College of Humanities and Sciences

I'd like to hear some opinions on the College Of Humanitites And Sciences. My search came up with only a few brief mentions, most recently in the Classics study thread.

It seems to me to be largely a customizeable program, which appealed to me as it would allow me to delve into varied disciplines centered around a certain time period rather than vice versa if I chose. As a side note, this is for my own enjoyment as opposed to career-related, so the NA/DETC status is not a big deal.

Thanks so much for all the helpful information as well. This forum has become a daily stop for me.

 

It is a first-rate institution that has been mentioned -- and praised -- around here before. As I recall, Rich Douglas is a fan. I'm a fan. Several others, here, are as well.

In my case, if I could ever find the time to do justice to the Master of Arts in Jurisprudence, I'd begin it in a heartbeat. I am determined to find a way to fit in it someday, somehow.

CHUMSCI is an excellent example of just how good a nationally-accredited institution can get. It's easily on par with most any regionally-accredited institution; and I love its Great Books underpinning.

This school is a winner... no question about it.

 

What an absolutely cool looking program.....

I've never heard of this school but it really looks neat. I love that Cornerstone Course: The Great Conversation, what a good idea. Although, I wonder why not just do it on a chat board?

All the Masters programs look good, but the Masters of Science where you develop your own curriculum and follow it to completion....it's brilliant. I’m truly impressed. Someone should write a book “the Most Unique and Impressive Institutions of Distance Education 2006”…..Since being here I’ve found about a half dozen of them that just awe me.

Edited to ask:

Gregg, would an MA in Jurisprudence be a degree for someone like a politician? It looks like a philosophy of law degree but without the JD.

Perhaps akin to the MPA but without the mechanics of running a budget, management or anything like that, instead focusing upon public policy?

 

Thanks so much! You have both hit on the two programs that struck me as well. The Jurisprudence program looks very interesting, and the Natural Sciences program seems to cover an area that few others have - the chance to crawl around inside the brains of the likes of DaVinci, Galileo, etc.

Now to decide....

Thank you again,

 

Don't forget Aristotle, Democritus, Stephen Hawkins, Albert Einstein....oh man...there's so much potential.

 

I've only done a brief scan of the grad programs and there are some interesting offerings. The cost is not great but not terrible either. Overall it seems to be a gem in the rough.
Jack

 

You are correct...at $275 an hour it's not what I'd call a "steal" but still not terribly expensive for graduate school.

I think the uniqueness of the program is it’s strength.

 

Practicing scientists and engineers actually tend to disapprove of "Great Books" curricula. This attitude is summed up by a famous Louis Agassiz quote (which is framed on the library wall at the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole):

"STUDY NATURE, NOT BOOKS"

The point is that the natural phenomena should be studied directly (through observation and experiment) rather than indirectly (through the writings of other scientists, no matter how eminent).

 

I understand the sentiment, but disagree with it. I am not so bright as to be able to duplicate the discoveries of the great ones....Einstein, Hawkins, etc.....so I recommend hitting the books...getting a good base and build from that. Or you can tread ground that's already been discovered.

Hey everyone...I just discovered gravity.

 

Discussed here before. An excellent accredited distance learning Great Books school.

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19225
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8070
http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7219

 

Hi Ted: Please go to the ac/unac forum. Mr Horthy needs your help finding a thread.


______________________



OK, back to topic.

 

Actually, getting a solid grip on what any of CHUMSCI's degrees are really all about first requires understanding the whole "Great Books" phenomenon... Mortimer Adler/Robert Hutchins and all their cronies... what they eventually called "the Great Discussion" (not to be confused with such as what we do around here)... how it all then evolved into a specific set of books that Adler, et al, believe everyone who wants a "proper" liberal arts education should read, and in a certain order, over a prescribed period of time... how, eventually, said books became a product called "The Great Books" sold by the Encyclopaedia Britannica people... etc., etc., etc.

From the Great Books Foundation web site:

• "More than fifty years ago two educators at the University of Chicago launched the Great Books movement. Robert Maynard Hutchins, then president of the university, and professor Mortimer Adler, a prolific author and 'public intellectual' long before the phrase had been coined, shared a vision of book discussion groups in which passionate readers could meet and talk about enduring issues and ideas. The Foundation was established in 1947, and the movement grew. Today it comprises upward of 850 groups meeting in homes and libraries across the counrty, with thousands of adult participants."

So you can see there's a whole "movement" -- not a "cult," mind you, or anything even remotely like that... but, simply, a bona fide "movement" -- sort of aspect to it, too. There is, I guess I'm saying, such a thing as "Great Books Groupies," for lack of a better way of describing them.

CalDog, by his post, clearly knows what it's all about and would at least appear to be one of the many (and there are, indeed, many) who don't think it's a particularly good approach... at least not if what's being studied is even remotely related to the sciences. In fact, Adler, et al, have been both highly praised, and roundly criticized, over the years for the whole "Great Books" thing and all associated therewith... and not without some good reasons, so CalDog, et al, have some very valid points. One needs to properly research it to come to one's own conclusions. Personally, I like the whole "Great Books" thing, but that's just me.

A number of colleges/universities have sprung-up -- both nationally- and regionally-accredited -- which base their entire currcula around "The Great Books" and "The Great Discussion" and that whole literary/philosohical world. Some of those institutions are frighteningly good at what they do, others could be better; but all buy-in to the whole Adler, et al, way of thinking and learning; and, for what it's worth, they tend to turn out some pretty darned good graduates... especially if they graduate with bachelors degrees from such schools. The cream of the "Great Books" crop, in my far-from-humble opinion, is St. John's College, with campuses in both Annapolis, MD and Santa Fe, NM. However, St. John's is not a distance learning institution, nor offers distance learning opportunities... by intentional design.

Another one that isn't distance learning based, but which is easily as good as -- maybe even better than -- the St. John's program is the University of Chicago offering... good if for no other reason than that's where the whole "Great Books" thing all began, so one may reasonably assume they get it right.

Other reputable college "Great Books" or "Great Discussion" or "Great Ideas" or "Great Texts" or "Great Works" programs -- nearly none of them via distance learning -- may be found here. A list of other schools which may or may not have a formal "Great [fill-in-the-blank]" program, but which have an umbiguously Great Books-influenced approach to their liberal arts offerings may be found here.

In fact, accredited distance learning opportunities from Great Books-based schools are uncommon... rare, even. That's one of the reasons I like CHUMSCI: It offers not just high-quality distance learning opportunities, but high-quality distance learning opportunities that are based on the "Great Books/Great Discussion" approach to teaching and learning. There is one other distance learning Great Books program which isn't accredited, but which is at least ACE-approved, so its coursework tends to be transferrable into many (certainly not all, but at least many) regionally-accredited undergraduate programs... click here for that.

The hands-down best place to get introduced to the whole "Great Books" thing, and to learn, from there, what it's all about and become really immersed in it is right here. That's the place to start. All else one needs to know about it will flow from there. That said, be sure to use Google to search for the opinions of Adler's, and the Great Books approach's, many critics to see what that's all about, too. CalDog's post gives you just a small glimpse into what the anti-Adler/Great-Books people have to say. Be sure you get both sides of the argument.

As for the CHUMSCI MA in Jurisprudence being "a degree for someone like a politician;" or looking "like a philosophy of law degree but without the JD;" or being "[p]erhaps akin to the MPA but without the mechanics of running a budget, management or anything like that, instead focusing upon public policy," the bottom line is that it's pretty much a philosophy degree; very academic, not particularly vocational... or even practical, for that matter.

The CHUMSCI MA in Jurisprudence would not make a good lawyer or public servant "better" in the same sense as this regionally-accredited Master in Legal Studies: Law and Public Policy degree quite likely would. In fact, that degree from CUPS is my personal favorite of its type; and would be my choice/recommedation for anyone seeking a masters in law (which is not an LLM), legal studies or public policy for lawyers and public employees, just generally... and, sure, maybe even politicians, too... although I've met very few politicians who could actually be "taught" much of anything...

...but that's a rant for another place and time.

 

Well that clears up quite a bit. I'm looking into the great books thing, it kind of looks like even a hobby for a lot of people. I think if I find time I may look into it more deeply. Not as an academic venture, but just learning for learnings sake.

 

The "Great Books" approach may be a perfectly viable -- and perhaps excellent -- choice for students planning careers in business, law, or education. It is probably not the best choice for those planning careers in science, medicine, or engineering.

 

Maybe you can rediscover the epicycle ;-)

My brother went to St. John's. Even though he was a staunch anti-Straussian, he still defended his study of Ptolemy there: When I rolled my eyes he said, "What? It's studying the structure of a mode of thinking" or something like that.

From what little I know of math, I'd say if you're going to study books, not nature, study the best contemporary ones.

First of all, the development of perspicuous notation cost many centuries of labor; you get it for free. Then you don't kid yourself that you're learning the subject when you're just doing a lot of work learning to read about it.

Second, insights that become available after and thanks to the work of the Titans make their work easier to understand and put it on a rigorous footing. If you studied calculus by reading Newton, you'd be pulling out twice as much hair to get an inferior version.

 

Great explanation, DesElms. And yes, I have to agree that a Great Books-based education is perhaps not suitied to scientists and engineers as they need practical, hands-on experience and the latest discoveries. It is, as Des Elms pointed out, more of a philosophical approach.

Given the shortage of distance history masters, this may well be worth looking into. It would allow you to pick your time period and focus, unlike AMU which is heavy on the military history - and which just recently seems to have reduced its concentrations to only American or European history. There used to be several more.

 

Yes... I didn't mean to single you out. I was just citing your completely valid criticism of the Great Books approach as one that is representative of but one of the opinions of Adler, et al's, critics... and a particularly good one, along with 3$bill's, I might add.

Make sure, if you're going with CHUMSCI, that a nationally-accredited (and not a regionally-accredited) masters is your best choice. Only you know how you'll one day use it; and be careful not to make the mistake of making a decision based on your life situation now which may not be appropriate someday if your life situation changes. Life's long. Many things happen that no one could have ever anticipated. If you think there's even the remotest possibility that you might one day wish your masters were regionally accredited, then getting a nationally-accredited one now may not be such a good idea. Just open your mind to the unexpected before you plunk down your money and enroll.

Also -- and this is important -- read carefully the post that 3$bill just made. Make sure you get his points, because they're really good ones.

 

The great books approach naturally lends itself to the history of ideas. That might be one of the better ways to approach the humanities subjects like philosophy, literature or religion.

But I'm not sure that it's the best choice for any field in which the emphasis is on a technical familiarity with the contemporary state of the art. I'd question how well it lends itself to law or finance.

Turning to College of the Humanities and Sciences' MA in Natural Science, I have to say that I like it.

http://www.chumsci.edu/pages/degree/m_NatSci.asp

But once again, I like it as a history of science program. If you treat it as a technical masters degree in a science subject like astrophysics or molecular biology, it will fall flat on its face. But it does have validity in its own terms.

Here's what they say:

In the Master of Arts in Natural Science students do an in-depth study of authors of Natural Science and the ideas they write about. For example, students may include, but are not limited to, the following great ideas: animal, astronomy and cosmology, being, cause, element, evolution, form, induction, knowledge, logic, mathematics, matter, mechanics, metaphysics, mind, nature, physics, quality, quantity, relation, science, sense, space, time, universal, and particular, and world. Students may choose, but are not limited to, the following great authors of Natural Science: Hippocrates, Galen, Euclid, Archimedes, Nicomachus, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Gilbert, Galileo, Harvey, Newton, Huygens, Lavoisier, Faraday, Darwin, William James, Freud and authors of 20th Century Natural Science.

They might be best advised to rename this program 'History of Natural Science' in order to avoid misunderstanding.

 

Yes, exactly... what Bill said. I would agree with his point about the utility of such a degree in law, except if, similar to the point he's making about the MA in Natural Science, one's interest would be the history of jurisprudence... and, I would argue, the historical philosophy of it, as well. It might, for example, make an excellent -- or at least an interesting, even if impractical for professional purposes -- masters for someone with an undergrad in criminal justice.

 

When I suggested that the "Great Books" approach might be viable for those considering careers in law or finance, I was thinking in terms of "pre-professional" study. In other words, a student planning an eventual career in law or business might profit from a "Great Books" undergraduate program before pursuing a JD or MBA.

I agree that the "Great Books" approach would not be well suited for a JD or MBA program. But it might well succeed as a pre-law or pre-business program. I would suspect, for example, that St. John's College probably has an excellent law school placement rate.