Is it good policy to give financial aid to liberal arts majors?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know any polsci student who is studying that because he failed in another path.

Failed engineers usually go for a technician education here.

Might be better thing for the world. I think technician work is important and rewarding and don't like the snobbiness of people who talk about "Yale or jail".

I also suspect that this has something to do with your countries educational system and greater difficulty in changing around later versus the US system.

My school was full of guys who got weeded out of ME and EE and AeroE and Chemistry. They would either end up in dummied down "general engineering"* or "applied science" (neither of these available as initial majors) or they would go to "bull majors": English, Econ, History...or the most popular switchdown: Poly Sci. I NEVER heard of a single person switching from a bull major to a technical one, because they could not hack the bull major and could the technical. I never heard of anyone switching at all in that direction.

I think you will find the same thing at many US state universities where people come in with ambitions of being engineers or doctors and then can't cut it. And are weeded.



*"Sooner or later...you'll go General!" (mimes a US jingl for tires)

[TCO]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
BS!
For my part, the guys I know who have good results in political science are the one who were goods in math/physics.

Whatever, one of the most difficult degree to have is philosophy!

And this is not a argument to make philosophy better than any other degree....

Showing that you lack the ability to think logically. It actually plays well into my thesis that the better guys in poly sci were also better in math. Math is very challenging. It requires brains. Somehow, I doubt that the converse will hold true as such a good predictor, though...

Can you think through a function with 2 independant variables? Can you take the partial derivitive? Do you understand the implicit assumption within a partial?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
All the more reason to acknowledge losers shouldn't be underestimated.

Eh, he did lose in the end.

[TCO]

misunderestimated...

[CrONoS]

??? I think I missed my point since I was disturbed by my sister and english is not my native language. What I wanted to say is you can't actually argue that poli science is actually less valuable than engi science by saying that the ones who have good results in math will have good results in poli science.

The only thing that prove, is when you're good in maths, you can be good in many other sciences. Since science are based on logics and rationality.

So now I think you can't stop personnal attack..

oh yeah, I'm actually in the processes to do my Math for economist! Since I'm begining to do Price Theory and Econometrics. I will know next winter If I continue in this way. And I do think, I'm not bad at all in Math, I was really good younger, but I dont have done any Math course since my college)

Even If I wanted to do Behavioral Economics over Math Econ, my university is not specialised in that area(behavioral). Badly... maybe I'll moved to another university in one or two years.
(Unless I change for doing economics development in amerindian territory; maybe it will be my subject in my master).

Originally posted by TCO


Showing that you lack the ability to think logically. It actually plays well into my thesis that the better guys in poly sci were also better in math. Math is very challenging. It requires brains. Somehow, I doubt that the converse will hold true as such a good predictor, though...

Can you think through a function with 2 independant variables? Can you take the partial derivitive? Do you understand the implicit assumption within a partial?

[TCO]

Sorry about the personal attack. I like to do that for amusement. Consider it a gesture of love. Good work on the English. I wish I knew languages as well. Good luck on Econ. And I get your point and think we are in agreement.

[DanS]

Some thoughts.

(1) BAs are very poorly paid coming out of college. If you want to get an arts degree, that's fine, but don't hold any illusions that "thinking and writing clearly," being well-rounded, etc. will be well compensated at the outset. People will tell you otherwise, but don't believe them. This normally changes over time, however, so don't lose heart. I experienced this.

(2) Engineering degrees have a higher variance in beginning circumstances than what is commonly believed. An AeroE degree is getting you into a ****ty business that is unable to support its graduates nowadays, f.e.

When people point out that the US is graduating fewer engineering folks, it might be worthwhile, at least for the sake of argument, to assume that people are making rational choices in avoiding engineering and the sciences and that our society is being well served by their choices.

(3) A basic competence in higher math is necessary for many/most of the science degrees. However, from what I have seen, the culture in engineering higher education is often counterproductive -- e.g., overworking students on stupid stuff -- rather than effective at finding and encouraging those with the necessary traits to make good scientists and engineers.

(4) You hear all the time that engineers and scientists are well suited to the liberal arts (see TCO). This misperception among engineering and science folks has to do with a mismatch of grading scales and general culture.

[CrONoS]

Cool tx

Originally posted by TCO
Sorry about the personal attack. I like to do that for amusement. Consider it a gesture of love. Good work on the English. I wish I knew languages as well. Good luck on Econ. And I get your point and think we are in agreement.

[CrONoS]

DP

[CrONoS]

TP... grrr I behave irrationnaly (wrong button two times)

[Ben Kenobi]

What was the hurdle...

A combination of second year calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations.

Plus I was struggling with my compsci course. I was doing just fine with my astronomy course, I could understand the concepts, I just had to work really hard to plug in the numbers and get the answer they expected.

My advisor knew this, and knew I loved Astrophysics, but I felt it was better to cut my losses and jump to history. I've been happy with most of what we do, and lately, going back to finish my degree has worked out well. But my profs still ask if I started out in sciences.

[TCO]

Spiff: Now you've seen one.

[Ben Kenobi]

You hear all the time that engineers and scientists are well suited to the liberal arts (see TCO). This misperception among engineering and science folks has to do with a mismatch of grading scales and general culture.

Agreed. Just because some folks switch over from engineering or sciences does not mean that those who are engineers or scientists are in any way suited for arts. In fact, one could argue just the opposite. The ones who stay are more suited for their own discipline, and the ones who leave more suited for arts which is why they struggle more then the engineers and scientists who do well.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Agreed. Just because some folks switch over from engineering or sciences does not mean that those who are engineers or scientists are in any way suited for arts. In fact, one could argue just the opposite. The ones who stay are more suited for their own discipline, and the ones who leave more suited for arts which is why they struggle more then the engineers and scientists who do well.

I'm not saying they are suited for it. I'm saying that they can fall back into it. You don't see people failing out of history and going to EE.

[Pekka]

We can argue all we want, but let's look at the statistics of best jobs..

libruls pwned.