<p>Ooooookay so I’m dealing with a ■■■■■ here which means I’m done. No doubt justtotalk will glow with the satisfaction of stunning a foe into silence with his crushing logic…</p>
<p>^You are not a foe, and my logic isn’t crushing. You estimated “the percentage of the population that can finish an engineering curriculum”–a measurement comparing ALL engineering grads to the entire population–using crude, baseless assessments that originally focused on top engineering students. </p>
<p>I don’t know where you come up with your erratic and completely made up stats. You live in a fantasy world, and then scoff at others who supposedly aren’t grounded in reality because they don’t choose a major that maximizes earning potential.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is Van’s argument precisely, and it approaches Tom’s argument too. You think there’s more to it because you used big words and wrote a few paragraphs. But your argument really is this stupid.</p>
<p>What is the hardest subject?</p>
<p>The easiest subject is ■■■■■■■■■■ General Studies. :P</p>
<p>A serious music degree.</p>
<p>The hours you spend studying for engineering or physics is dwarfed by the amount of time the typical music major spends practicing. And the more prestigious programs (like Julliard’s) have lower acceptance rates than Harvard.</p>
<p>Not to forget Curtis Institute of Music! Oh my!</p>
<p>But then, I see that music is the most common EC for Harvard… what gives?</p>
<p>Most high schools make you have some sort of fine arts credit to graduate, so it makes sense that a lot of high school students have a music EC - they took a class in it and kept on doing it.</p>
<p>Just says I do not deserve to graduate from college. I think (s)he is mad. </p>
<p>As for who is worthy to be an engineer, consider the average IQ of the field. The higher the average IQ, odds are, the fewer people people qualified for the rigours of the profession. Of course, some <em>ahem</em> egalitarians would dispute the reliability of IQ, but they do so because it is not politically correct enough for them.</p>
<p>Jan, I got into a decent public college by getting in the back door via community college. This allowed me to save about five krugerrands on both tuition and living expenses, and I do not know why others do not do the same to circumvent the ridiculously high cost of living in college towns. </p>
<p>As for maximisation of utility, money is not a means in itself, but the more money one has, the better off one is, and the more interesting things (and people) one can do.</p>
<p>Classics, I would encourage you to seek out two things: the average income of those who graduate from UConn, and those who graduate majoring in classics.</p>
<p>Averages and statistics are meaningless for an individual. It depends on how realistic you are about your prospects and how hard you are willing to work.</p>
<p>I don’t think the plans I have told you about are unrealistic, and I have no illusions about how difficult it will be.</p>
<p>And I do not appreciate the insinuations against my school; UConn is among the best public universities in the country, and the Modern and Classical Languages department is excellent.</p>
<p>Yes, but how much do they make is (literally) the $64K question. Also, it is not an issue of whether the plans are unrealistic, but do they pay the bills? </p>
<p>As for this nonsense about averages being irrelevant, they serve as a good indicator of what to expect, and speak to being realistic about one’s prospects. I could tell you the acceptance rate to Harvard and you probably would not use the same line. If there are 100 chairs and 99 people, someone is going to be standing; it’s that simple. Likewise, if there is maybe one professorship open and 16 applicants, 15 will probably be muttering dirty words in Latin upon notification of who was hired.</p>
<p>Future earnings are so filled with variables that it is impossible to predict what one will make based on their undergraduate degree. Ted Turner graduated with a degree in Classics, yet somehow he is not living in poverty.</p>
<p>You’re right about professorships, though; the Ph.D market is abysmal. Teaching in a high school, however, is a viable and well paying option.</p>
<p>Though teaching is an honourable profession, I do not foresee any green grass in that meadow. School funding in most places is raised from property taxes. Property values have been in the chamber pot for some time now and are going further because of option ARM, Alt-A, &c resets.</p>
<p>That said, it is not the sole predictor. You could just as easily end up begging in Latin for all I know. That said - the average salary is an indicator, and graduating from a school with a higher salary predisposes one to earn a higher income. Average income of alumni is a good indicator of the quality of said school and of what programme from which they graduate, just like living in a state with high unemployment predisposes one to be unemployed.</p>
<p>This is a rather circular argument. Lets just agree to disagree. </p>
<p>Just on the subject of teaching, though; while overstaffed subjects will see difficulty (i.e. English), the fact is that there is actually rising demand for Latin throughout school systems - the lack of Latin teachers is really more of a supply, rather than a demand, issue. This is why districts like my own are willing to pay top dollar to keep around one teacher rather than allow her to go to another district - they tried to cut Latin from the curriculum in the town next to mine, but the board of ed faced such stiff opposition from parents and students that they relented.</p>
<p>Yep; mild indifference of antiquity it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously?
- You haven’t shown (or even explicitly stated an opinion) that high IQ is a necessary requirement for success in engineering. IQ would have to be the determinant of “qualification for the rigors of the profession” for the above quote to mean anything.</p>
<p>2) You haven’t shown that engineers have abnormally high IQs relative to the rest of the college population. Remember, we’re comparing liberal arts majors and technical majors.</p>
<p>3) You haven’t shown that a below average engineering student automatically fails to successfully complete the curriculum. Suppose that IQ determines grades (idiotic assumption), and suppose that engineers have substantially higher IQs that other college students. The “average IQ liberal arts guy” can still easily complete the curriculum with successful marks; 50% of engineering students across the USA do not fail to complete an engineering degree.</p>
<p>
Oops. Not quite. But suppose there’s 99 chairs and 100 people. My point is that, luckily for us, there aren’t 150 capable people chasing those “chairs” because many liberal arts majors don’t choose technical vocations.</p>
<p>Why don’t they choose technical majors? Maybe because there’s more to their life than chasing after money in a field they don’t give a damn about. </p>
<p>I.e. they have different measurements of life utility than you. Money is only a precursor to life utility if:
A) You don’t have enough money to provide “basic necessities”-- whatever that implies for an individual person
or
B) The activities that above average income provides increases their life utility more than the work expected in a STEM vocation decreases their life utility.</p>
<p>You haven’t shown that the people choosing liberal arts majors can’t reach the income necessary for A, or desire the income seen in B. Thus, you haven’t shown that they are making irresponsible decisions.</p>
<p>This was really entertaining to skim through. So much venom! </p>
<p>Cool question. It has obviously created a lot of discussion, but I have no idea what the answer would be. Considering I only have experience with 2 majors, who am I to judge all the others? It sounds like some people on this thread have a huge amount of knowledge of the rigor of different majors (judging by the confidence in their arguments).</p>
<p>Anyway, the hardest major for me would probably be English. I’m terrible with words. The easiest would probably music theory.</p>
<p>@Vanagandr</p>
<p>Really, krugerrands? Do you actually keep a stash of gold coins from South Africa or are you really this annoying?</p>
<p>As for IQ, anyone who thinks this antiquated notion accurately gauges something as nebulous as “intelligence” is probably so infatuated with their own score to notice the huge block letters on their forehead spelling out STUPID. IQ clearly measures something, and this something clearly relates to certain mental functions, but beyond that we step beyond accurate assessment into the realm of imagination. Recall that Richard Feynman “only” had an IQ of 125.</p>
<p>At any rate, I’d much rather live in a society whose people were well versed in the classical canon than in the principles of engineering (or worse, economics). The fact that so many technical majors have absolutely zero appreciation for the merits of the humanities attests to their spirit-crushing dullness.</p>
<p>I can hear heads exploding already.</p>
<p>Oh and also, the idea that more money = better off and that more money = more interesting things to do or more interesting people to meet is absurd. Wouldn’t you rather hang out with a biker at some dive bar with three kids from three women than some generic suit at Morgan Stanley?</p>
<p>In my experience blue collar workers are substantially more interesting, more down to earth, and more fun to be around than the cocky yuppies at every Starbucks and Whole Foods. ****, I’d rather join the merchant marine or become a carpenter after I graduate rather than start my forty year sentence at Acme Corp.</p>
<p>Jan, it is upon a computer, perfected by the labour of electrical engineers, that you write your irrelevant argument.</p>
<p>I keep a respectable stash of gold in allocated storage. Beats holding inflating dollars. I also have a gold Dutch 10fl coin, but who’s counting (except the IRS)?</p>
<p>That said, I would have more in common with the gentleman from Morgan Stanley; I have some good wisecracks about The Economist.</p>
<p>I really can not believe that people continue to debate this subject on this forum. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen a thread like this I could probably pay the gap in my tuition after financial aid :D</p>
<p>I don’t understand how people can think that money is everything o.o.</p>
<p>I’m a music education major, and I’m going to get a job teaching in a high school. My salary is going to start at probably 45k. That’s not a lot of money at all, but I will be happy. I could just as well major in engineering. I could totally do it. I excelled in chemistry and calculus and all those classes that bored me to death, but I know I would not be happy later in life.</p>