<p>It can go both ways. I hazily recall that in the early 1980's the John Crerar Library holdings (that were at that time housed at the Illinois Institute of Technology) along with about $18 million were offered to the University of Chicago. Again through my hazy memory, I remember there was some reluctance to taking the collection because it included engineering holdings, which many at Chicago felt was much to applied for the University. It was only when the emphasis was more focused on science research did the deal get done. The library now anchors the new science quad at the University.</p>
<p>"Show me some I-bankers, rich though they may be, that can discuss anything other than finance?"</p>
<p>I could, easily. These are very cultured, well-educated individuals, as a group. Well-spoken, articulate and interesting individuals, as well. They have to be, to get hired. It's a personality contest, at one level.</p>
<p>Anyone else see the irony in Post #120, or is it just me?
(Meaning, people who protest about how supposedly under-educated Ivy grads are, are themselves quite uneducated about the literacy of others. "English majors" -- there ya' go: another stereotype, another put down, another broad brush, another group slam. Notice it's in quotes, too. Perhaps they're fraudently English majors?)</p>
<p>The one thing I can say definitively about every Eng. major I know who graduated at least 10 years ago, is that I would never know they had been Eng. majors. They almost never talk about literature, unless asked. And the one activity that generally "Eng. majors" do the most of? Read. (Wow: who knew?) They read voraciously, & generally about every topic they can get their hands on: yes, including & sometimes especially, science. And because they read so much, they often have much more than "a basic understanding of science." Genetics, infectious & non-infectious diseases, archaeology, astronomy, psychiatry, & much more.</p>
<p>Someone on this thread either has a LOT of prejudices, or doesn't get out much.</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>I hope you don't take things quite so literally in the rest of your life. It's curious that you ignore yulsie's putdown of engineers (no stereotype there?) yet attack my mild rebuttal.</p>
<p>If you have such difficulty seeing two sides to issues, if you are so lacking in nuance, then I feel sorry for you.</p>
<p>Yea, I guess I don't get out as much as you...bully for you that you have such well rounded friends. Care to defend engineers, too? Or do they not pass your test?</p>
<p>In Seattle we have been debating whether to add a couple years of math to the requirements for graduating high school.
while many advocate against it, many have advocated for it, Including David Horsey a political cartoonist, and public school teachers citing that they have never needed anything beyond algebra in their work.( which terrifies me)</p>
<p>Most English majors have never struck me as being overly interested in technical material, any more than many engineers have struck me as being interested in literature. ( However just as a survival technique, 10 years out of college, english majors may have had to become interested just to be employed)
I have known musicians who were math geeks and the reverse, but while colleges may have "dumbed down" science requirements for lit majors, they dont have "dumbed down" english requirements for physics majors, because while you have to be able to read and write to produce scientific papers, you don't have to be able to explain a proof to analyze a poem.</p>
<p>Explaining a proof and analyzing a poem may not be all that dissimilar. Jacob Bronowski argued in his many works that they involved the same behaviors. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Bronowski%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Bronowski</a>)</p>
<p>This is most clearly articulated in his great little book "Science & Human Values" written in the early 1950's (though republished with subsequent later publication dates). Bronowski, who I believe worked on the Manhattan Project, was both a mathematician and a poet. This book was (is) on my kids required reading list so that they can gain an understanding that there is little difference in doing science or doing arts, the same creative process operates for both even if the content basis is different. IMHO (I have never used that before, I hope it means what I think it does) schools that foster such an understanding either by Core or example or both will not be frauds.</p>
<br>
<p>"I feel sorry for you" <</p>
<br>
<p>Please, spare me your pity, as clearly I don't need it. It appears that I am not the one lacking in the ability to see & appreciate nuance, sir. And my world is possibly much wider than yours, judging by your comments & assumptions. (Or the people I travel with, much broader in their knowledge base, their "education," than those with whom you are acquainted. That would include scientists AND English majors.)</p>
<p>As to "taking things literally," people respond to what they read. If you want your comments not be misconstrued, misunderstood, than speak more clearly, please. Your communication skills could frankly be improved. English majors "not having a basic understanding of science" is not a nuance.</p>
<p>Nor do I have any problem addressing anyone else on this thread, or on the other forums, who makes assumptions about anyone who majors in particular subjects (including yes, yulsie, & now emeraldkity). People: students usually have to choose a major. Many college students also use the golden opportunity of their education to broaden their horizons (as mathmom did). In addition, many/most colleges/U's have distribution requirements ranging from minimal to extensive. Many people double-major. Many people get <em>two</em> B.A.'s. Most importantly, one thing that is very misunderstood is that the human brain continues to develop significantly beyond the college years. The newest research (speaking of those versed in science) is that there is a much longer line of cognitive development, & that development is much more complex, than researchers have previously believed -- & recently believed.</p>
<p>True lovers of education (beyond the institutional definition) tend to build on their training, knowledge, intellectual skill throughout a lifetime. Not that that is news. The news is that comprehension & facility expand over time across many subjects, as well (not just interest). But the interest & the comprehension are obviously mutual, too. Thus, humanities "majors" may become more interested in the technical field as that field becomes more understandable to them. Similarly for those in technical or scientific fields. Both exposure & brain development assist with this cross-over.</p>
<p>idad, thanks to the link to Bronowski. He's spot on, by the way. Analysis is the stuff of Eng. lit, & in a very disciplined way. This is why many years ago, corporations realized they could sometimes do better to hire Eng. grads over business grads -- & not only because the Eng. grads knew how to write. Importantly, they knew how to analyze, & thus could analyze market reports, & communicate accurately about those reports. Thus, I was able to do that in a corporation while untrained in business, & was promoted over MBA's because of it.</p>
<p>One more thing: the top science prizes in my older D's high school went to the students who happened to be humanities oriented & are now majoring in humanities fields as freshmen. The students who won the prizes achieved that over the science-oriented students who are now at Harvey Mudd & MIT. They are at Ivies, an LAC, & Stanford now. Whoops! I guess those Ivy students are not "real students," though, because they didn't happen to choose UChicago, Reed, or Oberlin, where the true intellectuals go.</p>
<p>I think the all-around stereotyping on this thread, not limited to nmd, needs to stop. This is not about me or my major or my interests, nmd. It's about education & the mythology about majors & abilities & interests & the human brain. I do not like ignorance. So if you see me as reactive, that's what it's about. Not about me.</p>
<p>Yes, there are people who never get beyond narrow fields of interest. But two things about that: (1) Be careful about equating college major with interest or ability; (2) Depending on the gifts, there's a need for some great minds to remain narrowly focused. Thank God for the Stephen Hawkings & the Jonas Salks & many others. They have contributed so much, & paved the way for so much to follow. And that narrowly focused person, William Shakespeare, who immortally teaches about human character & the consequences of one's actions: it seems that he wasn't so narrowly focused after all.</p>
<p>thanks for the recommendation idad even though you shot my reasoning process all to hell!</p>
<p>So perhaps the poem analogy was a bad choice
but my comments about those who don't feel that high school students need to take more than 2 years of math still stands.
Apparently because that is all they have needed or used in their line of work, but I worry that we are limiting students if that is all we expect of them. Would we think they could do well in life if they only had two years of english/history in high school?
They certainly wouldn't be able to attend college if that is all they have, and they won't be able to enter the science/math fields if that is all they have in math.</p>
<p>Given the discussion of whether or not an "Ivy" education is a fraud, or whether true intellectuals only apply to "serious" colleges (i.e. Chicago, Reed etc.) I'd like to offer a thought. Graduates of any selective college, including the Ivy's, have to fulfill either distribution requirements or a core curriculum. (I understand that Brown is more flexible, but still has requirements.) Regardless of major, these kids are educated in all aspects of a liberal arts education -- analysis, writing, research and quantitative methods. English majors must take some quantitative classes, and science majors take humanities. My hope and expectation is that my son will emerge as a well-educated citizen, conversant in a variety of topics.</p>
<p>In defense of science/engineering types, I have to offer the example of my H, who has bachelors and master's degrees in math. One of the things I liked about him immediately, was that he is a voracious reader. And he read authors that I would never have read for fun -- Solshenitsyn and Dostoyevsky come to mind. He introduced me to other authors over the years, and we have even been know to buy each other the same book for Christmas. I don't think that it's so unusual to find engineers and scientists who have an interest in other subjects -- curiosity is probably a pretty basic characteristic. And I've known people who majored in social sciences who are frustrated engineers at heart. So, like Epiphany, I think it's a mistake to make too many assumptions about people based on their career or college major. Intelligent people are often talented in a variety of areas, and may end up in I-banking, computer science or business for pragmatic reasons as opposed to a lifelong interest in those fields.</p>
<p>emeraldkity4: The notion that two years of HS math are enough for most kids nowadays is absurd. Talk about putting a ceiling on aspirations and possibilities. Sadly, my now 8th grade S will have met the local high school math requirements at the end of this year, I can't believe they are contemplating reducing it even more. Of course he will not stop, but how about the kids who need to do more, but don't know it? They will never have to worry if there college education is a fraud, the fraud will have occurred long before.</p>
<p>My husband and I are both state university graduates and we couldn't be prouder of our Ivy League daughter. She worked darn hard to get into Dartmouth, a school that she fell in love with the first time she walked onto the campus. There is a certain appeal of feeling that she achieved her goal.</p>
<p>I'm sure that's the case. The key is, how good will she feel about it 20 years from now. I'm sure my parents were thriilled for me too, but in my case as I've related I'm pretty ambivalent about the experience, in retrospect.</p>
<p>I didn't attend Dartmouth though.</p>