<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I know people double major because they are interested in different subjects, but what are the other reasons why people double major? Does it help you get a job or get into graduate school? Do you meet more people?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>i have the same question, good thread..</p>
<p>I don't see how you meet more people by double majoring. You might meet more people by taking more classes, but you certainly don't need to double major for that. It might give you more options when looking for a job but from what I hear it doesn't help in getting a job too much. I don't think it's that beneficial; most people cite their reason to double-major as simply having an interest in the two subjects.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know people double major because they are interested in different subjects, but what are the other reasons why people double major?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To be perfectly honest, I think the real reason why most people double-major is simply for bragging rights. It's like an intellectual game of machismo - people want to be able to say that they did 'more' majors than somebody else did, as doing so supposedly makes them better. It would go something like "Oh, you completed only one major? Well, I did two." The unstated premise is obvioulsy that two is better than one.</p>
<p>But frankly, this is rather short-sighted. The truth of the matter is, once you're in the workforce or in graduate school, nobody is going to care what you majored in for undergrad. Hence, double-majoring is a lot of extra work for very little real benefit and a highly transitory ego boost.</p>
<p>^^ that might be the case with some people, but I would hardly say "most."</p>
<p>Interesting... so double majoring is basically an ego boost... I would think that employers or grad schools might be impressed with a double major. For example right now I have the option of doing econ and business since their course requirements overlap quite closely. I know I can work hard enough to graduate in business with honors and everything but is one major good enough to depend upon? So the problem I have now is that I have a possibility to double major in my grasp, but I don't know if the costs will out weigh the benefits. I keep thinking two is better than one and I want to maximize my chances for getting into a good grad school. I could really care less about bragging rights.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^ that might be the case with some people, but I would hardly say "most."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, then why else would they do it? As we have discussed here, and most tend to agree, there are few tangible benefits to be gained from doubling. The only other reason I can see is the (mistaken) belief that doubling actually helps you. See below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I would think that employers or grad schools might be impressed with a double major. For example right now I have the option of doing econ and business since their course requirements overlap quite closely. I know I can work hard enough to graduate in business with honors and everything but is one major good enough to depend upon? So the problem I have now is that I have a possibility to double major in my grasp, but I don't know if the costs will out weigh the benefits. I keep thinking two is better than one and I want to maximize my chances for getting into a good grad school. I could really care less about bragging rights.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, you would think that employers or grad schools would be impressed. They probably ought to be. But, sadly, that does not seem to be the case, and certainly not by enough to justify the extra time you would have to spend. </p>
<p>As a case in point, I know a slew of people who doubled, with both subjects being highly relevant for a particular job, and they still got beat out for that job that they wanted by somebody else who had just a single. I distinctly remember some of them rueing their double, and saying that they would have been better off if they had not doubled, and instead used their time to practice interview skills or do more networking. </p>
<p>Look, the truth of the matter is that hiring is not as meritocratic as people seem to think it is. You can have the perfect resume and perfect credentials, but if you don't say the right things or give the right vibe in the interview room, you're not going to get the job. That's why you'll see some people get rejected by a slew of mediocre employers, but get an offer from McKinsey or Google. Heck, some people even strategize by deliberately interviewing with a bunch of mediocre firms first just to hone their interview ability, and then line up last the employer they really want. If hiring was truly meritocratic, interview experience wouldn't really matter. But they do, and profoundly so. {For example, if your interview with Google is raw because it is your first interview, you probably won't get the job, but if you had just had the interview a few months later after you've gained interview experience, you might get the job. Hence, just a few months of practice is the difference between your getting the job you want and your not getting it.} </p>
<p>As far as grad schools are concerned, frankly, they don't really care either. Again, I have seen people who doubled and then still get rejected at the grad program they wanted in favor of those who had just singles. Depending on the grad program in question, it's more important to just have high grades (for law/med school), or to have highly relevant research experience and recs (for PhD programs). Doubling is, at best, only a minor factor and certainly not worth the extra time. You'd be better off spending that extra time getting better grades in your unitary major or working on a research paper.</p>
<p>^Yeah, good post Sakky. That just about sums up my thoughts on the matter as well. </p>
<p>The people who defend double majors as worth the time and effort are almost exclusively those with a direct or indirect incentive to do so. </p>
<p>I'll tell you right now, a double major in itself has no influence at all on graduate school applications. Taking extra courses though, can be a big plus; for example an econ major by doing well in a number of non-compulsory high-level math courses can significantly increase their chances of being accepted to good ph.d programs. But whether those courses in complex analysis, topology, number theory and whatever else add up to a second major or not by the rules of the student's individual university is totally irrelevant. The content and results of your coursework are what actually matter for grad school admissions -- nobody cares if it adds up to a double major or not.</p>
<p>To get 2 degrees. Duh.</p>
<p>Hrmm... I might just stick to one major and do well. I didn't even hear of double majoring until I got into college and found out there was such a thing. I might do it if I can do it no problem without going out of my way, but I certainly don't want to stay an extra year. I just want to believe there is some rational and logical reason for why people double major. I know it's probably a logical fallacy, but since people are double majoring there has to be something beneficial about it that outweighs the costs. Or maybe it's all a big conspiracy and single major students are just laughing at the double majoring students.</p>
<p>No tangible benefits?</p>
<p>You keep your options open later on in life - more than one career path is open to you, particularly if you double-major in two vastly different fields. </p>
<p>To me, thats a big thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but since people are double majoring there has to be something beneficial about it that outweighs the costs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, I think it has to do with ego and status, either via self-satisfaction or to obtain approval from their peers. Not that there's anything wrong with that - people do plenty of things to earn ego and status, as opposed to material rewards. </p>
<p>For example, why do people climb Mt. Everest (and sometimes die trying)? After all, it's not like Everest is unexplored territory. We know what's up there. We know what the terrain is. There is nothing left for the world to "learn" from sending more people to climb the summit. Yet people still risk their lives. Why? Ego and self-satisfaction: the privilege of telling yourself (and others) that you indeed climbed Everest. </p>
<p>Heck, sports follows the same philosophy. After all, at the end of the day, does it really matter who wins the championship? Even if you're a professional athlete, all that should matter is that you make a boatload of money, right? So who cares whether you even make the playoffs, much less win the title? After all, you don't get paid extra for winning the title. Heck, by getting to the playoffs, you're basically playing for free (because you already got paid your regular season salary). Yet athletes do care about winning, and in fact, are conditioned to care deeply about winning. They want the status. They want to be able to say that at one time in their life, they were the best. </p>
<p>Academia runs the same way. Professors with tenure have a guaranteed job for life. So why do most of them continue to slave away at their research? They're not going to get a lot of financial benefits from publishing. {Sure, there's a chance that they'll win an award with a financial purse like the Nobel or they might get promoted to Institute Professor or University Professor, but those chances are very small.} They continue to push because they're looking for self-satisfaction of making a discovery as well as recognition from their peers. </p>
<p>So the point is this. If you want to double because you're looking to prove something to yourself, or because you get off on the recognition from others, then by all means do it. There's nothing wrong with that. But if you're doing it because you really expect some tangible financial or career benefit from doing so, you're probably going to be disappointed. It would be like a pro athlete who wants to win a championship solely because he thinks it will get him a better contract. You should want to win because of your love of the game, not because you think you will be better off financially. Heck, such an athlete might actually end up worse off financially (i.e. he might suffer a career-ending injury in the playoffs).</p>
<p>There are none. I'm giving up on mine right now, actually. Take classes in the second interest but focus your major. There is pretty much no leeway for other classes when you choose two rigorous majors. The undergrad experience only happens once - get the full treatment. Double-majoring may give the impression of diversification, but it's one of the most restricting things ever, even if you pass out of a ****load of classes with AP credit.</p>
<p>Now, is the complement of the set {for ego, for self-satisfaction, for financial benefit} necessarily the empty set in the space of reasons for double-majoring?</p>
<p>Are there truly NONE? What if the courses you're planning to take for your grad school plans leave it such that you only need one more course for a double major, and you're not interested in that course--as is the case for me. If I don't care about the ego boost nor are there external benefits, is there really no reason for me to forego the double major and and simply take an unrelated but interesting course?</p>
<p>What is this? Of course there are other reasons. For me, I'm doubling because: 1) I genuinely love both the subjects and they complement each other well. 2) I'll have more job opportunities because I'll be adept in both fields, and I'd also have a "fallback" if one field doesn't work out. 3) The combination of the two makes me ideal for the field I want to go into, which is a cross of the two different fields. 4) I love learning, and this sates a large part of that thirst for knowledge. 5) One field is more a humanity while the other a hardcore science, so I get the best of both worlds. 6) Both require a great deal of logic, reasoning, and problem-solving, so it's training me very well for grad school. 7) I seriously want to contribute to both growing fields, and I feel that a formal education in both can greatly help that.</p>
<p>It never once occurred to me that people do it for "bragging rights," which I don't quite understand since double majors are very common now. And I never thought it'd be more "impressive" to grad schools (why would they care that you also majored in Art History, if it isn't related to what you're applying for?).</p>
<p>Perhaps I'm one of the strange ones, but that's simply how I've always viewed double majoring. I suppose it's different for everyone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is this? Of course there are other reasons. For me, I'm doubling because: 1) I genuinely love both the subjects and they complement each other well. 2) I'll have more job opportunities because I'll be adept in both fields, and I'd also have a "fallback" if one field doesn't work out. 3) The combination of the two makes me ideal for the field I want to go into, which is a cross of the two different fields. 4) I love learning, and this sates a large part of that thirst for knowledge. 5) One field is more a humanity while the other a hardcore science, so I get the best of both worlds. 6) Both require a great deal of logic, reasoning, and problem-solving, so it's training me very well for grad school. 7) I seriously want to contribute to both growing fields, and I feel that a formal education in both can greatly help that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I can take tons and tons of, say, chemistry classes, and yet choose not to major in chemistry. I assume that most colleges work like this. So, you don't have to major in something to learn about it, do research in it, make a contribution, et cetera.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are there truly NONE?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is contending that there aren't any tangible advantages * at all*. </p>
<p>What we are saying is that the tangible advantages do not justify the extra effort you have to put in to get the double. However, when you add in the the intangible benefits, i.e. the self-satisfaction and bragging status, doubling may prove to be worthwhile. But the point is, the tangible benefits are quite weak.</p>
<p>drbott: it's not quite so easy. For example, if you don't declare the major, it could be harder to get into the classes you want. But if you're officially majoring in it, you get priority over those who aren't majoring in it. On top of that, if you're going to delve that deeply into the field, why the hell not get an official degree to tuck behind your belt, something that could carry some helpful weight in the job world?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It never once occurred to me that people do it for "bragging rights," which I don't quite understand since double majors are very common now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if you prefer, you can think of it as the right not to lose in a bragging contest. After all, if double majors really are so common (which I doubt is true in the least, as only a minority of students will actually complete a double), then that might, from an ego standpoint, drive you to also get a double so that you "feel" that you are the equal of others. </p>
<p>
[quote]
5) One field is more a humanity while the other a hardcore science, so I get the best of both worlds
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
On top of that, if you're going to delve that deeply into the field, why the hell not get an official degree to tuck behind your belt,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps this is just a semantic point, but at Berkeley, if you're going to double in a science and a humanity, then you will most likely not get another 'official degree'. You will receive just one degree, but with 2 major designations. To get 2 degrees, you have to complete programs in 2 different colleges/schools at Berkeley. You can do that while completing a science and humanity, but more likely, you'll complete both majors within L&S, and hence wind up with only 1 degree. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2) I'll have more job opportunities because I'll be adept in both fields, and I'd also have a "fallback" if one field doesn't work out. ...3) The combination of the two makes me ideal for the field I want to go into, which is a cross of the two different fields
6) Both require a great deal of logic, reasoning, and problem-solving, so it's training me very well for grad school. 7) I seriously want to contribute to both growing fields, and I feel that a formal education in both can greatly help that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The presumption is that your other choice is not to just complete a single major and then spend your extra time just twiddling your thumbs. Rather, you would take the time that you would have spent in getting the double and instead used it productively on some other endeavor. If you intend to go in the workforce, then you would use that time to work in part-time internships or co-ops. If grad school is your thing, then completing research or otherwise preparing yourself for graduate school. </p>
<p>The point is, doubling is a rather low-yield investment from a tangible standpoint. Yes, you do get some tangible benefits, but probably not as many as you could have gotten if you had spent your time doing something else.</p>