<p>Whatever perplexed. It’s fascinatingly self-evident that you’re being merely flippant.</p>
<p>I think we all just need to remember that Steve Jobs attended a LAC and got the idea to make a more aesthetically appealing OS from a calligraphy course. ;)</p>
<p>And now he can slap an Apple on the back of anything, charge twice as much as the similar PC product, produce a new one every 3 months and all the Apple sheeps will still by it up right away…</p>
<p>MLDWoody,</p>
<p>Let’s look at this argument.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Apple actually refreshes most of its lines more slowly than its competitors. Once a year is the cycle for iPad/iPhone, and Macs usually are updated twice yearly or so. Unless you are talking about the Mac Mini, which seems to get a yearly update.</p></li>
<li><p>Twice as much is actually not even close. It’s high at the low end, but non-existent at the high end. Matt Buchanan at Gizmodo did a great article on this: [Gizmodo</a>, the Gadget Guide](<a href=“Gizmodo | The Future Is Here”>Gizmodo | The Future Is Here)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Furthermore, anyone who has bought at least one Mac knows that the trick to buying a Mac is to skimp on RAM at the factory and buy RAM from Crucial.</p>
<p>I can put together a Mac for almost the same as a PC, put in some Crucial RAM, and pay nearly nothing in “tax,” and then enjoy the benefits of having great customer service if something goes wrong.</p>
<p>Before anyone runs around saying I don’t know computers, I used to build my own rigs. I know plenty about pricing hardware. I know that if I go out and buy off of Newegg, I can put together a faster rig for less.</p>
<p>I don’t care. I’m not a teenager looking to run Crysis at 8x AA with super high ultra graphics. I want a computer that works. I want service if/when it doesn’t. Did my Mac cost me more for that? Yup. Would I pay it again? Yup. </p>
<p>Last time my Toshiba crapped out, I had to mail it in and it was gone for three weeks. My Dell? I had to argue with foreign CSRs for a week before they sent me a hard drive to replace ON MY OWN.</p>
<p>Wanna call me a sheeple, a sheep, a moron, whatever? Go right ahead. But I go into these purchases knowing FULL WELL that I pay a premium. I also know that what I get in return for that premium is worth it to me personally.</p>
<p>People buy Apple products now not for the Tech specs or anything, but so the sole reason it says Apple on it. That is what annoys me. </p>
<p>I am not saying Apples are worse or anything, just what I said above.</p>
<p>The “twice as expensive” thing is an exageration. But they are more expensive.</p>
<p>If you know what your talking about and you did your research and you think an Apple is the best choice, ok. If you say “OMG!! A NEW i_____. I MUST HAVE ONE! APPLE APPLE APPLE!” then I get annoyed.</p>
<p>And specsturbation is any better? </p>
<p>How many people went out and bought the EVO just because it had FOUR GEEZ? </p>
<p>Consumers buy things for all sorts of strange reasons. Brand awareness is not the silliest. Besides, it may be the branding that gets people to buy Apple, but it’s the owner experience that keeps them there. If Apple weren’t producing a product that people enjoy, they would stop buying it. Instead, we see that Apple product loyalty is very high. I often see arguments that it’s because people are stupid. Fine. Everyone is stupid except for the all-knowing technorati. I, for one, don’t buy it.</p>
<p>Building an experience around a product, however, means that people enjoy more than just the product itself. They enjoy owning it. Intangibles matter, and Apple gets that.</p>
<p>There’s a difference between buying something because it has the newest feature on it, 3DTV, wii, etc. (whether you should or shouldn’t)</p>
<p>and buying an Ipod because it’s made by Apple and everyone has one so I guess I should just get one too.</p>
<p>Again, not saying all Apple products suck. I am saying the average consumers reason for buying one is not because they did the research and know its better, but because it says Apple.</p>
<p>As much as I hate Apple marketing, their rate of new production is more a result of their engineers and designers than anyone in corporate or marketing. From what I’ve been told by a somewhat reliable source, they operate on a complete absence of a production model, choosing to come out with their products literally whenever they feel it’s ready. This might explain why so many of their products come out so buggy, and why Apple ends up producing only slightly marginally improved products consistently instead of having major improvements every, say, business quarter. Also, Apple’s success is largely a combination of effective marketing and because they’re so good at picking out the things that customers want and value before customers even realize it (for example, a more streamlined user interface, which at the time was pretty crazy (think of multicolored, flashing, image saturated websites of the earlier internet days)). This was all told to me by a quirky professor who was kind of subject to mood swings, and I didn’t do any actual research into this, so take this for what its worth. Even though this was way off-topic, I thought it was kind of important to explain since Apple is incredibly successful, both from a business and engineering design point of view, despite what we Linux-obsessed OS purists all want to say. </p>
<p>Anyway OP, I’m going to offer a rebuttal to your current treatise against Liberal Arts majors (which I guess also doubles as a treatise for LA majors).</p>
<p>A Rebuttal Against OP’s Treatise - Because I have time to waste arguing on an internet forum</p>
<p>
First of all, all majors are built around what others have done and thought. Everyone today stands on the shoulders of giants. That’s just how progress works, and save for the very very few people who will truly produce something novel AND worthwhile, that’s just how everyone operates. For some reason you got the next part all mixed up. The liberal arts is based on the idea that they teach you critical thinking; in fact, it’s one of the arguments used against STEM majors: engineers learn cut-and-dry formulas, liberal arts majors learn creativity and problem solving. Of course, we all should know by now that memorization and creativity aren’t specific to any one major - or even mutually exclusive for that matter - and so both arguments hold no merit. Fact of the matter is, your ability to create new designs, think of influential ideas, and produce novel solutions are completely independent from your line of work. It’s a personal skill, a trait that people work on regardless of what they’re studying.</p>
<p>
Have you ever met a pure science scientist? We’re not smashing particles in the LHC to find a cure for cancer, we’re doing it because it’s fascinating as hell. Ostensibly, we’re searching for the answers to the universe. But having a working theory of everything doesn’t decrease the US deficit, nor does it help end world hunger. Meanwhile, genders studies majors will be doing research as well. They’ll work on problems and issues arising in third-world countries regarding human violations. What’s the deal with female genital mutilation anyway? They’ll work towards solutions involving sexual inequality in the Western countries themselves. Why, for example, are women so lacking in STEM fields, and what can we do it rectify this? How are transgendered people viewed in today’s society? Studying problems like these actually influence people in their day-to-day lives, and in many cases, changes the course of their lives entirely. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Damn them hippies is all I can say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess all those politicians, middle management, upper management, every office worker on my block, social researchers, media junkies, stock brokers, business people, analysts, agents, consultants and so on simply don’t exist. In fact, I was under the impression that engineers and scientists make up the minority of the population. LA degrees are incredibly versatile, and while they may not offer the same level of employability as engineers (which is a result of the fact that we’re essentially a trade-oriented major, like dentists and lawyers and not because we’re especially amazing), they do offer plenty of great career opportunities. </p>
<p>
We’re actually entering a technology/internet-oriented society, not a STEM century. If you haven’t recently noticed, civil wars and protests at the national scale are what’s making headlines, all things that would interest certain LA majors. In fact, defundings in science across the board have been happening. We don’t even have a space shuttle program anymore. (That’s pretty f-ed up, from my point of view btw). For now at least, knowing how to use a computer and internet connection is all you really need. The US has been historically best known for its business and especially political leaders. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr. I could go on and on. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No they don’t. Your refusal to learn is a personal trait, not a characteristic of an entire group of people. You might argue that STEM students have it tougher, but that’s not the fault of the LA majors. And if you argue that LA students have it easier, then why are you surprised when they spend their free time in however way they please? When I don’t have things due, I party, go ice skating, and watch movies. The time I spend doing these things will increase as the amount of work I need to do decreases. Go figure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it’s not. People (mostly STEM majors) simply assume that STEM fields are more difficult than LA curricula, and from that assumption falsely draw the conclusion that they would therefore be just as qualified to study them. But the mere fact that I’m an engineer doesn’t mean that I’m qualified to research sociological concerns or embark on corporate ventures. Do you think you have what it takes to handle the intricacies of international relations? Do you think you could influence others and carry yourself as a world leader while everyone watches and evaluates your every move? Or would you fold under pressure, fail to consider your allies’ and others’ viewpoints, and plunge us into a nuclear war?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because psychological problems aren’t real problems, and they should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and suck it up. But really, psychology’s pretty important, and I do consider it a science.</p>
<p>
Because who needs international communication. How do you propose Americans converse with Japanese leaders if we can’t speak Japanese and they can’t speak English?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ability to write a convincing and well-rehearsed argument is something all people should learn and work towards. Rhetoric is far more influential than most people seem to understand, and it’s rather unfortunate because the ability to communicate ideas is essentially what drives humanity forward.</p>
<p>TL;DR: Read it, I spent like 40 minutes of my night writing this.</p>
<p>LOL @ Aeroengineer. I doubt your a real engineer anyway. And I agree there are big problems the world needs solved that dont deal purely with science, BUT i know for a fact that employers are looking at people who are quick thinkers, i.e. not lib arts majors because all they do is regergitate the writing of dead people. </p>
<p>
tell me how “interest” is going to stop those civil wars :rolleye: </p>
<p>
yeah because finding out how the universe formed isn’t important… </p>
<p>
Yes it is</p>
<p>
again, computers. most people speak through a computerized translator now anyway at places like the UN, GAO and so on… seriously are you just trying to set up straw man arguments for me to knock down?</p>
<p>
Because it has been proven that all people in non-math/science oriented fields are morons, right? It’s also been true that all psychologists, economists, political scientists, logicians, linguists, anthropologists, sociologists, and so on do is regurgitate* (lol) the writings of dead people. Let’s just ignore the fact that these professions require constant field research and publications, and in case you didn’t know, one will not be published if they merely regurgitate the writings of one’s predecessors with no unique interpretation or current research.</p>
<p>
If you don’t mind, I’d like you to demonstrate how mathematicians and physicists are going to solve these problems, since you are the one who proposed the abolition of the liberal arts due to the useless nature of the majors that fall under this category (even though, as pointed out earlier, mathematics and hard sciences fall under the liberal arts, but let’s ignore that little fact).</p>
<p>
I’m itching to see those studies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s the purpose of this line of reasoning? Suppose math and science can’t solve those problems? How does that justify studying other subjects that don’t solve those problems*?</p>
<p>*Assuming that you don’t contest this point, since you didn’t in that response</p>
<p>Nonsensical Answer to this Debate - To solve this I propose a plan: In twenty years, all come back to this thread, post if you are “supportive or not supportive” of “liberal arts,” if you took or did not take “liberal arts,” and put your accomplishments and great problems you solved. We’ll tally it up and go with that.</p>
<p>^it’s not necessary. we already have generations of proof that the liberal arts contribute practically nothing to society besides books which are obsolete now anyway (yes, go cry you Women’s Literature of pre bedouin China majors). look around the room you’re in: what there has ACTUALLY been designed or created by liberal arts majors? Exactly. they’re worthless and we shouldn’t allow them to exist anymore. </p>
<p>i agree with ThisCouldbeheavn, lib arts majors are mostly lazy and can’t do anything without the help of science and math majors.</p>
<p>Goodbyehello,</p>
<p>I’ll say it a decade after graduating college: I make, on average, slightly less than most of my engineering friends, but have much better hours and perks. I’m in a technical field, though, so I work directly with a lot of engineers.</p>
<p>wishwanderer,</p>
<p>Good design doesn’t sell or market itself. You need all kinds of people to make a business run.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose that Industrial Design majors are clearly just figments of my imagination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, and I guess that wall-to-wall bookshelf isn’t filled with content that liberal arts majors wrote, after all.</p>
<p>And those paintings above my bed…</p>
<p>… and my bed itself, and desk, and drawers were all styled by an industrial designer… </p>
<p>… and in fact, all of these room style choices were made by a woman with an interior design background whom my mother hired while I was away at school.</p>
<p>Why are people still taking this laughable ■■■■■ seriously?</p>
<p>
So again, it’s not as if [psychology/sociology/economics/music/film/anthropology/history/etc.] majors study no math or science whatsoever. I personally feel more accomplished and much happier studying history, music, and classics than mathematics, but that’s not to say mathematics is not useful. Could society function without philosophy? Yes. Would I be as happy, or as motivated to become educated? No.</p>
<p>
There were no such implications in that post. I was merely asking how mathematics and hard sciences alone could end a civil war, as he seemed to be proposing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re conflating industrial design and industrial engineering. Industrial design is actually a fine arts major, you’ll notice, which you condemned only a few pages back.</p>
<p>And actually, linguistics requires quantitative and scientific skills. So do anthropology, economics, archaeology (and related sub-fields), and a whole host of other liberal arts degrees, so by your own definition … and that’s without mentioning that mathematics and sciences are also liberal arts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Procrastination.</p>
<p>
No, it could not.</p>