Funny Article on Liberal Arts

[mathsciencedude]

<p>Because STEM includes Technology and Engineering, pssh</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>You know it’s a pointless debate when one side includes majors like Business, Math and Engineering that share very little in common, while the other side includes majors like Art, Sociology and Math, that again share very little in common.</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>

You know it’s a pointless debate when one side includes majors like Business, Math and Engineering that share very little in common, while the other side includes majors like Art, Sociology and Math, that again share very little in common.

Right. People keep saying STEM vs. Liberal Arts, but the Liberal Arts actually have S&M.</p>

<p>Edit: Hahaha, wow.</p>

[mathsciencedude]

<p>EDIT: hehehe…whoa</p>

<p>I’m sure we could prevent the apparent contradiction by limiting “The Liberal Arts” to the majors that are typically thought of as “The Liberal Arts,” such as art, sociology, and women’s studies.</p>

<p>Obviously excluding math from “The Liberal Arts.”</p>

[arbiter213]

<p>My grandfather was an electrical engineer who worked on some of the very first electronic computers, but he was convinced that computers would stay large and massive, and actively disbelieved personal computing would catch on.</p>

<p>My uncle’s father, a nobel laureate in physics, declined to buy in to two of his students’ computer startup since he thought it was a silly idea, though he did lend them $500 to rent a garage to set up shop. When he died, those students, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, attended his memorial service.</p>

<p>So yes, scientists are frequently narrow minded because that’s what helps them be good scientists, and because they work in an echoing chamber where outlying ideas are frequently shouted down. Liberal arts majors are less likely to be caught narrowly down a technological corridor. </p>

<p>Not hard and fast rules, but certainly shows there can be a mix in both directions.</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>

I’m sure we could prevent the apparent contradiction by limiting “The Liberal Arts” to the majors that are typically thought of as “The Liberal Arts,” such as art, sociology, and women’s studies.</p>

<p>Obviously excluding math from “The Liberal Arts.”

Centuries-old academically accepted definition > internet ignorance.</p>

[mathsciencedude]

<p>Yet, I conjecture that these threads only use “The Liberal Arts” as a buzzword to attract attention, where the real meaning is liberal arts minus STEM. Thus, this is not an argument over the correct definition of liberal arts but of the usefulness of liberal arts minus STEM vs. STEM.</p>

<p>I conclude that your remark is meaningless and ignorant.</p>

[rymd]

<p>

@RoxSox

I think that STEM majors often create the technology, while liberal arts majors come up with ways that technology can be used in a changing world. STEM majors do this also, but I think people with a liberal arts education can do this in other ways that are important. Consider the internet - STEM major types created it, obviously, but liberal arts major types found ways to adapt and use it and create content for it<a href=“%5Bb%5DNot%20just%20liberal%20arts%20majors,%20obviously%5B/b%5D,%20but%20%5Biuthey%20are%20more%20suited%5B/u%5D%20to%20apply%20it%20in%20certain%20ways”>/u</a>.

Important parts in bold, bizarre need-more-proof-plz parts in underline…</p>

<p>You said it yourself twice. STEM major “types” are just as adept as liberal arts major “types” at using technology. This is bla bla stereotyping and reading off what liberal arts college websites say imo. Until you can provide some substantial proof of this besides what admissions officers say, I’m going to continue assuming that STEM/liberal arts major people are all just people and are all just people, and this is a silly overblown distinction. </p>

<p>The only thing I’m convinced about by reading about all this liberal arts stuff is that a science/engineering curriculum can benefit from a “liberal arts approach” (jargon for “critical thinking”), which is what science/engineering is about anyways, and that a science/engineering curriculum should ideally continue including liberal arts courses beyond high school.</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>I am seriously disappointed by this thread’s lack of funny tags.</p>

[mathsciencedude]

<p>I am seriously disappointed by your post’s lack of funny comments.</p>

[rymd]

<p>

@arbiter213

My uncle’s father, a nobel laureate in physics, declined to buy in to two of his students’ computer startup since he thought it was a silly idea, though he did lend them $500 to rent a garage to set up shop. When he died, those students, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, attended his memorial service.

holy ****, you potentially could have been RICH (if you inherit) - are you annoyed by this? lol</p>

<p>Math is definitely a liberal art. Engineering may be math, but it’s applied math. Math, like physics can branch off into the applied-form, but it’s still mostly theorycraft-ish. </p>

<p>Mark Zuckerberg double majored in computer science and psychology - best of both worlds? =/</p>

[essceejay216]

<p>Totally misleading name for this thread. Not funny at all. Fail. Fail. Fail.</p>

<p>And people who try to separate math and science from liberal arts are obviously ignorant as to what liberal arts is.</p>

[holden888]

<p>

@arbiter213

My uncle’s father

</p>

<p>Grandfather…?</p>

<p>

@arbiter213

a nobel laureate in physics, declined to buy in to two of his students’ computer startup since he thought it was a silly idea, though he did lend them $500 to rent a garage to set up shop. When he died, those students, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, attended his memorial service.

</p>

<p>Damn who is your uncle’s father?</p>

[arbiter213]

<p>Uncle’s father.</p>

<p>Me->Father—>Father’s Sister (Aunt)-Marries Uncle–> Father.</p>

<p>And I’m not going to elaborate for my own privacy. But it was a nobel in the late 80s.</p>

[antipacifist]

<p>

And people who try to separate math and science from liberal arts are obviously ignorant as to what liberal arts is.

it’s a battle of semantics; people that yell and scream “math is part of the liberal arts!” are just trying to distract from the main question of the debate, which is whether certain disciplines (the humanities, political science, economics et. al) ought not be studied in today’s job market.
my thoughts: you need to at least have a minor (which is not good enough) in a field that has a significant quantitative component. Ideally a competitive student would double major in two complementary, academically rigorous subjects (let’s say math and CompSci). Even degrees like biology aren’t good enough anymore because most of the pure bio majors I know just want the self-esteem boost of having a natural sciences degree but aren’t that interested in the major or aren’t very smart. Chemistry and physics are a bit better b/c they tend to be more quantitatively rigorous, bio is just rote regurgitation of facts. </p>

<p>Statistics, math, comp.sci and in particular, engineering are just objectively the best majors and if you’re confused about which major to choose, just look online for some of the jaw-droppingly amazing things engineers are doing every day. How often do you crack open the paper and read about an innovative new discovery by linguists? How often do historians really find out anything new about history? Why should you spend thousands and thousands of dollars and 4 years majoring in a language when you could spend an 8th of that time in a foreign country and learn the language to the same degree of fluency? etc., etc. STEM or bust.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

Why should you spend thousands and thousands of dollars and 4 years majoring in a language when you could spend an 8th of that time in a foreign country and learn the language to the same degree of fluency?

</p>

<p>Because the point of majoring in a language isn’t to learn the language, it’s to study literature in that language.</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>

it’s a battle of semantics; people that yell and scream “math is part of the liberal arts!” are just trying to distract from the main question of the debate, which is whether certain disciplines (the humanities, political science, economics et. al) ought not be studied in today’s job market.

If someone cares only for making money, they are free to major in whatever they think will make them the most money. However, the rest of us who seek personal fulfillment and non-monetary goals will also be free to pursue we want to.</p>

<p>

my thoughts: you need to at least have a minor (which is not good enough) in a field that has a significant quantitative component. Ideally a competitive student would double major in two complementary, academically rigorous subjects (let’s say math and CompSci). Even degrees like biology aren’t good enough anymore because most of the pure bio majors I know just want the self-esteem boost of having a natural sciences degree but aren’t that interested in the major or aren’t very smart. Chemistry and physics are a bit better b/c they tend to be more quantitatively rigorous, bio is just rote regurgitation of facts.

Again, these are just the subjects you value. Go ahead and study them, we won’t stop you; however, don’t try to stop others from studying the subjects they value.</p>

<p>

Statistics, math, comp.sci and in particular, engineering are just objectively the best majors and if you’re confused about which major to choose, just look online for some of the jaw-droppingly amazing things engineers are doing every day. How often do you crack open the paper and read about an innovative new discovery by linguists? How often do historians really find out anything new about history?

There are no objectively best majors; for someone claiming to be so knowledgeable, you really should know something as simple as subjectivity vs. objectivity. Further, the point of majors in the humanities and social sciences are not just to know the subject matter, but to develop reasoning and writing abilities. Many advances in the field of history are being made, but you just don’t get what most people do with their humanities/social sciences majors; they go to law school, into business, into teaching, enter government, and become world leaders. The study of history is important for anyone who will be making decisions that affect the future; the study of philosophy informs decisions large and small; the study of psychology determines things as varied as who should be sent to the UN or where to put the dials on an oven; the writing and reasoning abilities learned are desirable for a great range of fields.</p>

[arbiter213]

<p>antipacifist is also sure that homosexuality is an “unnatural lifestyle” and that affirmative action unfairly advantages under-qualified minority members.</p>

<p>These facts don’t affect his arguments here, but they may color how you view his posts.</p>

[zchryevns]

<p>arbiter, one thing:</p>

<p>

My uncle’s father, a nobel laureate in physics, declined to buy in to two of his students’ computer startup since he thought it was a silly idea, though he did lend them $500 to rent a garage to set up shop. When he died, those students, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, attended his memorial service.

Was this a professor at Reed? Jobs went to Reed and Wozniak went to UCBerkeley. They actually met on a job, so he couldn’t have been professor to both of them. For this to be true (not saying it’s not, I’m just inquiring), he would have had to be a Reed professor since it was Jobs’ garage.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>Guys, this isn’t that hard.</p>

<p>

Melvin Schwartz has never been one to let the rules stand in the way of an eager scientist with a good idea. Just ask computer whiz Steve Jobs, founder of Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Computer Inc. and now chairman of NeXT Inc. of Palo Alto, Calif.</p>

<p>Jobs was a college dropout when he “dropped in” to one of Schwartz’s physics classes at Stanford University in the mid-1970s. Schwartz welcomed the nonpaying guest, Jobs says, because “even though at that point he was getting tired of teaching, he loved teaching people who wanted to learn.”</p>

<p>A year or two later, when Jobs and then-partner Steve Wozniak founded Apple, they asked Schwartz for some business advice. “We didn’t know what we were doing,” says Jobs, “so he told us what he knew and helped us buy parts through his company [Digital Pathways Inc.]. They were a small company [then], just selling some things and keeping afloat, but they looked pretty big to us.”</p>

<p>Just as Schwartz the scientist possesses a strong entrepreneurial spirit, so did Schwartz the businessman retain the scientist’s joy in knowledge, Jobs says.</p>

<p>“He looked at business as a big experiment,” Jobs recalls, “and that gave him a sense of humor about it all. As a businessman, he was having a ball, simply testing things out by doing them.”

</p>

<p>[The</a> Scientist - Brookhaven’s Schwartz: `An Artist Of Physics’](<a href=“http://www.the-scientist.com/images/yr1991/july/clemmitt_p1_910708.html]The”>http://www.the-scientist.com/images/yr1991/july/clemmitt_p1_910708.html)</p>

<p>

Melvin Schwartz (November 2, 1932 – August 28, 2006) was an American physicist. He shared the 1988 Nobel Prize in Physics with Leon M. Lederman and Jack Steinberger for their development of the neutrino beam method and their demonstration of the doublet structure of the leptons through the discovery of the muon neutrino.

</p>

<p>[Melvin</a> Schwartz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Schwartz]Melvin”>Melvin Schwartz - Wikipedia)</p>