Top 10 Useless College Degrees

[Earthling]

4) The population being measured is top American undergrad students across different Arts majors.

There's your problem. Nano has not really said anything like this, and more specifically this isn't how this thread got started or what it was based on. I don't think he agrees with this premise, you're arguing about kinda different topics.

I would also point out there's a huge distinction between measuring the quality of the students, and the quality of the education they receive, that people have ignored or got wrong several times in this thread already, so worth clarification. You didn't say "what is being measured is the set of philosophy undergraduate courses being taught" and anything you conclude about the former should not be haphazardly generalized to the latter.

 

[Narz]

A friend of mine from high school was a "Space Colonization" major at university. Our university allowed you to design your own major, pending approval of course.

So he majored in science fiction, not much worse than majoring in Italian Literature.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Well let's take another stab at it:
1) Random samples are good for measuring properties of populations.

You've already lost the argument, because what is being claimed is a conclusion to a hypothesis. We are not merely collecting data and forming observations. That is an observational study. What is being claimed is that philosophy majors are high performers on the LSAT and therefore philosophy is a useful major for studying law. That is a conclusion of comparative study in which there are two groups: philosophers and non-philosophers. Since you have selection bias (only some choose to take LSAT), you cannot conclude one from the other.

There is already enough of a logical fallacy in this implication anyway, because it assumes LSAT competence has any bearing on skill in practicing the law. The LSAT is not an achievement test, where skill is tested on a specific subject. It is a standardized test that measures more general knowledge.

4) The population being measured is top American undergrad students across different Arts majors.

I don't know what "top" means here.

5) Roughly three quarters of American top students in arts majors will take the LSAT or GRE and the type and number of students who don't should remain largely constant between Arts majors.

I don't know where you found this 3/4 number.

6) The sample of test takers is a good representative of top students in Arts Majors in the US.

Ah, so it's actually hubris for you! You assume that anyone sharp enough to excel in liberal arts should be driven to go to grad school! Anyone else must be damned stupid.

The bit about LSAC is only to bolster my claim that experts, who probably know more about statistics than both of us, use non-random samples to make the exact same kind of claims that I am. My argument does not rely on that, which is why I am not appealing to authority. My argument is 1-6.

Btw, I don't even believe that LSAC has access to people's transcripts. Maybe they have access to the transcripts of those who were accepted to law schools, but not everyone. That just adds a whole new level of selection bias.

I also disbelieve the propaganda spewed by LSAC that you claim. Of course they will use statistics to back up claims of their own value! Why would they ever claim that the conclusions they gather from their own stats are useless? And why would they draw conclusions from their stats that imply anything but that the candidates that are selected are nothing but the best? My own medical school did the same fake stat game.

 

[Orange Seeds]

You've already lost the argument, because what is being claimed is a conclusion to a hypothesis. We are not merely collecting data and forming observations. That is an observational study. What is being claimed is that philosophy majors are high performers on the LSAT and therefore philosophy is a useful major for studying law. That is a conclusion of comparative study in which there are two groups: philosophers and non-philosophers. Since you have selection bias (only some choose to take LSAT), you cannot conclude one from the other.

There is already enough of a logical fallacy in this implication anyway, because it assumes LSAT competence has any bearing on skill in practicing the law. The LSAT is not an achievement test, where skill is tested on a specific subject. It is a standardized test that measures more general knowledge.

Other people may have made this claim, but I haven't. I'm not sure why you're quoting me and arguing against the above claim. I am simply claiming that top phil students perform better on standardized tests used for graduate schools than other Arts majors which means they are either taught more rigourous skills that those tests examine or are naturally more talented going in to the program. I have no idea whether or not that means phil students would make better lawyers than other groups.

I don't know what "top" means here.

I don't know where you found this 3/4 number.

I left these deliberately vague. It reduces accuracy, but increases the likelihood of being correct. I'm sorry I simply don't have numbers to use here. I don't have access to them. I'm making a broad claim on the basis of plausibility. Are these numbers plausible? If yes, then I have done my job.

If you want to think of this formally, consider there being an operator "P" in front of each of my claims that means "it is plausible that."

Ah, so it's actually hubris for you! You assume that anyone sharp enough to excel in liberal arts should be driven to go to grad school! Anyone else must be damned stupid.

I'm not sure why that's hubris but anyways, I never assumed everyperson who does well in Arts programs goes on to grad and professional schools. Why do you always ignore the nuances, quantifiers and qualifiers of my arguments? It makes your responses completely inapplicable. I assumed that about 75% try to by writing those standardized exams. I don't know how accurate that number is, but it looks about right to me.

If it turns out that really 50% do then you just readjust the definition of top students until the claims is accurate given that information. Do you see why I leave those two vague? They are directly correlated and I don't have information to make them precise. I'm not going to compile this thread into a research paper to publish. I am making haphazard claims that I think are plausible given the state of our information. I'm trying to argue for their plausibility not their accuracy.

Btw, I don't even believe that LSAC has access to people's transcripts. Maybe they have access to the transcripts of those who were accepted to law schools, but not everyone. That just adds a whole new level of selection bias.

I also disbelieve the propaganda spewed by LSAC that you claim. Of course they will use statistics to back up claims of their own value! Why would they ever claim that the conclusions they gather from their own stats are useless? And why would they draw conclusions from their stats that imply anything but that the candidates that are selected are nothing but the best? My own medical school did the same fake stat game.

Every Law school that is a member of LSAC sends transcripts of law school applicants to LSAC which standardizes the GPAs of those applicants and then sends that number to law schools. It's actually the school's AdCom which prorates the GPA based on what schools those grades came from, at the least for the U of T which does so on mean LSAT score from that school.

http://www.lsac.org/policies/transcript-summarization.asp

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I left these deliberately vague. It reduces accuracy, but increases the likelihood of being correct. I'm sorry I simply don't have numbers to use here. I don't have access to them. I'm making a broad claim on the basis of plausibility. Are these numbers plausible? If yes, then I have done my job.

If you want to think of this formally, consider there being an operator "P" in front of each of my claims that means "it is plausible that."

Vague is right.

I'm not sure why that's hubris but anyways, I never assumed everyperson who does well in Arts programs goes on to grad and professional schools. Why do you always ignore the nuances, quantifiers and qualifiers of my arguments?

I've been doing quite the opposite, and you are all too easy to see through.

It makes your responses completely inapplicable. I assumed that about 75% try to by writing those standardized exams. I don't know how accurate that number is, but it looks about right to me.

Yes, vague is right.

Every Law school that is a member of LSAC sends transcripts of law school applicants to LSAC which standardizes the GPAs of those applicants and then sends that number to law schools. It's actually the school's AdCom which prorates the GPA based on what schools those grades came from, at the least for the U of T which does so on mean LSAT score from that school.

So I am correct. The only way to gain access to a student's transcript is if he applies to law school. If he bombs the LSAT, you can be sure he will not bother. That's another level of selection bias for you. Those with the highest LSAT scores are most likely to apply to law school (and probably the highest tier law schools), who are naturally going to be the best performers. Those who do not apply can never be analyzed for their undergraduate background.

Let me leave you some information on basic biostatistics so at least someone gets educated on something in this thread, instead of denying the existence of mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

 

[Orange Seeds]

Vague is right.

Again, the sarcastic one line response to a legitimate point.

I've been doing quite the opposite, and you are all too easy to see through.

See this is your problem right here. You're not actually responding to my position. You're deliberately "seeing through" to positions that you think I hold rather than pay attention to my argument. This is a methodological fault on your part.

So I am correct. The only way to gain access to a student's transcript is if he applies to law school. If he bombs the LSAT, you can be sure he will not bother. That's another level of selection bias for you. Those with the highest LSAT scores are most likely to apply to law school (and probably the highest tier law schools), who are naturally going to be the best performers. Those who do not apply can never be analyzed for their undergraduate background.

Yes, and why would this have an effect on the measured difference between arts majors? I already admitted to selection bias. My point simply is that the biased sample won't be biased in a way that effects my claim. That is the point you're supposed to be attacking not continuing on about the reality of a selection bias I have long since admitted to.

Let me leave you some information on basic biostatistics so at least someone gets educated on something in this thread, instead of denying the existence of mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

This is not the first time I've argued with you and you always manage to make the condescension so very explicit. I'm actually basically familiar with statistics as I've taken 6 credits of stats courses seeing my University at one point mandated math credits and I took the stats courses to fill those requirements. Maybe if you treated me with some respect you would actually try and address my arguments rather than use sarcastic smilies, one liners, rudimentary wiki articles and so on.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I've noticed Orange Seeds, that if you point out that he is butthurt, his condition worsens, and he stops arguing.

 

[Orange Seeds]

I've noticed Orange Seeds, that if you point out that he is butthurt, his condition worsens, and he stops arguing.

That might work, but I live for the day I manage to convince a stubborn person of something over the internet. I don't know what Nano has against philosophers, but his hostility to everything associated with that study is vociferous, odorous and sticky. Maybe I am just too defensive.