What is the hardest majors?

College Majors Engineering Majors
101

<p>My high school band director brings horror stories about majoring in music performance.</p>

<p>Out of the 18 that began as freshmen majoring in percussion, 16 dropped out or switched majors to music education.</p>

<p>Every quarter, they have to play a slightly better piece in order to proceed with the major - if they do not improve significantly during the quarter, they are given a strike - two strikes, and they have to restart the entire program.</p>

<p>These may be mere horror stories intended to scare the weak away from doing the major, but if they're true, I'd rank music performance up there.</p>

102

<p>Civil is not "the easiest." My coursework in structural engineering has been just as intense as the students in MechE. Not so much more difficult, just different.</p>

103

<p>
[quote]
The hardest majors for me are History, Political Science, Classics, Anthropology, and Philosophy. I can't stand all of the reading and writing and memorizing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That presumes that you actually have to do * all of the reading, writing and memorizing, which gets to an important characteristic of difficulty. There is the difficulty of the material *itself, and then there is the difficulty of the grading of the courses that are teaching you that material, which includes the subset questions of how much work do you have to do and how much of the material do you actually have to understand in order to pass the course? The (sad) truth of the matter is that, in many humanities and social science disciplines, you can do very little of the work and not understand anything that is happening, and still get passing grades anyway.</p>

<p>I'll give you an example. I know a guy who took a history course at Berkeley. The course assigned a lot of books to read. But he didn't bother to read a single page of a single book, and he certainly didn't spend anytime memorizing anything. He also never went to class. Not even once. In fact, he basically did nothing at all. The grading of the course stemmed from 2 papers based on the readings that you were supposed to read. Instead of reading any of the books, all he did was go onto Amazon and looked at the user reviews of those books, and then just reworded a bunch of those reviews into a paper. He estimates that he perhaps spent a grand total of 5 hours during the entire semester on work for that course, and that includes the time spent going to class (which was zero for him, because he never went to class). He ended up with a grade of an A-, and the only reason he didn't get a solid A was because he never went to class (and some of the grading was based on class participation, for which he obviously didn't get any of the points). I remember he was laughing at how little effort he expended on that course and how he learned nothing from the course, yet got an excellent grade anyway. </p>

<p>Imagine trying to do that in an engineering course. For example, imagine trying to never read the book, never do any of the homeworks, never go to class, have no idea what is going on at all, and yet still expect to pass the class anyway. Yet that is precisely what a lot of humanities and soc science students do expect. They have learned that they don't actually have to do the reading and memorizing, and they will still pass. Sure, maybe they won't get an excellent grade the way the guy I discussed above did. But they'll still pass. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree with "what is the hardest major?" being a subjective question.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that it is somewhat subjective. But not completely. There are indeed broad characterizations you can make that some majors are more difficult than others. Sure, there will be some rare people who find those difficult majors to be extremely easy, but they are statistical outliers. For example, I am sure that Paul Erdos would have found theoretical mathematics courses to be extremely easy, but that's why he's Paul Erdos. Regular people would find theoretical math to be inpenetrable. </p>

<p>As one indicator of difficulty or ease of major, I would look at where the scholarship football and basketball players at the major sports schools tend to congregate. Ever notice how relatively few of them will choose to major in engineering, natural sciences, math, or architecture (or perhaps music performance)? This is especially true of the star players who are thinking of turning pro. Let's face it. If you are one of them, what you really care about is choosing an easy major that will give you easy grades with relatively little work so that you won't risk your eligibility to play. I know that at Berkeley (Cal), a lot of star football and basketball players choose to major in 'American Studies'. Not too many Cal football players were majoring in, say, chemical engineering. At other schools, you tend to see a lot of players majoring in 'Leisure Studies' or similar such majors. Coincidence? You tell me.</p>

104

<p>sakky:
Your points are well taken, but I still think you're missing the big picture.</p>

<p>Difficulty of material is subjective and the very meaning of "difficulty" varies from discipline to discipline. For example, few would find it difficult to solve the following system:</p>

<p>x + y = 2
x - y = 0</p>

<p>Even with the barest of elementary mathematics. However, most would find the answer to the question </p>

<p>"What is the influence of capitalism on postmodernism."</p>

<p>fairly intimidating.</p>

<p>Your example seems anecdotal at best. Who's to say that person didn't just get lucky, or that he isn't some "Paul Erdos of History" in the rough?</p>

<p>I also disagree that there is a <em>significant</em> difference in the amount of "work" that students in different majors must do. For example, architecture students are some of the hardest worked out there, while physics majors rarely have more than lab write-ups and maybe graded homework. Comparing time spent on assignments would probably yield an interesting picture of the situation, but then again the amount of time spent doesn't necessarily coincide with difficulty, either.</p>

<p>I think that "difficulty" is inherently subjective. To ask about the objective difficulty of something in my mind makes no sense, and to compare difficulties across various people is an excercise in statistics. Perhaps a better question would be "what do the majority of people consider to be the hardest major in college?". Would an answer to that question even make any sense? People can really only provide reasoned opinions about their own majors, and this might be biased.</p>

<p>This entire issue is like punching Bob and asking Fred how much it hurt.</p>

105

<p>Quicksilver, you are just making sakky's point. I'm quite sure that Architecture students do actually have more work than Physics students. In fact, I think they have more work than Engineering students as well.</p>

<p>There are four reasons that I think certain majors have (like Engineering) have vastly more work than others.</p>

<p>1) Smarter competitors.
2) Lower average grades.
3) Higher unit load.
4) Qualitative differences in material (your standard Calculus II/III classes are harder than most 400 level classes in other majors).</p>

106

<p>Payne:</p>

<p>Firstly, I'm not sure I follow about how I'm making sakky's point. Maybe you could elaborate on that.</p>

<p>Secondly...
1) Smarter competitors may make something of a difference, although then we would have to get into what makes one person smarter than another. Define smartness and then we'll talk about this one.
2) Average grades should be curved anyway. Irrelevant, if you ask me.
3) Unit load? What do you mean by that? More work per course, more courses, what? Please clarify.
4) My entire post was basically refuting this point. What's easy for you might be hard for others, and vice versa. Diff'rent strokes, right? That's how I see it.</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
1) Smarter competitors may make something of a difference, although then we would have to get into what makes one person smarter than another. Define smartness and then we'll talk about this one.

[/quote]
IQ. IQ is best represented by the concept of "g", or a general intelligence quotient. People who tend to be smart in one thing tend to be smart in others. Very rarely does someone get an 800 on the math portion of the SAT and a 200 on the Verbal. Their scores generally have a decent correlation. But how does having smarter competitors affect your school experience? Well, for any single individual having smarter competitors means you are lower on the curve than you would otherwise be.

[quote]
2) Average grades should be curved anyway. Irrelevant, if you ask me.

[/quote]
Engineering is curved lower. The average GPA for an engineer at my school is ~2.6. That seems far lower than humanities GPAs. But regardless, I've never heard of a business class failing 50% of a section. That happens at least once a quarter in my department (one prof in particular does it).

[quote]
3) Unit load? What do you mean by that? More work per course, more courses, what? Please clarify.

[/quote]
There are more units required to graduate. Anecdotally, I find that on a per unit time requirement, an engineering unit requires far more than a humanities unit. Several of my friends have switched from Engineering to Business (MIS, probably the most technical of business majors) and were amazed at reduction in workload.

[quote]
4) My entire post was basically refuting this point. What's easy for you might be hard for others, and vice versa. Diff'rent strokes, right? That's how I see it.

[/quote]
Too bad it doesn't match reality. Intellectual capabilities correlate with each other. Sure, my verbal skills are "worse" than my math skills. My verbal skills still are 95th percentile though.</p>

108

<p>Go engineers. Wooohoooo. this feels intense!</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
Who's to say that person didn't just get lucky, or that he isn't some "Paul Erdos of History" in the rough?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Trust me, he ain't the "Paul Erdos" of history, by his own admission. He freely admits that he actually knows very little about history - and more importantly - doesn't want to know anything about it. So why did he study it? Because it was easy. He frankly said that he deliberately chooses classes that involve very little effort and are known to give out very high grades so that he has time to enjoy life, which for him means a lot of drinking and partying. </p>

<p>That's what makes the situation so sad. Sure, if he really was the 'Paul Erdos' of history, then it wouldn't matter that he want to spend any effort on his coursework. But he isn't, and he knows he isn't. For example, he once infamously remarked that he wasn't really sure which side the UK fought for during both world wars, and in fact, he wasn't even sure what the names of the sides were during WW1. But he laughs at the situation and says that it doesn't matter because he's still going to get a degree anyway, and all for very little effort.</p>

<p>And you know what? Sadly, he's right. It really doesn't matter. At least from his perspective, it doesn't matter. He's not interested in actually learning anything. He just wants to get an easy degree for doing basically nothing. The school is, sadly, willing to grant him that easy degree. They're not going to check to see whether he actually has a very basic understanding of his chosen major, or heck, has even a base level of knowledge expected of any college student at all. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think that "difficulty" is inherently subjective. To ask about the objective difficulty of something in my mind makes no sense, and to compare difficulties across various people is an excercise in statistics. Perhaps a better question would be "what do the majority of people consider to be the hardest major in college?". Would an answer to that question even make any sense? People can really only provide reasoned opinions about their own majors, and this might be biased.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet you have to keep in mind that people can try out different courses in different majors. Just because you major in chemical engineering doesn't mean that you will take only chemical engineering courses. Even the strictest major allows some latitude for electives. </p>

<p>Hence, I think one fair way to compare majors is to look at those people who take electives in other disciplines. For example, I know some chemical engineering students who, in their final semester, took only 1 chemical engineering course and 4 different humanities and social science electives (to fulfill their final graduation requirements), and found out that their one chemical engineering course took up more time and was more difficult than all of their humanities/soc-science electives combined. Nor were those electives 'gut' courses. For example, one guy was actually taking a graduate level course on East Asian politics which was filled mostly with PhD students, and found this course to be fun and significantly easier and less time consuming than his engineering course. Not only that, but those guys all got better grades in those electives than they did in their engineering class. On the other hand, how many humanities students do you know that will take advanced chemical engineering courses "for fun"?</p>

110

<p>
[quote]
2) Average grades should be curved anyway. Irrelevant, if you ask me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Should be curved, but they're often times not. Like Payne said, engineering and natural sciences courses tend to be graded harder than humanities/soc-science courses. I have never understand why that is the case, but it tends to be the case.</p>

<p>Consider the findings of the Berkeley colloquium on grading:</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>Undergraduate</a> Education Colloquium, The College of Letters and Science, UC Berkeley</p>

<p>And then there is the notion of the engineering educational culture that seems to revel in pain. </p>

<p>"Early in her career, electrical-engineering professor Sherra Kerns was called on the carpet after her students said they enjoyed her introductory class in electrical-circuit theory. Fellow faculty members, puzzled by the strong student response, told Kerns that if her students liked the class so much, then she must not be teaching it properly. </p>

<p>"Even today, the assumption is that engineering classes have to be painful to be effective," said Kerns, who is now vice president of research and innovation at Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering (Needham, Mass.). "Professors who have happy students are suspect because their classes may not be rigorous enough."'</p>

<p>EETimes.com</a> - If I'm happy, can this be EE school?</p>

111

<p>
[quote]
Should be curved, but they're often times not. Like Payne said, engineering and natural sciences courses tend to be graded harder than humanities/soc-science courses. I have never understand why that is the case, but it tends to be the case.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sakky, you don't have to say that again. In fact I've taken quite a few elective courses (Economics, Philosophy, Business Law, Political Theory, Astronomy, Accounting.) I have found all of these electives to be far less demanding/time consuming, and quite frankly extremely easier in comparison to even my freshman engineering class. I have a very difficult time believing that even the brightest English or Philosophy majors on campus would excel at engineering, the way a typical engineering student would excel in non-engineering majors. </p>

<p>Generally speaking, Engineering students are far more capable academically. Sure, there are plenty of extremely bright students in other majors, but the vast majority would not be able to keep up in an engineering program. </p>

<p>I found that many students in college enjoy being challenged, for engineering students the rigor of the curriculum is generally the challenge. Not only is the material far more difficult to comprehend, BS in engineering is usually 140+ credits, which is not the case with most other majors.</p>

112

<p>Payne:</p>

<p>I'm reluctant to let IQ be the end-all measure of intelligence. I mean, if you define intelligence as having a high IQ, then people with the highest IQ are trivially the most intelligent. But I'm not quite willing to make that leap, and there are many professional psychologists who would agree with me. It's not as cut and dry as some may read into your post.</p>

<p>As far as Engineering professors arbitrarily making the curve low... that sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. In other words, what if the Physical Education department started curving class grades so 75% failed? Would that make it harder?</p>

<p>Alright, I can agree that some programs require more units to graduate than do others. However, nobody's going to stop a music education major from double majoring in leisure studies and dance appreciation, raising the number of credits to the maximum allowed limit. Does that mean that this person now has the hardest course of study?</p>

<p>I have no mind for history at all. In fact, this is a common problem among many of the smartest people I know. In fact, I don't know anybody who's just good at everything. I would suspect anybody who purports to be is mainly good at being full of himself.</p>

<p>Bragging's not going to win you any points in this discussion, Payne. I honestly don't care if you've got an IQ of 220 and and have to wear your super-dense brain in a container on your back. Let's stick to the issues, pray?</p>

<p>sakky:</p>

<p>Interesting about that colloquium. Huh. Well, I'm still not convinced that an arbitrary curve on grades makes a given major "harder". Any one of us could be anal enough to test have the others write a paragraph of text, and poke holes in its syntax and semantics. That doesn't mean writing basic English is hard.</p>

<p>I'm by no means trying to deny that engineering and natural sciences are demanding. I'm double majoring in CS and Physics. But I just don't like the idea of pronouncing objective judgment. I still think the whole thing's like buying Mary ice cream and asking Jane how it tastes.</p>

113

<p>
[quote]
I'm reluctant to let IQ be the end-all measure of intelligence. I mean, if you define intelligence as having a high IQ, then people with the highest IQ are trivially the most intelligent. But I'm not quite willing to make that leap, and there are many professional psychologists who would agree with me. It's not as cut and dry as some may read into your post.

[/quote]
Umm, most professional psychologists subscribe to the theory of a general "g-factor" and it's affect on cognitive ability.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As far as Engineering professors arbitrarily making the curve low... that sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. In other words, what if the Physical Education department started curving class grades so 75% failed? Would that make it harder?

[/quote]
Obviously it would be harder if more people failed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Alright, I can agree that some programs require more units to graduate than do others. However, nobody's going to stop a music education major from double majoring in leisure studies and dance appreciation, raising the number of credits to the maximum allowed limit. Does that mean that this person now has the hardest course of study?

[/quote]
Obviously 20 units of humanities is going to be harder than 16 units of humanities, on average. It's very hard to mix different majors though. I'd reckon that a unit of engineering is substantially more work than an average unit for humanities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have no mind for history at all. In fact, this is a common problem among many of the smartest people I know. In fact, I don't know anybody who's just good at everything. I would suspect anybody who purports to be is mainly good at being full of himself.

[/quote]
I know people who have a better mind for names and dates than many history majors. The fact of the matter is that another person can be better at virtually any job or activity than another person. The world isn't fair. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Bragging's not going to win you any points in this discussion, Payne. I honestly don't care if you've got an IQ of 220 and and have to wear your super-dense brain in a container on your back. Let's stick to the issues, pray?

[/quote]
I wasn't bragging, I was just giving an example about how intelligences correlate. Do you consider it bragging when people ask about their chances for schools and post their scores? Anyway, bragging over genetically determined characteristics is pretty pathetic, as one has no control over their genetics.</p>

114

<p>"Umm, most professional psychologists subscribe to the theory of a general "g-factor" and it's affect on cognitive ability."</p>

<p>I'm not denying that IQ exists, just that it's not necessarily the most important factor in performance predictions - in school, life, and on the job.</p>

<p>"Obviously it would be harder if more people failed."</p>

<p>How is that obvious? I think you and I are working from different definitions of "difficulty". Which just goes to show you that it's not a simple issue with a simple answer.</p>

<p>"Obviously 20 units of humanities is going to be harder than 16 units of humanities, on average. It's very hard to mix different majors though. I'd reckon that a unit of engineering is substantially more work than an average unit for humanities."</p>

<p>Give work some operational definition and we can investigate this further. Perhaps humanities majors do more work in less time than engineering majors?</p>

<p>"I know people who have a better mind for names and dates than many history majors. The fact of the matter is that another person can be better at virtually any job or activity than another person. The world isn't fair. "</p>

<p>I never said the world was fair. I just said that nobody is better than everybody at everything. That's different from what you've taken it as: that nobody is better at everything than somebody else. That's patently false, as I am better at everything than several people I know. But I am not better at everything than everybody I know.</p>

<p>You seem to want a simple answer to the question of which major is hardest; I think the question is ill-posed. Like buying James a sweater and asking Pete if it itches.</p>

115

<p>
[quote]
I'm not denying that IQ exists, just that it's not necessarily the most important factor in performance predictions - in school, life, and on the job.

[/quote]
In high end academics, IQ most certainly is the most important attribute (and thusly highly correlates to GPA). IQ is of far less importance on the job and in life (although it still correlates to positive outcomes).</p>

<p>
[quote]
How is that obvious? I think you and I are working from different definitions of "difficulty". Which just goes to show you that it's not a simple issue with a simple answer.

[/quote]
How is it obvious that if a class fails 75% of the people as opposed to 10% it's harder? Obviously because people will put in more time. More time means you are worker harder. As anyone who has stayed up til 5AM doing a project can attest.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Give work some operational definition and we can investigate this further. Perhaps humanities majors do more work in less time than engineering majors?

[/quote]
Students being equal, time investment. I suppose a better definition (but more suited for a non-academic atmosphere) would be something related to the economic value of the work provided. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I never said the world was fair. I just said that nobody is better than everybody at everything. That's different from what you've taken it as: that nobody is better at everything than somebody else. That's patently false, as I am better at everything than several people I know. But I am not better at everything than everybody I know.

[/quote]
Okay. I misunderstood.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You seem to want a simple answer to the question of which major is hardest; I think the question is ill-posed. Like buying James a sweater and asking Pete if it itches.

[/quote]
I think you are complicating it far more than need be. Things that have reputations of being hard likely are, because reputations are there for a reason. </p>

<p>A prospective ranking of difficulty might be something like this:</p>

<p>Math
Physics
ChemE
Comp Sci
CPE
AeroE
EE
ME
CivE
Chemistry
Biology
Accouting
MIS
Econ
Finance
Marketing
History
Poli Sci
American Studies
Home Ec.</p>

<p>Yes, there is a relative degree in uncertainty - EE might be more difficult than AeroE at some schools or Finance might be harder than Accounting at others. However, I doubt many would make the argument that AeroE is easier than Finance (at the same school).</p>

116

<p>I just think there are more factors to consider than can be taken into account in such a short-answer forum. For example, I think that Mathematics is one of the most overrate majors by a long shot as far as difficulty is concerned.</p>

<p>Now if this thread is just asking about prejudices / stereotypes, then that's one thing. But I don't want some young high-schooler who had dreamed of being a Poli Sci major is whole life to come here, read any such list, cry himself to sleep and end up as a CS major who hates his life. Savvy?</p>

117

<p>This is silly. Look at the subject matter. Period.</p>

118

<p>
[quote]
I just think there are more factors to consider than can be taken into account in such a short-answer forum. For example, I think that Mathematics is one of the most overrate majors by a long shot as far as difficulty is concerned.

[/quote]
That's possible. I think it depends more on the school. At the highest level it becomes IQ limited, much more so than other majors.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now if this thread is just asking about prejudices / stereotypes, then that's one thing. But I don't want some young high-schooler who had dreamed of being a Poli Sci major is whole life to come here, read any such list, cry himself to sleep and end up as a CS major who hates his life. Savvy?

[/quote]
Ummm, that's an unlikely event. More than likely would be someone who wants to do CS who comes onto the forum, sees that it's hard and decides to do poli sci and ends up hating his life. Americans, for the most part, do not choose to do things because they are hard. They choose to do things because they are easy.</p>

119

<p>You should know as well as I do the type of people who come here. They are young, impressionable, high-school-aged overachievers who worry about whether getting a 93 versus a 100 will hurt them in their quest for life success.</p>

<p>And as far as math goes, I love it but I don't find it hard at all. I find other things harder than it. Much harder. I had more trouble in my freshman music appreciation class than I have had in all calculus classes, linear algebra, differential equations, discrete math, statistics, numerical analysis, information theory, and theoretical computer science (formal languages) classes combined.</p>

<p>And I am an American who chooses to do things for the challenge. I can't cite any studies, but I would imagine that at least a healthy portion of upper-middle-class Americans also like to push themselves a bit. Call me naive, but I still have some faith in people.</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
You should know as well as I do the type of people who come here. They are young, impressionable, high-school-aged overachievers who worry about whether getting a 93 versus a 100 will hurt them in their quest for life success.

[/quote]
If they are that foolish, I have no pity for them.</p>