<p>No. But there is the BA&Sc where you can major in one Arts subject and one Science subject (if you qualify for sciences). It’s pretty competitive though.</p>
<p>so not even minor then?</p>
<p>I don’t believe so, but don’t quote me on that.</p>
<p>yes the arts & science degree is a double major with hardly any “wiggle room”. it’s designed for students who know specific fields which they want to study in both arts and science. as for getting a BA. i think you should take a degree which interests you, not one that will necessarily make you money. i know everyone is different, but i would much rather be in a job that i love and making a decent salery than some place that i hate even though i’m making millions each year.
also, if you’re interested in IDS, check out waterloo. they have a new program based out of the faculty of environment which is supposed to be really cutting edge. econgrad, you talk about not being able to find a job? well if you have a BEnv. under your belt… any company in their right mind should be running after you.</p>
<p>econgrad: [YouTube</a> - In Defense of Humanities](<a href=“In Defense of Humanities - YouTube”>In Defense of Humanities - YouTube)</p>
<p>There are arts minors for science students and science minors for arts students. It’s very possible just not all minors. Definitely all the general subjects, not sure about really specific ones.</p>
<p>Econgrad–you seem to be a rather weak econ grad in that you think that GDP is the same as personal income. It’s not. GDP describes the amount produced by the country as a whole, and GDP (per capita) is obviously that number divided by the population of the country. Personal income is something else entirely. The median personal income for a person over the age of 18 in the US was given by the Census Bureau as US$25,149. That $45,000 number is actually significantly higher than the average. And let’s not lose sight of the fact that that is a starting salary. I think it’s safe to assume that only a very small portion of those enrolled at a university as prestigious as McGill will be in a dead-end job right after college. So yeah, $45,000 is a very respectable starting salary.</p>
<p>humanities is wishy-washy and BS, generally. You know how many essays/papers that are written by humanity majors are BS? I don’t know, but probably a lot. How many of them have the mathematical rigor to do precise work? I don’t know, but probably not a lot.</p>
<p>So those BS writing humanities major then graduate and try to compete in a world where science and technology rules and everything is extremely specialized and well defined in math. They fail because most of them don’t have the mathematical skills necessary to dig into the depth of the problem but only give superficial BS answers.</p>
<p>Sure, if you a superb in what you do then you’ll be successful. If you can write like J.K Rowling then yeah, you’ll be extremely successful. But for every Rowling in this world, there are millions of starving English major grads that go teach high school kids. </p>
<p>It has been shown that humanity majors make the least amount of money.</p>
<p>ditto. i dont get why people still have trouble understanding that humanities majors, no matter from what school, will have a hard time in the job market. 45k as a teacher sounds ok at first, but carreer wise, its a dead end.</p>
<p>Ok econgrad. your argument implies certain things.</p>
<p>1) Aristotle and Plato were idiots. Now, a lot of people think that too, but I just want you to be aware of it. The reason is that these philosophers believed that learning should occur ONLY because it is pleasurable, not for practicality.</p>
<p>2) You prefer a pre-professional education over a theoretical one. Many outstanding universities opt for theoretical learning, such as Brown or Chicago. They even purposely look for kids who value theoretical learning through essays (especially Chicago). </p>
<p>3) By saying “So those BS writing humanities major then graduate and try to compete in a world where science and technology rules and everything is extremely specialized and well defined in math.” you are implying that most, if not all, of the world is based on technical skills. In order to suceed in the modern world, you must know technical skills. This is not true. Watch this: [YouTube</a> - In Defense of Humanities](<a href=“In Defense of Humanities - YouTube”>In Defense of Humanities - YouTube)</p>
<p>4) You imply that in order to compete in this world, you must know advanced math. Well, let us examine basic neuroscience, which I’m hoping you see as a credible field. Basic neuroscience dictates that all brains are different. With this in mind, certain brains are physically uncapable of performing certain processes. It depends on the neurons you have. Now, as anyone knowledgable in the brain would tell you, neurons can be built upon if you use those parts more often. For example, to get better at reading, I read more. Yet, the base neurons must be in place. If there is no base neuron, then there is nothing to build upon. Furthermore, if you genetically have a small base in a certain field, it will be difficult to build it up and would take a ridiculous long amount of time to the point that it is useless. Keeping those things in mind, neuroscience also accepts that certain people are physically unable to do some types of math. In fact, some people are physically unable to do calculus. Since this is accepted by science, and assuming science is an empirical field, you are condemning those who are unable to do math to a life of sadness and poverty. Tell me, how can these people survive in your mathematical world?</p>
<p>5) your assuming I’m going to BS my papers?</p>
<p>Econgrad’s argument is the typical argument of those who feel insecure in their life choices and therefore need to slam others in order to reassure themselves that they’ve truly chosen the right track…the fact that he is so ineloquent that his argument makes little sense is rather telling, isn’t it? ;)</p>
<p>6) Businessmen can make a lot of money. So can lawyers. Well, many lawyers and businessmen take philosophy or anthropology in their undergraduate studies. In fact, your undergrad study hardly matters. You can even get into med-school with an English major as long as you fulfilled all the prerequisites with good grades. Secondly, lets examine businessmen. Coming form a strong business family, i can tell you that business hardly has to do with learning economics. Those things are important for studying the economy and investing, but being a salesman for a large company doesn’t require that much. It mostly relies on your personality and confidence. With that logic, it would actually be most beneficial to just take a bunch of speech classes. Also, research scientist get paid little. I know some research scientist, and they say they always have to worry about funding and things like that because they just don’t have money to do all the research they want. It is also commonly accepted, at least in America (I know you’re in McGill), that recently graduated students know nothing about the technical field they are trying to get into. Many companies have to spend a lot into retraining new employees due to their low skill.</p>
<p>I really like to read these forums and and see the vibrant discussion. But I really don’t like these personal statements that gets too easily thrown around. I try my best to give people a sense of what I think is a pragmatic view of the university. If you disagree, great! Be civil and post it.</p>
<hr>
<p>Well common statistical knowledge would tell you that it is wrong to take characteristics about a small group of individuals and then generalize about the whole population. Also it is wrong to take characteristics of a population and then reject outliers.</p>
<p>So sure, Aristotle and Plato were great thinkers. But can we go on to say that the average philosophy majors that graduate from mcgill can expect a level of their greatness? No. It is a fact that humanity majors earn the least out of all college majors. That is the level of compensation that the average graduate should expect. Sure, there might be a few giants in our ranks and they will be great. But it would be foolhardy to expect that all humanity majors can expect that.</p>
<p>The video is from Stanford. If you got into Stanford, you are probably pretty smart. So, yeah a humanity degree from Stanford will get you a good job. But more likely it is the name recognition rather than the degree that will get you the job. It is a much different story at mcgill.</p>
<p>Unlike humanity, math and science majors pay very well, even on average. Students from engineering will go on to enjoy a much better income than humanity, even on average! Sure you say that lawyers enjoy a good income and they typically came from a humanity background. Okay, but how many humanity majors graduate every year? And how many law students are accepted every year? There are way more humanity graduates than law school admitted. Which means, it is very very small door of opportunity for humanity majors. They should expect the lowest level of income when compared to other college degrees.</p>
<p>So that is the average. what about the outliers? The majority of self-made billionaires majored in something related to math or has a lot of math in it. Economics and finance is basically 90% math. Computer science, physical science, engineering they are all math. So if you are talking about outlier individuals, well again, in general they didn’t come from humanity. I think that is a good thing for society. We have finally moved away from the wishy washy dinner table chatter and started rewarding people who are actually making substantial improvements in society.</p>
<p>1) Your argument is very pursuasive, but then you start hurting yourself when you claim that math is more progressive to society. Humanities is just as progressive. Poetry and literature help change the individual. Take a look at The Jungle. That book alone is what set up modern food administrations in America. You’re are going to say that is just the exception, but you have no basis to say that. For all you know, other works have helped society just as much, but are less obvious. </p>
<p>2) You still haven’t told me what those who can’t do math should do. Maybe you could have said that math is more progressive than humanities, but you can’t say that those who do math are better than those who do humanities. Then you are insulting those who physically can’t do math. It’s ignorant and inconsiderate as a human being. Do you call genetically handicapped people inferior?</p>
<p>3) Where are your facts about salary? I want to see these data. You keep saying that the data says humanities majors make nothing, but I have seen no proof. I think, though i have no data to back this up, that graduates make more money than any other group, and the modern job inflation is making graduate degrees increasingly more required. With this in mind, undgraduate degrees don’t even matter</p>
<p>ps. contrary to what some have said, I do think you argue well and logically</p>
<p>Hey shadowzoid. I actually want to do International Development Studies as one of my majors too (If I were to go to McGill). I guess I am looking at it from a completely different viewpoint, but econgrad - why do you care so much? Just curious. Your negativity seems like its coming from a hostile, close-minded place so I really am not going to bother reading anything you have to say.</p>
<p>Anyways everything about the major appeals to me. Even if I don’t end up having a career centered around this major, that will be okay because the own personal growth I will attain from majoring this will lead me in a positive direction. I think it’s important to study what you love! If you have no idea what you love that’s okay too! I for one cannot rely on extrinsic motivation to carry me happily through college.
This link from UCLA is interesting to take a look and see where
[Career</a> Options in International Development Studies, UCLA International Development Studies Program](<a href=“http://www.international.ucla.edu/idps/ids/article.asp?parentid=8364]Career”>http://www.international.ucla.edu/idps/ids/article.asp?parentid=8364)</p>
<p>I’m currently in Neuroscience at McGill so I can answer some questions if you want (if I can). McGill has a pretty strong international reputation in neuroscience but keep in mind that this is primarily based on graduate work and research. I guess it might spill over into undergrad but who knows. For something like neuro you pretty much need to get a PhD to go anywhere. </p>
<p>There are some very prominent neuroscientists who have worked or currently work at McGill (I saw Brenda Milner the other day chumming it up with one of my profs) and we do have a very advanced neurological hospital affiliated with us. They’re just expanding the imaging wing so a whole bunch of new MRI machines etc… will mean more research and more awesome.</p>
<p>Is Chemistry a good major at McGill? I always considered it to be, but I’m a US HS senior so i dont know haha</p>
<p>i know someone who majored in IDS at McGill actually, went to the prestigious Tufts Fletcher school and is getting a PhD in economics. i think he is going to be employed the world bank soon.</p>
<p>IDS is not that useless, and the somewhat broad curriculum can be helpful actually.</p>
<p>I know McGill is really good for engineering, especially environmental engineering.</p>
<p>Right now I’m conflicted on applying to the arts faculty or science. I wrote up two applications and im deciding which one to send in. I am more partial to majors in the arts department, but people keep badmouthing it. Should i do a science major even though im more partial to arts majors?</p>
<p>^ the bad mouthing of the arts is usually because 1) it’s kind of easier to get into the faculty of arts 2) mcgill isn’t “reputed” in the arts.</p>
<p>fact is that if you do well in the arts, you’ll be fine in terms of grad placement for top US universities. don’t major in something you aren’t as interested in.</p>