Top 10 Useless College Degrees

[ParkCungHee]

Also skewed, because those who gravitate towards a legal career would naturally be interested in politics, since politics make the law. Bill3000's citation is clear that the philosophy majors taking the LSAT are far fewer in number than PoliSci. I am more inclined to believe that the philosophers taking that exam are simply more intelligent in general, and could probably ace any standardized test.

And the GRE?

 

[Bill3000]

Seems to me you're changing your argument.

Ah woops, I said it right the first time around, and slipped a typo the second time around. I've meant that they were one of the top performers, not the top performers.

 

[Orange Seeds]

Also skewed, because those who gravitate towards a legal career would naturally be interested in politics, since politics make the law. Bill3000's citation is clear that the philosophy majors taking the LSAT are far fewer in number than PoliSci. I am more inclined to believe that the philosophers taking that exam are simply more intelligent in general, and could probably ace any standardized test. But since, again, the sampling is not random (only a tiny fraction of philosophy majors are taking LSAT), that still yields no firm conclusion on the intelligence of philosophy graduates in general.

Keep in mind that at nearly every North American university, Poli Sci is a much larger program then philosophy:
Columbia

Even at institutions renowned for their phil programs and nothing much else:
Pittsburgh

I still see no good systematic reason why top students in other Arts like English, History or Sociology would be more inclined to take the LSAT than philosophy majors, reducing their relative performance. It seems much more plausible to me that top philosophy students are better performers on indicators of intelligence and academic performance like the GRE and LSAT, at least when we qualify our claim to the top ~20% of students in those programs.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

I thought this was going to be an interesting thread, but the dick measuring down the micrometer kind of killed it for me.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

And the GRE?

Not randomly sampled. None of these exams are. As long as sampling is not random, bias will creep in, such as the insinuation that philosophers are some kind of brilliant geniuses beyond measure.

Keep in mind that at nearly every North American university, Poli Sci is a much larger program then philosophy:

And this is obviously because there is a secret police force that ensures that philosophy gets downplayed as much as possible.

I still see no good systematic reason why top students in other Arts like English, History or Sociology would be more inclined to take the LSAT than philosophy majors, reducing their relative performance.

There may be many reasons. It doesn't matter what degree is given, because all degrees are equal for entry into law school. That leaves it up to the individual to decide. To me, that leaves two options: interest vs. strategy. Either the candidate chooses a major based on his earnest interest to learn it, or he decides on something far insidious. He chooses the major he knows is an easy A (psychology, from what I've heard). This will make his transcript be covered in 4.0, allowing him to impress the admissions committee. Either way, you can't make the kinds of confident claims you do. Only people who are interested in becoming lawyers take LSAT, and few philosophers care to become lawyers.

You just can't take the results of these standardized tests to too far a conclusion.

I thought this was going to be an interesting thread, but the dick measuring down the micrometer kind of killed it for me.

Agreed.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not randomly sampled. None of these exams are. As long as sampling is not random, bias will creep in, such as the insinuation that philosophers are some kind of brilliant geniuses beyond measure.

Great, so we'll file you under the "No opinion can be formed about the relative merits of a course of study until we have a double blind random sample study."
In which case I'll say that Philosophy clearly has a value, because for example, medical students cannot be demonstrated (by any acceptable method) to know more about medicine then philosophy undergraduates.

Only people who are interested in becoming lawyers take LSAT, and few philosophers care to become lawyers.

Meanwhile, an infinite number of history majors, poli-sci majors, sociologists, business majors, etc. can become lawyers.

 

[Orange Seeds]

Not randomly sampled. None of these exams are. As long as sampling is not random, bias will creep in, such as the insinuation that philosophers are some kind of brilliant geniuses beyond measure.

You're the only one who said anything like "philosophers are some kind of brilliant geniuses beyond measure" which is stupid considering some of us are trying to defend the relative merit of philosophy using quantitatively measured standardized exam results.

The thing with random samples is that GRE and LSAT scores are accurate given certain qualifications like: "of those who are going on to graduate and professional schools philosophy majors perform among the best" or "of top students..." which is what I have been saying for quite some time now. I keep asking for possible reasons for systematic bias so we can evaluate those but you and others are unable to provide them. There is no good reason so far proposed that can explain why GRE and LSAT scores are not generalizable to top students of various majors.

And this is obviously because there is a secret police force that ensures that philosophy gets downplayed as much as possible.

I know you'd rather be sarcastic than actually respond but the point was that if the major is larger, more people will be taking the LSAT from that major. This makes your claim that only the best and brightest phil majors take the LSAT much weaker given that the number of test takers remains at a largely constant percentile at least across humanities majors.

There may be many reasons. It doesn't matter what degree is given, because all degrees are equal for entry into law school. That leaves it up to the individual to decide. To me, that leaves two options: interest vs. strategy. Either the candidate chooses a major based on his earnest interest to learn it, or he decides on something far insidious. He chooses the major he knows is an easy A (psychology, from what I've heard). This will make his transcript be covered in 4.0, allowing him to impress the admissions committee. Either way, you can't make the kinds of confident claims you do. Only people who are interested in becoming lawyers take LSAT, and few philosophers care to become lawyers.

What in God's name makes you "confident" of the bolded phrase? If anything it would be the opposite given our few career options.

You just can't take the results of these standardized tests to too far a conclusion.

Why not? I've, again, seen no good reason for why they wouldn't be accurate measures of groups of top students. Admissions councils and the LSAC actually agree with me given many scale CGPAs on the basis of aggregate LSAT performance at the applicant's undergraduate institution. Apparently the threat of bias is low enough that they use those stats do determine the distribution of millions of dollars in scholarships and admission to some of the most competitive schools on the continent.

 

[Earthling]

There is no good reason so far proposed that can explain why GRE and LSAT scores are not generalizable to top students of various majors.

There have, and well, you just haven't been paying attention then. Only a small fraction of students who are not necessarily top students in many majors take those tests. Especially the LSAT which is taken by few people overall and almost nobody, nor even great students relatively, in many fields, like most scientific and technical majors.

In the absence of good data to compare student performance across majors in general, which I'll admit isn't really studied and isn't out there, if you really wanted a standardized set of data you could look at SAT/ACT scores which at least are taken by almost all US college students (before college, but they are general educational/aptitude tests) and see if you could find information on the scores of college graduates by major. Though I personally said earlier that looking at LSAT data does seem like a fine indication that many philosophy students do better compared to other liberal arts counterparts like Poli Sci majors on the way to law school. You just can't generalize too far.

 

[ParkCungHee]

if you really wanted a standardized set of data you could look at SAT/ACT scores which at least are taken by almost all US college students (before college, but they are general educational/aptitude tests) and see if you could find information on the scores of college graduates by major

You would judge the merit of a form of education by looking at how the students fair before actually receiving it, rather then after?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Great, so we'll file you under the "No opinion can be formed about the relative merits of a course of study until we have a double blind random sample study."

You must've just discovered biostatistics.

In which case I'll say that Philosophy clearly has a value, because for example, medical students cannot be demonstrated (by any acceptable method) to know more about medicine then philosophy undergraduates.

No, that's impossible. The LSAT's lack of usefulness in this argument does not cast doubt on the lack of usefulness of all tests. Just because I'm casting doubt over the conclusion that philosophers are geniuses beyond measure, who can even outperform nascent lawyers on their own exams, doesn't mean that all other conclusions are in doubt. You just can't accept that a standardized test is a standardized test. It is nothing more than a screening test. And it does not provide a random sample. Your argument would be in better shape if you chose the SAT. At least that is so widespread that it may as well be as randomly sampled as it can be.

Meanwhile, an infinite number of history majors, poli-sci majors, sociologists, business majors, etc. can become lawyers.

In fact, anyone can. Law schools do not mandate any specific undergraduate track, so everyone is free to choose their major. Have you met any lawyers? Do they strike you as philosophers? Nuff said.

Medical schools also do not technically mandate any undergraduate concentration, but they do mandate certain prerequisites that just stop short of a full major. I am one of a minority of medical school graduates who have a non-science or non-math bachelor's degree. The vast majority were science majors.

You're the only one who said anything like "philosophers are some kind of brilliant geniuses beyond measure" which is stupid considering some of us are trying to defend the relative merit of philosophy using quantitatively measured standardized exam results.

I am removing the elephant from his enclosure.

I keep asking for possible reasons for systematic bias so we can evaluate those but you and others are unable to provide them.

Then you have obviously chosen to ignore me, because I've provided them quite well. But for your sake, I'll repeat it. The LSAT is not a random sampling of everyone going to graduate school. There are other tests, like GMAT, GRE, MCAT, etc. That means that there is selection bias in the statistics arrived from that exam. The selection is made by the candidates, in this case, in that only those who wish to become lawyers ever bother taking the LSAT. If you look at the numbers, the philosophers are few in number, so even though they perform well (and not, the best, mind you), they are a tiny fraction of all the test takers, even much smaller than the number of all the philosophy majors. So you cannot conclude the aptitude of all philosophers I would also have to wonder how the examiners even know what undergraduate track the candidates are. I would bet it's self-reported. Maybe "philosophy" is really Classics, like my major was, and there was no option for that on the form.

What in God's name makes you "confident" of the bolded phrase? If anything it would be the opposite given our few career options.

Have you met any lawyers? Do they strike you as philosophers?

Admissions councils and the LSAC actually agree with me given many scale CGPAs on the basis of aggregate LSAT performance at the applicant's undergraduate institution. Apparently the threat of bias is low enough that they use those stats do determine the distribution of millions of dollars in scholarships and admission to some of the most competitive schools on the continent.

I can't fix misguided notions. What I can bet is that the admissions committees are forced to use standardized tests because they have no choice. What else are they to go on when pronouncing judgement on a candidate? GPA is easily fixed. I've pointed out to you how a clever student can easily pick a major with an easy A and come out with a 4.0. You don't think that's widespread? Believe me, I've seen and heard it all too many times. You think people are telling the truth about all those extra-curricular activities? Trust me, they are lying just enough that they cannot be caught.

The whole admissions process is fraught with so many pitfalls like these that it's a wonder anything gets done.

 

[innonimatu]

And what was supposed to be the metric for usefulness of a degree? I can easily see art history being personally profitable and socially useful, for example.

When is the last time you spoke to or read something by a modern day philosopher? You have no idea what you're talking about. Start here:http://goo.gl/gUtr6 because it is relevant to this conversation.

He's another piece of advice on linking: don't use shortened URLs, many people don't like to blindly follow links. If you have to, make sure to at least inform what domain you're linking to.

 

[Earthling]

You would judge the merit of a form of education by looking at how the students fair before actually receiving it, rather then after?

No, nobody said anything like that. If you were attempting to compare the quality of students, or even "top students," which is what you were saying, that would just be a better way to go about it than something like LSAT scores.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, nobody said anything like that. If you were attempting to compare the quality of students, or even "top students," which is what you were saying, that would just be a better way to go about it than something like LSAT scores.

I was a much better student in college than in high school. My SAT scores would not reflect my college potential at all.

On the other hand, tests like GRE and LSAT are tests taken between rounds of college, so they are more likely to reflect how college students are actually doing while there.

 

[Earthling]

That whole post is wrong. Good for you anecdotally, but, well, it's not worth trying to explain to someone who can't grasp the very idea of a statistic.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That whole post is wrong. Good for you anecdotally, but, well, it's not worth trying to explain to someone who can't grasp the very idea of a statistic.

So then why don't you explain it instead of being snotty. Provide evidence or some sort of counter-argument. Or actually bother addressing the post.

 

[Earthling]

I already did. The onus is on you to try to understand what you read. The evidence equivalent to your "evidence" is if I said I knew a stupid philosophy major, therefore they are all stupid. But as far as all of those standardized tests go, everything's already been explained in the thread.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Oh, so you're going to be like that.

Your conclusion is still an opinion: that SAT accurately measures aptitude of college students. I provided an example of a case where that is not true. It could reasonably be extrapolated that perhaps many people were like me, and neglected studies in high school but got their act together in college, and so their SAT scores would not accurately reflect their potential.

 

[Earthling]

Oh, so you're going to be like that.

Look, you're one of the ones who keeps on inventing complete strawmen and not reading the thread. That's not even what I said, not what Nano said, not what anyone said.

The point is that insofar as any of these standardized tests are useful for such comparisons, the SAT would be more useful than the other tests people brought up like the LSAT. That's the point you should be addressing, and considering you're the one claiming that standardized tests are a useful measure for this in the first place, it's funny that you criticize me on something I didn't say but does approximate your argument.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Look, you're one of the ones who keeps on inventing complete strawmen and not reading the thread. That's not even what I said, not what Nano said, not what anyone said.

It's exactly what you said! Look, you're about to say it again!

The point is that insofar as any of these standardized tests are useful for such comparisons, the SAT would be more useful than the other tests people brought up like the LSAT. That's the point you should be addressing, and considering you're the one claiming that standardized tests are a useful measure for this in the first place, it's funny that you criticize me on something I didn't say but does approximate your argument.

But. It's. Not. Because. It. Doesn't. Reflect. Actual. College. Potential. It's ubiquitous nature doesn't change that. Jesus Christ.

Besides, I never said they were useful for measuring anything. Now who's creating strawmen?

 

[Earthling]

No. it's. not. what. I. said. I made NO claims about the overall absolute effectiveness of using such standardized tests to measure aptitude of college students by major, only that, compared to the LSAT, it would be better.

Please learn how to read.