4 ms·

Really? I never would have learned the math on my own, and liberal arts could cost you $1.50 in library fees. I grew up reading for fun though, perhaps that fac

Really? I never would have learned the math on my own, and liberal arts could cost you $1.50 in library fees. I grew up reading for fun though, perhaps that facet of education is harder for some people?

potatolicious 16y ago
> "and liberal arts could cost you $1.50 in library fees." Many subjects cannot really be learned from books. Regardless of how many history books you may read, for example, it will not shed the same insight as a profound discussion with a highly-experienced academic in the field. This is true for many aspects of the humanities. Which isn't to say self-study is worthless, but rather that it is a poor substitute for interaction with your professors. IMHO to claim that liberal arts can be just as well studied by oneself is myopic and tunnel-visioned, and about equivalent to me claiming that aspiring nuclear engineers should pick up some textbooks instead of going to school. IMHO the whole topic of the monetary worth of schooling is an interesting and worthwhile one - but discussions on it on forums such as this one is invariably tainted by the fact that many people in our field have incredibly arrogant and misguided superiority complexes about technical degrees over the arts. I personally tend to think that one ought to be responsible for their own academic spending, and that studies of the arts is a luxury that not everyone can afford - but I hesitate to voice this often, since many of my engineering peers hold this opinion out of disdain and trivialization of the humanities, and I really don't want to be associated with that kind of ignorance.
- rsheridan6 16y ago
  >Many subjects cannot really be learned from books. Regardless of how many history books you may read, for example, it will not shed the same insight as a profound discussion with a highly-experienced academic in the field. This is true for many aspects of the humanities. My undergrad humanities courses were 100+ students packed into a giant lecture hall listening to a professor talk. There was essentially no interaction.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    I've taken those courses also - they are still valuable. Take the same book home, or hell, take ten books home on that subject and you will still miss many salient points that only prolonged formal study of the subject will bring. That's the trick with the humanities - they are not hard sciences, there is no canonical body of knowledge to be passed on; This isn't a straight download. Many things are a matter of perspective, of experience, and of particular schools of thoughts - all of the above poorly communicated via mere books. That's the difference between a history book vs. a good history professor. Even without the (invaluable) ability to interact directly, it's the difference between a dry recounting of facts vs. more profound linkages into other areas of the field, or entirely other fields of study altogether. Sure, by reading books you will make some of these connections yourself, but it's hardly as good as what you'd get in classes. That being said, there are certainly bad profs who do just do the dry recounting of facts, in which case you are basically better off reading the textbook at home. The presence of these should in no way discount the enormous positive influence of college educations done right.
    - rsheridan6 16y ago
      How is going to a lecture with no interaction different from taking a transcript of the lecture and binding it in a book?
      - foldr 16y ago
        It's not, but you have to go to the lecture to get the transcript, right? The professor may be saying things that don't appear in any book. This is especially so if you're going to a good school and the professor is a leading researcher in his field.
- ghb 16y ago
  As someone with a philosophy degree I can say that your thought is immeasurably underestimated. Every philosophy 101 course teaches you Plato, but the differene between the Plato you find there and the actual Plato under scholarly anaylsis is immense. Aristotle is even worse: his Attic Greek has almost nothing to do with his common English translation EDIT: when it comes to the key terms.
- foldr 16y ago
  >Many subjects cannot really be learned from books. Regardless of how many history books you may read, for example, it will not shed the same insight as a profound discussion with a highly-experienced academic in the field. This is true for many aspects of the humanities. Also, if you're really interested in a subject, talking with an expert is fun. You're really missing out on the good stuff if you keep to yourself and your books. I think this goes equally for the arts and the sciences.
ghb 16y ago
In today's culture that's damn hard for a lot of people.
philwelch 16y ago
There's a big difference between reading philosophy and understanding it. Understanding philosophy requires some understanding of translation issues, historical knowledge of which philosophers are replying to whom, and (especially in analytic philosophy) a working knowledge of the technical jargon involved. It's much easier territory to navigate when you have a guide.

potatolicious 16y ago

> "and liberal arts could cost you $1.50 in library fees." Many subjects cannot really be learned from books. Regardless of how many history books you may read, for example, it will not shed the same insight as a profound discussion with a highly-experienced academic in the field. This is true for many aspects of the humanities. Which isn't to say self-study is worthless, but rather that it is a poor substitute for interaction with your professors. IMHO to claim that liberal arts can be just as well studied by oneself is myopic and tunnel-visioned, and about equivalent to me claiming that aspiring nuclear engineers should pick up some textbooks instead of going to school. IMHO the whole topic of the monetary worth of schooling is an interesting and worthwhile one - but discussions on it on forums such as this one is invariably tainted by the fact that many people in our field have incredibly arrogant and misguided superiority complexes about technical degrees over the arts. I personally tend to think that one ought to be responsible for their own academic spending, and that studies of the arts is a luxury that not everyone can afford - but I hesitate to voice this often, since many of my engineering peers hold this opinion out of disdain and trivialization of the humanities, and I really don't want to be associated with that kind of ignorance.

rsheridan6 16y ago
>Many subjects cannot really be learned from books. Regardless of how many history books you may read, for example, it will not shed the same insight as a profound discussion with a highly-experienced academic in the field. This is true for many aspects of the humanities. My undergrad humanities courses were 100+ students packed into a giant lecture hall listening to a professor talk. There was essentially no interaction.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  I've taken those courses also - they are still valuable. Take the same book home, or hell, take ten books home on that subject and you will still miss many salient points that only prolonged formal study of the subject will bring. That's the trick with the humanities - they are not hard sciences, there is no canonical body of knowledge to be passed on; This isn't a straight download. Many things are a matter of perspective, of experience, and of particular schools of thoughts - all of the above poorly communicated via mere books. That's the difference between a history book vs. a good history professor. Even without the (invaluable) ability to interact directly, it's the difference between a dry recounting of facts vs. more profound linkages into other areas of the field, or entirely other fields of study altogether. Sure, by reading books you will make some of these connections yourself, but it's hardly as good as what you'd get in classes. That being said, there are certainly bad profs who do just do the dry recounting of facts, in which case you are basically better off reading the textbook at home. The presence of these should in no way discount the enormous positive influence of college educations done right.
  - rsheridan6 16y ago
    How is going to a lecture with no interaction different from taking a transcript of the lecture and binding it in a book?
    - foldr 16y ago
      It's not, but you have to go to the lecture to get the transcript, right? The professor may be saying things that don't appear in any book. This is especially so if you're going to a good school and the professor is a leading researcher in his field.
ghb 16y ago
As someone with a philosophy degree I can say that your thought is immeasurably underestimated. Every philosophy 101 course teaches you Plato, but the differene between the Plato you find there and the actual Plato under scholarly anaylsis is immense. Aristotle is even worse: his Attic Greek has almost nothing to do with his common English translation EDIT: when it comes to the key terms.
foldr 16y ago
>Many subjects cannot really be learned from books. Regardless of how many history books you may read, for example, it will not shed the same insight as a profound discussion with a highly-experienced academic in the field. This is true for many aspects of the humanities. Also, if you're really interested in a subject, talking with an expert is fun. You're really missing out on the good stuff if you keep to yourself and your books. I think this goes equally for the arts and the sciences.

ghb 16y ago

In today's culture that's damn hard for a lot of people.

philwelch 16y ago

There's a big difference between reading philosophy and understanding it. Understanding philosophy requires some understanding of translation issues, historical knowledge of which philosophers are replying to whom, and (especially in analytic philosophy) a working knowledge of the technical jargon involved. It's much easier territory to navigate when you have a guide.