Shouldn't I be in Poli-Sci?
No.
That's a question I get a lot, since I'm a History major, and most people expect that I should be in Political Science.
For a more experience-oriented explanation of why I'm not a Poli-Sci major, check Joel Fleming's weekly Poli-Sci tutorial experiences. I'll share some of my experiences as well some day, like when professors still talk about how the "Reform Party" is against immigration, multiculturalism and homosexuality.
Let me also offer a more general explanation. I've been in three Poli-Sci classes and I honestly haven't learnt a thing, besides the very theory-based stuff on the nature of the state, which I already knew, except I learnt more about specific theorists. I watch debate on CPAC every now and then, I read the news every now and then, I'm generally curious about the political process and I always have been, so I learnt absolutely nothing of any significance in my Poli-Sci lectures. Nothing. Also, term papers and other information necessary to get good grades is always slanted towards a liberal perspective. For example, the task of analyzing the benefits and 'challenges' of a 'social program or agenda' is a common task for Poli-Sci students, and it's here that they turn into the "true believers" of the Liberal party, after they learn about the greatness of healthcare, childcare or some other form of "care". When they're asked to look at 'challenges' facing specific programs, it's meant to imply that students should realize that more money is required to make Canada even more socialistic. High taxes or even the raising of taxes is never meant to be a concern, and why would it be? Writing a paper about tax policy is something economics students do, right? All Poli-Sci students need to know is that the Canadian government has an endless stream of money, designed to take "care" of everyone, from life to death.
History on the other hand allows me to actually learn stuff. I tend to walk away with a sense of humility whenever I encounter a good professor because I realize how much I still need to learn. Yes - history professors tilt leftward as well, but they're not offered a real opportunity to indoctrinate their pupils. Yes - they could be reflexively anti-American in their analogies and opinions, but most of the time, that doesn't really matter. And now that the Cold War is long over, history professors are unable to show blatant communist sympathies or biases. History is just something that's hard to teach with a lot of biases because history is generally agreed upon by most scholars and teaching something historically inaccurate could be easily recognized and exposed by alert students.
That's a question I get a lot, since I'm a History major, and most people expect that I should be in Political Science.
For a more experience-oriented explanation of why I'm not a Poli-Sci major, check Joel Fleming's weekly Poli-Sci tutorial experiences. I'll share some of my experiences as well some day, like when professors still talk about how the "Reform Party" is against immigration, multiculturalism and homosexuality.
Let me also offer a more general explanation. I've been in three Poli-Sci classes and I honestly haven't learnt a thing, besides the very theory-based stuff on the nature of the state, which I already knew, except I learnt more about specific theorists. I watch debate on CPAC every now and then, I read the news every now and then, I'm generally curious about the political process and I always have been, so I learnt absolutely nothing of any significance in my Poli-Sci lectures. Nothing. Also, term papers and other information necessary to get good grades is always slanted towards a liberal perspective. For example, the task of analyzing the benefits and 'challenges' of a 'social program or agenda' is a common task for Poli-Sci students, and it's here that they turn into the "true believers" of the Liberal party, after they learn about the greatness of healthcare, childcare or some other form of "care". When they're asked to look at 'challenges' facing specific programs, it's meant to imply that students should realize that more money is required to make Canada even more socialistic. High taxes or even the raising of taxes is never meant to be a concern, and why would it be? Writing a paper about tax policy is something economics students do, right? All Poli-Sci students need to know is that the Canadian government has an endless stream of money, designed to take "care" of everyone, from life to death.
History on the other hand allows me to actually learn stuff. I tend to walk away with a sense of humility whenever I encounter a good professor because I realize how much I still need to learn. Yes - history professors tilt leftward as well, but they're not offered a real opportunity to indoctrinate their pupils. Yes - they could be reflexively anti-American in their analogies and opinions, but most of the time, that doesn't really matter. And now that the Cold War is long over, history professors are unable to show blatant communist sympathies or biases. History is just something that's hard to teach with a lot of biases because history is generally agreed upon by most scholars and teaching something historically inaccurate could be easily recognized and exposed by alert students.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
10:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home