<p>I never said that they were worthless. </p>
<p>I think we also have to examine what the word 'easy' means. "Easy" is always a relative statement. Even the easiest humanities course at Berkeley would be extremely difficult for somebody who, say, doesn't speak English (which comprises the majority of people in the world). Hence, you could say that the easiest, fluffiest course at Berkeley would be extremely difficult for the majority of the people in the world. However, I think the context is that, relative to the standard of the average Berkeley student, certain courses at Berkeley are indeed 'easy'. Or if you prefer, they are 'easier'. And a disproportionate number of these 'easy' or 'easier' courses tend to be concentrated in the humanities majors than in the tech majors. That's the reality that I and Professor Rine have been alluding to. </p>
<p>Now, I know full well that a lot of humanities students at Berkeley don't like to admit that truth. But it is the truth, like it or not. If Berkeley humanities students really don't like it that they are tarred with the brush of 'easiness', then they should work to reform the humanities majors to make them more rigorous. Again, getting back to those fluff majors that I would prefer not to name, it is precisely the humanities students who work hard who should be criticizing those fluff majors the most, because those fluff majors are making all humanities students look bad.</p>