<p>Well from my experience humanities and social science majors require the most amount of CRITICAL THINKING as opposed to math/science majors that require a lot of HARD WORK. Sure, the concepts that you learn in the English, Chicano/African/Asian Studies, and History majors are easier to digest than let's say, Quantum Physics, but the ability to think outside of the box and provide good commentary on social issues is nevertheless a difficult task. It requires the student to get out of his/her comfort zone, and reevaluate what he/she knows about human behavior, psychology, and interaction. I've seen some people struggle with this type of mental training more than they do in math and physic.</p>
<p>i plan to major in art history because it is subject where u appreciate works of art in ur OWN TERMS. u might have to agree with the plain facts that those giants like janson states, but the rest is ur interpretation. AND THAT is the difficult part. all hummanities involve this sort of creative activity.</p>
<p>as for history, damn the historians. i AM IN COMPLETE DISBELIEF that the modern history outweighs the classical history. ancient history is much longer than modern history and contains vast fields in which critical thinking can be used.</p>
<p>classics, a lovely subject if u don't have to work with translations all ur life and already know latin because ur parents taught them when ur a baby. if u don't know latin, than screw it. latin is one of the pathetically difficult languages in the world.</p>
<p>for philosophy i have mixed feelings. for some men like spencer, plato, spinoza and leibniz i have respect. but for figures like schopenhaur i think they were bumped in the head when they were a baby.
also, i think locke was a pretty lame fellow. he thought people are bunch of knuckleheads because he loves to repeat his ideas as if we can't get it the fiftieth time.</p>
<p>i hate science. it's such a boring and apathetic field. also there aren't enough people to make fun of because most of them like einstein, newton, descartes were geniuses. see, in history, u get to mock the royal families (spanish habsburgs my favourite) and stupid leaders like Darius III. although there is one figure who i love to make fun of: freud. this dude was a total pervert, if u ask me.</p>
<p>i bet i can ask some question u science majors won't know the answer to:
what is a wormhole?
what is a Type 3 civilization in relation to extra-terrestrial intelligence?
why is the universe expanding?
einstein said that speed slows time, thus time travel is possible in which paritcular situation?
john b watson established what perspective in psychology?</p>
<p>"john b watson established what perspective in psychology?"</p>
<p>Behaviorism?</p>
<p>now for the hummanities majors, u should know the answers to these:</p>
<p>the official fall of rome is 1453, in the siege of constantinople. how were the turks able to pound canon ball every 7 minutes from sunrise to sunset on teh walls?
prince dracula was nortorious for impaling his subjects. which particular merchants were responsible for spreading tales of dracula's atrocities in western europe?
why is Duccio siginificant in the shaping of western paitning?
plotinus and plato shaped what religion?
the "hun" from hungary comes from what present far eastern country?
how did the greeks defeat the persians in the battle of Salamis?</p>
<p>at battle of Guagamela, why did Alexander call off his pursuit of Darius?</p>
<p>why is it that france is not returning the art works that napoleon stole from italy?
why do british people say "sorry" so much?</p>
<p>Sauronvoldemort:</p>
<p>Being able to recite from memory certain historical facts does not constitute the sort of analytical rigour that epitomizes the harder disciplines.</p>
<p>Nice try.</p>
<p>sauronvoldemort, haha :) I love how you purposefully make spelling and grammar errors :) </p>
<p>I agree with you. I love social sciences...especially history.</p>
<p>Those facts/questions listed above have nothing to do with this conversation... no point to 'em.</p>
<p>Anyway, with regard to this question, I realize the definition of difficulty might be kind of subjective, but I think that's why there is so much fuss with this kinda question. </p>
<p>See, those who equate difficulty with difficult grading and mathematical/spatial thinking, then obviously sciences/math/engineering/etc will be harder. That type of thinking is something not everyone has and many of us who don't enjoy it get frustrated and give up with. Does that mean it's naturally difficult? For some people, yes, but for others, like myself, it's not that bad. I personally enjoy higher level mathematics and even have a friend who loves math, but can't write an essay for **** and despises it. Does that mean writing is more difficult? For some people it is.</p>
<p>Just because anyone can read and write doesn't make English easy. Also, just because grading is less harsh doesn't make it easy. I think grading is something stupid to go by, it has nothing to do with the difficulty of the information itself. </p>
<p>These disciplines are all apples and oranges and no matter what anyone says about one being harder than the other is flat out wrong. I'd like to see some engineering major write anything as well as Shakespeare, or even a good journalist or something. Guess what? GOOD writing stands out, GOOD writing isn't easy and takes just as much time to master as being good at engineering concepts. Just because maybe more people can get by because they were trained to read and write their whole lives (much more than they were trained to do high levle mathematics), doesn't mean it's easy. They have yet to achieve anything great or do truely well at it. </p>
<p>The same goes for ALL disciplines. Sure, sometimes a certain discipline might be easier to the general population at a satisfactory level, but those at the best level of ANY discipline didn't just chill out and get it easily. Just like those great engineers, the great historians, writers, anthropologists, psychologists, artists, musicians, etc all had to spend equal time to perfect their own craft. </p>
<p>Just because, at a certain level, it is easier to most people doesn't mean it's an inferior discipline that anyone could truely succeed at. </p>
<p>It's a stupid question because the answer is easy, none are truely harder in difficulty. If you wanna consider difficulty the ease of grades, then sure, engineering (at most schools) is harder to get good grades, but that is a bad way to make the judgement in my opinion. </p>
<p>While most people can float by easier in many liberal art subjects and less can do so in engineering and hard sciences means nothing in terms of true difficulty. It reminds me like an argument made between skateboarders and rollerbladers back when I used to do both.</p>
<p>Skateboards would say something like this: </p>
<p>"Oh, rollerblading is easy because they are attached to your feet, they can grind and do tricks so easily because they don't have to ollie like I do on a skateboard to get it off the ground."</p>
<p>Well, sure, the simple grinds on a skateboard (like a 50/50) are harder than that on rollerblades, but rollerbladers, because they are attached to their feet must compensate by doing much more (like doing multiple grinds in a row, jumping bigger gaps, grinding longer, etc). People tried comparing apples to oranges and it doesn't work like that.</p>
<p>The best rollerblader and the best skateboarder both tried VERY hard to get where they were, they both put in the same amount of hours, just because the rollerblades are attached to the guys feet doesn't mean he had it easier.</p>
<p>It's like a hockey player saying lacrosse is easy because lacrosse players don't use ice skates. So, what then, lacrosse players don't spend equal time to perfect their skills? </p>
<p>To be the best at something, you have try just as hard. </p>
<p>You CAN'T compare engineering to english or whatever else simply because they are so different. If you want to ignorant and say that, fine, whatever floats your boat, but it's a horrible argument.</p>
<p>They are both difficult.</p>
<p>I respect Shakespeare as much as I respect Einstein as much as respect Da Vinci, why? Because I can guarantee you that they all devoted equal time to their crafts. </p>
<p>Shakespeare wrote amazing poetry and plays.</p>
<p>Einstein changed the way we look at the universe. </p>
<p>Da Vinci painted some of the most amazing paints in history and even furthered the study of the human body. </p>
<p>They all did their own thing, are you going to tell me Da Vinci and Shakespeare had it easier because they weren't doing something in a hard science like Einstein? Give me an effin' break.</p>
<p>So, everyone, stop arguing with this. It's just engineering/math/science students trying to pretend they are better and the other students trying to defend themselves and so on, when the true answer is they are ALL wrong.</p>
<p>Apples and oranges people, you can't compare them.</p>
<p>nobody is saying humanities hasn't contributed as much to the world as math and science</p>
<p>while it is true that math is despised by most americans....the humanities and foreign languages are the less approachable subject in some countries..while their strong subjects are math and science</p>
<p>i know a lot of people in a middle eastern country who dread literature and writing but math is the easy subject in their country</p>
<p>it varies from society to society but generalizations can be made with caution...i put in my 2 cents but i understand everyone is dif with what they consider difficult.</p>
<p>"The sciences are harder. PERIOD." -Chuck Norris</p>
<p>Haha, Chuck Norris...</p>
<p>And like the person above said, it also depends on the society. The thing with writing is we are trained to read and write first and foremost, it's the most part of our society. Even in non-english classes we are forced to read and write, yet we only do math in one class (and usually not very difficult math either). Americans aren't really trained well in math, usually hate it, and because of all that the general public says it's hard. Go to other countries and they'll say the exact opposite about math when compared to writing.</p>
<p>It's really a subjective question and in the end, guess what... </p>
<p>THEY ALL TAKE EQUAL TIME TO MASTER (if you can even reach that level). </p>
<p>They are all difficult, comparing them won't suddenly give you the answer you are looking for (that one is harder or easier).</p>
<p>
[quote]
et we only do math in one class (and usually not very difficult math either).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhhh... there is plenty of mathematics in philosophy courses. Heck, my philosophy of science course requires familiarity with single-variable calculus.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Heck, my philosophy of science course requires familiarity with single-variable calculus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh my, not single-variable calculus!!!! :D</p>
<p>I kid; but seriously, I thought Calculus I was something basically anyone at a top university had done in high school or had to complete during college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I kid; but seriously, I thought Calculus I was something basically anyone at a top university had done in high school or had to complete during college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was just demonstrating that there are humanities courses that do demand some sort of mathematics. Advanced logic will require advanced set theory; this not your simple stuff like "unions" or "intersections," this is the stuff you find it old attempts to ground all of mathematics on logic, and it is much more rigorous than calc.</p>
<p>Then again, there is also philosophy of physics, which is also, as you might guess, very mathematically rigorous. There are philosophy courses on game theory and rational choice theory... the list doesn't end.</p>
<p>agrees with collegekid...partly bc he/she agrees with me lol</p>
<p>History is all fine and dandy if you want to teach. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a teacher. But I would certainly think it would be harder to apply history every single day and create a viable business. Let's face it, if you want to make a decent living, don't be a teacher. Yes its not about the money, its the feeling. But hey, your kids are going to have to eat, your wife is going to want nice things. I say, just do what you have to do.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I may someday teach economics or business at a community college. But I will certainly not teach anything but evenings after I leave my regular 9-5</p>
<p>What is a wormhole?<br>
Hypothetically, it is supposed to be a shortcut through spacetime by connecting two mouths in which anything that has matter (albeit very tiny like electrons) can traverse. There is no observation of this, but can be inferred from Einstein's theories of relativity. </p>
<p>what is a Type 3 civilization in relation to extra-terrestrial intelligence? </p>
<p>Question is outright ridiculous as we have no imperical evidence of "extra-terrestrial intelligence" </p>
<p>Why is the universe expanding?
Dark matter and dark energy which causes the galaxies to "blue shift," or in other words, to move away from our own galaxy, the Milky Way. </p>
<p>einstein said that speed slows time, thus time travel is possible in which paritcular situation?
When something travels at the spead of light </p>
<p>john b watson established what perspective in psychology?
behaviorism</p>
<p>........ and I'm a humanities major!</p>
<p>^And just to answer the question about time travel... we can't actually travel backwards, ever. It's physically impossible according to physics. Unless you are in a blackhole, because in a blackhole supposively time and space switch spots and while you can't move in space, you can move both backwards and fowards in time, supposively.</p>
<p>But the whole moving at the speed of light thing only works when you compare it to something not moving near the speed of light. In comparison you are traveling faster than them and while you will have ages a few days they could age a few years in the same "time."</p>
<p>And anyway, all those questions are completely retarded and have NOTHING to do with this thread.</p>
<p>Would it be an oversimplification of things to presume that the sheer volume of engineering and medical school classes would make those two fields harder than humanities? I'm referring to the long series for physics, medical school sciences (O/C chem., physiology, etc.), math, and such. I'm not saying that Humanities majors don't have long series, i'm saying that eng./med. major series seem to have much longer series.</p>
<p>Collegekid, nice post & insights but you're just missing the real point. Humanities classes ANYWHERE are easier than the sciences and mathematics at the same university. It's simple: there is more competition, and the work load is much more intensive. The entire point of this thread is to point out that humanities are, in fact, easier courses than their scientific counterparts. Anyone who has spent any time within earshot of a university knows this.</p>
<p>However, course difficulty has nothing to do with the greats in any field. Shakespeare and Einstein certainly are apples and oranges. But in the academy today, Shakespeare and Joyce would have their work cut out for them, as the courses are nowhere near as demanding.</p>