<p>Bitterness? It’s called reality. “Prompting views” doesn’t necessarily equate to difficulty. In my opinion, it is far more difficult to apply a theory in Physics and apply it to various, modified problems.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, you can easily substitute “human knowledge” for “multiple facets of the sum of all human knowledge.”
Second, stop exaggerating what we have said. (I am referring to your use of “absolutely nothing.”) Philosophy is stereotypically not as difficult as the hard sciences. This does not mean that it is not difficult or “absolutely nothing.”</p>
<p>And one person’s reality doesn’t necessarily equate to all reality. I started and deleted a post in which I also used the term, but the context was “If you really are describing the experience that you’ve had in humanities courses, then it’s no wonder you sound bitter.” That sounds pretty miserable. As someone who was once torn between engineering and philosophy, I’m glad my own experience was so different. The point I’ve been trying to make is that the learning style you describe–applying theories to various, modified, often unfamiliar problems–is not unique to the sciences.</p>
<p>“Prompting views” doesn’t describe a well-taught humanities course (or the preferred learning style of an intelligent, hardworking humanities student) any more than “rote memorization” describes a well-taught science course (or the preferred learning style of an intelligent, hardworking science student). IMO, a few people in this thread are arguing too far outside their own areas of expertise, because by now, there have been numerous ridiculous comments made about a pretty wide variety of fields. It’s saying more about the ignorance of the posters than the relative ease or difficulty of these fields.</p>
<p>BerkeleySenior: I do think you have a point about the relative, general ease of humanities vs. sciences. I’ve agreed with that since the beginning. That said, I don’t think that you’re making that point in a fair or reasonable way.</p>
You said, earlier in the thread, that humanities requires regurgitation (memorization), while sciences require conceptualization and are harder to absorb. It was a laughable statement, it’s what led me to take a more pro-humanities stance whereas beforehand I was saying what could be considered common knowledge (that it depends on each teacher, each department, each student). I even generally agree with the assumption that most if not all science fields of study in academia are on average more difficult than their counterparts in the humanities (and the social sciences), with philosophy and a more quantitative economics program possibly being the exceptions. But I was prompted to argue against you, and the culture of “science is hard humanities are for people who don’t know what they’re doing,” even though I don’t really have a dog in this race (I have experience in computer science and math, but my primary focus is economics, a social science). You’ve totally changed what you initially said, and what you recalled was a story of a bad class, and you applied it to every experience everyone has or will ever had. It’s stupid.</p>
<p>Since I know your reality, I’ll share with you mine. You applied a solitary experience and the opinions of some guys you know to the entirety of the human experience, and that invalidates most of the views you may or may not hold.
I see those humanities courses really did little for you. We’re talking about disciplines within the whole, not the whole. I try to be specific whenever I can, although it’s certainly not something I do often. I did it there, however.
<p>Patronizing much? You have no idea what our backgrounds are yet you resort to ad hominem attacks. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mentioned the “multiple facets” of the “sum” of human knowledge, implying that you are referring to the entire entity and not merely one aspect.</p>
<p>Also, you haven’t started college yet. So how do you have so much knowledge about college courses?</p>
Normally my ad hominem attacks are much more subtle. I apologize for letting that one slip away from me.
“encapsulating and analyzing the multiple facets of the sum of all human knowledge”
Encapsulating into the two sentences (mentioned right after this bit) your analyzation of the multiple facets of the sum. The analysis is a “whole,” but it derives from the multiple disciplines, not trying to analyze everything all together. It was written in a needlessly wordy way, but at 5:35 in the morning I kind of go the opposite way most people go when they’re tired–I can’t find the right grouping of words to make things concise. I blame studying SAT word lists. And it still makes sense to me, so I’m not sure what you’re seeing there.
<p>an other question is
if you can choose any course in order to get into law school, how will you past the LSAT, don’t you need some background information about law?</p>
<p>^ No, you don’t need any background info re: law to take (and do well on) the LSAT. It won’t be testing you on specific laws and court cases, if that’s what you’re asking.</p>
<p>I’m sorry tetrishead but if you’re claiming that you can get through physics problems with memorizing formulas then your shockingly mistaken. You sound like the typical humanities student, thinking your memorization classes are as hard as our engineering conceptual classes. I passed both the humanities classes merely sleeping through the semester and then memorizing the notes for the test, try that on a physics test, I dare you. You either obviously haven’t ever taken physics, because if you did you wouldn’t be making such an embarrassment of yourself, period.</p>
<p>^ I once slept through a physics class the entire semester and got an A. I’m that awesome.</p>
<p>Gravity goes down. Opposite charges attract. We get. Easy. snooore. easiest A I’ve ever had.</p>
<p>I also once took an engineering class, but it was laughably banal and formulaic. Next thing you know, they wanted us to try to build some kind of toilet-cleaning robot. Jesus! If I wanted to be a wrench-monkey, I would have gone to an auto shop! At least you learn skills you’ll ACTUALLY use on the job there, though, unlike having to be completely retrained by an employer like with a toilet paper engineering degree, yeesh!</p>
<p>On a related note, I also slept through an economics course for a semester and got an A. I hardly ever showed up or turned in assignments. I chalk that one up to a computing error on the professor’s part, though.</p>