<p>In that case, they have to make more easy questions to offset the questions of increased difficulty. So, overall you have either easy questions or difficult questions. The curve is not pretty.</p>
<p>hmom, this definition is the only one that you could even possibly conceive as pertaining to engineering:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The example of its usage fairly clearly excludes engineering, however. Trades involve you using your hands. Engineers design things, they don’t build them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be surprised. What with everyone going off to college these days there is quite a dearth of people willing to take up plumbing, being an electrician, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Disagree with both of these statements. A trade des not have to be something you do with your hands and the average engineer does not design anything.</p>
<p>I’m skeptical. Our interests and pursuits are partly constrained by our abilities. The reason you might have pursued painting is because you were lousy at computer science even if the latter were an interest of yours. </p>
<p>I would be curious to see data on the verbal scores of high math SAT scorers compared to the math scores of high verbal SAT scorers. This might shed some light on this topic. In any event, for those of who believe in the “english is just different than engineering, it’s not necessarily harder” view, how far are you willing to take this line? Would you say that Michael Jordan or The Beatles are just as smart as Einstein? </p>
<p>Hmom, I sure hope our engineers are being taught how to “think.” Space rockets don’t get designed by rote. As someone who majored in philosophy, I find it amusing whenever fellow humanities majors resort to this “it teaches you how to think” explanation to justify their choice of major as if the sciences and engineering don’t do the same. I don’t know, I thought the amount of creativity, rigor, and critical thinking needed to develop a proof in my math classes was far greater than anything I’ve seen in philosophy. Symbolic and mathematical logic were the most feared courses in chosen major. </p>
<p>I’m okay with admitting that physics and math people are the smartest of the bunch. In fact, I’m grateful for these folks. They certainly make the world and life better and more fascinating.</p>
<p>
Then something entirely different can be done to the math section: toss it and use the SAT subject math test as a replacement, with the choice between 1c and 2c.
The math section in its current form is a disaster and an insult to the subject of math.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is “smart”, a very vague and useless word, your only criteria? Michael Jordan would beat both at basketball, the Beatles made catchy songs that the others couldn’t have, and Einstein was best at math and physics. Saying one is better than the others is subjective.</p>
<p>No one here’s talking about who or what’s better. The OP’s complaint was against the brand name of a school vs. lack of appreciation for the differences between the “easier” (easier meaning less intellectually challenging or requiring less brain power) majors from majors like engineering and physics. </p>
<p>I wasn’t aware that the word “smart” was vague and useless. We all use it all the time. For instance, “Einstein and Shakespeare are a lot smarter than I am.” Would you agree with this statement? I sure hope so. Or are you saying this sentence that I just wrote doesn’t mean anything to you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No humanities major here. I also learned a trade I don’t do with my hands–I studied at a business school, though my degree, oddly, say BS econ.</p>
<p>
I find the Beatles to be a very overrated band and thus nowhere near the level of MJ or Einstein, but that is an argument for the Cafe forum. :)</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say Humanities classes teach you “how to think” more than other majors; just like the Social Sciences and Sciences, you learn in depth about a particular subject and that gives you new perspectives, teaches you to analyze things differently, etc. </p>
<p>People don’t realize Science majors like Bio, Chem, Physics, etc, are part of Liberal Arts too. “Liberal Arts” just means learning theory as opposed to Engineering, Architecture, Nursing, etc, where there’s real world applications. </p>
<p>Arts majors often look down on Engineering and the like as merely “technical” trades, when in reality there’s lots of theory, problem solving and critical thinking skills developed. I hate this ivory tower mentality of looking down on “technical” things - they’re pretty damn important! Also, Engineering/CompSci people often look down on other majors for being easy, but that’s annoying too because just cause something’s not directly applicable to the real world like History or Chem doesn’t make it less important. </p>
<p>And people value college name more because college major is not a big deal and different people are impressed by different majors - Harvard grads are rare and that impresses people more. College major is only a big deal to college students!</p>
<p>WHOA, WHOA, WHOA! It’s sad that I am not sure if this is a joke. Is it? Had you EVER clicked on a competetive asian’s (which I am part–and will proudly generalize) college search post, you would know that not everyone is interested in what they major in! Engineering, comp sci, the works! </p>
<ol>
<li>Parents have major roles in many students lives and pressure them into difficult areas that they believe will secure them a job. "</li>
</ol>
<p>well, then the word “gravitate” wouldn’t be used! You’d use the words “pressured,” “guilted” or “forced” to describe what you’re describing. If a parent forces a smart kid to study science or engineering, you don’t say the kid “gravitated” towards science and engineering. </p>
<p>As they say in French, tant pis pour vous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well if you’re going to argue with me about the definition of a word then I guess there’s nothing left to discuss here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How much experience do you have with engineers? I know by now that your husband at the very least is in business and that you have an affinity for the liberal arts and so I question how much interaction you have with the average engineer. I come from a family of engineers and have interned at engineering firms as well as held positions in various engineering labs in academia. I’ve worked for both electrical engineers and mechanical engineers, designing everything from control panel stands to nanotransistors made from new materials. When I designed a prototype, I would draw it up in CAD and let the blue collar guys (or the undergrads 
)actually make it.</p>
<p>Sure, if something goes wrong with what I made, I’ll bring out the logic analyzer, soldering iron or what have you and fix it, but that’s hardly the crux of my duty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the GRE may be a better indication of relative ability, since these are students who intend to continue with their areas of specialty at the PHD level (just scroll down a little): </p>
<p>[econphd.net</a> Admission Guide](<a href=“Loading...”>Loading...)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I was an undergrad, the most feared course in the social sciences was elementary statistics! Hard to believe, isn’t it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When my friends told me they were not “into” certain subjects, I interpreted that to mean they can not do it. I was right. What I can not understand is why we in North America refuses to affirm the obvious; nobody else around the world seems to have that problem. (I certainly have no problem admitting I can not understand higher mathematics).</p>
<p>Your honesty is touching.</p>
<p>
What does the SAT have to do with mathematical talent? Compare some SAT Math problems with USAMTS problems and try to tell me that the former has anything to do with measuring talent at the latter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My impressions of engineering largely come from my DS and his friends. He attended CMU and is now a grad student at MIT. The concept that most engineers do rote jobs and do not design has been repeated to us often in this house, I also thought engineers, in general, designed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well your son is associated with two of the most excellent schools in the nation for engineering. I’d imagine most of the students there wouldn’t do what the average engineer does. On the other hand, I went to undergrad at a place that is hardly a nationally-recognized (at least by the standards of CC forum-goers) engineering powerhouse and most of the people I was surrounded by went off to work designing turbines, circuits and other sorts of things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh engineering is definitely a rote job in general. Most engineers design very specific things; I knew a guy whose entire job was to design a specific pipe for certain types of industrial plants.</p>
<p>Don’t any of you who are invested in trying to prove “engineering is superior” / “liberal arts is superior” ever look at yourselves and wonder why you’re so invested in proving your area better? Frankly, it speaks to the need for psychiatrists / psychologists more than anything else. Why can’t you all be happy that different people do different things and that the world needs all of them to be a great place – whether it’s the engineer who designs the museum wing so it is structurally sound or the art historian who leads the classes through the museum wing? What’s wrong with your psyche and self-esteem such that you are so invested in proving that people in one particular career are smarter?</p>
<p>Whoever said people flock to what interests them in terms of major clearly hasn’t talked to many people about this ! I am certainly not majoring in anything I’m interested in. Neither was my father, neither is my step brother. You couldn’t be anymore wrong.</p>
<p>I think we are getting away from the OP’s original question.</p>
<p>Why do we value name more than college major?</p>
<p>Because we live in a plutocracy, not a meritocracy. In a plutocracy, name is more important; in a meritocracy, ability is more important.</p>
<p>I used to be an engineer.</p>
<p>I designed stuff.</p>
<p>It was fine.</p>