<p>
I respect your opinion, though I feel that Tom Clancy is the best author ever. My point was simply that # of books published/written/whatever is a subjectively selected criterion, even if it is based on objective data.</p>
<p>Sorry for the semi-serious post. I’ll return to ■■■■■■■■ soon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I don’t think a good standard exists. And I think the standard given is very attackable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, because I talk to my friends about iambic pentameter and I was totally under the impression that everyone else does too. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re still not making any attempt to tie in history to people’s daily lives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, being advanced in an unfamiliar subject will tend to impress people. OTOH, if they’re lagging behind in a more familiar subject, that would obviously be distinctly unimpressive. The point has been made though, that students that are advanced in math/science are less likely to lag behind in english than the other way around.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You must not post here often. Anyway, as I said before, DBQ’s do involve a small amount of interpretation and categorization. And they’re only a small part of the test and class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet structure still tends to count for a lot in high school essay grading.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most math at the high school level doesn’t rely on formulas. Most math beyond high school doesn’t rely on formulas. Problem solving isn’t a matter of memorization. Science classes tend to involve formulas, but I can’t recall having to memorize many - they’re usually given. And the class is still hard. There are a lot of problem solving techniques that you just need to understand intuitively.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I took your concluding sentence. It didn’t affect your point.</p>
<p>Are people also aware that after reaching a certain skill level (mastery), the standards used to determine who is better are arguably subjective for both math/sciences AND the humanities?
you cannot objectively say that Einstein was a “better” scientist than Newton or that Alex. Grothendieck was a “better” mathematician than David Hilbert.
Once a person gets to the top in both areas, there is almost no subjective way to say someone is better.
So this “subjectivity” argument is not just limited to the humanities…as people some people are attempting to argue.</p>
<p>And the number of books someone publishes gives little insight about the intelligence of an author.</p>
<p>Alright, here is a none Bulls**t, non-suger-coated, modern answer without relating to history.</p>
<p>What would you rather do, create a propulsion system of mini nuclear reactor that super heat plasma to 2 million degrees, which when ejected shoots a rocket at thousands of miles per hour, allowing humans to reach mars in a month, and in the process makes you very rich…</p>
<p>or analyze a book with your degree in English…</p>
<p>Lets look at this economically, which should be the main focus of most peoples lives, right next to raising a family:</p>
<p>receiving a degree in something like, say, nuclear engineering and quantum mechanics, will take you much father than, say, a degree in vampire literature. I would say majoring in engineering and business will take you much father places than a liberal arts degree…</p>
<p>I also hate it when people relate to history during these arguments: philosophers in the 1700’s are jokes compared to today’s respected individuals. Here is a great quote about philosophers/liberal art majors in general…</p>
<p>The purpose of a liberal education is to make you philosophical enough to accept the fact that you will never make much money.</p>
<p>What is the point of going to Yale to get a undergrad liberal arts degree, then a masters in English at Columbia, and a doctorate in some other BS major when all you can become is a teacher at some high school or college? Sure, you might become personally “enlightened”, but so can anyone else, just by reading a BOOK, not spending over a million dollars on an major that will not make you 100k until your 50.</p>
<p>Overall, in today’s society, we have “evolved” to the point that we know that if you sit in one place all day and think, instead of becoming a famous philosopher, you look like a fool, or major in religious studies. People who argue, “BUTt MANy GrEAT PhILOopHErs HeLpED SHAPEd OuR MODerN LiVES EURO,” either forgot that these philosophers are not just philosophers, but also scientists and engineers, or are taught to come up with that excuse when they are told their english/liberal arts degree is BS. Sorry bud, but we do not live in the 1700’s, so stop relating modern times to times where people did not know the world was round.</p>
<p>here is a great link to sum everything up </p>
<p>[The</a> 10 Most Expensive But Useless Degrees In America](<a href=“GoDaddy Corporate Domains - Protected”>GoDaddy Corporate Domains - Protected)</p>
<p>or better yet</p>
<p>[biggest</a> ******** majors - Google Search](<a href=“biggest ******** majors - Google Search”>biggest ******** majors - Google Search)</p>
<p>replace ******** with… you know…</p>
<p>I don’t know how someone can not agree with this; maybe if you sprinkle a little BS in your argument towards mine - I will try to point it out. I am planning on majoring in electrical engineering, followed by a a MBA, and maybe a doctorate in nuclear physics. I would say that is better than a degree in greek mythology, wouldn’t you say?</p>
<p>Here is one last thought, what is the point of trying very hard, getting a 4.00 and a 2400 SAT, going to Yale, and then MAJORING IN LIBERAL ARTS
----W.T.EF</p>
<p>Haha the guy above me was pretty blunt. I’m gonna attack this question in a more mild manner…</p>
<p>When you’re sitting around in class, who are you more impressed by?:</p>
<p>Student A: Completes a ridiculous complex Calculus proof that takes like 17 lines and has 34 different variables (hyperbole, I know, just look at the point)
Student B: Composes an analysis of a poem using semi-big words (big words would sound like a thesaurus, and humanity majors HATE that)</p>
<p>That’s you answer. Student A. They just SEEM smarter because their work just looks complex as hell and is pretty impressive upon first glance.</p>
<p>I do agree in saying that a degree in humanities is pretty pointless considering you’ll never get a good job (unless you’re a professor at Harvard). </p>
<p>Science and Math are always changing (more science than math, but you get the point, it’s revolutionary stuff). History and English…don’t. You just take some words and come up with your own take on it. Really doesn’t impact anyone in a dramatic fashion.</p>
<p>Weighing in here as an entirely biased, 780 V 630 M person,…</p>
<p>What is more impressive, to “create a propulsion system of mini nuclear reactor that super heat plasma to 2 million degrees, which when ejected shoots a rocket at thousands of miles per hour, allowing humans to reach mars in a month, and in the process makes you very rich”, or to write the Aeneid? </p>
<p>Or, to golfer, who you’re more impressed with depends on you yourself. </p>
<p>Personally, I prefer english, which is more complex than you realize. If you’ve ever stared at a work of Shakespeare, for instance, and thought, “I understand this perfectly and completely”, you have no idea what you’re talking about. </p>
<p>And, to respond to the two posts above claiming math / sciences are better to major in than the Liberal Arts, that’s pretty broad generalizing, and I think historically inaccurate (@ eurosport, they knew the world was round in the 1300s). For example, </p>
<p>"History and English…don’t. You just take some words and come up with your own take on it. Really doesn’t impact anyone in a dramatic fashion. "</p>
<p>First, I think History by definition changes as time moves inexorably onwards.
Second, English (literature) changes drastically as history influences it.
Third, if you do “take some words and put your own spin on it”, it probably sucks. (and is, at any rate, a pretty simplistic way to view writing).
Fourth, literature and history have profoundly influenced and shaped the human race. (To say they have not is…I don’t exactly know…willfully ignorant? I guess?)</p>
<p>Cicero, at any rate, agrees with me. [Cicero:</a> Pro Archia](<a href=“http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/arch.shtml]Cicero:”>Cicero: Pro Archia)</p>
<p>I’m plan to major in Classics, by the way. Which law and medical schools love.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most of the pre-college math curriculum is stuff that’s >1000 years old. Even in college, anything from the last century is really modern. In Physics and Chemistry most of the stuff is more than 100 years old. Biology tends to be much more modern, with almost everything being newer than ~150 years old. History classes obviously cover a wide range, but modern history courses tend to include the last 100 years and even the last few decades. English classes also have a range, but off the top of my head I would guess that the majority of novels covered are from the last 50 years, and very few are more than 200 years old.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with you on the math part. Some people even say a degree in pure math is like a liberal arts degree too. Your comparison between the two students is interesting, but my argument is really this: replace the pure math problem of student A with an engineering problem; let us say, create a robot that does a multitude of specific actions based on these parameters. I would argue to my death that engineering is for the “truly smart” people in today’s society. Not only does it require these extremely complex math problems requiring a multitude of steps to complete, you also have to identify these problems, and CREATE solutions; you have to solve a problem, and make up new idea’s as you go. This requires real smarts, and a 4.0 and a 2400 will not help in accomplishing this. Imagination is key, which can be related to Einsteins famous quote.</p>
<p>Let us compare this to reading a book, or creating a poem…
neither are productive…</p>
<p>let me add on to my argument and counter other people’s future arguments. Maybe culture in the past has been shaped from philosophy and literature. That I can agree upon.
However, in today’s day and age, our culture is so complex/evolved that we are now mainly influenced by mass media: news, music, internet, you name it, it effects our cultures in ways that no philosophy major or English professor can even comprehend. And, to sum that up, you would then think that a musician is the new 1700’s philosopher who influences society…WRONG * 100. The BUSINESS executives who run these media corporations/recording studios change/influence our modern world, and not the specific musians.
So there is another reason to major in business.</p>
<p>“Let us compare this to reading a book, or creating a poem…
neither are productive…”</p>
<p>Well, that depends on your definition of productive. I, for one, think it far better than doing a calculus problem, for instance. And Cicero agrees with me, and I think him smarter than you or me, so I take his opinion over yours. </p>
<p>You have a big issue with generalizations: “However, in today’s day and age, our culture is so complex/evolved that we are now mainly influenced by mass media: news, music, internet, you name it, it effects our cultures in ways that no philosophy major or English professor can even comprehend.” </p>
<p>Really? Not a single professor? But you can, of course ;). </p>
<p>@TCBH, We read Paradise Lost and the Aeneid in my English classes. Different schools I guess.</p>
<p>@eurosport, I don’t really understand how musicians and recording studios have any bearing whatsoever to the discussion.</p>
<p>@ JeromeVergil</p>
<p>Not trying to be mean, really, but have fun finding a successful career when you majored in history during college</p>
<p>Sure history “changes”, and shake-spear has multiple meanings… BUT SO WHAT. Really, that is great that people can pick that up, but who really cares - those other English majors? Also, most literature is over analyzed anyways. Do you think the authors of these famous books wrote to create literature that have hundreds of different meanings. No.</p>
<p>all of those parent’s money down the drain…
and most of these students want to go to city colleges…the most expensive out of all colleges…</p>
<p>For example, Dancing major at NYU…
what a COMPLETE, UTTER WASTE OF TIME, MONEY and RESOURCES
wish more parents could understand
and im just 18
btw, my father went to yale, and is a doctor
so I am not just saying these arguments without a reason</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you are ignoring the OP. What are you trying to achieve by attacking mine, instead of offering your own opinion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You did not answer my question the first time, you have still not answered my question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is this, an essay question? With no partial credit? So then, what about the paragraph dedicated to the rest of the subjects, which you conveniently ignore to point out this insignificant fact? English and history, in the OP’s context, are tied together as the humanities. In referring to one, I am addressing the other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the response you are looking for can be found in this post: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or this one:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are right, I do not post here often. I have more important things to do. As for the latter part, DBQ’s, along with the free response, another distinctly intuitive piece, together account for 50% of the test. Your interpretation of the requirements in answering a DBQ make no sense. They provide the documents, eliminating need for memorization, they provide the historical context within the documents, and all that is left is analysis, and crafting an essay with your various analyses. Barely any memorization of subject matter requried.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wish I could go to your high school, then. At least at the school where I go, in algebra, geometry, trig/analysis, calculus, etc. we are required to memorize formulae, and tests tend to be filled with direct application of those formulae, with little need for analysis and intuition. No, problem solving isn’t simply a matter of memorization, but without memorized formulae one can’t solve a problem, not if they aren’t aware of the fundamentals of math or science, whereas someone unaware of grammar rules can easily craft a coherent sentence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it did. As for my supposedly misleading response, a part of what you said being identified as true does not mean that I necessarily declared false the rest of your response. I merely addressed a portion of your response in a way that did not frame your overall response as anything but what you meant it to be.</p>
<p>Oh, and, thank you for the help, sinflower.</p>
<p>@ JeromeVergil</p>
<p>You didnt say that you were going to major in Law or Medical after college!!! This argument is not valid anymore. Unless you are going to commit your whole life around literature, then I cant argue with you anymore.
It really doesn’t matter what you do to get there, but you will be successful in the end through either the Law or Medical paths, I can assure you that.</p>
<p>I sorry if i didnt get the history correct…does that make someone less smart, not knowing basic facts?</p>
<p>@ eurosport,</p>
<p>Its Classics actually. Reading and writing ancient Latin and ancient Greek. I will have fun. In Law or Med school, or grad school, or wherever else I go. That’s the great thing: I’m not limited by my major in the same way you are. </p>
<p>Once upon a time, all you needed to go into Harvard, or Yale, or Princeton, was simply the knowledge and ability to read and write Classical Latin and Greek. Now, times change, and that’s not so. </p>
<p>Your father went to Yale? How interesting. Cicero didn’t go to Yale, and I think he’s far smarter than your father. No offense. </p>
<p>My uncle went to Princeton. He majored in the humanities. He ended up the head of At & t in the Southern US. I think he had a pretty good job.</p>
<p>@eurosport again, </p>
<p>Well, by your logic, we should just abandon over three millenniums of Western thought and purpose. </p>
<p>Read (or at least skim) the book Climbing Parnassus, by Tracy Lee Simmons. Very interesting stuff that entirely disagrees with you.</p>
<p>And not knowing basic history doesn’t make you less smart, only less educated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We read Paradise Lost too, plus the Iliad and the Odyssey and some Shakespeare. And a whole lot of stuff from the 20th century.</p>
<p>@TCHB</p>
<p>Oh. I thought you said most of the stuff you read was contemporary (last 50 years). Whatever, its beside the point.</p>
<p>@ Jerome</p>
<p>Its Classics actually. Reading and writing ancient Latin and ancient Greek.</p>
<p>I am talking about your graduate school…you said you would major in medical or law during grad school, correct?</p>
<p>Like I said before, most people who have the mindset of looking at everything philosophic (or however you conjugate that word) tend to relate everything back to historical figures.</p>
<p>Ok, let us compare two intelligent people. We will compare your Cicero to my Steven Hawkins. Well, becuase we live in the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY, Hawkins would be considered a lot more intelligent than your Cicero, who, if he was alive today, would seem just like any other guy. I also countered this argument by saying originally that most famous philosophers HAVE MULTIPLE OTHER PROFESSIONS, in this case, Cicero was also a LAWYER. </p>
<p>About your uncle, I would put money down on the belief that he studied humanities undergrad and then Princeton business or some non-BS degree for graduate studies.</p>
<p>Well, by your logic, we should just abandon over three millenniums of Western thought and purpose.</p>
<p>Again, my mindset is in the 21st century, which seems logical based on the fact that we live in the 21st century…</p>
<p>I don’t really understand how musicians and recording studios have any bearing whatsoever to the discussion.</p>
<p>And to respond to that, I also mentioned in that same post that today’s philosophers can be related to musicians: they both influence our culture. And you can go even deeper into that and say that the musicians are controlled by business men. </p>
<p>And, relating to this thread, i would say business men and engineers are the most valued people in today’s world.</p>
<p>Happy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My opinion is that your’s is wrong. I’ve offered that opinion multiple times.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what question you’re referring to and I don’t really feel like checking, but given what you quoted, I guess I’ll just point out that the sarcasm wasn’t at all thinly veiled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, but speaking English to other people doesn’t have anything to do with history, no matter how the OP decided to group the subjects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Response to what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ZZING</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the threshold required for a 5 is somewhere in the region of 65%. So given a score of ~85% on the MC section, mediocrity on the essays will suffice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say that DBQ’s required memorization. They require low level analysis and sorting. It’s very easy to get a 7/9 if you know what you’re doing. Higher scores take effort, but as I said above, effort isn’t always necessary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you didn’t mean that what I wrote supported your point? Why (and how?) did your concluding sentence disagree with your point?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You didn’t declare the rest of my response false, you pretended that I hadn’t pointed out that every subject in high school is simply a matter of memorization. You then argued that because I had said that about math, what I had written supported your belief that science/math are actually more memorization intensive.</p>