<p>only the intial level of humanities are easier..not the 300s and 400s..and colleges don't compare e school and arts and sciences GPAs. Its not viable as people's interests differ and if I like history and wanna major in it, e-school people can't say i m doing easier courses. It is what I like to study. The view of seeing e-school as more difficult is very naive and full of arrogance.</p>
<p>No offense, but you're out of your tree if you think upper division English courses are as difficult as Engineering courses. Everyone should like what they study, but most anyone can study history. Not so with upper division mathematics.</p>
<p>Huh. I don't know. I took a physics course (for physics majors; it was a lower division course, but lots of physics majors fail it), and it was a lot of work, but I did decently. Most of my engineer friends could probably handle my courses (English, haha), but I've seen some of their work, and can safely say that there is a huge different between "can study" and "doing really well." Some of them can't seem to handle the abstractness of what I'm studying. I think it depends entirely on the individual.</p>
<p>Sure, there is give and take. Humanities, though, are certainly on the easier side. There is also a huge difference between "can study" and "cannot study". Any upper division mathematics student "can study" history, and many of them can do really well. Very few upper division history students even understand calculus.</p>
<p>P.S. You're right in that it does depend entirely on the individual. Some are brilliant, and would excel at whatever they choose. These students, however, are the exception, not the rule. And further, I would suggest that you'd find many more of them studying engineering, a science, mathematics, or philosophy than you would in the humanities.</p>
<p>BS to the "can study" notion (depending on the program). History or economics or literature are not just subjects to rote study and spit out. They consist of reading, analysis and application of that analysis in a holistic process, i.e. through essays or oral presentations. The ability to present an abstract idea or individual theories and conjectures in a cogent manner is actually a difficult skill. There is no possibility of applying an I "can study" mentality. You must be able to synthesize a large database of information and in a focused manner present this.</p>
<p>In mathematics and hard sciences (not considering research-which I first hand know is extremely occupying), most classes are presented (even including those that are proof oriented) using logical analyses and rote memorization and application.</p>
<p>Dear siryes, you are making this much more complicated than it is. You study history by synthesizing large databases of information? I know history majors at UCB with 4.0's, I've never met an engineering student with anything near that. I've never met a UCB student who complained about how competitive and difficult the English major is. But I do know plenty of pre-med students and engineering students who work as hard on one class as a history student will work on four. If you really think humanities are of comparable difficulty, you REALLY need to wake up.</p>
<p>Yeah, I guess the work load is a different story. I'm definitely completing the pre-med requirements and I've been involved with medical research for 4 years since HS so I definitely know about the long hours put in to that line of study. My only point was that the different type of work forces different intellectual styles. Accordingly, the intellectual rigor of engineering should not be valued above that of humanities or social sciences courses, I don't think. </p>
<p>In terms of work load as measured by time spent/grading? I would def. agree that you are right.</p>
<p>Well, I think I could be an engineer or a doctor if I studied hard enough. But I'm putting the same amount of work I would have put into that into my English theory/literature/analysis courses, regardless of whether it's necessary. And when I graduate as an English major, I intend to be as valuable as any engineer or doctor. I'm not sure what I'm going to do yet, but I intend to be useful. </p>
<p>I have taken a wide range of difficult courses that I didn't need to take (upper level economics, physics, chemistry, etc. when I could have taken bio for non-majors or some other b.s. course), because I think that the more practical knowledge I accumulate, the more widely applicable my English degree would be. Not everyone takes that approach (God, I must seem so pretentious right now), but that's the way I'm doing it, and it's quite a bit of work (and not just because I'm taking some courses that a science/math student might take).</p>
<p>its easy to get a grade in humanities even if you don't do the stuff</p>
<p>for history majors, let me tell u, nothing is more glorious then to study classics. for those that think ancients are all crackpots then study art history. history is only for those that have a sense of orgnaization. </p>
<p>this is the contents of davies's Europe, A History:
PENINSULAE: The Environment and Prehistory
HELLAS: Ancient Greece
ROMA: Ancient Rome
ORIGO: Brith of Europe
MEDIUM: Middle Age
PESTIS: Christendom in Crisis
RENATIO: Renaissance and Reformation
LUMEN: Enlightenment and Absolutism
REVOLUTIO: Continent in Turmoil
DYNAMO: Powerhouse of the World
TENEBRAE: Europe in Eclipse
DIVISA ET INDIVISA: Europe divided and undivided</p>
<p>this is organization my firends:</p>
<p>MYCENAE: Minos and Mycenaes
HELLAS: Golden Age of Greece
ALEXANDRI MAGNI: Greek Diaspora
RES PUBLICA: Roman Republic
ROMA: Empire of Rome
MEDIUM: The Dark Age
MUNDUS NUOVUS: First assault on the World
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE: French Revolution
SUB OCCIDENT: Imperialism and World Wars
conclusion: The European Union</p>
<p>Sauronvoldemort, I assume you are not a student from a liberal arts school. Am I right?</p>
<p>look i'm about to make a statement and you know i'm not bias bc first of all...my major is related to humanities/social sciences and i absolutely suck at math</p>
<p>but math is soo much more of an indication of intelligence than something like political science, anthropology, sociology, etc etc</p>
<p>this is how you know:</p>
<p>engineering, math, etc...you cant throw anyone off the street into a high level class...it would be impossible for them to do well bc it takes years and years of gradually advancing and moving onto harder classes</p>
<p>for english or history or most humanities...you can throw in anyone off the street and with some tutoring and extra help...they should be able to succeed with a lot of effort</p>
<p>^that statement owned to the n-th power hahaha</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would suggest that you'd find many more of them studying engineering, a science, mathematics, or philosophy than you would in the humanities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I like that you grouped philosophy right up there with the hard sciences. I've never approached philosophy academically but I do know that it can be difficult. I've tried reading from my personal philosophy library (Heidegger's Being and Time, Sartre's Being and Nothingness) and can't really follow. It'll definitely takes a thinker to excel in a philosophy class taught by a tough prof. Or perhaps I shouldn't have dived head-first into such magnum opuses, lol. </p>
<p>I was gonna transfer to a CSU to double major in philosophy and electrical engineering, but now that I am doing upper division electrical engineering at UCLA (more theoretical than universities in the CSU system), I don't really have time to study anything else. EE can get pretty abstract and it ain't all about memorizing formulas. It's about understanding problems, making valid assumptions and then applying the appropiate formulas. It's great stuff though, way more interesting albeit being way more difficult than the lower division math/physics/programming prep work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I think I could be an engineer or a doctor if I studied hard enough. But I'm putting the same amount of work I would have put into that into my English theory/literature/analysis courses, regardless of whether it's necessary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't believe that volume of work spent is equal to excellance when it comes to engineering. It's very possible for a person to spend a full day reading one section of a chapter from the textbook and yet not fully understand the concept and its pertinent formulas, let alone recognizing and applying that concept and formulas when given a problem at the end of the reading.</p>
<p>yeah i totally agree with ee_stu especially when you put all that studying into becoming a doctor where you have actual life and death situations?? u know there is a reason why there are more english teachers and what not than doctors</p>
<p>I should have said "quality" or "meticulousness" instead of "amount." And no, there are no life or death situations involved with being an English teacher (which I'm not going to be, anyway). But not every doctor deals with life or death situations constantly. There's a difference between, say, an ER surgeon and a dermatologist (though both are responsible for people's well-being).</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's very possible for a person to spend a full day reading one section of a chapter from the textbook and yet not fully understand the concept and its pertinent formulas, let alone recognizing and applying that concept and formulas when given a problem at the end of the reading.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...and it's very possile for a person to spend a full day doing the same thing in philosophy...</p>
<p>
[quote]
like that you grouped philosophy right up there with the hard sciences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...there is nothing wrong with that, though. Take philosophy of science, philosophy of physics, philosophy of mathematics (or metamathematics), upper-level logic, and so forth, and you will endure a similar if not higher amount of rigour.</p>
<p>humanities are GENERALLY easier....why is this so hard to accept?</p>