<p>and #2 "Powerbroker" School:</p>
<p>I didn’t read much of it, but the facts on the Harvard page are shaky:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These articles are designed to sell magazines. But I think there’s a kernel of truth to the “Brainiac” thing at Yale. My son observes that it’s objectively true that in comparison to several of its peer schools, Yale objectively has a larger percentage of undergrads who are humanities/social science majors than math/science majors. He feels that whether you’re a humanities type or a math-science type, being on a campus that is more heavily weighted towards the humanities side just makes for a more stimulating general experience with more creative and interesting peers (not necessarily smarter, of course). As he puts it, organic chemistry, while wonderful if you love it, doesn’t naturally generate interesting breakfast table conversation. Philosophy and economics and history do.</p>
<p>A counterpoint- what is your definition of “interesting”? If everyone studied the humanities and social sciences, we would be living in the stone ages.</p>
<p>Science, math and engineering drive societal progress. But they are difficult to learn and the exams are very hard. Hence, most people don’t study them.</p>
<p>I would place Swarthmore, U. Chicago, Cal Tech and MIT higher than the ivies in this list, but at least they are in the top 10.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We would also be living in the stone ages if people didn’t study humanities or social sciences. Literature, philosophy, history, art, and music are just as necessary for societal progress as math and science are. Perhaps even more so; while we could make superficial technological “progress” with only science and math, we need the humanities and social sciences to progress ethically and morally. I consider a society that has poor technology but high moral, artistic and linguistic development to be much more “advanced” than a society that has lots of technology but little art, music, or language.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please. That is not why people don’t study science and math.</p>
<p>Even back in the stone age, someone invented the wheel. Surely that guy had riveting conversations with the guy who invented fire. Both were just as brainy as the guy carving a novel on the cave wall.</p>
<p>The brain has always had a left and a right side. Those who use either dominantly can be just as smart and interesting as the others.</p>
<p>Re post #4: Note that in my first post I expressly said math-science types are NOT “less smart” than humanities types. What I said was that humanities-based subjects lend themselves in general to more stimulating dinner table conversation than math/science-based subjects. At least that’s the perspective of my Yale kid, who leans math-science. </p>
<p>You, on the other hand, take the position that math-science types are indeed smarter than humanities types. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a pretty condescending statement. I concur with orchard.</p>
<p>I consider myself a math/science guy and my Intro to Ancient Greek History this semester is the greatest class I’ve taken. In my entire life. </p>
<p>I think humanities people like to joke around about not being able to do math and math/science people joke about not writing essays, but they can definitely do each others work if they really wanted to.</p>
<p>^^ Maybe the answer to “Why Yale?” for math-science kids is that those who choose Yale over its more math-science-centric peer schools do so because they’re also hungry to study the humanities and social sciences and/or hang around with a lot of kids who are focused on those disciplines.</p>
<p>lol, some of the facts on the website seems outrageously flawed, and some are, quite simply, laughable…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was thinking the same thing. I’m assuming they mean CR/M</p>
<p>Given the Harvard CDS -
SAT Critical Reading 690 800
CR SAT Math 700 780</p>
<p>Even if every percentile scored at the top of their range I don’t see how they could reasonably come up with an average of 1580. I’m not even sure howmany people score 580, and seeing how they have similar averages listed for several schools it seems a little unlikely.</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong here.</p>
<p>Money is the ultimate arbiter of success in life. Here are the richest men in the world.</p>
<p>Read their bios on wikipedia. Not too many humanists on this list. </p>
<p>In the US, the best options are computer science at Stanford/MIT/UCB/CMU, finance at Wharton or economics/math at Harvard.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Carlos Slim (Mexico) - $53.5 billion, telecommunications</p></li>
<li><p>Bill Gates (USA) - $53 billion, Microsoft</p></li>
<li><p>Warren Buffett (USA) - $47 billion, Berkshire Hathaway</p></li>
<li><p>Mukesh Ambani (India) - $29 billion, petrochemicals, oil and gas</p></li>
<li><p>Lakshmi Mittal (India) - $28.7 billion, steel</p></li>
<li><p>Larry Ellison (USA) - $28 billion, Oracle</p></li>
<li><p>Bernard Arnault (France) - $27.5 billion, LVMH</p></li>
<li><p>Eike Batista (Brazil) - $27 billion, mining, oil</p></li>
<li><p>Amancio Ortega (Spain) - $25 billion, retail</p></li>
<li><p>Karl Albrecht (Germany) - $23.5 billion, supermarkets</p></li>
<li><p>Ingvar Kamprad & family (Sweden) - $23 billion, Ikea</p></li>
</ul>
<p>I certainly hope my children don’t embrace the view that “money is the ultimate arbiter of success in life.”</p>
<p>^ Don’t worry, nor do the vast majority of Yale students. That’s why our proportion of a-holes is much lower than Harvard’s.</p>