Why I'm glad my kid's not an Ivy candidate

[Senior0991]

<p>

I wasn’t claiming that it told you much, except that students have a good idea of what they’re going to do when they enter - that’s why there are so few undecided.

How does it tell me this? Students may have an idea of what they want to do. That’s why there are so few undecided. It being a good idea is if they follow through with it for reasons other than inertia. How many people end up in the major that they initially listed? How many people end up in the general breadth field that they initially listed? </p>

<p>

How many students switch from humanities to engineering or vice versa? I doubt very many.

Even if we assume this is a true, it does not account for people taking more classes in one field than they intended. I never intended to take Drama classes at Stanford, for instance, yet when I graduate I probably will have 3. My major is still going to be in engineering, but I have been taking far more humanities and social science classes than I ever imagined I would. Like I said earlier, at best incoming freshman have an incomplete picture of what they want to learn. </p>

<p>

I never indicated that. In fact, the only one of the five DB areas that my interests didn’t cover was natural science. The EC classes were a pain, though.

Yes, you did. Again, by definition since your primary interests left out the natural science DB and EC classes, you have narrower interests than someone whose primary interests cover all the GER fields. I just do not see how you can argue with this. </p>

<p>

Ah, so that explains why parents are just thrilled when their child tells them he/she is majoring in classics with their $55k.

This is one reaction, yes. Keep in mind, however, that it is different to major in classics than to have a liberal education. While those parents might be upset if their child majors in classics, you have little reason to think they will be upset if their child takes sporadic classes in fields other than her major. </p>

<p>

As if techie students aren’t able to do that.

I have never made this assertion. And, being an engineering major myself, I would certainly hope this is not the case :). Rather, as I stated earlier in this thread, “how is a person who is only interested in advanced physics, or post-modern art, supposed to learn this stuff?” Followed in another post by “I do not want my President to only know about pre-Colombian art, for instance.” In other words, I have argued that it is not intellectual to have only one focus, whatever that may be. I think it’s safe to say you are projecting here. </p>

<p>

This backlash of yours in favor of the humanities…

What? I have been advocating for a liberal arts education, one that involves classes in all five breadth requirements. Consider this quote of mine from earlier:</p>

<p>“The intellectual should still take math, however. It offers a different way of looking at problems. In the real world there are problems. Many write essays, some invaluable, on them. But at the end of the day someone has to solve them. This is where the math method comes in. Use a procedure to solve a problem. Test to see if your solution is correct. If not, go back and start over. Engineering frames problems in a similar way, albeit more applied, hence its value.”</p>

<p>Let’s see what members of the Faculty Senate say regarding many of the points you brought up. These quotes were pulled from the 11/04, 2/03, and 3/03 meetings this past year. </p>

<p>Professor Satz (philosophy) - “But we ought to have all students engaged with humanities and arts in the university in a significant way.”</p>

<p>President Hennessy - “A second issue… is what we can do to attract more students into courses in the humanities above and beyond meeting their minimum GER requirements.” (bolded for emphasis)</p>

<p>Professor Roberts (CS) - “We have not only an institutional responsibility but also a collective responsibility with other institutions to try to find ways so that those of us who are in the popular fields can underscore the importance of having people with a multidisciplinary liberal arts education.”</p>

<p>Professor McConnell (biology) - “A liberal education, which may have been viewed by our parents and their generation as a luxury, is more and more a necessity.”</p>

<p>Professor K. Taylor (philosophy, paraphrased) - He thought that the majors requirements might be too high but acknowledged the necessity in some fields like engineering that require a high number of requirements.</p>

<p>Provost Etchemendy - “Some majors may be at a certain point where we need to say that if you’re going to major in this, you have to co-term" to ease the unit load. </p>

<p>Professor Heise (English) - “What I find in teaching I-HUM and talking to first year students is that they come in with certain interest sets and don’t even know what else is out there.”</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>

How does it tell me this?

</p>

<p>Because a tiny percentage is undecided. You, like some of the professors in your quotes, give very little credit to incoming freshmen about what their interests are. I know that most don’t stick to their original major, but they also generally don’t switch to a completely unrelated area. </p>

<p>

Like I said earlier, at best incoming freshman have an incomplete picture of what they want to learn.

</p>

<p>You give yourself as an example, but I think it’s been established by this point that you are an atypical student. Most don’t have the experience that you have had. If you want to cling to the belief that students have only a general idea about their interests, then that’s fine - but that simply isn’t the reality. Students rarely change from engineering to humanities, or vice versa. Students tend to stay within either ‘techie’ or ‘fuzzy’ or, if they’re interdisciplinary, both.</p>

<p>

Again, by definition since your primary interests left out the natural science DB and EC classes, you have narrower interests than someone whose primary interests cover all the GER fields. I just do not see how you can argue with this.

</p>

<p>If that’s the conclusion you make because my interests don’t cover every single GER, okay then. But I’d also point out that if most students’ interests spanned all the areas, we would not have GER requirements. That’s why you’re in an extreme minority.</p>

<p>

What? I have been advocating for a liberal arts education, one that involves classes in all five breadth requirements.

</p>

<p>It’s obvious by this point that you stress humanities as a basis for intellectualism (esp. considering your IHUM arguments). Yes you have argued for GERs, but you’ve made separate arguments about what being ‘intellectual’ means. You’ve made similar arguments in the past about the humanities.</p>

<p>Your quotes don’t disprove my point that they are reducing the university requirements. (I never said they were eliminating humanities requirements, either.) Your bolded quote, also, says nothing of requirements - the president was simply stressing the need to attract more students to the humanities, a sentiment that was echoed throughout the publicized discussions over the decline in declared humanities majors.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

I know that most don’t stick to their original major, but they also generally don’t switch to a completely unrelated area.

</p>

<p>Source, please?</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@phantasmagoric

Students tend to stay within either ‘techie’ or ‘fuzzy’ or, if they’re interdisciplinary, both.

</p>

<p>There is probably some movement from STEM to H/SS, but less in the other direction, because most STEM majors have long prerequisite chains. While it is often possible to switch to an H/SS major like history well into one’s second year of school without delaying graduation (even if one has not taken any history courses yet), switching to a STEM major that late will likely result in delayed graduation.</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>^^ if I have the time and you’re really just dying to know, I’ll find the Faculty Senate minutes that showed how much students switched. It was in a report from the Committee on Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid, C-UAFA (who studied/tracked how much students changed from what they originally put on the application), if you wanted to search the Faculty Senate minutes archive. As I recall, there were no significant differences.</p>

[Senior0991]

<p>

You, like some of the professors in your quotes, give very little credit to incoming freshmen about what their interests are.

From a 2005 article: “It is little wonder 50 percent of those who do declare a major, change majors — with many doing so two and three times during their college years.” I couldn’t find any specific data for Stanford, but I bet it is similar, if not greater due to the fact that students do not declare early on and can major in practically anything. </p>

<p>

Students rarely change from engineering to humanities, or vice versa.

Again, this is largely irrelevant to my “incomplete picture” argument. Sure, many students have a good conception of what their major will be (how many, I don’t know- I doubt a majority). But apart from that, their picture of what else they may or may not be interested in is incomplete. They may not have had exposure to certain fields, or their interests may change. Did you end up taking a class out of interest that you would not have taken out of interest at the start of freshman year? If so, you had an incomplete picture of your interests going into school. </p>

<p>I think that Professor Heise, who I quoted, is more of an authority on this than you and I. </p>

<p>

But I’d also point out that if most students’ interests spanned all the areas, we would not have GER requirements.

This is not a logical conclusion to jump to. For many, like Professor Satz, it is important to have all, not most, receive some semblance of a liberal education. </p>

<p>

That’s why you’re in an extreme minority.

Who knows? You may be in a minority too. The difference is that I am of the minority opinion that agrees with a diverse set of respected faculty and administrators :p. </p>

<p>

You’ve made separate arguments about what being ‘intellectual’ means.

Yes, look back at those arguments. In fact, let me quote one here:</p>

<p>“As generally defined today, being intellectual involves a component of applying one’s academic knowledge to the public discourse. Whoever does this should care deeply about a range of considerations: knowing the audience and its history, knowing the medium to relay the ideas, having a sound argument to relay, and knowing the potential objections (among others).”</p>

<p>Knowing the audience points to sociology. Knowing its history points to, well, history. Knowing the medium to relay the ideas points to communications, art, and, in the 21st century, computer science. Having a sound argument points to philosophy and logic. Knowing the potential objections points to a very general knowledge: political science for political objections, economics for economic objections, science/engineering for technical objections, and so forth. </p>

<p>At the minimum I alluded to sociology, history, communications, computer science, art, philosophy, political science, economics, science, and engineering. The intellectual should feel comfortable in many of these fields.</p>

<p>Yes, I do think that the humanities and social sciences are inherently more applicable to being an intellectual than technical fields. My definition of the intellectual involves the public sphere. Yes the public sphere involves technical considerations; the intellectual does not shirk math, science, and engineering. However, more than anything else the public sphere is human. Humanities, the study of the human condition. Social sciences, the study of society. See where I’m going? </p>

<p>That said, this society is becoming increasingly reliant on academics- those who have an intense depth in one (and few other) fields. For being an academic, there is no inherent bias towards some fields over others. The academic, just like the intellectual, is necessary for societal progress. If we were talking about whether majors should be abolished, I would bring up the many reasons why I think it is beneficial to have majors (which lead to academics) in our educational system. But that’s not under discussion here. </p>

<p>By the way, Hennessy’s bolded quote tells me that he is committed to the “minimum GER requirements” in the humanities.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@Senior0991

Yes, I do think that the humanities and social sciences are inherently more applicable to being an intellectual than technical fields. My definition of the intellectual involves the public sphere. Yes the public sphere involves technical considerations; the intellectual does not shirk math, science, and engineering. However, more than anything else the public sphere is human. Humanities, the study of the human condition. Social sciences, the study of society. See where I’m going?

</p>

<p>However, the widespread lack of understanding of math and science has effects on society. For example, many people do not assess risk very well (e.g. nuclear power plant versus coal power plant). Or they confuse the growth rate of something (e.g. a type of job) with the number of something. In both cases, there are applications to social studies and public policy.</p>

[compaq10]

<p>

However, the widespread lack of understanding of math and science has effects on society. For example, … do not assess risk… confuse …,

The bold words have something to do with “critical thinking” skill which students should learn by reading and taking more soc.sci and hum. courses</p>

[Senior0991]

<p>

However, the widespread lack of understanding of math and science has effects on society.

Agreed, that’s why I said that the “intellectual does not shirk math, science, and engineering.”</p>

[tk21769]

<p>

However, the widespread lack of understanding of math and science has effects on society. For example, many people do not assess risk very well (e.g. nuclear power plant versus coal power plant). Or they confuse the growth rate of something (e.g. a type of job) with the number of something.

</p>

<p>A book that develops this argument very well is Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences, by John Allen Paulos. It’s a fast read in the “physics for poets” vein.</p>