[General Battuta]

Most people go into humanities because they consider it to be easy, not because of its percieved usefullness.

cite!

[NGTM-1R]

You don't think knowing Shakespeare is of any worth to society? Jeez.

Yes, but that's because I think he's something of a hack.

[iamzack]

Most people go into humanities because they consider it to be easy, not because of its percieved usefullness.

I doubt many of them graduate.

[redsniper]

Arrrrrrrgh no! The study of art is worthwhile! Everything's connected. Art reflects on society, and the state of a society is governed by human nature and whatever it's economic and political situation is and what kind of technology is around at the time and tons of other things. It's not as immediately practical as a nuclear reactor or computer software or what have you, but saying art isn't important to society is beyond preposterous.

[Mongoose]

It may be very important to society as a whole, but the fact remains that it's not incredibly important to some of us.  Like, I don't consider myself much of a general fan of music at all.  I didn't even know who Pink Floyd was until some time in high school, I never listened to music in my free time growing up, and even now, I don't usually have music on when I'm at the computer.  The same thing goes for live-action cinema, in general.  I know several people who are massive music and film nerds, but I'm pretty much take-it-or-leave-it about both media.  For people like me, having to study certain aspects of the humanities really is largely a waste of time, because they simply don't have that much of an impact on me.

Now am I saying that breadth courses are a bad thing?  Outside of a few snide remarks, no.  But I do think that forcing students to take courses that they just don't give a damn about and won't take anything away from is a major waste of time.  Lord knows I have massive difficulty in getting myself motivated about subjects and tasks that I find uninteresting.

[redsniper]

Ahh I guess that's fair enough. No one person has to (or can) know everything. It's just... I see this amongst my classmates, where they know plenty about our field, and nothing else. Just doesn't seem right.

[Darius]

There's a similar issue with the course that I'm taking. Theology, philosophy and ethics are compulsory art units in the first two years of the course. Now personally I can see how taking those units can help you become a more humane and ethical doctor but the great majority of my coursemates don't and resent having to do them.

This is a case where I think breadth of learning should be compulsory.

[Astronomiya]

As do I.  If you don't want to write papers, go into a major like physics.

...wait, no.  Don't go into physics.  Ever.

Why not?  Physics is a ****ing difficult major, but it can be really damned rewarding, just like the humanities can be.

You don't think knowing Shakespeare is of any worth to society? Jeez.

Is it worth a whole lot, though?  Shakespeare's plays are entertainment, pure and simple.  I find them to be excellent, and they're famous for a reason, but they are at their core entertainment.  This is not to devalue entertainers as a whole; they are a critical component of society, and they can make me laugh.  Studying literature is also not valueless; anyone who feels that not knowing the techniques writers can use to make their points/write interesting works is just fine is retarded.  At the same time, however, should literature be put on the pedestal some put it on?  I would argue no (note that I do not believe physics or the other hard sciences should replace it).

Speaking as an astrophysics major that intends to go on to get Ph.D. in astronomy (my apps go out this month), I hold great respect for actual historians and other humanities scholars.  It takes many long hours of research to write a good, thorough analysis on the subjects they study, just as it takes many long hours of staring at equations and swearing at broken lab equipment to be a good physicist.  I would argue that learning physics is in some sense harder than going into the humanities, mostly due to the various walls encountered in breaking down a person's natural physical intuition (from day one in intro mechanics, honestly) and getting them to rebuild it around the math that describes what really goes on.  If I'm missing some other walls present in humanities study, someone please fill me in.  

The people whom I do not respect are, unfortunately, many modern English professors and such that seemingly can't write an intelligible paper to save their lives.  I remember having to read several paragraphs over and over again to finally make some sense of what they were actually saying.  This wasn't because the material was at all difficult to grasp, either!  It seems a lot of the time they fall into the trap that many of their students do, in that they feel they need to extend their writing.  I found myself thinking many a time, "You know, I could've said this in about one-fifth the words, and it would've been a whole hell of a lot clearer and more concise, without any loss of detail or presented evidence."  This would also be a good time to bring up the Sokal mess from about 15 years back, though in that case it was the journal editors who were ****ing idiots that couldn't smell bull****.

As for what got mentioned in the article, if any of these students get caught, I take the attitude of "eh, **** 'em."  They deserve to fail.  Mr. Dante is part of the problem, but like he points out, the bigger problems are structural in nature, like, "Why the hell are these students being told to go to college in the first place?" or "How the **** is our K-12 system failing so badly?"

There's a similar issue with the course that I'm taking. Theology, philosophy and ethics are compulsory art units in the first two years of the course. Now personally I can see how taking those units can help you become a more humane and ethical doctor but the great majority of my coursemates don't and resent having to do them.

This is a case where I think breadth of learning should be compulsory.

I don't know about the theology or philosophy, but I should think a (at the very least) medical ethics course would be required for, y'know, doctors.  I certainly wouldn't want anyone complaining about that operating on me or being my GP...

[Thaeris]

It may be very important to society as a whole, but the fact remains that it's not incredibly important to some of us.  Like, I don't consider myself much of a general fan of music at all.  I didn't even know who Pink Floyd was until some time in high school, I never listened to music in my free time growing up, and even now, I don't usually have music on when I'm at the computer.  The same thing goes for live-action cinema, in general.  I know several people who are massive music and film nerds, but I'm pretty much take-it-or-leave-it about both media.  For people like me, having to study certain aspects of the humanities really is largely a waste of time, because they simply don't have that much of an impact on me.

Now am I saying that breadth courses are a bad thing?  Outside of a few snide remarks, no.  But I do think that forcing students to take courses that they just don't give a damn about and won't take anything away from is a major waste of time.  Lord knows I have massive difficulty in getting myself motivated about subjects and tasks that I find uninteresting.

In some regards, most of us would agree with you. But I will tell you that I am a much more adept person for taking some of those classes I didn't give a hoot about. I believe we often tend to dislike what we are not good at, and as such are further... well, not all that good at it. But, if you never engage in those things at all, you will never be able to step beyond the limitations you have set out for yourself. Often those "bullsh*t" classes are means of doing this, forcing us to overcome some aspects in our personalities and increase our skillset. In fact, given your comments, I might even suggest you give such things another try.  

[Klaustrophobia]

the thing is, the shakespeare class i'm in i DID take voluntarily, thinking i'd give that "expand my horizons" thing a go.  (i had to take SOME literature class, but there are plenty of other subjects i'd have been much more interested in).  it failed miserably.  i don't care about shakespeare any more than i did before, and i've picked up a hatred for the so-called "shakespearian" academics.  this douche literally told the class, "think what i think and you'll make A's.  think on your own, and you'll make C's."  and we frequently hear about how this community of PhD's spend their careers on such rediculous **** as publishing papers stating that sonnet #whatever was really about a dildo. (actual example from class)

i did take an ancient world history class that i probably would have found interesting if i hadn't been busy panicing under the sheer amount of information simply preached at us, but i still don't see how i'm all the better for it, other than i knew at some point during the class some unique factoids that i've since forgotton.  the only bit of info i maintain from that class is how much "history" material is actually completely made-up or assumed and has no actual backing in the historical record.  for example did you know that there is only one sentence in the entirety of what has been found referencing spartacus? 

sigh.  i need to quit this thread.  i'm not really as close-minded as this is making me sound.  and for whoever asked, my major is nuclear engineering
<--

[Solatar]

Most people go into humanities because they consider it to be easy, not because of its percieved usefullness.

It's already been said, but I want to see proof for this outrageous claim.  Certainly there are people who do go into them because they consider it easy - I think we all know a few of these people, honestly.  Extending that to "most people" is a sweeping generalization with no academic merit.

I know this because as a history major I evaluate claims. 

@Klaustrophobia:  Shakespeare academics can generally be snobbish little pricks, quite honestly.  It just seems to come with that particular field.  Historical linguists are cool though. 

[Mongoose]

As do I.  If you don't want to write papers, go into a major like physics.

...wait, no.  Don't go into physics.  Ever.

Why not?  Physics is a ****ing difficult major, but it can be really damned rewarding, just like the humanities can be.

I only say that because my physics major completely and utterly kicked my ass, to the point where I literally felt defeated by my entire college experience.  I'm not really at the point where I can talk about it fondly just yet.

In some regards, most of us would agree with you. But I will tell you that I am a much more adept person for taking some of those classes I didn't give a hoot about. I believe we often tend to dislike what we are not good at, and as such are further... well, not all that good at it. But, if you never engage in those things at all, you will never be able to step beyond the limitations you have set out for yourself. Often those "bullsh*t" classes are means of doing this, forcing us to overcome some aspects in our personalities and increase our skillset. In fact, given your comments, I might even suggest you give such things another try. 

The thing is, I generally am reasonably good at the whole English-class-essay thing, at least up to the AP English and single college course that I took.  I've always been able to pull off the whole literary-analysis-BS-language fairly easily, even though I never honestly liked doing it all that much.  It's really more a matter of interest in anything else...but unfortunately, I wound up not really liking the stuff that I was interested in either.

And oh lord, Shakespeare analysts.  I took a colloquium class in freshman year that covered Oedipus Rex, Antigone, and Hamlet, and the Hamlet portion just had me rolling my eyes half the time.  Our professor wrote the book we were using to analyze it, and I swear that the Bard couldn't have come up with a tenth of the references and allusions that were attributed to him.  Talk about sucking the life out of something by over-analyzing it to death.

[Niue]

we'll i've come out with a b+ when the class average was a 50% (if that), but it was in NO way, shape, or form due to BSing or lazyness on the part of any of the students.  doing a complete thermal hydraulic analysis of a nuclear plant in 4 hours without a calculator is just plain hard.  

A nuclear engineering major? On this forum? Awesome, as I am one myself (we're pretty rare).  Good to see I'm not the only nuke engineering student here.  Might I ask which university you're at (you can send me a PM if you want)?

Klaustrophobia, I completely understand.    In four hours? Impressive.  My time scale was more in the days-to-weeks category, mostly because I was the only one in my group who knew the codes well enough.

I had a senior design project and although my emphasis wasn't on thermal hydraulics, instead it was the neutronics side of a nuclear plant.  My group's senior design paper, when finished, ended up being a 71 page monstrosity that became nearly impossible to peer edit due to the size.

Back on topic, technical writing can be a time consuming pain since every sentence is efficiently packed with information.  There is no sugar-coating, just pure raw science regurgitated in a form reminiscent of Freespace's tech database.  Compare this to the humanities, where one can easily stretch out a paper by filling it with redundant adjectives and flowery writing.  

[NGTM-1R]

Compare this to the humanities, where one can easily stretch out a paper by filling it with redundant adjectives and flowery writing. 

It has been my experience that the main problem once you escape high school is fighting the word limit, not fighting to reach it.

[Klaustrophobia]

we'll i've come out with a b+ when the class average was a 50% (if that), but it was in NO way, shape, or form due to BSing or lazyness on the part of any of the students.  doing a complete thermal hydraulic analysis of a nuclear plant in 4 hours without a calculator is just plain hard. 

A nuclear engineering major? On this forum? Awesome, as I am one myself (we're pretty rare).  Good to see I'm not the only nuke engineering student here.  Might I ask which university you're at (you can send me a PM if you want)?

Klaustrophobia, I completely understand.    In four hours? Impressive.  My time scale was more in the days-to-weeks category, mostly because I was the only one in my group who knew the codes well enough.

I had a senior design project and although my emphasis wasn't on thermal hydraulics, instead it was the neutronics side of a nuclear plant.  My group's senior design paper, when finished, ended up being a 71 page monstrosity that became nearly impossible to peer edit due to the size.

Back on topic, technical writing can be a time consuming pain since every sentence is efficiently packed with information.  There is no sugar-coating, just pure raw science regurgitated in a form reminiscent of Freespace's tech database.  Compare this to the humanities, where one can easily stretch out a paper by filling it with redundant adjectives and flowery writing. 

oh yay, i have a nuke friend on the board!  i'm at NC State. (graduating in a week and a half WOOT!)  ask your thermal hydraulics professor if he knows Dr. Doster
ok, i kinda exaggerated the complete analysis bit.  i'm talking about our exams, in which we did stuff like determine pressure loss across the entire loop and calculate coolant profiles given heat generation profiles, find natural convection mass flow rates, etc.  by hand, not with codes 

my senior design was actually a D-D fusion neutron generator.  plasma stuff, not the traditional neutronics or reactors.  not my personal preference, but it was a load of fun since we had a plasma expert in the group.  we actually got to build ours while everyone else just runs code and puts designs on paper.  .  the sections of the final report i was responsible for amounted to about 30 pages.  i haven't even seen the final compiled version yet .  although the sections i did see before it was turned in were reviewed and were outstanding bits of technical writing if i may boast a little    our presentation was also the only one that didn't get systematically destroyed by the Industry Advisory Committee (consisting of nuclear department managers and the like from companies such as northrup grumman and progress energy) during the question sessions.  they actually made one guy pass out   we got asked ONE clarification question about one of our setups, and then got a "good presentation guys!" with nods around the room

[/hijack]

word limits in technical papers are pretty retarded.  i've never been given a minimum or maximum in any of my engineering courses.  when i get a limit in any sort of paper, i just ignore it.  i do the assignment and say what i need to say in a complete and concise fasion.  it usually works out to within the range, but i've never gotten any crap for being over or under when it does happen.  any professor that is going to judge what is clearly a serious and well written paper (vs the page-limit length of utter bovine fecal material submitted by the mindless go-through-the-motions students) on length rather than quality doesn't deserve to be teaching.

[Flipside]

There was one kid at college who tried to do this with a web-page project, right up to the point where he was asked to explain the HTTP he had allegedly written. Hilarity ensued.

There was also the trouble I had when I was teamed up with another student to write an RMI-based java system in a 2-part project, and he didn't do any work for either part, I did both the design and creation. Fortunately, all the work was done via the Universities CVS system, so he didn't get away with that either.

[ssmit132]

Yeah. I ran into the word limit problem with my Networks assignment. Even though it said 'strictly no more than X words' for each part, I didn't get marked down even though I went way over each time.

[Niue]

oh yay, i have a nuke friend on the board!  i'm at NC State. (graduating in a week and a half WOOT!)  ask your thermal hydraulics professor if he knows Dr. Doster
ok, i kinda exaggerated the complete analysis bit.  i'm talking about our exams, in which we did stuff like determine pressure loss across the entire loop and calculate coolant profiles given heat generation profiles, find natural convection mass flow rates, etc.  by hand, not with codes 

Cool, just graduated from Univ. of Florida myself this past August.  I'll most likely be going to Georgia Tech soon for grad school.  I've actually met Dr. Doster before, he was working on passive reactor cooling methods the last time I spoke with him.

my senior design was actually a D-D fusion neutron generator.  plasma stuff, not the traditional neutronics or reactors.  not my personal preference, but it was a load of fun since we had a plasma expert in the group.  we actually got to build ours while everyone else just runs code and puts designs on paper.  .  the sections of the final report i was responsible for amounted to about 30 pages.  i haven't even seen the final compiled version yet .  although the sections i did see before it was turned in were reviewed and were outstanding bits of technical writing if i may boast a little    our presentation was also the only one that didn't get systematically destroyed by the Industry Advisory Committee (consisting of nuclear department managers and the like from companies such as northrup grumman and progress energy) during the question sessions.  they actually made one guy pass out   we got asked ONE clarification question about one of our setups, and then got a "good presentation guys!" with nods around the room

Cool, ours was a medical isotope production reactor.  I did mostly steady state criticality analysis and core design (with help from our own thermal hydraulics group), but somehow managed to pull off limited burnup and fuel cycle analysis as well before the final presentation (deadlines are tough if not every member of the group is outputting at 100% efficiency).  I've read a bit from plasma physics textbooks though, definitely tough stuff your group was doing.  My impression of plasma physics is thermal hydraulics mixed with electromagnetism in an unholy mixture of vector calc.

word limits in technical papers are pretty retarded.  i've never been given a minimum or maximum in any of my engineering courses.  when i get a limit in any sort of paper, i just ignore it.  i do the assignment and say what i need to say in a complete and concise fasion.  it usually works out to within the range, but i've never gotten any crap for being over or under when it does happen.  any professor that is going to judge what is clearly a serious and well written paper (vs the page-limit length of utter bovine fecal material submitted by the mindless go-through-the-motions students) on length rather than quality doesn't deserve to be teaching.

That's true, I usually get page length minimums (rarely maximums) in most of the engineering courses I've taken.  Even then, since most of it is double-spaced I end up well overshooting it mostly due to the complexity of the subject and the need for attention to detail.