From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: Any Humanities Grads out there?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 21:36:23 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: clin@coke.eng.umd.edu


In article <1992Apr15.144945.1909@mercury.unt.edu>, ac05@sol.acs.unt.edu (Bhattacharya Sumangala) writes:
>clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) -- among others -- writes:
>
>
>>   Nevertheless, unless you get into some really abstruse topic,
>>you could probably BS your way through a paper, and while there
>>are plenty of creative ways to do that in engineering, it's easier
>>to catch.
>
>My original question was about prejudice against humanities majors/fields
>from scientists & engineers.  I rest my case.
>

   First, I'll do a Richard Feynman.  He claimed that he was very pro-science
and that's just the way he was (actually, he changed his mind later on and
decided there was something in art, after all).  Am I prejudiced?  Sure.
I could say that we may also be prejudiced against car mechanics, too.
Is what we do in college superior to what people do in "technical" schools?

   The reason I say it's easier to catch (though not always) is if I ask you
what the first 6 coefficients of some Fourier series, then I can't just
throw 6 random numbers down because, odds are, I won't be too close in my
choices.   On the other hand, if I'm asked to comment on whether we should
have third party politics in the US, I would be able to scrounge up some
sort of answer, which might not be very good, but wouldn't be deemed "wrong".

    It is precisely the fact that there may not be right or wrong answers
in LA courses (sure there are some courses that ask folks what the hat size
of some character in a story is, but I think that misses the point of
a course in LA) that makes things difficult to catch.  Now if you are asked
to reproduce facts or recall facts, then it may be easier to catch BS
then if you're asked to support or defend some position of your own choosing.

>
>While I agree with you that much of scientific reasoning can be non-intuitive,
>this does not necessarily make it more taxing for the intellect.  My point
>was not to establish which is, in some sense, "superior"; rather, I hoped
>that both can and should be regarded equally.  This, however, is not the case.
>Since many of the posts agree that more and more humanities specialists are
>using technology in their fields, I must ask again why scientists & engineers
>feel that they must downplay the importance of humanities?
>

   I'm not trying to downplay the importance of humanities.  Just because
I think engineering courses may be more difficult doesn't mean that
I think it is necessarily superior.  I think that heavy-metal guitar players
may play technically better than most pop guitar players, but it doesn't mean
I think heavy-metal players play superior music.

   But to address your question.   Well, engineers -- some of them --
tend to be more practically minded.  Many who choose to go into engineering
want to do engineering afterwards (some change their minds).  The liberal
arts tradition is to educate the mind, not to train for specific jobs.
That's why you hear engineers saying to humanities majors "What kind
of job are you going to get with an English major?" (Law, they usually
reply).   We dismiss the humanities (the generic we) because it seems
impractical.  However, if one thinks about it, a lot of the sciences
are impractical as well.  Perhaps they are more sympathetic (perhaps not)
toward humanities.  For example, finding the elementary particles that
make the elementary particles isn't exactly going to prevent starvation
or create nice comforts in life.  But people do the research because
they have a curiosity to know.

   The downplay may also come because we don't think that there is
anything important in what can't be eventually applied.  I think the
reason could even be simpler than that.  The US has always been somewhat
anti-intellectual.  Anyone who's good at math or sciences are looked
down as being "geeks" esp. humanities majors.   So turnabout may
be fair play.  Tell the humanities majors that they won't get a job.
I also see students who seem to have time on their hands majoring in
various humanities.  Of course, they are prpbably not the good students,
but even average students in engineering seem awfully busy.  Yes, yes,
another prejudice.  What can I say?

   I've just thrown a few reasons why I think humanities may be
downplayed.  I'm not saying people should downplay humanties however.
Just trying to offer plausible reasons.  When I was undergrad, engineers
also downplayed the humanities, but some were afraid to take those
courses (others wanted to take those courses since they weren't good
at engineering.  I'm not sure the number of humanties majors who say
they want to take math courses since they aren't good at, say, history)
so I guess engineers wave it off by saying "who needs humanities" just
as humanities majors wave off "who needs science or math?"

   I did have a friend who once remarked that science majors are
often required to take humanities courses which aren't watered down
while humantities majors who have science requirements often take watered
down versions of physics.

   Finally, to talk about why humanities majors use technology while
engineers don't use the humanities.  The reason is that purpose, for
better or worse, of technology is to provide tools for people.
So computers, like telephones, provide something to be *used* by
everyone.  We don't need to understand why a telephone works or why 
a computer works, merely how to use it.   The kinds of things
humanities offers tend to be more intangible.  I think there is
a difference between people in humanties using technology and learning
what makes technology.

   I would say the other aspect of engineering that turns a lot of 
people off is the perpetual state of not understanding what is going
on.  The typical engineer goes through their undergrad going from
one problem to another.  All the time they are confused.  Richard
Feynman (physicist from Caltech) once said that the usual state
of science is confusion.  He said it's like a monkey who is trying
to reach a banana and has two boxes, neither of which is tall enough
to reach the banana.  One day, the monkey realizes that he needs
to stack the boxes together, and he gets the banana.  Most people
are bothered by this.

   To me, the humanties is like having the two boxes already stacked
but knowing which is the good banana and which is the bad banana.
One spends a lot less time being confused and a lot more time trying
to make an intelligent opinion.  The word being inteelligent.

>
>I picked your post because it seemed representative of the opinions
>expressed, not out of any particular malice aforethought towards you.
>No offence, I hope?
>

   None taken.  I hope my post offers no offense either.  It's
a rather interesting discussion in any case.   That's one thing 
humanities do lead to -- interesting discussions. 

>Sumangala Bhattacharya
>ac05@sol.acs.unt.edu

--
   ______    __    __   ___  ____
  / ____ \  |  |  |__| |   \ |  |    Charles Lin
 | /    \_| |  |   __  |    \|  |    e-mail: clin@eng.umd.edu
 | |        |  |  |  | |  |\    |   
 | |     _  |  |  |__| |__| \___|    University of Maryland
 | \____/ | |  |____                 "I hate big sigs." -- Moo
  \______/  \_______|

p.s. Know any good aloo recipes???
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad