who would support dropping liberal arts degrees to help colleges?

[Skull Pilot]

He was talking history not organic chemistry.

And at a later scene in the movie, he does his girlfriend's Organic Chemistry problems for her in a couple of hours.

And BTW I do believe one could learn organic chemistry as well as any other undergrad from reading the books. Possibly the only thing missing that I see as a detriment would be the lab time.

You've obviously never taken Organic Chemistry. I learned by going to every lecture, reading every page of the book, and doing every problem in the book. If I would have missed out on any of those three, I wouldn't have learned *basic* Organic Chemistry.

Actually I have. 94 average in that class.

The real test of whether you knew what was going on were the hellacious exams prepared by the professor who taught the lecture. He was a great teacher, so if you did the work, you generally survived. You also were able to understand book text by going to lecture and listening to him explain it.

And what was the preparation for OC exams?

Mostly memorization.

I don't know if you've ever read a basic science text book. The words don't exactly jump off the page at you.

Stop assuming buddy. I have a degree in EE. In fact when i was taking Physics and Chem I spent my summers reading the texts for my following semesters. They're boring as all shit but they are certainly not indecipherable without the sage guidance of a professor

But it's just so hard for you to admit that a person does not need to attend university to be just as and quite possibly more educated than some idiot who did nothing but memorize the answers a prof wanted to hear isn't it?

Because education is a formal process, just like military training.

[/QUOTE]

Please do not equate performing dangerous physical acts in life or death situations to taking a chemistry exam.

Ask a Navy pilot what's more difficult. Taking a chem exam or landing a jet on a pitching, rolling boat in the middle of the ocean at night with no lights on.

God you are an arrogant fuck. You fit right into the medical establishment don't you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because it's impossible to get a medical education from over due library fines.

Can you check out cadavers from the library?

Get a job in a mortuary.

But then again one does not need a cadaver to learn human anatomy. There was this thing invented a long time ago called a camera that makes these things called pictures.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because it's impossible to get a medical education from over due library fines.

Can you check out cadavers from the library?

Get a job in a mortuary.

But then again one does not need a cadaver to learn human anatomy. There was this thing invented a long time ago called a camera that makes these things called pictures.

It's not the same. I remember when I went to school for medical billing and coding. The phlebotomy class down the hall was always asking for volunteers to have their blood drawn, because nothing else is like the real thing. Same thing for having a baby at a teaching hospital. The doctors were always dragging med students into my room, because all the pictures in the world of a textbook-perfect pregnancy won't replace actually seeing and examining one.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Can you check out cadavers from the library?

Get a job in a mortuary.

But then again one does not need a cadaver to learn human anatomy. There was this thing invented a long time ago called a camera that makes these things called pictures.

It's not the same. I remember when I went to school for medical billing and coding. The phlebotomy class down the hall was always asking for volunteers to have their blood drawn, because nothing else is like the real thing. Same thing for having a baby at a teaching hospital. The doctors were always dragging med students into my room, because all the pictures in the world of a textbook-perfect pregnancy won't replace actually seeing and examining one.

Learning a technique is nothing but a repetitious act.

And what does drawing blood have to do with learning anatomy? One can learn human anatomy and never see a cadaver.

This thread was specifically about a liberal arts degree not specialized areas of medicine or medical techniques.

What separates the world's best neurosurgeon from radiologist specializing in reading MRIs and PET scans of the brain?

Is it if he learned anatomy at a school or on his own or is it that the neurosurgeon has a particular skill set that makes him a better surgeon? Is it that the radiologist looked at thousands of images of the brain and the surgeon is very good at the skills involved in microsurgery? Would it really matter at that level if one of those guys studied basic chem and anatomy on their own or at a college? No it wouldn't.

I hate to be an iconoclast here but surgery is basically a set of learned techniques like playing piano or fixing a car. Sure something can go wrong which is why all surgery has a chance of death but that does not change the fact that an appendectomy is a set of rote skills; an appendectomy on one guy is pretty much like an appendectomy on another.

I learned how to neuter cats and I never went to school to be a veterinarian. You could learn to do a vasectomy and never go to medical school.

 

[Samson]

Get a job in a mortuary.

But then again one does not need a cadaver to learn human anatomy. There was this thing invented a long time ago called a camera that makes these things called pictures.

It's not the same. I remember when I went to school for medical billing and coding. The phlebotomy class down the hall was always asking for volunteers to have their blood drawn, because nothing else is like the real thing. Same thing for having a baby at a teaching hospital. The doctors were always dragging med students into my room, because all the pictures in the world of a textbook-perfect pregnancy won't replace actually seeing and examining one.

Learning a technique is nothing but a repetitious act.

And what does drawing blood have to do with learning anatomy? One can learn human anatomy and never see a cadaver.

You're no fun:

 

[eagleseven]

And what was the preparation for OC exams?

Mostly memorization.

Then you had a shitty orgo professor, because you can't memorize organic synthesis.

I remember, my orgo exams were simply a series of syntheses. The professor provided the goal molecule, and an initial carbon chain. You had to provide the reagents and interactions that moved the carbon chain from point A to point B.

Most had at least 5 steps, though some had more than 10.

 

[Hamlet]

Seeing how many colleges now are facing steep budget issues, who would support mass dropping of liberal arts degree programs? Obviously some introduction liberal arts classes are needed for all majors, but the idea of getting a 4 year degree in liberal arts is just ridiculous and a waste of time. These programs are also a drag on the college as they bring in no research or other money and must be completely funded by tuition, which also drops during bad economic times. Unlike liberal arts programs, students and professors in math, science, and engineering actually make profits for the school through grants and commercialization of products in conjunction with local businesses.

Yeah, them damn liberal arts ...

Off hand I would say that you are wanting to prioritize what is offered in the way of eduation, and I think there is merit in that idea. In other words, the most critical disciplines should be offered over those that do little to contribute to our physical and mental well being. For example, medicine, dentistry, physics, chemistry, and engineering
are more critical to our well being than say history or one of the fine arts such as painting.

However, from the standpoint of potential students and revenues, there are probably many more people who would take a liberal arts class than those who are interested in the science based disciplines. Maybe it depends on the objective of the school, its mission, and the needs of the society as to what should be offered and what should not be offered.

From what I can tell about courses offered at my favorite school, the non-liberal arts classes or schools all charge a premium or surcharge in addition to some pretty heavy lab fees, so this can also drive people away from the sciences and into the less expensive core courses.

It amuses me in a way to see scholarships being given for majors that don't seem to offer much to society in return, particularly from the small private schools. But in a free country we have a choice and maybe it should be kept that way. Hopefully the economy will pick up again and tax revenues will also pick up so everyone can have a chance to chase their dreams in school, whatever that might be.

I can see the value of money making projects but we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of a college is, to make money or to educate people. This may be a little off topic but I have read where schools are offering 3 yeard bachelor degrees instead of the usual four year degrees. This is apparently being done to reduce the time and the cost of a student getting ready to go into the work place.

That seems to be more like a trade school to me, but in some disciplines it may be a good idea. For example, I learned more in a 39 week electronics course in the AF than I learned in a few years about electronics in college. The AF course was concentrated and wholly dedicated to learning electronic fundamentals and then sets, or the actual electronic devices I was supposed to repair and maintain once I graduated from tech school. I was a radar and nav aids repairman and I really enjoyed the hands on trouble shooting and repair of the airborne sets.

 

[Hamlet]

Chuck out liberal arts? What, like history? Employers need people with high level critical thinking and other cognitive skills, heck the biggest mining company in the world was hiring history graduates a few years ago and using their analytical skills to help their business.

Are these majors more capable of critical thinking and such than a science major?
If so, then why?

 

[Hamlet]

Chuck out liberal arts? What, like history? Employers need people with high level critical thinking and other cognitive skills, heck the biggest mining company in the world was hiring history graduates a few years ago and using their analytical skills to help their business.

Exactemundo ... plus, who really needs to know why politicians decide they way they do (PolSci) or why have certain armed conflicts gone for as long as they have (History/Int'l Affairs) or how to solve such conflicts (Int'l Affairs/Conflict Resolution). Such things are just so dang useless! We can see it in the world we live in today after all!

Only a douche would propose to throw out the liberal arts.

It seems that the needs and demands of the society or economy should have a bearing on what types of majors should be offered. The need to prioritize when funds are short does have merit though.

 

[Diuretic]

If liberal arts degrees were discontinued, I am sure one could find what used to be taught and what books used to be used in the very same free library.

While I am a huge fan of voracious reading, and encourage everyone to do so, I have to honestly say that I don't believe the learning acquired from attending class can be replaced by merely reading the coursebook.

Why not?

All a prof does is tell you what he thinks a book says. Sure he might be using sources from another book so all you have to do is read more than one book on a subject.

I don't understand the idea that if some prof stands in front of a class and tells you about something he read in a book that it somehow is more valuable than if you gathered that very same information yourself.

.......[snipped video clip]

I'm just reading Mortime Adler's "How To Read a Book" and he addresses exactly that point in the opening pages.

As a student, I had read all the books I was now going to teach but, being very young and conscientious, I decided to read them again- you know, just to brush up each week for class. To my growing amazement, week after week, I discovered that the books were almost brand new to me. I seemed to be reading them for the first time, these books which I thought I had "mastered" thoroughly.

As time went on, I found out not only that I did not know very much about any of these books, but also that I did not know how to read them very well. To make up for my ignorance and incompetence I did what any young teacher might do who was afraid of both his students and his job. I used secondary sources, encyclopedias, commentaries, all sorts of books about books about these books. In that way, I thought, I would appear to know more than the students. They wouldn't be able to tell that my questions or points did not come from my better reading of the book they too were working on.

Fortunately for me I was found out, or else I might have been satisfied with getting by as a teaching just as I had got by as a student. If I had succeeded in fooling others, I might soon have deceived myself as well. My first good fortune was in having as a colleague in this teaching Mark Van Doren, the poet. He led off in the discussion of poetry, as I was supposed to do in the case of history, science, and philosophy. He was several years my senior, probably more honest than I, certainly a better reader. Forced to compare my performance with his, I simply could not fool myself. I had not found out what the books contained by reading them, but by reading about them.

My questions about a book were of the sort anyone could ask or answer without having read the book—anyone who had had recourse to the discussion which a hundred secondary sources provide for those who cannot or do not want to read. In contrast, his questions seemed to arise from the pages of the book itself. He actually seemed to have some intimacy with the author. Each book was a large world, infinitely rich for exploration, and woe to the student who answered questions as if, instead of traveling therein, he had been listening to a travelogue. The contrast was too plain, and too much for me. I was not allowed to forget that I did not know to read.

HOW TO READ A BOOK - CH. 1

I'm reading the book, the paper version, not the online one though that's handy, I hate reading lengthy text online. I thought his point about the teacher and the book interact was interesting. No secondary sources, you'll get caught out, he says, I'll make a note of that and try to avoid it.

 

[Hamlet]

I think that colleges need to make their own decision what programs to offer and what programs not to offer.

As for the policy in general, I think it's foolish to eliminate such degrees. The whole point of colleges and university is to learn. Are you going to college to learn or are you going to college for a piece of paper and for money?

Good point, but the bottom line is that most of us have to make money to support ourselves and possibly a family that depends on us. Some people can afford to go for self enrichment but the average young student probably needs to increase his or her earning power.

I am an older person and don't really need more education to further my income, but I am still curious about a lot of topics and would love to be close to a major university where I could take a few special interest courses.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And what was the preparation for OC exams?

Mostly memorization.

Then you had a shitty orgo professor, because you can't memorize organic synthesis.

I remember, my orgo exams were simply a series of syntheses. The professor provided the goal molecule, and an initial carbon chain. You had to provide the reagents and interactions that moved the carbon chain from point A to point B.

Most had at least 5 steps, though some had more than 10.

Yawn. Balancing equations, not too unlike differential equations.

The processes are the processes. You had to know what reagents did what and how did you learn the reagents and the processes? HMMMM memorization?

Biology and the Krebs cycle comes to mind as well as a multitude of other intro and second year liberal arts classes where the bulk of the course requirements was learning fundamental formulas, techniques, theories etc. How do you learn those in one semester? You memorize them. Subsequent classes build on those fundamentals and cement them in your mind but the initial learning is almost always rote.

And If I remembered anything from OC from 20 years ago I might be able to still do some of that shit.

 

[Hamlet]

I think that colleges need to make their own decision what programs to offer and what programs not to offer.

As for the policy in general, I think it's foolish to eliminate such degrees. The whole point of colleges and university is to learn. Are you going to college to learn or are you going to college for a piece of paper and for money?

you learn more and earn more in the field when doing science and engineering degrees than liberal arts so you fail on both points

Not everyone is cut out for science and engineering careers. However, you are probably right on the relative income,a nd yet look at what managers and sales people earn. People pushers and peddlers do quite well, and I think it is because upper level management think these donkeys are indispensible.

 

[Diuretic]

Get a job in a mortuary.

But then again one does not need a cadaver to learn human anatomy. There was this thing invented a long time ago called a camera that makes these things called pictures.

It's not the same. I remember when I went to school for medical billing and coding. The phlebotomy class down the hall was always asking for volunteers to have their blood drawn, because nothing else is like the real thing. Same thing for having a baby at a teaching hospital. The doctors were always dragging med students into my room, because all the pictures in the world of a textbook-perfect pregnancy won't replace actually seeing and examining one.

Learning a technique is nothing but a repetitious act.

And what does drawing blood have to do with learning anatomy? One can learn human anatomy and never see a cadaver.

This thread was specifically about a liberal arts degree not specialized areas of medicine or medical techniques.

What separates the world's best neurosurgeon from radiologist specializing in reading MRIs and PET scans of the brain?

Is it if he learned anatomy at a school or on his own or is it that the neurosurgeon has a particular skill set that makes him a better surgeon? Is it that the radiologist looked at thousands of images of the brain and the surgeon is very good at the skills involved in microsurgery? Would it really matter at that level if one of those guys studied basic chem and anatomy on their own or at a college? No it wouldn't.

I hate to be an iconoclast here but surgery is basically a set of learned techniques like playing piano or fixing a car. Sure something can go wrong which is why all surgery has a chance of death but that does not change the fact that an appendectomy is a set of rote skills; an appendectomy on one guy is pretty much like an appendectomy on another.

I learned how to neuter cats and I never went to school to be a veterinarian. You could learn to do a vasectomy and never go to medical school.

There's an old saw (sorry) concerning the identification of competencies (in competency-based education) that asks someone to identify, without context, a set of skills. The skills are the ability to (I'm not using cbe phrasing here) screw a flat plate onto a flat surface. We all think "carpentry" but it's orthopaedic surgery. Context is everything. Yes, the physical skills are the same, the context is the critical difference and the context is why carpenters can learn as apprentices and surgeons have to study at university (nowadays at least).

 

[Skull Pilot]

A 30 second internet search yields:

I bet that for a couple hundred bucks, anyone motivated enough to put in the hours of study could learn everything a freshman in college does in the following classes.

Chemistry
Physics
History
Trig, or calculus
Biology
Psychology
Sociology

and then all you have to do is take the CLEP exams. And you just saved yourself tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not the same. I remember when I went to school for medical billing and coding. The phlebotomy class down the hall was always asking for volunteers to have their blood drawn, because nothing else is like the real thing. Same thing for having a baby at a teaching hospital. The doctors were always dragging med students into my room, because all the pictures in the world of a textbook-perfect pregnancy won't replace actually seeing and examining one.

Learning a technique is nothing but a repetitious act.

And what does drawing blood have to do with learning anatomy? One can learn human anatomy and never see a cadaver.

This thread was specifically about a liberal arts degree not specialized areas of medicine or medical techniques.

What separates the world's best neurosurgeon from radiologist specializing in reading MRIs and PET scans of the brain?

Is it if he learned anatomy at a school or on his own or is it that the neurosurgeon has a particular skill set that makes him a better surgeon? Is it that the radiologist looked at thousands of images of the brain and the surgeon is very good at the skills involved in microsurgery? Would it really matter at that level if one of those guys studied basic chem and anatomy on their own or at a college? No it wouldn't.

I hate to be an iconoclast here but surgery is basically a set of learned techniques like playing piano or fixing a car. Sure something can go wrong which is why all surgery has a chance of death but that does not change the fact that an appendectomy is a set of rote skills; an appendectomy on one guy is pretty much like an appendectomy on another.

I learned how to neuter cats and I never went to school to be a veterinarian. You could learn to do a vasectomy and never go to medical school.

There's an old saw (sorry) concerning the identification of competencies (in competency-based education) that asks someone to identify, without context, a set of skills. The skills are the ability to (I'm not using cbe phrasing here) screw a flat plate onto a flat surface. We all think "carpentry" but it's orthopaedic surgery. Context is everything. Yes, the physical skills are the same, the context is the critical difference and the context is why carpenters can learn as apprentices and surgeons have to study at university (nowadays at least).

That and a 2 by 4 can't sue anyone.

 

[antagon]

in light of these roles, i don't believe education should be biased exclusively to job-worthiness.

Okay. How about job-worthiness as the primary means of testing for the need to continue, expand or contract a degree program?

I assume the non-job goals you see as valuable include things such as professorial writing, benefiting the community at large, etc.

I agree...but I also do not see where there would be any great tension between job and non-job related goals for colleges and universities.

1. i would say demand should be the basis to determine the curriculum.

2. not necessarily. merely imparting the subject matter of the course will suffice. you get, thereby, what's on the tin.

3. the tension may lie in point #1. better that tension be transferred to the student. if they, en masse, demand more applicable curriculum, because the job-market so demands, in turn, the uni system could react.

i am a philosopher. when i went to school, i studied chemical engineering and biology. for me, as you've noted, the tension did not present itself. I did not see a philosophy degree as a means of improving my identity as a philosopher, rather, i went the skull pilot route and winged it.

the chem e. and the bio helped with some angles on philosophy, but 2 BScs would probably have better application in the workplace. i wouldn't know, having chosen to establish a construction firm rather than look into any of that. building accommodates the philosophy more generously .

 

[antagon]

A 30 second internet search yields:

I bet that for a couple hundred bucks, anyone motivated enough to put in the hours of study could learn everything a freshman in college does in the following classes.

Chemistry
Physics
History
Trig, or calculus
Biology
Psychology
Sociology

and then all you have to do is take the CLEP exams. And you just saved yourself tens of thousands of dollars.

i get where you're coming from, but formal education goes further to build and verify knowledge than independent learning. independent learning, however, should be upheld as a virtue, notwithstanding.

To the credit of universities, particularly for kids, the social and networking value is difficult to equal at a library. the material in lectures is so shatteringly up-to-date that a chem book like that wont do it justice.

it wasn't cost effective, but i took my a. chem from nobel laureate george olah, affording me and hundreds others insight into his cutting edge research and where it was going, beyond where it had gone. working in a well-equipped lab with similarly minded students under direction and supervision of industry top notches, cant be replicated outside of this environment.

i'd argue that self-instruction finds its practical limits at general education, and couldn't constitute baccalaureate specialty or post-grad equivalency for most people, in most courses of study, applicable to most jobs, within the scope of most pocket books and facilitated by most libraries/home laboratories.

 

[Samson]

A 30 second internet search yields:

I bet that for a couple hundred bucks, anyone motivated enough to put in the hours of study could learn everything a freshman in college does in the following classes.

Chemistry
Physics
History
Trig, or calculus
Biology
Psychology
Sociology

and then all you have to do is take the CLEP exams. And you just saved yourself tens of thousands of dollars.

I agree, and in fact, actually did just that (CLEPed out of about a semester of freshman courses)

However, before anyone gets too excited about this prospect, they'd better check to see how the course will be credited.

If you only receive credit for the course, it won't be given a grade, and you won't have "padded" your GPA with Freshman courses that you may otherwise have received easy "A's."

Then, when you begin to take courses outside the "Core Curriculum" you'll be taking much more difficult courses in which you may make "C's."

Without the "A's" added to the calculation of your final GPA, it won't be as high as it would be had you taken the classes. This is often what employers want: High GPA's