<p>“Yurtle, I took a logic/philosophy course in college. There’s nothing really quantitative about it. Logic =/= quant - math requires logic, but logic does not require math.”</p>
<p>There’s like 10 or 15 different logic/discrete math courses at Michigan. Some are quanty, like the ones in the math or EECS (stands for Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) departments, others are less quanty like the ones in the philosophy department. Logic is a wide study. </p>
<p>As for the “if we’re talking about grades” thing, what else could we be talking about? If it’s easier to get a 3.4 in major A (say Psychology or Michigan) than a 2.9 in major B (say Electrical Engineering at Michigan) then why wouldn’t it be easier to get a 2.0 in major A than major B (the STD is probably about the same until you get down to the people who aren’t trying at all) in order to pass? Difficulty passing is the same as standards in grading. </p>
<p>If we’re just talking about if someone is bound to be bored in humanities classes because they’re not challenging enough, like pretty much everyone here, I’m saying no. If we’re talking about whether one major can be easier than another, I don’t see a single post that actually refutes what I’m saying. </p>
<p>And I can’t back this up with anything (though I don’t think anyone can refute it with anything either…) but I would bet that engineering majors would have better grades in humanities than humanities kids would have in engineering. Many engineering kids take humanities classes to boost their GPAs, I don’t see humanities kids taking engineering classes to boost their GPAs.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The grading in humanities courses may be more subjective, allowing for higher gpa or more clustering of passing grades.</p></li>
<li><p>The teachers are better in humanities courses. It is simply a fact that there is more competition for English teachers and professors than there is for math/science teachers. So the humanities departments are often choosier-- and end up hiring teachers who are better able to convey the information. Plus, many of the humanities professors are better communicators and less likely to have strong foreign accents than teachers in math/science/technology.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Hm. Wasn’t meaning to imply logic needed math, just that those who enjoy math/do well in it will find much of it to be similar modes of thinking. Logic was always on the quantitative reasoning gifted tests at my schools.</p>
<p>BIG NO on that one. There is a nationwide shortage of math/science/technical teachers, especially at the elementary and secondary levels. (Because males have been discouraged to pursue such? Another thread.) Humanity PhD’s are terribly underemployed due to their over abundance. Humanity PhD’s do indeed face severe competition. But that competition is about available jobs, not them.</p>
<p>I will not get into whether an English or Math class is “harder”. That depends on many factors - quality of teacher, strengths of student, how much work you WANT to put in, etc. I will say one thing: despite my natural inclination towards the humanities, I have so far gotten better GRADES in my science/math classes here. Hm. Interesting. Anyway.</p>
<p>I will move quickly onto the next question the OP poses, since we’ve established it would be near impossible to determine the first.</p>
<p>State universities have a huge number of extremely smart people - I am sure it is similar numbers, at least, to those found at Harvard, etc. As OP said, many people simply can’t afford a private school education, for whatever reason, and end up at state uni. Discussion based classes tend to be LARGER at these public universities than at small or mid-sized LACs. In those larger classes, you will find quite a few smart people, and it is usually the smart people who talk. So, I posit that there is not much difference between a humanities course at Swat versus one at a state uni, especially at the upper levels (which is fine since honors courses, APs, etc. should spare them from much of the doldrum of lower level classes).</p>
My question regarding the level of rigor at mid-tier public flagships was not rhetorical. As I said in the OP:
</p>
<p>
You assume, wrongly, that I think this. Some people have said, plausibly, that at many mid-tier publics, the high-stat kids tend toward technical majors. I would LOVE to see data either supporting or refuting this assertion; it is an objective curiosity for me, because I chose a private LAC for a multitude of reasons and course rigor was almost an afterthought among those reasons.</p>
<p>I won’t bother to quote all of the gems in this thread, but suffice to say that this discussion is fascinating even–or particularly–in its vehement disagreements.</p>
<p>ETA: toblin, I think you reversed the intended meaning of “more competition.” I read that to mean that it’s harder for English teachers/professors to find jobs than for math/science teachers, which is what you also said.</p>
<p>umdcp11 - Interesting. My only caveat is that in my limited experience, it’s not only the smart people who talk. Particularly, for whatever reason, in my 35-person AP Lit class. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Toblin, I think you misunderstood. There are fewer jobs in the humanities so there is more competition for them to find jobs and employers are choosier because they can be. This means that, practically speaking, teachers and professors in the humanities are often better teachers than those in the math/science areas.</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>I think that’s the point…no one can say that “all publics” or “most publics” will have mediocre programs…just like no one can say “all privates” or “most privates” will have superior programs. Each school’s programs need to be judged for themselves. </p>
<p>Plus, I don’t think a “right brained” major needs to be filled with ACT 34’s in order for there to be challenging coursework or interesting discussions. I have many very smart friends who can hold stimulating conversations on nearly any subject and yet none ever scored a 34 on an ACT test…none would have ever been accepted to an elite.</p>
<p>^Would you say the same for “left brained” majors? I certainly question the accuracy of test scores as predictors of intelligence or ability, but I don’t think the SAT Math, for example, is any more or less important for engineering majors than the SAT Critical Reading for English majors. They’re either both useless or both useful–truthfully, somewhere in between–but I don’t perceive any reason for them not to move in lockstep on the spectrum.</p>
Cheap shots indeed. Some of the most gifted writers I’ve read have been scientists. Rachel Carson, for example, has more beautiful prose than a good many humanities-trained writers I have come across, and Donald Peattie’s volumes on the trees of North America verge on the poetic. While skimming through virtually anything written by Stephen Jay Gould, one is struck by the erudition of the author in a variety of fields.</p>
<p>
I have no qualms in agreeing with you, though perhaps that is because I studied both the sciences and the humanities as an undergrad. My field of graduate study requires knowledge of five different dialects and scripts of one ancient language, knowledge of two other ancient languages, knowledge of the history, art, and literature of the primary culture, and knowledge of the history, art, and literature of a secondary culture, making it without doubt the most demanding of the humanities. </p>
<p>Is that time consuming to learn? Yes. Tedious? Yes. Does it make one want to bang one’s head against the wall in frustration sometimes? Yes. Is it overly difficult? No.</p>
<p>Simply put, even advanced work in the humanities is not difficult in the sense that even those who work hard at it will miserably fail. There are those, science and humanities majors alike, who have a natural inclination for it, but most students can at least follow along.</p>
<p>It never ceases to amuse me how defensive those in the humanities can be. Yes, what we study is culturally significant. Yes, it is of value. Why fret about how difficult people perceive it to be? So what if more people can grasp the allegory of the cave than a redshift? The importance of a subject lies in its inherent value, not its difficulty.</p>
<p>---------- Getting back to the main topic ----------------</p>
<p>
I agree. American students are somewhat unique that way; professors in the UK absolutely love Americans because they’ll speak up in class and drive discussion along. I would not fret overly much about the distinction between “hard” and “easy” majors at any university. Chances are that the people who aren’t insightful are furtively sleeping or on facebook. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Those who missed this post should go back and read it and ponder its significance. This is a crucial point and I thank JHS for making it. Even at mid-rank Big Flagship U I had philosophy and history professors with doctorates from the very top programs. They expected quite a bit. It is true (perhaps) that the level of discussion among the students may not have matched that at top LACs or private universities, but there was always a core of students who were interested and prepared for class, and the professors kept things going.</p>
<p>But not everyone can feasibly go to a CTCL school, so again, how/what can/do students do/achieve/fare in a big state school as a very intelligent non-quant kid? What can be done to achieve the same challenge and education for them and their fellow peers?</p>
<p>“umdcp11 - Interesting. My only caveat is that in my limited experience, it’s not only the smart people who talk. Particularly, for whatever reason, in my 35-person AP Lit class.”</p>
<p>Three things.</p>
<ol>
<li>How many people in that 35 person AP lit class ended up at Swat or similar level universities? Despite their lack of intelligent things to say? LOL.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Well, I went to an extremely competitive public school, so most of the students in my AP lit class went to Top 20 universities or similarly ranked LACs. Perhaps this doesn’t really ring a bell with you…but in my experience, it wasn’t necessarily those kids going to top universities that had the smartest things to say (I can think of one UVa destined kid in particular who always blew my mind with his ridiculously horrible “contributions” haha). Conversely, oftentimes the people who weren’t the most perfect students had very interesting things to add… (and certainly would not have had the grades to get into very selective LACs or OOS public unis such as UNC/UVA/UMich).</p>
<p>So, even Swat will not be immune from that annoying kid who “just doesn’t get it.”</p>
<ol>
<li>Compared to high school, there is a LOT less useless drivel…perhaps there is a greater sense of self-awareness in college kids, idk. It is probably more that lots of kids enroll in AP Lit to be on the “most rigorous track”…but not a lot of kids will choose an English major just for the heck of it. I would think humanities-focused people in college choose those majors because that is their strength and passion.</li>
</ol>
<p>UVa ended up majoring in business.</p>
<p>Go figure.</p>
<ol>
<li>1 kid or 2 might say something ridiculous, but the prof usually gets them to shut up fairly quick ;). A good prof will use intelligent people to drive the discussion, and certainly state unis are full of good profs!</li>
</ol>
<p>And this thread seems to circled back to the old “LACs are more intellectually stimulating than public universities!!!1” argument.</p>
<p>My best friend goes to fairly well-regarded LAC. It’s been really interesting for me to see our college experiences play out side-by-side, as I went in honestly thinking I would hate my college (third tier state school–filled with drunken dullards for sure–that’s what I thought going to college–I thought I was going to be bored, isolated and hate my school) and that hers would be intellectually stimulating and free of a party atmosphere (neither of us are partiers, so it’s an apt comparison). Over the past four years, I’ve been surprised just how many complaints she’s had about her college–dull professors, totally random professors where you don’t really learn much, the feeling that “all everyone talks about here is how drunk they got/are going to get.” Granted, she’s had some good experiences as well, but I’ve been surprised by just how many disappointments she’s faced with regard to her classes/professors. </p>
<p>I’ve had some professors/classes I didn’t think were the greatest, sure, but I’ve really liked and felt stimulated by most of my classes. I’ve had really interesting class discussions. I’ve gotten to know some of the faculty very well (even some of those I’ve had in larger classes). I’ve done a lot of research with faculty, including theses. I’ve asked faculty to guest-lecture in a seminar I teach and gotten resoundingly helpful, generous responses. I’ve had faculty–and other students–push me professionally, academically, and personally. Is everyone here a genius? No, of course not. But I’ve been generally impressed by my fellow students as a whole. Is there a drinking culture here? Yes. But I rarely drink (once of age), and I’ve still met great friends.</p>
<p>Will everyone at my school have a great experience? No. Will everyone’s at my friend’s LAC have a mediocre experience? No. I’ve known people who have had a mediocre experience at my school, and a great experience at my friend’s. And the opposite. </p>
<p>It’s not a black and white matter matter of LACs=intellectual stimulation/connection; state schools=de-personalization/lack of connection.</p>
<p>Hm. I don’t know. My in-state safety (ASU) regular classes may start out with 300 or so students in it. I know many students who will be going who have poor writing skills- the solution for more challenge is the Honor’s College. I think self-study is also helpful. </p>
<p>But let’s be honest- a school of 50,000 kids is not going to be very personal, nor will it have huge rigor in beginning classes when the acceptance rate is about 90%. Again, the whole reason Barrett Honor’s college exists- to make things “smaller” and harder. There are smaller unis that are probably more personal. In my experience, ASU is not one of them- but I know other places are different.</p>
<p>This is about “the different places”. Where is different? Are there exceptional (and maybe small) and rigorous departments we don’t hear about at big schools?</p>
<p>My in state chemistry and physics classes started out with 100 - 500 students per class. Does this mean students were passed even though they had poor science skills?</p>
<p>My Calculus I class had 500 students in it (divded into 10 sections of 50 students each). About 20% failed this class the first time around.</p>
<p>Since a significant number of students failed freshman chemistry and freshman physics, I think the answer would be those who passed had good skills. Those who failed didn’t.</p>
<p>I think it’s a mistake to say that the size of the class affects the rigor of the course. I’m right now taking a graudate applied mathematics course with 100 students in it and believe that it will be very rigorous.</p>
<p>I’m coming a bit late to this thread, but I have to congratulate Keilexandra on identifying a very important issue for prospective “easy” majors. I am amused to see that some “math-sciencey” types who posted in reply did not even understand the question she asked- so much for their claims of intellectual superiority!</p>
<p>…but I suspect OP is most concerned not about finding suitable mentors but rather about finding suitable peers. I suspect the answer is not too encouraging- the intellectually gifted prospective English major who does not get into (or cannot afford) a top tier school <em>is</em> probably condemned to being around intellectual non-peers until he or she gets to graduate school.</p>