<p>What majors did past SEAS valedictorians take?
The CU wiki lists some for CC, but no list for SEAS =(</p>
<p>Also, are CULPA reviews accurate? I wasn't really impressed by some of the reviews for the IEOR major, because most of them teach the essential courses for the major. Also based on those reviews, it seems that IEOR is no cakewalk, although it is infamous as the joke major of SEAS. Can anyone comment on this?</p>
<p>the valedictorian my year (06) was an OR major. the salutatorian was an Applied Math major. I may have the two of them reversed but i’m positive on their majors. The OR guy was cool, the AM guy was a total toolbox.</p>
<p>Valedictorian for SEAS 07 was electrical engineering. No idea what it was for 08.</p>
<p>CULPA should be taken with a pinch of salt, but it’s a good guide. Weigh all the opinions on there–if they’re mostly bad, you don’t want the class/professor.</p>
<p>And no, IEOR is hard work. Particularly FE.</p>
<p>How is FE demanding? What kind of skillset does it require other than a good ability in mathematics? Programming possibly?</p>
<p>saying “what kind of skillset does FE require other than a good ability in mathematics” is like saying “what kind of skillset does major-league baseball require other than good eye-hand coordination?”.</p>
<p>SEAS vd for 03 was EE, and is currently at a top (the top, depending on your perspective) b-school.</p>
<p>“How is FE demanding? What kind of skillset does it require other than a good ability in mathematics? Programming possibly?”</p>
<p>Let’s count the ways, shall we? Programming is one, math is another (but hey, bio students need a good ability in mathematics–everyone needs that), the ability to arrange huge amounts of numerical data into Excel, basically master excel, construct complex financial instruments, and sleep very little.</p>
<p>SEAS 08 was EE.</p>
<p>^^^^ I realize it’s a silly question, but I’ve been trying to look up more details about each course listed under the degree track and I’ve been having trouble figuring out what kind of aptitude would be required to be successful</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In any given science/engineering class, the kind of aptitude for success is being an analytical, quantitative and logical thinker. Some classes – like accelerated physics – might require a bit more creative thinking. Other classes might require some memorization, but that’s pretty rare. Lab courses obviously require a different kind of aptitude, including hands-on skills and writing skills.</p>
<p>…about your question about the Valedictorians, most of it was hard work. The major had less to do with it than you think.</p>
<p>^ seriously. Funny how EE majors are known for notoriously low GPAs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure how this is funny, nor on what basis you have for thinking that EE GPAs are notoriously low.</p>
<p>A dude who is smart – and more importantly, driven – enough to be valedictorian is going to be able to get A+'s in most classes. And he’s probably ambitious enough that he’ll pick a challenging major like EE.</p>
<p>EE GPAs ARE extremely low compared to other majors. (At least in terms of the work and brain required to maintain a satisfactory GPA) This is common knowledge. I was supporting cerberus08 claims that it’s about ambition and hard work, b.c the valedictorian was in a cutthroat GPA-unfriendly environment. It is extremely difficult for many engineers (who’re generally extremely bright) people to maintain GPAs of above 3.0 throughout college. The fact that this guy was able to do it as an EE major I find really impressive. </p>
<p>There are plenty of smart and ambitious people that could get straight A’s in many courses/majors but would not be able to do so in engineering. Why is this notion so out of hand?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, this isn’t true at all at Columbia. If you can’t get a 3.0 in SEAS, you’re not close to extremely bright.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ambitious grinds, but not all that smart.</p>
<p>"It is extremely difficult for many engineers (who’re generally extremely bright) people to maintain GPAs of above 3.0 throughout college. "</p>
<p>Actually, lots of them maintain their GPA’s above 3.0.
If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be flocking to wall street. It’s maintaining it at like a 3.8 that’s challenging</p>
<p>Getting straight B’s at columbia does require, at a minimum, a goodly level of intelligence and hard work. It doesn’t require surpassing genius, but any schlub off the street can’t just walk in and get a 3.0 at columbia, certainly not in SEAS / EE. I’d say the people who get 3.0s are either (1) grinds who are “bright” but a little out of their depth, and work their butts off for a 3.0, or (2) kids i’d call “very bright” who are just slackers, smoke a bowl before every class, and generally don’t give a crap. It varies of course.</p>
<p>Those who end up valedictorian/salutatorian, though, are generally from the majors that are easier to get top GPAs in. For SEAS, that would be OR, EMS, AM, CS, CompE, and maybe Earth&Env E. The hardest would definitely be ChemE, BioMed, and probably MechE, followed closely by EE. There may be some people who can simply get an A+ in every class regardless of difficulty, but most who are capable of that choose not to do so, and a much wider range of people have that capability in the easier departments/majors.</p>
<p>Why do you consider CompE easier than EE? I would think it would be just as hard if not harder, but that probably be because of the breadth of the subject.</p>
<p>the compsci classes you take subsidize your GPA rather considerably. If you’re a logical thinker who can put the time in for your assignments, CompE shouldn’t kill you by any means. There are no breaks for EE majors.</p>