<p>Your logic is terrible. Those sports are all in different seasons. A better comparison would be Football and Soccer, as they are in the same season. Some Soccer players play Soccer because they like it and are good at it, others play because they are too feeble for Football. Football, like engineering, is more manly (male-dominated) and respected while Soccer is, on the whole, full of feeble fools, and – like majoring in political science – is more suitable for females.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a great argument. I think I’ll take you seriously.</p>
<p>Math majors will all claim that Math is the hardest major. And it is exceptionally difficult, but put them in an upper-level English class and they will tear their eyeballs out. And vice versa.</p>
<p>“Your logic is terrible. Those sports are all in different seasons. A better comparison would be Football and Soccer, as they are in the same season. Some Soccer players play Soccer because they like it and are good at it, others play because they are too feeble for Football. Football, like engineering, is more manly (male-dominated) and respected while Soccer is, on the whole, full of feeble fools, and – like majoring in political science – is more suitable for females.”</p>
<p>So is yours. What the hell does the season have to do with it? Also, your gross generalizations don’t serve to mitigate the stupidity of your argument. Just ****.</p>
<p>Logic and reasoning not your strong suit? I guess you’re more of a Memorization type. Well, then, just Memorize what I’m about to tell you: Because one cannot play both Football and Soccer – much like one generally does not major in Engineering and history simultaneously --the two sports are an excellent analogy for collegiate majors, devised by me, Whistleblower1. Football is selective (possible to get cut from) and male-exclusive; soccer, like majoring in english, is impossible to fail at (impossible to score (get paid) in), and typically has leagues for females and is more popular with females. It is very rare for females to play football, but they are allowed to if they are exceptional and can deal with the all-male, high-IQ culture --much like the experience of the <5% or so of engineers who are female. Make sense?</p>
<p>By the way, you are not a POS, you just need to improve your reading comprehension and etiquette. Gross generalization? More like brilliant analogy. Good day.</p>
<p>LOL. When I brought up the sports analogy, I wasn’t talking nor even thinking about playing it professionally or in a league. I was talking about going to a park and playing for fun lol. I was just saying that just because someone likes and plays sport A, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t handle sport B, sport C, or sport D. Maybe some people really can’t handle sport B, C, or D but usually, we want to avoid hasty assumptions and conclusions. </p>
<p>And of course, LOL at the whole football is more manly statement. </p>
<p>And btw, is engineering more manly? If so, would physics be the ULTIMATE man major?</p>
<p>OOOOO…one last question, which sport is usually consider the manliest of the manly of the manliness? Baseball, rugby, basketball, or football? I like to think that Albert Pujols and Kobe Bryant (or if you may, Lebron James lol) are all pretty manly. And since football = engineering, what about baseball, basketball, and rugby? Actually, what about tennis also?</p>
<p>Irviner, are you a human being? Did you go to high school? Unless the school has a very good soccer program and a crap football team, then 98% of the Top athletes play football over soccer. Watch a typical high school soccer team for 15 minutes and you will realize that most of them would not last a week in football, and they know it. This is a fact. It doesn’t apply to every single person, just like not every communications major is bad at math. It’s a generalization that is true a vast majority of the time and makes for an incredibly accurate analogy. By nitpicking and calling it a “hasty assumption”, you are acknowledging that I am right, and that I’m just merely being brash and overly masculine/intelligent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Football is more manly than soccer. Don’t argue with that, it’s true by definition.</p>
<p>Engineering requires an IQ that is higher than that of 98% of females, but only really higher than 90-95% of males. It’s also male dominated, and males enjoy it more. So, it’s more “manly”. Ditto for Physics.</p>
<p>Football is the manliest sport because in addition to being rough, violent, and fast-paced, it requires strategy and planning of plays, in addition to Quarterbacks being required to think on their feet, thus needing to be smart in addition to athletic.</p>
<p>All I will say is that a lot of the science/engineers at my school are incapable of writing a college level paper. We have required writing courses called SAGES, where we peer edit. I can’t believe some of these kids write at a middle school level. There were a lot of people who didn’t know how to write a thesis statement. They may be able to solve complex equations and take Calc III freshmen year, but they can’t write, or even think creatively. As in, if there isn’t a right or wrong answer, they can’t really get into a discussion. Many of them failed to realize all of those “deep” answers they were sharing are common philosophy ideas.</p>
<p>Science majors tend not to respect social science majors until they realize the social science majors pound out 15-20 page papers with ease, and they think an appropriate outline for a research paper consists of a one page 1 a. b. c. 2 a. b. c. etc;. Then they are struggling to put it together a week before its due, ask for extensions or turn it in late. Sure, they can build a bridge, but they can’t write a paper. Or read critically. I do not mean all science majors are like this, but a lot at my school are.</p>
<p>This is an interesting observation. The proper layout of an essay (thesis containing summary of arguments, iteration of supporting arguments, conclusion reiterating thesis) is relatively simple.</p>
<p>Also, define ‘read critically’; do you mean reading for comprehension or reading to analyse the literature for the soft, fuzzy nuances?</p>
<p>Football is for the average IQ, high testosterone types, although a high IQ coach has to orchestrate the plays, and a medium to above average IQ quarterback has to make sure the plays happen. Soccer takes strategy and technical skill from all the players to a much greater level than the average football player. Why do you think Germany always does well in the World Cup?</p>
<p>Within football, a physics major is the coach, a quarterback is the engineer, a receiver is a business major, and everyone else is an english major.</p>
<p>The casual implication that football players are unintelligent has me a bit befuddled. If nothing else, you’re committing a classic is-ought error (football players have an average IQ, therefore football is for people with an average IQ).</p>
<p>Although you may just be trying to make a very strange metaphor, I’m not sure. In that case, the soccer bit seems very far off (ever heard of Brazil?).</p>
<p>Whatever the case, the relation between your… something… and the topic of this thread seems tenuous at best. Nothing that you’ve said at all supports the conclusion that STEM majors kick ass.</p>
<p>The best players (pro or local) in football compared to the best players in soccer are different. </p>
<p>In soccer players need a high level of independent and coordinated technical and tactical skill whereas in football it is more all out, knee jerk, power play and the players follow a play that has already been made.</p>
<p>It is the difference between America and Europe- Europe is more methodical and organized and America is more bruteforce. </p>
<p>That is why Americans think soccer is boring and why the world thinks Americans are dumb.</p>
<p>Nice job addressing my established argument. You are judging others without considering your own costs. You pay an opportunity cost (during college) by choosing a financially practical major over your favorite subjects. Your expected future salary is only one aspect of the potential return that college offers. These two factors raise the non-financial costs of obtaining your degree and lower its benefits.</p>
<p>It’s not my fault that you have a narrow minded perception of utility, and choose to pursue the highest expected future salary without considering other aspects of utility. </p>
<p>There is no need to attack those who point out your simplicity. You can either accept your simplicity or defend your skewed view of the world. You have done neither. </p>
<p>Please note that simpletons like yourself are needed in society. Greatness is only recognizable amidst mediocrity. You are other people’s stepping stone, and there is no shame in that.</p>