<p>I'm a CS major, and I love the social sciences. I refuse to major in any of them because of the return of having a degree in a social science. To me, science is not that interesting. </p>
<p>Any of you agree that social sciences are more interesting to learn about than natural sciences?</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with being interested in multiple subjects, though one should at least be interested in one’s major subject.</p>
<p>Economics can be viewed as an intersection between social studies and math. Some courses in economics and finance may also help in a career sense if you are interested in quantitative finance or actuarial science.</p>
<p>I used to be, now I’m more interested in math/stats/economics/technology.</p>
<p>I like social science, somewhat. I think social theories and histories are very interesting. It’s just that when you get to the social aspects of contemporary civilization things get very political and I tend to get frustrated at how illogical humans can be. Science doesn’t frustrate me because it makes sense :)</p>
<p>I have an interest in urban sociology and urban planning, and public policy as it relates to the above. I would say I am more interested in these than the sciences, but not engineering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, politics often invades the realms of science as well. E.g. how origins of life are taught in schools, climate change, promotion of corn-based ethanol as being “green”, etc…</p>
<p>ken285,</p>
<p>I have a similar interest in urban and regional planning. I’ve considered it for graduate school. I also have an interest in economics. I have a personal interest in politics/government and so forth.</p>
<p>No because most of that “science” is liberal baloney forced down your throat as fact. The only more liberal artsy area I like is history, which is still tainted with opinions, but is still based on concrete happenings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are in social science courses where everything is presented as fact, then the professor is teaching the course wrong.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t understand what’s so bad about learning about subject areas where peoples’ opinions are involved. Why does everything have to be so black and white? Why can’t things be open ended and left for discussion and you can form your own opinion on the matter?</p>
<p>If you think about it, this entire CC forum is filled with opinions, and there are plenty of people who try to force their beliefs down your throat as fact. What’s the best major? What’s the better school? Should I do this or that? Nothing sounds concrete here.</p>
<p>
Unless you want to work as an urban planner, you can definitely still maintain your interest in these areas on your own without a degree in it.</p>
<p>@ken285</p>
<p>There’s no problem with opinions when stated so. However, most of my SS professors have been very reluctant to say “This is what I think, and it’s up for debate”, and instead go on a big ego trip and only present one side of the argument. For example, my economics course is absolutely LITTERED with conjecture about fiscal liberalism, but fiscal conservatism is brushed aside and not given a mention, despite it being mentioned in the text book.</p>
<p>Also, I’m not paying $12,000 a year for CC, but I am for a college that’s supposed to give me an education, not a one sided opinion.</p>
<p>It doesn’t sound like you’re really disagreeing with anybody then. It seems you have an issue with the teaching styles of professors rather than the actual subject matter.</p>
<p>Intervenient is correct. For example, my macroeconomics course was taught by a Keynesian professor. It’s a bit less hard, but not by much, to gather clear evidence for or against economic “theories,” as well as other social sciences. Unfortunately, most professors at universities are liberals.</p>
<p>My macro course was taught by a conservative. The overwhelming majority of economists are fiscal conservatives. You shouldn’t be making hasty generalizations based on your one experience.</p>
<p>^
Could you point out the “hasty generalization” I made? I said the majority of times, professors give a one sided view on their subject matter, regardless if it’s conservative or liberal. I’ve had a conservative professor for history who equally dismissed any liberal revolution that occurred. It’s just the majority of professors are liberal, so you get their one sided, often extreme, view points.</p>
<p>I do not know personally any conservative economists. I know my macro professor and a professor my organization has deliver an annual state of the union speech. I would be glad if most economists are conservative, but I doubt that is true. There are a lot of Keynesian economists, especially involved in this “administration.”</p>
<p>The designation conservative or liberal doesn’t mean anything. I look at the merits. It’s not a coincidence that the merits happen to be exclusively on one side.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol, do you think it’s a coincidence then that the majority of the most highly educated people on the subjects are pretty much exclusively on the other side?</p>
<p>Right. Because there are no highly intelligent people outside of academia. Education does not imply intelligence. Liberals are simply educated beyond their intelligence, in many cases. Academia just attracts liberalism. There’s a little more room for failed theories in academia and government than elsewhere.</p>
<p>
Make some friends.</p>
<p>
[N</a>. Gregory Mankiw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Gregory_Mankiw]N”>Greg Mankiw - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>He’s a fairly famous conservative economist. He probably wrote your introductory econ textbook. He’s served on the Bush administration.
Just like [Milton</a> Friedman](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman]Milton”>Milton Friedman - Wikipedia), who won the Nobel Prize in economics, was a famous professor at Chicago and served as an economic advisor to Reagan. </p>
<p>As much as you want to ride academia for being filled with liberals, conservatives are just as close with them. Ben Bernanke may be incredibly unpopular with his bank bail-outs and what not, but who appointed him? Republican president George H.W. Bush appointed him while Bernanke was a professor at Princeton. </p>
<p>
Fine, lets ignore liberal and conservative. Even then, its not a one-sided battle.
[Saltwater</a> and freshwater economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_and_freshwater_economics]Saltwater”>Saltwater and freshwater economics - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Failed theories in government (or academia) are hardly the monopoly of either liberals or conservatives.</p>
<p>“Keynesian” economics is one thing, but be sure to avoid “heterodox” economics at all costs.</p>