Interesting..

Pre-Med & Medical School Pre-Med Topics
41

<p>
[quote]
You have no idea how hard humanities majors work.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, actually, I think I quite a good idea of how hard they work. The problem is that many of them don't work very hard at all. </p>

<p>Now to be fair, some of them do indeed work very hard. But let's be honest. Many of them don't. And whether we like it or not, those guys make the others look bad. </p>

<p>Come on shades_children, I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about. Seriously, there's a reason why George W. Bush managed to skate his way through college as a history major (which I consider to be in the humanities, because it certainly isn't scientific), but almost certainly couldn't have done that as a science major. </p>

<p>{Now, to be fair, it should be pointed out that Bush's 2 electoral opponents, Gore and Kerry, also skated their way through college with mediocre grades and effort. None of these guys were particularly good students. Kerry has freely admitted that, as a college student, he was more interested in learning how to fly planes than in studying, and Al Gore spent some of his college time 'experimenting' with marijuana. }</p>

42

<p>I'm pretty sure that if you just want to skate by with C's or D's in anything, you don't have to work very hard, science or humanities. </p>

<p>I'm not going to touch this argument beyond that though. It's one that has played out in my fraternity thousands (yes literally 1000s) of times over the years. In the end of the most epic battle, the final assessment was that it's just different types of work. Putting together a top notch poli sci paper on the expansion of US Business into China is just as time consuming as studying for an organic chemistry exam, the synthesis of ideas needed to design a successful lab experiment to test cricket mating preferences is just as taxing as explaining the synergy of poverty, property tax assessment and white flight as reasons for stratification of educational opportunities in the United States. Everything at the college level has it's layers of complexity with which top students struggle.</p>

43

<p>If I remember correctly, Kerry actually managed the rather surprising accomplishment of being one of very few students to get worse grades than Dubya.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
I'm pretty sure that if you just want to skate by with C's or D's in anything, you don't have to work very hard, science or humanities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That I'm not sure about. I think it has been shown that the average grades given out in the humanities tend to be significantly higher than those given out in the sciences.</p>

<p>Consider the following excerpts from reports at the following schools:</p>

<p>Berkeley:</p>

<p>""The physical sciences and engineering had rigorous grading standards roughly in line with the recommendations from 1976," stated Rine, "while the humanities and social sciences in many classes had all but given up on grades below a B, and in many courses below an A-,"</p>

<p><a href="http://ls.berkeley.edu/undergrad/colloquia/04-11.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ls.berkeley.edu/undergrad/colloquia/04-11.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Harvard:</p>

<p>"But there is one undisputed difference between two realms of academia. The mean grade for humanities courses is higher than that in the natural sciences, according to O’Keefe. And with the new honors GPA cutoff applying across the board, science concentrators may be at a disadvantage when Latin honors are handed out. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508118%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508118&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Stanford:</p>

<p>"The natural sciences division of H&S
assigns the smallest proportion (43%) of combined A's and the largest
proportion of C's, followed by Earth Sciences, Engineering, and the
social sciences division. More than 55% of the letter grades assigned
by the humanities and language/literature departments are A's; these
divisions assign about half as many C's as do other divisions of H&S...The natural sciences division of H&S and the
School of Earth Sciences have the lowest average grades"</p>

<p><a href="http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/archive/1994_1995/reports/104280/104195.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/archive/1994_1995/reports/104280/104195.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Pitt:</p>

<p>"A's were most common in the humanities,..."There was a general feeling among the humanities faculty that the only grades [faculty should give] were A's and B's," Campbell recalled. When Campbell declared that a C should be the mean grade in a class, "some of them were shocked," he said. "There was a fair bit of flack aboard the ship over that.""</p>

<p><a href="http://mac10.umc.pitt.edu/u/FMPro?-db=ustory&-lay=a&-format=d.html&storyid=4008&-Find%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mac10.umc.pitt.edu/u/FMPro?-db=ustory&-lay=a&-format=d.html&storyid=4008&-Find&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>One can also consider the following report:</p>

<p>Let me mention one other thing the data reveal: Grade inflation has proceeded more rapidly in the humanities than in the natural sciences, in part, no doubt, because of the absolute, objective, and quantifiable measures of student mastery that exist in the sciences. The relative integrity of academic standards in the natural sciences in comparison with the humanities, education, and the social sciences acts as an incentive for students to avoid the sciences in favor of the softer, grade-inflated alternatives. Today, as University of Virginia professor Mark Edmundson wrote in Harper's ("On the Uses of a Liberal Education," Harper's Magazine, September 1997, 39 ff), "The rigors of Chem 101 create almost as many English majors per year as do the splendors of Shakespeare."</p>

<p><a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3651/is_199910/ai_n8871068%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3651/is_199910/ai_n8871068&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, if you would like, I can delve into the academic literature where this topic has surely been discussed at length. </p>

<p>But at the end of the day, there does seem to be substantial evidence that humanities classes do tend to be graded easier than science classes.</p>

45

<p>... Stanford sciences give out 43% A's? Goodness gracious.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
... Stanford sciences give out 43% A's? Goodness gracious.

[/quote]
That's grade inflation, right?</p>

47

<p>Well, it depends on how you measure grade inflation. In terms of a very high percentage of A's (the simplistic way) that's very high. However, the most accurate way is probably to correct for the baseline studiousness and intelligence of the students, first. By those standards, Stanford's probably a little grade inflated but not very much. That's speculation, though.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
However, the most accurate way is probably to correct for the baseline studiousness and intelligence of the students, first

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, in the context of this thread (and others), the more interesting issue to me is the intra-school grade differentials. For example, why exactly are Stanford science students getting lower grades than Stanford humanities students? If baseline studiousness and intelligence are to blame rather than grade inflation, then that follows that Stanford science students are simply lazier and dumber than Stanford humanities students. That's an awfully dubious proposition to me.</p>

49

<p>You're right -- my comment was meant as an aside about school-to-school inflation.</p>

50

<p>I love the humanities/social sciences and Biology. I would love to get in to Med School someday. So, I am concerned that a non-science major might push me out of the running as opposed to making me stand out. </p>

<p>This argument is wonderful, I had to bring it back up. There’s a lot of food for thought here as I’m currently trying to decide between the two. Mainly, because I have passions outside of science, which are viable Plan B options. If I didn’t get accepted anywhere, I don’t know what I’d do with a science degree, professionally. I’ve also been concerned that my LAC artsy-smartsy degree wouldn’t look as good as a Tech science degree. I’ve considered transferring partially for this reason.</p>

<p>If there was no adcom favoritism towards majors/programs, then why do a majority of BME (biomedical engineering) majors get into med schools in droves. This is an observation, I have no statistical data to support it.</p>

51

<p>Some of the mods prefer if old threads aren’t bumped, just used for info. So, if this thread gets locked feel free to bring up any topic that you feel is unanswered. </p>

<p>If it seems to you that BME majors are getting into med school more often than humanities majors, its probably because most of the pre-meds at your school are science majors. Here:
[Applicants</a> and Matriculants Data - FACTS - Data - AAMC](<a href=“http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/start.htm]Applicants”>http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/start.htm)</p>

<p>If you ran stats on that I bet you would not find a significant difference between biological science and humanities success rate. Same for physical sciences. All three float within 40-50% acceptance, which is about the acceptance rate to medical school.</p>

<p>Do what you want, medical schools evaluate you based on passion and achievement more than what that passion and achievement is in.</p>

<p>If I had to guess why bme majors probably have a slight trend towards higher acceptance rates, it would be because of

  1. Self selection. Engineering degrees tend to have harsher curves and thus more people may not make it through or have the gpa to even try. Those who are left are, as a whole, more likely to have what it takes to get a decent MCAT score and get into medical school.
  2. BME majors, by their very bent, are better equipped for analysis and application and thus have an easier time with the MCAT.
  3. Who knows, do what you want. Doing humanities or BME isn’t going to be the difference between acceptance and rejection.</p>