4 ms·

>It requires logic and strict thoughts >art history you probably go there, look into your textbook and just start talking about random stuff associated (empha

>It requires logic and strict thoughts >art history you probably go there, look into your textbook and just start talking about random stuff associated (emphasis mine) >with limited data This is all really funny stuff.

fock 7y ago
I don't really get your comment. Yes, I didn't write any assignments in art history nor do I exactly know, what you actually learn from art history, but guessing from checking other peoples assignments, talking to people and looking at their lecture notes in similar field (e.g. communication science, ancient languages and archaeology) I assume that you basically have to read up some facts and then can go to any lecture you fancy and start contributing in a more or less meaningful way. You can't do that in CS or physics or engineering – it just won't work. Note that I don't intend to belittle those kind of studies; if you put a lot of effort into it, you're most certainly reaching levels of conceptual understanding and a command of language I might never achieve in my life. If one gets "satisfaction"/"gratification" [whatever you need to keep going on a personal level (excluding modern day BS where these things are just used for justifying the continuing exploitation of labor)] from that, I'm all up to you pursuing it. Still, looking at the kind of person who idles similar studies while he/she's waiting tables at Burger-King, the whole idea of academic studies seems a little bit pointless (similar to the CS guys rushing college for the best paying IT-project management job) – though you probably also get to learn a thing or two about the way we live (contrary to the drones going for the highest-paying majors)
- pasabagi 7y ago
  My comment was basically pointing out the irony of claiming that art history people say stuff with limited data, based on your obviously limited experience of art history as a field. > I assume that you basically have to read up some facts and then can go to any lecture you fancy and start contributing in a more or less meaningful way. This isn't true, unless you're an undergrad at a really bad university. The really 'unproductive' fields like art history tend to have a pretty asymptotic difficulty curve, since funding is almost impossible to find. That makes later stages really, incredibly competitive, unless you're basically willing to pay through the entire process. One thing to note about hierarchy of perceived difficulty of university courses, is that it almost always maps to how useful these courses are to industry, and almost never maps to how complex the subject actually is. Traditional Chinese literature, for instance, is horribly difficult. Computer science, on the other hand, is a subject where people actually try hard to be understood, and don't write using in bird-worm seal script. Nonetheless, if you are a computer scientist, people will assume you're smart, and if you're studying chinese literature, people will assume you're a goof.

fock 7y ago

I don't really get your comment. Yes, I didn't write any assignments in art history nor do I exactly know, what you actually learn from art history, but guessing from checking other peoples assignments, talking to people and looking at their lecture notes in similar field (e.g. communication science, ancient languages and archaeology) I assume that you basically have to read up some facts and then can go to any lecture you fancy and start contributing in a more or less meaningful way. You can't do that in CS or physics or engineering – it just won't work. Note that I don't intend to belittle those kind of studies; if you put a lot of effort into it, you're most certainly reaching levels of conceptual understanding and a command of language I might never achieve in my life. If one gets "satisfaction"/"gratification" [whatever you need to keep going on a personal level (excluding modern day BS where these things are just used for justifying the continuing exploitation of labor)] from that, I'm all up to you pursuing it. Still, looking at the kind of person who idles similar studies while he/she's waiting tables at Burger-King, the whole idea of academic studies seems a little bit pointless (similar to the CS guys rushing college for the best paying IT-project management job) – though you probably also get to learn a thing or two about the way we live (contrary to the drones going for the highest-paying majors)

pasabagi 7y ago
My comment was basically pointing out the irony of claiming that art history people say stuff with limited data, based on your obviously limited experience of art history as a field. > I assume that you basically have to read up some facts and then can go to any lecture you fancy and start contributing in a more or less meaningful way. This isn't true, unless you're an undergrad at a really bad university. The really 'unproductive' fields like art history tend to have a pretty asymptotic difficulty curve, since funding is almost impossible to find. That makes later stages really, incredibly competitive, unless you're basically willing to pay through the entire process. One thing to note about hierarchy of perceived difficulty of university courses, is that it almost always maps to how useful these courses are to industry, and almost never maps to how complex the subject actually is. Traditional Chinese literature, for instance, is horribly difficult. Computer science, on the other hand, is a subject where people actually try hard to be understood, and don't write using in bird-worm seal script. Nonetheless, if you are a computer scientist, people will assume you're smart, and if you're studying chinese literature, people will assume you're a goof.