Hierarchy of majors

[WastedxYears]

<p>@powerbomb</p>

<p>you are still not understanding what I am saying. Obviously all of those things are necessary but CS has changed those very fields to the point where it is integral in their function. Would communication, language, reasoning, human interaction,etc be the same today if we did not have computers? You don’t even have to think hard about that one.</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>Plus, once you crown a major “king,” a bunch of radical History, Philosophy, and Political Science majors will try to overthrow it and instate a republic, so…</p>

<p>

you are still not understanding what I am saying. Obviously all of those things are necessary but CS has changed those very fields to the point where it is integral in their function. Would communication, language, reasoning, human interaction,etc be the same today if we did not have computers? You don’t even have to think hard about that one.

No, they would not be the same without computers. But would they be worse? Human interaction and its positive effects on human psychology has taken a nosedive amongst those frequently using social networking sites.</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>

you are still not understanding what I am saying. Obviously all of those things are necessary but CS has changed those very fields to the point where it is integral in their function. Would communication, language, reasoning, human interaction,etc be the same today if we did not have computers? You don’t even have to think hard about that one.

</p>

<p>No, I fully understand what you’re saying. </p>

<p>You’re right. CS has changed all those things and they wouldn’t be the same today if we did not have computers. But they would still exist. Now, conversely, would computers exist if we did not have those things?</p>

[WastedxYears]

<p>@BillyMc</p>

<p>Case in point. If they try to do that, we CS majors will threaten to take away internet porn. They will get on their knees and beg. </p>

<p>(joking)(sort of)</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>ROFLCOPTER. Nooooo. Not that! Anything but that!</p>

[WastedxYears]

<p>@powerbomb
I am not talking about the past. The past is set in stone. I am talking about which major is the king in the present day and the future. </p>

<p>Of course those other majors’ achievements in the past were monumental in the development of the computer. But RIGHT NOW IN THE PRESENT/FUTURE, their importance is not as much.</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>I hate to put WastedxYears on the spot, but I think he’s one more proof that there are engineering/science/math/CS majors who can’t reason or write well…</p>

[WastedxYears]

<p>@powerbomb</p>

<p>First of all, I would like to take your lack of a response to my previous post as you conceding to my argument. Feel free to hand me my crown (I prefer sooner rather than later).</p>

<p>Secondly, I am actually a very good writer. I hate to brag but I look at other people’s essays sometimes and I cringe. Writing was actually my best score on the SAT, but I know that it doesn’t mean much. I can’t exactly prove it to you, but my writing skills are definitely very good and I like to think of it as one of my stronger skills. </p>

<p>You can’t judge my writing based on forum posts that I make at 2am while attempting to procrastinate from doing my dreaded calculus homework.I am aware of each and every grammatical and stylistic mistake that I made in my previous post but I could not be bothered to go back and edit it so I just left it. I was just making quick posts as to spend minimal time here so I could focus on work but clearly that isn’t working too well right now.</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>Ok, I apologize. I admit that was a low blow.</p>

[buriedalie]

<p>Oh please, people, nothing is as black and white as “humanities majors don’t know how to reason quantitatively or think logically and natural science/engineering/computer science majors don’t know how to write or think creatively.” Your major doesn’t define you and you gain nothing from making stupid, broad, offensive generalizations.
Let’s just all be friends. And hold hands. And sing Kumbayah.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>

Your major doesn’t define you and you gain nothing from making stupid, broad, offensive generalizations.

No, but it defines how stupid other people are in comparison to me.</p>

[cormy3]

<p>

When did I accuse you of making that assertion? My point is that at my school, people in the natural sciences struggle writing at an acceptable level. Writing is a huge portion of what is required in the social sciences.

</p>

<p>I was making clear what I said (or in this case, didn’t say) so as to contextualize my posts in relation to yours. As it turns out, our positions are not diametrically opposed. Good. One can never be sure these days. We are in agreement that there are many science majors who struggle at writing. Also that writing is an important component to excelling in the social sciences (and humanities, and also natural sciences, I would argue).</p>

<p>

That is not related to my point whatsoever. Your claim is that natural science majors would easily excel at humanity/social science classes, and at my school, they don’t. I tested out of most of my science/math requirements, but I did not struggle in the hard sciences

</p>

<p>My point is not that all natural science majors could easily excel at the humanities and social sciences. That would indeed be a foolish point to make, and surely one easily refuted without the need for the 14 or so pages that this thread has gone on for thus far.</p>

<p>The hierarchy that I’m positing does not depend on every natural science major, but rather on more science majors being capable of excelling in the humanities than vice versa, and more science majors capable of excelling in the social sciences than vice versa. I haven’t yet placed humanities and social sciences vis-a-vis each other.</p>

<p>Maybe you were confused when I made a sub-point: all the top math majors I know of, can write extremely well. They would excel in most humanities courses, in most humanities majors. But these are really the cream-of-the-crop, who are pursuing doctorates at some of the most elite universities. An academic research paper in biology, chem, math, or physics, at that level, can be assumed to demonstrate an advanced level of writing including rhetoric and style. However, a cream-of-the-crop English major, also matriculating at an elite graduate program, cannot be assumed to have the potential for completing coursework beyond the intro level in the sciences, especially the harder sciences. This is confirmed by my experiences with future sociology and english PhD students and law students struggling with basic calculus to fulfill their requirements. Their science counterparts did not experience comparable difficulties with their humanities requirements. My intuition is that advanced writing and humanistic reasoning skills are prerequisites for high achievement in the sciences, whereas the reverse is patently not so.</p>

<p>Of course this was but a sub-point. You decided to take this as my primary point, and then to apply it to the wrong population. I was saying top science students can excel easily in most humanities courses, not that all science students can.</p>

<p>

The humanity majors I know have done better in the hard sciences classes than hard science majors have done in humanities classes, because people in the hard sciences at my school are poor writers. It is a lot easier to teach yourself math than how to write and form an argument, in my experiences.

</p>

<p>Wait, didn’t you just say that this wasn’t your point? So why are you making it now? I thought you only wanted to point out that there are science majors who can’t write well. Now you’re saying that humanities majors fare better in science classes than vice versa. Now this is opposed to my overall point, justifying the preemptive tone and content of my previous post. See, I knew this is what you were implying before. Now it has come out. But good work playing the innocent accused.</p>

<p>Now how to respond? Refer to: this whole thread.</p>

<p>

You know every math student at Harvard, and have read their papers? That’s quite impressive.

</p>

<p>No, but my bad for being unclear. In that paragraph, I was referring to top students in the respective majors who had gone on to top graduate schools. So by “Harvard math student,” I meant all the students I know who are getting PhD’s in math or physics at Harvard. I have read many of their papers, both in person and those they have posted online. Knowing the grades they received in humanities classes, many of them upper-level, furthermore, I am absolutely certain that they could have made top-notch english or philosophy majors.</p>

<p>

Just because an English major doesn’t know calculus, does not mean they would not be as good at it as a math major. That is an unfair assumption to make.

</p>

<p>Not at all unfair. That a student who can’t handle calculus won’t be able to handle upper-level math, is in fact the assumption of every math department in existence. Let me know when you find a university where calculus is not a prerequisite for higher work. “But dean, I’m a brilliant math genius who can only think in more complex, abstract concepts – calculus is below me!”.</p>

<p>

Also, Harvard is not wholly representative of all universities, considering candidates typically have a more well rounded application and need to display a diverse skill set in order to gain acceptance.

</p>

<p>I don’t attend Harvard, and I was not meaning to speak for Harvard undergraduates, though that certainly doesn’t preclude my arguments from being applicable at Harvard. I simply can’t say for sure either way.</p>

<p>

Listen, I am not in any way attacking your post. If you honestly feel that way, you really need to do some growing up. It’s quite sad you got so offended and defensive about a very neutral post that was not a direct response to your comments. Perhaps you think your post is so profound that everyone is responding to in, in which case you again need to do some growing up.

</p>

<p>In an important sense, every post in a thread is a response to all preceding posts. I don’t care if you weren’t attacking me per se. Your post espousing a position contrary to mine is enough to warrant my response. </p>

<p>Your posts and attitude are insidious for the reason that they are subtle. You don’t attack. You promote contrary ideas by sliding them into the discussion without declaring your intent or position. This makes it hard to identify them, let alone contextualize and refute them. See the difficulty I had with your slippery sophistry in this thread. You played a sleight of hand. Well played. This is how arguments are usually won, and exactly how they shouldn’t be.</p>

<p>

How exactly is anything I said offensive? I think you are being rather sensitive and emotionally immature if you honestly think my evaluation is offensive in any way. Are you on your period? It’s pretty funny you can’t even outline how my post is poorly reasoned, when you make the assumption I am responding to your post and then proceed to get defensive and then seek to make personal remarks in response to a completely random post. Good stuff.

</p>

<p>Your gratuitous condescension toward scientific work. Your rhetorical dismissal of engineering as a challenge. Not offensive, dammit. We must applaud because it’s the underdog throwing crap around.</p>

[WastedxYears]

<p>Yo cormy, all that wasn’t necessary. I already won.</p>

[Itachirumon]

<p>^Wasted, we ALL won, 12-13 pages ago, he’s a sore loser. He can’t handle the fact that he was outwitted by all us pseudo-intellectual humanities majors. Maybe we should give baby what he wants and start agreeing with him to shut him up.</p>

[zchryevns]

<p>

Not at all unfair. That a student who can’t handle calculus won’t be able to handle upper-level math, is in fact the assumption of every math department in existence. Let me know when you find a university where calculus is not a prerequisite for higher work.

I use this complete misinterpretation of a point as evidence that you are not a top math student since you can not interpret simple arguments, and therefore are unable to speak on their behalf.</p>

<p>

Your gratuitous condescension

lololol, you’re killing me, but to continue…</p>

<p>

Your gratuitous condescension toward scientific work. Your rhetorical dismissal of engineering as a challenge.

To what post are you referring?</p>

[cormy3]

<p>

I use this complete misinterpretation of a point as evidence that you are not a top math student since you can not interpret simple arguments, and therefore are unable to speak on their behalf.

</p>

<p>I was reading fast. I took the “it” to mean “math” instead of “calculus”. To be honest, it could read either way. In fact I think my interpretation is more plausible because of the additional “as a math major,” which would be quite unnecessary if he were referencing a specific topic like calculus instead of the general subject of a major.</p>

<p>Remember when you were writing multi-paragraph posts? And I dismantled and took a dump on everything you had to say? </p>

<p>Well you’re still here. Poor kid is still scrutinizing how daddy spanked him.</p>

[woeishe]

<p>pseudo-intellectual? Doesn’t that mean fake-intellectual?</p>

[WastedxYears]

<p>Guys guys, CS is the king of all majors. </p>

<p>Everything else is just not as good.</p>

[Itachirumon]

<p>

Remember when you were writing multi-paragraph posts? And I dismantled and took a dump on everything you had to say? </p>

<p>Well you’re still here. Poor kid is still scrutinizing how daddy spanked him.

</p>

<p>What a sad, sad, delusional world you live in. I actually think I pity you. Took a dump on everything WE had to say? Even just HIM? The only thing you’ve succeeded in doing is dumping all over yourself kiddo. Again, I find your NEED to be better than those of us in the humanities to be disturbing. Seek some help sweety, there’s no need for you to be ashamed of the size of your weenie to the point that you point and laugh at ours. The fact of the matter is the argument is over, it’s been over since before page 5 before I even posted the first time. The fact that you keep up this silly little game just shows how immature you are. You’re approaching NOM in terms of annoying… now be quiet little boy the adults are talking.</p>

[zchryevns]

<p>

I was reading fast. I took the “it” to mean “math” instead of “calculus”. To be honest, it could read either way. In fact I think my interpretation is more plausible because of the additional “as a math major,” which would be quite unnecessary if he were referencing a specific topic like calculus instead of the general subject of a major.

Not really. The “it” was quite obviously referring to the word “calculus”. Tisk tisk, poor reading skills.</p>