<p>
Someone from one major says so with unsubstantiated claims, backed up and opposed by the anecdotes of people on each side.</p>
<p>
You’re making ■■■■■ posts which you actually believe. It’s sort of amusing to see the poorly thought out arguments, but not really worth the effort.</p>
<p>
You’re right. Damn poor psychologists, don’t make a thing… And totally valid list, by the way. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>You haven’t defined your hierarchy whatsoever. You claim that most natural science majors could excel in humanities-related subjects to the same degree as a humanities major, but provide no evidence supporting this claim. In addition, I have experienced just the opposite and your point therefore has no more support than mine.</p>
<p>
Though you did not explicitly use the word “better,” the word equal does imply that two or more subjects (in this case, college majors) are of the same quality. By assering that a major is higher on this hierarchy you have (not, actually) established, you imply that one is inherently of a higher quality (i.e. better) than another. With what parameters do you make this claim?</p>
<p>
Psychology is a social science that incorporates a lot of biology and chemistry. Do not make such broad statements.</p>
<p>Do people not realize that many serious music performance majors practice 6+ hours each day in addition to completing their other course work? “Difficult” is also a very ambiguous term. Can you play major, diminished, augmented, natural/melodic/harmonic, and whole tone scales in thirds? Probably not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, the length of papers written in these fields is largely irrelevant. I mean, why not use the absence of literary books in physics class to argue that physics majors can’t read literature? Well the point is that they can, and can do it well, which makes it all the more impressive.</p>
<p>Secondly, I think you misunderstand. This is very similar to many people’s misunderstanding of Occam’s Razor. Papers in math, hence proofs, are prized for their brevity if, by making the paper or proof shorter, no substance is lost. It is not the case that a short paper paper is preferred if it does not carry as much weight as a longer one. In this respect, I would think literature papers are similar. All fields are similar. Make your point with the least ‘noise’ possible using the most elegant means available to you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t need any studies, as I’m not the one claiming to know which majors are “higher” than others. Critical Thinking 101: the person making a claim is responsible for supporting it with data and rational argument. As a reasoned skeptic, it’s not my duty to do your job for you.</p>
<p>What, you think a scientist can just create an outlandish theory and then, rather than prove his case with research, just demand that someone else has to prove him wrong? Good luck with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you really feel this way, I’d be interested in hearing your counter-anecdotes and counter-generalizations, provided you make them rigorously and honestly. If we still agree, then we would have reached a point that every long thread reaches, at which the parties involved agree to disagree. This is hardly a tragedy, and I chuckle a little at the dramatic tones other posters speak in – as if this is serious business to anyone but themselves and their insecurities. I hope we haven’t reached that point, and I hope that when we do, it’s not a result of your sensitivity due to your being a humanities major.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The word “equal” is used in technical fields from a descriptive perspective. The words “better” and “worse” are used only from a normative perspective. I can make a claim about equality of fields in certain respects, which was the sense I was using it in and have used it in throughout this thread, without making a value judgement. Can you see the difference?</p>
<p>lol this is funny</p>
<p>on the one post that said mechanical is the easiest, I would vote for Industrial Operationa Engineering to be the easiest. I haven’t taken it, but it seems like more managing/business than hard science.</p>
<p>Also, all this talk about “natural science people can’t critically analyze a piece of text”, well, that may be true, but who gives a **** about the “theme” of a fictional work or the “tone” of a poem. Hell, if you can BS your answer well enough you can connect any reasoning to any literary work. Give me some time and I’ll find some BS parallels between The Great Gatsby and Star Wars. Of course, it doesn’t mean anything. Fiction is just a waste of time. Why we are forced to spend time with it for 4 years in HS is beyond me…</p>
<p>oh, and technical writing is where its at. I can drop a mean memo</p>
<p>
I don’t see how I contradicted you. You clearly lack the critical reading skills of a humanities major.</p>
<p>
I suppose you have sufficient evidence to support this? Aren’t math and natural science majors supposed to be pro-quantitative evidence? Hmm.</p>
<p>
Where are your studies proving that my Cadbury Egg is not a deity?</p>
<p>I give up. Let’s just measure dicks.</p>
<p>My Humanities-related major requires me to be well-versed in at least nine languages to be able to break out in the field (but if I want to be safe and want to be considered a good scholar, ten to fifteen). It also requires that I be acquainted with the linguistic background of all those languages, archaeological methods/theories/practices, laboratory techniques, statistics, a small amount of computer science, the history of my chosen region and the trends observed therein, literary analysis, and possibly museum studies.</p>
<p>But man, I guess that still really isn’t as rigorous as any of the natural science majors though …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh boy, misapplication of science and informal logic. How do I begin?</p>
<p>First of all, I recommend you relax the rigid standards of ‘burden of proof’ that is currently obstructing a certain orifice in your lower body. This is a forum, and I chuckle that you would hold me to such standards. You take yourself way too seriously.</p>
<p>Second, it hardly matters that I made the first post in this thread and on this topic. Others have chimed in with sufficient frequency and conviction that in effect, they have made claims that all majors are equals as much as I have that they belong to the hierarchy I originally posed. The burden of proof, even if you are block-headed enough to hold me to one, is not mine alone.</p>
<p>Furthermore, an equality of majors is hardly a natural default position, so with respect to some larger standard, I haven’t made a transgression that places an extra burden on my view. Now either provide your own arguments or leave this thread in shame and hypocrisy.</p>
<p>cormy, you’re right. Because this is a forum, science somehow changes. Are you trying to prove that Computer Science is superior to Natural Sciences?</p>
<p>Still waiting on the Cadbury Egg counter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, don’t be ridiculous. Sexology >>> everything.</p>
<p>
The physics majors I have encountered in my Humanities 110 class tend to stay quiet during conference. When probed for input, their ideas are usually shallow and insignificant, failing to grasp the themes of the texts and their relation to their respective cultures at the times they were written. While discussing the texts with them outside of class, they generally say that the reading is stupid and that there is no point in learning about it.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I know a plethora of English, Psychology, Economics, etc. majors who not only do their reading and grasp the themes of the text, but also take advanced mathematics and science courses. Being an English major does not mean one is not able to do mathematics; rather, it merely means that they are more interested in literature and grammar than mathematics.</p>
<p>Your example involving the physics majors sounds more like a case of poor motivation than anything else. I admit these extraneous factors can skew heavily our observations, but ultimately I’m talking about ability to do well and not propensity to do well.</p>
<p>This is why I prefer to talk about top students excelling in their respective fields. Issues of motivation or ‘I just want a degree so I can get a job’ are less likely to arise. Among those top students, the physics majors I know could definitely handle most english classes. Of the english majors I know, most are downright scared of the natural sciences.</p>
<p>I hear science majors complain about humanities requirements because it’s a chore; I hear humanities majors complain about natural science majors because it’s impossible.</p>
<p>Oh, now this hierarchy is supposed to be the default position? Even though it’s A. completely undefined, B. entirely subjective and C. still without a shred of evidence supporting it?</p>
<p>Yes, that makes lots of sense.</p>
<p>Because you have not established any empirical quantitative or qualitative standards by which this “ranking” can be measured, what you have, in fact, come up with is unfalsifiable and hence entirely pseudoscientific. Not very becoming of your supposedly “higher” science major, is it?</p>
<p>Come back when you have a hypothesis we can test.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right, that sounds tough.</p>
<p>But I stand by my contention that a leading academic in the natural sciences could do what you’re expected to do, if he or she truly wanted to. Yet could you do math or physics research? Answer me that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may be no default position, which puts all reasonable positions on level ground, in terms of who has to provide what kind of defense for their position. Ever consider that? Of course not, they probably didn’t teach that you.</p>
<p>You call what I’m posting and what I’m doing ‘pseudoscientific.’ Since when did I claim I’m trying to be scientific? I never did, so there goes your whole point. My point, actually, was that you’re ridiculous to assume I’m adopting the methods and standards of science, since this is an internet forum after all.</p>
<p>Note: if I ignore you later in this thread, it’s not because I don’t have a rebuttal, it’s because you have lost your minor entertainment value, and are no longer worth replying to, even just to amuse myself.</p>
<p>Now you are just grasping at straws.
I attend a top LAC. I assure you, the students at my school are by no means motivated solely for the sake of obtaining a job, and the lack of understanding does not stem solely from a lack of motivation.</p>
<p>
Again, a broad generalization. My math aptitude is actually relatively high; I simply enjoy many other things more than mathematics or physics, such as music and literature.</p>
<p>
Apparently this statement of similar logic stands. I’ll alert Tom Cruise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Without meaning to sound arrogant: Yes, probably, if I worked hard and if I were motivated enough. Given that I’m not, it’s a bit of a moot point. Like zchryevns, my math aptitude is quite high; let’s just say that I signed up for the calculus course that I’m taking this quarter to give myself “a break” (and to fill out a PQ for a calculus-based statistics class I intend to take). Obviously, it’s coming back to bite me in the ass because it’s now turning into a chore more than anything else, but the class is still less time-consuming and less stressful than my other (humanities) courses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When you start talking about people at the forefront of their fields, it really comes down to the fact that they all already have their PhDs. What does that degree mean, really? It means that that particular person can conduct solid research, and I think that research skills applicable to one field are easily applicable to all fields.</p>