<p>"Obviously, someone who is a communications majors at Harvard is unintelligent, simply because it is not physically possible for an intelligent person to pick that major."</p>
<p>As Harvard does not offer a major in communications, I suppose this is true.</p>
<p>I am sorry about the confusion about what I mean by liberal arts. I meant the humanties and social sciences (with the exception of economics). I know the math and hard sciences are classified under liberal arts also, so I apologize for the confusion.</p>
<p>Business majors also attract the not-so-smart students, along with the humanities and social sciences. I'm not saying that they're all no smart. I am just saying that there is a drawback in being classified with them if you are smart yourself and choose to major along with them.</p>
<p>I could also clarify what I mean by unintelligent and intelligent. By unintelligent, I mean average or under. This does not mean I measure it by what your test scores are or where you go to school. What do I mean by "average"? Just look around.</p>
<p>I know I said there was a drawback in being classified with the not-so-smart people majoring in these fields. That does not mean that the studies themselves are in some way inferior to engineering/hard sciences.</p>
<p>The guy that said all smart people choose 1 of 3 majors (hard math and sciences), is just simply biased. If he thinks philosophy majors are dumb, then he obviously hasn't met too many of them. If that were the case, why do philosophy majors score way higher on the GRE with verbal and writing, and just as high on the analytical? Obviously, specialization of labor means that every major will give you better skills in certain areas than others.</p>
<p>The drawback is that there are way more people in the world who have good communication and writing skills compared to numerical skills. The result is that engineers/scientists/mathmaticians...etc, earn way higher salaries on average. It is simply the law of supply and demand. It is not that they are superior.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure Mr Paynes post was a joke. I hope it was a joke . . .</p>
<p>I think some people on this board have some seriously problems with letting their major define who they are. The smartest 3 people I know are an asian studies major, english major, and a cs/psych major. Not only are they incredibly smart, but they have the security to do what they want to do, and not think about what other "smart" people are doing.</p>
<p>It was obviously a joke.</p>
<p>Thank goodness the above poster was joking. On other matters-the quote was NATURAL, not physical science, eg biology not chemistry, physics, etc. There are many different fields in law- I know of a chemistry major who went to law school eons ago. I chose a BA in chemistry (honors,no less) because I qualified for both (science/ foreign language requirements differed, I believe) and liked the white tassel better than the yellow- we all sat together at graduation so being with friends didn't matter, nor was postgrad work affected. In recent years a lot of information regarding gifted and talented has emerged, including various types/areas-and I don't mean Gardner's "multiple intelligences". Some majors are easier than others, some by ability to think abstractly, others by the amount of work required. eg. Psychology has been considered easy, now they have added a lot more science/neurology to even AP psych courses ( making newer theories much easier to accept)- but it still doesn't seem to be difficult to grasp. Majors DO define who you are- they show your passions, or at least what you consider worth investing your time in. Many smart/gifted people could major in and be good in many diverse areas, their choices reflect who they choose to be at that time. Also, don't confuse smart with mature. It seems to me law schools base a lot on the LSAT, hopefully a valid test. I thought I saw somewhere that GPA counted a lot, without giving more weight to tougher schools. It is good to hear that any major is still ok- use the undergrad experience to explore fields you won't have time for in professional school. I also wonder if the people most interested in law school are drawn to mainly the same majors by interests, not perceived "good for law school" reasons.</p>
<p>The benefit of a liberal arts education is simply that you have a well-rounded education about the world you live in and can hold your own once you enter the working world. Success in life is not measured by earning potential. A person that can write well and engage in intelligent conversation in social situations with business associates may have a better chance at networking and climbing the corporate ladder than person with a primarily technical undergrad education (ie. business or engineering).</p>
<p>Preferably, the liberal arts major goes on to pursue a graduate degree to enable him/her to be employed in either teaching or the corporate world, thereby able to earn a living. Worst case, he/she has a decent shot at winning on Jeopardy.</p>
<p>I second BaseballMom, she makes a very valid point.</p>
<p>Legal analysis is largely textual analysis, at least in law school and appellate practice (trial level law is more fact driven). Any liberal arts field that involves writing and textual analysis will prepare you for law school. Political science teaches how government, including the judicial system, works, but is not "better" preparation than English literature or philosophy, in large part because, in lawschool, the focus is on learning how judges make case by case decisions. and how lawyers argue from precedent. After obtaining my undergraduate and graduate degrees in literature, I attended law school (all at UC Berkeley (!), by the by, which was excellent preparation at every level), and found my skills well suited to the study of law. It is not a "completely different" kind of writing or thinking -- you can learn to "think like a lawyer" and write like one very readily if you can analyze texts and write clearly and succinctly.</p>
<p>1) Pareto optimality is a phrase used in neoclassical economics. I don't see the relevancy to this thread. I think it was used in the wrong context.
2) Yes tech/most sciences are difficult. But who cares? My father is a computer engineer and he says do NOT major in computer engineer nor in CS because those jobs are being outsourced. Bio and chem engineering are the "hot" ones and computer engineers might have a hard time looking for jobs.
3) A bio undergrad is worthless. Chem majors are generally employable post grad, and physics majors are worthless without grad degrees.
4) I think people fail to see that in general humanities are paid just as low as some sciences including biology.
5) The only "lucrative" undergraduate degrees are some types of engineering--not civil or mechanical mind you--and maybe business. However to get into business you do not need a business degree.</p>
<p>So to summarize; the majority of undergraduate degrees are worthless, not just the humanities but the majority of the sciences as well. And no offense, but why do science majors boast about their majors yet they do poorly in it? I know someone who is majoring in engineering who can't even get an A in Calculus 2..and I could and I'm not an engineer. So unless you are a 4.0 student in engineering from MIT etc. then stop bragging. So yes, enough. Have a nice day.</p>
<p>"Worthless" - only if you only define worth in economic terms. You can go to tech school to get job skills; you go to a 4 year college to get an education, to learn a subject in depth. Unfortunately too many people are choosing business fields with the goal of making money and not choosing to become educated in liberal arts or sciences for the sake of knowledge. Their loss.</p>
<p>But the thing is, it's NOT worthless in economic terms. It is worth less than other degrees, but that does not make it worthless by any means.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So to summarize; the majority of undergraduate degrees are worthless, not just the humanities but the majority of the sciences as well.
[/quote]
But not engineering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And no offense, but why do science majors boast about their majors yet they do poorly in it? I know someone who is majoring in engineering who can't even get an A in Calculus 2..and I could and I'm not an engineer.
[/quote]
If you haven't done it, don't say you can.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So unless you are a 4.0 student in engineering from MIT etc. then stop bragging. So yes, enough. Have a nice day.
[/quote]
Bragging about having a much higher starting salary than a liberal arts major? That's pretty much true regardless of GPA.</p>
<p>Bragging about having harder classes? Well, that would be a dumb thing to brag about - but engineering has harder classes across the board.</p>
<p>If someone gets a 3.3+ in Engineering it is a good academic and intellectual achievement at the undergrad level. It requires a decent amount of study and a broad understanding of many different technical topics. Is bragging in poor taste? Most certainly. It doesn't negate the achievement though.</p>
<p>Wait, hold on a second.</p>
<p>How about if you just enjoy what you study or do? How about if it makes you happy? Even if I slogged through a hard science/engineering degree and got my job afterwards, it would never have brought me the joy that I get out of IR and political analysis. I would never have woken up every day and thought, "it's a great day."</p>
<p>I think that too few people on this board, perhaps out of lack of experience, value the notion of ENJOYING what you do. I'd give up tens of thousands of dollars to actually have a sense of accomplishment and happiness in my life.</p>
<p>Nice to see that there has been so much debate on the topic.</p>
<p>Enjoying what you do is certainly a positive about picking a major that isn't regarded very highly. However, it seems that far too many kids today are growing up math and science illiterate such that when they reach the college level they are forced to major in "less useful" majors becacuse their scientific compotency is so low.</p>
<p>"Liking" what you do is often code for saying that you were too lacking in certain skills to do anything else.</p>
<p>You don't see history majors leading the world unless they have a huge number of connections and come from old money. </p>
<p>Most of the people that contribute most substantively to society today, economically at least, are those that major in technical fields and develop tomorrow's cures, devices, and methods.</p>
<p>^Yes, this is all true--science and technology are cutting edge, but is a science related major really needed for law and law school when lawyers aren't exactly the ones developing "tomorrow's cures, devices, and methods" ? I guess your argument is for when your plans for law school fall through or something, you have a second option.</p>
<p>""Liking" what you do is often code for saying that you were too lacking in certain skills to do anything else."</p>
<p>That is just a load of cr*p. Liking what you are doing means being having the opportunity to be passionate about a subject that truly interests and challenges you. You can find a challenge in absolutely any subject and any major under the sun. The world needs historians and artists just as much as it needs chemists and engineers. </p>
<p>If you truly believe that the value of a major is measured by its usefulness in getting a job that will pay a large salary and otherwise contribute economically (to whom? by paying taxes? oh that's right -- according to you, it doesn't matter unless someone develops tomorrow's cures, devices, and methods), you are seriously misguided. Not every hard science major gets a great job that contributes to the world at large in some meaningful way that will ensure that their names live on in history books (ooh - that is history, is it not?). Furthermore, not every literature major will end up on welfare, living off of the state, because, seemingly according to you, they took the easy way out. </p>
<p>The vast majority of people in this country who went to college are not employed in fields that are directly related to their undergraduate majors. In fact, you very rarely hear mention of what subjects our world and business leaders majored in in college (if they went to college at all). There's a reason for that -- it's largely irrelevant. You can be an english major and take enough science classes, either while an undergraduate or during post-bacc studies, to go to med school. You can be an art history major and become a top lawyer. You can be a communications major and become a top investment banker. You can also become a complete flop in the real world after majoring in any major you can think of, including hard sciences. </p>
<p>The world needs people with all kinds of skills and all different approaches to the world around them. Oh, and don't forget to thank your garbage man, your mail carrier and the person who welded the bolts on your car for their contributions to the economy (and your happiness and safety). I'm quite certain that when they get home at night, they are working on tomorrow's cures, devices, and methods. I know that when I get home from my long day I am certainly doing so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>Most of the people that contribute most substantively to society today, economically at least, are those that major in technical fields and develop tomorrow's cures, devices, and methods.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you know for a fact that it isn't those who develop these things and didn't major in technical fields?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Liking" what you do is often code for saying that you were too lacking in certain skills to do anything else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So most who enjoy their career do it because they're quantitatively or scientifically inept? Huh. I guess those As I got in my science and math classes were all just flukes.</p>