best possible English (or whatever humanity) curriculum, assuming less of a decline had taken place. </p>

<p>Sorry; that probably doesn't make much sense. I guess I mean that with English, you really have to give yourself more work, in today's programs. I don't find the curriculum here at CU Boulder challenging at all (that's why I'm transferring), but if I do extra reading and analysis and add the creative component (actually try to write something worth reading), it's much harder...obviously, it's easier to get an English degree than a physics degree (at least, it would be for me), but the amount of work put into it is a decision for the individual to make. Which may contradict some of the things I said earlier.</p>

139

<p>At what level are we arguing whether the humanities or sciences are harder? I think there is a very mixed notion on this forum. I was under the impression at first it was about which majors are genrerally harder to obtain a degree in. If we are arguing about obtaining the degree then I would personally say the sciences tend to be harder. </p>

<p>Now to truly master a subject beyond getting a degree is whole different story, and would not venture as to what is harder subject.</p>

140

<p>Yeah, I think there's been confusion over that as well. "Don't grade humanities as easy stuff" doesn't really give conclusive information one way or the other as to what this debate is supposed to be about. Degree-wise, I'd concede at this point that humanities are less difficult. But otherwise...no. Much of what people have been saying could be attributed to either. I'm with you there, oxypunk.</p>