<p>haha excellent point bigtwix!
i may not be able to solve an orgo problem set, but i bet the orgo students couldnt assess and write up a psychiatric case study either</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guarantee u that someone with a 3.9 psychology major could kick someones @** anyday in their field, but a 3.5 chemistry major student would kill the psychology student when it comes to chemistry
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the argument is about whether it is easier to achieve such mastery in psychology than it is in Chemistry. I think not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There maybe a person who's a whiz at math but can't analyze literature for nuts, or vice-versa.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In the vice-versa case, the person in literature is simply analytically imparied; he thus seeks refuge in metaphors and fiction to perpetuate the illusion that he is even remotely intelligent. What he is actually doing is immersing himself in nonsense as a way of telling himself that he is still intelligent. This is a complete delusion on his part.</p>
<p>I should mention that chemistry, physics, and even philosophy, are simply much more rigorous majors than, say, American studies, psych, poli sci, English, literature, and many others. There is a reason why top law schools like the former majors, and view the latter as jokes.</p>
<p>nspeds: You have obviously never taken a Graduate level (or any level) course in literary theory before. Your "vice-versa" case is based upon your lack of knowledge of Literature as a whole.
Also, nspeds: are you majoring in broad generalisations at Georgetown?I am just wondering.</p>
<p>Well, this thread is tired. I knew that it would become a mine is bigger than your type of thread.</p>
<p>LOL@people thinking it's easier to master the social sciences. First off, you people in Engineering and the Physical Sciences do not work any harder than people in the social sciences and humanities. Do you think the people working with NGO's, government organizations and as consultants for private firms got there just by writing essays and BS-ing all day? Please. I once had a conversation with a second year International Development major who spent her summer in Sierre Leone helping intergrate former child soldiers in Sierra Leone back into their society. That's the type of work you need to do if you want to get noticed in the social sciences. We all don't sit on your asses all day typing essays about other people's essays as you would believe. People who take these classes as electives obviously do, but people who are serious are gonna put in as much work in it as anyone else. They just do it in different ways, instead of spending countless hours in school provided labs and school sponsored schmooze fest, they have to think outside the box. Just a fact of life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whatever the limitations of "analytic" philosophy, it is clearly far preferable to what has befallen humanistic fields like English, which have largely collapsed as serious disciplines while becoming the repository for all the world's bad philosophy, bad social science, and bad history. (Surely English professor "celebrities" like Stanley Fish and Andrew Ross are fine contemporary examples of "the man of letters who really is nothing but 'represents' almost everything, playing and 'substituting' for the expert, and taking it upon himself in all modesty to get himself paid, honored, and celebrated....") When compared to the sophomoric nonsense that passes for "philosophizing" in the broader academic culture--often in fields like English, Law, Political Science, and sometimes History--one can only have the highest respect for the intellectual rigor and specialization of analytic philosophers. It is also because analytic philosophy remains very much a specialty that it is possible to rank departments: the standards of success and accomplishment are relatively clear, maintained as they are by a large, dedicated scholarly community.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Merlinjones, so I need to take a graduate course in lit to even begin discussing something remotely substantive? Oh wait, lit theory! The crap Levinas or Lacan writes is sooo "deep," right? No wait, let us read some Derrida! But WAIT! That is not actually Derrida, for you inferiors appropriated Derrida's theory in such a way that it was not actually his theory – you should see his polemics against the appropriation of his theory by the lit crit idiots.</p>
<p>Before accusing me of "broad generalizations," go learn what a generalization is. I would not want you using a definition you learned in literature instead of the actual one grounded in the notion of sound inductive reasoning.</p>
<p>At any rate, my statement was hardly built off of induction. It was an analytic truth. Perhaps in between the nonsense you read, you can peruse the transcendential analytic of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.</p>
<p>The OP is saying that it is harder to get a good gpa in the sciences. At almost all schools, the average gpa for humanities is substantially higher than that for the sciences. That is a fact that can't really be argued with. The average student in humanities has higher grades than the average science student.</p>
<p>The issue of which one is harder and which one requires more raw intelligence doesn't really matter in the context of the original post. I personally think that whichever field you hate is the hardest.</p>
<p>The OP was most likely expressing frustration with the fact that his or her level of achievement gets a lower quantifiable grade than it would in a humanities major. That's it.</p>
<p>It doesn't matter which is harder ten yrs from now. What matters is if you're happy with your life and can support your family, if you have one that is.</p>
<p>I have friends who are music ed. majors. Will they make a lot of money in the future? Probably not, but they're doing what they love. That's admirable.</p>
<p>nspeds </p>
<p>You are joking? You sound like a parody. Have mercy on you.</p>
<p>You had to pull up a hyperlink in order to try and have an argument? </p>
<p>That is a riot. It really is. Should we play holier than thou? Care to play? Shall I go off and look for a hyperlink to steal ideas from in order to have a little response on a message board thread which pertains to people having bias over their majors? Do you really think that someone with any integrity would succumb to such a tired technique? </p>
<p>Are you capable of reflecting back upon what you wrote? </p>
<p>
[quote]
In the vice-verse case, the person in literature is simply analytically impaired; he thus seeks refuge in metaphors and fiction to perpetuate the illusion that he is even remotely intelligent. What he is actually doing is immersing himself in nonsense as a way of telling himself that he is still intelligent. This is a complete delusion on his part.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your argument clearly shows that you just pulled that example out of your ear. You know that your argument was based in making a board generalisation.</p>
<p>You need to relax. </p>
<p>Did you know that my main area of emphasis in Literature is the British Romantics? Do you know how important Kant is within British Romanticism? Have you a clue? I speak Spanish, Haitian Creole, and German. I have only read and written upon The Critique of Pure Reason in German. </p>
<p>I have, I am sure, more published works than you do. Now, do you think I am going to put on my academician hat each and every time I go on a simple message board? Heck no! That is silly. If I ever became insecure to the point of having to act as pretentious as possible on a message board, I would seek a Doctor's care!</p>
<p>Calm down, nspeds. My other major is Theology. Do you want to make fun of that? You would not get anywhere doing so. Well, I guess, it would help you feel more secure about yourself academically. But, that would be about it. </p>
<p>Why can we all just carry on with working hard and have that be it? This whole nonsense of who's major is harder is silly. I see OP's point, but this thread has morphed into something really far out.</p>
<p>I mean, really!? I am not exactly going to wait about and see who pulls up a Theology web site and tries to argue about how it is easy by acting as pretentious as possible. If I wanted parody, I would watch Mad Tv.</p>
<p>Gosh. Why can't folks just try to do their best and be proud of their work and be
secure in themselves?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It doesn't matter which is harder ten yrs from now. What matters is if you're happy with your life and can support your family, if you have one that is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly! That is really the most important thing. I really could not care who studies what.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You had to pull up a hyperlink in order to try and have an argument?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait... so your rubbish qualifies as argument... but the statements from a tenured professor at the University of Texas School of Law do not? Read what you are saying!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you really think that someone with any integrity would succumb to such a tired technique?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not sure how what I did constitutes "stealing." Did the lit major fail to teach you the notion of citing information produced by other persons? I think so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your argument clearly shows that you just pulled that example out of your ear. You know that your argument was based in making a board generalisation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? I just argued that you used 'generalization' incorrectly. Maintaining that it is a generalization will not help your case. I also responded that my statement is analytic; I thought you were smart enough to figure out why, but apparently I should not assume anything positive about your intellectual capacities. Those who are mathematically impaired are analyticaly impaired, since mathematically is a discipline built (or axiomatized) on analytic reasoning. Literature and many other humanities majors are opposed to such reasoning; it is unfortunate that analytic reasoning is considered fundamental to intelligence. It is that simple.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you know how important Kant is within British Romanticism?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh please. Do you actually mean to tell me that a romanticist interpretation of Kant stands as Kant? He would roll over in his grave if he heard of the disgrace you are performing to his theories, which were intended primarily as arguments for certain epistemological, empirical, and metaphysical positions. What you lit guys did was appropriate and read Kant in your own way; you are not actually reading Kant. The lit rubbish that makes use of it is not Kantian.</p>
<p>Oh, and asking ostensibly rhetorical questions does not constitute an argument. Oh wait, you know that!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have only read and written upon The Critique of Pure Reason in German.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ich habe auch...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have, I am sure, more published works than you do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait? So now you are pulling off an argument from authority? I hope you realize this is a logical fallacy.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, I am also published.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Calm down, nspeds. My other major is Theology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...another proverbial waste basket of bad philosophy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why can't folks just try to do their best and be proud of their work and be
secure in themselves?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How can you even assume that I am insecure about this? I know philosophy's shortcomings; in fact, I am willing to argue that majors such as mathematics and physics are significantly more rigorous than philosophy. That is not the point.</p>
<p>The point is that there is no way in hell majors such as literature, English, and many other disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities are as rigorous as physics, mathematics, chemistry, philosophy, and so forth. Since the latter deal primarily with analytical reasoning, and since those who are mathematically impaired as also analytically impaired, they seek refuge in the lesser disciplines. It is all they have.</p>
<p>I wish I could agree with the opposite viz., that they are all rigorous in their own ways, and their rigour is incomparable; however, when you have friends pulling 4.0s in theology and linguistics, while boasting how easy their major is and how they have just been coasting along, it is hard to believe that they would even survive in a lecture on quantum physics.</p>
<p>MightyNick, it's quite impressive how you've easily mastered every language known to man.</p>
<h2>I, on the other hand, find 500-level biochemistry engineering classes where everything is written in latin quite easy. Oh yeah, and I NEVER STUDY for the tests either. They are SOOO easy. </h2>
<p>Basically, what this engineering vs humanities argument comes down to is a "who has a bigger d.ick" contest.</p>
<p>"My GPA is higher than yours, I'm SMARTER and BETTER than you!!"
"No, I'm an engineer with a high GPA, so I'm SMARTER THAN YOU!!"</p>
<p>Talk about insecure d-bags.</p>
<p>I personally don't feel the need to "prove" my intelligence to others. I am really only concerned with my own opinion and couldnt give two shizits about the opinion of others of how smart I am, especially total strangers.</p>
<p>Personally, although I could handle them, I don't find enginneering classes particularly appealing nor would I want an engineering career. In fact, I would probably go insane working with numbers day in day out and I would probably find the job devoid of any personal meaning. Many, many people do like engineering, though, and hopefully aren't taking the classes to prove simply that they can.</p>
<p>Some moron clown on here said something like "talent is the most marketable resource out there... blah blah... engineering has the highest starting salary so everyone with the talent would do it..... smart people would be engineers to make the most money"</p>
<p>Yeah, um... my highest priority isn't money. I don't worship the All Mighty Dollar. In fact I'm not really concerened with money, outside of making a livable wage. Materialism is overrated-- haven't you been paying attention in English class?</p>
<p>And really, if you're selling yourself to an unsatisfying field for money, doesn't that make you a prostitute? I believe it does.</p>
<p>Don't been a engineering prostitute. or a medical whore. or a corporate slut.
Do what you want. Not because of the money attached.
But hey, if you want to continue down the money road, that's fine. The world still needs a population of miserable wretches I guess.</p>
<p>-----Look at the title of this thread. It's screaming of arrogance. Stop playing the "who has a bigger D" game or saying "I'm smarter than you!!". It's pretty childish and reveals your low self-esteem.</p>
<p>nspeds: Have a nice day. Please try and relax and find some sense of security within yourself as you attempt to carry on with your studies.</p>
<p>I really and truly agree with the post of peter_parker and I am very appreciative of his response to the OP and all of that. </p>
<p>I try really hard to have nice manners. And, I really do not think that I will be returning to this thread at all, the level of pretension is sickening and I just am not one for that at all. </p>
<p>As a lady, I cannot quite say that I give a darn about whose you know what is bigger- because the inane arguments being used are very stupid and pretentious and are almost parody.</p>
<p>I am sorry for loosing my temper at some of the pretentious nonsense in this thread and you guys all have a nice day!? Or something!</p>
<p>While I agree with peter_parker's post to an extent, I have to take issue with the idea that going down the 'money road' is a guaranteed path to unhappiness. I know several people who simply don't care about where they end up working(if it was fun, it wouldn't be called 'work'), so the issue of money definitely trumps all in terms of choosing a major. In addition to this, I would argue that making money is more important to some people than others, and so those who chose their major without regard to how well it pays shouldn't deride those who took it into consideration, and vice-versa. Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>As other posters have mentioned above, you can only truly assess rigor of the major in relation to the person.</p>
<p>For example, my roommate is a Biochem major. She doesn't go to half her classes, spends maybe a few hours on each day on coursework (and a little moreso around exam time) and gets B's. I am an Philosophy-English major and I can honestly say that I probably spend about four times as much time studying (currently my grades are two As and two A+s). But my grades are not necessarily higher because my classes are "fluffy"! I work really hard, and part of the reason is because I like what I'm learning about so much.</p>
<p>One cannot simply deduct that because Humanities majors tend to have higher GPAs that the courses are less rigorous. (Scientific method shows us that correlation does not implicate causation, correct?) Although it may not be true for everyone, I have noticed that humanities majors are often more enthusiastic about what they study whereas many science majors are pursuing their major out of practicality and expectations (I'm not by any means saying ALL; I know some that are passionate, but I also know A LOT who are in Biochemistry because the expectation to become a doctor has been in the family for generations, and going outside of that expectation is out of the question, thus resulting in a good portion of science majors who are not necessarily passionate about their field of study, and are content to get by with Bs) I don't know anyone who chooses English as a major out of practicality, however. Statistically people do better and work harder in subjects that they like. I think there is a higher ratio of passionate students in humanities majors. Thus, their higher grades are not necessarily reflective of EASIER grading. </p>
<p>I think the general misconception of humanities majors as "fluffy" by science/engineering/math students is partially driven by the easier introductory gen-ed courses that a wide range of students take. Sometimes these courses give the impression that, for example, history is all memorization, English is just talking about liking or not liking a story, and Philosophy is just aimlessly asking questions about the meaning of life. It is naive to convince yourself that the majors are that simple! It is ironic that nspeds said a literature major presumably has bad "analytical" skills, because in reality, STRONG ANALYSIS is the single most important skill in being an English major. Analytical and critical skills are some of the key components to succeeding in history, english, philosophy, and many other disciplines in the humanities. </p>
<p>Sometimes I get the impression that some of the engineering and science majors who are in it more for the practicality/career opportunities harbor resentment for the humanities majors because they wish that they could study these topics, but they feel pressure to satisfy their parents and someday secure a solid income. Humanities majors, and even music and art and design students as well, can make them feel insecure about their pragmatic approach to education if they don't really have much genuine, personal interest in their studies when the majority of humanities, music, theater, and art students clearly do. Appropriately, the most passionate science majors I know have never shown me condescension when I tell them I'm an English-Philosophy major. They understand that it feels great to challenge one's self in a meaningful subject.</p>
<p>stargazerlily, I love your post. I'm an engineering major, but I've always loved history. I chose engineering because it seemed more practical, and my parents have been telling me to be an engineer for as long as I can remember. So recently I decided to change my major and transfer. My parents are pretty much freaking out at me, and I haven't really told any of my engineering friends. It should be interesting. I'm sure I'll get a lot of crap about taking the easy way out. By the way, i have an excellent GPA in engineering, and it's definitely not out of passion. It's out of work ethic. If you love what you're studying, it doesn't feel like work. That's my conclusion anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is ironic that nspeds said a literature major presumably has bad "analytical" skills, because in reality, STRONG ANALYSIS is the single most important skill in being an English major. Analytical and critical skills are some of the key components to succeeding in history, english, philosophy, and many other disciplines in the humanities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your analogy between "analysis" and "analytic" is dubious. By "analytic reasoning," I mean reasoning using the methods of logic. English and cognate "disciplines," do not use and openly decry the use of the methods of logic; if they did, their discipline would have gone where it should have gone back when Frege was axiomatizing arithmetic: in the dustbin.</p>
<p>Do not even try to lump philosophy with english, history, and such. Philosophy is the only discipline in the humanities to make use of the methods of logic, and for that reason alone... for the sheer demand of analytic rigor... it is more rigorous than english, history, literature, theology, and so forth. That you choose to conflate the humanities disciplines as embodying the same methodology is idiocy at its finest, and demonstrates the ignorance of your post.</p>
<p>Edit: At any rate, I have posted my opinions. Majors worth respecting?
Anything in the hard sciences
Economics
Mathematics
Philosophy
History</p>
<p>You can question the motiviation of students majoring in these disciplines, but the spurious argument demonstrates nothing about their rigour. You can try to hide behind sophomoric intuitions and then suddenly conclude that english is on par, but anyone with the ability to sustain and understand logical argument will be able to see the non sequiturs that bleed from your post.</p>
<p>I don't know if you deliberately nixed poli sci or not, but you'd be surprised how much real poli sci is like econ in its methodology.</p>
<p>To be frank, I am unsure where I stand on political science. I heard it can be a joke, but I also heard that it can be terribly rigorous. I have not taken a political science course, so I cannot be sure.</p>
<p>I think that a lot of LOWER DIV poli sci classes can and are pretty easy.</p>
<p>But trust me when I say that grad level stuff is pretty rigorous.</p>
<p>I think I'm doing pretty well. My midterm GPA is a 3.8, and I'm managing that while being in a sorority, the theatre honor society, and being a committe co-chair of the GSA. And I'm a theatre performance major, but the majority of my classes this semester are GEs. </p>
<p>With all of you arguing about the difficulty of your major and the worth of your GPA, how many classes are you taking for your major v. how many GEs?</p>
<p>I can't say that I really look down on anyone for their major, but it is a little weird to hear some of the people who have recently posted bash others for choosing practical majors. People pay to go to college to increase the chance of getting a solid job. I don't really get it when people go to college for art or acting (don't jump on me for this, I just don't understand the thought process) when, chances are, you aren't going to get a job with that degree. I understand doing something you love. I would say I love doing engineering. But you know what, I love playing basketball more. And in a perfect world, I would do nothing but play basketball all day. Or I'd rather just not work at all, and just do fun things all day. To a certain extent you want to pick a major that lets you do something you "love," but let's all be honest with ourselves and admit that not many people actually like working. </p>
<p>"If I had my way, I'd never work. I'd sit home all day, watch scarface 50 times, eat a turkey sandwhich and have sex all ****ing day! Then I'd dress up like a clown and surprise kids at schools. Then I'd take a dump in the back of a movie theatre and just wait...until somebody sat in it and hear it squish....that's funny to me. Then I'd paint and read and play violin. I'd climb the mountains and sing the songs I want to sing...But I don't got that kinda time."</p>
<ul>
<li>Dave Chappelle</li>
</ul>