<p>It is clearly true that not all liberal arts subjects are alike. On the other hand, you can make certain general statements. For example, on average, liberal arts subjects are less difficult than engineering subjects. Note, I said, on average. Obviously there are some liberal arts subjects that are more difficult than some engineering subjects. On the other hand, the generalities still hold. I think there is very little dispute about that.</p>
<p>And I would posit the question - why is it that liberal arts subjects are, on average, more difficult than engineering subjects? Why should it be that way? </p>
<p>And I think the real problem with liberal arts is that while it is clearly true that there are some quite rigorous majors in there, I think what ruins it is that there are also some very very unrigorous and, quite frankly, creampuff majors in liberal arts. There are some easier engineering majors out there as well, but the fact is, even the easiest engineering major tends to be far far more difficult than the easiest liberal arts major. I am not going to name those majors at this time, but I think it is well known among Princeton students what those majors are - those majors where you can get away with doing almost nothing and still get top grades. </p>
<p>And the unfortunate reality is that the presence of those do-nothing majors make the entire gamut of liberal arts majors look bad. It's an unfortunate reality of life that just a couple of bad actors can make an entire group look bad. They ruin it for everybody else. When the Princeton electrical engineering students see other students who are majoring in fluff who are sitting around, doing nothing, and getting better grades than they are getting, that inevitably causes resentment not only at the fluff majors, but at liberal-arts in general. I believe part of Princeton's new grading policy is an attempt to alleviate some of that resentment.</p>
<p>Are we way off point here? Why are you worried about engineering students' success in applying to medical or law school? What rational person, aiming for medical or law school, would major in engineering? Of course you want to major in something easy. Of course you want plenty of time to study the required courses (medical school) and ace them. Of course you want to get top grades for your law school application. On the other hand, what are you going to learn in an engineering major that would be even remotely useful for medicine or law?</p>
<p>Engineering students, the sane ones, apply to graduate schools in engineering, where they compete against other engineers. No liberal arts majors in the pool. Sometimes they apply in chemistry, physics, and other hard science, again competing against people who took enough courses in these fields to be ready for graduate school. With grades to match.</p>
<p>So why should engineers care whether the liberal arts majors do less work, get higher grades, and get into graduate school in comparative literature more than the engineers? </p>
<p>What rational person would go to MIT or Caltech with a goal of law school? At non-technial schools, the sane engineers are not in competition with the humanities majors. The few engineers who have no idea why they are majoring in engineering are in for a rude awakening- anywhere, not just at Princeton.</p>
<p>I don't think it's missing the point in the least. </p>
<p>The question is, do you believe that med-school and law-school admissions should be a game? Not whether it is a game, we both know that it is a game. The question is, should it be a game? In other words, do you support the notion that people who want to go to med/law-school are going around cherry-picking certain classes not because they actually want to learn something, but just because they're easy and give lots of high grades? For example, I knew one guy who spoke fluent French (he was from Quebec City), but took the entire sequence of introductory French classes. So there he was in classes where a lot of other people didn't speak a word of French and were trying to learn, and he was a fluent speaker. He didn't learn a darn thing in those classes that he didn't already know - but he didn't care. He just wanted to rack up a whole bunch of easy A's to look good to law schools. Do you think that's the way it should be? Do you support the notion of people racking up EC after EC after EC not because they care about any of them, but just to make themselves look good to law/med-schools? For example, I knew one guy who 'volunteered' at a hospital, and basically, tried to spend his entire time there doing email and playing video games, and doing the absolute bare minimum of actual work. But when it came to his med-school application, he was able to put down that he 'volunteered' at a hospital. Do you think that's the way it should be? </p>
<p>If your answer to all of the above questions is 'Yes, you think that's exactly the way it should be", then fair enough, you support the game. So if none of that stuff seems at all unseemly or slimy or pervese to you, then fair enough, you support the game.</p>
<p>But if any of that stuff seems even a little bit out of bounds, then you have to admit that there is something wrong with the system. I think that most people believe that law schools and med-schools should be interested in getting the best students out there, not necessarily the people who managed to game the system the best. </p>
<p>Besides, I'll put it to you this way. You ask what could anybody possibly learn in engineering that would be useful in law or medicine. Well, let me ask you - what could anybody possible learn in engineering that would be useful in investment banking or management consulting? Yet those are 2 of the top destinations for engineering students coming out of MIT. What company is going to hire the most MIT graduating seniors this year? Some tech company? Unlikely - it's probably going to be McKinsey. BCG is probably going to be in the top 5, and Goldman Sachs is probably going to be in the top 10. Nor is this year an anomaly - those 3 companies have been top 10 employers of graduating MIT seniors for the last decade or so. I would argue that medicine/law is no more peripheral to engineering than is management consulting and investment banking is. So are you saying that McKinsey is being stupid when they hire all these MIT grads? Is BCG being stupid? Is Goldman Sachs being stupid?</p>