which has the hardest course load for undergrad?

[tetrishead]

<p>

You are interchanging between a variety of different “sciences” to suit what current (and variable) point that you are trying to make, rather than using the same discipline as a constant reference.

If a constant reference was stated I would stick to it. That has yet to happen.

In the sense of a systematic order of knowledge based on experiment and observation, math is not a science (at least in the same category as the physical and natural sciences). It is proof-based and theoretical. The physical and natural sciences do use math, but as a means of communication. The natural sciences, in a way, are the “best fit” lines that run through a series of data points (experimental observation) of which aren’t all located on the “best fit” lines.

Mathematics is theoretical? In comparison to what, precisely? Mathematics, seriously? The science of patterns and necessary conclusions, the science that every other field tries (and fails) to emulate in their quest for defining rigorous arguments?</p>

<p>If you think math is theoretical I can’t even begin to imagine what you’d peg physics as.</p>

<p>

My first college “intro” physics semester class had somewhere around 400 formulas. Even if you memorize all the equations, you’ll still do poorly because a single problem might require 3 of those 400 and 2 that weren’t even included in the bunch because you have to derive them yourself.

Understanding is beneficial (and ultimately leads to good performance), but you recognize that most tests requiring that many formulas are open book, yes?

Physics is not math. In intro math classes like the first calculus, it’s a different story. Memorizing some key equations before a test can bring success in a plug and chug.

Theoretically everything that is a science can be considered math, but I agree that it really isn’t in the practical sense. It doesn’t mean people haven’t gotten far in undergraduate physics through memorization.

When you say “there’s plenty of gray area in everything related to college,” really this is just a cliche. “90% of it is effort, 10% of it is a foundation of knowledge” is a generalization that doesn’t provide substatiation for how the cliche fits any specific case. The subsequent statement doesn’t clearly define what “getting through physics” means and essentially says nothing in particular. The last sentence of the paragraph misses the recurring point brought up by others, that physics is highly reliant on trains of deductive logic, of which memorization isn’t conducive to. Whether someone is a prodigy or not is irrelevant.

There is a theory that there are tiers of skill in computer science (both theoretical and applied stuff like programming). Not deviations you’d expect to occur in any profession, but actually “preset” limits to what a person can or cannot learn. We’d generally consider this true for most disciplines, but in computer science the bar is set extremely low, lower than it would be in any other field for what we’d consider someone capable of learning. For some people the logic clicks, for some people it doesn’t. It’s widely-held true, although I suspect most computer science professors wouldn’t openly say that for fear of turning more people away from the subject, and from my experience it is completely false. It’s a sign of an inability for a teacher to adapt to students, mostly. If you are “normal,” which is to say that you do not have any deficiencies that are beyond your control and negatively impact your ability to learn, I believe that you can learn anything. I’ve seen it in people who thought they would never understand computational logic, and there is nothing in physics that will ever make me believe it is different or better.</p>

<p>It’s been made clear we’re not talking about doctorates. If you really think that anyone can’t get through a “middle of the pack” physics department with a 2.5-3 GPA you’re deluding yourself. The idea that it requires some higher brain function is absurd. Anyone can get through any field, perhaps with the exceptions of architecture/structural engineering and electrical engineering, presuming they have some firm foundation in the very, very basics of the field (an understanding of English for many of the humanities, a solid grasp of algebra and trigonometry for the sciences)–precisely because the coursework rarely reaches a high enough “level” in undergraduate education, and if it does it is usually not forced upon the students. This comes back to the whole conceptualizing thing–English students, literature students, philosophy students are analyzing immediately, presenting views in papers immediately. This is because they do not have a technical barrier, and what was said before (that they somehow do not involve conceptualization) is utterly ridiculous.</p>