<p>I think any philosophy student who sees philosophy as a game of being "smarter" than other students or a contest of who can churn out the most philosophers' names in a conversation is not a real philosophy student, and should look into a different program. </p>
<p>That would imply ignorance and philosophy certainly isn't about ignorance. For we all know that one could never attain entire understanding of facts. To give a good basic analogy that is common to NON-philosophers..."there will always be someone smarter or stronger."</p>
<p>Philosophy is about asking questions and being in a certain state of mind. The students being described here seem better suited for poli sci, home of all math haters, and the place for everyone who is only concerned with 'winning' arguments.</p>
<p>The students being described here seem better suited for poli sci, home of all math haters, and the place for everyone who is only concerned with 'winning' arguments.</p>
<p>Well said. I like arguing and debating, but I also don't like getting into conflict. Arguing is a fun hobby, but not when someone's ready to rip your throat out because they disagree and you're still not convinced by their arguments.</p>
<p>By the way, gabew42, I haven't asked you: Why are you majoring in Philosophy but applying under Political Science?</p>
<p>I think you were taking my post far, far too seriously. I don't know how familiar you are with university culture, but there generally tends to be a certain amount of good natured ribbing amongst departments, majors, and sometimes entire geographical areas of campus (see: UCLA). My post was referring to this teasing, and how philosophy majors have a leg up in this arena. Obviously, with a program as rigorous and extensive as philosophy at UCLA, people who choose to study philosophy generally ARE truly interested not in the arguing(and whatever other trivial aspects there may be), but in learning actual philosophy. My post was more a joke based upon the nature of the field and my experience (again, in a humorous light) with people I know who study Phil.</p>
<p>*and I might add that your very impulse to respond so passionately to what was clearly meant as a humorous ancedote displays my point perfectly. Not that it's a bad thing at all to argue your point or disagree, but (and again, this is only my personal experience), phil majors generally react/argue with a completely different level of intensity.</p>
<p>"*and I might add that your very impulse to respond so passionately to what was clearly meant as a humorous ancedote displays my point perfectly. Not that it's a bad thing at all to argue your point or disagree, but (and again, this is only my personal experience), phil majors generally react/argue with a completely different level of intensity."</p>
<p>Ah, hah, well stated. I was actually hoping you'd say that. </p>
<p>AND Sarcasmgirl, I think conflict in argumentation IS a good thing. I heartily enjoy arguing AND prefer conflict when it means dissent is being voiced instead of being silenced. Of course, I also prefer substantive debate, which can be very hard to come by in this day and age.</p>
<p>And I am majoring in philosophy with a possible double major in poli sci. I'm applying as a philosophy major to most of the UCs. I can go into a philosophy class with no sleep the previous night and be extremely attentive (at least near as much as possible), while I have had poli sci classes that I fall asleep in after a good night's rest. That's just one of the many signs that tells me philosophy is my major.</p>
<p>The thing with conflict is that it usually ends up being irrelevant to the topic at hand and some people start attacking you as a person. Plus with my personality, I tend to get very frustrated and angry (sometimes to the point of not being able to articulate what I'm thinking) when arguments go awry.</p>
<p>I'm applying as a philosophy major to most of the UCs.</p>
<p>Then why not apply directly for philosophy at UCLA? According to their transfer statistics on the UCLA website, it says 508/953 (53.31%) for Pre Political Science and 198/297 (66.67% ) for Philosophy.</p>
<p>I only have 1/4 of UCLA's philosophy prereqs completed. I have 4/5 done for poli sci. I haven't fully decided on my final choices yet, but as of now poli sci's the major for UCLA and phil is the alternate choice.</p>
<p>I'm much more focused on Berkeley--so much so that I'm currently driving 120 miles round-trip, two days a week, just so I can take an articulated Berk. philosophy prereq (they're hard to find).</p>
<p>Ah, that would make more sense (completion of prereqs).</p>
<p>Which class is it? I have none of Berkeley's prereqs done and won't be taking any of them until Spring, but the thing is, I'm attending 2 CCs right now, the main one I go to only has 1/3 and the other one that I'm currently attending has all 3... I'm thinking I should enroll full time at the main one next semester so that I only have to complete 1 (Symbolic Logic), haha.</p>
<p>UCLA's stats sheet is skewed because of all the TAP agreements it signs with santamonica, i think. if you dont have the TAP, like me, add some more pts onto that GPA, hopefully not too many.</p>
<p>UCLA's stats sheet is skewed because of all the TAP agreements it signs with santamonica, i think. if you dont have the TAP, like me, add some more pts onto that GPA, hopefully not too many.</p>
<p>I don't know about the "skew." Many people, on this board especially, transfer with TAP, but I'm not sure that could have that big of an effect on those numbers. We're talking about thousands of students. </p>
<p>Sarcasmgirl-I'm taking ancient phil. Which class is available at the school you currently go to? I'm not quite sure from what you said. Were you saying they actually have symbolic logic? And for the school that has all 3--are you sure they still do? </p>
<p>At the school I'm taking ancient phil, the current Assist.org agreement lists all 3, but the college has actually cancelled 2 out of the 3 (removed from College's catalog).</p>
<p>I think many of the Berk. philosophy transfers don't do the prereqs because of their rarity at the CCCs. As long as it's mentioned in the personal statement, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. A Berk. advisor also told me that the logic one is extremely hard to find (since they have rigorous requirements) and that they don't expect barely any transfers to have completed it.</p>
<p>gabew42: GWC has Ancient, Modern and Symbolic. OCC only has Symbolic. The thing is, I'm planning to take the majority (7-10) of my spring semester units at OCC. So I'm still trying to decide what to do. I guess I have until December...</p>
<p>Really? Symbolic Logic hard to find? I would think that it'd be the history classes that would be harder to find. Symbolic Logic also counts as a math class here.</p>
<p>Ah-ha, GWC is where I am going right now! The modern and symbolic are currently not 'in-action.' Ancient phil is the only one coming back for spring. </p>
<p>The reason symbolic logic is hard to find is because even many of the CCC symbolic logic classes do not meet Berkeley's standards. It's funny too because the Berk. philosophy prereq class is actually "intro to logic"; it's a PREREQ to symbolic logic at Berk. But yeah, they have high standards and rarely accept logic classes from the CCCs.</p>
<p>What we call "Symbolic Logic" is actually "Intro to Logic" at the UCB; I thought that was a bit strange.</p>
<p>Oh good, I even checked Spring semester for GWC, and they're only have Ancient Phil. Yay.</p>
<p>You can also go to OCC, they'll be having both Symbolic Logic (along with Ethics and Theory of Knowledge, if you want to fulfill reqs for UCLA...).</p>
<p>I'd have to say a majority of those who I've spoken to about philosophy believe it is too abstract, too difficult to understand, too 'unrealistic.' He is a professor who may perpetuate that, because again, he challenges you.</p>
<p>He is almost like an actual ancient philosopher. And he thoroughly uses Socratic method.</p>