From: ogil@ellis.uchicago.edu (Brian W. Ogilvie)
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad
Subject: Re: Any Humanities Grads out there?
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:38:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr14.163834.9723
Reply-To: ogil@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Morris Fishbein Center for the History of Science and Medicine

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.

>                                     Great stuuf, as I say. I love stuff 
>like. There is no way that you can compare that with solving circuits, which
>requires lots of very hard work,and turns your brain to mush. 

I believe that ALL serious graduate work, whether in the humanities,
social sciences, or natural sciences, tends to turn the brain to mush.
That's the only explanation for many of the articles in
soc.college.grad :-)

>	Not only is rhetoric beyond my grasp, but an understanding of 
>why anyone thinks it has any value is beyond my grasp.
>(I'm not making a general statement about LAs, just rhetoric). (If you're
>interested in why I think so, read Locke's "On the Conduct of the Understanding")

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion.  If every argument were based on a
syllogism it might be useless, but in the real world no argument is
that solid.  Rhetoric helps us persuade others, and a knowledge of
rhetorical devices helps us see through others' rhetoric.  When you
apply for grants or jobs you will need to consider rhetoric--after
all, there will presumably be a number of equally-qualified
candidates, so you want to persuade the committee that you are the one
they should choose.

>By the way, no need to be so formal. Call me Ed.

I've known Edwards who hate being called "Ed," and those who hate
being called "Edward," so I took the easy way out.

>              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.

>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.


-- 
Brian W. Ogilvie           "Find a need and fool it!"
b-ogilvie@uchicago.edu              --Zippy the Pinhead