UC Philosophy transfers 2016

Transfer Students UC Transfers
21

I may send an email to Berkeley requesting them to consider me for Rhetoric, rather than philosophy. Their Rhetoric major has always really intrigued me. My hesitation was that I didn’t want to apply for it but have my essay represent my interest in philosophy (since I’m applying for philosophy everywhere else).

I do think there’s a large amount of overlapping between the two fields, though. But perhaps I should just request a change once I’m admitted (if I’m admitted). They are both under humanities, after all.

22

@Cheolf Really shouldn’t be necessary - you aren’t technically admitted into the major anyway. If you get admitted and decide to major in Rhetoric instead, just complete Rhetoric 10 and 20 (I think those are the only requirements?) and you should be able to declare rather easily.

Keep in mind that the Rhetoric department covers more continental thought than the Philosophy department (weird, right?), so it may not be up your alley.

23

@goldencub That’s a good point. I knew you were admitted by school, but for some reason I didn’t think of that while mulling over it.

I have no clue as to why I said I didn’t like continental in my previous post. What I really meant was eastern philosophy (China/Japan/India). The focus on religion is too much for me. I can appreciate and enjoy the philosophical aspects where they exist, though.

One of my current philosophy teachers described rhetoric as “the art of bull****”. We were discussing the dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias. But of course we must be wary of the author’s biases!

I’ve always viewed rhetoric as dangerous, but quite useful if not abused.

When I took critical reasoning, our textbook essentially encouraged and taught us how to manipulate others through rhetoric. That did not sit well with me. However, as you may imagine, some of those concepts can help quite a bit.

24

@goldencub
Mostly essays. Most of my classes have had midterm and final papers. A few have in-class writing exams. One of my classes this quarter, philosophy of mind, had two midterm papers and an in-class final exam is coming up.

Typically, a class will require two or three longer papers total. Sometimes, there’ll be weekly homework essays, about 1-2 pages.

So, so much writing. But it’s good for you. :smiley:

25

@cheolf Rhetoric is good. Socrates was a bit out there, at least to some degree - and Plato was in his own little world. It’s useful, anyway, to know how to persuade people.

@Cayton That’s nice. Sort of. I like not having to deal with in-class midterms too often. How long are your essays, generally?

Also, on a tangential note - given your focus in ethics, what do you think of Peter Singer? I’ve only read one of his articles, so I’m not all too familiar with the guy, but I’m curious of your opinion. I just wrote an essay defending one of his arguments (the argument presented in that article I read, naturally). For context, it argued that we ought to extend the principle of equal consideration of interests to nonhuman species - specifically, beings that have consciousness “can be said to have interests”, and because these interests are affected by human beings (particularly the environment, but also in the meat industry, etc.)

26

@goldencub
Most often, 4-6 pages. But they can get up to 9-13 pages in some classes. The longest papers are always final papers from what I’ve seen. I’m working on doing a 8-10 page paper due in a couple of days for my bioethics class.

I like Singer, I respect him. But I’m not a utilitarian as he is(I lean more towards a blend of virtue ethics and deontological ethics, emphasis on the deontological). I’ve found utilitarianism to be pretty flawed in its assumptions and the way it produces moral decisions.

I believe I’ve read the article you’re talking about in an environmental ethics class I had last year. It was pretty good, but there’ve been plenty of good responses to it, some of which I think I read in that class.

I think I remember one of them being that humans are intrinsically more valuable in virtue of our rational capacity and ability to lead more complex lives. Hence, our interests

Of course, my memory is a little rusty, and that might just be my thoughts on the subject and not that of any particular philosopher I had in mind, but I’d bet $100 that there’s a lot of philosophers who think something similar, usually on Aristotelian and Kantian grounds. And of course, many other philosophers disagree with me and them.

I think that animals have interests, but that they’re based on the rights that they have. Singer doesn’t believe in rights on account of being a strict utilitarian. Tom Regan wrote an excellent book, of which I read an excerpt in the aforementioned class of mine last year and defended the idea that animals had interests on those ground and not on utilitarian ones. It’s called “The Case for Animal Rights.”

Oh, by the way, I just felt like mentioning that upper-division classes get so deep in whatever material they’re covering that lower-div classes just can’t compare. You’ll get used to it pretty quickly, but holy shit, if you think you’re good at dissecting the logic that underpins philosophical arguments now presented in your classes, just wait until you get to UCLA/Berkeley/whatever UC you will transfer to. The arguments get more subtle and your analytical skills will go way up to compensate.

27

@Cayton Good, you’ve read it. I found his argument interesting primarily because I previously thought of my view as primarily deontological as well. However, because the benefits of enacting Singer’s policy would benefit the lives of animals greatly, doing so would also be good. Er, previously I thought that, fundamentally, consequentialism is flawed in its lack of recognition of the intent of an action, etc… - but anyway, without talking too much of things you already know and probably agree with, I think Singer’s argument highlights how the consequences of enacting a policy can, and often are, morally relevant (this is despite my leaning towards deontology).

One response was from Tibor Machan, who argued something along the lines of what you mentioned - (1) our concept of rights derives from Locke, a being having rights requires a mutuality, or moral responsibility in a social sphere, so naturally, animals don’t have rights, and (2) humans are more important than animals for x, y, and z. You’ve probably read this as well. I won’t get into my entire argument - but I’m vehemently opposed to the anthropocentrism evident in 2 (one of your counterarguments). It’s evident in Aristotle’s writing, and it’s evident in numerous other philosophers’ works - at any rate, being more intelligent and complex does not entail inherent significance - the hierarchy model of the significance of life is flawed IMO. Being different =/= being better, objectively. Anyway, I’m droning on unnecessrily - I asked you what you thought of Singer primarily because his argument is convincing to me despite my general opposition to consequentialism, which is odd, but I find that interesting.

Does Singer not believe in rights? I think he recognizes that we have them, or at least we believe in them - and he recognizes that animals don’t have rights (which makes sense given our Lockean concept of rights). I haven’t read anything else of him, though, so I dunno.

Everyone disagrees with everything. :))

I’m looking forward to upper-division classes. I’m sure it’ll be a huge step up conceptually, but I’m not too frightened. I say that now, though, who knows how I’ll feel in the Fall.

It’s good to hear papers aren’t TOO long. I’m sure the standards are set very high, though.

28

One of my current teachers is frustrating the heck out of me. I am taking him for Ancient Philosophy and Philosophy of the East. The past several meetings in each class have been filled with 30 minute off-topic discussions. Yesterday in Ancient Philosophy my teacher said professors engage in “mental masturbation” (meaning grooming their egos) and that led to a loooong discussion about sex in Ancient Greece.

These classes meet twice a week for an hour and a half. My Philosophy of the East class always gets out early. He always says something to the effect of “there’s not really anything else to cover”. What a load of nonsense. And then he put on a couple of Swedish techno music videos on at the end of the class yesterday. Oookay.

He’s kind of ruining philosophy for me, even though I know university professors would never do these things. At least I’m having fun in Symbolic Logic (not sure why!).

Thanks for letting me rant!

29

@Cheolf It’ll be much more rigorous. Most of the philosophy you encounter at the UC’s will be mind-bending stuff (in terms of difficulty, at least from what I hear).

I prefer my Modern Phil class to my Buddhist Phil class, personally. I think Eastern philosophy is cool, generally, but it doesn’t offer the same sort of rigor that Western philosophy offers (this seems eurocentric as hell, I know). Much of the Eastern stuff is more applicable to life, I guess, but I’m not really looking for that sort of insight in a philosophy class, personally. Although I did learn about some really interesting non-Western philosophy in my introduction to philos class (namely Krishnamurti in India? and a Native American philosopher whose name I forget).

Logic is life.

30

@goldencub That’s what I’m hoping for. Sure, I like an easy high GPA should I try for law school. But as of right now, I’m taking 18 units (15 of them from philosophy classes) and working 25 hours a week and it has not once come close to constituting an iota of a struggle.

I see what you mean by an appearance of eurocentrism, but I would venture toward the notion that the rigor in western philosophy is objectively higher. Western has a heavy emphasis on logic, whereas eastern almost seems to ignore it.

One interesting thing happened in my philosophy of the east class yesterday. There was some sort of disagreement during a discussion on karma and it escalated into a swearing match and people flipping birds at one another. Never have I encountered such a thing in an academic environment.

31

@Cheolf Really? I’m taking 5 classes for the first time (17 units, with one 5 unit class being on the quarter system), and it’s pretty heavy. I prefer taking 4 classes, at most, though. Philosophy classes are pretty easy to pile on, admittedly - I’m taking a contemporary middle east history class that is easy in terms of assignments and whatnot, but the content is difficult to absorb (as this is my first History course in college). Writing history papers is rather new to me, too, but it’s not absurdly difficult.

That’s treading in dangerous water. Western philosophy seems more concerned with making heavy arguments than Eastern philosophy does (just an observation after having read a good bit of both - there are exceptions to both, naturally). I wouldn’t say that Eastern philosophy ignores logic, but you won’t find symbols in a Confucian text.

That’s too bad. I can’t stand how people don’t act appropriately in school - we’re all paying for our classes, after all. That sort of behavior (as well as talking in class loudly, interrupting the professor unnecessarily, etc.) seems limited to the introductory classes in my CC. Or only a few of them, really. I sound like a prude. (:expressionless:

32

@goldencub I think your school is just more rigorous. I’m not sure if you saw my post in the other thread (maybe it was the UCLA one) a couple of weeks ago. The contrast between the introduction to philosophy classes at our respective colleges was beyond glaring. Anecdotal, sure, but it seems perhaps it may reflect on our colleges as a whole.

That’s just my initial reaction to eastern philosophy. I’m still a newcomer to philosophy (I was a history major until October 2015, having only taken ethics and in the process of taking philosophy of religion), relatively speaking. Your words carry far more weight than mine. Never would I put my philosophical knowledge against yours (or really, anyone else’s. As Socrates would say, I know that I don’t know). So for anyone reading these posts, take my opinions with heaps of salt.

I certainly wish such behavior was restricted to the introductory level classes in my district. Every single class I’ve ever taken in this district has had people that just chime in at any time they please. The classes where students are having conversations amongst themselves whilst the professor is talking are far too numerous to commit to memory.

But what can one expect from Orange County kids?

33

@Cheolf Oh, I don’t really think so. That introduction to phil class is an anomaly - the professor is known for being insanely difficult.

I can’t claim to know much philosophy. I’ll be able to say that I do after some upper-division classes. I’m fairly well acquainted with philosophical inquiry, generally - I know the ropes, so to speak. I’m in want of knowledge, anyway.

Good choice. Why did you make the switch?

Oh, it happens everywhere. I think many people at my CC want to go to Cal, so many people are focused - but my CC is likely the best in my district. It’s not THAT rigorous. Our professors definitely give us a lot of leeway - at least in comparison with the class I took at Cal.

34

@goldencub I made the switch for a couple of reasons. The main reason is that I’m fully aware that history is written by the victors. I couldn’t help but keep that in mind every time I was in class or reading.

Of course, history isn’t just about reading primary/secondary sources, scholarly interpretations, etc. History classes will have you analyze particular topics and write informative and argumentative essays on several subjects (or at least they should). Even then, that cloud of not knowing whether what I was reading and analyzing truly happened in that way always bothered me.

I enjoyed my ethics class (I’m less enthusiastic about ethics after taking environmental ethics this semester). That was what first put the idea of philosophy in my head. Last fall, I took philosophy of religion, which I absolutely loved. Given that and a bad history professor, I changed majors (unfortunately nullifying my TAG).

I figured that if the boon of history was the analytical part of it, then surely philosophy had it soundly defeated in that department. I decided I’d much rather have a heavy focus on how to think, rather than what to think.

So here I am, having completed all history pre-reqs for every UC (was missing one for Berkeley, which I was going to take this semester before I switched), but only two completed philosophy courses. Perhaps it is easier to see why I’m taking five philosophy courses this semester (it was the only way in which I could really demonstrate interest at such a late point). Luckily, Berkeley philosophy courses are rainbow unicorns that only exist in certain realms of existence. For UCLA, coincidentally ethics and philosophy of religion fulfilled 2/4 pre-reqs (taking the other two this semester). So I don’t look terribly unprepared, but it’s a far cry from having everything completed.

35

Wow, I am genuinely afraid now. It seems like UCLA and UCB for that matter, do not screw around about their stuff. I’m quite nervous now about how I’ll perform if I even get in. Thanks so much for all your insight. I think I’ll have to significantly step up my game when I’m in University. I’ve got a pretty good GPA right now, (3.88) so maybe I can actually do well. You guys also seem to be super in-depth about your major.

Should I do any work/reading before I get there? Would that help me be more successful? I feel like I’m gonna be tossed into a group where everyone knows more than I do. Maybe I’m being snobbish here, but you know kids who can just recite lines of Plato, Nietzsche and Sartre and just be able to explain their arguments. I really want to excel in school and I’m ready to work as hard as it takes to be successful when I get there. I’ve only taken Ancient Greek Philosophy, Ethics, Deductive Logic and I’m about to start Knowledge and Reality. I loved all those classes but I’m afraid I don’t know enough.

Are my fears legitimate? Since I do have 6 months before going to school, what would you guys recommend I do, so that I am more on par with my classmates when I do transfer?

Thanks so much for your help and advice guys. I really appreciate it. It’s nice to know I’m not alone.

36

Also, I heard back from UCSD over the weekend, I was accepted into Eleanor Roosevelt! :slight_smile:

37

@ireallyhatewaiting If you have a 3.88, you’re able to do well at Cal/LA. I recommend taking a summer class or two at your school, and taking a light schedule in the Fall.

I’m of the opinion that reading philosophy is best done in the classroom setting, and reading stuff on your free time is often either unproductive or counterproductive.

Will you have all prereqs completed for both schools, or no? If not, you’ll have to take some lower-divs anyway. Taking those will help you catch up.

38

Yeah I think I may take summer classes, but the thing is I wanted to travel this summer, I’ve been busting my ass for two years now, and my family is very pleased that I’m finally going to University so, they want to go back to visit my the rest of my family. But if my lower division classes are offered at my community college, I will take them.

Well the thing is the classes I’ve wanted to take to finish all my Pre-reqs haven’t been offered at my community college. Besides, major requirements are recommended not required for admission to Philosophy. But even then, I’m really only missing one or two, depending on the school. I need a second history of philosophy class and another history or Social and Political Philosophy class.

39

Can anyone steer me in the direction of any information regarding what courses transfer over to UCSD? I’ve tried looking on assist & it doesn’t help much. I’ve read on UCSD’s philo department website that you can petition to receive credit for PHIL 10 intro to logic. I’ve taken several philosophy classes at my CC (including an intro to logic course), but I don’t know which ones can transfer over.

40

@goodkidmaadcity what CC do you go to so i can look on ASSIST and try to help.