|
United States22883 Posts
On May 01 2009 10:36 L wrote:
No it isn't. It isn't subjectively harder to climb Everest than walk over the hill in your local park. There is are substantial variances in the volume and complexity of work in different fields.
Bad analogy. This would be like describing the difference between a 100 level and 600 level course.
A more apt comparison would be whether it's more difficult to play basketball or hockey.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 01 2009 10:43 L wrote:From wiki Show nested quote +An academic major, major concentration, concentration, or simply major is mainly a U.S. and Canadian term for a college or university student's main field of specialization during his or her undergraduate studies And no, I didn't specify BA. I specified bachelors degree, ie BEng BSc BA and so on. Wasting time on semantics when you already conceded all of the points i needed to make my argument is bad form.
No, there was an honest disagreement in terminology but you refuse to acknowledge it because you're a hard headed asshat.
|
the bottom line is, any non science/math related major is easier.
|
why the fuck do any off you care. are you so absorbed with what society thinks about you to use your own head and think? who the fuck cares what's an easy major or not, you're not doing it and someone else is. who the fuck cares if someone calls your major easy, they aren't doing it you are.
as far as im concerned you're all majors in faggotry
|
Bad analogy. This would be like describing the difference between a 100 level and 600 level course.
A more apt comparison would be whether it's more difficult to play basketball or hockey. No, it isn't a bad analogy. If one major presents less material of a related type, or less material of a different type there is still LESS TO LEARN. Engineering pre-newton would have had far less material, and zero calculus. Biochemistry pre 1920s would have been a joke. Math in the time of the greeks would have been trivial by comparison to what we have now.
No, there was an honest disagreement in terminology but you refuse to acknowledge it because you're a hard headed asshat. No, there actually wasn't. A major refers to something. The thing I was referring to. What you're talking about is a field, which is, interestingly enough, not a major. Don't try to play a semantics game when you're cut-and-dry wrong about the usage of the term you're disputing. I specifically mentioned the term bachelor's degree and said that fields have worths independent of the difficulty of accreditation and that the undergraduate level of poli sci is not the same as the graduate and post graduate levels. I really don't understand what else you have to say. None of this changes the fact that political science majors have an easier degree than most.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 01 2009 10:49 Faronel wrote:
the bottom line is, any non science/math related major is easier.
Poli sci actually uses quite a bit of math these days. And what constitutes a science? Is geology harder than psychology?
|
why would you have to draw adenine in organic chemistry?
wouldn't that be more of a biochemistry thing?
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 01 2009 10:50 L wrote:Show nested quote +Bad analogy. This would be like describing the difference between a 100 level and 600 level course.
A more apt comparison would be whether it's more difficult to play basketball or hockey. No, it isn't a bad analogy. If one major presents less material of a related type, or less material of a different type there is still LESS TO LEARN. Engineering pre-newton would have had far less material, and zero calculus. Biochemistry pre 1920s would have been a joke. Math in the time of the greeks would have been trivial by comparison to what we have now. The fields you're comparing use completely different methodologies, the action of walking/hiking in your analogy. In your example, you use the same set of actions to accomplish different goals, one happening to me much harder than the other. Different majors do not require the same sets of actions.
No, there actually wasn't. A major refers to something. The thing I was referring to. What you're talking about is a field, which is, interestingly enough, not a major. Don't try to play a semantics game when you're cut-and-dry wrong about the usage of the term you're disputing. I specifically mentioned the term bachelor's degree and said that fields have worths independent of the difficulty of accreditation and that the undergraduate level of poli sci is not the same as the graduate and post graduate levels. I really don't understand what else you have to say. None of this changes the fact that political science majors have an easier degree than most.
You've just defaulted to your definition, without giving any regard to other possible definitions. The fact that it's written on wikipedia doesn't make it a universal definition, and the only reason you chose that as your source is because it fits your version of the word. If I were to cite dictionary.com, the exact opposite would be true in my favor. This is exactly a problem of linguistics, so stop it with your mightier-than-thou bullshit over the english language.
3. Education.
a. a subject or field of study chosen by a student to represent his or her principal interest and upon which a large share of his or her efforts are concentrated: History was my major at college.
b. a student engaged in such study.
Neither definition is more correct than the other.
|
When psychology was a nascent science and was largely based upon the largely false ramblings of freud, it was likely geology because geology was a far more mature field with a substantial amount of literature and work put into it. Now? Depends again on the volume of material and the complexity of the material. Has psychology caught up? You could probably check objectively by doing a normalized impact rating for the field accounting for rates of in-siting, but that would probably be one of the most comprehensive statistical measurements of academia ever to be produced.
As to what constitutes a science, again a completely semantic question that has nothing to do with political science. Call it political thought or science of power structures for all i care.
The fields you're comparing use completely different methodologies, the action of walking/hiking in your analogy. In your example, you use the same set of actions to accomplish different goals, one happening to me much harder than the other. Different majors do not require the same sets of actions. Academic learning and material types vary far less than the actions required in different sports. What they do vary in is complexity and volume. Not everyone will approach complex material in the same way, but if there's an overall lack of complexity, a larger amount of people will find the material easier. 1+1=2 as a statement is objectively simpler than a computer program. 1+1=2 is also objectively simpler than literary analysis.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 01 2009 11:00 L wrote:
As to what constitutes a science, again a completely semantic question that has nothing to do with political science. Call it political thought or science of power structures for all i care.
I'm glad you've taken the liberty to redirect my comment towards him as if I were saying it to you.
|
On May 01 2009 10:43 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2009 10:36 L wrote:
No it isn't. It isn't subjectively harder to climb Everest than walk over the hill in your local park. There is are substantial variances in the volume and complexity of work in different fields. Bad analogy. This would be like describing the difference between a 100 level and 600 level course. A more apt comparison would be whether it's more difficult to play basketball or hockey.
Ya, hockey is harder, EZ.
|
You've just defaulted to your definition, without giving any regard to other possible definitions. Perhaps because I specifically referred to the bachelors degree explicitly, admitted that the provision didn't work in terms of 'field' and the original context from which the term 'major' was picked was specifically a comment regarding biochemistry and political science classes at an undergraduate level.
It isn't that I haven't given regard to other possible definitions, its that WE WERENT TALKING ABOUT THEM. I could come in here and state quite conclusively that there are no better majors because they all have the same rank in the military, but i'd be making the same hamfisted mistake that you made.
If you wanted to use the dictionary.com definition, you could easily assume that I was talking about the relative difficulty of the students themselves. Clearly not what we're talking about, but that doesn't stop you!
But yeah, again semantic argument. You can't dispute my original point because you'll have to try and assert that all faculties provide equally difficult degrees, which is impossible. If not that, you need to deal with the issue of rigorous standardized testing, like the LSAT, which scores science and engineering students well above the political science average despite despite doing a typically 'political science' form of work.
|
Undergraduate classes/degrees are all easy and worthless.
Go for your PhD and then you can whine about it.
|
On May 01 2009 11:13 miseiler wrote:Undergraduate classes/degrees are all easy and worthless. Go for your PhD and then you can whine about it.
This isnt always true. Lots of people say calculus II at my school is harder thank calculus III. This isn't because calculus III is easier, but because by the time you get through calculus II you realize O SHIT! Why don't i actually do some homework and go to class everyday and try not to be an idiot in my major. Its just relative to where you were at. Sure PhD is harder difficulty, but I find difficulty is more of the state you receive the information in. To reiterate, I am taking a c++ class. This class is slightly less challenging compared to my previous java class. This isn't because its actually easier, on the contrary it is much more difficult. Now that I have gotten a background in CS and I can step back and say ok i need to do these things and I will be ok in this class instead of doing random things when i feel like it and getting lucky/unlucky when test time rolls around. Having said that Yes PhD is going to be WAYYYY harder,but ill be 10x more prepared than freshman year of college.
|
I honestly and truly want to work for the CIA as an analyst when I grow up. Looking over the careers and recommended majors poli sci: International Relations seems like the best major to choose. I'm about to graduate from high school and get started on my pathway, and it is weird seeing people talk badly about the major, saying it is a joke, when it can take me in the direction I want to go.
Without having taken the classes I would say that an science/math major will always be harder, but the difficulty doesn't matter to me, what I learn does. Chef had a lot of wisdom in the first page:
In the end though, it's a personal choice. There's no reason to purposely take a harder path if it doesn't lead to where you want to go. You're better off taking the path of least resistance to get where you wanna go. All you need to tell people who make fun of your degree is what you wanna do with your life, and they'll understand that.
The classes for poli sci look interesting and it is almost comforting that I am not going to kill myself in college with this major (although I'd do any amount of work to get where I want). Even if I never get the job I want at the CIA I figure I will still get myself somewhere in the intelligence community. If anyone is a poli sci major mention it in the thread if you would be obliged to answer some questions from a kid who doesn't know much himself.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 01 2009 11:13 L wrote:Show nested quote +You've just defaulted to your definition, without giving any regard to other possible definitions. Perhaps because I specifically referred to the bachelors degree explicitly, admitted that the provision didn't work in terms of 'field' and the original context from which the term 'major' was picked was specifically a comment regarding biochemistry and political science classes at an undergraduate level. It isn't that I haven't given regard to other possible definitions, its that WE WERENT TALKING ABOUT THEM. I could come in here and state quite conclusively that there are no better majors because they all have the same rank in the military, but i'd be making the same hamfisted mistake that you made. If you wanted to use the dictionary.com definition, you could easily assume that I was talking about the relative difficulty of the students themselves. Clearly not what we're talking about, but that doesn't stop you! I was going by your original post in this thread. I didn't check Xeris' first thread, but I see what you mean now.
But yeah, again semantic argument. You can't dispute my original point because you'll have to try and assert that all faculties provide equally difficult degrees, which is impossible. If not that, you need to deal with the issue of rigorous standardized testing, like the LSAT, which scores science and engineering students well above the political science average despite despite doing a typically 'political science' form of work.
LSAT has nothing to do with 'political science' form of work. Are you actually implying that the LSAT provides an indication of anything besides how well you take the LSAT?
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 01 2009 11:24 SingletonWilliam wrote:I honestly and truly want to work for the CIA as an analyst when I grow up. Looking over the careers and recommended majors poli sci: International Relations seems like the best major to choose. I'm about to graduate from high school and get started on my pathway, and it is weird seeing people talk badly about the major, saying it is a joke, when it can take me in the direction I want to go. Without having taken the classes I would say that an science/math major will always be harder, but the difficulty doesn't matter to me, what I learn does. Chef had a lot of wisdom in the first page: Show nested quote +
In the end though, it's a personal choice. There's no reason to purposely take a harder path if it doesn't lead to where you want to go. You're better off taking the path of least resistance to get where you wanna go. All you need to tell people who make fun of your degree is what you wanna do with your life, and they'll understand that.
The classes for poli sci look interesting and it is almost comforting that I am not going to kill myself in college with this major (although I'd do any amount of work to get where I want). Even if I never get the job I want at the CIA I figure I will still get myself somewhere in the intelligence community. If anyone is a poli sci major mention it in the thread if you would be obliged to answer some questions from a kid who doesn't know much himself.
Learn multiple languages, and if you want to get into a good grad school (where the CIA usually recruits from), you're going to have to kill yourself a bit in undergrad.  At least during your last two years.
|
|
|
On May 01 2009 11:13 miseiler wrote:Undergraduate classes/degrees are all easy and worthless. Go for your PhD and then you can whine about it.
Take organic chem I + Il and other 3000's and 4000's chemistry and biology classes then get back to me. If its really easy, your professor doesn't care.
|
It seems to provide an incredibly accurate picture of first year success in law school, so lets drop the 'tests prove how well you take tests and only how well you take tests' tangent you're about to embark on.
Break down the material in a major enough and you'll find the core components of it. This is what the LSAT did for law, and law is considered one of the most highly analogous degrees to political science. The fact that constitutional law and political science classes have a nearly 100% direct overlap in material at points is pretty indicative of this. The material is delivered in a slightly different manner, but I can tell you first hand that the examinations in both are nearly identical when compared with those from physics, engineering, biochemisty, computer science, medicine, physiology or anatomy.
Even without the LSAT, you aren't actually dealing with my original assertion because to do so from this angle requires you to say that there is a complete lack of ability to compare between the different forms of material, which I've already debunked. From the original statement of axioms it follows directly that some majors are harder than others; if that is so, while it might be difficult to accurately measure the level of difficulty , there will be a discrepancy. In cases where the discrepancy between the materials is large, the difficulty above mentioned is alleviated and we can make a fairly accurate statement regarding the relative difficulties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
