which has the hardest course load for undergrad?

[tetrishead]

<p>

You seem to think relying on previously established axioms/theorems somehow indicates a lack of understanding? Not only that, you seem to think a lack of understanding in a topic by students means the topic is of the same level of difficulty - if anything it seems to indicate a higher level of difficulty. And I never said that people who don’t get it can’t get out of a program. My main point of contention was your misguided thought that the early portion of the program is rote memorization.

Your main point of contention was my thought? What? I don’t even know what most of this means, either by itself or in the context of what you were quoting. I can probably parse it, but I don’t want to try and put words in your mouth.

Most engineers are failures in their careers by earning more than the average college graduate? Interesting definition of failure.

Most engineers have absolutely no idea of their own worth, and how underpaid they generally are. Their applied knowledge, and the fact that they made it through a collegiate education that will most likely be more difficult than anything they will ever do as a professional, is something they constantly undervalue. Their social ineptitude and the fact that they’re taken advantage of by “management” for it is a cliche at this point. Since anecdotal evidence is popular, I have plenty of it and plenty personal experience on this issue.

And yet, technical minded people like themselves are the primary source of patents and innovation in our society, raising the standard of living for everyone. Go technical majors.

Yes, and what I stated is the opposite of that coin. I can also make the argument that without the application of their innovations by people who actually understand business their innovations would often be purely theoretical (which is discussed below! yay!) and never have the funding or structure to make it to market.

Huh? Now you’re just getting outlandish.

I am? Is that why scientists in almost every discipline are doing everything they can to make science more palpable now to the American public, to reanalyze their curriculum, to try and increase our dwindling prevalence in science and technology? Yes, really, I’m an outlier in my thought that science and American students don’t mix, and that part of the reason for it are science teachers who are more concerned for their research than their students. I’m glad you could catch that totally wacky and crazy viewpoint I have that NAEP, NSTA and AAAS would absolutely never agree with.</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 (???).

There has been discussion of everything from chemistry and biology to mathematics and physics to computer engineering. If you want to just talk about physics, that’s fine, but if I’m making a “generalization” it’s because we are apparently talking about like eight different fields of study at any given time in this thread.

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.

Data gained from observing the natural world is almost always revised because data gained from observation is constantly compromised and flawed. Mathematics largely invented the idea of a rigorous proof, and most mathematical theorems can be proven easily.</p>

<p>I prefer to think of the academic definition of not being technical or vocational, because theoretical implies… Well, that it is all conjecture, as opposed to something that is logically provable. Almost everything in mathematics can be proven, whereas biology and physics especially are constantly awash in theories and speculation.</p>

<p>And if we really want to return to the “practical,” what do you think commerce is a result of? Mathematics comes first to problems that involve space, structure and change–before all others. Theoretical physics is mathematics with axioms that are meant to apply to the physical world.

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).

Much of physics is a result of mathematical thought applied to abstraction (time)–you realize this, yes? There are plenty of purposes for mathematics, they are commonly referred to as one entity named “science.”

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.

As compared to the assumption that humanities requires regurgitation, posted in this thread? There are plenty of people who do not go to all class to learn, but to not fail.

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?

Insofar that it is impossible to define to the satisfaction of all parties involved is the reason why I call it absurd.

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.

This thread is awash in anecdotal evidence, and going through curricula for almost any humanities program will show that early on in the process students are expected to present what is essentially conjecture. If there is an easily observable and definable difference between the humanities and the sciences it is that students in the humanities often learn through the analyzation of incomplete evidence, and students in the sciences present analyzation only when they are aware of the entirety of the foundation of the field they are studying. Obviously, it takes longer to get to one. To imply that the humanities is a field of regurgitation when humanities requires original thought often in the first week, and the very foundation of early science courses actually is the memorization of axioms, theorems and formulas is ridiculous, and I don’t really have an intention of calling it anything else. It would be discourteous to the idea to call it anything other than what it is, which is stupidity.</p>

<p>Also, my username isn’t tetrisfan.</p>