<p>Does anyone else feel shadowed by all the people pursuing these fields and those colleges who desperately want them?</p>
<p>What about literature, linguistics, history, etc? </p>
<p>Does anyone know where I can find a list of the total college graduates in a year for each of these fields?</p>
<p>Oh, and I get this is a technology based world with these careers in need, especially in the US to compete in a global market.</p>
<p>Engineering rules, sorry to break it to you =P</p>
<p>But in reality humanities majors make up the bulk of any college campus. I don't have any figures to back this up, but I know that "science" majors make up less than 30% of Cal.</p>
<p>Really? I guess it is just my environment, then. Everyone I know seems to want to major in biology, physics, some sort of engineering, or math...and applying to those programs in colleges (if they exist) or scholarships aimed towards those interests...</p>
<p>pshh what're you going to do with a history major??</p>
<p>^ i was just about to say that some people tend to have the notion that one can't do much with a degree in the humanities while in subjects like math/science, it will supposedly be easier to get a job. do i agree? not much, but i know a lot of people whose parents would be angry if they majored in something out of math/science.</p>
<p>^ I also noticed that a lot of my math/science-oriented friends are really arrogant when someone wants to go into humanities or like psychology. They think it is easy and they are taking the easy way out. I see the perception that a lot of engineering-oriented friends and a lot of engineers (I work at an engineering firm) seem to think that psychology isn't a "real" science...etc. and the list goes on.</p>
<p>If you click around on that site, you'll be able to find numbers that go with the figures.</p>
<p>imo, its just that the hard core science such as math, physics, chem, and engineering are better learn when you were young and be taughted. While most humanity majores you learn better when you got more life experience and mostly can be learn by self studying and extensive reading. In reality, though the undergrade degree in math, physics those pure science majore won't help you find job as easy as jumanity majore. You have to have an advance degree to have a decent job if you majore in math, physics pure science field. Personally I think the undergrade trainning in math, physics science and engineering field, help you develop the logical deduction skills and more, it is easier to switch to any other humanity or social science majore (such as econ, bussiness, etc) for an advanced degree late on in your life. It would be difficult to do other way around (not imposible, just more difficult).</p>
<p>As a scientist, here's the bias that irritates me:</p>
<p>I am expected to be well versed in such things as arts and literature--if not I am looked upon as 'less educated'.</p>
<p>On the other hand, people in the humanities get a free pass--they are not looked upon as inferior if they do not understand MY field. Math and science are OK to ignore, but you are a barbarian if you do not appreciate arts and literature.</p>
<p>Re: above. I agree its difficult to go from humanities to physics and engineering, rather than the reverse, it is so not the case that you can just 'pick up the humanities' by self-study and reading. Yeah, like a hobby! </p>
<p>Typically those that think this way are the quant trained people who understandably can't know the critical thinking or difficulty involved in advanced areas. From the outside it looks like reading and memorization. There is huge variety in the humanities, economics is not like history, research in psychology is not like political science. </p>
<p>Many majors, not just those in the physical sciences, teach ways of thinking over the course of many years. It can be a challenge and struggle for students to transfer from one to the other at the graduate level (not impossible but difficult). That is true regardless of the transfer. </p>
<p>We would most definitely take engineering students into our MBA program but not our PhD program. Why? They are brilliant in their own area of experitse, but simply not wired for the kind of thinking we need them to have for research in our field.</p>
<p>Optimizer,
This may be more than you are looking for, but here is some data from collegeboard.com (for graduating class in 2006) which reports the % of graduates in various majors with a minimum of 5% of the graduates in that major. As you can see, engineering/computer & info sciences and the other sciences are important, but not overwhelmingly so on most campuses. </p>
<p>na means that it was less than 5% or not provided by the institution, eg, Princeton didn't provide any data</p>
<p>Eng , Comp/Info , Soc Sci , Hist , Engl , Bus/Mktg , Bio , Nursing , Math , Psych , Phy Sci , For Lang , Arts , Comm/Journal , School</p>
<p>na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , Princeton
na , na , 38% , 12% , 7% , na , 9% , na , na , 7% , 7% , 7% , na , na , Harvard
na , na , 25% , 13% , 9% , na , 8% , na , na , 6% , na , na , 6% , na , Yale
33% , 7% , na , na , na , na , 15% , na , 10% , na , 32% , na , na , na , Cal Tech
13% , na , 24% , na , 5% , na , 8% , na , na , 5% , na , na , na , na , Stanford
36% , 15% , na , na , na , 7% , 10% , na , 6% , na , 11% , na , na , na , MIT
7% , na , 18% , 7% , na , 25% , na , 5% , na , na , na , na , na , na , U Penn
15% , na , 34% , na , 5% , na , 7% , na , na , 9% , na , na , na , na , Duke
na , na , 36% , 6% , 6% , na , 10% , na , 6% , 5% , 5% , 6% , na , na , U Chicago
5% , na , 30% , 9% , 6% , na , 5% , na , na , 10% , 5% , 8% , 5% , na , Dartmouth
na , na , 29% , 12% , 9% , na , 6% , na , na , 5% , na , 9% , 9% , na , Columbia
14% , na , 17% , na , 5% , 12% , 8% , na , na , 11% , na , na , 7% , na , Wash U StL
18% , na , 10% , na , na , 13% , 12% , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , Cornell
14% , na , 20% , 6% , na , na , 5% , na , na , 9% , na , na , 10% , 18% , Northwestern
na , na , 22% , 7% , 5% , 8% , 8% , na , na , 5% , na , 5% , 7% , na , Brown
15% , na , 17% , na , na , na , 7% , 24% , na , na , na , na , 6% , na , J Hopkins
13% , na , 20% , na , 6% , 5% , 8% , na , na , 6% , 5% , 5% , 6% , na , Rice
na , na , 25% , na , 5% , 15% , 7% , 7% , na , 10% , na , na , na , na , Emory
15% , na , 29% , na , 6% , na , na , na , na , 7% , na , 7% , na , na , Vanderbilt
8% , na , 16% , na , 5% , 21% , na , 7% , na , 6% , na , 6% , 5% , na , Notre Dame
13% , na , 20% , na , 6% , 5% , 10% , na , na , 5% , na , na , na , na , UC Berkeley
25% , 11% , na , na , na , 12% , na , na , na , na , 5% , na , 11% , na , Carnegie Mellon
na , na , 31% , na , 8% , 26% , na , 6% , na , 5% , na , 7% , na , na , Georgetown
17% , na , 16% , na , 6% , 6% , 6% , na , na , 8% , na , na , 6% , na , U Michigan
9% , na , 23% , 7% , 6% , 8% , 5% , na , na , 9% , na , 5% , na , na , U Virginia
8% , na , 27% , 8% , 7% , na , 13% , na , na , 13% , na , na , 7% , na , UCLA
8% , na , 15% , na , na , 26% , na , na , na , 5% , na , na , 13% , 9% , USC
14% , na , 33% , na , 7% , na , 6% , na , na , 9% , na , na , 9% , na , Tufts
na , na , 14% , 5% , 5% , 9% , 10% , 7% , na , 9% , na , na , na , 17% , U North Carolina
na , na , 21% , 7% , 5% , 18% , 6% , na , na , 7% , na , 6% , na , 9% , Wake Forest
na , na , 31% , 7% , 5% , na , 12% , na , na , 9% , na , na , 5% , na , Brandeis
na , na , 25% , 8% , 7% , 10% , 6% , na , na , 9% , 5% , na , na , na , W & M
25% , 7% , 11% , na , na , 28% , 5% , na , na , 6% , na , na , na , na , Lehigh
na , na , 17% , 8% , 9% , 21% , 8% , na , na , 5% , na , na , na , 10% , Boston College
na , na , 16% , na , na , 20% , na , na , na , 5% , na , na , 18% , 9% , NYU
8% , na , 20% , na , 5% , na , 11% , 7% , 5% , 10% , 5% , 5% , 12% , na , U Rochester
10% , na , 14% , 14% , na , 9% , 10% , 6% , na , na , na , 5% , na , 7% , U Wisconsin
15% , na , 20% , na , na , 6% , 18% , na , na , 8% , na , na , 5% , 5% , UCSD
56% , 10% , na , na , na , 14% , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , Georgia Tech
31% , na , 11% , na , na , 10% , 9% , 6% , na , 8% , 5% , na , na , na , Case Western
15% , na , 10% , na , 7% , 15% , 7% , na , na , 7% , na , na , na , na , U Illinois UC
53% , 18% , na , na , na , 7% , 5% , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , Rensselaer
9% , na , 19% , na , 5% , 11% , 9% , na , na , 6% , na , na , 5% , 5% , U Washington
8% , 5% , 29% , na , na , na , 13% , na , na , 12% , na , na , 6% , na , UC Irvine
5% , 5% , na , 5% , na , 23% , na , na , na , 6% , na , na , na , na , Tulane
na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , na , Yeshiva
11% , na , 19% , na , na , na , 18% , na , na , 9% , na , na , na , 5% , UC Davis
5% , na , 18% , na , na , 11% , 9% , na , na , 9% , na , na , 8% , 6% , UC S Barbara
10% , na , 14% , na , na , 20% , na , 7% , na , 5% , na , na , na , na , U Florida
13% , 5% , 6% , na , na , 18% , na , 5% , na , 5% , na , na , na , 10% , Penn State
11% , na , 14% , na , na , 12% , 8% , na , na , na , na , na , na , 13% , U Texas</p>
<p>What's with all the math, science, + engineering? </p>
<p>Nothing.</p>
<p>In fact, only about 1/4 of graduates majored in the sciences, engineering, comp sci or math. Numbers are pretty consistently in the 20-30% range across major non-tech LACs and universities. HYP average, for example, is 23%.</p>
<p>You can search the majors pursued at individuals colleges via their common data sets.</p>
<p>History major: write books all the time, but not have a life.</p>
<p>It's the same at my school, but I agree with everyone else, I don't think math/science majors are as common as they seem. Most of my friends are going into business/science because they don't know what they want to do and they feel that they can get a stable career with a business degree. What are you going to do with a philosophy degree? </p>
<p>It helps that it's easier to learn math by memorizing formulas than learning English by memorizing literary devices.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a scientist, here's the bias that irritates me:</p>
<p>I am expected to be well versed in such things as arts and literature--if not I am looked upon as 'less educated'.</p>
<p>On the other hand, people in the humanities get a free pass--they are not looked upon as inferior if they do not understand MY field. Math and science are OK to ignore, but you are a barbarian if you do not appreciate arts and literature.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is so true it's depressing. My friends that were in the liberal arts complained about having to take one math class and two science classes acting like it was the most unfair thing in the world. While my science/engineering friends (and myself) had to take eight liberal arts classes. We're also expected to get A's in our LA classes, while humanities people are told it's not a big deal if they don't ace their science ones.</p>
<p>Shouldn't a truly well-rounded liberal arts student be as well versed in basic science as the humanities?</p>
<p>^ my theory:</p>
<p>People believe literature and humanities are much easier than the maths and the sciences. Therefore, a person who's mastered the sciences are expected to master sth easier like english while an english major isn't expected to learn something complicated like the alcuberrie drive</p>
<p>johr, that's a pretty ignorant post. Philosophy majors are actually very in demand in some professions (for example, law). </p>
<p>Also, I don't know what university you attend, but math and English are two fields that require the LEAST memorization.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Typically those that think this way are the quant trained people who understandably can't know the critical thinking or difficulty involved in advanced areas. From the outside it looks like reading and memorization. There is huge variety in the humanities, economics is not like history, research in psychology is not like political science.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think you're being a bit unfair, particularly in your last phrase. True, research in psychology is not like poli-sci or any other discipline. But let's be honest. Most psychology undergrads are not going to do research. Note, that's not a knock on psychology. Most undergrads in any discipline are not going to do research, nor would they be interested in doing so. The truth is, most undergrads are just interested in getting the degree so that they can get a job, or go off to a professional grad school (i.e. law school, med school, etc.). Most don't really care that much about their discipline to do research in it. </p>
<p>Regarding your comment on economics, it is certainly true that economics is not like history. But what it is like (at least in the academic sector) is mathematics or statistics. Basically, these days, it's almost impossible to get into a top Econ PhD program these days if you don't have a deep background in math/statistics. In fact, Greg Mankiw, Professor of Economics at Harvard and former Chairman of the CEA, has stated that if you want to get into a top Econ PhD program these days, it is actually more important to have a strong background in math/stat than in actual economics.</p>
<p>"Admissions committees for econ PhD programs are often more forgiving of a weak econ background than a weak math background. That might seem odd, but it is easily explained. As economists, we think we can help you catch up if you need help in econ. After all, econ grad school is all about studying econ. But if you have a weak math background, you will start behind and have a harder time catching up."</p>
<p>One of the posters here at CC, BenGolub, was a former Caltech undergrad who didn't major in economics, but rather in math. Nevertheless, I believe he got into every single Econ PhD program he applied to (including Harvard and MIT), and eventually chose the Economic Policy &Analysis program (which is basically Applied Economics) at Stanford.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ebgolub/cv.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/~bgolub/cv.pdf</a></p>
<p>Similarly, Vernon Smith majored in EE as an undergrad at Caltech. He then got a PhD in economics at Harvard. He eventually won the Nobel in Economics in 2002 for his pioneering work on Experimental Economics. </p>
<p>Similarly, arguably the most famous business academic in the world is Michael Porter. His undergrad is not in business or economics, but in aerospace and mechanical engineering from Princeton. He then got a PhD in Business Economics at Harvard Business School. </p>
<p>Or consider Amy Edmondson. Her undergrad was in engineering/design. She then got a MA in psychology and a PhD in Organizational Behavior at Harvard and her research is all about the psychology of teamwork, which is rather far removed from engineering. </p>
<p>Heck, you can consider Robert Aumann. He has zero academic degrees in economics. All of his degrees, including his PhD from MIT, are in mathematics. Nevertheless, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2005. Similarly, John Nash of Beautiful Mind fame also won the Nobel in Economics despite not having any economics degrees (his degrees were also in mathematics). Nash's Nobel was awarded for work he did for his Princeton math dissertation. </p>
<p>The point of all that is simply to illustrate that a technical education in technical subjects seems to be no bar towards success in the social sciences, particularly in economics.</p>