<p>Hey guys, I am currently and engineering major, but due to AP/transfer credits I have enough space to do a double major (my schedule will be full, but it's possible). However, I was debating whether to do a double major (in a non-science area), or whether to do a minor in that area and then become a TA at my university. I reallly wanted to show interest in this area outside my major, but do med schools distinguish that much between double majors and minors? If I did a double major, I would probably not be able to TA. Thanks!</p>
<p>Medical schools do not care about either, so (I suppose) they don't distinguish between the two of them.</p>
<p>That is to say:
They matter equally, but only because neither of them matters at all.</p>
<p>Really? I thought it was good to show some sort of diversity, to show that you are not just a stereotypical science/engineering student.</p>
<p>There are other interesting ways of doing that other than double/triple majoring/minoring.</p>
<p>so double majoring is not a way of standing out as unique? lets say immunology and computer science at UCB...those as double majors will not be unique? med schools will turn a blind eye to them?</p>
<p>I'm going to be honest here: med schools have a pretty narrow view of diversity. When they say diversity, they mean racial diversity. Things like major diversity, geographical diversity, age diversity are very very secondary. </p>
<p>The tradeoff of a second major is that you'll have less time for EC's and possibly a lower GPA. In the end, med schools would prefer more/better EC's and a higher GPA over a computer science double major. Computer science isn't a major that's likely to help you become a better physician. The reason med schools like humanities majors is that they often improve your oral and written communication skills and you get practice in critically analyzing what you read.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Computer science isn't a major that's likely to help you become a better physician.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Computer science relies on critical thinking skills and logic and can even develop these skills while a humanities major can't or won't as much. This comes in handy for the MCAT. Don't get me wrong, having a humanities major certainly helps one become a doctor only in the sense that med-schools prefer humanities majors over science majors and that its easier to get A's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Computer science relies on critical thinking skills and logic and can even develop these skills while a humanities major can't or won't as much.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, because history or econ majors throw all their critical thinking skills and logic out the window when they declare a major. Good grief.</p>
<p>
[quote]
having a humanities major certainly helps one become a doctor
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It can help with board scores. I don't know if it helps with admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
only in the sense that med-schools prefer humanities majors over science majors
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is it really a clear-cut preference?</p>
<p>
[quote]
and that its easier to get A's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong.</p>
<p>Un, well I got an A+ in my first humanities class and I didn't even try. Everyone passed. I don't think anyone got below a B. Maybe one person, but he rarely showed up. Now when I took a harder(by my definition) subject, there was almost always higher failure rates. For instance, my physics mechanics class failed up to 70%(of 100 students) of the class. In the end, about 5 people received A's. But this just isn't my school, it occurs in just about every school across the nation. </p>
<p>To quote sakky from a previous thread, </p>
<p>
[quote]
Consider the following excerpts from reports at the following schools:</p>
<p>Berkeley:</p>
<p>""The physical sciences and engineering had rigorous grading standards roughly in line with the recommendations from 1976," stated Rine, "while the humanities and social sciences in many classes had all but given up on grades below a B, and in many courses below an A-,"</p>
<p>Undergraduate</a> Education Colloquium, The College of Letters and Science, UC Berkeley</p>
<p>Harvard:</p>
<p>"But there is one undisputed difference between two realms of academia. The mean grade for humanities courses is higher than that in the natural sciences, according to O’Keefe. And with the new honors GPA cutoff applying across the board, science concentrators may be at a disadvantage when Latin honors are handed out. "</p>
<p>The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: ?A?s Still Abound Headline 4.0 Years Later</p>
<p>Stanford:</p>
<p>"The natural sciences division of H&S
assigns the smallest proportion (43%) of combined A's and the largest
proportion of C's, followed by Earth Sciences, Engineering, and the
social sciences division. More than 55% of the letter grades assigned
by the humanities and language/literature departments are A's; these
divisions assign about half as many C's as do other divisions of H&S...The natural sciences division of H&S and the
School of Earth Sciences have the lowest average grades"</p>
<p>Pitt:</p>
<p>"A's were most common in the humanities,..."There was a general feeling among the humanities faculty that the only grades [faculty should give] were A's and B's," Campbell recalled. When Campbell declared that a C should be the mean grade in a class, "some of them were shocked," he said. "There was a fair bit of flack aboard the ship over that.""</p>
<p>Format</a> File Not Found</p>
<p>One can also consider the following report:</p>
<p>Let me mention one other thing the data reveal: Grade inflation has proceeded more rapidly in the humanities than in the natural sciences, in part, no doubt, because of the absolute, objective, and quantifiable measures of student mastery that exist in the sciences. The relative integrity of academic standards in the natural sciences in comparison with the humanities, education, and the social sciences acts as an incentive for students to avoid the sciences in favor of the softer, grade-inflated alternatives. Today, as University of Virginia professor Mark Edmundson wrote in Harper's ("On the Uses of a Liberal Education," Harper's Magazine, September 1997, 39 ff), "The rigors of Chem 101 create almost as many English majors per year as do the splendors of Shakespeare."</p>
<p>Find</a> Articles 404 File not found</p>
<p>Now, if you would like, I can delve into the academic literature where this topic has surely been discussed at length.</p>
<p>But at the end of the day, there does seem to be substantial evidence that humanities classes do tend to be graded easier than science classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>santa banta, I think you will find helpful info about medical school on studentdoctor.net</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, because history or econ majors throw all their critical thinking skills and logic out the window when they declare a major. Good grief.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Strawman fallacy. You lose. </p>
<p>read my sentence again. I said that computer science can develop critical thinking skills and logic MORE(note the more) than humanities majors. Now if someone already has great logical reasoning skills, then it doesn't matter what he/she majors in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Computer science relies on critical thinking skills and logic and can even develop these skills while a humanities major can't or won't as much.</p>
<p>read my sentence again. I said that computer science can develop critical thinking skills and logic MORE(note the more) than humanities majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Strawman, fair enough. Then I modify my question: where is the evidence that computer science requires MORE development of critical thinking skills and logic?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Un, well I got an A+ in my first humanities class and I didn't even try. Everyone passed. (...)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't have enough time to research this, but here's what I've found by searching Google.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Institutions also report an increasing disparity in grades between humanities courses and science courses. At Penn, for example, average course grades range from an A-minus/B-plus in small humanities classes to B/B-minus in large natural science classes. That is prompting concern not just about grade inflation, but also about grade fairness.</p>
<p>Kent Peterman, Penn's associate dean for academic affairs, attributed the discrepancy to differences in the ways science and the humanities are taught. He said humanities classes are generally small, allowing students and professors a greater opportunity to develop personal relationships, and grading is based on writing assignments that can be revised or rewritten. Science classes, on the other hand, tend to be larger and generally award grades based on one-time exams.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Source: In</a> a Change of Policy, and Heart, Colleges Join Fight Against Inflated Grades - New York Times</p>
<p>The implication is that science classes have lower average grades because of teaching styles, not because of difficulty. Unless not getting as much teacher attention and one-shot exams are the true measures of difficulty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the next few days, Columbia College will admit a select group of the senior class into Phi Beta Kappa on the basis of the strength of their academic records prior to senior year. These students deserve to be commended for their academic achievements. The award itself, however, will be skewed toward math, economics, and physics majors, whose professors give out more grades of A-plus than do those in other departments. The University takes pride in its ability to distinguish its top students, but it does a disservice to those who just miss the cut. This disparity in grading is part of a larger problem in the ranking and honors of Columbia students, both within the University and with respect to other top-tier schools.</p>
<p>Although both science and humanities classes award grades of A-plus to a small fraction of students, quantitative courses lend themselves more readily to this top distinction. Where performance is measured by correct solutions to problem sets and exams, students can effectively earn grades of A-plus simply by scoring very well. Where students are graded on class participation and papers, however, there is no concrete way for a student to earn an A-plus. When graduation honors are conferred, humanities students who are no less deserving than the top physics or math students will be less likely reach the highest ranks. Columbia College should eliminate the A-plus from all courses in order to remove this inequity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Source: Down-grading</a> | Columbia Spectator</p>
<p>And I guess this is saying that more top grades are handed out in science classes as opposed to humanities classes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The implication is that science classes have lower average grades because of teaching styles, not because of difficulty. Unless not getting as much teacher attention and one-shot exams are the true measures of difficulty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok, lets make the assumption that theres no difference in inherent difficulty( hence logic development) between the hard sciences and social sciences. Even then, my logic still holds. That is, its harder to major in a hard science than a soft one. This is due to all the factors that you have mentioned. Majoring in the humanities means getting more personal teacher attention as humanities classes are almost always smaller. And because there are more room for assignments, the student can get a sense of the teacher expectation early on. By the time a science student gets the teachers' standard, it may be too late as that last midterm could have been worth 35% of his grade. Take all of this in addition to bell curving in science, and what we have to the salient fact that it is more difficult to earn good grades in science than it is in humanities. This is relevant because med schools care about grades. </p>
<p>Moreover, that initial assumption that theres no difference in inherent difficulty is wrong. There is a difference. Science majors are more intellectually challeging than non science majors. According to (The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray), the top echelon of cognition(ie IQ of 120 and higher) correlates to these careers, chemist, physists, mathematicians, doctors and top CEOs. Almost all of these careers have something to do with science, except the CEO. Not only that, look at all the geniuses out there. Most of them are in science, Newton, Einstine, Feynman, Euler. Granted, there are some nonscientists, i.e Mozart. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And I guess this is saying that more top grades are handed out in science classes as opposed to humanities classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thats not germane to the discussion because Med schools don't care much for A+s. Not only that, but that still doesn't address the fact that theres more students failing out of science programs than nonscience. Hence, science is still more risky.</p>
<p>Ohh midwestmom, trying to get people addicted to ANOTHER forum? SDN is the reason I don't do homework! :D</p>
<p>Here a quote from a poster on the site you mentioned</p>
<p>
[quote]
In 5 minutes of searching, I found this...If you rank the average GRE scores by department, physics/astronomy rank 1st in quantitative, verbal, and writing. LSAT scores ? Physics/math takes it again. GMAT? Physics is first again. If you look at the combined scores for the three tests, and add in the average salary for graduating seniors, the top three are physics, math and economics. Surprise?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>source:Down-grading</a> | Columbia Spectator</p>
<p>His source is:Why</a> Economics?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Take all of this in addition to bell curving in science, and what we have to the salient fact that it is more difficult to earn good grades in science than it is in humanities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's more difficult due to the way the course is set up, not due to the difficulty of the material or the skills required. Put all science majors in small class sizes and I bet the test scores would rise.</p>
<p>Regarding Why</a> Economics?...</p>
<p>If you've spent four years as a science major, you're accustomed to being graded on a test format. Then, it's not at all surprising to expect to get higher scores on graduate school exams. If the GMAT, the GRE, and the LSAT required test-takers to write a 30-page analytical paper in 1 month, I suspect you'd see that table turned upside-down. </p>
<p>I think the MCAT is a better test to look at. After all, everyone who takes the MCAT has at least some science background and therefore some recent familiarity with being scored based on an exam. This is opposed to a test like the LSAT, which presumably you could take without being accustomed to test-taking during your college career. Unfortunately, the most recent data where MCAT scores are broken down by major is 1999, but that's no older than the data provided in Why</a> Economics?. What's interesting is that "humanities" majors do as well as or even better than their "biological sciences," "mathematics/statistics," and "physical sciences" major counterparts. This suggests that, at least for the MCAT, it's familiarity with being graded based on an exam that's the issue, not the lesser "critical thinking skills and logic" of humanities majors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Science majors are more intellectually challeging than non science majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt it. As I said before, science courses are set up in such a way as to be more difficult. The material is not harder.</p>
<p>Science majors place more emphasis on testing, not intellectual challenge. I think that convincing arguments could be made for humanities majors being more intellectually demanding than science majors. As I see it, humanities majors are looking at questions with no clear-cut answers while science majors are trying to prove that they understand how to solve a certain equation discovered and understood 100 years ago. For a midterm paper, a humanities major might write a paper describing subtle references to life and death in the plants described in Homer's "Odyssey." For a midterm exam in Physical Chemistry, I'd have to use the wave function to come up with an equation for momentum or use another equation to show that protons were bosons and not fermions - it was a lot of "figure out which equation to use and plug stuff in." I'd say the paper-writing required a lot more thought, research, and logic than memorizing equations and how to use them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to (The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray), the top echelon of cognition(ie IQ of 120 and higher) correlates to these careers, chemist, physists, mathematicians, doctors and top CEOs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Using that book to argue with me is unfair. Since I have no access to this book, I can't refute this statement. Not because I'm inherently too illogical to do so, but because the Internet is not set up in such a way that I can read this book and find that quote for myself. :D</p>
<p>I must say that I expect that there are lots of articles written to refute that book, since a quick glance at Amazon seems to indicate that it's quite controversial.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not only that, look at all the geniuses out there. Most of them are in science, Newton, Einstine, Feynman, Euler. Granted, there are some nonscientists, i.e Mozart.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You've only named the famous science geniuses. To your genius list, I add Beethoven, Orson Welles, Raphael, James Joyce, Homer, Jimmy Hendrix, and Marilyn vos Savant. There, now the list of non-science geniuses is now longer as the list of science geniuses. So there are more non-science geniuses than science ones!</p>
<p>You'd have to find all the geniuses in history and examine their contributions to society before declaring that most geniuses are in science. Just naming the best-known science ones doesn't count.</p>
<p>Back to the original question. My son has debated this same issue and so far, this is what he has decided--which may be right or wrong--for him. He is double majoring in biology and psychology with minors in chemistry and cognitive science. Rationale was he likes and is interested in bio, psych, and cognitive science. Chem he has done well in and after meeting requirements for bio, only needs one more course to pick up the minor. He is still debating medical school, but is not absolutely sure that will ultimately be his "calling". He wants to experience these different areas to see if any lead him down another path. Good plan? Who knows. My advice to him is to (as BDM as said over and over on these boards), study what interests you, the rest will come whether it be med school or some other avenue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's more difficult due to the way the course is set up, not due to the difficulty of the material or the skills required. Put all science majors in small class sizes and I bet the test scores would rise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you are confusing the issue. The main point of my argument are that technical majors are more difficult and helps prepare for standardized tests better than other majors. Even, if what you said was true(i.e, format differences result in lower class averages in one major compared to another), it doesn't matter. What matters is that science majors are harder. For any reason, even poor teaching format. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you've spent four years as a science major, you're accustomed to being graded on a test format. Then, it's not at all surprising to expect to get higher scores on graduate school exams. If the GMAT, the GRE, and the LSAT required test-takers to write a 30-page analytical paper in 1 month, I suspect you'd see that table turned upside-down.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There has been evidence that standardized tests correlates with g( aka. general intelligence factor General</a> intelligence factor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia%5DGeneral">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor)). Wikipedia: "One study found a correlation of .82 between g and SAT scores.[4] Another correlation of .81 between g and GCSE scores." This is not surprising. Smart people have an easier time on tests. </p>
<p>Of course, going back to your assertion that science majors score higher due habitual test taking, I have to say this. Of course if one has more practice with something, they are bound to become better at it. The real question is whether practice overcomes a difference in IQ. There is evidence that test scores in math is more directly correlated to IQ than scores in verbal reasoning. "Correlations between IQ scores (general cognitive ability) and achievement test scores are reported to be .81 by Deary and colleagues, with the percentage of variance accounted for by general cognitive ability ranging "from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design" Intelligence</a> quotient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>I say that this due to fact that english is a subject that relies on cultural conditioning than reasoning skills. For example, it doesn't take that much intelligence to read a book. But if a child reads 100 books a year and is surrounded by adults with perfect diction, by the time he takes the SAT, he'll get a high score, regardless of intelligence. And hence the lower correlation. But, math on the other hand relies less on cultural factors( you can't gain math skills by conversing with someone but you sure can gain verbal skills) and more on logic( something that is IQ based) and understanding of the relationships between different concepts. With all else being equal, we expect a higher correlation in math scores than english scores with regards to IQ. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What's interesting is that "humanities" majors do as well as or even better than their "biological sciences," "mathematics/statistics," and "physical sciences" major counterparts. This suggests that, at least for the MCAT, it's familiarity with being graded based on an exam that's the issue, not the lesser "critical thinking skills and logic" of humanities majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But your stance was that science majors score higher on logic tests due to familiarity with tests and you change your position when it comes to the MCAT? In light of what I said regarding IQ and discipline, this could be one of two possibilities. Non-science majors are statistically less intelligent so they have to study much more to close the gap. Honestly who would take the MCAT if they don't make high scores on the practice tests? Second, the pool of premed students is so intelligent, it doesn't matter what they major in. They'll get high scores regardless. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As I see it, humanities majors are looking at questions with no clear-cut answers while science majors are trying to prove that they understand how to solve a certain equation discovered and understood 100 years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>knowing the equation is not enough. One has to look at the problem and determine which equations to use and in which order is the most time efficent. But in order to do that one has to understand all the physical principals at play and utilize great spacial reasoning( a component of intelligence testing). This in itself is very daunting, not to mention the flawless half page long algebra that they have to utilize to arrive at an number correct to the third sig fig. Just think, one misunderstanding on the physics problem or even the spacial geometry would render a 1-2 page solution useless. Or even worse, you understand all the physics, but you made an error halfway through the problem( wrong trig substituion, didn't cancel a term etc) and you get the whole thing wrong. And this is just one problem. An typical midterm is rife with these problems. </p>
<p>moreover, the very fact that humanities majors have less clear cut answers gives the professor less justification to fail a student. If a student makes a good case for his/her reasoning, then said person gets a good grade regardless. Plus, one of the good things about having a term paper instead of an exam is that a student can constantly revise it to fit an A paper. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Using that book to argue with me is unfair. Since I have no access to this book, I can't refute this statement. Not because I'm inherently too illogical to do so, but because the Internet is not set up in such a way that I can read this book and find that quote for myself.</p>
<p>I must say that I expect that there are lots of articles written to refute that book, since a quick glance at Amazon seems to indicate that it's quite controversial.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unfair? I'll grant that. For the most part, I myself do not like the book because of its very pessimistic implications, such as IQ being the be all and end all of a human being. Don't even get me started on race. But it is well researched and provides correlations. With some of them very intuitive. </p>
<p>Its controversial among the public but not among most psychometricians. Take, g( something this book is confident about) for example. Most people don't believe in it in spite of the fact that most cognitive scientist are in consensus about its existence. </p>
<p>Wikipedia:
[quote]
However, most views that dismiss g as fictional or irrelevant are either outdated by research carried out in the last ten years, or come from figures without training in the field of psychometrics
[/quote]
General</a> intelligence factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>
[quote]
You've only named the famous science geniuses. To your genius list, I add Beethoven, Orson Welles, Raphael, James Joyce, Homer, Jimmy Hendrix, and Marilyn vos Savant. There, now the list of non-science geniuses is now longer as the list of science geniuses. So there are more non-science geniuses than science ones!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And of all the geniuses you mentioned, who is more influential than Einstien or Newton? Who revolutionized human thought?</p>
<p>Back to the original question of why med schools like non-science majors: they do equally well as science majors in med school and they often have awesome non-academic skills. If you are looking for someone to do ground breaking Nobel-Prize winning phD work, pick the science major. Medicine, however, is not intellectual or creative. It is a very conservative profession that requires a lot of memorization, regurgitation, and adherence to protocols. It also requires solid communication skills and many soft touchy-feely factors (emotional intelligence, compassion, reading and analyzing people, etc.) that science majors are often deficient in. This is why grad schools care about the bare bones work (your research achievements, rec letters, and little weight is given to volunteering or hobbies) while med schools look at the whole person. You can argue all day about whether science courses are harder, whether science majors are smarter, and whether science majors are intellectual. It doesn't matter. Medicine isn't a profession that rewards creativity and intellectual genius.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It also requires solid communication skills and many soft touchy-feely factors (emotional intelligence, compassion, reading and analyzing people, etc.) that science majors are often deficient in
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wheres the evidence that science majors are deficient these skills? While, very smartest, ie geniuses, tend to be socially idiosyncratic, Wikipedia: "Socio-emotional problems are more prevalent in geniuses with an IQ above 145 (on the Wechsler Scale). Asynchronous development is the primary cause of this. As most children do not share gifted children's interests, vocabulary, or desire to organize activities, the genius child may withdraw from society", most successful science premeds are not geniuses. Generally doctors' IQs are located within the 120+ range. With a modicum located in the 145+ range.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Back to the original question of why med schools like non-science majors: they do equally well as science majors in med school and they often have awesome non-academic skills.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Medicine, however, is not intellectual or creative. It is a very conservative profession that requires a lot of memorization, regurgitation, and adherence to protocols.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe this is the reason that non-science majors tend to do perform at the same level as science majors. This may work for traditional med-schools. But more and more med schools are utilizing a problem based curriculum. Why? Maybe because formulating intellectual and creative solutions actually matter. I like to see the performance non-science majors in this avenue</p>