<p>So… what can a humanities major do to “find a tribe” at a school where the high-stat students do lean towards technical majors? I think it’s reasonable to assume that this happens at least SOME schools.</p>
<p>Find a liberal arts college. I can name a couple:</p>
<p>Wheaton
Willamette
University of Montana-Missoula</p>
<p>^While that happens to be what I did myself, it’s not feasible for most people. Let’s say for financial and parental reasons, a student has to attend his/her in-state public flagship–and that flagship is not UCs/UNC/UVA/UMich/etc. Are high-achieving “non-quant” kids in such a no-choice situation really doomed to four years of being bored in major classes? I really hope not.</p>
<p>the simple answer is NO. . .it’s been proven again and again. please let this thread die.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that thinking may be why the computer science major is not a great artist. All the artists I know who put out professional quality work spend hours daily practicing. The same goes for actors, dancers, singers, and musicians because if you’ve ever met someone who does that for a living, or wants to, you’ll know they’ll push past pain, and practice for hours on end to get it right. </p>
<p>One of my old best friends is going to a top musical theater school. She has been practicing and honing her talents since she was about seven. (I met her when she was six.) She spends hours weekly with vocal instructors, dance classes, she acts, directs, does drama classes, and plays major roles both at HS and off campus in professional settings. She has maintained an excellent GPA in all her classes, and I’m always amazed. </p>
<p>Regardless of the dull and tiresome agruments between quant/humanities/social sciences, I think many students take to academic societies, honors clubs, and befriend professors in order to achieve real challenge in their courses.</p>
<p>morandi - Since in this very thread there are multiple people who disagree, I invite you to please link to where your assertion has been “proven again and again.”</p>
<p>When students (and their parents) compare the difficulty of majors, I don’t think they are looking how much time you can spend on your classes. No doubt, an artist can spend tons of time and be very good.</p>
<p>I think students are looking at how little time you can spend on your classes and still pass, even if you are mediocre at your skill. Oftentimes, art/dance/humanity classes at colleges are ones that you can spend very little time and still pass. Technical classes like math and science often require a lot of time even if you are trying for a C.</p>
<p>Architecture is a good example of a major that combines both science and art, and still requires tons of effort to simply pass. Those of you who knew architecture students know what I am talking about.</p>
<p>Keil: My D will be a humanities focused student at UA in the fall (right now history & anthropology double major) and yes, we originally focused there because of the NMF scholarship. As she looked into the school and made contacts within the history department, she was won over. She will be in 2 honors programs (the regular one and the international one) and many of her classes will be capped at 15 students. She has been in contact a number of times with her history advisor and he, along with others associated with the Honors College have identified specific professors and programs that will mesh with her areas of historical interest. </p>
<p>While this is specific to UA and my D, I think that universities that have well thought out honors colleges can provide rigor to their top humanities students.</p>
<p>I guess I was just too dull to realize that my history, philosophy, foreign language, literature and composition courses at Big State U. were populated by simpletons. The courses seemed both interesting and stimulating to me.</p>
<p>Given that the OP hasn’t even started college yet, I am amazed at what an expert she is on the type of education available at public universities.</p>
<p>As for harder and easier majors, after I finished my undergraduate degree in history, I went back to school and earned a BS in biochemistry with a minor in chemistry, before continuing on for doctorates in biochem and molecular biology. (History is still the subject of choice for extracurricular reading.) The science courses required a lot more time in class and lab. Were they ‘harder’? For me they were, but that doesn’t mean it would be so for others. For me, the biggest difference was that science courses did not let you get away with earning an ‘A’ just because you were really good at b-s-ing your way through papers and essays. You actually had to know your facts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While some might be bored in some introductory courses, especially if an honors option is unavailable, even that is not a given. Certainly they are not doomed to be bored for four years at any flagship (or equivalent) university with which I am familiar. Upper level courses contain students who are interested in the subject matter.</p>
<p>Blessedly, these high-achieving students will not have to put up with four years of close contact with presumptuous ‘intellectuals’ who pity them for attending public universities.</p>
<p>At my somewhat unique but fairly highly rated college we had both a strong engineering program and the traditional “LAC”. This was the hierarchy at the time: a large proportion of the freshman class started out in engineering and most of those were electrical engineering majors. As time passed, many of the electricals “dropped down” to mechanical and later to civil. Those who couldn’t cut it in engineering, became economics or history majors. In turn those who couldn’t handle that level of rigor went on to political science and from there, they either flunked out or graduated and went to law school and into politics … which explains a lot about the state of our country.</p>
<p>Midmo: I “know” Keil from other threads and I can assure you that she is not a “presumptuous intellectual.” She’s a very sweet young lady. I think that the conversation in the other thread about big u’s “buying” high stat kids & the majority of those kids picking math & sciences raised a question to her: “hey, what about kids like me that don’t get aid and can’t afford the top schools?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve met Keil, and I can say she’s not snobbish, or presumptuous at all. </p>
<p>Personally, the closest I was going to get to a financial safety that would not have the kids who flunked everything else was going to be ASU Barrett Honor’s. It’s the option many of my fellow AP classmates take when they can’t afford a top school. I was lucky, and admitted to a high-quality LAC that has great humanities and sciences, with a decent enough finaid package. </p>
<p>Some of my class will be lucky. Others may not be- so they’ll go to Barrett or just ASU or UofA or NAU and hope for the best. Not all of them are humanities focused, but they’ll all be dealing with classes that are perhaps 300+ students that aren’t meeting the levels of academic thought that would stimulate them. The honor’s programs fix some of that. These kids are my friends, and have been for a very long time (the honors programs start very early, and most kids are strongly discouraged to drop into regulars classes in elementary/junior high, and by HS you have a strong network of classmates who are all in the same classes.) but not all of us are rich, and not all of us are poor enough to get significant aid either. </p>
<p>Perhaps there are other solutions besides an honor’s college, but there should be a way to continue to maintain standards for kids.</p>
<p>busdriver 11- One of my favorite quotes," If people only knew how hard I worked, they would not think my work wonderful at all.— Michelangelo</p>
<p>^^^I “know” keil from other threads also, and she is clearly an intelligent young lady with a bright future. However, the assumption underlying this thread is that all who choose to attend public universities are to be pitied. That is a parochial and ignorant assumption.</p>
<p>Bright students who can’t afford top private schools and who don’t get merit aid at those who offer it can avail themselves of the more affordable opportunities at public universities. It may well require more effort on their part. Shyness will be a problem. Demanding good advising is a must. Students who are mature, self assured and directed will be at an advantage. And so on.</p>
<p>Tragedy? No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you misunderstood. The assumption is not that they should be pitied, but a question of whether or not they will get a rigorous education for themselves in departments traditionally assumed to be “easy” as that can be more easily filled with students who want something “easy”, and how they will go about it, so other smart kids can follow the example, and make the most out of their experiences.</p>
<p>The answer to your question is as simple as hitting the university library. I am a very curious person by nature and there were classes I took which were too easy but when I enjoyed a subject, I often went way beyond what was taught. The professors are experts in their field and can often point you to interesting books, articles, authors or literature that you may enjoy.</p>
<p>re hard and easy… you also have to throw in the variable of the child’s strengths… give my son an essay and he will struggle…he will get it done, and will get a good grade but wouldnt consider it easy…BUT give him chemistry/biology tasks and he will whip through them and excel. so for him an english major would be harder than a chemistry one</p>
<p>I think the high achieving humanities students can migrate to schools that are known for a specific major e.g. Iowa for Writing, Chicago for economics (maybe still), etc. So much of the intensity of those majors relates to the profs so I would tell my kids, you ‘find the profs’ to find the school. I was a humantities person in a family of engineers so I refuse to engage in any discussion regarding engineering being ‘more difficult’ than humanities majors. Don’t go there. I chose my colleges primarily on the backs of the profs that were at those schools at that time. This is also a changing variable as profs retire, new profs come in. What was a strong department twenty years ago might not be today. It takes some research. You can’t base a ‘best school for ABC’ on “career” statistics or earning statistics or any typical benchmark because so much of what makes a college ‘best’ for humanities is the here and now of the years on campus. Music, art, etc. majors have long, long known this and quite often the very “best” of those students have a college list that does not looke like a typical CC Tier 1 list.</p>
<p>Do I think the architecture graduate (which I’m not) is entitled to be a little smug that his major requires more hours of homework assignments / projects than any other major? Yes, that is an accomplishment. I don’t care for arrogance but I think it’s ok to be a little proud of the achievement.</p>
<p>As a college English major back in the day, I’ll jump into the fray and take some cheap shots of my own: I’m always amused by pre-meddies (if that qualifies as a “hard major”) and engineering/techies admiring themselves in the mirror. Aren’t these really trade school students? Exactly how well would these students fare writing papers in upper level English, history, etc. humanities courses? (Answer: the requirement of rigorous developed writing skills + creative thought = not well.) My favorite was a Princeton grad (econ I believe) marvelling that I had taken “an entire course on an author???” (Faulkner).</p>
<p>The level of ignorance I routinely encounter from these tech majors concerning the society/world we live in no longer even surprises me. There is a difference between the ability to master the rote memorization of facts and living a life of the creative mind. The latter can happen regardless of major, but frankly I rarely see it among the “hard majors” grads I have encountered in later life. </p>
<p>BTW, none of this is directed at Keil, who simply asks the questions of a curious mind.</p>