Why does everyone laugh?

College Majors
61

<p>el duque, you're NOT PAYING ATTENTION to what I am saying. You're not even paying attention to what you are saying and I am responding to. You're taking what I say and responding as if I was arguing something else. It's a good and confusing argumentative strategy.</p>

<p>First of all, I KNOW FOR A FACT tha--top-tier, at least--business schools, the vast majority of the time, do not hire professors based on work done in the private sector. As a matter of fact, most professors at schools like Stern, Wharton, Sloan, Kellogg, etc. have gone to graduate school to get a Ph.D. in Marketing, Managament, Finance, Accounting, etc. Many of them have extensive private sector experience, but a record of scholarly acheivement and publications (which counts as professional acheivement, but not in your definition) is what counts most for hiring and receiving tenure. Making millions of dollars for Goldman Sachs is not going to get someone hired as a professor at any rank in a top-tier business school. Peer-reviewed articles about one's chosen field are. Hence the emphasis on ACADEMIC finance, as in the theorization of financial models, something done mostly in the university and applied in industry, an amphasis which you willfully--and irresponsibly--chose to ignore.</p>

<p>Point Number 2: I never said that an experienced i-banker with a degree in philosophy can't sustain a critical discussion with a finance major. First of all, what is taught at the undergraduate level is not the research skills necessary to pursue an academic career, but one which prepares the student for a career in industry. The hardcore theory and research comes at the graduate (Ph.D.) level.</p>

<p>The financial discussion that I am talking about is not "This is how you invest here to make lots of money," but about financial theory removed from practice, which is what would be done in a university. It's the same as your average Joe saying he liked Othello because it had a good plot versus an academic discussing the complicated and troubled history of race in the early modern period, how what defines race is not just skin color but religion and geography and gender, brought about by interactions between different groups of people, and how such concerns are brought to light in the aesthetic techniques Shakespeare--consciously or unconsciously--uses. It is the acknowledgment that behind mere practice or reception, there is a deeper theoretically grounded understanding that most of those not doing the actual theory have less need for.</p>

<p>Which is exactly my argument about your calling majoring in philosophy pointless. In that sense, it is just as pointless as majoring in finance (I don't think either is pointless, though).</p>

<p>you come on, el duque. i know you're grasping desperately at straws, but it shouldn't be too much to ask that you not disingenuously redirect an argument and willfully and irresponsibly ignore my, as well as your own arguments. To ask that you not pretend I said things I didn't say and meant things I clearly didn't mean should not be too much to ask. Unfortunately, it seems just that.</p>

62

<p>i absolutely responded to what you said. if you think you were implying something else, then maybe you should work on your communication skills. im not the first person you accuse of misunderstanding your posts.</p>

<p>and seriously, if anyone is not paying attention to what's being said it's you. first you explained how unique a philosophy class is by differentiating it from chemistry. what does unique mean, quake? it's not the difference between one thing in a set and another, i'll tell you that much. </p>

<p>then you tried to explain how we're really arguing 2 things,
"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>they're the same argument, quake. think about it. majoring in philosophy is a poor decision. why is it a poor decision? because you can pick up a book and learn the same stuff you would in a class. (the argument very crudely put)</p>

<p>then you answered yes and no to the same question (which i'm still not sure what you were thinking when you did that).</p>

<p>and last, when i asked you if a chemistry major could possibly learn, understand and manuever in philosophy, you responded as if i had meant a chemist could read a book and just start...i don't know...going. i was really asking if it's possible to take the "same basic critical thinking skills" "largely taught by each major" to learn the more "discipline specific" ways of thought in another study without the aid of a lecture. bearing in mind, of course, that this is the information age and that there are countless resources at your disposal.</p>

<p>and just to touch on what you said last, you are still asserting that a philosophy major could never understand finance at the same level as the hot-shot BBA that took 6 finance classes because the BBA learned in an academic environment. no matter how many finance books he reads, financial wizards he talks to, diverse financial institutions he works at, or how much research he does the philosophy major is doomed to only a practical knowledge of finance because he failed to study it in undergraduate school. a depressing thought, indeed. i wonder if you'll have your midlife crisis at the age of 20, because there's apparently no turning back at that point.</p>

63

<p>[bad pun warning]</p>

<p>You just Kant pick up a book of philosophy and get as much out of it as you would if taking a course with a philosophy professor.</p>

<p>(And if there's anyone who that's absolutely true about, it's Kant...oh, put Hegel in there, too].</p>

64

<p>Momfromme...the pun was indeed bad, but so corny as to be amusing, and amusement is most welcome and much needed in this thread.</p>

<p>Lump all of the Continentals together (Levinas, Heidegger, Husserl, Levinas, Derrida).</p>

65

<p>As a math major, I'd just like to thank everyone who correctly asserted that math is far from useless. Think before you post, Fides et Ratio.</p>

66

<p>“first you explained how unique a philosophy class is by differentiating it from chemistry. what does unique mean, quake? it's not the difference between one thing in a set and another, i'll tell you that much.”</p>

<p>And it’s here where we got off track. Let’s ignore the implications for a job in finance. Your initial argument was that you could learn just as much by reading philosophy as by taking a class on it. I’ve argued otherwise. Its relation to chemistry classes is immaterial to that specific argument. I only said that philosophy classes are unique in that UNLIKE chemistry classes, they teach you about philosophy and how to write and think and debate the way philosophers do. Chemistry classes don’t.</p>

<p>And those two aren’t the same argument because the first has to do with the value of taking a class versus reading on your own, and the second had to do with the practical implications on the job market, another argumentative aim which you have chosen to ignore and misrepresent. </p>

<p>I’m sorry if I misunderstood your hypothetical about the chemistry major, because it wasn’t all that clear. Let my answer be clearer. My answer is an emphatic no. My answer is a no specifically because (like, I believe, any discipline) it is necessary to have an actual person there with you, an expert, someone who is versed in the “critical maneuvers” and apparatus. Someone who can help you understand not just what the thinker is saying on the surface, but understand the argumentative moves he is making, how he is playing off of others’ moves, and how that affects his argument. </p>

<p>Sure, if your family is composed of philosophy professors and you work with them, you may not need to take a class. But, in all practicality, a university is pretty much the only place where you’ll be able to find someone who can help you engage like that. And a class is really the only place where you’ll be able to do that consistently enough to be well-practiced. By “countless resources” I assume you mean things like the internet. I’m a huge fan of the internet, and I’m not going to say that the internet is sketchy and shouldn’t be trusted. My reluctance lies in the fact that only with an actual person can you bounce off your own ideas, discomforts, interpretations, anxieties, arguments, disagreements, “critical maneuvers,” and only with an actual person can your thinking be kept in line most effectively when it goes astray.</p>

<p>The argument about the BBA is not what I was saying at all. I’m saying that he won’t understand it like the Ph.D. will understand it. For all I know he may understand it better than the guy who studied it in undergrad. I’m not saying that the philosophy major is doomed to practical knowledge, but just that, unless he decides to become as specialized in the field, do research on his own, actually has theoretically minded people to direct his research, and writes a dissertation on the subject, no he won’t have the same understanding as the Ph.D. Theoretically, he could, but there is no PRACTICAL way that that could happen. There aren’t the people but in the university, and there isn’t the time for the professors nor the resources but if our young Curious George is a student.</p>

<p>That’s why someone can’t just read philosophy and understand it AS WELL as someone who has had the opportunity to take classes. Because outside of a university, there simply isn’t the time or resources to gain that understanding, and outside of a philosophy classes, those with the expertise have very little time to help out a Curious George. It’s a question of access and practicality.</p>

<p>You seem to think I’m bitter and unhappy. I’m actually very happy and satisfied. You, on the other hand, judging from your posts in other threads, seem to be really anxious in this one that your applied math major won’t necessarily translate any better into the kind of job you want than a piddling philosophy major, especially if they come from a great school like Emory, and trying to convince yourself that it will. I’m 20, so if being a student in a great English department at a great school and being able to take classes that I really care about and find important constitutes a midlife crisis, I have two things to say:</p>

<p>1) It’s the best idea of a midlife crisis I could ever think of.</p>

<p>2) Where are my trophy wife and red Corvette?</p>

67

<p>i'll respond to this later, as i'm in the middle of an architecture paper right now, but i really need to clear up these misinterpretations of my intentions in this debate. i don't know how times or in how many ways i have to say it, but this is not about the job opportunities for a philosophy major. i'm not bitter at the fact that they may very well get a better job or better pay than i do. if my boss were a philosophy major, all the better. i don't care, i might even learn something from him. </p>

<p>i really don't even care if i end up below the poverty line; i'm a firm believer that money doesn't buy happiness. i also believe, however, that what you do have, you don't throw away. lol, i guess that's why i'm a math major. i didn't want to throw away my one talent.</p>

68

<p>I don't think your intentions in this thread were sinister or mean-spirited, el duque, and i hope you don't think i think they were. the job opportunity thing is just the way the argument found itself going. I didn't mean to dig at you, either.</p>

<p>Kudos to you for choosing not to throw away what you have, your "one talent." But what about people whose talent lies in philosophical thinking?</p>

<p>I also don't believe that money buys happiness, which is partly why I'm an English major. Literary criticism is--I like to think--a talent of mine. Believe me, I have no desire to go into investment banking.</p>

<p>By the way, props on the architecture. That's one of the things I'm interested in in my literature classes, go figure.</p>

69

<p>i would first like to say how funny i find it that a thread revolving around philosophy majors seems to have drawn the most interest from math and english majors. in fact, they seem to be the only 2 groups of people posting. it's actually kind of bizarre.</p>

<p>anyway...</p>

<p>"But what about people whose talent lies in philosophical thinking?"</p>

<p>i really don't think there exists such a person whose ONLY talent is philosophical thinking. math is a very focused study, so it's understandable that many people are so remarkably good at it and mediocre at everything else. granted, it bleeds into a lot of different subjects, which is why mathematical thinkers can do quite well outside of math's immediate realm. but if you look closely, you'll see them leaning completely on math in order to understand what they're doing. i willingly admit i am one of these people. philosophy, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. it's the broadest subject there is, essentially the culmination of all other studies (just ask displaced). i would think, then, that people with an aptitude for philosophy would find themselves quite good at one or two other things. i think someone posted the average GRE scores for philosophy majors relative to other common majors that revealed exactly what i'm saying to you now.</p>

<p>"For all I know he may understand it better than the guy who studied it in undergrad"</p>

<p>exactly. fact is, if the finance BBA doesn't pursue a career in finance for whatever reason, the philosophy major turned i-banker, in all likelihood, probably will catch up and eventually surpass the BBA, even in theoretical finance. why? because the philosophy major learned critical thinking methods in college that are applicable to anything if you agree the world works in a logical manner. he's able to think about what he's doing at work and understand it without a teacher next to him, or going to any finance classes. </p>

<p>i realize, as do you, that you had to answer my hypothetical question with an "emphatic no". but you went on to contradict yourself as you admitted the possibility of a major in one subject area, without any further formal education, grasping the material of an entirely different subject to the point where he could understand it as much, or even more than someone who had actually studied this 'entirely different' subject in college.</p>

<p>now does this make a finance major a waste of money as well?
well, no. if the BBA actually did get a job in i-banking, all things being equal, the philosophy major will be behind the BBA for quite a while, perhaps forever.</p>

<p>so why couldn't you say the same thing about philosophy?
you can, and for the relatively small portion of philosophy majors that actually aspire to become philosophers (in the occupational sense) i will admit that an undergraduate philosophy degree is worth the money, as it will set a solid foundation for graduate school. but for the countless others that just want to understand it as much as the BA does or think it well help in their real aspirations (usually law school), well, the BA is not the only route if you're dedicated enough. it's just the most expensive one.</p>

70

<p>I've driven some 2000 miles since my last post, but I think one important thing about Philosophy is being missed. Philosophy is about all knowledge, the idea of being well rounded. In the eyes of Plato only a master of all math, sciences, language, literature and warfare could be a true Philosopher or in his words a Philosopher King in his perfect society. The ideal has never changed among true philosophers, which is why so many brilliant scientists, mathematicians, and writers have been considered Philosophers. It is the quest for all truth in every subject surrounding life and existence that thrives a philosopher. </p>

<p>This may seem beside the point when you think about majoring in philosophy, but it's not. A Philosophy major will understand beyond all other majors the importance of all aspects of his education ... while studying the great Philosophers who were indeed masters in other areas as well.</p>

71

<p>well i started on page 1 of this debate, and got bored a little, and skipped over to page 5, but i suppose ill throw in my two cents anyways. as long as you are most likely going to continue your education after undergrad, there is nothing wrong with majoring in philosophy. i for one will take some philosophy courses at college, but i would not major in it simply because it isnt my greatest interest. plus, i will probably major in a science and for grad education in sciences, u do need the background as an undergrad because it is a lot of information at points. i am not a humanities oriented person but i like poly sci and philosophy. english classes i dislike very much, simply because i dont see the point in them as much as science or math or for that matter philosphy and poly sci. i suppose it depends on the english course, but i dont see how analyzing the very fabric of a work of fiction can really help that much, but thats just my opinion. i know people will say it's useful for critical thinking and writing well, but i find it much easier to learn those skills through a course in poly sci or philosophy, especially since often i find myself thinking of ideas about a work of fiction that i am told are wrong, and i find it sometimes hard for teachers to say what an author was thinking when he wrote a work of fiction. i can understand if my idea is waay out there and makes no sense at all, but usually they arent.</p>

<p>done ranting.</p>

72

<p>displaced, i think that's the first valid point i've seen someone make thus far, and a very good one. but you apparently think "many brilliant scientists, mathematicians, and writers have been considered philosophers", and by your own definition a philosopher is a master of all knowledge. so i guess this begs the question, why wouldn't a math student studying the work of a brilliant mathematician, or an english student studying the work of a brilliant writer or any other student studying the work of some great academic who was a master of many other studies get the same effect as the philosophy student studying a philosopher?</p>

<p>i might also add that i personally know some philosophy majors, and while they may understand the "importance" of their other classes better than i do, this rarely ever translates into a more serious or academic approach than i or any other major would take. i mean they skip pretty regularly, don't read until a week before the test, and honestly don't even understand the material sometimes. they're just typical american college students, there's no need to glorify them.</p>

73

<p>Andyman, I agree with your "I got bored" part (but at least I skimmed the other pages man!).</p>

<p>I think that the only good point made by either quake or el duque so far is el duque's last statement, that philosophy majors are just like everyone else.</p>

<p>My boyfriend double majored in English and Philosophy, I'm double majoring in Music Theory and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies and contemplating a minor in philosophy. We are a useless couple who like to debate a lot.</p>

<p>One of my best friends while I was abroad is an electrical engineering major with a minor in computer science. To me, that sounded like a boring major, useless outside of equations, until he a) fixed my computer when my software crapped out on me and b) told me that when his MIDI keyboard broke, all he had to do was open it up and rewire it (yeah, he's into music too).</p>

<p>Conversely, my engineering friend was taking a lot of gen eds while abroad, and discovered that sociology (which WGSS is closely related to in some ways) isn't useless either--it deals with real world problems that everyone faces.</p>

<p>My point? Basically, there is a use to everything. You just have to be able to utilize it in some way.</p>

<p>I do agree, however, that philosophy is better discussed with a group who is on a similar level as you and an expert--I prefer face-to-face arguments. This online discussion board is the first I've ever really participated in, and, to quote an extremely politically incorrect joke for a moment: "Winning an argument online is like winning the Special Olympics. In the end, you're all still retarded."</p>

<p><em>please no hate mail on that comment, I don't really believe it and I think the Special Olympics is a worthy cause that I support wholeheartedly</em></p>

74

<p>I also just realized that the way I phrased my point there makes no sense. Let's try this again:</p>

<p>There is a use to everything; you just need to find a situation that highlights it.</p>

<p>Hopefully that's better.</p>

75

<p>yeah, i didn't really read everything either. they started to sound like personal attacks i didn't want to get involved in. lol. anyway, sometimes i feel like liberal arts majors like English majors and probably Philosophy majors are way too defensive about their majors, saying stuff like people in those majors are superior because it proves they like to think and they're not into materialistic stuff, which is why they're willing to go into something that doesn't make much money. i'm an English major and thinking about Philosophy, and well, when you're in college, you're just a student. your goal should be to learn all that you can, regardless of any major you're in. and no, i don't think my major is superior than any other major. in the end, all we really need is common sense. but i simply shrug when people tell me all i can do is teach.</p>

76

<p>you guys this isn't a homework assignment. if it bores you then don't read it, much less post on it. do something more productive...or at least more entertaining for crying out loud. seriously, get a life.</p>

<p>and speaking of getting a life, i would like to get on with mine so im gonna make this my last post.</p>

<p>4321234 got my point (my REAL point) from the very beginning, and this whole thing could have ended there if displaced hadn't kept it going by continuing to glorify philosophy majors. </p>

<p>everyone who made an argument in this debate was obviously wrong, each for their own reasons, but mine was wrong because of what 4321234 said. No one would actually ever learn philosophy if they went out on their own, because they wouldn't have the discipline or the dedication to do it. it has nothing to do with critical thinking, a forum, a love of knowledge or anything like that. so i guess what im trying to say is that philosophy majors, like all other college students, are there because society requires them to be there. you could argue they're a bit unlucky that their interest fell into a less practical subject than business or engineering, but that's just the way it goes. if there was a way to collect actual data, the numbers would most certainly show that there's just as much interest in engineering among engineering majors as there is in philosophy among philosophy majors. and i still think way too many people here just refuse to believe that.</p>

<p>philosophy, english, art history, or whatever 'useless' major you are, you aren't any more courageous or rebellious than our old friend the finance major is. it's just an absurd notion used to compensate for fear of an uncertain future that a lot of CCers need to get over. it seems like people on this board think less practicality=more courage or a better understanding of what's really important in life, and that since you have this understanding you are somehow better than those other 'ignorant' majors. im sorry, but i just cannot have that. it's not true at all and if you actually believe that then i have nothing more to say to you other than that you are an ignorant fool who needs to get over yourself.</p>

77

<p>4321234, what do you say when people say that you can ONLY teach? 'Cause when people say that to me I just wanna punch them.</p>

78

<p>lol. i hear that one a lot, but not as much as people always asking me if i'm going into journalism or newspapers. i say something like the English major is pretty broad and I can pretty much do anything with it. implying that I could even do what they want to do and not have to major in it. sometimes i also want to say that you can't really do much no matter what undergrad degree you have.</p>

79

<p>First of all, I find it amusing that I am credited to keep this going as I have hardly been at the center of the discussion.</p>

<p>Second, I believe that each person should go to school for what interests them. I love literature, I love writing, so I'm majoring in English with a specialty in Writing/Publication and New Media Communication and Design. I've been working in my field specifically for the past 4 years. To me, an English degree is all but pointless.</p>

<p>Thirdly, my support of the Philosophy major is as follows:</p>

<p>1) If you love it, why not study it?
2) Philosophy majors do not just study philosophers. I agree that if this was the case it could be equated with me studying literary giants, a math major studying great mathematicians, or a geology student thriving on the conflicts or Darwin. But that is where there is the great difference. In a good school, at least, Philosophy students do not just study the Philosophers known for their philosophies on 'being.' A philosophy student studies the greats of all fields: Lao Tzu, Turing, Jacobi, Einstein, Aristotle, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Edison, Freud, Derrida (just to give an idea) are all studied within different divisions of philosophy. A philosophy student is more well rounded in my opinion because they are taught all fields, not just one.</p>

<p>Fourthly, As far as just a Bachelor's degree we are all about equal. The difference only comes with the pursuit of advanced degrees, and then jobs of equal status can be found, albeit rarely, by your specialty.</p>

80

<p>It’s said that philosophy majors are well prepared to get into business schools and med schools. But the people who go into business school take a lot of math and business classes along with their philosophy major work and the people who go to med school take a lot of math/science classes, correct? Sorry if that’s a dumb question.</p>