The rationale behind discrediting Liberal Arts

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

The only reason we were having a civil discussion is I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Once I decided you were squirming around without any real arguments, it's time to put civility aside until you learn your lesson.

Let me know when a technician from a good trade school can figure out how to puzzle the numbers out.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Let me know when a technician from a good trade school can figure out how to puzzle the numbers out.

Why make fun of Sava and other vocational students?

There is nothing to "puzzle out" until you can provide the revenue and costs per department. All you're doing is spinning in circles.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Seems to me like they aren't paying their share.

Slackers!

Horse hockey.

4.5 buildings out of 25 or 30 or so, with understaffed faculty and just about zero materials/equipment required.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Horse hockey.

4.5 buildings out of 25 or 30 or so, with understaffed faculty and just about zero materials/equipment required.

Does not constitute a proof in any way.

Weak liberal arts argument leaves room for much error.

[notyoueither]

And you have even less of an argument, other than 'common sense'.

You know, you could actually look for numbers.

UofA operating expenditures for the Faculty of Arts 2004-05
50,893,911.

Tuitions and fees paid ~28,000,000 and the province at least matches tuition (it's actually several times tuition paid, IIRC) thus the Faculty of Arts turns a profit for the University purely on per student tuition, fees and government funding.

Thank-you very much for playing. Come again.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by VJ
Thought this was obvious, but it hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet:

You can get away with BS'ing your way through a liberal arts degree (though most aren't skilled enough at this to complete their graduation and only waste their money for a few years before dropping out) without actually knowing or learning anything having to do with your degree, since the amount of knowledge and skills are harder to measure. Think the start of your high school, MRT: you could always try to BS your way in history tests by writing in generalities, but trying to pass math exam without learning anything about the subject was impossible. The better the teacher, the harder (s)he is to BS. But why would teachers (insert professor if you wish) or school (insert university) admins kick out lousy students? The amount of funding is based on how many kids the school (university) has.

I always DID b.s. my way through history but that's because I KNEW it. the thing about the math was it built on itself band I was able to actually learn things while taking tests. WEll some of them at least.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And you have even less of an argument, other than 'common sense'.

You know, you could actually look for numbers.

UofA operating expenditures for the Faculty of Arts 2004-05
50,893,911.

Tuitions and fees paid ~28,000,000 and the province at least matches tuition (it's actually several times tuition paid, IIRC) thus the Faculty of Arts turns a profit for the University purely on per student tuition, fees and government funding.

Thank-you very much for playing. Come again.

Thank you for unwittingly doing my work for me to back up this claim:

Originally posted by MRT144
Also, why do the humanities and liberal arts continue to persist at universities if there is no value in them?

Originally posted by Asher

Relatively low cost of running the programs (the profs don't get paid too much 'cause they can't get jobs elsewhere), lots of stupid kids who want to throw money at the university to "get a degree" = money maker.

You guys are so easy. Thank you, come again indeed.

[Asher]

In particular, I'm thinking of the "History 101" type classes where they run it in the evening in a 600-seat lecture hall, pay some masters student diddly squat to run it, and make the $$$$$ as kids take it for a GPA booster.

It's all about the money.

[notyoueither]

Those same courses are often taken by science and eng students looking for their electives from other faculties. They are painful courses to endure.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Thank you for unwittingly doing my work for me to back up this claim:

You guys are so easy. Thank you, come again indeed.

It's nice that you seem to agree with me now.

What does that have to do with my discussion with Krazy?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's nice that you seem to agree with me now.

What does that have to do with my discussion with Krazy?

No idea, but for the record I made my statement well before yours. You agreed with me, and I used you to back it up.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither


How much more can you reduce them?

Do you have numbers on any campuses that show that tuition paid by arts and humanities students (on top of government grants per student) do not more than cover their own depatments?

Originally posted by Asher
Common sense -- do you have otherwise?

Hmmm. How much is your common sense worth? Not much, I'd say.

It's good that you concede what you were arguing for 20 posts though.

[Asher]

Notice how very little effort I put into my "argument", and how I constantly just pushed you to cough up arguments otherwise...

mmmmmmmmmmmanipulation.

[notyoueither]

Right...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You people will believe anything...

A person's character is determined merely by how wealthy they are?

No, their character is not determined by how wealthy they are. Their value as a human being is revealed by how wealthy they are, however. People who are worth more to society get paid more, ergo their wealth is a sign of their superior value.

Britney Spears is the epitome of an upstanding, moral citizen of good character?