[pathwriter]

There's a lot more to it than your basic public speaking class you had to take.

That would be fascinating except that I've never taken a public speaking course. English departments believe in trial by fire, it seems, whereby we're told to stand up and explain. Of course, I've also had to write up Presidential Daily Briefs and deliver them. Go search for what a colossal headache that is, because PDBs are written like fucking haiku. I consistently get high marks on oral presentations in spite of the fact that I'm a mediocre public speaker because I actually know how to make information compelling. I'd make a poor politician because large audiences don't respond to information, they respond to emotion, as I'm sure your classes have taught you.

That list of theories is interesting, but I'd like for you to sit down and think about how much of it is academic wank. Do you really need a fancy name and a background of academics to understand half of those theories? Does it actually require time and effort to figure out that the reason management and workers are not interacting well is because management doesn't listen and discourages employee suggestions on the assumption that the proles can't know how to run things? I'm sure there is some clever name for that sort of miscommunication, but does it actually require being taught? At least half the list you copied there sounds like a collection of buzzwords dressed up in academic language. I suppose that learning how to "pro-actively actualize thinking outside the box dynamically" is convenient if you intend to go into a field that would encourage that kind of verbal abortion, but you're not going to get any respect for it from people who actually treat language as something to convey truth rather than a vehicle for perpetual rhetoric.

Speaking of, however, do you want me to list off the literary theories and philosophers who have things to say about the function of language, the place of rhetoric, and their associated benefits and detractions? You would be shocked, since this doesn't seem to be sinking in, to know that they're the same kind of things you've been taught. I'm guessing that the majority of theorists you've been taught, however, have been 20th century thinkers, ignoring that much of their theory has a pedigree stretching back 2500 years or more. That's fine, though, there's really not very much value in knowing that at least some of our ideas about rhetoric and language and communication are directly descended from Plato and Aristotle.

You can protest that I misunderstand your degree field, but every time you post trying to claim otherwise, it becomes clearer that I really do understand it. The way that we're taught may be different, yours is more overt and obvious, but what we're taught is fundamentally the same. I may not be able to rattle off some phrase like "social exchange theory" when explaining why X works or doesn't work, but most people wouldn't understand me if I used that phrase, anyhow. If I talk about German romanticism or post-modernism, someone is probably going to understand me, but the majority will not. The specific academic names for certain things are good for communicating with the in-group, but both of us are going to have to either explicate the words or find natural-language analogues. We have different lexicons, but we know the same essential data. Seriously, go over to the English department and say, "What could I do with an English degree?" The list will be basically identical to the one you'll get from your comms advisor.

Also, 18-year-olds are not adults, at least not in the United States and western Europe. The law may consider them to be, but culture and psychology have rather different and far more compelling arguments to make. Since I'm guessing you're closer to being 18 than I presently am, though, you'll no doubt argue with me and I really don't care. Time eventually teaches better than I ever could. Moreover, the US public school system is an atrocity and most 18-year-olds do not have a general education. It's great that you actually had a good school. My parents had to pay to get me a proper education.

Either way, I really don't see why you protest this so loudly. You started this argument with the false premise that I think that English majors are gods among men. I've never even hinted at something so patently moronic. Most English majors, like most college students these days, are vapid idiots sucking up public funds and their parents' savings to get a degree they don't understand. For someone working towards a degree in human communication, it is distressing that you can't fucking read, especially given that there's no obscurity in my speech.

[firefeng]

Don't tell me you can believe both God and Darwin at the same time

It's relatively simple to do so, but it relies on the presupposition that you are incapable of understanding the methods of [insert deity here], which in turn requires the relinquishment of one's arrogance. It's quite ironic that a religion founded on the concept of humility finds itself incapable of doing so.

You're certainly working on something, and I must admit that thus far you're proving a most elegant example of your own crock-pot "theory".

[Varizen]

It still stands that you're going to attempt to argue down anything because your whole stance is college degrees are worthless. For the record, I'm 22, and you're 4 years older.

Also, don't say shit like "You started this because I claimed English majors are awesome" bullshit. I started this because you said communication was a worthless degree, and I took issue. You can make the claim we're just another English degree all you like, but it's far from it. For one you mentioned Social Exchange Theory, which is the theory that relationships between people are all about a cost benefit relation. When the costs of a relation out way the benefits, you begin looking to end the relation. That's a very crass and simplified version however. I'll just give you the example that if you met one of your boyfriends and started with him because you all had a lot of fun together, you would start out with the benefit being greater. However, over time, you find out he likes to start fist fights with you, that would be a cost that would probably outweigh any benefit he offered. That's also a simplified example as usually the theory is applied to much more complicated situation, but relations that last find ways to keep the benefits outweighing costs.

Another interesting point, your idea of management follows the "classical" idea of things. You might want to look into some of the more fun theories like "critical" and learn about hegemony. Of course... some companies also run their company on the ideas of "Human Relations," "Human Resources," "Systems," and "Cultural." Disney used to run on "Human Relations" where the employees are pampered to the greatest extent. Not every company runs the show in the "Classical" style you presented.

I was also hoping you'd look at theories like "Spiral of Silence" to get the idea they were different. Spiral of Silence states a silent majority lets the vocal minority run wild and take control because the silent majority fears being ostracized because they fear they are the minority when they are in fact the majority. Like Nazi Germany. Most people were kind of against the whole Nazi movement. However, because the Nazi party was rather loud, and was willing to use force against people, they didn't speak up. So the minority of people take control and do what they want.

Muted Groups Theory is similar. A group of people either doesn't speak up and remains silenced due to the majority having dominance over the means of expression and media. Like homosexuals. They were largely a muted group until the past 10 years.

*edit*

And and trust me. We're very exposed to Aristotle. The first things you learn in persuasion is Ethos Pathos and Logos. I'm a bit more well informed than you like to believe.

[pathwriter]

When did I say that college degrees are worthless? You really need to pay better attention. I said that career-oriented degrees shouldn't be part of a normal undergraduate program. Want to be a physician? Great, get an associate's degree in biology. Rather be an engineer? Go to an engineering program.

I object to the notion that every person must have a "well-rounded" post-secondary education. You rightly said that one ought to have a well-rounded education by the time you have a high school diploma and I agree. However, our current educational model is such that many people learn bugger all in high school and it falls on universities, which are becoming more and more like high school, round two, to cover for gaps that ought not exist. I've been in high level English classes where professors had to, with great resignation, explain what a fucking direct object is. Over the course of three classes. That wastes my time and the professor's. But since we treat college as a dumping ground for all those victims of No Child Left Behind and simultaneously as a degree mill, the value, meaning, and effectiveness of a college education has been substantially diminished.

If someone wants to pursue a career, fuck college. Go to an appropriate trade or preparatory school (obviously these would actually need to be built). If you want to be an ad executive, what good are we doing wasting your time and money forcing you to endure 100-level math and science classes that, because they have to be dumbed down enough for everyone to pass, teach practically nothing? For someone like me, who actually wants and will employ the sort of varied background that a traditional university can supply, why force me to sit in a classroom with 400 other people bored out of my mind because the material has to be brought down to 9th grade level. I took a philosophy of statistics course (essentially, how to lie using numbers) and grasped pretty much everything that was going to be taught within the first two sessions. What a waste of time and money when it could have actually been something interesting or useful.

I'm not sure why you're explaining all these theories because I certainly didn't claim to understand them based on their names alone. Be honest, though, was your time well-spent being taught that humans operate partially on cost-to-benefit analyses? I doubt it, because I don't think you're that simple. I wasn't suggesting that every business operates the way that I said, either, I was saying that I don't need to know that model is called the "Classical" model to understand it. You're learning jargon (for my sake, look up the word before you whine that I'm being insulting). Jargon is helpful for deciphering things written in jargon, but the base of what you're learning (critical thinking, analysis, problem-solving, language skills, rhetoric, logic, and argument) are the base of half a dozen other liberal arts degrees, including English.

Your selective reading is irritating, though. I guessed that you haven't been exposed to the classical roots of modern theories. I was wrong. But I also followed up by saying that knowing Aristotle or Plato is not necessary. Frankly, I consider it to be contrived. I spent 3 months this year studying literary theory from Plato through to the German romanticists (roughly the mid-1700s). Do you know what literary theory in that ~2000 year period amounts to? A long discussion about whether or not allegory and metaphor are appropriate in both secular and religious literature. I wanted to stave my brains in because this is shit I'd been taught, in less explicit ways, since grade school. Mind, part of that is because of my Catholic education and, as such, the opinions of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas were a part of the curriculum, but knowing that they were building on the theories of Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, psuedo-Longinus, Horace, etc., and were followed by Dante, Locke, Goethe, Schiller, Kant, and Schlegel has been largely meaningless to me. That latter group at least added some more aspects that were somewhat interesting, but there was still a heavy emphasis on whether or not metaphorical language is appropriate in literature. The historical background served me none at all because I knew most of the arguments already, even if I couldn't attribute them to a particular dead white guy.

But, fine, if it bothers you so much, I'll take back my assertion that a communications degree is foolish and simply state that most communications students drive me to madness. Happy? For fuck's sake, I'm not saying that my degree is the best, it's just the one I'm taking because it suits my needs and aptitudes. I'm a polymath, I could get degrees in at least half a dozen distinct fields, so I opted for one that touches on as many of them at the same time and opens up the possibility to explore. My bias, therefore, is for broad rather than narrow fields for undergraduates.

Want to know what my original choice of university was? St John's College. I opted out because it was simply too small (I was educated in small schools all my life, I hate being recognized and, even on a campus of 60,000, people I never remember always remember me). Go have a look at what their program is like, assuming it hasn't radically changed in 10 years.

[Varizen]

Right. I'll just leave it at that. Other than yeah, It was a good way to spend my time because I enjoyed learning that stuff. That's why I decided to defend my major. I enjoy it. I actually woke up every morning excited to go to my classes.

[Fencer of Alexander]

lol you'd be surprised at how well sociologists do in terms of money, but i didn't say i hated philosophy. i prefer something solid if you know what i mean hence my firm belief in science and math, there is only one right answer! oh yeah and crus is right about the philosophy thing med schools look favorably on you completing with good grades their required classes along with a major you enjoy. and excel at. im a bio major lol i guess yeah its a cookie cutter major for pre med but i genuinely enjoy it and i dont want to take those stupid essay writing bullshit classes which lower ur GPA

I was formerly a pre-med and I can confirm this.

As long as you: Ace the BCP prerequisites (2 semesters of bio/chem/orgo/physics), ace the MCAT, and look like a "well rounded individual" you'll be fine. However, being a science major greatly helps you in achieving at least 2 of those 3 goals I just mentioned . In recent years, more and more schools are requiring an additional 2 semesters of biochemistry. Often times, taking them has become an understood prerequisite as more and more people are applying each year. So with all those science courses, might as well just major in a science field.

(Not directly replying to anyone here, just tossing my 2C)

As for me, I probably could have gotten in. I had a 3.8 GPA overall, 3.8 BCP GPA, 29 MCAT (9/10/10)... that is until I shadowed a few docs & volunteered at a hospital enough to know that the glamorous heroic TV portrayal of doctors is just that, an exaggerated image of reality. You need to have a REALLY good reason to get into medicine in my opinion, and money is not a strong enough reason to endure the expectations for UG, tearing your hair off on the MCAT, 4 years of med school suffering, and 2 to 10 years of additional sleepless overstressed times as an intern. If you want to make a difference and cure a disease.... go into research instead. Doctors are just highly paid drones of big pharma whose primary goal is to perscribe stuff.

Want to know what my original choice of university was? St John's College. I opted out because it was simply too small (I was educated in small schools all my life, I hate being recognized and, even on a campus of 60,000, people I never remember always remember me). Go have a look at what their program is like, assuming it hasn't radically changed in 10 years.

I think I applied there back in the day (1999, yea I'm ancient )... is this the school that bases its curriculum entirely on the great books?

[pathwriter]

That's the one, yes.

[Raigark]

THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC THEORY ARE NOT THE SAME THINGGGGGG

ARRRGHHHH RAGE RAGE RAGE WHY DO PEOPLE SAY SUCH DUMB SHITTTT

[Serataru]

i'm angry, but i'm not mad