Poll: The Liberal Arts and You; The Importance of the Liberal Arts in the Modern World

[BGH122]

If you don't mind me asking, are you currently pursuing a degree in science? You definitely have the thinking skills for it.

I was pursuing a career in medicine, but the more I've studied pre-med the more interested I've become in pure biological research. I'm thinking enzymology or genetics at the moment. A career in medicine is very admirable, but why save a few thousand lives over my lifetime when a single discovery could change all of humanity's progeny forever? I believe you stated your science, but I can't be bothered to scroll up. I'm guessing you're either a chemist or a physicist?

As far as overreaching of subjects is concerned, I've got another example: one of my chemistry professors introduced the concepts of crystal field theory with a much more simplistic approach based on group theory. Now group theory is part of algebra, and not chemistry. Yet the application fit, the explanation, although largely superficial and devoid of any derivation, was quite good, and there was the "if you want to learn more, take course X taught by Dr. Y."

That's precisely how such matters ought to be handled: "I'm not the expert in this field so I'll attempt to briefly sum it up on the proviso that you understand this isn't a definitive summation."

So if venturing past your area of expertise isn't really a problem, why does sociology and related subjects keep screwing it up? Well, there's the confusion caused by statistics. The very first thing students in the sciences are taught is that correlation doesn't not necessarily imply causation. For example, the number of gay marriages in the eastern US has risen sharply since 2000, as has the availability of cheap broadband internet access. Therefore, internet causes teh ghey. Both are entirely true claims, but they are not related. Hence, no causation. Secondly, you have a limited scope of variables. My sociology class was largely concerned with monetary fluctuations in developing countries, which then marginalize the effects of natural phenomena and disasters could have had on the populations.

I tried explaining this to the sociologists at my college but they didn't understand the problem. They hadn't studied the scientific method in enough depth to understand why correlations don't prove anything beyond the facts stated.

Furthermore, there is an element of agenda pushing. You described it as the evils of our society, I would call it the needless glorification of the culture of less developed nations.

Absolutely, I was just mocking the sociology teachers' attitudes.

Yes, the department of psychology is part of the college of liberal arts, at least at my university. The languages, religious/asian/african-american studies, classics, history, government, anthropology, philosophy, geography and economics are all thrown in as well.

That's a real shame. Psychology is an experimental science, so it shouldn't be thrown in with the non-experimentals. It's not a good experimental science, but it does actively monitor and publish studies on its journals' levels of bias, self-referencing and methodology (like the recent overuse of P debate) so it's definitely attempting to be a hard science. To say that we expect nothing more of it than a soft-science would be a major mistake because it's got room for improvement and it's trying to make said improvements.

On a side note, have you read Robert Brockway's [http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-question-youre-not-asking-should-you-go-to-college/] column evaluating the use of unscientific college courses? Both true and hilarious.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

If you don't mind me asking, are you currently pursuing a degree in science? You definitely have the thinking skills for it.

I was pursuing a career in medicine, but the more I've studied pre-med the more interested I've become in pure biological research. I'm thinking enzymology or genetics at the moment. A career in medicine is very admirable, but why save a few thousand lives over my lifetime when a single discovery could change all of humanity's progeny forever? I believe you stated your science, but I can't be bothered to scroll up. I'm guessing you're either a chemist or a physicist?

As far as overreaching of subjects is concerned, I've got another example: one of my chemistry professors introduced the concepts of crystal field theory with a much more simplistic approach based on group theory. Now group theory is part of algebra, and not chemistry. Yet the application fit, the explanation, although largely superficial and devoid of any derivation, was quite good, and there was the "if you want to learn more, take course X taught by Dr. Y."

That's precisely how such matters ought to be handled: "I'm not the expert in this field so I'll attempt to briefly sum it up on the proviso that you understand this isn't a definitive summation."

So if venturing past your area of expertise isn't really a problem, why does sociology and related subjects keep screwing it up? Well, there's the confusion caused by statistics. The very first thing students in the sciences are taught is that correlation doesn't not necessarily imply causation. For example, the number of gay marriages in the eastern US has risen sharply since 2000, as has the availability of cheap broadband internet access. Therefore, internet causes teh ghey. Both are entirely true claims, but they are not related. Hence, no causation. Secondly, you have a limited scope of variables. My sociology class was largely concerned with monetary fluctuations in developing countries, which then marginalize the effects of natural phenomena and disasters could have had on the populations.

I tried explaining this to the sociologists at my college but they didn't understand the problem. They hadn't studied the scientific method in enough depth to understand why correlations don't prove anything beyond the facts stated.

Furthermore, there is an element of agenda pushing. You described it as the evils of our society, I would call it the needless glorification of the culture of less developed nations.

Absolutely, I was just mocking the sociology teachers' attitudes.

Yes, the department of psychology is part of the college of liberal arts, at least at my university. The languages, religious/asian/african-american studies, classics, history, government, anthropology, philosophy, geography and economics are all thrown in as well.

That's a real shame. Psychology is an experimental science, so it shouldn't be thrown in with the non-experimentals. It's not a good experimental science, but it does actively monitor and publish studies on its journals' levels of bias, self-referencing and methodology (like the recent overuse of P debate) so it's definitely attempting to be a hard science. To say that we expect nothing more of it than a soft-science would be a major mistake because it's got room for improvement and it's trying to make said improvements.

On a side note, have you read Robert Brockway's [http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-question-youre-not-asking-should-you-go-to-college/] column evaluating the use of unscientific college courses? Both true and hilarious.

Cool! Any ideas with regards to future research projects? I was starting out as a biochemistry and math major, but quickly realized that I didn't like living things all that much. I switched to chemistry, and have since focused on theoretical and physical chemistry as well as applied math. I'm basically a very superficial physicist with regards to quantum mechanics at this point.

Looking back on my past courses, I might as well mention an anthropology course I took to satisfy some stupid non-math requirement for math majors. It was a freshmen course on the development of early humans, so I expected an easy A. It was actually a pretty fun experience, with little field exercises on how to set up an archeological grid, detailed explanations of procedures and links between creation legends and actual evidence. It convinced me that even a seemingly boring subject as archeology (let me be perfectly frank, the professor was no Indy) could be scientific.

I suppose neuroscience and psychology could be combined into a single department, although I'm not sure how eager the neuro people would be about sharing their shiny new building with the psychology folks. It would certainly give psychology the credibility of being part of the natural sciences, and the neuroscience people could have access to easy statistics and experimental verification of their theories pertaining to behavior modification and so forth.

Thanks for the link! I needed a bit of cheering up with my current workload...

 

[BGH122]

Cool! Any ideas with regards to future research projects? I was starting out as a biochemistry and math major, but quickly realized that I didn't like living things all that much. I switched to chemistry, and have since focused on theoretical and physical chemistry as well as applied math. I'm basically a very superficial physicist with regards to quantum mechanics at this point.

Anything in disease research. Neurology is really interesting and so is enzymology. Alzheimer's research could be pretty worthwhile. I need to speak to some sort of disease research centre and ask what they're looking for.

How're you finding chemistry? Chemistry really bores me personally, it seems more like a subject that's just a necessary prerequisite to understanding the inner-workings of biology.

Looking back on my past courses, I might as well mention an anthropology course I took to satisfy some stupid non-math requirement for math majors. It was a freshmen course on the development of early humans, so I expected an easy A. It was actually a pretty fun experience, with little field exercises on how to set up an archeological grid, detailed explanations of procedures and links between creation legends and actual evidence. It convinced me that even a seemingly boring subject as archeology (let me be perfectly frank, the professor was no Indy) could be scientific.

I suppose neuroscience and psychology could be combined into a single department, although I'm not sure how eager the neuro people would be about sharing their shiny new building with the psychology folks. It would certainly give psychology the credibility of being part of the natural sciences, and the neuroscience people could have access to easy statistics and experimental verification of their theories pertaining to behavior modification and so forth.

Thanks for the link! I needed a bit of cheering up with my current workload...

Cracked is always good for a laugh and that article definitely rings true.

Neurology and psychology already work together in a professional sphere. Take the study of Prosopagnosia, for instance. Prosopagnosia is the inability to recognise faces, one of the many visual agnosias. In order to fully understand how to treat it, the order of recognition of facial components had to be mapped, which Bruce et al did experimentally with psychological methods, but the treatment itself is/will be biological. Psychology and neurology have a lot to gain from one another, unfortunately neurologists are reticent to align themselves with psychologists thanks to the stain of social psychology and all the pseudoscientific quackery that comes with it.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Cool! Any ideas with regards to future research projects? I was starting out as a biochemistry and math major, but quickly realized that I didn't like living things all that much. I switched to chemistry, and have since focused on theoretical and physical chemistry as well as applied math. I'm basically a very superficial physicist with regards to quantum mechanics at this point.

Anything in disease research. Neurology is really interesting and so is enzymology. Alzheimer's research could be pretty worthwhile. I need to speak to some sort of disease research centre and ask what they're looking for.

How're you finding chemistry? Chemistry really bores me personally, it seems more like a subject that's just a necessary prerequisite to understanding the inner-workings of biology.

Looking back on my past courses, I might as well mention an anthropology course I took to satisfy some stupid non-math requirement for math majors. It was a freshmen course on the development of early humans, so I expected an easy A. It was actually a pretty fun experience, with little field exercises on how to set up an archeological grid, detailed explanations of procedures and links between creation legends and actual evidence. It convinced me that even a seemingly boring subject as archeology (let me be perfectly frank, the professor was no Indy) could be scientific.

I suppose neuroscience and psychology could be combined into a single department, although I'm not sure how eager the neuro people would be about sharing their shiny new building with the psychology folks. It would certainly give psychology the credibility of being part of the natural sciences, and the neuroscience people could have access to easy statistics and experimental verification of their theories pertaining to behavior modification and so forth.

Thanks for the link! I needed a bit of cheering up with my current workload...

Cracked is always good for a laugh and that article definitely rings true.

Neurology and psychology already work together in a professional sphere. Take the study of Prosopagnosia, for instance. Prosopagnosia is the inability to recognise faces, one of the many visual agnosias. In order to fully understand how to treat it, the order of recognition of facial components had to be mapped, which Bruce et al did experimentally with psychological methods, but the treatment itself is/will be biological. Psychology and neurology have a lot to gain from one another, unfortunately neurologists are reticent to align themselves with psychologists thanks to the stain of social psychology and all the pseudoscientific quackery that comes with it.

Cool! I was looking into epidemiology before settling on chemistry, so I can totally see the appeal in that. It's an interesting choice of work.

I love chemistry. Everything in our daily life is chemistry, from the sun (don't let those damn physicists tell you otherwise), the sky, plantlife, food, books, building materials, plastics, etc. There's so much to study, and nearly limitless applications. Modern astronomy has its roots in chemistry techniques (spectroscopy), electronics is a beautiful overlap between physics and chemistry.

You know, the good part of being part of the natural sciences is that pseudosciences gets excluded automatically for not bringing in any money. That's not to say that some serious scientists don't occasionally deal with quackery (like a chemist in Ireland proving that water does indeed have memory as per homeopathy, but not on any measurable timescale), but such work is usually only done to disprove some ridiculous assertion. Hence I doubt any real scientist would be eager to turn away a chance to disprove some pseudoscientific garbage that hangs onto the coattails of their field.

 

[Ghost]

What even is 'Liberal Arts'? Going by the wikipedia article it's just a mixed bag of random subjects. If it is, then they would anyone need 1/6 of a history degree and 1/6 of a... Philosophy?! What use would come from anyone studying that full time? It's very hard to actually find out what 'Liberal Arts' is, 'culturally important' doesn't sum it up much.

To say that "Liberal Arts students are worthless" is quite simply a display of prejudice. Yes, it is as bad as saying black people are worthless.

No. For a start you're born with whatever skin colour you have, whereas you have a free choice of what degree you choose.

Everyone I know that has a liberal arts degree is working the same level job they had in high school.

This appears to be a cold, hard serving of common sense that 'one ups' other posts in this thread.

 

[Silva]

To say that "Liberal Arts students are worthless" is quite simply a display of prejudice. Yes, it is as bad as saying black people are worthless. You're generalising with no real reason to do so.

But there is a reason, it's not a fun one to have to admit but Liberal Arts in the US have the same reputation that Media Studies have in the UK; they're degrees full of people who want to be at uni and don't care what they study. They're bloated courses, way too many students take them and a huge number of the students they turn out are completely useless.

In addition you can't compare discriminating against someone for the colour of their skin and assuming that someone who took what is popularly thought to be a useless course is useless. One is discriminating for what someone is and one is for what they do.

To redirect you a little here - calling a person useless is where I put my foot down, not calling the course useless. And excuse me, but what evidence do you have that these "students they turn out are completely useless"? For all you know, they are applying their skills to a wide variety of jobs, even ones not related to the humanities. No offence intended, but I sincerely doubt that you have the qualifications to make that conclusion at all.

Even assuming that Arts graduates have no real employability, I'd still debate whether Arts courses ARE useless. Education isn't just about employability (how shocking a discovery that may be to some cash-minded people), it's also about extending and improving yourself as part of society, not just in pure dollar terms but in weight and influence. I'd also say that the usefulness of any faculty is fairly opaque to anyone who hasn't studied it. But such thinking from multiple perspectives is sadly not a very valued quality in this society of absolute values and total religious creeds.

Yet multiple perspective thinking is one thing that the Arts (yes, including Media Studies degrees in the UK) have given to and nurtured in society. In this sense, they're a pillar of civilisation itself, both in concept and in action. And yeah, to a degree in high school you learn of this kind of thinking anyway. But if you wanted to extend your humanities thinking further, and really look at society in a broader way and share your thoughts with others fascinated with such subjects, an Arts degree can definitely help.

To say that "Liberal Arts students are worthless" is quite simply a display of prejudice. Yes, it is as bad as saying black people are worthless.

No. For a start you're born with whatever skin colour you have, whereas you have a free choice of what degree you choose.

Way to ignore the rest of my post, where I detailed exactly why it's not so simple as just "choosing". People are subject to influence. If people really had totally free choice in such decisions, it would not be the norm for everyone to, for example, remain politically conservative if born into a conservative family.

Being idealistic about "choice" on such an issue is both naive and incredibly damaging to the reputation of the noble study of the humanities. And like I said, generalisations about "Arts students" harm the reputation of those exceptions to the nasty qualities that are often attributed to them. Thus they function as a prejudice, and have the social results of one.

I'm not impressed by the immaturity of referring to "common sense" on the subject of a clear vilification and dislike of your fellow man. Poor form, sir.