why is it that...

[GregR]

universities have science classes for non science majors but don't have English and history classes for non English or history majors? if they can take a "no calculus" physics course why don't I get to take a "no grammar" English course? is it fair that I have to perform at a higher level than them in my chosen major but have to perform at their level in their chosen major?

seriously, no calc physics? that's just a joke.

 

[blizzard]

And... That's why I went to the CO school of mines. No essay to get in and everyone is an engineer/scientist. That has positives and negatives in the long run, but is a good fit for some.

 

[ndsgr]

Then when you take the GRE, they rape you on the "word stuff" and give you easy math (wtf, no integrals?).

Not so bad though, a friend of mine teaches math at my old school. He says that some departments feel their students are too stupid (his words) to take college algebra like other non-tech majors. They designed a specific math class just for them. I saw the material and a whole section of the book was talking about shapes (properties, etc) and had little math to do with it. "Ok class, this is a trapezoid. It's kinda like a square, but different." Kind of sad IMO.

 

[shecky]

universities have science classes for non science majors but don't have English and history classes for non English or history majors? if they can take a "no calculus" physics course why don't I get to take a "no grammar" English course? is it fair that I have to perform at a higher level than them in my chosen major but have to perform at their level in their chosen major?

seriously, no calc physics? that's just a joke.

As an English major, can I ask what exactly an English or history course for non-English or non-history majors would entail? Math and science include variables that can be "dumbed down" for some of us. English is English. Grammar is grammar. History is history. There are no variables involved.

I assume you're not being made to take medieval literature or exploring the Civil War in great detail.

And just by the way, it's really not a terrible thing to learn how to use your language the way it is intended to be used. In fact, it can only help.

 

[Mike M]

Yeah what Shecky said.

The ability to communicate in proper English will only help your career. Besides English and History can provide a nice diversion. I have a science degree and generally enjoyed those classes. Reset your attitude and expectations and you may find you do too.

 

[GregR]

And just by the way, it's really not a terrible thing to learn how to use your language the way it is intended to be used. In fact, it can only help.

and it isn't a terrible thing to learn calculus to understand better how the world around you works. In fact, it can only help.

to me, it just seems that we're held to different standards. I took the same English literature class that English majors have to take, the same critical thinking courses... my argument is that I am held to the same standard as those intending to major in the subject while non science majors get away with taking the low calorie version of science and walk away with not nearly the same understanding. it just seems like a bias to non science majors. they get to walk easy street in science town but I have to perform at their level in their major and outperform them in my major as well?

 

[GregR]

(wtf, no integrals?).
I saw the material and a whole section of the book was talking about shapes (properties, etc) and had little math to do with it. "Ok class, this is a trapezoid. It's kinda like a square, but different." Kind of sad IMO.

that's my point. why is ok to have a lesser understanding of math and science? I'm not saying non science majors should have to take upper level science/engineering classes, but at the most basic of levels, shouldn't they walk away with the same understanding? it would be a sad sight indeed if my grasp of the English language were at a barely functioning level, but isn't it just as sad when people can't recognize basic shapes or understand the forces that drive nature around them?

 

[shecky]

and it isn't a terrible thing to learn calculus to understand better how the world around you works. In fact, it can only help.

to me, it just seems that we're held to different standards. I took the same English literature class that English majors have to take, the same critical thinking courses... my argument is that I am held to the same standard as those intending to major in the subject while non science majors get away with taking the low calorie version of science and walk away with not nearly the same understanding. it just seems like a bias to non science majors. they get to walk easy street in science town but I have to perform at their level in their major and outperform them in my major as well?

I've had my share of math and science. I was a chemistry major for two years before I realized I wanted to write for a living.

It is sad that non-science types can't do the basics, though I have to say I've not run into many, if any, of them. I didn't retain any of the calc or trig I took and, honestly, I haven't needed to apply them often. However, you use the language every day of your life.

I can't disagree too much beyond that. Let's be honest, performing at the same level as an English major is not difficult.

 

[bob1852]

Let's be honest, performing at the same level as an English major is not difficult.

sayz 'da Inglish majer

 

[GregR]

I've had my share of math and science. I was a chemistry major for two years before I realized I wanted to write for a living.

It is sad that non-science types can't do the basics, though I have to say I've not run into many, if any, of them. I didn't retain any of the calc or trig I took and, honestly, I haven't needed to apply them often. However, you use the language every day of your life.

I can't disagree too much beyond that. Let's be honest, performing at the same level as an English major is not difficult.

lol. and really, I'm just trolling. I just took my physics final today and it was one of the hardest classes I've ever taken and mostly just feel good that I passed it (and with a little bit of luck might have squeaked past it with an A).

in all honesty I love the English language and think most native English speakers don't speak the language well enough. My thought on the subject is that if I'm only going to speak/read/write one language, I'd better be able to do it damn well. though I do know enough Spanish to have basic conversations and get clean towels brought to my room.

 

[BBKing]

Why is it that one has to take a test (in most cases) to get a drivers license, to practice law, or sell insurance....

Yet one can get a "Fishing License" by just paying the fee? No test of rudimentary knowledge of a fishing pole or how to properly catch a fish....Lets call it the "Fishing Tax" and be honest about it shall we?

We ARE comparing "Why is its" right?

 

[Baja_Brewer]

I can't disagree too much beyond that. Let's be honest, performing at the same level as an English major is not difficult.

You said it, but I won't disagree I'm actually glad that one of 'you guys' will admit to it, all I usually hear is BS arguments in response...

Seriously though, some of these science guys need to just plain old start over when it comes to English. I've written papers with engineering classmates that were God awful. I would read their sections, send them back to them to edit them (punctuation, basic grammar, verb tenses, helloooooo???) and the papers would come back exactly the same. I would spend as much time re-writing their sections as if I wrote them on my own.

Science classes for non-science majors are lame. "Discovering the Universe" "Why Pluto Isn't a Planet"... I swear, they should start making courses like "Be Able to Answer All of a 4 Year Old's Questions like Why is the Sky Blue"

 

[Pappers_]

and it isn't a terrible thing to learn calculus to understand better how the world around you works. In fact, it can only help.

to me, it just seems that we're held to different standards. I took the same English literature class that English majors have to take, the same critical thinking courses...

That's not true. You do not have to take the same upper level liberal arts courses (history, english, literature) that those majors take. You may have to take the same general requirements courses, but that's because they're general requirements.

Perhaps you need to take a logic course or two

 

[Baja_Brewer]

That's not true. You do not have to take the same upper level liberal arts courses (history, english, literature) that those majors take. You may have to take the same general requirements courses, but that's because they're general requirements.

Perhaps you need to take a logic course or two

Taking Cal 1 or Cal 2 so that you can understand Physics is not asking non-science students to take Differential Equations... there are also upper level science/math courses that the liberal arts students are not required to take. Yes, they will take upper level communications/writing/critical thinking/whatever courses that we (science based majors) may not, but they're not even taking our low level courses.

 

[RDWHAHB]

And that my friend is why math science folks are employable.

 

[goose1873]

As an English major, can I ask what exactly an English or history course for non-English or non-history majors would entail? Math and science include variables that can be "dumbed down" for some of us. English is English. Grammar is grammar. History is history. There are no variables involved.

I assume you're not being made to take medieval literature or exploring the Civil War in great detail.

And just by the way, it's really not a terrible thing to learn how to use your language the way it is intended to be used. In fact, it can only help.

exactly. I was a microbiology/biochemistry major and it is a discipline that builds on itself. It is impossible to take advanced physics without understanding calculus (i.e. a method of finding the area of a curved random shape) and Trig.

I took an advanced class on Japanese culture and needed to know nothing when i walked in the door...

 

[shecky]

And that my friend is why math science folks are employable.

Yikes. I had no idea I was unemployable. That job I've had for 20 years must be a figment of my imagination.

 

[RDWHAHB]

Luckily the left brain folks have a good imagination.

 

[shecky]

Luckily the left brain folks have a good imagination.

Well played, sir, well played.

 

[menschmaschine]

Those non-calc science courses are a joke... a joke on the suckers who take them!

Calc makes science and math so much easier. I've seen many non-science majors fail non-calc statistics simply because it is so much more drawn out and unnecessarily complex than statistics using calc. They would have done better to take calculus, then the calc-required statistics... instead of having to take the non-calc statistics twice just to get a D in it.

 

[motobrewer]

our civil engineers didn't have to take physics lab (UW Milwaukee). i don't think they had to take diff. eq. either.

don't drive on Milwaukee bridges.

 

[GregR]

That's not true. You do not have to take the same upper level liberal arts courses (history, english, literature) that those majors take. You may have to take the same general requirements courses, but that's because they're general requirements.

Perhaps you need to take a logic course or two

I'm not talking about about vector calculus and Diff EQ and statics and thermodnamics.

what I am saying is that an introductory physics class for scientists and engineers is far different than an introductory physics class for non scientists. why the double standard, Mr. logic? key word there being introductory.

 

[Pappers_]

Taking Cal 1 or Cal 2 so that you can understand Physics is not asking non-science students to take Differential Equations... there are also upper level science/math courses that the liberal arts students are not required to take. Yes, they will take upper level communications/writing/critical thinking/whatever courses that we (science based majors) may not, but they're not even taking our low level courses.

You miss my point. Perhaps you need to pay attention in those liberal arts courses, work on reading comprehension

What you (and everyone) are required to take are general requirements - what you need to take to be an educated person. If you don't want a general liberal arts education, to be what western society has decided is a well-educated person, then go to a tech school.

 

[Pappers_]

I'm not talking about about vector calculus and Diff EQ and statics and thermodnamics.

what I am saying is that an introductory physics class for scientists and engineers is far different than an introductory physics class for non scientists. why the double standard, Mr. logic? key word there being introductory.

Because they're not general liberal arts requirements. They are not foundational to being an educated person, as western society has defined it over the past few hundred years.

I had no idea that students were so whiney (or maybe I'd just forgotten) or that science students were so smugly superior

 

[jmendez29]

Here's an old joke for you.

What did the liberal arts graduate say to the engineering graduate?












Would you like fries with that?

 

[swinginchandra]

Hahahahaha
<devils advocate>

We have this thing about breadth of education in American schools - and it's actually useful. Look at the number of technical innovations that have come out of our top institutions when compared with the number of similar innovations that have come from institutions with no cross-pollination between departments.

Now think of it this way - the type of physics classes you are talking about - how on earth would an English major survive? Why should we force them to study something they have no aptitude for? Isn't it enough that they have some general knowledge of the subject?
A physics professor made an interesting comment, talking about the exact ( ) same subject - he said the NFL doesn't survive because of the 1% of football-heads that are actually in the NFL, it survives because so much of America has a general interest in football. He believes similarly physics wouldn't survive if the general populace had no knowledge of it, and thus interest in it.

Fair or not, we use english in our lives, and they don't use physics in theirs.

If it makes you feel any better, we'll (on average) make more money, with less years of education. (bachelors compared to masters or Ph.D) Our schooling will mean something directly to our career. Theirs will be a "good life experience".

Don't get me wrong, I bloody hate an english class as much as the next "scientist" type.

oh, no offense intended to any english types...

 

[swinginchandra]

I'm not talking about about vector calculus and Diff EQ and statics and thermodnamics.

what I am saying is that an introductory physics class for scientists and engineers is far different than an introductory physics class for non scientists. why the double standard, Mr. logic? key word there being introductory.

<more devils advocate>

hmmm - interesting.

So, what if you think of it as two different courses entirely. They are taking a science, to fulfill their Gen-Eds. That science just so happens to be physics. Also what we have to take - but what we have to take is labelled "Physics for Engineering Majors" - totally different course. We are taking it as a major requirement, not to satisfy gen-ed. That makes it different to me

I'm seriously cracking up trying to imagine some of my liberal arts type friends surviving through the aforementioned killer final. They would probably have started crying after the 3rd page.

 

[GregR]

<more devils advocate>

hmmm - interesting.

So, what if you think of it as two different courses entirely. They are taking a science, to fulfill their Gen-Eds. That science just so happens to be physics. Also what we have to take - but what we have to take is labelled "Physics for Engineering Majors" - totally different course. We are taking it as a major requirement, not to satisfy gen-ed. That makes it different to me

I'm seriously cracking up trying to imagine some of my liberal arts type friends surviving through the aforementioned killer final. They would probably have started crying after the 3rd page.

see that's my gripe. they have to take some sort of science to satisfy general education requirements, and we have to take some sort of liberal arts to satisfy general education requirements as well. they get the watered down version of an introductory class while we get the 'roided up body builder version. but that is only for the science classes. they get to take the easy class and concentrate on their REAL classes while we take the our real classes AND their real classes. it just seems, to me, like a system set up against science.

 

[GregR]

Because they're not general liberal arts requirements. They are not foundational to being an educated person, as western society has defined it over the past few hundred years.

I had no idea that students were so whiney (or maybe I'd just forgotten) or that science students were so smugly superior

but every student has to satisfy some sort of science requirement because they are foundational to being an educated person, as western society has defined it over the past few hundred years.

so, why the free pass for one but not the other?

 

[shecky]

Our schooling will mean something directly to our career. Theirs will be a "good life experience".

What an absolute load of bull painted with a very broad brush. I was an English major, sports journalism concentration because my school at the time did not have a journalism major. Guess what I do for a living?

see that's my gripe. they have to take some sort of science to satisfy general education requirements, and we have to take some sort of liberal arts to satisfy general education requirements as well. they get the watered down version of an introductory class while we get the 'roided up body builder version. but that is only for the science classes. they get to take the easy class and concentrate on their REAL classes while we take the our real classes AND their real classes. it just seems, to me, like a system set up against science.

What another absolute load of bull. I can guarantee you aren't required to take my 'real' classes. I'm fairly certain you didn't have to write a thesis on the incestual themes running through F. Scott Fitzgerald's work, particularly "Tender is the Night."

So it has no practical application. So what? If that's what us English majors chose to pursue, who are you to denigrate that?

 

[swinginchandra]

see that's my gripe. they have to take some sort of science to satisfy general education requirements, and we have to take some sort of liberal arts to satisfy general education requirements as well. they get the watered down version of an introductory class while we get the 'roided up body builder version. but that is only for the science classes. they get to take the easy class and concentrate on their REAL classes while we take the our real classes AND their real classes. it just seems, to me, like a system set up against science.

If it is so set up against science, then why is there such a disparity between employability of scientists and liberal arts types? (in a field related to our major, making descent money)
Perhaps it's not set up AGAINST scientists, but rather for us? We are more challenged true, but when we defeat that challenge - it's awesome.

Also, seriously and practically, how the heck much more could ENG 101 type of classes be dummed down? They are already taught to the lowest common denominator of frosh students... I think I may have spent 6 hours total on an english class this semester which I FLEW through. I seriously think I have the highest grade in the class. I can't imagine that class being any easier - if it was, I might have to take up recreational drug usage to keep myself from dying of boredom & dizzy-ness from eye rolling.

Here's something weird for you - I strongly dislike "easy" classes. I would take our physics class again any semester over my "easy" calc class, or the ridiculous english class.

I once took an english class that was a true challenge. And guess what, I actually didn't hate it, and got a lot out of it. So I thoroughly disagree with you - I would be VERY unhappy if they made english classes easier.

*disclaimer - by "hard" classes I don't mean unbelievable work load - I mean legitimately challenging material.

 

[swinginchandra]

What an absolute load of bull painted with a very broad brush. I was an English major, sports journalism concentration because my school at the time did not have a journalism major. Guess what I do for a living?


What another absolute load of bull. I can guarantee you aren't required to take my 'real' classes. I'm fairly certain you didn't have to write a thesis on the incestual themes running through F. Scott Fitzgerald's work, particularly "Tender is the Night."

So it has no practical application. So what? If that's what us English majors chose to pursue, who are you to denigrate that?

No offense intended. I meant that statistically, and stereotypically. I absolutely agree that there are MANY liberal arts type majors employed in their field of study. While I don't know the statistics, I can say that through personal experience, MOST of the people I know that graduate with a liberal arts degree take a longer time to figure out what they want to do, and take longer to get there. That's not a bad thing. It's just that most liberal arts degrees aren't "career oriented" - they don't lead to a specific path of employment. So many people graduate from college lost ... not saying everyone, but I would bet a larger quantity of liberal arts majors than engineering majors.

My perspective on this, is that without a degree, just through happenstance, I hold a job most of my friends graduating with liberal arts degrees would kill for. I hold an office job with which I can support myself in san diego. I can't imagine going to school, and then graduating with that as the best option. Granted that's a little bit of luck, but it's also alot bit of determination.

I also think that specific career oriented liberal arts degrees are a different story (sports journalism would be a good example). I also think a liberal arts degree is a great precursor to a masters degree if you know you are planning on pursuing it.

I also think it's great if you don't know what you want to do yet. So few people go into school knowing what they want to do with their life, that I'll admit judging none career oriented degrees is un-fair.

S'yah

 

[passedpawn]

I believe that eventually most people will see liberal arts as the most important part of any advanced education.

It takes a lot of years of living to get this, especially for the engineers and science-minded, but it's true.

 

[kaiser423]

I believe that eventually most people will see liberal arts as the most important part of any advanced education.

It takes a lot of years of living to get this, especially for the engineers and science-minded, but it's true.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!

Sorry. Maybe I'll see it your way when I'm your age at 10 years, but I doubt it. The engineering part of my advanced education gives me a quite advanced quality of life that I thoroughly enjoy. I doubt that liberal arts is going to eclipse that soon.

Maybe I'm laughing because I have a strong grasp of the English language, and a better grasp of liberal arts than most liberal arts majors, and I take it all for granted.

My advanced education thoroughly taught me how to learn _anything_, that I have the ability to do so, and that I should. That was quite simply far and away easily, bar-none the most important discipline I was taught: How to learn and conceptualize. From serious literary dissections to designing satellites or energy weapons I feel pretty chill within a week or two after starting.

 

[Baja_Brewer]

and it isn't a terrible thing to learn calculus to understand better how the world around you works. In fact, it can only help.

to me, it just seems that we're held to different standards. I took the same English literature class that English majors have to take, the same critical thinking courses...

Originally Posted by Pappers View Post
That's not true. You do not have to take the same upper level liberal arts courses (history, english, literature) that those majors take. You may have to take the same general requirements courses, but that's because they're general requirements.
Perhaps you need to take a logic course or two

Taking Cal 1 or Cal 2 so that you can understand Physics is not asking non-science students to take Differential Equations... there are also upper level science/math courses that the liberal arts students are not required to take. Yes, they will take upper level communications/writing/critical thinking/whatever courses that we (science based majors) may not, but they're not even taking our low level courses.

You miss my point. Perhaps you need to pay attention in those liberal arts courses, work on reading comprehension

What you (and everyone) are required to take are general requirements - what you need to take to be an educated person. If you don't want a general liberal arts education, to be what western society has decided is a well-educated person, then go to a tech school.

Enlighten me then as to what I missed? Our low level science/math courses are also considered Gen Eds (requirements)... maybe while you're so busy forgetting how "whiny" the science types are, you've neglected to see that science and mathematics courses are also Gen eds? And if people consider Algebra and Geometry level math comprehension an adequate amount to be a "well-educated person", I'll drop out of this conversation and discontinue my argument -because they're just plain wrong. I learned that **** in 9th grade.

Maybe you need to put on your reading glasses, because I responded to exactly what you posted.

 

[jmendez29]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to side with Shecky on this one. I understand what you are saying. Non-engineering types get the "watered down" version of your science and math based gen ed classes, but you have to take the same "full strength" version of theirs. But having a broad sense of the world around us really is critical to consider yourself an educated person.

So what would the average person do with statistics. Assuming we're talking about non-engineering types here, then unless you play poker for a living, statistics is pretty useless. And why would I need to find the surface area of, well, anything that isn't in my backyard? Most advanced mathematics is pretty useless in an "average" persons daily life. Balancing a checkbook, sure. Converting american measurements to metric, yeah. But anything beyond finding the surface area or volume of a sphere is pointless.

And when it comes down to it, you need those gen ed classes anyway. If you didn't have it, then we might as well revert back to a society where children do the same job that their parents do. Or just start vocational school at age 14 where you choose your career and start training for it. That would never work for the betterment and advancement of a society. Granted, I've got a handful of credits, but no degree. But I couldn't tell you the number of people I've met who have changed their major while in college. I work in an engineering type field but two of my best friends/coworkers have human resource degrees. Because of taking those math/science based classes, they realized (after they got their degrees, of course) that they would rather do something else.

Overall, it opens your mind to other possibilities. Helps you think out of the box and contemplate the world around you, not just figure out how it all works. Besides, I'd hate to think how impersonal some of the engineers I work with would truly be if they didn't have to interact with others in some of those classes. They're bad enough as it is.

 

[RDWHAHB]

I think it comes down to entrance requirements. Engineering schools generally require calc as a prerequisite, so those students already have had calc. Liberal arts schools generally don't generally require AP english as a prereq, so everybody takes English 101. Even though it is a huge waste of time for well prepared & intelligent liberal arts majors. Be glad you don't have to do the same and take algebra before you get to real classes; catering to the least common denominator is no fun.

I went to a college for engineers. My only "english" class was a technical writing for engineers. Which is why my argument here is likely poorly communicated.

 

[GregR]

Overall, it opens your mind to other possibilities. Helps you think out of the box and contemplate the world around you.

take a classical mechanics, e&m, or modern physics class and try to tell me they don't require outside the box thinking and opening your mind to other possibilities.

 

[ndsgr]

I believe that eventually most people will see liberal arts as the most important part of any advanced education.

It takes a lot of years of living to get this, especially for the engineers and science-minded, but it's true.

1) "I believe", with no data to draw such a conclusion.
2) Make an argument that can not be proved, or only be proved by pointing back at an argument you propose yourself. Ex: It takes a lot of years of living to get this, especially for the liberal arts majors, but science is the most important subject to understand.

I did learn one valuable thing from liberal arts, how to analyze an argument. Turns out, it has served me well in my line of work. Wouldn't say it's "the most important" though. EDIT: This isn't a personal attack, by the way. I just remember people in liberal arts classes using your method to make arguments.

Also, English was valuable for the sheer amount of reports we have to write after getting results. The more expensive the project, the more people in your chili, the better written your report has to be.

Bottom line, this is the token "why can't we all get along" post. Engineers will always complain about English/liberal arts majors and all non-engineers will be bored with what we have to say.

I complained about the GRE because I do think it is unfairly biased, if you are being compared against all majors. The math is something ANY major should be able to do well on, but an engineer doesn't have a shot at doing excellent on the verbal section. An English major should be able to ace it. Put some vector calc or diff eq on it and we may see a better stratification. Personally, I would like a general science section too, but that might be pushing it.

One class EVERYONE should take is a basic thermodynamics class though. I think it would solve a lot of issues before they come up. That is for another post though...

 

[GregR]

What another absolute load of bull. I can guarantee you aren't required to take my 'real' classes. I'm fairly certain you didn't have to write a thesis on the incestual themes running through F. Scott Fitzgerald's work, particularly "Tender is the Night."

So it has no practical application. So what? If that's what us English majors chose to pursue, who are you to denigrate that?

of course I don't have to write a thesis on that. that has not been my argument from the get go and you know that. my argument is that while all majors have to take introductory science and English classes as general education requirements, science majors have to take the same introductory courses in English and history as an English/history/liberal arts major AND have to take a much harder introductory course into chemistry and physics while the others get, essentially, a free pass in the science department. that's all I'm saying.

and let me clear this up. I love the English and history classes that I have taken and do consider them a very important part of a well rounded education. in fact, I have been told numerous times in my "liberal arts" classes that I am the best writer in class. in my critical thinking/second semester English class, my professor told me personally that I write at a level beyond anyone in the class and that he simply cannot grade me on the same level as the other students. the liberal arts are a very import part of a well rounded education. I'm not asking to take the easy route in the liberal arts department. All I am saying is that science is an equally important part of a well rounded education and provides a vast understanding of the world around us (especially the world not observable to the naked eye) that simply cannot be obtained through a watered down 'easy' version of a class that I feel is essential everyone's education.