Hierarchy of majors

[cormy3]

<p>

Does the top math major have the potential to excel in english? Probably. Does the top english major have the potential to excel in math? Probably not.

</p>

<p>Your inability to read the most basic sentences nullifies whatever you have to say, now and in the future of this thread.</p>

<p>You’re ignored.</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>Fine - just went back and read the entire thread. Nevermind what I’ve said - I admittedly tried to play the devil’s advocate without completely having read your posts - but what of you constantly claiming that the “majority” of science/math majors are able to do serious humanities/social sciences work without providing any measurable data? Where are the numbers? Aren’t you a math guy?</p>

<p>I didn’t open that file that you linked somewhere back. You say the study was based on the SATs and you yourself said the SATs had no predictive validity, no?</p>

[cormy3]

<p>Right now I am an internet forum guy. You, too. We don’t do math on forums. We don’t do original research and publish on forums. </p>

<p>We provide as much evidence in the form of already completed research as we can. We distill anecdotes from our lives as best we can. We try to opine as reasonably and analytically as we can.</p>

<p>In the course of online forum interaction, we probably won’t arrive at an empirically backed conclusion. That’s alright with me. Why isn’t it alright with you? It seems too much is at stake, and you simply don’t want to talk about it. How odd.</p>

<p>As for the SAT stuff, learn. to. read. Honestly.</p>

<p>

The SAT essay is worthless, that much is right.
.
.
The rest of the SAT, however, the Reading and Math, do a great job as predictors of college success. Together, they predict college GPA with as much accuracy as high school GPA. Quite a feat, if you consider the SAT is a 4 hour test, and high school GPA is a 4 year test.

</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>

Right now I am an internet forum guy. You, too. We don’t do math on forums. We don’t do original research and publish on forums. </p>

<p>We provide as much evidence in the form of already completed research as we can. We distill anecdotes from our lives as best we can. We try to opine as reasonably and analytically as we can.

</p>

<p>Is there some sort of written Online Forum Constitution that I’m not aware of?</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>oh and this:</p>

<p>

The rest of the SAT, however, the Reading and Math, do a great job as predictors of college success. Together, they predict college GPA with as much accuracy as high school GPA. Quite a feat, if you consider the SAT is a 4 hour test, and high school GPA is a 4 year test.

</p>

<p>is not true. I can speak to that from personal experience, just as you’ve been premising your claim on personal experience and anecdotes.</p>

[cormy3]

<p>From your personal experience? You’re not even in college. What kind of crap is this?</p>

<p>From the study I posted:</p>

<p>

On the positive side, one cannot help but be impressed by a measure of cognitive ability that requires only a few hours of testing, is fairly stable (see results below) and has roughly as much predictive power as high school GPA, which represents years of evaluation by experienced instructors.

</p>

<p>Your statement is quite amazing, given your supposed respect for research. I made a claim that’s clearly an empirical claim, and you feel justified to opine coming from a position of complete ignorance. The fact is that you’re not experienced enough to recognize what an empirical claim even looks like. Yet you continue to mouth off. I gave you a second chance. No more.</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>Why do I need to be in college to have personal experience regarding SATs and college GPA? What if I have personal siblings or friends that are in, or have graduated college? But you’re right. I’m not in college yet. And you’re 24 years old, on a forum trying to establish a hierarchy of majors. Enough said. </p>

<p>Your link doesn’t work.</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>There is much amusement in the Cadbury sect over your squabbles.</p>

<p>“Ominus Cremeus…”</p>

[cormy3]

<p>

Why do I need to be in college to have personal experience regarding SATs and college GPA? What if I have personal siblings or friends that are in, or have graduated college? But you’re right. I’m not in college yet. And you’re 24 years old, on a forum trying to establish a hierarchy of majors. Enough said. </p>

<p>Your link doesn’t work.

</p>

<p>You have 2477 posts. Just remember that. Rofl rofl rofl</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>105 posts in 2 months is pretty impressive, too, you know.</p>

<p>I’m out. After finding out that I was arguing with a 24-year-old on an online forum about a nonexistent hierarchy of majors, I sort of feel bad.</p>

[MLDWoody]

<p>Your averages aren’t that far off</p>

[ginab591]

<p>“Does the top math major have the potential to excel in english? Probably. Does the top english major have the potential to excel in math? Probably not.”</p>

<p>This entire thread is being argued on this idea that math and hard sciences are innate rather than learned.
While English is more of an innate thing. If someone, after eighteen years of speaking the language, cannot pick out the meaning in words, it can’t be taught. This is critical thinking and while it can be practiced and guided, it cannot be taught.</p>

<p>Math on the other hand is something that can be taught. There are people who will never understand it (as there are people who will never grasp that every sentence needs a verb), but the large majority of people who are smart (and i mean this as intelligence not knowledge) enough to succeed in higher level humanities are smart enough to be taught higher level math. They just never are. </p>

<p>I’m an English major, not at a top school, but still Tier One. I scored 720 on the Math section of the SAT (with no prep), but I’m not using that as a standard of intelligence. My senior year, my team was a semifinalist in Moody’s Math competition (small contest, slowly growing, but my team was not an existing team outside of the compeition) because we had a well written explanation paper. (From me and another student editing extensively what was written by (future) “engineers”) </p>

<p>I also take higher level chemistry and biology courses. I stopped math after Calc 2, and I didn’t do well in them because I didn’t take the time to review the concepts. I got my B’s and moved on. Does this mean I couldn’t have learned higher level math? Not at all.
I’ve always understood numbers and concepts, and the large majority of my points in college level math were lost because I a) didn’t show the work (I do almost everything in my head) or b) did not use the “correct” method to find my answer. (ie I didn’t feel like memorizing multiple ways to solve a problem when I could reason out a single way that worked)
If I actually liked math, then yes I could easily be a math major and excel in the field. I’m not going to post my IQ and be the most narcissistic on a board of narcissists, but something tells me that would convince you people…</p>

<p>Basically some things require talent, like the fine arts. (I don’t count English, especially criticism, or writing. Though who ever is in charge of acronyms for degrees does count creative writing. (Which I also do))</p>

<p>Some require basic talent (critical thinking) and then practice from there, like English.</p>

<p>Some require basic talent (critical thinking) and then INSTRUCTION from there, like math.</p>

<p>Some are a combination of those two, like research in the natural sciences (also theoretical physics) Business may fall here too.</p>

<p>Some requires a basic level of intelligence and the ability to spit back memorized things and use formulas, ie History, and yes Engineering.</p>

[cormy3]

<p>

This entire thread is being argued on this idea that math and hard sciences are innate rather than learned.
While English is more of an innate thing. If someone, after eighteen years of speaking the language, cannot pick out the meaning in words, it can’t be taught. This is critical thinking and while it can be practiced and guided, it cannot be taught.</p>

<p>Math on the other hand is something that can be taught. There are people who will never understand it (as there are people who will never grasp that every sentence needs a verb), but the large majority of people who are smart (and i mean this as intelligence not knowledge) enough to succeed in higher level humanities are smart enough to be taught higher level math. They just never are.

</p>

<p>If you want to argue with the “innateness” of a subject, argue with the study I posted earlier that found SAT thresholds for math and physics, but no thresholds for other subjects. Also which found higher correlations between natural science fields and SAT scores than with humanities and SAT scores.</p>

<p>Besides, my thread is NOT being argued on the idea that math is innate. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Even if you assumed that math and english are equally “learned”, that would still be perfectly compatible with the existence of a hierarchy. It would simply mean that the skills learned in math include and exceed the skills learned in english. Let’s play a little hypothetical and suppose that math is learned just as english is learned.</p>

<p>Both sets of skills are equally learned, but the math set of skills is simply larger. Hence, when a math major decides to take a history class, he already has the necessary skills, since humanities skills are prerequisites in his native field. Meanwhile, when a history major takes a physics class, he probably does not possess the needed skills because science skills were never taught and emphasized in HIS native field.</p>

<p>My experiences would actually favor such a thesis. In my experience, the basic skills of the humanities are part and parcel with succeeding in the science. As someone upthread posted, science is all about reading dense textbooks with absolute precision. Beyond reading comprehension, you need not only basic writing skills but also a sense of rhetoric to be able to write good research papers. Understanding how abstract theories fit together, well that is, I would think, the most pure form of critical thinking, and would transfer easily to a humanities class.</p>

<p>Humanities classes, on the other hand, do not even come close to inculcating the competencies required for the natural sciences. This isn’t even a question. If anyone objects and has solid reasons that run counter to my opinion, feel free to raise them. Until then, I’ll take this as a given.</p>

<p>Graduate schools seem to see it this way. I posted earlier that philosophy PhD programs would welcome with open arms a top math/physics major. And that entrance to a math PhD would be near impossible with a philosophy major. The implication is that a math major would have acquired the core competencies of a philosophy major, but not the other way around. Note that since this is graduate school, and applicants will be expected to do real work in their fields, it is not likely the case that graduate schools think math majors merely have the potential to succeed in philosophy. No, that wouldn’t be enough. It implies that graduate schools think math majors are already capable, because they have already developed the skills. Realistically, I whole-heartedly agree. The typical advanced math student has no problem doing philosophy, having nearly as good writing skills and more advanced analytical skills, though probably inferior reading skills. On the other hand, the philosophy major will in no way be prepared for advanced math. That’s according to graduate schools, anyway. If you disagree, maybe you can ask them why they admit students this way.</p>

[cormy3]

<p>

105 posts in 2 months is pretty impressive, too, you know.</p>

<p>I’m out. After finding out that I was arguing with a 24-year-old on an online forum about a nonexistent hierarchy of majors, I sort of feel bad.

</p>

<p>You jerk, there may be people on these forums who are actually 24 years old who might take offense. You know, with you insinuating they’re too old for college. In summary, you’ve stuck your foot in your mouth over and over in this thread and are now drawing character attacks on an age group.</p>

<p>I wonder what’s like to have 2500 posts and still not be able to say anything intelligent. It must feel sort of bad, man.</p>

[zchryevns]

<p>

Hence, when a math major decides to take a history class, he already has the necessary skills, since humanities skills are prerequisites in his native field.

What are these skills and where do they come from? You’re speaking in mere abstractions.</p>

<p>

I posted earlier that philosophy PhD programs would welcome with open arms a top math/physics major.

And you have sufficient data supporting this? I’m not doubting your claim, I’m just asking.</p>

<p>

The implication is that a math major would have acquired the core competencies of a philosophy major

In what way? Do you mean a specific branch of philosophy, or philosophy as a whole? If you are referring to the latter, philosophy is quite a wide field. Perhaps a math major would be more likely to succeed in formal deductive logic, which involves proofs and derivations; but what about epistemology or metaphysics?</p>

<p>

The typical advanced math student has no problem doing philosophy, having nearly as good writing skills and more advanced analytical skills

What are these analytical skills that would make a math major as competent, if not more so, than a humanities major in the field of philosophy?</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>

You jerk, there may be people on these forums who are actually 24 years old who might take offense. You know, with you insinuating they’re too old for college. In summary, you’ve stuck your foot in your mouth over and over in this thread and are now drawing character attacks on an age group.

</p>

<p>I never insinuated that 24 year-olds are too old for college. I insinuated that 24 year-olds should have better things to do than become a siamese twin with a thread devoted to trying to argue that certain majors are better than others. And I drew character attacks on cormy3 the 24-year old, not all 24 year-olds. Don’t be ashamed of your age, we all age…just not like you.</p>

<p>Also, don’t even try to be politically correct. This entire thread is politically incorrect.

I wonder what’s like to have 2500 posts and still not be able to say anything intelligent. It must feel sort of bad, man.

</p>

<p>At the rate that you’re investing so much time to this (and all your other counterproductive, pseudo-intellectual) threads, no need to wonder, you’ll find out in no time what it’s like to have 2500 posts and still not be able to say anything intelligent.</p>

[MLDWoody]

<p>This has just become sad…</p>

[powerbomb]

<p>MLDWoody, if you track his thread/post history, all of them become sad at one point or another…</p>

[cormy3]

<p>

What are these skills and where do they come from? You’re speaking in mere abstractions.

</p>

<p>I get more specific in the next few paragraphs. If you disagree with any, feel free to chime in.</p>

<p>

And you have sufficient data supporting this? I’m not doubting your claim, I’m just asking.

</p>

<p>This hierarchy of majors in the eyes of graduate schools, essentially placing math/physics above philosophy, comes from talking to friends/acquaintances who applied to graduate schools.</p>

<p>If that’s not enough, why don’t we head over to the Admissions website for the Harvard philosophy PhD program?</p>

<p>[Philosophy</a> - The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences](<a href=“The Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences”>The Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences)</p>

<p>

Admission — Substantial previous knowledge of philosophy is normally required. Candidates usually have a bachelor’s or master’s degree in philosophy. Applicants less well prepared in philosophy may be admitted under special conditions if they have a grounding in mathematics or the natural or social sciences. Applicants are required to take the GRE (general), and to submit a sample of their written work.

</p>

<p>Does this make it clear enough to you? A “grounding” no doubt means a quantitative grounding. </p>

<p>Makes sense, given Russell, Frege, Wittgenstein, etc., etc., etc…</p>

<p>Come on. I didn’t even bother to check, but can you imagine the page for Harvard Physics going like this: “Usually advanced work in physics is required, but special exceptions are made for students accomplished in the fields of philosophy and english literature”. Haha, that brought a tear to my eye.</p>

[cormy3]

<p>

become a siamese twin with a thread

</p>

<p>oh the wit on this guy. everyone: look at it.</p>

<p>

At the rate that you’re investing so much time to this (and all your other counterproductive, pseudo-intellectual) threads, no need to wonder, you’ll find out in no time what it’s like to have 2500 posts and still not be able to say anything intelligent.

</p>

<p>or you can just tell me how it feels…</p>