As I was writing a post for my other blog (Letters to Nemo) I realized that one of the books I read as a young adolescent influenced my thoughts on relationships and men. That book was Sir Arthur Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur. It's a collection of stories of the Knights of the Round Table, so King Arthur's Knights.
"Knights you say? Pish posh!" True, some people think knights are stuff for legends and stories, something to tell children, or for studying history, but I can tell you that the knights still influence the way I think about the relationships between men and women.
The Knights had a Code of Chivalry which still influences the way gentlemen behave, and for me it helps me decide whom I refer to "sir" when I speak with someone close to my age. Strangely, I also call other women "sir", but that's a topic for a different time. I attempt to emulate some of the parts of the code, which I know makes others get really confused because it seems like I'm acting "too manly". I think that's unfortunate because if many more followed the Code then the world would probably be a much better place. (Okay, maybe I'm an idealist, but I can hope, right?)
So what does the Code have to do with relationships? EVERYTHING! Thus I choose live by that code, but some tell me that my standards for men are too high. I have only one thing to say about that: no my standard is not too high, I would much rather be by myself than be with someone who can't even treat another person as a human being and instead chooses to treats others at something. If I'm meant to live the remainder of my life with someone, then I hope it's someone who can hold himself accountable and is willing to do all the things possible to keep the marriage intact.
Le Morte d'Arthur taught me that at some point men were brave and responsible, they knew that they had a family to take care of and they would never let anyone bring dishonor to their family. True, there is some scandalous parts to the book, like the relationship between Lancelot and Guinevere, but the main part was that honor and character should never be compromised or else nothing else in life will ever matter.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
A Response to "College Majors That Are Useless" by Terence Loose
In the past week, an article was posted on Yahoo! about education, it was an article which argued about the uselessness of some majors.
The article in question can be found here.
Two of the five majors are more on the arts, which I can say nothing about since I do enjoy art but am not receiving an education in that area, plus it is a highly competitive arena. My concern is about the other three majors: Agriculture, Animal Science, and Horticulture. Part of my concern is because I chose Animal Science as my major before I even applied to college and the other part is because those three majors are very unappreciated by the general public.
First of all, agriculture can be said to be an umbrella term as it usually includes animal science and horticulture as a branch of agriculture. It's like saying Marine Biology is different from Biology, in truth it is just a more specific, more focused, area of biology; the same thing goes for animal science and agriculture or horticulture and agriculture. The author, Terence Loose, provides some statistics which is a plus, but it is important to remember that the interpretation of data is more important than the actual data.
"Useless" Major #1: Agriculture
As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, agriculture is a very broad term as in includes crops, meat production, research, amongst other subjects. Loose appears to be writing under the impression that agriculture is only about crops, which is a common misconception due to the lack of agricultural literacy by the general public. This means that as we become more attached to technology, there has been less and less interest in learning about food production, production of materials, production of textiles, etc. The people who major in Agriculture aren't going to just become your typical farmer, they may go into policy making or research to find a way to make a crop, for example corn, more sustainable and more efficient. By sustainable I mean that the crop grows in the same amount as, say 20 years ago, but with less resources and less impact on the environment. The agriculture major graduate may also choose to work with farmers to teach them new ways of farming that yield the same amount or more of product while using the same amount, or even less, of resources (water, land, capital, etc.) There is of course, the possibility that the person will end up working in a job where his or her degree is completely unrelated.
Loose uses the state of Idaho to explain his belief that agriculture is a useless major. He indicates that the University of Idaho has cut its agriculture major, which is unfortunate but it has happened, is an indicator of the lack of farms that are hiring. The fact remains that Idaho is just one state, and that there are still other universities that offer a program in agriculture and who possibly have even more farms and agricultural products than Idaho (such as California, which has a larger population and also produces many commodities that are not found elsewhere in the U.S., e.g. avocados). It is very well known that one cannot use just one example to explain a trend or belief because there is a possibility of a counter-example.
I commend Loose on his research to find statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The only downside I can see to it is that the census he uses is somewhat outdated (it's from 2007, which was 5 years ago). He also quotes the U.S. Department of Labor on the amount of jobs that will be available in the agriculture sector, which could be true, but that depends on the department's definition of agricultural jobs. Those jobs are likely to change over the course of the next 10 years as we continue to look for a way to cater to the public demands of sustainability, humane-treatment, and cost.
"Useless" Major #4: Animal Science
I feel offended because this is my major, and happens to be on the largest departments at my university, and it's very well-known for it's program in animal science.
Now then, Loose gives a glimmer of hope since he gives data which states a 13% increase in jobs within the animal science field, yet he quickly discourages the reader. He also quotes Laurence Shatkin, Ph.D.; Shatkin has, according to his LinkedIn profile, "more than 30 years' experience designing, prototyping, and developing books and software applications to guide people of all ages in getting information and making decisions, especially about careers and educational plans". If this is true, then I really hope Dr. Shatkin is keeping up to date on animal science and is capable of saying what animal science encompasses. According to Shatkin, animal science is very specific and the person with a degree in animal science would have a hard time finding a job.
Animal science encompasses the production of dairy and beef cattle, chickens and poultry, and goats, as well as genetics, aquaculture (the production of fish in a farming setting to meet the demands of fish consumers), the biology of companion animals (dogs, cats, gerbils and other rodents, rabbits, lizards and other reptiles), and some avian science. Without the expertise of animal scientists, the U.S. (and world for that matter) would have a difficult time finding a solution to feeding the millions of people on earth now and in the future and there is the possibility of lack of fibers for clothing. Without fibers, the textiles and fashion industry would have some difficulties.
As mentioned in the agriculture section, animal science is trying to find a solution to feeding every person on the globe; a daunting and difficult task that needs to be done if humans are to continue living. If animal science really was too specific, then we would have seen a decline in the number of jobs available to someone with that major. However, the jobs available to someone with an animal science major tend to be fairly broad ranging from a job as a park ranger to a groomer to a geneticist to policy-making.
"Useless" Major #5: Horticulture
Horticulturists know a lot about plants, and can even help in landscape architecture! Again, Loose connects horticulture to agriculture (with support from Shatkin), but they also know about plants from around the world. If it weren't for horticulturists, parks would have a difficult time existing, as would public gardens. Every non-profit garden has likely had (or currently has) at least one horticulturist so that planning of landscapes goes well. One such example is the San Diego Botanic Garden in Encinitas, CA. They had two horticulturists the last time I checked (sometime in the last year) and one of them keeps up to date on news within the sector of plants.
Plant diseases? Talk to a horticulturist. Trying to plan a new garden? Chances are that you'll consult a horticulturist and not know you are doing so.
In conclusion, Loose presented an arguement which appears to be using a thinking system in which money is the objective and in which one has forgotten the importance of farmers and the agricultural lifestyle. If you have food on your table and clothes on your back, be thankful for the farmers that provide you these commodities. If you buy organic and locally grown foods, be thankful for the advances in agriculture. More importantly, learn and spread the word about the importance of agriculture because although an old trade, it is a necessity by every human being on this planet.
The article in question can be found here.
Two of the five majors are more on the arts, which I can say nothing about since I do enjoy art but am not receiving an education in that area, plus it is a highly competitive arena. My concern is about the other three majors: Agriculture, Animal Science, and Horticulture. Part of my concern is because I chose Animal Science as my major before I even applied to college and the other part is because those three majors are very unappreciated by the general public.
First of all, agriculture can be said to be an umbrella term as it usually includes animal science and horticulture as a branch of agriculture. It's like saying Marine Biology is different from Biology, in truth it is just a more specific, more focused, area of biology; the same thing goes for animal science and agriculture or horticulture and agriculture. The author, Terence Loose, provides some statistics which is a plus, but it is important to remember that the interpretation of data is more important than the actual data.
"Useless" Major #1: Agriculture
As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, agriculture is a very broad term as in includes crops, meat production, research, amongst other subjects. Loose appears to be writing under the impression that agriculture is only about crops, which is a common misconception due to the lack of agricultural literacy by the general public. This means that as we become more attached to technology, there has been less and less interest in learning about food production, production of materials, production of textiles, etc. The people who major in Agriculture aren't going to just become your typical farmer, they may go into policy making or research to find a way to make a crop, for example corn, more sustainable and more efficient. By sustainable I mean that the crop grows in the same amount as, say 20 years ago, but with less resources and less impact on the environment. The agriculture major graduate may also choose to work with farmers to teach them new ways of farming that yield the same amount or more of product while using the same amount, or even less, of resources (water, land, capital, etc.) There is of course, the possibility that the person will end up working in a job where his or her degree is completely unrelated.
Loose uses the state of Idaho to explain his belief that agriculture is a useless major. He indicates that the University of Idaho has cut its agriculture major, which is unfortunate but it has happened, is an indicator of the lack of farms that are hiring. The fact remains that Idaho is just one state, and that there are still other universities that offer a program in agriculture and who possibly have even more farms and agricultural products than Idaho (such as California, which has a larger population and also produces many commodities that are not found elsewhere in the U.S., e.g. avocados). It is very well known that one cannot use just one example to explain a trend or belief because there is a possibility of a counter-example.
I commend Loose on his research to find statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The only downside I can see to it is that the census he uses is somewhat outdated (it's from 2007, which was 5 years ago). He also quotes the U.S. Department of Labor on the amount of jobs that will be available in the agriculture sector, which could be true, but that depends on the department's definition of agricultural jobs. Those jobs are likely to change over the course of the next 10 years as we continue to look for a way to cater to the public demands of sustainability, humane-treatment, and cost.
"Useless" Major #4: Animal Science
I feel offended because this is my major, and happens to be on the largest departments at my university, and it's very well-known for it's program in animal science.
Now then, Loose gives a glimmer of hope since he gives data which states a 13% increase in jobs within the animal science field, yet he quickly discourages the reader. He also quotes Laurence Shatkin, Ph.D.; Shatkin has, according to his LinkedIn profile, "more than 30 years' experience designing, prototyping, and developing books and software applications to guide people of all ages in getting information and making decisions, especially about careers and educational plans". If this is true, then I really hope Dr. Shatkin is keeping up to date on animal science and is capable of saying what animal science encompasses. According to Shatkin, animal science is very specific and the person with a degree in animal science would have a hard time finding a job.
Animal science encompasses the production of dairy and beef cattle, chickens and poultry, and goats, as well as genetics, aquaculture (the production of fish in a farming setting to meet the demands of fish consumers), the biology of companion animals (dogs, cats, gerbils and other rodents, rabbits, lizards and other reptiles), and some avian science. Without the expertise of animal scientists, the U.S. (and world for that matter) would have a difficult time finding a solution to feeding the millions of people on earth now and in the future and there is the possibility of lack of fibers for clothing. Without fibers, the textiles and fashion industry would have some difficulties.
As mentioned in the agriculture section, animal science is trying to find a solution to feeding every person on the globe; a daunting and difficult task that needs to be done if humans are to continue living. If animal science really was too specific, then we would have seen a decline in the number of jobs available to someone with that major. However, the jobs available to someone with an animal science major tend to be fairly broad ranging from a job as a park ranger to a groomer to a geneticist to policy-making.
"Useless" Major #5: Horticulture
Horticulturists know a lot about plants, and can even help in landscape architecture! Again, Loose connects horticulture to agriculture (with support from Shatkin), but they also know about plants from around the world. If it weren't for horticulturists, parks would have a difficult time existing, as would public gardens. Every non-profit garden has likely had (or currently has) at least one horticulturist so that planning of landscapes goes well. One such example is the San Diego Botanic Garden in Encinitas, CA. They had two horticulturists the last time I checked (sometime in the last year) and one of them keeps up to date on news within the sector of plants.
Plant diseases? Talk to a horticulturist. Trying to plan a new garden? Chances are that you'll consult a horticulturist and not know you are doing so.
In conclusion, Loose presented an arguement which appears to be using a thinking system in which money is the objective and in which one has forgotten the importance of farmers and the agricultural lifestyle. If you have food on your table and clothes on your back, be thankful for the farmers that provide you these commodities. If you buy organic and locally grown foods, be thankful for the advances in agriculture. More importantly, learn and spread the word about the importance of agriculture because although an old trade, it is a necessity by every human being on this planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)