Top 10 Useless College Degrees

[Orange Seeds]

I am removing the elephant from his enclosure.

I don't know what this means.

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.

Very many things:
1) You are arguing against claims that are stronger than mine. I am not arguing about the aptitude of all philosophers, I am arguing about the aptitude of top students majoring in philosophy. I am also perfectly willing to admit that good comparisons to science and other faculties cannot be made because most good science majors will go on the Med school or dentistry school or PHARM etc.. I am simply arguing that philosophy is at least as good as and probably better than other Arts majors in order to show the stupidity of the article in the OP. If you recognized this you would see how I have not been the one ignoring you at all, and that my question has yet to be answered.

2) Don't separate LSAT and GRE scores to make a point. My argument takes both together to be a good assessment of top student ability in art majors since the vast majority of top students in Arts majors will go on to Grad or law school, and the numbers that don't should remain largely constant.

3) Samples do not need to be random in order to be accurate. It means we have to meet a high burden in arguing for why they are accurate, but I think that has been met here given around 75% of our population (top students in x [Arts] major) will have taken one or both of the LSAT and GRE. This is why 'it isn't random' is not an answer to my question of why isn't it accurate. We use non-random samples all the time especially in the social sciences so long as there are no good reasons to suppose that they aren't accurate. Obviously we would prefer random samples, but often those are not available. In this way, we and admissions councils are in the same epistemic position. We both lack perfect data. This doesn't mean we cannot make any claims with the data we do have.

4) I've already pointed out that the number of philosophy majors taking the LSAT is lower than many other majors because philosophy departments tend to be smaller than most other departments. Isn't this a much better reason for the low quantity of philosophy LSAT takers than "lawyers and philosophers are just different kinds of people" as you rhetorically ask below?

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

5) The LSAT scores tally, at least, was not using self-reported majors. LSAC, which compiled the LSAT scores, has access to each of those students' university transcripts.

 

[Flying Pig]

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

Surely to be a decent lawyer you need some grounding in ethics, which is a branch of philosophy?

 

[Orange Seeds]

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.

No, this still doesn't answer my question. I should have made it more clear that I think the LSAT and GRE are only accurate in comparing various Arts majors. Certainly those two exams alone would be unrepresentative of the abilities of top science and engineering students who would not likely go to grad or law school.

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.

I don't think the SAT would be any better, but I'm not really interested in that discussion. I just wanted to quote this post because I don't want it to be thought that I am lumping posts like this in with Nano's. This is a good post that I think we can both settle our dispute over since the bolded part is my conclusion as well.

 

[Earthling]

Yeah, I'm not sure I was ever disputing much of what you said but thanks, and to be clear, I agree with the general point that comparing those test scores is useful for comparing the general class of those stated arts majors. Suggesting as the original posts bringing the topic that the same comparison is valid to majors like Economics or Science or "proves the point in the OP" is all what I'd disagree with. Lastly, of course, I'd want to be clear I don't lum your arguments in with others, like someone like Cheezy who shows up and declares that because ALL standardized tests must suck, the LSAT is somehow still better.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

And your reasons for assuming so are wrong, because of the reasons I described.

Please learn how to think.

Lastly, of course, I'd want to be clear I don't lum your arguments in with others, like someone like Cheezy who shows up and declares that because ALL standardized tests must suck, the LSAT is somehow still better.

For someone who doesn't like having words put in his mouth, you sure do do it to other people a lot. I never said that any existent standardized test was useful for determining such things. I said that the LSAT and GRE had the most potential because of the time in peoples' lives at which they are administered, but the specific nature of their takers which distorts the results has already been addressed in this thread.

 

[J-man]

I know someone who studies (or has studied, don't know) "Vrijetijdskunde". Which I can only translate as: Free time studies...

 

[Earthling]

I said that the LSAT and GRE had the most potential because of the time in peoples' lives at which they are administered, but the specific nature of their takers which distorts the results has already been addressed in this thread.

You're the one who needs to learn how to think and compose arguments. Learn how to apply the principles of logic, ironic given the topic that we're discussing how philosophy majors might be big on that in the course of their studies. What you're saying is clearly wrong and everyone else can see that. It's also worth pointing out that even if you meant to say this in the first place, you actually didn't, as your words implied you were claiming that these tests reflected how students were performing in college at the time, quite a large distinction from aptitude.

edit - Cheezy, if you ever consider responding again, a quick discussion is perhaps in order, anyway I know my position and I know it's right. For you though, what are you actually trying to argue, aside from just quoting me and saying "Earthling is wrong." What you would say is your argument in the absence of doing that over again?

-Are you trying to argue that the LSAT, GRE, or <other thing you want to mention> are effective at comparing the aptitude of the average student across college majors?

For the record, this is what I have been discussing, and my claim is that a test like the LSAT is pretty worthless for such a comparison, and if you were looking for standardized tests, a better comparison might be attempted with a test like the SAT or ACT. Now, you apparently never intended to discuss this, I would point out it's annoying for you to say that "Here I'm quoting Earthling and he's wrong because of <something unrelated to Earthling's argument>" but it can be forgiven if you just didn't know what you were talking about.

-Are you trying to argue that the LSAT, GRE, or <other thing you want to mention> effectively indicate the performance of a student in college compared to other students in other majors, by some measure like GPA?

Now, nobody else was really discussing this, and I think you'll find this is pretty clearly wrong too, I doubt LSAT scores correlate well to GPA across different college majors. But if you want to bring something up make it clear what you're claiming, this is closest to what your original statement actually was.

-Lastly you could just be trying to say "I agree with these other people" that, say, the LSAT is an indicator that top graduate/law school bound students in philosophy are better performers/better prepared than other arts majors like Poli Sci. Though again you've never really indicated this is what you were claiming, and every post of mine you quoted was irrelevant if this is what you meant to say.

 

[illram]

I mean really, college is about having a good time and learning about yourself. I thoroughly enjoyed my major in Studio Art. Yeah, Studio Art. When you were all busy "studying" I was drawing pictures of naked chicks. Yup.

<--------- Awesome.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Y
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 I'm just pointing out that if you're going to dismiss what evidence does exist because it is unpleasant, and raise a higher standard, you will realize that you're arguing in a vaccuum. So yes, I stand by my claim that you cannot demonstrate trained experienced doctors have any more knowledge of medicine then philosophy majors, because there's no random sampling studies demonstrating that.

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.

Except, you know, it doesn't actually measure people who have studied philosophy.

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.

Oh so now anecdotal evidence counts? Actually, yeah, in my experience quite a few of them are.

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.

But you haven't demonstrated of course, that science majors know anything more about science then say, Comp Lit majors, on average.

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.

Er, no. I'm trying to compare the quality of their education. Obviously I can only do that after they have received it.

 

[kojimanard]

I haven't read all the posts, but first, I don't believe that Georgetown has a Star Trek major. G-town is one of the best universities in the US. Second, I was a philosophy major in college, and then went to law school, and I felt that the rigorous analytic work involved in philosophy helped me (I did do well there.)

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I don't know what this means.

...

4) I've already pointed out that the number of philosophy majors taking the LSAT is lower than many other majors because philosophy departments tend to be smaller than most other departments. Isn't this a much better reason for the low quantity of philosophy LSAT takers than "lawyers and philosophers are just different kinds of people" as you rhetorically ask below?

I am disproving the veiled notion, brought up by you and others, that philosophers are some sort of gifts to humanity, brilliant beyond measure, when, in fact, they are not special. Neither are lawyers, doctors, priests or anyone else. Individuals may be special, but not groups.

I am simply arguing that philosophy is at least as good as and probably better than other Arts majors in order to show the stupidity of the article in the OP.

In that, I actually agreed. I mentioned from the beginning that was surprised that Art History and Philosophy were grouped with obviously inane "disciplines."

Obviously we would prefer random samples, but often those are not available. In this way, we and admissions councils are in the same epistemic position. We both lack perfect data. This doesn't mean we cannot make any claims with the data we do have.

5) The LSAT scores tally, at least, was not using self-reported majors. LSAC, which compiled the LSAT scores, has access to each of those students' university transcripts.

Really? So you're telling me that every exam applicant has to request an official transcript? Seems a lot of work (and expense) to the applicant.

Surely to be a decent lawyer you need some grounding in ethics, which is a branch of philosophy?

A decent lawyer maybe, but an effective lawyer, maybe not.

So yes, I stand by my claim that you cannot demonstrate trained experienced doctors have any more knowledge of medicine then philosophy majors, because there's no random sampling studies demonstrating that.

Yes you can. There is an exam track called USMLE (US Medical Licensing Exam) that is required to pass to become a doctor. Subjecting non-physicians to that exam will decidedly yield a far lower performance.

Except, you know, it doesn't actually measure people who have studied philosophy.

But at least it would be an exam with less selection bias, where one could legitimately make broad conclusions. By the logic you use, I should be a complete idiot, since I would probably bomb the LSAT. (I actually have no idea what I would get. I have never taken the test, and have no interest. I don't even know what's on it. I'm guessing being completely unprepared would not yield the best performance.)

Oh so now anecdotal evidence counts? Actually, yeah, in my experience quite a few of them are.

I don't know who you're meeting. I used to hang out with quite a lot of them, socially, and they were generally boring people who didn't necessarily know anything about philosophy, history, or even politics. I can't say it was lack of knowledge or lack of interest, but the result was the same: boring.

But you haven't demonstrated of course, that science majors know anything more about science then say, Comp Lit majors, on average.

If there was an exam that gaged that, I would refer to it, but there isn't. For all I know, there may be no difference. Don't mistake having grades on a transcript for actual knowledge.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes you can. There is an exam track called USMLE (US Medical Licensing Exam) that is required to pass to become a doctor. Subjecting non-physicians to that exam will decidedly yield a far lower performance.

So you say, but you don't have a random sample demonstrating that. Therefor you can't really make any claims about that.

But at least it would be an exam with less selection bias,

If I wanted to do that, I'd use fruit flies for my sample.

where one could legitimately make broad conclusions.

No, you couldn't. Again, because if the only thing required to legitimately make broad conclusions, I'd conduct the study with fruit flies. The fact that the fruit flies do not have an education in Philosophy is apparently irrelevant.

By the logic you use, I should be a complete idiot, since I would probably bomb the LSAT.

No, I would say you are poorly prepared for Law School.

I don't know who you're meeting. I used to hang out with quite a lot of them, socially, and they were generally boring people who didn't necessarily know anything about philosophy, history, or even politics. I can't say it was lack of knowledge or lack of interest, but the result was the same: boring.

The fact that you hang out with boring people has little value in determining the use of a philosophy degree. Tell me, were these lawyers you hung out with a random statistically significant sample?

If there was an exam that gaged that, I would refer to it, but there isn't.

No you wouldn't, because the test would prove nothing because it's not a random sample.

For all I know, there may be no difference. Don't mistake having grades on a transcript for actual knowledge.

So you've arrived finally at the conclusion, drawn from your standards before, of total epistemological skepticism in regards to the value of an education, to which I pose: If it's impossible to produce evidence that anyone knows anything about anything, how can differences in education produce anything meaningful.

I am disproving the veiled notion, brought up by you and others, that philosophers are some sort of gifts to humanity, brilliant beyond measure, when, in fact, they are not special.

You are attacking a chip on your own shoulder.
I don't know if a philosopher is doing your wife or something, but this veiled notion exists only in your head.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

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.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Most universities allow that. I had a friend who majored in Epidemic Studies.

 

[Orange Seeds]

You are attacking a chip on your own shoulder.
I don't know if a philosopher is doing your wife or something, but this veiled notion exists only in your head.

This a million times over. I can't even begin to explain how this captures Nano's position perfectly vis-a-vis:

I am disproving the veiled notion, brought up by you and others, that philosophers are some sort of gifts to humanity, brilliant beyond measure, when, in fact, they are not special. Neither are lawyers, doctors, priests or anyone else. Individuals may be special, but not groups.

Really? That is your final rebuttal to our primary point of contention?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

So you've arrived finally at the conclusion, drawn from your standards before, of total epistemological skepticism in regards to the value of an education, to which I pose: If it's impossible to produce evidence that anyone knows anything about anything, how can differences in education produce anything meaningful.

I was not the one who started citing statistics. If you are going to start citing statistics at least have a discussion on their merits. Within the discussion on statistics, which you seem to have forgotten, your conclusion is correct. Since there has never been a study on the topics you presented (to my knowledge), one cannot cite statistical evidence to back them up. There has never been a formal study to compare who knows more about medicine -- complit majors or medical students. So you are correct in that there is no way, using statistics alone, to prove that medical students are more knowledgible that way.

You, on the other hand, are shifting the conversation every which way, when I am simply indicating that if you are going to use statistics as evidence, it better be very strong evidence, not selection bias run amok. I don't run a statistical analyis in my head for every conclusion I have to draw. You may choose to mock me sticking to the original point, but it is you who has wavered.

You are attacking a chip on your own shoulder.
I don't know if a philosopher is doing your wife or something, but this veiled notion exists only in your head.

It is quite obvious considering how vociferous the attacks are from that camp. When all I did was challenge the usefulness of philosophy for a career path (it seems it can be used only for teaching), I got a mouthful in return. It seems to me an indication of projection, if I may use a psych term.

Also, considering yourself lucky that I am not so petty as to report your insult to the mods.

Really? That is your final rebuttal to our primary point of contention?

I don't think you know what you mean to say about the statistics you cite. I have no idea what you're even talking about. I don't even think you know much about statistics. It seems all you do is refer to authority. The "argument from authority" is a common logical fallacy. My reaction is "" because I have no idea what you're even saying, and I doubt you do either.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't run a statistical analyis in my head for every conclusion I have to draw.

That's right. You simply reject evidence that is unpleasant, and assume what you believe is right.
You reinforce your views with personal anecdotes of how you hung out with boring people who didn't know much about philosophy or politics (failing to consider that like frequently attracts like) and the assumption that Lawyers don't seem to be interested in Philosophy.

It is quite obvious considering how vociferous the attacks are from that camp. When all I did was challenge the usefulness of philosophy for a career path (it seems it can be used only for teaching), I got a mouthful in return.

I'm going to repost here that entire vociferous mouthful in it's entirety, to put things in context.

"Law
Fivechar."

Also, considering yourself lucky that I am not so petty as to report your insult to the mods.

Pettier still to mention the "favor". Go ahead, report it if you like. But "philosopher is doing your wife" seemed more polite a suggestion, more likely that a philosopher is doing you. It would explain the butthurt.

It seems all you do is refer to authority. The "argument from authority" is a common logical fallacy. My reaction is "" because I have no idea what you're even saying, and I doubt you do either.

He didn't actually refer to any authority. The fact that you cannot even grasp what he is saying suggests that maybe a grasp of philosophy also gives one an understanding of language.

 

[Earthling]

Really? That is your final rebuttal to our primary point of contention?

To be fair, you are actually wrong here. It's true that you yourself might not have said something like it, but you are claiming that Nano is wrong to say that people are just showing up to post "lolz philosophy majors are great" in this thread. But Nano is actually right about that. There are people in this very thread like Cheezy who showed up with no understanding of anything they actually read nor any evidence, merely to try and debate some point just like that, "oh yeah everyone majoring in philosophy is so great because I say so." And that's not counting the first page of this thread which was very heavy on that sort of thing too.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

7 pages and no one has mentioned economics yet

 

[Orange Seeds]

I don't think you know what you mean to say about the statistics you cite. I have no idea what you're even talking about. I don't even think you know much about statistics. It seems all you do is refer to authority. The "argument from authority" is a common logical fallacy. My reaction is "" because I have no idea what you're even saying, and I doubt you do either.

Well let's take another stab at it:
1) Random samples are good for measuring properties of populations.
2) Sometimes we lack random samples.
3) We can still make good claims using non-random samples so long as we have no good reason to suppose that sample is not a good representative of the population.
4) The population being measured is top American undergrad students across different Arts majors.
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.
6) The sample of test takers is a good representative of top students in Arts Majors in the US.

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.

If I know nothing about statistics, it should be easy to demonstrate where I go wrong rather than using derisive emoticons.

To be fair, you are actually wrong here. It's true that you yourself might not have said something like it, but you are claiming that Nano is wrong to say that people are just showing up to post "lolz philosophy majors are great" in this thread. But Nano is actually right about that. There are people in this very thread like Cheezy who showed up with no understanding of anything they actually read nor any evidence, merely to try and debate some point just like that, "oh yeah everyone majoring in philosophy is so great because I say so." And that's not counting the first page of this thread which was very heavy on that sort of thing too.

I think you're exaggerating what most in this thread have said, maybe you're right. However, Nano's emoticon response was not to this point. It was to this:

3) Samples do not need to be random in order to be accurate. It means we have to meet a high burden in arguing for why they are accurate, but I think that has been met here given around 75% of our population (top students in x [Arts] major) will have taken one or both of the LSAT and GRE. This is why 'it isn't random' is not an answer to my question of why isn't it accurate. We use non-random samples all the time especially in the social sciences so long as there are no good reasons to suppose that they aren't accurate. Obviously we would prefer random samples, but often those are not available. In this way, we and admissions councils are in the same epistemic position. We both lack perfect data. This doesn't mean we cannot make any claims with the data we do have.

Which is frustrating.