<p>It definitely is about motivation and interest. Someone might be an engineering major and act arrogant towards other majors- but something appealed to them about that major in particular. They may have thought by going into the major, they would appear to be very intelligent (and usually they are). Or maybe they’re attracted by the income post-college. And then there’s those who simply find the material fascinating and the job itself to be rewarding- that’s got to be the majority. </p>
<p>Ask an engineering major to write a paper for a history class with sufficient instruction from the professor, and odds are they won’t have much trouble with it. But, it takes adjustment from the engineering student to focus on something like a history paper. And a history major will need adequate instruction to succeed in lower level natural science classes. It doesn’t follow that certain majors are more intelligent than others, there’s simply too many other factors determining major choice aside from intelligence and the perceived aptitude needed to complete a major. Being a philosophy major, I can tell who genuinely likes the material and then there’s those who are there for the perceived “easy A”. But often it seems that students without many previous classes in philosophy have difficulty understanding that the objective answer tends to not be there. To me, it’s more about the process of articulating an adequate, credible answer in philosophy and not particularly the ‘right’ answer. And this doesn’t apply to philosophy only. It applies to other humanities subjects and social sciences. Many science majors enjoy the fact that their courses typically have a right answer somewhere- but that doesn’t imply that the answer is easy to get. Don’t claim a science major is inept at humanities because they’re science majors and haven’t taken much prior humanities coursework. The same applies to humanities majors taking science classes.</p>
<p>People in the thread have pointed out that phd humanities students can’t excel in phd science or math. Well, of course they can’t. Those subjects require many prerequisites and usually focused undergrad classes. And it’s important to realize that ANY PhD student is going to be at least an “above average” writer regardless whether or not they’re in a humanities or social science field. How else are they going to report their research and findings? Put a science phd into philosophy phd coursework and they might do okay, but no way will they excel or be on par with the other students there. </p>
<p>It’s cool to say your major is better than the next person’s. It takes up a lot of your time and a lot of effort- it better require some kind of intellectual rigor that another major doesn’t. All majors have their own unique properties, sciences differ from one another, humanities differ etc. We seem to feel like there’s something compelling about our major that isn’t present in another major, and that makes us feel superior somehow. Nothing wrong with that, but I don’t think any major is ‘smarter’ than another. This is all relative too, comparing ordinary sciences and humanities students. There will definitely be superstars from both fields that try to outshine their opposing fields.</p>
<p>Is your friend an international student? I know many international students who are that way: extremely hard working in the sciences, but can’t write well because English is their second language. Those students obviously don’t serve as counter-example to my point. In case he or she is not an international student, I never said that exceptions don’t exist. If you take a look at the SAT scores of the engineering school within a university, you’ll see that those students not only have higher Math scores than the general liberal arts college, but also the highest Reading and Writing scores. What does that say?</p>
<p>I would argue that proficiency in the skills and type of thinking prevalent in the Humanities/SS’s is a prerequisite for achievement in the natural sciences. How can someone excel in Biochemistry without being able to write an excellent paper in biochemistry? Or be able to identify the significance of their research and contextualize it in the broader discourse? However, natural science skills are definitely not a prerequisite for achievement in the other fields, except to the degree that history majors have to think quantitatively about their data, if they happen to be doing empirical research. I realize I am generalizing since many majors, like economics and psychology, border on the natural sciences. Furthermore, I acknowledge that there are finer distinctions within these broad categories. Math and physics, for example, I take to be higher on the hierarchy than the other natural sciences. In any case, I’m not arguing what the exact hierarchy is, as I am trying to argue for the existence of a hierarchy. Now do you disagree with that overarching point, or are you picking at the details?</p>
<p>I am actually curious about your professor from a non-science field who published a paper in a nuclear physics journal. Can I see it?</p>
<p>I really disagree that intelligences, presupposing the existence of multiple intelligences, are somehow evenly distributed. From my experience, if you removed the factor of motivation and personal interest, there are plenty of people who cannot handle upper-level math, but most people can in fact succeed in an upper-level english or sociology course. There is some evidence for this intuition, and it can be found in the link I’m about to post. This study found there to be no intelligence threshold for 10 of 12 liberal arts majors, meaning that no matter what your intelligence is (with SAT score serving as the proxy), you can succeed in them if you work hard enough or whatever. However, in 2 of the 10 majors, there are intelligence thresholds at which you cannot succeed no matter how hard you try. The two majors were physics and mathematics.</p>
<p>Lol and you really seem to have thought a lot about this, which I find pathetic. I mean are you really that desperate to prove how intelligent you are?</p>
<p>They all started in the sciences and switched over to do philosophy. I defy you to find any philosophers who later contributed to the hard sciences – not through the implications of the their philosophical work, but actually from within the field.</p>
<p>I know many math majors can write better than the majority of humanities majors because I know what grades they got in the humanities classes they took.</p>
<p>Your assertion is backed with nothing more than anecdotes and overbroad generalities, which tends to show that you never passed a course requiring the development of critical thinking, textual analysis, rigorous standards of data collection and reasoned argumentation.</p>
<p>If you wish to establish anything resembling an objective “hierarchy of majors,” you must first establish quantifiable or qualitatively-measurable standards for ranking placement. Without such a foundation, this entire exercise is just a giant “I’m better than you because I say so” wank-fest.</p>
<p>I reaffirm, and not in a disrespectful way: who cares? Even if you establish that such a hierarchy is necessary and waste time constructing it, what will you have proved? What would it change? The vast majority of happy English/Sociology/etc majors aren’t going to be suddenly called to action by some random study to jump ship and become engineers (this said with no disrespect to engineers).</p>
<p>Your assertion is backed with nothing more than condescension and empty puffery, which tends to show you don’t even know what an internet forum is for.</p>
<p>Come back with your rigorous standards of data collection. I really want to see more!</p>
<p>I don’t know what it would change. More respect for natural science majors? Stuff like that. No way did I imply english majors should switch majors. Making that kind of assumption makes no mark on me, but rather displays your insecurities.</p>
<p>I’m just, you know, posting an interesting subject, just like everyone else here. But this one is a touchy issue, huh?</p>
<p>Seriously, internet forums are obviously for the sole purpose of making assertions backed by nothing more than anecdotes and broad generalizations.</p>
<p>Why would humanities majors need to show more respect for natural science majors? The former are the ones who are often referred to “pseudo-intellectuals” by the latter.</p>
<p>Sure, I know what an Internet forum is for.</p>
<p>If you want anyone to take your argument seriously, you’ll figure out some basis for it in measurable data. Otherwise, as I said, it’s just a bunch of bandwidth-wasting wankery.</p>
<p>I HAVE respect for natural science majors. Lots of it. Which is why I’m just saying this discussion (which comes up every week on CC) really isn’t necessary because it usually devolves into a hateful flame war.
And yes it’s a touchy issue, this question basically asks either group of people to just accept that they’re less intelligent and are ultimately worth less to society.</p>
<p>Excuse me, where are your studies? Or do you also post anecdotes and generalizations? In my case, I at least try to make my opinions and thoughts rigorous rather than the empty waffling I’ve seen from the other posters. And where I can, I try to post famous examples or actual studies to make my points, in the cases in which they have been studied or have been documented. That goes far beyond what I’ve seen in most threads on this forum, which is, after all, a damn internet forum. So your objections are, ultimately, with my opinions themselves, which betrays, again, insecurity and self-doubt. Great!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously not enough if you refuse to believe in the hierarchy that I’m positing. That’s why this discussion is worth having. That’s why I posted, duh! I don’t believe I’m making a trivial point here, or you would be yawning instead of inflamed. What else do you have to say?</p>
<p>so, if I refuse to just blindly accept that natural science majors (or anyone; heck, if you were arguing that medieval studies majors were more capable than others, I would be saying the same things) are more intelligent and basically just better, I don’t respect them? I think you shouldn’t take yourself so seriously. I’m not trying to start an argument, and I’m not “inflamed” (as disappointed as that might make you). Frankly, I don’t care that much. Which is precisely why I’m not posting anything else in this thread. (unless something truly intriguing comes up. :P)</p>
<p>I don’t ask that you blindly accept my views. Why do you assume that I do? Would you say this about anyone else posting their opinions, on a non-controversial subject? Of course you wouldn’t, it would be preposterous. Yet you accuse me of using the forum not to stir discussion, but to indoctrinate. How is that in any way fair? It’s not. How is it accurate? It’s not. How can it therefore be explained? I’ve touched a nerve with you, and with everyone else who wants to believe in their ideal world where every major is equal.</p>
<p>You continue to make incorrect inferences about what I’m saying, by the way. It is your words that include the concept “more intelligent and basically just better,” not mine.</p>
<p>How exactly is any major better than another?</p>
<p>Also, in my experience, math and natural science majors tend to lack the ability to critically analyze a piece of text. When it comes to writing papers, it’s often the case with mathematics that the shorter the paper, the better; usually, the opposite is true of papers for humanities.</p>