<p>^ oh, dear. That could burst my little bubble. Generalizing about STEM? When there are code rats and there are brilliant out of the box trailblazers???</p>
<p>Let’s go back to the same distinction suggested for business studies: between Wharton sorts and kids not looking for a challenge. I hope you meant “less intellectually curious subset” of STEMs, “those from the extreme narrow-minded sect of” STEM majors.</p>
<p>The focus of the NYT article was some placed called Radford. I’d bet the psychology grads from Radford are no prize either. Also noted that once you get below the Top 50 business programs you get into problems. If you don’t go to a Top 50 undergrad business program you are not going to get much of a job anyway so why waste the money?</p>
<p>Quote: "I think the rampant physics illiteracy is dangerous in a country where voters have an input into policies about technology and energy. "</p>
<p>Quote: " Then again, being knowledgeable about STEM subjects is no guarantee whatsoever of being “literate” about anything else."</p>
<p>Even though I’m the author of the first quote, I agree with the sentiments of the second, DonnaL. It is also true that no matter how “literate” any person is in any field, they may still hold dangerous and faulty opinions. Since you brought up the Holocaust, I hold that the German nation that brought it about was highly literate in both the sciences and humanities. Before WW II, Germany even had world renown theologians. </p>
<p>Now lets hope the humanities courses that our current generation is taking will help them not to repeat that particular history, as a wise man once said, those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it.</p>
<p>Quote: If you don’t go to a Top 50 undergrad business program you are not going to get much of a job anyway so why waste the money? </p>
<p>Let’s think about that statement… Every state has a state university system, doesn’t it?<br>
Since many privates have top business programs, you are implying that the very top business graduates at many of our state universities are wasting their money. Let’s not be elitist here. You don’t have to graduate from a “top fifty” program in business to successfully find a job, or a “top fifty” computer science program - you might be able to convince me about a “top fifty” nuclear engineering or astrophysics degree…</p>
<p>Business degrees (except for accounting majors) in general are of little value, at least compared to majors in subjects that develop analytical and reasoning skills - and I believe most employers recognize this. There are exceptions for finance majors from the very most well-regarded programs, who are recruited by big financial sector firms. But I would think the number of programs that attract such interest is very limited, far less than 50.</p>
<p>"Business degrees (except for accounting majors) in general are of little value, at least compared to majors in subjects that develop analytical and reasoning skills - and I believe most employers recognize this. There are exceptions for finance majors from the very most well-regarded programs, who are recruited by big financial sector firms. But I would think the number of programs that attract such interest is very limited, far less than 50. "</p>
<p>Looking for a list of the top 100 business programs, I found businessweek’s 2009 rankings (the current rankings only list the top 50). Included in the 50-100 ranked schools are Purdue, Rutgers, John Carroll, Marquette, George Washington U., Colorado State, University of Iowa, University of Tennessee, Loyola, DePaul, Virginia Tech, all fine schools. </p>
<p>The alma maters of several of my friends and family members with business degrees who are successfully employed did not even make the top 100 list - and many of them are in the New York City area. Included is a brand new 2011 graduate who got a job in her chosen field within a week of sending out resumes, despite her college program not being ranked.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, only an extremely limited subset of the German population was highly literate in the theoretical sciences and humanities…those who were academically adept enough to test into a “Gymnasium” which the closest US equivalents would be a combination of the most rigorous private/boarding schools or public examination magnet high schools and the first year or two of courses at the most elite LACs/Universities. </p>
<p>Graduating from one was accomplished after passing a university entrance exam where you’re tested on a selection of subjects from your track and was considered so impressive…one could be accepted into the lower ranks of the highly elitist German Civil service or military officer corps on virtue of that exam alone even before WWII…no university degree was necessary. </p>
<p>Recalled reading somewhere that only the top 10-15%* of all German schoolchildren Gymnasium age qualified for admission. The rest were either sent off to vocational oriented schools like the “Realschule”*, start apprenticeships, or start working. </p>
<p>Incidentally, one did not have to go to a Gymnasium to become an engineer as Germany has had until very recently…a system of vocational polytechnic higher educational institutes that provided advanced vocational training in areas like engineering or accounting without having to go through the “Liberal Arts”…including the more theoretical mathematics and sciences. Until those institutes were converted to university status in the '90s as part of the EU-wide Bologna reform process…their graduates/degrees were not socially regarded as the equivalent of an actual university. </p>
<ul>
<li>Probably a gross overestimate considering how elitist the pre-1945 and Pre-1933 German education system was in selecting Gymnasium candidates. If one was a scion of an aristocratic or wealthy merchant family…he(rarely she) would sometimes get in despite being well-below top 10-15% while other groups were barred due to social class or religious persuasion.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>** Hitler actually wanted to go to a Gymnasium. Unfortunately for him…his father felt a “Realscule” education was more practical and he felt so ****ed off about it that he not only did poorly, but was expelled after he was found to have used his certificate of his completing his second year as toilet paper.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I went to school, both math and engineering majors took freshman calculus, multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations (unless they entered advanced in math, in which case they went directly to something more advanced than first semester freshman calculus). Honors versions were available to those who wanted more theory and proofs to go along with the usual calculation emphasis.</p>
<p>Upon completing the above, engineering majors could take math heavy engineering courses in circuit theory, computer theory, linear programming, etc. (depending on specific branch of engineering, of course), while math majors took math courses like real analysis, abstract algebra, and complex analysis. Most people (including the engineering majors) seemed to think that the math major courses were the toughest math or math-like undergraduate courses available.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>??? Why would engineering majors take math classes that are harder than math classes that math majors take? Of 'course most engineering majors don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All current enrollment and employment stats dispute this. </p>
<p>This statement is a prime example of how anonymous rooting for “one’s team/position” can be taken too far. I wish the internet would allow us to detect blushing.</p>
<p>"??? Why would engineering majors take math classes that are harder than math classes that math majors take? Of 'course most engineering majors don’t. "</p>
<p>How would you know?</p>
<p>UCB - Engineering Math in US sounds lot easier. I was checking Electrical Engineering requirements at Berkeley it does not seem like a lot unless I am adding it all wrong.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Programs/Notes/Content/Chapter2.pdf[/url]”>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Programs/Notes/Content/Chapter2.pdf</a></p>
<p>Electrical engieers had to struggle through 8-9 semester level math classes in India after finishing Calculus in high school. May be we were compensating for not having social sciences requirements in engineering schools.</p>
<p>Can you given an example of a math or math-like course typically taken by engineering majors that is generally considered more difficult than math courses typically taken by math majors (at the same level, as in don’t compare freshman level courses to senior level courses)?</p>
<p>“How would you know?”</p>
<p>Might have to ask a Philosophy major . . .</p>
<p>UCB - I have no idea since UCB and probably engineering major in US in general does not require as much Math as needed in countries outside of US?</p>
<p>In the countries you are familiar with, what is the typical math content of an engineering degree program, and what is the typical math content of a math degree program (assuming same level of degree (e.g. bachelor’s degree) and same school)?</p>
<p>The real elephant in the room is intellectual capabilities; it is not a division between practical and theoretical subjects but one among disciplines. The reality is that students do not choose their majors randomly, and the GRE scores by intended graduate majors suggest just that.</p>
<p>Among my siblings and children, there are three with undergrad business degrees from the very best of Canadian programs. They seem to take as many courses outside of business as they do in commerce, and they invariably scored almost a grade higher in their minors. In addition, the programs forced them to be well-rounded, having to fulfill extensive humanities requirements on one hand, and math and statistics requirements on the other, in contrast to the asymmetrical transcripts I use to seeing from students in arts and sciences.</p>
<p>The most successful business grad in the family earned an MBA from a good- but- not- tops Canadian business school and did not earn a first degree in business. She did, however, graduated with distinction from one of Canadas very best schools, in what we now call quantitative methods and what was really a minor in physics. So it goes right back to my first point.</p>
<p>The sword cuts both ways. I am young enough to remember Enoch Powell, the classics scholars who graduated with a double starred first from Cambridge. William Shockley? How about Rudyard Kipling? I used to know White Mans Burden by heart…</p>
<p>The value of liberal arts or humanities includes the benefit of an education about moral, social, and political issues gained through reading and thinking about the thoughts of philosophers, writers, historians, etc. If taught well, the humanities can broaden one’s world view. Quantative brilliance is very impresssive and clearly an asset in modern society, but it does nothing to prepare a person to be a good citizen or to improve as a human being.</p>
<p>A liberal arts education does not guarantee that one will become a better human being either, but exposure to more intellectual points of view, history, and social crtiticism raise that possibility. While liberal arts knowledge can be gained in a library, math can be learned on line through the Khan Academy. A teacher and one’s peers can inspire deeper and further thought than reading in isolation, though brilliant audtodidacts do not need universities.</p>
<p>I admit that I am a dinosaur and my ilk will probably be extent in a few more years or decades. However, as one who only wen through pre-calculus, why does an “educated person” need to know calculus? I know enough math to balance my checkbok accurately, calculate tips, do my taxes, figure out how far I can travel on my remaining gas, but honestly do not use math for anything related to my profession (litigation attorney defending public entities from tort claims). I know the ways statistics can be manipulated and the the dangers of high interest rates. I have a lay understanding of physics that is becomming dated. I cannot remember anything about high school chemistry or algebra II or pre-calc from 35 years ago. I have read Bryson’s “A Brief History of Everything” and occasionally science for lay person type books, but certainly cannot do the math. I have engineers explain speed calculations to me in a way that a jury can understand it. I am the test - if I can’t understand it most jurors won’t either. Same for economists who might testify as to present values of damages, etc.</p>
<p>I applaud anyone for becoming as intelletually well rounded as possible, but I am not sure why every 'educated" person should know calculus, or even algebra II for that matter. I think every educate person should read a fair amount of Dickens and Shakespeare to gain empathy and insight into human nature, but I am not sure calculus will do that for me.</p>
<p>I have figured out enough math on a case by case basis to effectively cross-examine accountants, engineers, and appraisors, but do not remember those lessons over the years between the times that I had to use them. I follow politcs fairly closely and have read books on economics, but am no expert on economics. I kow enough to know that economists do not agree on how to deal with the deficit, so one can choose an expert consistent with one’s political philosophy. </p>
<p>I am asking in a serious way, so I hope not to be flamed for my ignorance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One does not have to know how to do some obscure integral to understand the difference between some value and the rate of change of some value, which is a concept behind calculus that people should internalize when taking the calculus course. Many people seem to be confused or misled by statements like “_____ jobs are expected to grow rapidly over the next decade” without realizing that the number of such jobs is very low compared to the number of people seeking them, and will remain low even after the anticipated job growth. Debt versus deficit also confuses people in a similar manner.</p>
<p>Calculus is also helpful in understanding statistics and physics.</p>
<p>In addition, it appears that the makers of the LSAT have made it so that quantitative and logical thinking is valued as well as humanistic thinking. Math, physics, and philosophy majors are among the highest scoring majors in the LSAT, while the more typical pre-law majors of political science and English literature are in the middle of the pack.</p>