<p>yeah but that doesn't matter, does it quake? the entire foundation of your liberal arts education would crumble if it did. after all, what good is an english major that can only think critically about english? liberal arts schools pride themselves in teaching their students how to think, not just about their major, but everything. it's the only reason why their graduates are worth anything to society. (an exageration, i know, but you get the point)</p>
<p>el duque... you're tragically mistaken about what an english major entails.</p>
<p>To be clearer: Many different people think through a lot of the same issues. Some people find those issues most prescient in the study of sociology. Some people find those issues most prescient in the study of literature. So it is rather a choice of what means and methods i choose to think THROUGH the issues I need to think about.</p>
<p>"after all, what good is an english major that can only think critically about english?"</p>
<p>They're called general requirements. You get a broad foundation of different ways to think about certain issues, and you choose which way interests you most. </p>
<p>"it's the only reason why their graduates are worth anything to society. "</p>
<p>And some of those are English majors, and some are philosophy majors.</p>
<p>I don't have much time so this is short without a lot of explanation to follow. Sorry.</p>
<p>The difference between critical thinking in a class such as English is that Philosophy becomes a personal journey for everyone, even in an intro class. It's a different form of critical thinking. Philosophy, by nature, makes students ponder about life, existence, and religion....ideals that they have held to be truths for all times now become things to question, and wonder if they are true.</p>
<p>Sorry this is rushed and hurried.</p>
<p>Quake-- I don't understand how it can be asinine when that is what you asserted. If you did not intend that meaning, maybe you should work on expressing yourself. Say what you mean.</p>
<p>(i would just let it go, ceecee. quake has been vague in everything s/he has said so far.)</p>
<p>anyway, the two of you are missing the big picture. the whole point of a liberal arts education is to learn how to think. some people learn better through math and science, others through the humanities, but the end result should be the same. </p>
<p>and quake, when it comes to the complex issues facing us today, you don't just "choose" the line of thinking that interests you. what if sociology or literature don't apply (as they often don't)? as a future liberal arts graduate, you should be able to attack these problems from several different angles, evaluate the pros and cons, and come up with educated opinions. to just claim, flat out, that these issues are "most prescient" in a specific study is to go through life looking through a peephole. and that's no way to see the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Philosophy majors have the exact same career opportunities as people who major in English, History, Political Science, Sociology, Mathematics
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That mathematics would get lumped in there is incredibly comical. A mathematics major is going to have many job opportunities that simply are inaccessible to the other majors you listed, including Philosophy. To think that in any way philosophy would be more practical than mathematics is a joke.</p>
<p>I agree. ^</p>
<p>
[quote]
Philosophy majors have the exact same career opportunities as people who major in English, History, Political Science, Sociology, Mathematics
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What a load of bull. </p>
<p>History, English, political science and sociology can be lumped into the same degree of 'usefulness' (or in this case, lack of), but not math. Math is actually valuable in the workforce. Any job requires some degree of mathematics, and some require a higher-than-normal level of knowledge of it. When was the last time you saw 'advanced knowledge of philosophy required' on a job advertisement?</p>
<p>Even many of the jobs you speak of though require only a specific, distinct field of mathematics (or engineering or science). For instance, a fellow math tutor that worked for NASA as an engineer and held many other jobs said he only really needed knowledge of vector mathematics and physics for his job, which boiled down to two or three specific classes. The other gajillion math and science classes he took were simply for him to polish his critical thinking skills. As one that has taken his fair share of mathematics classes at the college level and contemplated pursuing it as a major, I can tell you that the logical side of Philosophy is similar to mathematics though without the numbers and not quite to the depth and difficulty of a math major. Nevertheless, Philosophy is an excellent major as its students learn to think analytically both with regards to logical statements (as in mathematics) and forming verbal arguments (as with English). There is a reason Philosophy majors do so extremely well as a group on the LSAT, GRE, even the GMAT.</p>
<p>el duque. i agree much more with your last post.</p>
<p>but i believe you were the one making the argument that you could learn just as much about philosophy simply by reading the texts on your own as you would in a class. then i refuted it, and then got a little off track ( I agree i was a little vague, which probably prompted you to respond to something other than what I was getting at) with you talking about the value of a certain major being able only to think critically within the framework of that major. Sorry about that. My argument was originally that true academic philosophy can't be learned just by reading texts, just as lab techniques can't be learned JUST by reading a lab manual.</p>
<p>ceecee. I think I misunderstood your point because you misunderstood mine. I was talking about critical thinking as it specifically relates to the practice of philosophy.</p>
<p>el duque...i never argued that one's major is the only lens through which one should analyze problems, but that one chooses to pursue a specific one more in depth, and that sometimes they find those modes more interesting or useful to think through certain problems. There are certainly even cases where any discipline (even a hard scientific one) does not apply as readily as a humanistic one. But, as I said, I think that because most colleges require you to take classes in many disciplines (except Brown, a practice which I disagree with), you aren't necessarily pigeonholing yourself.</p>
<p>I agree that you should be able to attack problems from several different angles, and I think that, in addition to mathematics and science, disciplines such as philosophy and sociology, and those that study the complex intersections between a society's thought and its literary and artistic production (such as English or Comparative Literature or Art History), should be part of the equation. That someone "chooses" to concentrate on the latter should not be devalued. And it should never be assumed that the humanistic disciplines do not base themselves on sets of skills that need to be practiced and learned through rigorous critique and refinement. The skills and apparatus are certainly different, but the skills required of each discipline are specific and nuanced. That's all I'm saying.</p>
<p>"but i believe you were the one making the argument that you could learn just as much about philosophy simply by reading the texts on your own as you would in a class."</p>
<p>my question to you was what does a philosophy class offer that books and discussion don't. you replied that a class teaches critical thinking skills and how to express ideas. the point ive been trying to make with you is that the underlying theme of all college level classes, especially those in the liberal arts, is to teach its students critical thinking and how to express their ideas. this brings me back to my original argument that philosophy majors SHOULD GO TO COLLEGE but major in something else. in other words, you're gonna learn critical thinking and how to express yourself regardless of your major. so in order for a bunch of philosophy classes to truly be worth the tuition, there has to be something unique about them. that's what i want you to tell me.</p>
<p>Do you seriously need someone to tell you what differentiates a philosophy class from, say, a chem class? I think you know the difference.</p>
<p>I replied that a class IN GENERAL teaches critical thinking skills that are specific to a discipline. You are not going to learn the critical apparatus or maneuvers of the discipline of philosophy in a chemistry class, and vice versa.</p>
<p>My intial response (the first one I wrote in this thread) was in response to your assertion that you could just read philosophical texts and understand as much as someone who spent time in a class. That is no more true than arguing that someone can learn how to be a scientist by reading Nature.</p>
<p>And why shouldn't philosophy majors major in philosophy. In my experience here at Penn, they have gotten the exact same types of jobs as everyone else except the nurses, including coveted I-banking and colsulting jobs that Wharton students covet. There's no disadvantage.</p>
<p>And do you really think that every single discipline does the exact same kind of thinking?</p>
<p>You seem like a smart person, el duque, but unfortunately you are acting like el douche.</p>
<p>LOL......JK. why don't you double major just to be safe.</p>
<p>and why do philosophy majors get those jobs? do you think i-banks are looking for people who know how to think about philosophy? do you think that maybe i-banking has nothing to do with philosophy and that somewhere along the way these philosophy classes taught its students critical thinking skills that weren't so "specific to a discipline"? is it possible that thinking is just thinking and that some students just learn it in different ways than others?</p>
<p>"is it possible that...that some students just learn it in different ways than others?"</p>
<p>YES!!!!</p>
<p>You're conflating two parts of the argument, anyway.</p>
<p>The two parts are:</p>
<p>1) If I pick up Kant and read it in my living room I cna understand it just as much as if I took a class</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>2) There's no point to majoring in philosophy.</p>
<p>I've responded to both separately and you keep responding as if, in my arguments, they were the same thing.</p>
<p>No, thinking is not thinking. Yes, every major will teach you largely the same basic critical thinking skills, and those may be the ones you'll need for i-banking. So I'm wondering why you don't argue that any other major is just as pointless?</p>
<p>Beyond that basic thinking, there ARE different ways of thinking. The fact that you probably could not (I don't know, maybe you can) argue about certain issues the way a philosophy professor does would prove this. There ARE skills learned beyond basic critical thinking.</p>
<p>I'm enjoying this, so I'll stay on the sidelines. I do, however, just want to tell Quake that I agree with him 100% and believe he is making a much better argument. That's all I have to say.</p>
<p>alright well since you didn't answer the first 3 questions i'm assuming you agree with that i-banks hire philosophy majors for their ability to think and not their understanding of philosophy, so let me ask you another question: if philosophy majors can think and "manuever" in finance, do you think english or chemistry majors could think and manuever in philosophy? or is that somehow different?</p>
<p>wooo go math!</p>
<p>Chemistry majors, no, and I'm not going to explain why, because it's pointless.</p>
<p>English majors, well it depends. Literary criticism in the last thirty or so years has relied heavily on the Continental philosophical tradition, which it has appropriated largely as "critical theory" or "literary theory." I think an English major will be well versed in that tradition and be able to make those "maneuvers," but not necessarily in the mostly
American/British/Scandinavian Analytic tradition, unless he or she has been trained.</p>
<p>I don't think you understand what I mean by a "maneuver." I don't mean finding one's way through the material. I mean sustaining a critical discussion, arguing in a certain way. Chemistry and analytic philosophy and literary studies all rely on different critical moves, argue in ways that are not always the same (rely on different types of evidence, use evidence in different ways).</p>
<p>I do think that i-banking firms hire from all sorts of majors because they all have a certain set of skills that are not necessarily specific to the discipline. Which is why I wonder why you single out philosophy as a pointless enterprise. If you think that, why don't you think that studying chemistry or math is equally pointless, as far as landing jobs in finance goes? Again, it's a choice. I don't think it makes one a better candidate, but you've admitted that it does not confer disadvantages.</p>
<p>Do I think any major can do i-banking? Yes. But i-banking and the academic study of finance are two different things. So, no, I do not think English an philosophy majors could be professors of finance or professors of chemistry, and vice versa. I think your point was, well, pointless.</p>
<p>Thank you, kqed equal you...I'm inclined to agree with you :)</p>
<p>really quake? you think b-schools never hire professors based on professional achievement, that it's a prerequisite to have a BBA? because i think most, if not all of them, would disagree with you. </p>
<p>and you think an experienced i-banker with a degree in philosophy cannot sustain a critical financial discussion with a finance major because they don't know how to "use evidence" in a certain way?</p>
<p>come on, quake. i know you don't agree with me, but it shouldn't be too much to ask to use some common sense.</p>