which has the hardest course load for undergrad?

[echan621]

<p>

@tetrisfan

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

</p>

<p>Multiple people have told you how you have misapplied a generalization regarding physics. You’ve tried to somehow blanket physics with all the sciences into a common (and misapplied) generalization. You’ve also referred to all college in general with another generalization, then math as a physical science (???).</p>

<p>

@tetrisfan

Mathematics is theoretical? In comparison to what, precisely?

</p>

<p>theoretical

1. of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied).
2. existing only in theory; hypothetical.
3. given to, forming, or dealing with theories; speculative.</p>

<p>[theoretical</a> - Definitions from Dictionary.com](<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theoretical]theoretical”>THEORETICAL Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)</p>

<p>Math is theoretical in comparison to physical sciences that are based on observation of the natural world. Some scientists can be theoretical, which means they aren’t experimental. The physical sciences, in general, are based on observation of natural phenomena. </p>

<p>I don’t understand what’s confusing you so much. One seeks to understand how the natural world works. The other seeks to understand patterns of change and/or space. Math, the latter, isn’t derived from experiment. It’s theoretical.</p>

<p>

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

</p>

<p>There were no open-book tests in that first semester intro physics class I took. Some equations were available on tests. We had the option of: (1) understanding concepts and applying them to never before seen applications on tests (2) trying to memorize all of the equations and take a test from a teacher that did his best to ask questions where memorization would fail. A cumulative final was worth half the course grade. It’s not even an easy task to successfully memorize hundreds of formulas/equations in the first place. Understanding the concepts is more efficient.</p>

<p>This is “baby” “intro” physics, though difficulty may depend on the instructor or school. I took this course at a community college; i can only imagine it’d be more difficult at many universities.</p>

<p>While I agree with your general point that intro science classes may encourage memorization, I think you need to at least come to grips with your apparent lack of intuition on the physical sciences. I’ve come to grips with the fact that I know little of the humanities and am thus unable to judge any type of difficulty on a relative scale.</p>

<p>

@tetrisfan

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.

</p>

<p>I disagree. Math is the letters in the alphabet. Physics (or chemistry, biology, etc.) is a conversation. Math without a purpose has no physical meaning. I can say that 2n + 5 = 7, but what exactly does n mean? Numbers are artificial and intangible constructs. Physics is a purpose for the math, attempting to create a realistic system based on realistic observation (as opposed to a theoretical system based on theoretical assumptions).</p>

<p>

@tetrisfan

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.

</p>

<p>In order for this theory to be true, it would need to prove that the world is deterministic and that free will doesn’t exist. I doubt this theory can do this.</p>

<p>

@tetrisfan

It’s been made clear we’re not talking about doctorates.

</p>

<p>Right, which is why I discussed a first semester intro physics class.</p>

<p>

@tetrisfan

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.

I define "getting through" in terms of comprehension rather than GPA.  Maybe someone else had the opinion you indicated.  I think that the primary goal of a science class... is to learn science.</p>

<p>

@tetrisfan

The idea that it requires some higher brain function is absurd.

I never said this idea. Let me play devil’s advocate though. Could you prove that such an absurd idea was true or false either way? What does higher brain function mean anyways?</p>

<p>

@tetrisfan

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>

<p>While I’m also of the opinion that analysis may begin early for those hum/lit majors, simply saying that the opposite is “utterly ridiculous” leaves a lack of substantiation. Saying something is wrong or ludicrous isn’t a very convincing proof of anything. It would be like me saying, “God is real and to think otherwise is ridiculous.” Such an opinion lacks substantiation.</p>

<p>All I’m saying is that if you can provide more (definitive) proof to your opinions, maybe you’ll have more success in elucidating that which you find difficult in the humanities.</p>