From: ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett)
Subject: Re: Any Humanities Grads out there?
Organization: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:49:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.163834.9723@midway.uchicago.edu> ogil@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.221123.28537@colorado.edu> ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:
>
>
>>[...]                 On the other hand, I want to be crystal clear:
>>I think that advanced LA courses are CONSIDERABLY easier than advanced
>>science/engineering/math courses. (excepting the study of languages, which
>>I have never been good at.) One could easily argue that to do well in a 
>>course in literature (for example) and to truely get something out if it 
>>are different things. You take 'Hamlet' for example. Great play, full of
>>good stuff. But really, all you need is a little time and a good dictionary.
>>You can think about it for hours, look at the way your own experiences are
>>similar to Hamlet's, wonder about things like whether his mother was part
>>of the plot to murder the king, etc. 
>
>This is the sort of thing one might do in high school, not in a
>graduate English course.  There, one might examine Shakespeare's use
>of his sources (after all, he didn't just make the whole thing up from
>whole cloth), his language, the production of the play (how did his
>writing _Hamlet_ for a particular company influence the play's
>structure, etc.), the political circumstances involved (remember,
>Shakespeare's company was patronized by the Elizabeth's Lord
>Chamberlain and then by James I), contemporary responses to the
>play....  I'm not an English student, but these issues strike me as
>interesting areas to pursue in order to truly understand _Hamlet_.
>Whether Gertrude was in on Claudius's plot to murder Hamlet's father
>is beside the point--remember, this is a play.  None of the characters
>really existed, and many English students would find questions about
>their actions before Act I to be pointless.
>

Fine, but how is that any different from the above? You read some more,
you discuss some more. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you do not
have to learn entirely new patterns of thought. So you go into the history 
and the staging, and the sources, but how is that any more difficult than
reading the play? It's just more of the same.

>
>>              Fourier transforms can be taught easy or hard. Maybe I should
>>have said 'a hell of a lot easier than learning to use F. analysis to design
>>filtering circuits.' Believe me, there's no comparison between that and a
>>Freshman formula physics course.
>
>And there's no comparison between studying history (or whatever) on a
>graduate level and the type of stuff one learns in Civilization 101.
>
I'll grant you that, but I'm not talking about Cililization 101, I'm talking
about graduate level courses in history (I took several). I'm not saying
they were easy (they weren't). What I'm saying is that advanced engineering
is harder.

>>You seem a little touchy about this Brian. Would I be far wrong if I
>>guessed that you are on of those dreaded humanities people yourself?
>
>I am a historian of science, which puts me right in the middle.  Right
>now I study the Renaissance, when the great scientists were for the
>most part good (in some cases great) humanists as well.  (They all had
>to know Latin, and a surprising number knew Greek also--especially the
>anatomists, who needed Greek to read Galen.)  I don't think that the
>humanities are harder than the sciences or vice-versa, though some
>people have the talent to do well in one and not in the other.  I got
>out of science because I found scientists more _interesting_ to study
>than elementary particles.
>
>
Not to get too personal, Brian, but at what level did you drop out of
the sciences. If you tell me you got past tensor math, or partial
diff. eq., then I will conclude that you are right. I've taken grad-level
courses in history, which is why I drew these conclusions; can you
say that you've experienced both sides?

Actually, I have to confess that I started this whole thing to get 
a rise out of some pompous humanities people, but you're not one of
them, and you have a lot of good points. Thanks for being so nice.
Also, I would have to admit that this easy/hard stuff varies so much
from person to person that it's pretty stupid to argue about. But I
do believe that there is a qualitative difference between the two, and
that engineering courses demand more from the student in terms of new
ways of thinking, which are so different and alien to everyday life 
(for non-engineers) that it means a whole new set of problems in 
school. 



Newsgroups: soc.college.grad