<p>What I MEANT to say, was that students in engineering are equally intelligent compared to Humanities majors, IF you neglect the “duds” in such majors. For example, if you compare scores, (SAT or GRE or whatever) of engineering students with scores of Humanities students who actually give a damn about their subject, you will see very little deviation. The only group that should be considered pseudo/non-intellectual are the hardcore party kids who don’t give a s***, the slackers, etc. </p>
<p>And just because YOU know several humanities majors that couldn’t cope with higher level math or science, what makes you think this is an accurate sample of all humanity majors? This is a generalization that you pulled out of thin air. </p>
<p>you WOULD be correct however in saying there is a hierarchy of types of college students
-People who work hard and care about their studies
-People who care somewhat about studies, but do get hammered on weekends
-And people who never go to class, treat everyday as a weekend…you get my point</p>
<p>Point is, there is no “Easier major”, but there are varying levels of student commitment in which case there are intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals etc.</p>
<p>^A point I would agree with, but those are pseudo-intellectuals based on actual student desire to work/commitment level/etc, not on their choice of major. Nobody would argue that point… except maybe cormy3.</p>
<p>Well I didn’t even read most of the posts here but…</p>
<p>Most of the courses required for math/science majors build up on another. For example, you have to take single variable calculus and then multivariable calc before differential equations, which is in turn needed for partial differential equations, and so on. If you try to jump to next step without fundamentals you will literally fail. But English major or History course requirements I’ve seen are all independent (well most of them). I could choose any of them besides something like senior thesis class to satisfy my core requirement.</p>
<p>-Pope Benedict XVI (theology), 1.1 billion (largest religion, many devout followers)
-Barack Obama (political science), 311 million (superpower of the world; could actually be #1 on this list)
-Hu Jintao (hydraulic engineering), 1.3 billion (rising power, may become super- soon)
-Pratibha Patil (political science and economics), 1.2 billion (rising power, as well)</p>
<p>Actually, this is a bad method, but I just wanted to point out that some of the most successful people (the ones that will be in history books) have a variety of majors, from engineering to political science. What does this show us? That people of different talents and skills and majors can do very well for themselves (and, in the case of the India’s President, the Pope, and America’s President, very well for others, too).</p>
<p>First of all, why would you want to exclude all the “duds”? I think that if the worst, laziest, least intelligent students pick the humanities to major in, as you seem to claim, that definitely says something about the majors themselves. What it says, in fact, is exactly what my hierarchy is trying to better conceptualize. There are certain majors wherein the students are more broadly capable than in others, whether through attracting students that are overall more intelligent or helping equally intelligent students to develop deeper and more transferable skills.</p>
<p>Take a look at the SAT scores of Cornell CAS vs. Cornell Engineering. Keep in mind that CAS includes many math/science majors, and so the humanities gets a large and undeserved boost. Yet Cornell Engineering wins. Take a look at Harvey Mudd vs. Amherst. Amherst includes many math/science majors. Harvey Mudd wins. It’s generally recognized that within any particular school, the engineering college has the highest test scores. This is not my generalization, it’s the general consensus solidified into accepted wisdom. Furthermore, if you found a way to group the math/science majors with the engineering majors, I suspect that Cornell Engineering and Harvey Mudd would win against their respective competitors by obscene margins.</p>
<p>So secondly, would you care to point out the legions of “duds” in Cornell and Amherst that are skewing the scores? Please and thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>I never said anything about pseudo- or non-intellectuals. That’s your insecurities reading between the lines.</li>
<li>Oh how nice. Everyone and everything is equal in every way – unless you lack for effort. It’s all effort, boys and girls!</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well then it’s not pulled from thin air. I speak from experience because there is hardly direct research to be found on this topic. Hence you and I, and all the other participants of this thread, are on relatively equal footing, since you all have no data to support the position that these majors are equal. Unless you care to provide some?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t begrudge you the privilege of posting your unscientifically supported thoughts on an internet forum. Why do you me?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, given the absence of direct evidence, I’ve posted research and factual examples that are ancillary to my thesis. You have done nothing of this kind. Yet it is your posts that ring with conviction and certitude. </p>
<p>You and the others have evinced an unwillingness to think rationally on this subject. Insecurities, I surmise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There would indeed be such a hierarchy. Students who don’t care for schoolwork tend to do worse in school. Imagine that! But this subject is boring, obvious, trite. Hence not really worth discussion. (Of course you would probably relish such a discussion because your thinking is all of the above adjectives.)</p>
<p>Yet there’s a more interesting and subtle phenomenon that is worth discussing. Worth discussion because it’s so often obscured by an academic political correctness that has us celebrate majors as being equals in every respect. This is what I’m talking about, and that’s why I want to talk about it.</p>
<p>Besides, a hierarchy of effort or studiousness or determination in no way contradicts the existence of the hierarchy of majors I’m describing. If you want to, you can create your own thread about the former subject. Be my guest. I might chip in a little as you and the bandwagon proceed with your circle jerk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above. It’s very sad. <em>tear tear</em></p>
<p>I’ve a humanities major but I’ve taken quite a few STEM classes at my school because I have varied interests. I remember in one of them, the professor himself made a joke that the class was too tough for humanities majors. I remember being offended, but when I got 95s against class averages of 79, I wasn’t offended anymore.</p>
<p>If people want to feel smarter by saying their majors are harder, let them. It doesn’t make them actually any smarter, just slightly more delusional.</p>
<p>Though it is true that it’s much harder to fail a paper-writing class than it is to fail a science class. At least at my school, the worst student in a history class might get a C, but it’s very possible to get a 10% on a test in orgo or something.</p>
<p>Sorta how people got ****ed off at Bryan Fischer when he said the Native Americans had no right to be mad about the Spanish taking their land because they wouldn’t convert to Christianity? He said the SAME EXACT THING when people got mad. “Oh, you guys don’t wanna think rationally about this” be glad your argument is less offensive than his.</p>
<p>What do you care about? What do you believe in? I’m sure some figure in history has used those thoughts, those beliefs, those exact arguments, to justify doing something bad. So what? So what if some guy used an appeal to rationality to defend taking Native Americans land. I can use the same appeal to rationality to… oh, forget it. You’re hopeless. Keep posting, though, it’s fun.</p>
<p>I agree. There’s a progression of knowledge with the natural sciences that is not found with the humanities or even most of the social sciences. One need only look at the course prerequisites for the upper-level courses in each division. Usually after the intro-level, there are literally no prerequisites for upper-level courses. Hey, anyone can handle it as long as you’re diligent and work hard. Too bad it’s not so for math or physics, etc.</p>
<p>This is exactly as I posted earlier with the research study link. Grades in upper-level sciences correlate more strongly with intelligence than grades in upper-level other divisions. There’s also a threshold for math and physics, while none for the other majors.</p>
<p>You might want to know that I rock my humanities classes. Professors try to convince me to join their departments. Enough said.</p>
<p>I’m actually a social science major. I might minor or double major in a humanities or natural science. What made you think I’m a natural science major? I repeat: it’s your insecurities speaking. If you weren’t so insecure, you wouldn’t want so badly to believe I’m a natural science major tooting his own horn. You wish it were so, yes you do. That would make it easier to dismiss everything I say as completely false and said merely out of self-interest, wouldn’t it? I, on the other hand, have no problem defending the view that my own major is lower on the hierarchy. I don’t cry about my major and hug it every night.</p>
<p>But hey, you’re the guy from my other thread who tried to parade around his classics major – before I slammed you for the attempt. How’s that going buddy? Still enamored by the mystical qualities of your classics work? Infatuated with your professors? If I recall correctly, I handed you your ass every time you spoke up, and finally you departed the thread with barely a whimper. Looks the same to have happened here. You’ve disengaged in argument after being called out for the ignoramus you are, and you’ve nothing left to do but make snide commentary from the back row.</p>