3 ms·

During my undergrad education in engineering, we were required to include a significant number of 'humanities' courses. In hindsight this was clearly beneficial

During my undergrad education in engineering, we were required to include a significant number of 'humanities' courses. In hindsight this was clearly beneficial but even at the time one could see the sense in that. But it struck many of my classmates and me that it was a bit odd that the converse requirement did not exist. The "arts and humanities" majors were not required to take more than a couple of "math and science" courses. Maybe one of each? While we were taking full on regular 1st, 2nd, even 3rd year courses from their world, there were watered down math and science courses on offer for them. The asymmetry was baffling. We were told this would make us "well rounded", but it seemed that those outside the math-science-engineering world were considered Just Fine without even a 3rd semester of calculus, and were allowed to indulge a greater portion of their time at university in matters more directly aligned to their interests. This definitely put a division into the academic atmosphere, though not an acrimonious one; the two camps peaceably coexisted and as undergrads we all just did what we had to do. That was a while ago now, maybe things have changed somewhat. But from the article, it sounds like maybe not so much.

082349872349872 4y ago
How will Morlocks ever be able to enjoy filet of Eloi with garlic on its hot stone if the latter were to be encouraged to sample the former's courses?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
adastra22 4y ago
To be fair though, at least in the USA an engineering degree requires significantly more coursework than a humanities degree. At my institution it basically added up to an extra year of courses, and was approximately equal to the added "general education" (non-engineering) requirements. And the general-ed requirements for engineers were less demanding than for the arts. So it's not like we were getting short-changed in a way that they were not. But that said, I agree with your main point. Humanities majors should be required to do a more in-depth survey of math, science, and engineering comparable (at the very least) to the introduction engineers are required to have of their fields. If that means they need to have a 5-year degree as well, so be it.
lordleft 4y ago
There was once a time when mathematics was considered central to humanistic and philosophical development. It is said that at the entrance of Plato's Academy, there was the following prohibition: "Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here."
BiteCode_dev 4y ago
Well, most people in math and science majors can pass an arts and humanities major. The opposite is not necessarily true. Anecdotally, I can easily engage in talks about literature, politics and art with my friends coming from a biology or physics background. I can hardly do so with my friends with a major in French or Sociology. When we mix them together, the debate is always animated when we talk about philosophy, a specific author or book, and even painting. If we speak about GPT3 or the CERN, suddenly the table is divided in two.
- Hercuros 4y ago
  You can have some seriously in-depth discussions in sociology or philosophy as well, that would be hard to follow for someone with just a STEM background. The kind of sociology or philosophy one would discuss without preparation or reading with friends is not really comparable with the academic disciplines. It is just armchair philosophy/sociology. I have a feeling many technically minded people would struggle to read and write an essay about Heidegger or Habermas. In fact, I doubt most people are even aware of that type of philosophy due to not having actually delved into it very deeply, and yet as outsiders to such fields they feel confident in making claims that those fields are "easier." (And usually there is also an implication that this being "easier" is an indication of those fields being less serious or worthwhile.)
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    If my non stem sample would be able to engage with armchair science in the same way that the stem sample can engage with armchair philosophy, I would agree with you. However, it's not the case. I also find more stem people reading entry level materials in philosophy around me (like Moral letters to Lucilius), that I will find non stem people ready entry level materials in science (like A brief history of time). The ratio is hugely disproportionate, and while I understand this is all anecdotal, I have a large and very diverse social circle to observe, spanning on wide areas of age, social backgrounds, political preferences, sexual orientation and jobs.
mncharity 4y ago
Selection pressure on science courses is largely around fulfilling prerequisites for the following course or exam. With a few university programs also polling recent graduates about what they have/haven't found useful. The connection between these, and transferable understanding of the physical world, is ... problematic. A pre-K science educator once suggested children have a human right to make sense of their world, "now" rather than several lifetimes later. Perhaps they imagined adapting existing K-12 content to pre-K. But consider "color", widely taught around K. First-tier physical-sciences graduate students often reply to "What color is the Sun?" with answers like "it doesn't have a color" and "it's rainbow colored", reflecting foundational misunderstandings of color. Suggesting the challenge here isn't adapting working content to a younger audience, it's a lack of working content. And not just for "that falls through the gaping cracks" topics. At a first-tier university, asked what students entering intro-genetics from intro-bio most lacked, a noted professor replied "a firm grasp of central dogma". Which is foundational, and is taught, repeatedly - repeatedly unsuccessfully. Consider someone suggesting liberal arts majors should study "science" ... as an old-school whole-class call-and-response exercise in mindless memorize-and-regurgitate. One might wonder if that would largely be a waste of their time. Not because their lives couldn't be enriched by understanding science, but because there's so little connection between this form of science education and that potential enrichment. Science for non-majors is sort of a science education research area. But how much better are we set up to support it, than a call-and-response culture would be? As for making sense of the physical world, for pre-K, liberal arts, or first-tier physical-sciences graduate students? What's that phrase ... Big Hairy Audacious Goal.

082349872349872 4y ago

How will Morlocks ever be able to enjoy filet of Eloi with garlic on its hot stone if the latter were to be encouraged to sample the former's courses?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

adastra22 4y ago

To be fair though, at least in the USA an engineering degree requires significantly more coursework than a humanities degree. At my institution it basically added up to an extra year of courses, and was approximately equal to the added "general education" (non-engineering) requirements. And the general-ed requirements for engineers were less demanding than for the arts. So it's not like we were getting short-changed in a way that they were not. But that said, I agree with your main point. Humanities majors should be required to do a more in-depth survey of math, science, and engineering comparable (at the very least) to the introduction engineers are required to have of their fields. If that means they need to have a 5-year degree as well, so be it.

lordleft 4y ago

There was once a time when mathematics was considered central to humanistic and philosophical development. It is said that at the entrance of Plato's Academy, there was the following prohibition: "Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here."

BiteCode_dev 4y ago

Well, most people in math and science majors can pass an arts and humanities major. The opposite is not necessarily true. Anecdotally, I can easily engage in talks about literature, politics and art with my friends coming from a biology or physics background. I can hardly do so with my friends with a major in French or Sociology. When we mix them together, the debate is always animated when we talk about philosophy, a specific author or book, and even painting. If we speak about GPT3 or the CERN, suddenly the table is divided in two.

Hercuros 4y ago
You can have some seriously in-depth discussions in sociology or philosophy as well, that would be hard to follow for someone with just a STEM background. The kind of sociology or philosophy one would discuss without preparation or reading with friends is not really comparable with the academic disciplines. It is just armchair philosophy/sociology. I have a feeling many technically minded people would struggle to read and write an essay about Heidegger or Habermas. In fact, I doubt most people are even aware of that type of philosophy due to not having actually delved into it very deeply, and yet as outsiders to such fields they feel confident in making claims that those fields are "easier." (And usually there is also an implication that this being "easier" is an indication of those fields being less serious or worthwhile.)
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  If my non stem sample would be able to engage with armchair science in the same way that the stem sample can engage with armchair philosophy, I would agree with you. However, it's not the case. I also find more stem people reading entry level materials in philosophy around me (like Moral letters to Lucilius), that I will find non stem people ready entry level materials in science (like A brief history of time). The ratio is hugely disproportionate, and while I understand this is all anecdotal, I have a large and very diverse social circle to observe, spanning on wide areas of age, social backgrounds, political preferences, sexual orientation and jobs.

mncharity 4y ago

Selection pressure on science courses is largely around fulfilling prerequisites for the following course or exam. With a few university programs also polling recent graduates about what they have/haven't found useful. The connection between these, and transferable understanding of the physical world, is ... problematic. A pre-K science educator once suggested children have a human right to make sense of their world, "now" rather than several lifetimes later. Perhaps they imagined adapting existing K-12 content to pre-K. But consider "color", widely taught around K. First-tier physical-sciences graduate students often reply to "What color is the Sun?" with answers like "it doesn't have a color" and "it's rainbow colored", reflecting foundational misunderstandings of color. Suggesting the challenge here isn't adapting working content to a younger audience, it's a lack of working content. And not just for "that falls through the gaping cracks" topics. At a first-tier university, asked what students entering intro-genetics from intro-bio most lacked, a noted professor replied "a firm grasp of central dogma". Which is foundational, and is taught, repeatedly - repeatedly unsuccessfully. Consider someone suggesting liberal arts majors should study "science" ... as an old-school whole-class call-and-response exercise in mindless memorize-and-regurgitate. One might wonder if that would largely be a waste of their time. Not because their lives couldn't be enriched by understanding science, but because there's so little connection between this form of science education and that potential enrichment. Science for non-majors is sort of a science education research area. But how much better are we set up to support it, than a call-and-response culture would be? As for making sense of the physical world, for pre-K, liberal arts, or first-tier physical-sciences graduate students? What's that phrase ... Big Hairy Audacious Goal.