which has the hardest course load for undergrad?

[tetrishead]

<p>

I wasn’t obtaining a sample to conduct hypotheses testing for statistical analysis. Selection bias has nothing to do with this.

You’re drawing an inference from personal experience (in addition to some anecdotal evidence) and painting the entirety of academia with its brush. I’d say selection bias has something to do with it, considering your data is flawed, which compromises the conclusion.

From experiences at my undergrad, and the experiences of my friends at the Ivy Leagues, all non-humanities courses are curved while the humanities are never curved. While the nature of the curve does depend on the professor, the non-humanities are still curved.

Non-humanities courses are often curved, and humanities courses are often not curved. It’s not a constant, and while not everyone will have the possibility of an A outside of most non-humanities, it doesn’t mean the curve has to be strict. Your “undergrad experience” should have resulted in you seeing curved courses where there was no grade lower than a B-, as I have seen.

You’re just rambling incessantly and throwing cheap shots at engineers for being social failures and isolating themselves from society. Give me a break. Remember what this thread is about? The difficulty of various courses and subjects in undergrad.

There is an assumption that people in the sciences are more capable, and anti-humanities preprofessional sentiment runs rampant on this forum. You’ll have to excuse me for pointing out the failings of a group that are blindly lauded.

You are exaggerating what people are saying.

In this thread, probably. In this forum? No.

said that the prodigies tend to be Physicists because it requires another level of thinking<a href=“1”>b</a>. This cannot be logically construed as “anyone who graduates with a 3.0+ in Physics is a prodigy.”<a href=“2”>b</a> People can “get through” science majors, duh. It just takes more work “getting through” science than “getting through” humanities<a href=“3”>b</a>. And let’s be honest, some universities are far harder to “get through” than others so you have to take the quality and caliber of the institution into account<a href=“4”>b</a>. In general the humanities are easier at every institution<a href=“5”>b</a>. I have no doubt a person with below average intelligence can get through science at podunk university, but can that same person make it through MIT?<a href=“6”>b</a>. And how much harder is science than humanities for that person at podunk university?<a href=“7”>b</a>**

1. I’m sure it requires a certain level of thinking, everything is benefited by a certain level of thinking depending on what the coursework is. If you’re going off of Gardner, there’s kinesthetic, interpersonal, linguistic, logical, intrapersonal, spatial and musical. I’m sure the logical prodigies do very well in physics, and may often go to it. I’m also sure that most prodigies do not coalesce in one field. If by a certain level you mean a “higher” level (which you do), then I’m not sure what a “higher” level of thinking would entail (moving things with your mind?), but I’m confident you’re wrong.
2. I was referring to the post I quoted, not yours.
3. I agree, the technical barrier makes a certain amount of work a prerequisite for performing passably.
4. I don’t disagree.
5. I don’t agree.
6. I doubt it, the assumed standards for prior learning are much higher.
7. Not very, I would imagine.</p>