Worst College Majors for Your Career

Parent Cafe
341

<p>

</p>

<p>No one has said Harvard can do no wrong. But apparently they have a vision in mind for what they want their community to be like - an exciting stew, if you will - and they appear to be successful in getting what they want, even if that means some 2400 SAT student gets turned down for a 2200 student with great leadership potential or whatever. If they were dissatisfied with the stew, they’d find another recipe, which of course they are free to do at any time. Clearly they don’t think that a sufficiently interesting stew would be created if all they did was rack-and-stack test scores and go down the list from the top til the class was filled. That’s their prerogative.</p>

342

<p>

</p>

<p>Harvard’s recipe for its “stew” includes discriminating against whites and Asians. Hillsdale College does not take Federal money to avoid entanglements. Selective universities that want to use racial preferences should do the same and stop taking Federal and state money, including Pell grants and guaranteed student loans.</p>

343

<p>What happens to Beliavsky’s post? LOL</p>

<p>Since there are movements on the thread again, I will answer some of the posts. To make it easier for me, I will not use quotes, but you know who you are.;)</p>

<p>1)Marie, I have absolutely no problem with anything you said so far, so what is the problem again?:slight_smile: I can not pass any of these screens in isolation, let alone doing them in sequence. I have a kid that was rejected by Bain without an interview, and we don’t do SATs here. It is quite ok as far as I am concerned.</p>

<p>I think they want to tease out a candidate’s ability to adjust his conversational mode in accordance to the situation with the “you and us”. Aren’t these the very “soft” skills we are so fond of?</p>

<p>2)Sue, they have to pass 3 layers of interviews, not one, with each set of interviews more intense than the previous set. Ever try to do 10 interviews in a day and still maintain a façade? Remember these candidates have to pass a booksmart screening before getting an interview offer, and to survive a holistic evaluation before they are hired. If we believe Harvard can do holistic evaluations, what make you think Bain cannot?</p>

<p>Believe it or not, but picking candidates on the basis of ability is probably the most egalitarian of systems. We know that each parent passes on exactly half the genes to the next generation, so by the time you get to the 3rd or 4th generation…you get the idea.</p>

<p>3)PG, you first tell me you are a math major, then you tell me you got an offer from BCG. When are you going to tell me you walk on water? With all due respect, folks who go into a flying fit whenever math is mentioned would not pass those high pressure analytical interviews.</p>

<p>Again, with all due respect, why would you not give Bain or BCG the same respect that you give Harvard?</p>

<p>I understand folks are motivated by self-interest, and at least in this part of the world, developed a huge ego (that they try to protect) that is out of proportion to ability. Still, can we not talk rationally without sounding like a mathphobe (thank you again) on the wrong med?</p>

344

<p>Canuckguy-
Your desperate ad hominems grow incredibly tiresome. You seem to view yourself through some bizarre prism where you are a logical,intellectual gentleman and everyone else is a self-serving, lying, buffoon. You call someone a liar then feign respect, then continue with boring, predictable insults about “being on the wrong med.” </p>

<p>

I’d say this is true precisely in your part of the world. And I mean extremely precisely in your part of the world.</p>

<p>BTW - You have a strange way of bowing out of a thread. But I figured you would come up with some excuse. I’m certain you are quite impressed with your own postings, but I’m equally certain it is a small, lonely fan club.</p>

345

<p>

[quote]
2)Sue, they have to pass 3 layers of interviews, not one, with each set of interviews more intense than the previous set. Ever try to do 10 interviews in a day and still maintain a fa</p>

346

<p>You are the second person on CC, bovertine, that I have to explain this to… You are underestimating PG… We have had this thing going for a while now, and nobody is offended. Can you not see her response above mine?</p>

<p>PG, I will respond to you later. Got to go.</p>

347

<p>I wasn’t aware I really had a “thing” with you, canuckguy, but whatever!</p>

348

<p>CG- let me explain something to you. I am permitted to be offended by nasty insults regardless of whether they are directed at me or someone else, or whether the person they are directed at is offended or not. You have the honor of being the sole poster I have had to explain this simple fact to.</p>

349

<p>

</p>

<p>I got stuck on this paragraph. What idea?</p>

<p>Also, how is picking candidates on the basis of ability more egalitarian than picking candidates by popular vote? If you are going to use arbitrary cut-off numbers (750/3.5) to determine eligibility for political life, how is that egalitarian? It isn’t, it is elitist.</p>

350

<p>My point in my last response to you, Canuckguy, is that you ascribed mathphobia to someone who doesn’t possess that trait. That leads me to wonder, in all honesty, about your critical reading skills. </p>

<p>I also wonder why, in a thread about “worst college majors for your career,” you are so focused on such a small slice of the job market as the so-called elite consulting firms. I do not care how McKinsey and its ilk pick their employees. I’m sure they employ methods that they believe work for them. I honestly bear them no ill will. They can do what they want. They are not the only employers out there, and other types of businesses have developed their own methods that work for them. </p>

<p>The only “business” from which you have supplied examples of faulty selection criteria is politics. Of course, the electorate in this country has its own method for selecting its elected representatives. (I refuse to call them the “ruling class.”) It’s called voting. Are we voting wisely? In some cases yes, in some cases no, and the wisdom or lack thereof in any given choice is in the eye of the beholder. How would you propose to change the selection process so that people would be more likely to choose on the basis of intelligence? What makes you think any given person isn’t doing that now? You don’t get to define (nor does Jim Manzi) how I perceive someone’s fitness for political office. Do you think politicians should disclose their SAT scores along with their tax returns? </p>

<p>If you know of study data that link intelligence (as YOU define it) to the effectiveness of actual political leaders, that would be interesting, though not at all germane to the original subject matter of this thread. I suspect such data would be difficult to come by and that the results, even if a study along these lines did exist, would be muddied by a lot of exceptions and qualifications.</p>

351

<p>

</p>

<p>Or reasoning skills. It’s possible to be a) good at math and b) reject the notion that math proficiency or ability is the most important thing in the world / all that matters / a necessary prerequisite to become a member of the “ruling class” / the means by which we judge people’s worth or fitness.</p>

352

<p>1) If you are so concerned about insults, bovertine, where were you when the gauntlet was first thrown? You seem terribly magnanimous with instigators and hard on the attacked. Why don’t you check our posting histories and see which one of us has a history of attacking other posters? You may be pleasantly surprised.</p>

<p>2)I am sure you don’t remember having a “thing” with me, PG. You simply instigate too many unprovoked attacks on others to remember the details. Off the top of my head, I can remember the time you assaulted a timid Indian girl who dared to dream of entering an elite, the time you tell us how much you love diversity, and of course the time you strawmaned my position just as you are doing here. Does that help?</p>

<p>3)Bay-Maybe someone with a biology degree is more qualified to answer your question. Hans Eysenck once talked about a study where they asked subjects to match up grandfathers and grandchildren based on everything but names and the results were no better than “rolling a dice”. That should not be surprising. If a high achieving granddad only passes half of his genes to his son who in turn passes half of his to the grandson, it does not take very long for the gene pool to get diluted.</p>

<p>Since ability cannot be retained in a family, is it not more egalitarian to have a ruling class based on ability than having one based on family name, connections or wealth? As far as cut-offs are concerned, even the army has a cut-off for enlisted men. I don’t see anything bad about it. It is simply a matter of competency for the job.</p>

<p>4)Marie-if you really want to know, I suggest you do a search. In a nutshell, PG has been too inconsistent in her positions that I really doubt anything she says. Of course, there is no way to know about our previous conversations from reading this thread alone.</p>

<p>Aren’t there already rules in place to restrict who can run for president? I would love to add a few more. Disclosing their SAT scores along with their tax returns is certainly a good start. I would also like to see a list of admin experiences performed with distinction, academic transcripts, a psychological assessment of fitness for office etc. I know there is a test for psychopathy, but is there one for integrity? Just curious.LOL</p>

<p>I simply don’t think we the people are smart enough to maintain such a system of government. We would vote for those who promise the most and tax the least, even though the promises are impossible to keep. It is not fair to leave our children with debt that can never be paid. I think I am getting too close to politics again…</p>

<p>BTW, it is not my definition of intelligence, but psychology’s definition of intelligence.</p>

353

<p>

</p>

<p>I have seen estimates of 0.75 for the heritability of intelligence. Over two generations, wouldn’t that work out to heritability of 0.75^2 = 0.56, which is still substantial?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Who is eligible to be president is specified in the Constitution, and someone who think his <em>opinions</em> of what makes a president qualified should be made <em>rules</em> does not understand the American democratic system.</p>

<p>I agree with Canuckguy that IQ is very important, but his exagerrated assertions and criticisms of other posters serve to discredit his ideas.</p>

354

<p>Wow CG. After reading all those demands I can only ask why you didn’t tell us you were actually Donald Trump?</p>

355

<p>

That makes it a simple fix. Replace the minimum age requirement with a minimum SAT requirement, Then replace all references to Electors with “Manzi”. Mr. Manzi can pick our Commander in Chief directly.</p>

356

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, but we do not have a “ruling class,” (again, I’m not sure what that means) based on family name, connections or wealth. Our current President is evidence of that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What it is? I don’t think a high school diploma is required, but it is preferred. Does the army have a minimum SAT score requirement?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The “bad” thing about it, is that SAT score cut-offs are arbitrary, not everyone takes the SAT, and why would we want a society where everyone who wants to become a member of the “ruling class” must take the SAT? If SAT cheating and obsession is widespread now, just imagine what it will be like when one’s score becomes the eligibility criteria for entree into the “ruling class.” I hope I’m dead before that ever happens.</p>

357

<p>This is nuts. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>I hate the idea of a “ruling class” because it goes against every basic American principle. </p></li>
<li><p>SAT scores are really not, IMHO, as significant beyond college admissions as this thread would make one think. Of course, I’m sure there are places they come in, but I still don’t feel like they’re such a good marker of, well, much of anything. And having presidential candidates submit their scores? That’s plain crazy…and clearly doesn’t work. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>2b. If a 750 math score means success in life, clearly, every member of my family missed that memo. </p>

<ol>
<li>This thread really does take on the view that these top firms are the be all/end all of society, which is BS. Sorry, but there are far more options in life than this thread would lead one to believe. </li>
</ol>

<p>I’m just a college student earning a liberal arts degree and hoping, somehow, to enter the workforce in a way that works for my skills. Anything beyond addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions or basic algebra and I’m useless; if you want someone to do everything from communicating in four languages to grammatical revision and many things in between, I’m your girl.</p>

358

<p>I think to be a member of the ruling class, you should have to win on “American Ninja Warrior.”</p>

359

<p>^^^Awesome, because I’ve totally done that.</p>

360

<p>

</p>

<p>Smart people will tend to self-select other smart people as their life’s partner. It’s rather nice to be able to have conversations with a partner who understands what you’re talking about.</p>