<p>
[quote]
That doesn't mean its any harder than say...math. Throw in a bunch of math or engineering majors in there and I guarantee that psych avg will shoot up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yea, because math and engineering majors are better at school (and life).</p>
<p>... doubtful.</p>
<p>School in general...yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What if they go to law school or into IBanking? Do you think consultant firms care what their students from Ivies or Ivy equivalents majored in while they were undergraduates?
[/quote]
Yeah, actually. We kinda do.</p>
<p>When screening 5 resumes for every one first-round interview slot we have available at our firm, the first people to go are those who don't obviously have an analytical background. Those who aren't in a major that plainly suggests this - be it math, science, engineering, econ, etc - have an uphill battle and burden of proof that will rest on their extracurriculars and internships, in order to show their mental rigor and structured thinking skills.</p>
<p>I'm not going to get into a quibble-fest with those who want to argue that dance majors are 'analytical thinkers' or the like. There's a common-sense line here, and while it may be mildly gray, it exists. Employers who can afford to be discriminating know this from years of interviewing candidates coming from these various majors. Your average physics major is going to be able to wrestle with, say, business problems or models a lot better than your average english major. Those who feel they are exceptions have the burden of proof.</p>
<p>Note that this is largely to get your foot in the door. In an interview, of course, you will stand or fall based on a case question, or the soft skills you demonstrate, or how eloquently you phrase things or thoughtfully you respond, or your aura of professionalism... but your resume has to be enough to get that foot in the door.</p>
<p>It is intro Psych classes so there are indeed potential math majors (we don't even have engineering at my school) bio majors and chem majors.</p>
<p>Denzera, I mentioned 3 things there (law, consulting, and Ibanking). Which one(s) are you talking about? From your post, it seems like either consulting or ibanking. I'm guessing ibanking.</p>
<p>I think that, as you said, there is some concern over major, and I imagined it much as you did, to get one's foot in the door. The foot in the door is a big issue. My original claim was too broad- ibankers and consultants care a little about major. . . but not that much.:) My point was simply that a student from one of the very, very top schools, as long as he or she majors in something generally seen as substantive (such as English) and not something generally seen as lacking substance (such as dance) and does well will be seen in a positive light. Perhaps somewhat less so than a physics or engineering major all things being equal, but still quite positive. Now, you obviously have more experience with it than I do, as I only know things about these fields through others' experience, and I know more about law than consulting and ibanking, but I think this holds true in those two as well. Law is somewhat different in that you basically don't want a major in certain things seen as super easy (such as communications), and as long as that's not the case, you're fine, whereas I imagine in the others, there are more nuanced degrees of preferance (say hard sciences over econ or philosophy over history or English, even if all of these are still accepted).</p>
<p>Ah, but DRab, at schools with decent comm programs LOTS of comm students tend to go on to law. I don't have a percentage, but in my program it's a fairly significant number. In fact, one of the reasons people choose comm at my school is because they're pre-law. The undergrad comm curriculum tends to reflect this, offering lots of law related courses, taught in both the comm department AND the law school. Comm is actually quite beneficial for law, seeing as how a lawyer needs to...I don't know. Communicate. </p>
<p>While a degree like comm IS a joke at many schools, I actually think that given that one receives a decent comm undergrad education they could succeed quite nicely in law school and in the field. This is also assuming that they have the appropriate undergrad internship/ec/whatever experience to get their feet in the door. </p>
<p>/And I have no interest in law. At all.</p>
<p>DRab,</p>
<p>First off, I am in management consulting, although i've spoken at length to several BB bankers involved in recruiting, and have several friends as analysts and associates.</p>
<p>Secondly, law is indeed categorically different. All I've ever heard is that as long as you do something intellectually rigorous in some respect, as you said - and english is a fine choice - the top law schools will take you plenty seriously. Law schools just want to see hard workers who can think like a lawyer (i.e. LSAT), and are content to train all other skills themselves.</p>
<p>The same is simply not true in consulting (except for Bain), or from what I understand, IB. IB is different from my profession in its recruiting in that, once you've established some base level of intelligence and analytical ability, what makes a difference is entirely your soft skills - and that base is surprisingly low. However the two are similar in that, even at the "top, top schools" (I went to Columbia), there is a striking bias in favor of more numerically inclined majors that involve abstract reasoning and models.</p>
<p>For example, below the partner level, my firm is probably 35% engineering (including CS), 30% math or hard sciences, 15% economics or the like, maybe 10-15% polisci, philosophy or Brown-style international relations, and 5-10% "other". There have been history majors and even one english major i've come across, but in all cases they are impressively brilliant, extraordinary at expressing themselves interpersonally, and all accomplished writers (a skill that they sold to get in the door in the first place - consultancies need writers too). And remember, we're talking about people all at top-20 schools with 3.6+, generally. Many people entering as Associates have PhDs instead of an MBA (but, I suppose, couldn't find a tenure track that they liked).</p>
<p>Obviously, this thread is about the larger issue of people lording GPAs over each other without thinking about how hard is it to get that GPA in the various majors. I can only speak to the "job opps after college" part, but while I was on campus there is also an esprit de corps of prevailing attitudes about the various majors. In short, most people felt that certain majors were lightweight disciplines, which is to say, the vast majority of people who can do well in physics could do equally well in sociology and probably much better. This, obviously, is not a subject where an online debate or argument will prove anything, but I can add that anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>Well, I consider myself pretty successful in math and the sciences- I got 5 on Calc BC junior year HS and got an A in multivar calc. + dif equations senior year. 5 Ap chem... i dunno just some background. Anyway the only classes that really provided any challenge for me were English classes and one difficult language class. </p>
<p>I believe this is b/c grading for the humanities courses are more subjective- left to the discretion of the teacher. In Math/chem there is clearly a right or wrong answer. This subjective style may work to the benefit of some people in English for ex. who may not do so well in Math. However for me, I like the objective math /science grading better- you understand how and why you got your grades.</p>
<p>Anyway having gotten so far in math / sci and not being completely enraptured by them, I opted to take mostly humanities courses my freshman year (philosophy, pol sci, etc... biology too, but mostly reading). I hafta say- it's pretty rough. You answer open-ended essay questions on tests, write these essays- and you think they are rock-solid, gold- you are sure you know the material well- than you get handed back a mediocre grade due to some arbitrary specifics you failed to mention, or b/c the paper rubbed the professor 'the wrong way'. I don't think the math classes are harder necessarily- you're given a set of instructions (which may be complicated of course) and then you learn these instructions to handle problems. In philosophy its like.... no matter how closely you follow the advice of the prof. there's always something new that's 'wrong' with what you said/ wrote. I'd take math classes in an instant if I were interested in those subjects and wanted to beef up my gpa. However i do understand why humanities may be considered 'lightweight'. just saying, for me its not true... in fact they're more frustrating.</p>
<p>VTjas81</p>
<p>that's hilarious.</p>
<p>Wow this thread went way further than I expected. I was in no way trying to say that others degrees and [humanities] majors are less valid or difficult (I really should have worded my intro post better and not used the word "fluff"); I was merely trying to talk about the annoyance it is for people who are in different majors than me to get higher grades for a similar amount of work and achievement. It is a fact that it is harder to get a great GPA in the sciences, I must add, and we all know that this is true at most schools.</p>
<p>I've taken several psychology and humanties classes and all of them were definitely a lot easier than my math and science classes. Except for physiological psych, since it contained some neuroscience and biology. Not that it makes me an expert in the field, just that a similar level psychology or humanities class is usually easier, with some exceptions, than a math or science class of the same course level.</p>
<p><strong>allie</strong>, I understand many comm majors have desires to go to law school, and I could easily see how a strong comm program would prepare a student. Comm programs, from what I can tell, are looked at as less rigorous in general than many other majors, and represent a subject that involves certain skills, as those in English or history, that are seemingly absent in subjects such as dance, but that are considered less developed than in English or history programs. Of course a rigorous comm program could develop skills much better than a poor history or English program, but it seems like English and history programs tend to be more demanding generally.</p>
<p>Denzera, do you think interest at all reflects why you have a lot of people from certain majors but few from others? I think there's a strong correlation between interest in money and major, and those in certain majors, such as business and engineering, tend to be the most concerned from those I've encountered. This is not to say that many humanities and social science majors are not concerned, or that some engineers and cs majors could care less about money, but that I see strong entrepreneurial tendencies and money-consceince behavior more often in those in the sciences, engineering, and business than those in other subjects.</p>
<p>I actually think that the material one covers in comm is preferable for something like law over a strict history program because I think the skills one acquires are much, much more applicable than what one might get in history. I also don't really agree with the argument that those skills might be less developed. I think the draw of comm is that you get pretty even coverage of several fields, which might be more useful than a vast array of useless knowledge in one area (not that history is useless, but I think that 4 years of history might be too narrowly focused). It certainly does depend on the program, and lots of comm programs aren't up to par. But I think that in theory, comm stands up just as well as a straight English or history or soc program. I definitely don't think that something like history is any more demanding than comm. English might be, but only due to the amount of reading, and not because standards for English majors are any different than they are for comm majors. </p>
<p>I understand the stigma against comm being fluff, and I think that in some places this might be accurate. Fortunately I'm part of a very highly regarded comm program and I've had no problems attracting interest in employers. I don't know that i'd advocate someone doing comm in Iowa or Nebraska or Montana or something, but I think that in certain areas it's actually a very relevant path to take (and one that's certainly just as credible as English or history or whatever).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've taken several psychology and humanties classes and all of them were definitely a lot easier than my math and science classes. Except for physiological psych, since it contained some neuroscience and biology. Not that it makes me an expert in the field, just that a similar level psychology or humanities class is usually easier, with some exceptions, than a math or science class of the same course level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>plug and chug is pretty challenging...</p>
<p>
[quote]
plug and chug is pretty challenging...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol, pretty much owned...</p>
<p>I find that in math and science classes everything is a lot more black and white. I know people that have A's in math class, but I know very few people with A's in English.</p>
<p>I don't understand the majority of the arguments going on here...I mean, wouldn't one expect that an english major wouldn't do as well in a math class than would a math major. Isn't that common sense? The same goes for the reverse. I mean, we all pick our majors for a reason, it's what we're best at/most enjoy (sometimes the two are mutually exclusive, but usually relate). So in my opinion a 3.9 in any major is amazing, afterall, when it comes down to it, pretty much everything in college is challenging.</p>
<p>
[quote]
plug and chug is pretty challenging...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just have an inferiority complex, don't deny it. </p>
<p>Everybody knows there are high iq occupations and not so high iq occupations. A trash collector on average won't have the mental aptitude as say, an engineer. If a college made a major for being trash collector are you all going to say its equally challenging? I sure hope not. Society is not equal everybody. College is stratified just like society is.</p>
<p>I think we could settle this just by going to the college advisor and just asking what rank you are at your college. If your gpa is 2.0 and you're top 1%, you're better than the 3.8 that ranks top 10%. You ranking in your college (letters and science, engineering, whatever) is what really matters.</p>
<p>I just wasted 5 min. of my life reading this thread.</p>
<p>If you're an engineer major, wow, good for you. If you you're an english major, wow, good for you. You can have the highest GPA in your field and I still won't care. This "I'm smarter than you" is a waste of time. </p>
<p>You can be the smartest person in your college, but if you can't use the skills you gain you just wasted 4 yrs of your life.</p>
<p>You're going to tell me with a straight face that a 4.0 is not impressive if the person majors art history, but it is impressive if the person majors biomedical engineering? A 3.9 is impressive regardless of major. And oh yeah, nobody FORCED you to major engineering. If you're an engineering major, good for you. Have a 3.5 in engineering while your friend does half the work and has a 4.0 in econ and interns at Morgan Stanley in his/her spare time? Well suck it up. Nobody forced you to major engineering.</p>
<p>How irrational, stupid, and arrogant.</p>