<p>how good is economics at rice? i got accepted to nyu and uchicago too, but i still think rice is my first choice even though its economics department doesnt have the respect that nyu's and uchicago's have. so somebody please make me feel good and tell me that rice econ rocks.</p>
<p>I had a '4' on AP Macro, which gave me ECON 212 credit, and took 211 (Micro) for distribution credit my 1st semester. It totally kicked my butt. Does that count? :)</p>
<p>damn...i hate eco...that AP class sucks..</p>
<p>economics is the major with the highest percentage of graduates.. around 8%. so that should be an indication.</p>
<p>that could be an indication of many things, particularly that it's easy. besides, econ is a popular major everywhere. econ here doesnt match chicago, but what are you looking to do? the best econ grad students are undergrad math majors, and our math department is very good.</p>
<p>well i want to do law or business so thats wy i like economics. i was thinkling of double majoring in poly sci/english and economics. or at least minoring in one of the two. i know that economics has a become a very popular undergrad major for law schools</p>
<p>doubling here is easy (with those majors at least) and scheduling is much more flexible than chicago. i would not turn down rice and chicago for the campusless nyu. doesnt sound like you know what you want. sounds like you are doing what is typical. its not like econ majors do better than any other majors, there are just more of them. </p>
<p>if you have any inkling of doing, say, philosophy, you need to factor that in. certainly it would be wise for you to allow some "swing room" so to speak. you cannot predict which dept or professor will eventually allure you, so you should value those other, vaguer feelings of a major (if you have them) just as much. i came in as a physics/classics double and found that i am not going to be a good physicist and classics is flimsy and boring. you really have to take the classes to find out whats up. </p>
<p>since chicago and rice are both well rounded, i personally think you should consider the environment. they are very different and attract different students.</p>
<p>i understand what you mean. thing is that i think econ would be easy for me. math is my forte. i got a 790 on the sat for example. thats kinda why i like economics at this moment. of course it is very possible that i will find a passion for another major or dept at rice or chicagos o i shouldnt go based solely on that.</p>
<p>like i said - i definitely will try to double major. econ was just an idea and since i got into chicago i have to consider it. know what i mean?</p>
<p>i like rice more. its cheaper, i got the trustee scholrship, and it just seems like a fun college atmosphere. econ was just an idea</p>
<p>well then, i can see its just an ego thing then. look there are plenty of things that are easy. thats not the question. you can also go to law or business with virtually any major. </p>
<p>to separate yoursesf from the ego effects of grades and scores, do this: think about the classes and tests you take. imagine that you receive no grades on anything. imagine that grades dont exist and that next year, you can choose any classes you want. which do you choose? which do you want to be associated with? forget your test scores. imagine you took it yesterday, and based on taking it, which section do you like more? the true value of the test is not your score, but how it makes you feel. this is because a score compares you to others, and implicitly one should be happier with a higher score. but that is not how real life works. your capacity for happiness has nothing to do with intelligence (assuming no disorders and such). the same pattern holds for money.</p>
<p>if you wanted to be an actor, for example, you would have to work part time jobs like at a restaurant so that you can feasibly do the work you want to do in your spare time. how many lawyers do you think would accept making crap money at a restaurant just so they can write briefs when they get home?</p>
<p>not only is it their desire for money, but more so their desire to make more than others (salaries are published so that people know what you make). while these people are above others mentally, i think emotionally they are a bit simpler if they need a figure like to justify your actions. this is pretty much exactly what you did by the way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don't actually have any real opinion on what is being debated overall on this thread, but the above question interested me.</p>
<p>I'm not convinced it is fair to assume that struggling actors are taking the moral high ground over lawyers. First of all, not all actors are working at restaurants, and not all lawyers are getting rich. Quite a few lawyers work for non-profits, for causes they genuinely believe in, and for really fairly low pay, considering the hours they work and the cost of law school.</p>
<p>But aside from all that, which is fairly obvious, I feel like there are more similarities between the two groups than you allow for. Both the struggling waiter/actor and the wealthy lawyer are making sacrifices to achieve their dreams. Yet, you only seem to see this in the case of the actor. The lawyer is PERHAPS doing work that he or she is less satisfied with, in order to have the ability to do other things (send the kids to sleep away camp, travel the world, buy fancy clothes, provide expensive care for an ailing family member, etc.) that he or she finds meaningful. Few people are lucky enough to be able to do work that they love, have the family and personal life that they imagine, and have enough resources to be satisfied. Everyone has to make some sacrifices somewhere.</p>
<p>And, do what you want, make the sacrifices where you see fit. But, it's not cool to criticize others choices before you know why they are making them.</p>
<p>i dont consider it a question of morals so to that end i think your post is a little off the mark. i took such a strong edge because of the absurdity of the post before mine. the nature of the "dream" if you want to call it that for lawyers has less to do with the actual activity of practicing law than actors for acting. if it werent then you must answer yes to the question i raised. </p>
<p>of course there are non profit lawyers, but i would certainly not expect a potential non-profit lawyer to make a statement like jjjj's. to say not all actors do not work at restaurants contradicts nothing i said. also i happen to have made short-sighted connections like his just a year ago and the process of realizing it is a tough one. </p>
<p>you are right. few people can have all those things and almost none are big firm lawyers. since that is the road i believe people who talk like that are headed and because that is the norm for successful law school grads to take, i believe a warning is in order. i view the entire situation as delaying inevitable unhappiness unless advice is given. based on your broad appeal it seems you dont detect anything wrong with his outlook. well i strongly disagree and if i have misjudged in interpreting jjjj's sentiment, then there really is no harm done. to say "do what you want" is equivalent to saying "keep thinking how you are thinking," which i see as terrible advice here.</p>
<p>its also not cool to support others when you cant empathize.</p>