If you have a social science degree, what do you think of the article?
If you have a science degree, do you feel it is ‘better’ than degrees from other disciplines?
If you have an arts degree, do you make jokes about people with media studies degrees to make yourself feel better?
In case you’re wondering I have the ultimate Mickey Mouse degree: Combined Studies (Hons.). Something like a Liberal Arts degree. I got a 2:1.
So, what’s your degree in?
Is your degree more equal than degrees in other disciplines or is it all relative?
What on earth do they mean? Surely one goes to university to meet girls (or boys), test one’s capacity for downing booze, party whenever one possibly can, and generally explore the delights of being out of school (in the British sense) and free from any kind of parental restriction with a sizeable lump of the pater’s cash in one’s bank account to spend as one will. The degree for which one “studies” is little more than a minor detail, none of them really being worth very much when one goes out into the real world and has to start working for a living.
[quote]
“the axiom of equality in mathematical set theory is analogous to the homonymous concept in feminist politics.”
[/quote] You know, that’s so true… .
Wikipedia gives a good account of The Sokal Affair. It’s entertaining stuff.
If anything, an arts or social degree trains you in the fine art of bullshitting eloquently. That’s a very useful skill in life.
Wow, that is a great story Spack. Thanks for the link. I’m disappointed, though, that Wilkipedia failed to mention that Sokal also won a grammy for best polka album of 1983.
I have a Bachelor of Science majoring in Applied Mathematics. It is worth noting that I have never “applied” this knowledge in any way. I also have a Graduate Diploma in Environmental Studies and am looking for work in this area at the moment. I also studied Veterinary Science for a few years but dropped out before I finished the course. I have no regrets about this.
it does fall into the social science category, but it can involve some pretty heavy number crunching. while it is true that economics is not an absolute science(what REALLY caused the great depression?), there is a foundation of generally accepted tools which are used as the building blocks for more intricate arguments. put another way, you can insist that your economic argument is as valid as the accepted norm(which is the complete opposite of your argument), but you had better bust out some convincing statistical analysis to back your points.
the author of that article is being too generous with that “one opinion is as good as another” line. considering the suffocating ideological homogeneity of university professors(at least in the us), it’s not hard to tell what the professors think the “right” opinion is.
Second, there is one thing about this article that I think bares mentioning. It doesn’t say all university social science departments are worthless. Nor, does it say all social science degrees/disciplines are a joke. It was saying that there is currently a trend, in some university social science departments (and, more generally within some social science disciplines), to take the “path of least resistance,” so to speak.
Take note of this section…
To me, this article sounded more like a warning than a criticism of all the social sciences. Though, I can see how this trend might be taking hold…
Given a good program, which is neither run or attended by “slackers,” I think a social science degree can do this for someone. In fact, a social science degree can give a better overall education, in many respects, than something that is more narrowly focused.
When I was in the US, I worked in the field of career development. One of the things I heard from employers all the time was that the specific degree didn’t matter – e.g., you didn’t have to have a business degree to get into business. They wanted people who could think, analyze, criticise, create, etc… Many of them said that those areas were where soc. sci. majors had it over more focused majors.
Again, though, I can see the slide into “least resistance” being a trend and being, well, tempting for both social scientist and student. It is probably easier to do in these disciplines, since they are more broad-based.
Now, can someone explain the following quote from the article? I’m having trouble sifting some of the sense from this bit of (apparent) “nonsense.”
[quote]Anthropology and sociology are particularly prone to being taught by those who favour the "post"and “beyond” style of writing.
This holds that knowledge may have existed at some time, but today we have something else.[/quote]
What is that something else? I don’t remember hearing this theory in any of my classes. :help:
[quote=“Spack”]OK since people clearly aren’t interested in telling me what degrees they have, I’ll tell you what you studied.
Omni - English literature [/quote]
Not quite: I steeped myself in law from beginning to end of my student days.
These days, though, I often wish it had been Chinese instead (but way back then, Chinese was a much-ridiculed degree course that people with lousy A-level grades chose as the only way they could get admitted to a decent university).
Amusing article Spack. Of course it’s just entertainment and not fact. You asked our degrees: I earned a BA in English and an MA in English, with emphasis in teaching writing, before earning my law degree. I’d rather not classify my BA and MA as “social science” degrees, particularly if people like the author of that article will make absurd generalizations on that basis. Instead I find it more accurate to say I was an English major.
OK, now for the BS in his article:
Ridiculously broad generalization. If he likes science so much lets see his proof.
Nonsense. All “social science” majors practice at a pitifully low level? Give me a break.
Oh come on. First of all, I was an English major and never pretended I was a science major. Second, my professors overwhelmingly did not buy that “all opinions are equal” BS.
Oh, I see, we’re not as tough as real science majors.
Bullshit. How’s that for fancy language? Any English major with half a brain knows that good writing is clear, concise and precise.
I won’t bother further with the article. It’s simply entertainment and broad generalizations. And, if Law falls under the “social sciences” as well then the article’s even more wrong. Law is an extremely rigorous field in which facts are essential, language must be extremely precise and no one would ever suggest that all opinions are equally valid, especially the opinion of your article’s author, an economist who pretends to be a scientist.
Absolutely spot on says this unashamed waster of five years doing an Eng. Lit. masters. (So I had to repeat a year – read Omni’s post again – I’d have repeated another if the grants authorities would have let me).
If liberal arts departments aren’t scams right up there with Nigerian ‘Free Money’ scams, then they’re the next best thing.
At the very least, the main entranceways to all liberal arts department buildings should be compelled to display the disclaimer that 'Obtaining A Liberal Arts Degree Has No Known Correlation With Obtaining Gainful Employment"
BA in History. My main area of study was the Eastern Front WW2. I started out as a Chemistry major. If you ever need to know something about armour thrusts along the Russian steppes, I’m the man to ask
I never really went to college with the idea of making a lot of money. The degree doesn’t make the money, the person does. I was more concerned about studying something that I enjoyed.
In the old days you could get a job just based on your having a degree. This was because the employer could assume a certain level of intelligence, or at least the discipline to see a task through to the finish. Nowadays employers are afraid of getting sued if they don’t hire the person who has the exact qualifications asked for.
It has reduced race and sex-based discrimination, but has changed the value of a college degree.
BS Business Management
Two years studying in Wildlife Biology…
Some of the classes I took were a joke largely because the ossified professors (I teach this although I have never done it in real life and don’t care about anything anymore) were so profoundly lackadaisical that they might as well not have even come to the classroom.
I think English Lit is the biggest scam of them all. Look, I have a degree in knowing how to read and understand what I read! Whoa! Stand back! Give this guy some space…
Like getting a degree in having a functioning autonomic nervous system.
What is the average discipline studied by university sports jocks? They must be taking the lower rung on the degree of difficulty scale degree.
In the course of getting my undergrad, I also ended up about 15 credit hours shy of a degree in genetics and about 20 hours short a degree in English. (about 7 years just for the undergrad stuff - - - but the upside is it was all paid for up front, no debts when I got my diploma) In the time between my graduation from HS and university, I also managed to pick up “degrees” in bartending, being a bouncer, and various factory works. Oh yeah, poker and cocaine economics as well. Between bouncing and poker I think I learned a lot about what both a “tell” and a bluff look like, and how to measure either quickly. Uh, marijuana economics, too.
Yeah, social sciences aren’t as “difficult” or “hard” as physical sciences, but that’s only because the outcomes are so difficult to measure. It’s way easier for a physicist to measure 3 dimensions moving parametically over time (4-space) than for economists to measure behavior over n dimensions over time, or in (n+1)-space. Both use matrix algebra heavily, but economists are, like, experts in the field. Not trying to disparage any engineers or physicists out there (you know who you are), since both fields are heavily mathematical. I’m just saying that physicists enjoy a more definite standard of proof than do economists.
Besides, if you study social sciences, you might get to read some actual prose - and that ain’t nothin’ to sneeze at.
If you ever decide to do an MBA, always remember that, no matter what, the really important thing is who you know, who you graduated with, when you do. Always keep track of everybody, what they do, their emails (etc.), and never, never ever count anybody out. They just may lead to your fortune. Even if you pay the tuition/books/ect. and your employer does not, then this still holds. The real value of an MBA is who you know when they put the diploma in your hand, not what you know - they really don’t teach you much of anything, you know (really - I’m not even kidding here).
The undergraduate program in Leisure Studies confers a degree with emphasis in Therapeutic Recreation. The graduate Program in Leisure Studies confers a MA with emphasis in either Therapeutic Recreation or Leisure and Recreational Sport Management.
Therapeutic Recreation Core/Prerequisites (13 s.h.)
169:060 Leisure in Contemporary Society
169:061 Recreation Leadership
169:150 Recreation Administration
169:160 Introduction to Therapeutic Recreation
Therapeutic Recreation Emphasis (22 s.h.)
169:162 Therapeutic Recreation: Clientele
169:163 Concepts & Issues in Therapeutic Recreation
169:164 Therapeutic Recreation & Rehabilitation
169:190 Pre-Internship Seminar (Fall or Spring Semesters)
169:191 Internship (Only Spring or Summer Semesters) uiowa.edu/~leisure/requirements.html
The Department of Leisure Studies offers the following degree programs:
.
- 
- but the upside is it was all paid for up front, no debts when I got my diploma) In the time between my graduation from HS and university, I also managed to pick up “degrees” in bartending, being a bouncer, and various factory works. Oh yeah, poker and cocaine economics as well. Between bouncing and poker I think I learned a lot about what both a “tell” and a bluff look like, and how to measure either quickly. Uh, marijuana economics, too. 