Attitudes towards votech education [ATTN: Boyish-Tigerlilly]

[Howedar]

You dipshit, it doesn't occur to you that SAT scores, even if they were perfect measures of competence, are not absolute measures that can be compared across disciplines?

If you take a minute to read, you might notice that Mike argued that math is intrinsically less intuitive to people than humanities. If that were true, you'd expect that at some acceptable level of proficiency average verbal scores on the SAT would be higher than math scores. They aren't. The remaining criticism of my approach is that the SAT average scores are too low to predict success in collegiate math, science and engineering programs (and I provided a link to a study supporting that criticism).

No, I guess it didn't occur to you. In fact, I guess you don't even understand what I mean by an absolute measure.

[metavac]

This has to be some kind of joke. An English Romantic course gave Meta trouble, so all Humanities are now somehow as difficult as Calculus and various science courses? Talk about extrapolating your own experiences into the world based on sheer fucking arrogance...

Pretty much everyone in this thread is relying on personal experience. I'm at least admitting it up front and reserving judgment.

Don't throw around horseshit here.

I agree. Which is why I'm curious as to why we're all making broad claims without anything that could be remotely considered evidence.

[metavac]

No, I guess it didn't occur to you. In fact, I guess you don't even understand what I mean by an absolute measure.

That would be a generous way to put it. Another way would be to note your remark was bonafide gibberish of Boganov proportions. I thought I'd play nice and walk you through disagreement between Mike and myself.

[Howedar]

What the fuck are you babbling about?

[metavac]

What the fuck are you babbling about?

You pointed out that SAT is not an "absolute measure" (whatever the hell that means in this context) applicable across different disciplines. We're not talking about applying them across different disciplines. We're arguing whether or not people have a harder time grasping math than they do the humanities. If that were true, you'd expect to see a mean verbal score consistently lower than the mean math score. Instead, we see that over the past thirty years math scores have overtaken verbal.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Maybe it has to do with the way the verbal sections are structured, rather than humanities content. I found the verbal sections to be a lot of convoluted word games you had to guess at or otherwise have memorized a bunch of obscure definitions.

The math section, although not great at it, was more straightforward. The stuff itself wasn't hard.

[Howedar]

What the fuck are you babbling about?

You pointed out that SAT is not an "absolute measure" (whatever the hell that means in this context) applicable across different disciplines. We're not talking about applying them across different disciplines. We're arguing whether or not people have a harder time grasping math than they do the humanities. If that were true, you'd expect to see a mean verbal score consistently lower than the mean math score. Instead, we see that over the past thirty years math scores have overtaken verbal.

Good God in heaven, you bonehead. An absolute measure might, you know, mean that there isn't an inbuilt bias. Therefore making the scores relative to something other than zero. And thus not absolute.

Your argument implies, and indeed requires, that the difficulty of scoring X in math is the same as the difficulty of scoring X in verbal.

[SirNitram]

This has to be some kind of joke. An English Romantic course gave Meta trouble, so all Humanities are now somehow as difficult as Calculus and various science courses? Talk about extrapolating your own experiences into the world based on sheer fucking arrogance...

Pretty much everyone in this thread is relying on personal experience. I'm at least admitting it up front and reserving judgment.

Despite the fact that humanities courses are primary subjectively graded and mathematics and science courses are objectively graded? Stop being dishonest.

Don't throw around horseshit here.

I agree. Which is why I'm curious as to why we're all making broad claims without anything that could be remotely considered evidence.

So you're recanting your claim that the SAT scores are some kind of good measure? Good.

[metavac]

How you managed to mine this...

Your argument implies, and indeed requires, that the difficulty of scoring X in math is the same as the difficulty of scoring X in verbal.

...from this...

Good God in heaven, you bonehead. An absolute measure might, you know, mean that there isn't an inbuilt bias. Therefore making the scores relative to something other than zero. And thus not absolute.

...is beyond me. But now I see where you're going. Conceded.

[Spin Echo]

What the fuck are you babbling about?

You pointed out that SAT is not an "absolute measure" (whatever the hell that means in this context) applicable across different disciplines. We're not talking about applying them across different disciplines. We're arguing whether or not people have a harder time grasping math than they do the humanities. If that were true, you'd expect to see a mean verbal score consistently lower than the mean math score. Instead, we see that over the past thirty years math scores have overtaken verbal.

Did you not pay attention to the fact I pointed out the test is designed so that all sections have roughly the same average? Obviously they won't ever give it spot on at 500, but that's what they aim for. If the test is consistently giving above 500 in a section, they make it more difficult so that the score comes back down to 500. If it's going below, they'll make the questions slightly easier.

Ergo, the SAT is blatently not a good example of verbal skills being just as difficult as math skills.

[metavac]

Despite the fact that humanities courses are primary subjectively graded and mathematics and science courses are objectively graded? Stop being dishonest.

Oh give me a break, Nitram. The strength of reason behind an argument submitted in a paper can be graded just as objectively as the correctness of a multiple choice math question, given a consistently applied standard. We can round and round as to whether this actually happens in practice, but I'm not going to commit to anything until I see some actual research. And so far I'm turning up nil.

So you're recanting your claim that the SAT scores are some kind of good measure? Good.

For the moment yes. I didn't allow for the fact that the scores are scaled. If the SAT Math and Verbal tests differ in difficulty on an objective scale, then you can't objectively compare ability in one to the other.

[metavac]

Did you not pay attention to the fact I pointed out the test is designed so that all sections have roughly the same average?

I missed your post. Howedar pointed out my error and I conceded.

[Simplicius]

It's far easier for a 'layperson' to get a feel for topics like history and politics simply by reading widely enough in their own time, since there are far less technical prerequisites required to understand most humanities subjects compared to science/technology. Even with more dense subjects like philosophy, I just need to read a couple of books on the subject in order to bring me up to the level taught at undergrad classes.

I'm going to go right ahead and say that much of my four undergrad years could have been handily replaced by room, board, and a library pass. In fact, I usually felt dumber at the end of the year than at the beginning, because I had spent much of my time plodding through coursework when I could have been reading tremendous stacks of books. The reason this doesn't fill me with shame is the fact that I know exactly why I chose the education I did, what I have gained from it, what I can use it for, and what my options are to put food on the table if I need them.

The humanities and social sciences - or some of them, at least - are potentially very useful things, if only humanities students knew how to use them. The students are a third of the problem, in that there are hordes of them who go to college "for personal growth" or some other rubbish instead of for the chance to deal with information at a more detailed and complicated level than secondary education could offer.

The strength of reason behind an argument submitted in a paper can be graded just as objectively as the correctness of a multiple choice math question, given a consistently applied standard.

A math problem is either correct or it is not. The work is either correct or it is not. The grade reflects this. A paper can be filled with bullshit but well-written ("There is no 'right' answer..."), or it can be correct but poorly written. Which scores better depends largely on the preferences of the professor. The former is objective, the latter is not.

[metavac]

A math problem is either correct or it is not. The work is either correct or it is not. The grade reflects this. A paper can be filled with bullshit but well-written ("There is no 'right' answer..."), or it can be correct but poorly written. Which scores better depends largely on the preferences of the professor. The former is objective, the latter is not.

Hence, "given a consistently applied standard." And like I said, I don't know whether or not humanities instructors in practice generally use objective standards to determine grades. My personal experience is that they do, but I'm not putting that on the table as evidence.

[SirNitram]

given a consistently applied standard.

I'll agree in some Aristolean idealized reality, where such existed, they would likely be less subjective. This is an unsupported assumption in our reality, however.

[DrMckay]

Speaking from personal experience as an outgoing High School Senior, Vocational courses at the school I attend have been cut in favor of a College-Prep Intensive curriculum.

At the middle school, I always enjoyed the woodshop class, and took it for another year in eighth grade, hoping to possibly do more sculpture in wood or even metal later on. (since then, I have developed an interest in three-dimensional art: models.)

When I got to High School, I found out that the shop classes, wood, metal, and auto had been eliminated years ago, (It is possible that this is because I attend school in a privelaged neighborhood)

I was disappointed, but moved into high school with a strong interest in history, (taking several AP courses,) a love of reading, and a desire to develop writing. (I am not skilled at math.) As the school year winds down I have come to the realization that I will need to find a career, as well as recognizing that it will be something I may not like, but that will pay the bills. I have no idea where to go from there, other than a desire to further study history, and maybe do something to benefit the world in a local way,

Why would I want or need a liberal-arts education if I cannot apply the skills I learnat a useful career?

Sorry if I rambled a bit, this discusssion has given me a lot of things to think about. Thank you.

[metavac]

given a consistently applied standard.

I'll agree in some Aristolean idealized reality, where such existed, they would likely be less subjective. This is an unsupported assumption in our reality, however.

And in this thread, so is the opposite. Failing to justify the claim that the study of humanities is inherently subjective (or difficult, for that matter) by means of pure reason, we're left with scientifically studying the matter. That, and my own observations that make me question whether my gut is right for agreeing with you, is the reason I'm withholding judgment.

[SirNitram]

given a consistently applied standard.

I'll agree in some Aristolean idealized reality, where such existed, they would likely be less subjective. This is an unsupported assumption in our reality, however.

And in this thread, so is the opposite. Failing to justify the claim that the study of humanities is inherently subjective (or difficult, for that matter) by means of pure reason, we're left with scientifically studying the matter. That, and my own observations that make me question whether my gut is right for agreeing with you, is the reason I'm withholding judgment.

Are you familiar with the concept of Parsimony and Burden of Proof? Those making a positive argument(In our tangent, that there is a consistantly applied standard, as opposed to there isn't one) must meet the burden.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Speaking from personal experience as an outgoing High School Senior, Vocational courses at the school I attend have been cut in favor of a College-Prep Intensive curriculum.

At the middle school, I always enjoyed the woodshop class, and took it for another year in eighth grade, hoping to possibly do more sculpture in wood or even metal later on. (since then, I have developed an interest in three-dimensional art: models.)

When I got to High School, I found out that the shop classes, wood, metal, and auto had been eliminated years ago, (It is possible that this is because I attend school in a privelaged neighborhood)

I was disappointed, but moved into high school with a strong interest in history, (taking several AP courses,) a love of reading, and a desire to develop writing. (I am not skilled at math.) As the school year winds down I have come to the realization that I will need to find a career, as well as recognizing that it will be something I may not like, but that will pay the bills. I have no idea where to go from there, other than a desire to further study history, and maybe do something to benefit the world in a local way,

Why would I want or need a liberal-arts education if I cannot apply the skills I learnat a useful career?

Sorry if I rambled a bit, this discusssion has given me a lot of things to think about. Thank you.

Well, there are things you can do with a history degree, even at the BA level. You could try to work at a park, in museums, and you can use your history degree on the way to library science and become a librarian. That was one option I wanted to pursue.

However, you could choose teaching and combine it with special education, which seems to be in high demand now. That's what I did.

You could start that and then later seek a MA or PhD and do real academic work IF you want. You can even use your history degree as a break-in to local archaeology (these are the awesome guys who go on digs and archive for public and private building projects).

Personally, when I get my degree, I am hopping into the Peace Corps to do something to help people. I don't know if that's an option you want to pursue.

[metavac]

Are you familiar with the concept of Parsimony and Burden of Proof?

Parsimony has nothing to do with this, and are you familiar with argument from ignorance?

Those making a positive argument(In our tangent, that there is a consistantly applied standard, as opposed to there isn't one) must meet the burden.

First, you claimed this fact: "Despite the fact that humanities courses are primary subjectively graded and mathematics and science courses are objectively graded?."

My position has always been that I don't know that it is a fact that humanities grading is subjective--hardly a positive claim, hardly one that places a burden on me to prove, and hardly absolving not only you but all of us from responsibility for justifying it if possible. Since we both agree that in principle that grade determination in the humanities can be objective, we're left with the practical question of whether it is. Am I missing something?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I never understood the slogan that there is no right answer to a paper. If you are writing something and you have a thesis, you need to be able to argue it with a command of the facts as well as with logical reasoning from your supporting premises to the conclusion. I mean, wouldn't a paper either have premises that lead to valid conclusions based on observations or it doesn't?

How can one get a good grade for a paper, for instance, if it's facts are wrong, the reasoning is poor, yet it sounds good? Sounding good shouldn't make up for the former. I would mark off for factual errors and poor reasoning if I were grading a paper.

That seems at least somewhat objective, given a rubric.

Any professor who gives a good grade because something sounds good is a shitty professor.

[Durandal]

Put it this way. On any given English essay, the space of acceptable answers is infinite. The space of answers on a calculus problem is generally finite. It's like math is a regular dart board, but English is a dart board several meters in diameter with a bulls-eye the size of a beer can. Which one is easier to hit?

[metavac]

I never understood the slogan that there is no right answer to a paper.

Well, it is a slogan--hopefully rarely taken literally. The idea is that the issue addressed is not one likely to be resolved by your work due to some ambiguity (hopefully over the facts), therefore it should be evaluated on other merits. This isn't unfamiliar in the realm of math and science, where you have the notion of conjecture. For example, there is no theorem that generally describes what mathematical physicists are calling 'wormholes,' and there is some question of confidence in the proof of quantum inequalities and energy conditions. The ambiguity here is large enough that broad claims like 'QI doesn't hold' or 'wormhole geometries necessarily violate the QIs' can only be hinted at rather than shown to be at the very least mathematically true. Nevertheless, there's an intense debate in Phys. Rev. and in the preprints where restrictions are levied, counter-examples proposed, objections raised, counter-objections, and so on.

In general, the process of raising a conjecture to proof can yield some insightful math along the way. Likewise, resolving a problem in the humanities might produce some underlying reasoning worth looking at on its own merits. I understand this is how stemmatics came to be.

Now I'm not saying the scope of conjecture in math and the natural sciences even approaches the ambiguity of humanistic study (which seems to leave very little in the way of settled results). I'm just observing that the notion 'that there is no right answer' (as interpreted above) has an analogue at least in physics.

If you are writing something and you have a thesis, you need to be able to argue it with a command of the facts as well as with logical reasoning from your supporting premises to the conclusion. I mean, wouldn't a paper either have premises that lead to valid conclusions based on observations or it doesn't?

Yes, and ideally it would be graded or evaluated as such. As for how well that works in practice, I don't know much beyond my own university experience. I mainly feed off the results of of the humanities, and I suspect the same goes for most people in this thread.

How can one get a good grade for a paper, for instance, if it's facts are wrong, the reasoning is poor, yet it sounds good? Sounding good shouldn't make up for the former. I would mark off for factual errors and poor reasoning if I were grading a paper.

"Facts" can refer to data and/or intelligence, the key difference being a degree of ambiguity in accuracy and interpretation. Data is pretty much verified information you couldn't find any sane, reasonable person to disavow (it pops with the senses). Not so much with intelligence, where the veracity of the information depends on your confidence in a source and the range of meanings you can attach to it. Disputed intelligence isn't simply limited to the humanities, it's still a significant philosophical problem in the social sciences.

[metavac]

Put it this way. On any given English essay, the space of acceptable answers is infinite.

If that were true, then the normalized expected value of the grade would be 1. Since not everyone's walking with an A, the set of correct answers must be finite.

[Darth Wong]

Put it this way. On any given English essay, the space of acceptable answers is infinite.

If that were true, then the normalized expected value of the grade would be 1. Since not everyone's walking with an A, the set of correct answers must be finite.

Christ, you're just pissing all over this thread with your abject stupidity, aren't you? First you pretend that you can compare the difficulty of math and English by comparing SAT scores on those subjects: a preposterous non-sequitur if I ever saw one. And now you assume that an infinite set must include all possible answers by definition, in defiance of not just logic but also elementary math.

Since you seem to be particularly dense today, let me explain: the set of whole numbers is infinite in size. Does this mean that any random number must be part of that set? All you have accomplished in this thread is to clearly demonstrate that you're an imbecile. I also like your worthless non-answer when I challenged people to find examples of English lit students who feared they would flunk no matter how hard they tried. The fact that you felt you had difficulty with a humanities course does not mean you were in any danger of flunking out. It means you were worried about getting a B- instead of an A.