I think Latin/Mexican American Studies <<<< either of those identity studies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20764839)

There's nothing wrong with close reading, writing, or argumentation. What is harmful is when poorly informed undergrads are pressured to fabricate arguments because they are expected to generate a paper on something they've read. Most of the time, there's nothing to say, or very little at all. The pressure to write induces forced arguments, the compulsion to align disparate elements into a unified thesis. That fosters a very, very bad habit in maintaining intellectual honesty. It's better not to write anything than write nonsense. Students are evaluated for their cleverness or prose, much less for relevance or intellectual integrity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20764972)

Describe your reaction to reading The Gay Science

Student: it was pretty good

Professor CHUNG: A+

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20765008)

The logical positivist principle that there are not any specifically philosophical truths and that the object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. This may be contrasted with the traditional foundationalism, which considers philosophy as a special, elite science that investigates the fundamental reasons and principles of everything.[7] As a result, many analytic philosophers have considered their inquiries as continuous with, or subordinate to, those of the natural sciences.[8]

The principle that the logical clarification of thoughts can only be achieved by analysis of the logical form of philosophical propositions.[9] The logical form of a proposition is a way of representing it (often using the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical system) to display its similarity with all other propositions of the same type. However, analytic philosophers disagree widely about the correct logical form of ordinary language.[10]

The rejection of sweeping philosophical systems in favour of attention to detail,[11] or ordinary language.[12]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20765245)

"Students are evaluated for their cleverness or prose, much less for relevance or intellectual integrity."

there's some of this, but i never felt like i was fabricating/forcing arguments in these sorts of papers. i usually had some sort of open ended question and spent the first half of the paper just defining terms based on the text before applying them to whatever the question was. it seems to me that you're complaining about people writing shitty papers, which is worth complaining about, but my entire point with my original post is that if you don't take shit classes you can get yourself a pretty good education.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20765296)

why don't you also cite the average Harvard UG's LSAT score and tell me why Harvard is a TTT?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20764846)

Harvard has the highest LSAT score of any undergrad.

Therefore, it is not TTT.

Are you retarded?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20764862)

it's much lower

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20764866)

if you are comparing one group to another on the basis of a unit, you look just to that unit and how it compares among your groups.

harvard ug has the highest average lsat scores of any undergrad. It doesn't matter if it is 168 or 165.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20764880)

While both of those are important to every major, only a select few actually train you to have those skills. The rest just give you an A+++ grade whether you get the skills or not. English is a Mickey Mouse major compared to physics, math, CS (not MIS/IT) for mental ability.

And to be a bit fair to engineering majors: you work hard and deserve success based on your work ethic. But make no mistake: your material is not /conceptually/ difficult like abstract math and theoretical physics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20765001)

LOL at physics and math being less impressive than double E

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20764842)

There are no marketable skills that attract employers. Compare Identity Politics degrees with Accounting, Engineering, etc. These degrees offer immediate marketability.

So Identity Politics majors, loaded with their biased information, they can't find any real jobs so they end up getting a masters in _____ studies and then a PHd.....and then become a professor in ________ studies. The spout the bullshit they learned to new students and the cycle continues.......

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20764898)

i wasn't a psych major but my gf in college was, and she had to learn neuroanatomy, shit about neurotransmitters, and statistics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20765235)

you seem both mad and dumb

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20765265)

I went to a kinesiology department presentation while I was in HS. The prof lectured about his research, which involved some kind of micro-thin slicing of cadavers to study mechanics or something. So I assume people study that shit as a major, even though obviously they aren't all researchers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20765220)

there can be no serious debate over this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20769290)

Students who take education classes at universities receive significantly higher grades than students who take classes in every other academic discipline. The higher grades cannot be explained by observable differences in student quality between education majors and other students, nor can they be explained by the fact that education classes are typically smaller than classes in other academic departments. The remaining reasonable explanation is that the higher grades in education classes are the result of low grading standards. These low grading standards likely will negatively affect the accumulation of skills for prospective teachers during university training. More generally, they contribute to a larger culture of low standards for educators.

http://www.aei.org/article/education/k-12/grade-inflation-for-education-majors-and-low-standards-for-teachers/

The average GPA at the top twenty public research university for 2009 was a whopping 3.13. So, like Lake Wobeggon, all the students are above average. (Or, at least, the median student is above average.) In education departments, though, the GPA was 3.72. Almost an A! And, remember, these were the least promising entering freshmen. And, of course, the school GPA is skewed by the inclusion of the large colleges of education; the disparity would be even more stark otherwise.

They also sampled the University of Washington and found an Education Department grade curve with no bend in it. The modal grade, with 76% of the students receiving it, was an A. The next 21% got an A-. Yes, math majors, you did the calculation correctly: 97% got an A or A-. The remaining students got a B+ (3%) or a B (1%). Nobody got as low as a B-.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/grade_inflation_in_education_colleges/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203733504577026212798573518.html?mod=WSJ_Careers_CareerJournal_2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1956519&forum_id=2#20769337)