My fellow blogger, the distinguished evolutionary biologist David Barash, has come out foursquare against NOMA. This is the acronym invented by the late Stephen Jay Gould (in his Rocks of Ages), standing for Non Overlapping Magisteria. Gould was arguing that science and religion speak to different things—different Magisteria—and so essentially cannot come into conflict. In the theological trade this position is known as “neo-orthodoxy” (paying respect to the influence of Karl Barth) but, more generally, those who work on the interface between science and religion speak of “independence.” This is a nod in the direction of physicist-theologian Ian Barbour, who distinguished four ways in which science and religion could interact—conflict (the New Atheists would fit here), dialogue (a Thomist into natural theology would fit here), integration (Teilhard de Chardin and the process theologians following Whitehead fit here), and independence (the most notable exponent was the liberal theologian Langdon Gilkey).
Independence (as I shall call it) has been the basic position used in the past half-century by those fighting Creationists and Intelligent Design Theorists and the like. It was the official philosophy endorsed by the ACLU in Arkansas in 1981 fighting against a Creationism law (where I was an expert witness along with Gould) and also in the Dover ID trial five years ago. It is the position of Eugenie Scott’s anti-Creationism organization, the National Center for Science Education. It is also my position, as I argued in a recent book, Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in an Age of Science, and in a series of blog posts earlier this year based on that book (March 14, March 21, April 4, May 3, and May 23) . Basically, I argue that science is inherently metaphorical, that today’s science has at its core the metaphor of a machine, that metaphors rule certain questions out of court—not wrong, just not asked—and that it is legitimate for religious people to try to provide answers. Religious answers not scientific answers, about ultimate origins and purposes, about morality, and perhaps also about consciousness.
Gould was not a believer and neither am I. We both think that you can be an agnostic or atheist—I like the term skeptic. We recognize that of course science and religion can conflict. That was why we were in Arkansas. But our argument—my argument, let me speak for myself—is that much that conflicts with science is not traditional religion but (in the case of Christianity certainly) stuff added on, mainly in the 19th century for social and political reasons. (There is lots of historical material on this. You could start with my The Evolution-Creation Struggle.)
As so often happens with these sorts of things, those closest to each other are often the greatest enemies. Freud called it the “narcissism of small differences.” Members of Protestant sects are united on just about everything—justification by faith, hatred of the Pope, and so forth—and yet families are torn asunder over minute issues about infant baptism. In the case of people like me, those who endorse the independence option, our fellow nonbelievers are scornful to an extent equaled only by their comments about Pope Benedict. We are labeled “accommodationists” or “appeasers,” and reviled. Just earlier this week I got flak for suggesting that perhaps St. Augustine on original sin was not the last word on the subject and that a more evolutionary friendly interpretation can be found in the second-century thinker Irenaeus of Lyon.
I am certainly not accusing David Barash of such venom. Paradoxically, 30 years ago he and I were together the subjects of similar scornful attacks (by left-wingers including Gould) for suggesting that evolutionary biology might have something to say about social behavior, including that of humans. However, he does agree that independence is not a real option. He writes “the reality—at least in my not-so-humble opinion—is that anyone who claims to espouse both science and religion is being intellectually dishonest or else lazy, and is necessarily short-changing one perspective or the other.”
Now, because I have written so much elsewhere on the topic laying out my thinking, I don’t want to get into an argument here. I have even tackled the issue that Barash raises about different religions making different claims. (This is known in the trade as the problem of religious exclusiveness.) I want rather to raise another issue, about tactics. Barash and I are united in thinking that Creationism (and the rest) are religion, and that they should not be taught in the biology (or other science classes) of the nation—the publicly financed ones, that is. That is why I am in the battle, although I could not say anything that I do unless I believed that it was right. (That sounds preachy, but it’s not really.)
So my question (and it is a genuine one, to which I don’t have an answer) to David Barash is this. Suppose we agree to the conflict thesis throughout, and that if you accept modern science then religion—pretty much all religion, certainly pretty much all religion that Americans want to accept—is false. Is it then constitutional to teach science?
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution separates science and religion. (Don’t get into arguments about wording. That is how it has been interpreted.) You cannot legally teach religion in state schools, at least not in biology and other science classes. That was the issue in Arkansas and Dover. (I am not talking about current affairs or like courses.) But now ask yourself. If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want science removed from schools. I want an answer to my question, one which comes up because of the dictates of the Constitution. The independence position does not raise this issue, because it argues that science has no implications either way about religious claims. You cannot argue for the independence position because of that, but it is a point in its favor.
I should add that when I raised this worry with Eugenie Scott, her response was that I am just plain “dumb.” But while that may indeed be so, I am not sure that it is an argument. And I would like to see an argument, either from those who subscribe to the conflict thesis or from anyone else. Given the Supreme Court which we have, with its eager willingness to make up the laws as suits its right-wing agenda, given that some of its members (notably Scalia) are on record as thinking that a dose of religion in science classrooms would not be amiss, I cannot believe that something like this will not emerge from the Stygian Depths at some point in the future. Just as soon as they have made abortion illegal and denied health care to the poor of the nation.
29 Responses to From a Curriculum Standpoint, Is Science Religion?
rbh_iii - December 22, 2010 at 12:13 pm
“If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?”
Creationism doesn’t “imply it;” it makes an unequivocal claim. The reverse is not true.
And my bet is that Genie Scott called Ruse’s idea dumb, not Ruse. (Though over the last few years I’ve come to wonder about that last given the weird argument above that Ruse propounds these days.)
barbarapiper - December 22, 2010 at 1:53 pm
“But now ask yourself. If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim?”
If I recall my undergraduate philosophy correctly, Bertrand Russell dealt with the differences between these two kinds of claims perfectly well.
fizmath - December 22, 2010 at 2:03 pm
First of all, science does not imply the non-existence of God. Also, if any religion can’t be promoted in a state funded school then it also can’t be attacked. The only solution to these controversies is to have separation of school and state. The state should not be able to dictate school curricula. The children belong to the parents and not to anyone else.
redweather - December 22, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Is it just me who thinks so, or is there something rather unseemly about Chronicle bloggers plugging their own books?
And (I should add) that if the book is as fitfully argued as this blog entry, I hope students at FSU are not compelled to read it.
parkesia - December 22, 2010 at 3:43 pm
fizmath is correct. The object of science is not to disprove the reality of a supreme being, it is to better understand the universe (basic) and solve problems (applied). If scientific discoveries fail to provide evidence of a supreme being, so be it.
lslerner - December 22, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Pierre Simon de Laplace put it best about 200 years ago. He had published his magisterial Mécanique Celeste, which accounted in exquisite detail for the motions of the solar system. On ceremonially presenting a copy to Emperor Napoleon, the latter leafed through it and asked why, in so comprehensive a work on the heavens, there was not a single mention of God. Laplace replied, “Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.”
That is exactly the position of modern science, evolution included. Postulation of the existence of God is simply of no use in forwarding scientific knowledge.
rsmulcahy - December 22, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I think Michael Ruse should be able that answer on his own, just like anyone else can who puts two seconds of thought into it. You can claim science and religion are both “ideologies” but in what shape or form does science correspond to faith-based theology? It doesn’t,science claims nothing is true unless it can be empirically tested and re-tested and even then a scientist will always acknowledge that nothing can be argued to be more than provisionally true. A theory can always be disproved no matter what its validity appears to be at the moment. New evidence, new theories. Religion does not seek general truth, it seeks one big truth at the expense of all other possible truths. It does not seek to explore, religion seeks to close down thought and new ideas. Why would you seek new truths when you supposedly have the biggest truth of all. You don’t. So, I am a skeptic too, but I find the word game presented by Ruse to be vapid and uninteresting. Seems like a question that is designed to create a controversy and nothing more. In the twisted words of the bard, a question asked by “an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” As a follow up question, I suggest we get back to more tractable questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I am sure many Chronicle readers will have impassioned perspectives on that burning question also.
dboyles - December 22, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Science (qualified as ‘good’ science) does not attempt to establish absolute truth, but creates explanatory models of the physical world. Religion postulates things which cannot be verified (at least by the criteria scientists apply), many of which have little to do with the physical world, as explanatory and yet as lacking in proof as they may be.
Both can become dogmatic and usually are. Science education, in fact, is very dogmatic: there is simply no way for a student to perform every experiment that has led to our current scientific database in its enormous depth and complexity, including preforming those dead-end experiments which have been just as formative in shaping current scientific thought as were experiments having so-called ‘positive’ results. Students do not reinvent Dalton’s experiments and ‘rediscover’ what led him to discover the atomic theory (I will leave the last term–theory–for later discussion). Students usually accept verbal explanations, as well as being required to recite them in the best of science education, since transmission of knowledge requires recitation at virtually any level, classroom or research, in order to relate new knowledge to old. A great deal of ‘buy in’ is expected in science education, buy-in based on consensus models previously established. Buy-in = belief, where both are not based on personal experience but on transmission via language (who wants to reinvent Galileo?). I myself as a chemistry student found it much easier to learn undergraduate science once I viewed it simply as (reliable) indoctrination and moved away from nagging epistemological questions which in no way could be solved within the 4 year curriculum but which nonetheless led to a career of inquiry with that curriculum as a foundation for future inquiry.
Religion similarly requires buy-in on the part of its adherents. If one studies the actual history of how current beliefs or religious books came into existence, however, one realizes that simple dogma is not so simple, in particular since it has a complex historical origin that gave rise to its current form. This is no different than science. The difference is that lay people in science or religion accept the flattened-out, surface beliefs while scholars know that both science and religion at their very best are replete with contested theories in flux. Most opt for the simplified version adequate and sufficient for “faith and practice.”
But make no mistake, both science and religion remain mental phenomena, constructs originating with the human, without which latter neither science nor religion would exist. Animals do neither science nor religion.
So, is science religion from a curricular standpoint? From my own experience, yes, although their respectively different objects of study serve in large measure to distinguish them. Both rely on buy-in/belief/acceptance when practiced in their worst forms.
johnekap - December 22, 2010 at 4:50 pm
The premise is wrong. Science does not proclaim that “God does not exist”. Science is open to evidence that god exists. That evidence has not been forthcoming. I do not expect it to.
drj50 - December 22, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I think that one distinction is too often overlooked. It is one thing for scientists to say, “Let’s see if we can’t explain all of this within a framework of natural cause and effect, i.e., without reference to a divine being who creates or interferes in the natural world.”
It is another to say that “science [as conducted on the first understanding] disproves the existence of a divine being.” No, if you decide that you aren’t going to look for something, it is no surprise that you don’t find it. But not finding it is hardly “proof” that it doesn’t exist.
And it is yet a third thing to say that the scientific method itself (seeking to explain things within a closed chain of natural cause and effect) is incompatible with religious claims. The scientific method is only incompatible with religious truth claims if the the scientific method claimed to be the sole means of attaining to any truth. That strikes me as the point at which science makes religious claims and effectively becomes a religion (i.e., a point of view that offers a comprehensive and exclusive key to understanding all of life).
An analogy may help. In my decidedly limited understanding, economists attempt to explain things in terms of economic factors and they enjoy considerable success in doing so. But this does not mean that other factors do not influence economic systems (e.g., psychological, cultural, or religious factors). And, to the best of my knowledge, few economists (beyond perhaps a few die-hard Marxists) claim that economic factors and only economic factors explain all of human behavior. At that point, economics would stop being simply a method and become a kind of religion. And that is the point at which economics, or science, needs to be excluded from the schools if we are not going to discuss religion there.
Far better, in my book, to limit science to what it can do — increase our understanding of the natural world — and be honest with students and one another that there are competing views of the “big questions” like the origin of the universe, of human existence, and so forth.
dpbarash - December 22, 2010 at 5:31 pm
For what it is worth, I do in fact accept modern science and I believe, accordingly, that religions are false. But in the last four decades of teaching college and university-level science, I have never had occasion to opine either way about God. By contrast, I would submit that it is very difficult – perhaps impossible – for anyone to embrace religion without making some sort of “truth statements” about the material world. If such statements accord with what is known to science, then I see no conflict (but also, no need for the supposedly underlying religion); on the other hand, if such statements do NOT accord with science – likely because they imply something supernatural – then indeed, there is conflict and no “independence” … at which point Kierkegaard’s taunt becomes unavoidable: Either/Or. Not both.
stinkcat - December 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm
“Science is open to evidence that god exists. That evidence has not been forthcoming. I do not expect it to.”
Actually you mean scientist may be open to evidence that god may or may not exist. That may or may not be true, because scientists like all other humans have a variety of biases and I imagine that some scientists would still refuse to believe in god even if concrete proof were delivered. Of course, scientist have not really come up with what would be credible evidence in this hypothesis test. The whole area is fraught with measurement problems which keeps both believers and nonbelievers alike safely in their comfort zones.
stephenrankin - December 22, 2010 at 6:42 pm
“If ‘God exists’ is a religious claim (and it surely is)…”
I think the language in this statement is too loose. It is more accurate to say that “God exists” is a philosophical claim, because it is a metaphysical claim. Generally, religions don’t make claims about God’s existence, but rather about God’s nature and actions. They then embody those beliefs with practices, institutions and ethical behaviors that follow (ideally) from their theological beliefs.
Anyone who says that science disproves religion or otherwise eliminates the need for it is guilty of a category mistake, confusing science with (again) metaphysics. How does the rigorous, systematic, exploration of nature (science) lead to the claim that all there is is nature (metaphysics)?
We could reduce the tension of many of these religion/science disagreements by recognizing the philosophical nature of the questions, accepting their legitimacy and realizing that both science and religion often raise philosophical questions.
arrive2__net - December 22, 2010 at 7:04 pm
When I read Ruse’s article I wanted to ask for the definitions of the terms. Is “science” the scientific method? Theory>Hypothesis>Test>Theory>Hypothesis>Test… If so, it appears to me that its possible to go from church to lab to church..no problem. But perhaps he doesn’t mean the scientific method, perhaps he means the institutions of science…its writers, labs, foundations, institutes, power-brokers, educators, etc.
Is religion for Ruse a particular religion or some generic religious construct that doesn’t really exist? It seems to me that a religion could be constructed that would be compatible with science without being a science, because the two are not of necessity in the same business, but rather only come into conflict where religion makes the subject matter of science its business.
Consider the idea of a “miracle”. A miracle can only occur where there is some normal outcome which is highly expected, but doesn’t happen. The normal outcome is the province of science, which does not overlap with the miraculous, which it might call an outlier. For a miracle, science looks for the mechanistic cause, but the religious look for the spiritual one.
Science is about testing beliefs where religion is about not testing beliefs. In fact the Bible says “Don’t test God”. That is the inherent boundary between science and religion… But many human minds like to walk across that boundary to feel they have certainty, hegemony, power, comfort, or something. That’s where a conflict occurs with some people who are scientific, or religious.
I think the question regarding education is significant. Science has the power and importance to get into the public school curriculum … but supposedly religion does not. The religious are supposed to cover religion on their own time, but it would be a lot easier for them if they could just slip some into the public school, but how? Where? Conservative politicians would also like to slip it in there…but the constitution forbids it…so.. If religion actually were a legitimate subject in public school it would have to be there under its own name and power. If not, it should not be slipped in under the arm of a supposed conflict with science.
Bernard Schuster
Arrive2.net
twitter.com/Arrive2_net
dr_g_hurd - December 23, 2010 at 10:40 am
Ruse writes, “The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution separates science and religion. (Don’t get into arguments about wording. That is how it has been interpreted.)”
This statement is dumb. Literally- as Ruse for the first time in the history of philosophy wants to avoid speaking about the meaning of words. But we cannot mute the question of Constitutional interpretation. The “wall of separation” articulated by Jefferson regarding the establishment clause was used to reassure the Baptists (then a politically weak sect) that their religious practices would not be suppressed. But the State has suppressed many religious practices that were deeply held and ancient. Human sacrifice for just one example. So, the “wall” can be breached in the face of a sufficiently persuasive argument of “collective good.” Indeed, the efficacy of human sacrifice need not be even denied for it to be outlawed.
Even if I were to accept the rest of Ruse’s suggestion (which I don’t), teaching science would still be allowed under the Constitution as it contributes greatly to the common good in quantitative terms, and the potential metaphysical, or spiritual harm does not. As there are many who profess a religious faith while also affirming the basic tenants of science, I would argue that there is no demonstrated spiritual risk at all.
andrew_orr - December 23, 2010 at 11:48 am
I wonder if Thomas Kuhn had it right, or partially right, in The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions when he argued that science isn’t a neutral business of pure fact-finding, but a rhetorical enterprise, one that aims to persuade others to accept new paradigms of interpretation and scientific practice (I hope that is a reasonably accurate rehearsal of his thesis – haven’t read the books in years).
So is science a belief system, a rhetorical enterprise surely not identical, but similar, to religion? I don’t know, but if so, the juxtaposition of science vs religion is really just a false dichotomy.
I know how folks in non-scientific disciplines read and wield Kuhn, but I’m really curious as to how actual scientists read him. Is there anything to his claim that science is not so much a business of observation and demonstration but a matter of belief and persuasion?
dr_g_hurd - December 23, 2010 at 3:24 pm
I hope that Ruse will pay close attention to his colleague, Randy Passaniti of Shreveport, La. In today’s Shreveport Times, Mr. Passaniti wrote, “Naturalistic evolution is also a religious belief,” where he opines,
“But at the same time we should not be burdened by atheistic theology that by definition excludes a God who created the world and is involved with mankind. To teach evolution, and to hide its many problems or to fail to offer alternate explanations is for government to promote one view of reality, with its theological implications, over another.
Let me be clear, naturalistic evolution is a religious belief and the government is promoting it. I believe, like most Americans, God created the universe.”
So, maybe he should be tenured too.
raymond_j_ritchie - December 23, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Hurd and others are talking twaddle but it is understandable because to save time science is taught as a belief system. More of the history of science should be taught. It helps a lot in dealing with the accusation that science is merely a belief system.
Science is based on the axiom (we cannot prove it) that the universe is understandable by the human intellect by observation and experiment. Thus, Aristotle divided explanations of the world into scientific and non-scientific explanations. History shows it works. Religion is not science and cannot be dressed up as science.
Evolution by natural selection is the only viable scientific explanation for the origin of species including ourselves. No-one has come up with a better one. The religious explanation “God did it” is an explanation but it is not a scientific explanation and so has no place in a science class.
The nasty aspect of religion is that it offers complete explanations and hence tends to discourage impiricalist observation and experiment. As pointed out above “Anyone for experimental theology?” Old Testament stories about sacrificial wood piles being ignited as a result of appropriate prayers by certain people do not sound very conclusive today. What would Elijah have made of golfers getting zapped by lightning playing golf on a saturday?
American creationism has quite disturbing parallels with the Islamic doctrine of immediate causation which is the idea that god intervenes continuously in the operation of the universe. Thus the pencil fell to the floor not because of nature’s laws but because god willed it to do so at that moment. How many US creationists would agree? Immediate caustion doctrine was the death warrant of Islamic science about 1000 years ago. Try and maintain a scientific view of the universe under that doctrine.
The lack of curiousity generated by creationism is sometimes amusing. Creationist students simply do not read evolutionary articles in New Scientist, Nature or Science for the fun of it. They avoid reading articles or books about evolution because it offends them. The quickest way of spotting a creationist in undergraduate classes is to talk about dinosaurs. They never know anything about them and would not know a Saurischian from an Ornithischian and of course do not understand what birds are. The funny thing is that they do not click to what you are doing.
mbelvadi - December 24, 2010 at 5:50 am
It really muddies up an argument when the author, like this one, uses the term “religion” when what they’re really talking about is the specific beliefs of a particular family of religions, namely the Judeo-Christian-Islam dualist belief (and even more specifically, Christianity most of the time). Some branches of Buddhism and the monist branch of Hinduism (which most Westerners don’t even know exists) have absolutely none of the problems with science that Christians have. To keep talking about the conflict between science and “religion”/”religious claims” does a disservice to those religions and their adherents whose metaphysics are NOT contradictory to Western scientific belief.
cfauster - December 25, 2010 at 8:31 pm
David Barash alludes to Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or.” If I understand Kierkegaard, he would not object to Barash’s scientific study of human persons as long as the appropriately dispassionate, impersonal, and objective approach of science isn’t touted as the *only* way to access important truth about human persons.
Barash also seems to say that any truth statements which “imply something supernatural” would necessarily conflict with science. I think Michael Ruse and others have adequately argued that thoughtful theists who believe in a supernatural God can still avoid “God of the gaps” fallacies.
cwgardner - December 25, 2010 at 11:26 pm
I have not read the above comments, so forgive me if someone has said this. I think science actually does not make the claim “God does not exist.” Rather, it remains agnostic, and instead it says “We have no reason to believe that God exists.” The positive statement “God does not exist,” a so-called strong atheism position, *is* rather religious and probably would be unconstitutional to teach. However, to remain skeptical of God’s existence until we have reason not to is simply how we approach all premises in science, and therefore, this skeptical position is well within bounds of the public school curriculum.
Merry Christmas Michael! -Chad
goldeyes - December 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Perhaps we would all benefit from pondering a bit more on the thoughts of dboyles above. As a biologist teaching at a liberal arts institution, I have had the unique opportunity to actually listen to and learn from members of our Religion department (and believe me, it wasn’t easy for them or for me). When I first came here 14 year ago I was just as narrowly trained as most biologists, and so damn proud of my ignorance. I look back now with embarrassment at my dogmatic views — scoffing at Religion as nothing but unfounded beliefs and comfort-seeking.
Now I seek to “lay the foundation for future inquiry” for my students, I extol the virtues of a liberal arts education that values equally the humanities and the sciences. I want them to appreciate that what we do as human beings, regardless of chosen profession, is driven by cultural beliefs and norms. And I want them to appreciate the inherent ambiguity in life’s most important dilemmas. As William Perry pointed out in the 1980s, dualism exists at the lowest level of intellectual and ethical development. The battle between “science and religion” is fought by those who lack the tools and training to move beyond such dualistic views, “while scholars know that both science and religion at their very best are replete with contested theories in flux.” I want my students to be not only skeptics, I want them to be “open-minded skeptics.” As Perry noted, to construct knowledge one must purposefully reflect on prior knowledge, and constantly challenge current dogma.
I suppose it could be said that I “got Religion” (I’m agnostic, but why do I feel compelled to add that here?). The scholarship of the discipline has opened my eyes to the importance of understanding the human condition on a local to global scale — and why my eyes filled with tears as I dutifully stood by my elderly mother’s side at church on Christmas Eve and we sang the old hymns.
alqpr - January 1, 2011 at 6:11 am
With regard to the question raised in this post, rather than address a proposition of unknown meaning, such as the existence of something called “god”, let me simplify the question by imagining a religion whose articles of faith include the flat earth proposition. To teach that the earth is a sphere as a matter of unsupported fact would indeed be to advance one religious position over another and so should be unacceptable, but to point to various facts as evidence for sphericity, while perhaps making the flat earth faith more difficult maintain, would not actually deny it directly nor prevent a sufficiently ardent adherent from finding ways to hold onto it. So if science is taught properly it does not have to ever violate the proscription against taking a religious position.
aizpun - January 6, 2011 at 8:16 am
“Religious answers not scientific answers, about ultimate origins and purposes, about morality, and perhaps also about consciousness.”
Mr Ruse, do you mean that sceince alone is unable to explain consciousness?
How interersting!!
jack_l - January 7, 2011 at 6:28 am
” If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim?”
This is the same question as: “if collecting stamps is a hobby, why then is not collecting stamps not a hobby?”
And why should Science be bothered by my dillema if it is wise to collect stamps or not?
not4nothin - June 19, 2012 at 9:54 am
So then, if bullet points aren’t acceptable, tweeting student recommendations probably isn’t going to be happening any time soon?
ckieley - June 19, 2012 at 10:36 am
Was she writing recommendation letters?
IkeRoberts - June 19, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Oh, it will be happening all right. Long before it is acceptable.
KateMullet - June 19, 2012 at 3:32 pm
So from the people that actually READ and USE these things, what would the bullet points contain? B/c if I can write less and make it mean more, by all means, that is a win-win.
Same goes for graduate applications, but these have a higher expectation of intricacy, detailed examples, etc,…