<p>One of the things I like about Columbia is that it has econ joint majors, which allows people to major in econ and another related subject without having to double..</p>
<p>I am personally thinking of doing Econ-Poli Sci or Econ-Operations Research..</p>
<p>So my questions are.... </p>
<p>1) Do you feel that the joint majors facilitate relating and connecting the two areas to make them more useful? Or does it feel more like they are completely separate subjects? (I read that you get two different advisors for each subject, instead of one that can advise the two at the same time.)</p>
<p>2) What would be the largest difference between a Econ-Poli Sci joint major and a major in Econ + a concentration (minor) in Poli Sci... just what goes up on my diploma later??</p>
<p>3) Has anybody done a econ joint major plus a minor? How was the experience?</p>
<p>1) Yes. There are advanced seminars you take as a junior or senior that relate the two.</p>
<p>2) The econ-poli sci major is one degree. The major and concentration are like two degrees. Your diploma says you graduated from Columbia College, in Latin :) It doesn't indicate your major</p>
<p>3) Nope, but econ is one of the harder and larger majors at Columbia. However, I know a lot of people who double majored with econ--so it's doable. Just space your requirements out well.</p>
<p>Very doable in my opinion. I know plenty of people who do econ+poli sci and some minor. Econ+poli sci probably has the most pragmatic value out of all the majors, it's just very very applicable. IMO, operations research is BORING, but I'd try it out and then drop whatever you don't like.</p>
<p>joint majors are really worth ~1.5 majors (tbh i think of them as 4/3 of a major) since you take significantly fewer classes in both subjects compared to the stand alone major. So joint + minor is a piece of cake; you can get away with taking ~5 classes a semester with that.</p>
<p>Jack of all trades, master of none, sums you all up. With requirements to fulfill you hardly have enough time to learn one subject in some depth and all of you want to have fancy joint degrees. As an interviewer I would not be impressed.</p>
<p>Ramaswami just keeps on dishing on the false/inaccurate/misinformed advice with no proof other than it being his opinion. Jesus, after a while it just gets annoying.</p>
<p>Lionheaded, this is an opinion topic, is it not? What is misinformed and what have I dished out? In my opinion, (though i did not say it, it is obvious) a single major is better than dual ones, etc. What is incorrect about it? It cannot be correct, it cannot be incorrect, it is an opinion. And it is not an uninformed opinion. I interview PhDs with a major in clinical psych and minor in forensic, or major in neuropsych and minor in counseling etc etc etc and they are woefully inadequate in either domain.</p>
<p>i don't understand how you can say a double major will always have learned less than a single major in one of his fields. you're making a blanket criticism on interdisciplinary approaches to education. not everyone can double major/whatever and learn it well, but that doesn't mean there aren't those who can pull it off.</p>
<p>with regards to your interviewing experience - if these people are "woefully inadequate" in either field, I'm pretty sure they'd be that way if they had single majored too. competency is inherent, not determined by choice of study. and i'm thankful you aren't an interviewer for this school.</p>
<p>jazz88, I do not discuss these postings with my son nor his majors, minors etc. That question, which you cited, was exploratory. </p>
<p>villeslacker, the jack of all trades, etc comment was to provoke a discussion by taking another view. For the sake of scrupulous intellectual honesty I ought to have said that at the outset.</p>
<p>Let me clarify: there are job candidates that have a good grasp of two domains, or a mastery of one and adequate knowledge of another; moreover, as you pointed out, it is often a function of the individual. Having said this, I do see many many students have exotic combinations: finance and Sanskrit, or Econ-linguistics. Sometimes, it can be a way to satisfy two different interests, often it is a dilettantish approach to knowledge.</p>
<p>There has been a preoccupation on CC to have combinations for the sake of marketability. sometimes it is a good idea, for example, econ-applied math, sometimes it is not so good. Thanks.</p>
<p>Let's be honest here guys, nobody expects a fresh college grad to be an expert in his field. It doesn't matter whether you major in econ or econ+poli sci, I'm pretty sure you're not gonna know that much about econ anyway. </p>
<p>I doubt that employers will prefer single majors over joint-majors, tbh I don't think they care that much.</p>
<p>Maybe the problem with the people you interview who have had majors/minors is the quality of their trainig site or of the candidate, or the negativity of the person evaluating them, but there are plenty, PLENTY of very good, very qualified, very competent clinicians who, within their clinical psych degree, specialize in one area. It is FAR better to study and specialize in one area than to claim to be that "jack of all trades" when one is not adequately trained in a particular area of practice. That violates ethics.</p>
<p>So it is ok to ask an "exploratory" question in one place, and then denegrate others who espress an interest in doing this in another place. The double standards are absurd. To come here merely to provoke conflict and speak in double standardscauses one to devalue the opinions of the poster. No need to attack others for the supposed sake of "debate". Good grief.</p>
<p>jym, I regret you do not have an understanding of the uses of irony.</p>
<p>I am well aware of factors such as program origin and qualifications of particular candidates and of my own biases. Of course, I am also most familiar with only one discipline. I have interviewed various specialties when I was on the faculty of Mayo many years ago. I was making a generalization. Many on CC jump on any generalization, they want concrete answers.</p>
<p>F. Scott Fitzgerald gave an apt definition of intelligence: the ability to keep two opposing ideas in one's head at the same time and still function.</p>
<p>Do think I am an ignorant, argumentative, shallow rant. Think you are limited.</p>
<p>PS: Your statement about violation of ethics is so uninformed that it is not even wrong.</p>
<p>jym, you are probably agreeing with me when you emphasize that there are PLENTY who specialize in one are and you say it is far better to specialize, etc , that is exactly what I was getting at.</p>
<p>The larger point: in the Oxbridge type of education, there is specialization, in America education is broader. I was going to raise the debate to the level of the PPE tripos of Oxbridge , the pros and cons, but never got there because of the poor quality of debate in this country.</p>
<p>Double talk = double standard. You claimed that people with clinical degrees and specialty in forensics or neuropsych were "woefully inadequate in both". That is not what I see and I am in NO way agreeing with you.
This is not about a debate- most people come here to discuss in a polite fashion. Some prefer to provoke conflict and hostility. Useless waste of bandwith, IMO.</p>
<p>jym, where is the double talk? double talk is saying two opposing things out of your mouth, as in speaking with a forked tongue. I am not doing that. Even if I did that, double talk is not = double standard. I am beginning to doubt your mastery of English.</p>
<p>I said those with a MINOR (not specialty) in either domain (minor domain ) were inadequately (prepared) in either major domain or minor domain.</p>
<p>One can be inadequately prepared , at least in clinical psychology, and still pass licensing exams (because they require minimal competencies).</p>
<p>Also, inadequately prepared is by my standard. I am considered demanding at work. Those whom I consider inadequate a lot of my colleagues consider adequate.</p>
<p>One precise example: recently my department interviewed a PhD clinical psychologist who had taken courses for a minor in health psych and had spent 6 months rotation in a hospital consultation-liaison psychiatry. Most of my colleagues considered this person adequate and many others on CC will. Since I headed a family practice residency behavioral program for Mayo I held that nothing short of board cert was adequate.</p>
<p>Let us stop this argument. Yes, I came here to debate, exchange vigorous opposing, clashing views. In today's America, one must protect the feelings of others.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I am a naturalized american but there is no public intellectual discourse in this country, the idea of a public intellectual does not exist and this seeps down to all forums, POLITE exchange of inanities so no one is offended.</p>
<p>Finally- something we agree on- STOP ARGUING. It is a waste of time - you seem to want to find opportunities to hurl insults at people at every opportunity. What pleasure do you get from that (rhetorical question for a person whose english is just fine, thank you-- no need to respond). If you are so woefully unhappy with the "public intellectual discourse" why dont you take your discourse elsewhere? Has it occurred to you that perhaps the problem doesnt lie with all the posters who try to tell you your arrogance, hostility and conflict-engendering insulting tone is not appropriate here?</p>