Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: Academic Majors and Minors
I'm going to be a Business major (Finance). That is a given. But I also want to study Pyschology or Linguistics, or simply take the easy joy-ride way out, and opt for a minor in history!
I'm facing a bit of a dilemma however. The universities which I am planning on attending either offer an excellent business program, or an excellent linguistics/liberal arts program, but not both.
For instance, if I went to California Polytechnic University - San Luis Obispo, I would be at a good business school, and one of the best schools in the nation for architecture and engineering, but their liberal arts is not so hot, and their foreign language department is limited to about 5 languages. If I went to the University of California-Santa Barbara, the business school wouldn't be so great, but their liberal arts program is terrific.
I've considered minoring in foreign languages, thus learning two new languages on a fluent level, or minoring in a specific branch of linguistics, like comparative analysis between languages or language groups. Minoring in Romance language studies or Germanic languages has always sounded appealing. The best I could do in this direction at Cal Poly SLO is minor in foreign languages and learn two languages of my choice.
Minoring in foreign languages would probably be my best bet considering I'll be a business major. An MBA fluent in three languages is a killer combination in the business world, especially in the U.S.
But I wish to know how much extra effort is required to take on a minor? Does the workload become intense? _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:43 pm Post subject: Re: Academic Majors and Minors
Porthos wrote:
I'm going to be a Business major (Finance). That is a given. But I also want to study Pyschology or Linguistics, or simply take the easy joy-ride way out, and opt for a minor in history!
That's interesting — so you've found that you have an interest in linguistics now then? That's good.
Porthos wrote:
For instance, if I went to California Polytechnic University - San Luis Obispo, I would be at a good business school, and one of the best schools in the nation for architecture and engineering, but their liberal arts is not so hot, and their foreign language department is limited to about 5 languages. If I went to the University of California-Santa Barbara, the business school wouldn't be so great, but their liberal arts program is terrific.
Five languages sounds about normal to me, and shouldn't be a problem if the department includes the languages which you want to do. One of the universities I applied to actually had only two languages in their department — French and German. If you want to do an unusual language like Estonian, then you'll have to go to an unusual university.
I don't know how it works at the universities you've looked at, but here it's very normal to have separate departments for 'Modern European Languages' and 'Oriental Studies'. This is probably because, for most British people, studying German is not very similar to studying Japanese, and it makes sense for them to organise themselves separately.
Porthos wrote:
I've considered minoring in foreign languages, thus learning two new languages on a fluent level,
Would you really be able to learn two new languages on a fluent level in (presumably) three years as a minor subject?
Porthos wrote:
or minoring in a specific branch of linguistics, like comparative analysis between languages or language groups. Minoring in Romance language studies or Germanic languages has always sounded appealing. The best I could do in this direction at Cal Poly SLO is minor in foreign languages and learn two languages of my choice.
Have you considered studying languages and/or linguistics for your major instead?
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:07 am Post subject: Re: Academic Majors and Minors
Porthos wrote:
I'm going to be a Business major (Finance). That is a given. But I also want to study Pyschology or Linguistics, or simply take the easy joy-ride way out, and opt for a minor in history!
But I wish to know how much extra effort is required to take on a minor? Does the workload become intense?
However are you going to find the time to study what with those two jobs you have!!
Is taking a minor going to be more intense... Well, it depends on 1) what you eventually decide on minoring in; 2) the number of units you're taking per semester/quarter; 3) how long you plan on being in uni, and 4) how good a student you are. I know quite a few people who had double majors, and several minors, but they were what's known as "career students". If you plan on being out of college in the standard 4 years, then expect an intense workload. Keep in mind, you still have all those GE courses to complete before you can embark on the bulk of your major/minor coursework.
Last edited by Elaine on Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:09 am; edited 1 time in total
It would be very hard to become fluent in two new languages in just 3-4 years, especially if it was just a minor...
Well, I've been neglecting to keep up on my Spanish. The only people I've been using Spanish with are some of my co-workers, so I've noticed that I'm starting to forget a lot of words and such. But I've been too busy to devote myself to any extra-ciricular studying, as I'm working two jobs and carrying on with school. So, I would take Spanish at university, and becoming natively fluent won't be a problem at all. That leaves one other language that I'll have to learn fluently, and that will probably be French. And French is not a very difficult language for me. So that won't be much of a problem. I would also like to learn German or Dutch but it's not a top priority, because learning these languages just wouldn't be practical for me. My favorite language is Italian and I really dislike Portuguese, although I love how much I can understand of it when written. But if I learn French, in addition to Spanish, Italian would be VERY easy to learn. I'm attacking Italian from both sides by learning its two closest languages, and the more important ones first. French and Spanish are more international languages than Italian, and French and Spanish are the only other languages of importance in my continent.
But hopefully I'll be able to drop one of my jobs within about 6 months, because I'm saving up about $400 a month, and at that rate, I'll have a car within a year. Afterwards, I won't have to save as much, and I'll only be investing about $100 a month.
Quote:
That's interesting — so you've found that you have an interest in linguistics now then? That's good
I like linguistics, just as I love economics, but I don't hesitate in thinking in practical terms when both in theoretical terms might be in conflict with practical sense. More specifically, I like languages, as they are tied to the peoples and cultures they arose from, and the development of languages is part of history. So I like LANGUAGES. Perhaps not so much linguistics. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
I'm from China, so needless to say, there must be lots of differences between the two countries' educational systems, but when it comes to certain subjects or courses--economics or finance, for example--they're about the same thing. If you're determined to learn finance (or economics), maths will be a critical factor. The development of modern mainstream economics is almost equivalent to the introduction of increasingly complicated maths tools. So if you want to learn finance, my suggestion is that you not let maths get in your way. If you find maths difficult, just leave more time to learn it. By learning it harder now, you save a lot of time in college and can take more majors and minors, learn more languages and come visit langcafe on a more regular basis!
That leaves one other language that I'll have to learn fluently, and that will probably be French. And French is not a very difficult language for me. So that won't be much of a problem. I would also like to learn German or Dutch but it's not a top priority, because learning these languages just wouldn't be practical for me.
So in what way would learning French be more 'practical' for you than learning German? I must admit that I don't know to what extent the existence of Québec and the Francophone Caribbean make French more important in California than German.
If you believe that French would be a relatively easy language for you to learn, why not learn German instead now that you have the opportunity, and then learn French later?
Porthos wrote:
I like linguistics, just as I love economics, but I don't hesitate in thinking in practical terms when both in theoretical terms might be in conflict with practical sense.
If you choose to study linguistics, then I'm afraid that you will have to abandon many of your preconceived ideas. I fear that this may present you with some difficulty.
Porthos wrote:
More specifically, I like languages, as they are tied to the peoples and cultures they arose from, and the development of languages is part of history. So I like LANGUAGES. Perhaps not so much linguistics.
The main alternative to studying linguistics in conjunction with languages is to study literature. This is why I have come across many people with Modern Languages degrees who actually know almost nothing about linguistics — because they spent almost their whole time at university studying literary texts written in French/German/Spanish/whatever. Does this appeal to you more?
So in what way would learning French be more 'practical' for you than learning German? I must admit that I don't know to what extent the existence of Québec and the Francophone Caribbean make French more important in California than German
If I learn a language, I want to be able to actually SPEAK it with someone, which is why learning Frisian would be pointless for a Californian like me. But in the U.S., unlike much of Europe, people are a lot more prone to leaving the area in which they and their forefathers hail from. It is not uncommon at all for an American from one state, to move to a different state 2-3,000 miles away. So if my career path takes me down the road of investment banking, I will most likely end up in New York, which isn't that far from Canada, and more specifically, Quebec.
Or if I opt for the International Business degree, and take that route, foreign languages would be very, very valuable. And from a business perspective, the most important languages would be those of our largest trading partners. As an American, our largest trading partners are the NAFTA members, namely, Canada and Mexico. So the three languages of importance are English, French, and Spanish. I rarely ever encounter a German speaker, and being that French is more of an international language, it would be more valuable.
Quote:
If you believe that French would be a relatively easy language for you to learn, why not learn German instead now that you have the opportunity, and then learn French later?
French would be easier for me because of Spanish. It's a lot easier for someone with a knowledge of Spanish to learn French than for someone with a knowledge of English to learn German. Besides, I like French more for a number of reasons. I already know far more French than German. French is a more romantic and sexy language in the eyes of the ladies. And I simply like the way French sounds more so than German. Also, French is a lot easier for me to pronounce correctly than German.
Quote:
If you choose to study linguistics, then I'm afraid that you will have to abandon many of your preconceived ideas. I fear that this may present you with some difficulty.
There's no need to "abandon" any of them. I know and understand the reasoning behind the opinions accepted in the linguistic community, but it doesn't mean I have to look at it from the same point of view. As for the British dialect spectrum, the linguists have a point. But for what you call dialects here in the U.S., I'm afraid I can't agree with you.
Quote:
The main alternative to studying linguistics in conjunction with languages is to study literature. This is why I have come across many people with Modern Languages degrees who actually know almost nothing about linguistics — because they spent almost their whole time at university studying literary texts written in French/German/Spanish/whatever. Does this appeal to you more?
Yes, I have entertained the thought. A lot of schools offer a minor in modern languages, whereby you must learn two languages by the end of your studies. This is what I was talking about in my original post. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
I rarely ever encounter a German speaker, and being that French is more of an international language, it would be more valuable.
Yes, I can see that French would probably seen as more of an international language from an American perspective.
Porthos wrote:
French would be easier for me because of Spanish. It's a lot easier for someone with a knowledge of Spanish to learn French than for someone with a knowledge of English to learn German.
I not actually so sure about that. Either way, I don't think that German is really as difficult (or as different from English) as you and many other native English speakers seem to assume.
Porthos wrote:
Also, French is a lot easier for me to pronounce correctly than German.
Why? Which particular sounds in German present you with significant difficulty?
Porthos wrote:
There's no need to "abandon" any of them.
If you wish to undertake linguistic studies, then you will need to get used to a rather different way of seeing language than your current views. It would be very difficult otherwise. In the same way that it would be difficult for someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible to study evolutionary biology effectively.
Porthos wrote:
I know and understand the reasoning behind the opinions accepted in the linguistic community, but it doesn't mean I have to look at it from the same point of view.
Wait a minute... so you understand the linguistic point of view, and you think you might want to study linguistics... and then continue not to look at it from a linguistic point of view? I don't understand.
Porthos wrote:
As for the British dialect spectrum, the linguists have a point. But for what you call dialects here in the U.S., I'm afraid I can't agree with you.
You will agree with me when you understand what the technical linguistic term 'dialect' means — an understanding which will be absolutely necessary if you are to study linguistics.
Porthos, I don't think having a minor is all that much more work. It's even less if your minor ties into your major somehow, so that a lot of the required courses for each overlap -- I know engineering majors who only had to take three extra math classes to get a mathematics minor, since there's o much math required in engineering anyway.
If you get an emphasis in international business, for instance, you may find that some of your classes may count toward both.
I would definitely choose a college based on what they can offer toward your major, though, and not worry so much about how strong they are in your minor subject. You won't be taking that many classes in it anyway, and you are bound to find good and bad teachers in all schools, no matter how they are rated.
(And I agree with you about linguistic theory -- you don't have to buy it to learn it.) _________________ An apple a day....
Yes, I can see that French would probably seen as more of an international language from an American perspective.
This is a motherhood statement: French wins German hands down throughout the world in terms of global stature.
Quote:
I'm going to be a Business major (Finance).
Do you plan to be a hedge funds manager? Why don't you study accountancy instead? _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
So essentially, you advocate taking a university course fully intending to disagree with it all?
I had to take theology courses in college, learn the various religious tenets, and use them construct arguments and inform my conclusions. I remained an atheist, though.
Generally in college, agreeingordisagreeing is not the real purpose of a class -- it's about being able to learn how to think critically about the subject. And plenty of good work and innovation has come from rejecting accepted wisdom in the field -- look at quantum physics and punctuated equilibrium. Both flew in the face of the theoretical frameworks of traditional physics and biology, and both have been borne out by further research -- despite their formerly heretical status. _________________ An apple a day....
So essentially, you advocate taking a university course fully intending to disagree with it all?
I had to take theology courses in college, learn the various religious tenets, and use them construct arguments and inform my conclusions. I remained an atheist, though.
Generally in college, agreeingordisagreeing is not the real purpose of a class -- it's about being able to learn how to think critically about the subject. And plenty of good work and innovation has come from rejecting accepted wisdom in the field -- look at quantum physics and punctuated equilibrium. Both flew in the face of the theoretical frameworks of traditional physics and biology, and both have been borne out by further research -- despite their formerly heretical status.
Fair enough, but I still don't understand why someone would reject linguistics outright in favour of what is essentially snobbery.
Porthos has essentially said that, although he knows and understands the reasoning found in linguistics, and although he actually wants to study linguistics himself, he still does not want to approach language from a linguistic perspective. He has not said that he disagrees with certain mainstream opinions amongst linguists and intends to justify this with further linguistic research. He has just said that he prefers to approach language from a viewpoint which he perceives as more 'practical' than linguistics (whatever that means).
To me, this seems bizarre, as do many of Porthos' attitudes towards linguistics — one minute he's wanting to discuss the diachrony, phonology and lexicology of Italian, the next minute he's saying that he actually prefers not to use linguistics for to study languages since he doesn't find it sufficiently 'practical'. This is an issue which he will have to resolve for himself: whether he is actually interested in linguistics, or not.
As of September, I will be studying linguistics for at least the next five years. I cannot imagine that I would have chosen that if I believed that linguistics was fundamentally a load of nonsense, or if I preferred not to use linguistics as a means of studying language for some reason.
Well, I tend to agree with a lot of what Porthos says about linguistics, and I myself would approach it from a different point of view (and with a little bit of a grain of sand regarding some of its basic assumptions). I don't think a healthy dose of skepticism is at all a bad thing. Especially in a scientific field -- you're supposed to always be skeptical, and demand proof -- or discard the notion.
Also, if you study the history of science, you will see that it has always been colored by the beliefs and attitudes of the people who practice it, however subtly, and often without any awareness that they were doing it.
Paleoanthropology in the 60's was dominated by the idea of human evolution being driven by hunting -- why? Because in every human society, hunting -- and modern social derivatives like business -- is a showy and high-prestige activity, usually practiced by men. And anthropologists were mostly male. This assumption led to all kinds of erroneous theories that have subsequently been discarded, but it also led to subtle data-collecting errors. You may remember Jane Goodall, the British primatologist. She was one of the first to actually study female primate behavior and its impact on group structure. Prior to her, most anthropologists ignored female behavior, since males were the showier, more dominant, and more demonstrative members of the group (and because they themselves were usually male) -- they thought females were noncompetitive, only served to reproduce, and had no influence on power structures or social strategy.
Physics was famously set back by none other than Einstein himself, who doctored his own equations when they didn't fit the facts then available at the time, because he would not believe where they were pointing, and absolutely hated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- because he felt that "God does not play dice with the universe."
Some of the more PC aspects of current linguistic theory can easily be interpreted as a natural offshoot of other modern PC trends -- as well as a backlash against the hierarchical prejudices of past researchers in the field.
So an open mind has to weigh all the variables. _________________ An apple a day....
Very interesting and very true. But although Porthos' ideas are both refreshing and food for thought, I don't see them as very challenging to linguistical theory, as they easily can be accomodated.
On the Stereotypes of various nationalities thread he wrote:
Quote:
I do consider grammar when I speak. When I was younger, and still developing my oral and especially written language skills, I had to consciously think about the rules of grammar before I spoke. Eventually, after years of learning and practice, proper grammar became natural to me. Every once in a while, I will use incorrect grammar and I will catch myself, and correct my mistake, or more than likely, someone will inform me of the mistake. Employers and teachers take proper grammar seriously here. It doesn't matter what region of the country you are from. All the rules of English grammar still apply, and in school or at work, or around anyone who is of average intelligence and has a basic public education, a person must still follow the rules of English grammar. Here, it is not concievable for someone to ignore the rules of language. There is no thought given it. They are just considered "wrong" if they use improper grammar.
What Porthos clearly is describing is register variation where he uses different registers in different situations, depending on the level of formality. Wikipedia has a very good definition and Porthos' description fits very well into it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28linguistics%29
What strikes Benjamin and me as unfamiliar is that he had to consciously strive to acquire his formal register. That's because I (and probably Benjamin with his RP too) presumably have less register variation than Porthos. If you ignore such things as subject-specific vocabulary, longer and less abridged sentences etc., I basically speak the same way when I speak to my family, my friends, in an academic debate and in a job interview. But I realize that for many other people, there is a big difference between how they speak with their "crew", with their grandmother and at university or their job.
This is not only because of the general acceptance of my and Benjamin's dialects in society, but presumably also because of social background. My parents are both 100 % native speakers and college graduates and I guess the same applies to Benjamin's parents. The interesting question we then have to ask Porthos is:
Does the same apply to your parents? If you consciously had to strive to master "proper English" (and praise to you for having done so!) I presume that "neutral, colourless" General American English wasn't the keukentaal* of the environment which you learnt your English in, or?
* For those who have forgotten it: Langcafé lingo for "kitchen language" or language of the heart. _________________ Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen. = Those who don't know foreign languages, know nothing of their own. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:18 am Post subject:
Fredrik wrote:
Very interesting and very true. But although Porthos' ideas are both refreshing and food for thought, I don't see them as very challenging to linguistical theory, as they easily can be accomodated.
On the Stereotypes of various nationalities thread he wrote:
Quote:
I do consider grammar when I speak. When I was younger, and still developing my oral and especially written language skills, I had to consciously think about the rules of grammar before I spoke. Eventually, after years of learning and practice, proper grammar became natural to me. Every once in a while, I will use incorrect grammar and I will catch myself, and correct my mistake, or more than likely, someone will inform me of the mistake. Employers and teachers take proper grammar seriously here. It doesn't matter what region of the country you are from. All the rules of English grammar still apply, and in school or at work, or around anyone who is of average intelligence and has a basic public education, a person must still follow the rules of English grammar. Here, it is not concievable for someone to ignore the rules of language. There is no thought given it. They are just considered "wrong" if they use improper grammar.
I think that the difference between what Porthos believes about language and what others (Benjamin and I, for example) believe is exemplified by the phrase I've highlighted. This and earlier comments of his indicate that he believes that if you don't use the standard language, you're using "lazy" speech that doesn't follow any rules.
Quote:
What strikes Benjamin and me as unfamiliar is that he had to consciously strive to acquire his formal register. That's because I (and probably Benjamin with his RP too) presumably have less register variation than Porthos. If you ignore such things as subject-specific vocabulary, longer and less abridged sentences etc., I basically speak the same way when I speak to my family, my friends, in an academic debate and in a job interview. But I realize that for many other people, there is a big difference between how they speak with their "crew", with their grandmother and at university or their job.
This is not only because of the general acceptance of my and Benjamin's dialects in society, but presumably also because of social background. My parents are both 100 % native speakers and college graduates and I guess the same applies to Benjamin's parents.
My way of speaking happens to be standard American English, because that's how my parents spoke. But my parents did not have similar backgrounds. My father's parents (and probably many generations before them) also spoke standard American English. But my mother spent her early childhood in Texas, and when she came to southern California in 1930 at the age of 10, her schoolmates and even her teachers made fun of her dialect. Naturally, with that sort of incentive, my mother quickly learned to speak the standard American English of that time (which some people would characterize as "correct" English), and became one of the worst speech snobs I've ever come across, always making fun of people (behind their backs, although she'd do it to her mother to her face) for not speaking "correct" English.
I actually do agree with what Uriel has said here. However, I still believe that Porthos' current views are inappropriate for linguistic study, and, as Fredrik said, do not pose any threat to linguistics in general. It's perhaps comparable to how 'Young Earth Creationists' (people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, such that the universe was created in six/seven 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago) do not actually pose any threat to evolutionary biology, even though some of them seem to think that they do.
Fredrik wrote:
What strikes Benjamin and me as unfamiliar is that he had to consciously strive to acquire his formal register. That's because I (and probably Benjamin with his RP too) presumably have less register variation than Porthos. If you ignore such things as subject-specific vocabulary, longer and less abridged sentences etc., I basically speak the same way when I speak to my family, my friends, in an academic debate and in a job interview.
Yes, the same goes for me. The only time when I consciously modify my speech to any significant degree is when I'm actually speaking French, German, Spanish etc. instead of English, or when I choose to imitate some other dialect of English either for my own enjoyment or as a demonstration.
Fredrik wrote:
This is not only because of the general acceptance of my and Benjamin's dialects in society, but presumably also because of social background. My parents are both 100 % native speakers and college graduates and I guess the same applies to Benjamin's parents.
Yes, that's true. Both my parents have degrees (my father has about five and is currently doing a PhD), as do their parents, with the exception of my father's father.
Fredik wrote:
The interesting question we then have to ask Porthos is:
Does the same apply to your parents? If you consciously had to strive to master "proper English" (and praise to you for having done so!) I presume that "neutral, colourless" General American English wasn't the keukentaal* of the environment which you learnt your English in, or?
This actually raises a very interesting point. Someone who (presumably due to societal pressures) has consciously had to learn so-called 'Standard English' may not be too happy to hear that from a linguistic perspective, this particular dialect is not actually superior to (i.e. not more 'correct'/'propper' than) the other many 'non-standard' dialects, because it may seem to suggest that their efforts have been wasted.
I actually wonder if the same may also apply to loic. I don't know how he grew up speaking, but I know that the vast majority of English-speaking Singaporeans do not speak like how loic writes in everyday life.
This actually raises a very interesting point. Someone who (presumably due to societal pressures) has consciously had to learn so-called 'Standard English' may not be too happy to hear that from a linguistic perspective, this particular dialect is not actually superior to (i.e. not more 'correct'/'propper' than) the other many 'non-standard' dialects, because it may seem to suggest that their efforts have been wasted.
From a linguistic perspective, yes, but in the 'real' world it's likely to be superior, regardless of what linguists have to say. I don't think that Porthos regretted having learned 'proper' English when he was out looking for a job.
Yeah, I don't think you can separate the social aspects of dialect from the structural ones. I think where linguistics got a little caught up in itself was in trying to apply "hard" science data -- examining rules and structure to see if they were in fact comparable across all dialect no matter how prestigious or not -- and then applying it to what is really a "soft" science issue: the reality of social structure and the role that patterns of speech play in it. Yes, the data confirms that all dialects are equally complex and consistent in structure. But that was never the real issue in the first place -- that was just a search for objective justification to a subjective issue -- apples to oranges, in my view.
But as I've said before, I think science is uncomfortable with subjectivity in general. It's difficult to quantify or reproduce under controlled situations. And because the scientific models started out in hard sciences like mathematics and astronomy and physics, where subjectivity often plays a limited role anyway, softer sciences have inherited that bias. But I think it limits their ability to deal with the full picture.
I remember learning that it was always a serious no-no for biologists to attribute any kind of emotion or thought process to animal studies, because that was an unknowable variable; the most they would allow a researcher to say was that the animal acted as if it were frightened or sad or happy. Part of this was very much a bias against animals even being capable of emotional lives -- and a fear of the researcher anthropomorphizing or projecting their own interpretations onto the animal. Now this is changing, as animal psychology is becoming more studied and emotions are known to be a primitive, not advanced, response.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
