<p>Anyone feel that there's a hierarchy?</p>
<p>Most natural science majors could excel in the social sciences and humanities. But the converse is not true. Most social science and humanities people, in my experience, would not be able to excel in the natural sciences.</p>
<p>Sure, with engineering as king of course.</p>
<p>found an interesting article about the average salaries each major yields. your “hierarchy” claim pretty much nails it on the head. Perhaps the disconnect in salary shows the higher potential of the science group vs the lib-arts peeps.</p>
<p>[The</a> Best and Worst College Degrees by Salary - CBS MoneyWatch.com](<a href=“MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News”>MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News)</p>
<p>Why would Engineering be king?</p>
<p>CS > Everything else.</p>
<p>
Not really.</p>
<p>
First off, take out social sciences. Psychology involves a lot of biology, and both psychology and sociology require strict scientific study.</p>
<p>Further, you have to look at humanities on a person by person basis. Someone who takes English because it’s easier for them would fit with your description. A truly great historian, though, who looks at history as a scientific study of human past in order to affect human future, or a linguist skilled at dissecting languages and examining their component parts wouldn’t fit with what you’re saying, though maybe the “most” makes you right.</p>
<p>Still, it depends on what you mean by “excel.” Could the average engineer be the great psychologist? Could the average chemist be the great linguist? Could the average biologist be the great historian? I’d say not. It works both ways, though, too. The average psychologist probably couldn’t be a great engineer, the average linguist probably couldn’t be a great chemist, the average historian probably couldn’t be a great biologist.</p>
<p>Change “excel” to “make do,” and you’re more right. Each person has their own talents; each to his own. It’s a good thing there are so many majors.</p>
<p>History majors make more than biology majors.</p>
<p>Clearly your assumption is not always true.</p>
<p>Political science majors also do pretty well for themselves.</p>
<p>psh Everyone know engineering is king. </p>
<p>Or, at least you have Engineering, Computer Science, Business, and Economics up at the top (with other heavy math and science courses and maybe Law and Medicine)</p>
<p>Then the middle is the remaining science and math courses and the least useful sections of Law and Medical and Social Sciences</p>
<p>And at the bottom you have Humanities, Music, stuff like that</p>
<p>And at the very bottom, Women’s Studies, Theater Arts, etc.</p>
<p>but that’s not by difficulty, just usefulness</p>
<p>And I am not sure I can agree with the OP on science students being able to excel in humanities. I can’t stand that one I am in now, I don’t see the point. I wouldn’t be able to make it through 4 years of this.</p>
<p>Sorry BillMc but no great historian sees history as scientific. History is not a science.</p>
<p>
History is not a science, but seeing it through scientific eyes and analyzing the trends and patterns is the mark of a good historian.</p>
<p>I taught courses in the humanities at several places, and I’ll tell you that some of my worst students were the scientists and engineers at an institute of technology. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, they wanted me to just tell them the right answer. They had no desire at all to actually try to figure it out, and many of them actually lacked the ability to do so. It wasn’t merely that they were uninterested - they literally could not do what I was asking.</p>
<p>To be fair - scientists and engineers were also some of my best students.</p>
<p>^ That’s because most of what you taught was psuedo-knowledge, assumptions and theories passed out as solid fact, which isn’t true, similiar to most humanities.</p>
<p>Analyzing “the trends and patterns” is the mark of any historian.</p>
<p>I don’t know what “scientific eyes” means.</p>
<p>But yeah back to the topic now; I think cormy is completely correct. Like meteman says, humanities are just “psuedo-knowledge.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure why I’m playing this silly game, but here</p>
<p>[Edge:</a> EINSTEIN: AN EDGE SYMPOSIUM— Brian Greene, Walter Isaacson, Paul Steinhardt](<a href=“http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/einstein07/einstein07_index.html]Edge:”>http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/einstein07/einstein07_index.html)</p>
<p>is a pretty cool discussion between Brian Greene, Paul Steinhardt and Walter Isaacson. About 2/3 of the way down, Brian Greene specifically says there is a philosopher in his research group, that he finds it “extraordinarily helpful” to talk with philosophers about physics, and that he thinks we will soon see quite a lot of collaboration between physicists and philosophers. Steinhardt also suggests that it might be time for physics to return to its philosophical roots, that it may have to do so if it wants to make further progress, and that philosophers are “far ahead” of physicists in thinking about the pitfalls of string theory.</p>
<p>At least I know that I have some good scientists in my “pseudo-intellectual” company.</p>
<p>Well for undergrad engineering is regarded as the top with business as the most popular. However graduate degrees are different where medicine is and should be regarded as the best.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do realize that just makes you sound like you’re ****ed off because you didn’t pass a HUM class…</p>
<p>There’s no way to narrow it down to which major is the best/most useful/whatever. These threads pop up every few months and always get shot down pretty quickly.</p>
<p>how do you fail a humanities class?</p>
<p>its actually pretty easy, you don’t write the papers or you write papers that contradict the professor’s/teacher’s viewpoint</p>
<p>Oh please.</p>
<p>You fail a humanities class by not exhibiting skills of critical thinking, analysis and reasoned argumentation in your writing.</p>
<p>Sure, you can argue that the complete works of Shakespeare contain a hidden thread of psychosexual repression tied to the Anglo-Saxon/Church of England worldview… but if you can’t logically support that argument with textual citations which can be reasonably construed in such a manner, then your argument is a house of cards and the grade you earn will likely reflect that.</p>