<p>Would it be better to take Physics or Chemistry as my physical science? I am wanting to become a Software Engineer or maybe dive in Artificial Intelligence (I know they're different fields of study). I am in my first year at college, and I would like someone's opinion of which would benefit me in my career. </p>
<p>Also, should I take Macroeconomics, Psychology, or Sociology? I have taken Microeconomics, but I don't think Macroeconomics would benefit me that much. I was leaning more towards Psychology. Thoughts anyone?</p>
<p>There is a lot more math in intro level physics, which is always good. You may one day decide to go into graphics or game physics. :)</p>
<p>Macroeconomics is a hot mess. This piece is a complete, brutal piece by piece takedown of the entire field: <a href=“How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? - The New York Times”>How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? - The New York Times. It’s by a macroeconomist. I know some people don’t like the author, but it makes some very solid points.</p>
<p>Psych is a funny field. Got a deserved bad rep over the years for being easy and doing BS studies that don’t prove anything. Now in many places its turning into applied neuroscience + applied statistics = badassery. Depends on your department but probably better than sociology anyway in most cases.</p>
<p>Physics is probably the more obvious complement to CS. Then again everyone else probably figures that too. And there’s a lot of cool interesting difficult problems in computation chem. On the other hand, chem will be pre-med city, physics will be a mix of pre-meds and engineers.</p>
<p>Physics is more likely to be useful than chemistry. Games, simulation, and software controls may find physics knowledge useful.</p>
<p>Regarding macroeconomics, taking an introductory course will give you some idea of what the typical models are, and how much detail is left out in the models versus the actual economy. Macroeconomics also does not lend itself to experiments with controls like microeconomics does (so macroeconomic policy decisions are always subject to “what if?” second-guessing).</p>