Most difficult university major?
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
Oh, it's definitely subjective. That's why it's rarely reflected in the grades of arts students. But the difference between the typical arts student and the typical science student is still there. Just conduct a hundred interviews and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. That's not to say that social skills are necessarily better than technical skills, but the former tends to have much broader use in everyday life than does the ability to solve an algebraic equation, for example.
Mathmatical ability is part of engineering, but only a small part.C Dick said:
What engineers do (if they work as engineers) is design things. Buildings, bridges, planes, trains, automobiles, computers, light bulbs, etc.
You need to come up with the idea first to provide a product.
Then, you need to confirm using physics (and there in lies the math as a means to an end) that your widget is A) going to work, and B) is safe to use.
You will meet engineers who are very creative but lack in their analytical abilities. You will meet engineers who can analyze things to death, but they have a hard time conceiving of how to draw a bicycle.
Intelligence.
I love how some guys know what the hardest discipline is without having taken all of them or without any acknowledgement to the fact that there are different forms of intelligence that different people value differently.
In this thread I see a bunch of engineering nerds with hard-ons for mathematical intelligence with a simplistic perception of how it is generally the greatest form of intellectual prowess. I guess I got the biggest laugh from the guy that asserted quite confidently that an engineer on average would perform better at learning new stuff than someone from another discipline. Just off the top of my head I would argue that there is no such thing as "new stuff" just things that are derivations of the past. Of course, DNA intelligence makes a difference but so does exposure, drive and interest in any given discipline. You take an electrical engineering nerd and ask him to learn Japanese at 40 and he will look pretty fucking stupid compared to a basket weaving major who knows five languages already trying to learn the same thing. Also that same gifted electrical engineering student who lived his life over again with an interest in arts and music would never have the same aptitude in higher level math if he was introduced to it for the first time in university as an elective. Many things in your youth, including intelligence, create aptitudes in other areas later on in life, and trying to assert one discipline takes more intelligence than another or presenting it as some kind of fact that we should all accept only proves the short-sightedness of the person making that ridiculous statement.
PS note to engineering geeks - I am not an Arts major. I actually am good in math but suck at music, art and the languages (i.e. I don’t possess linguistic or creative intelligence to any high degree). It also just so happens I didn’t have an interest in music, art and languages in my youth but more of an interest in math and sports. I could probably solve a math equation better than Eddie Van Halen but I sure as hell can’t play the guitar like him, and I think it would then be stupid to say I am smarter than him based on some pecking order of the different types of intelligence. It takes a great deal of intelligence to be a master at anything in life and whether something is prestigious or difficult is solely a matter of perspective and life experience arising from the individual making the judgment.
PPS - Fuck I was 5 months message board free before this post.
I love how some guys know what the hardest discipline is without having taken all of them or without any acknowledgement to the fact that there are different forms of intelligence that different people value differently.
In this thread I see a bunch of engineering nerds with hard-ons for mathematical intelligence with a simplistic perception of how it is generally the greatest form of intellectual prowess. I guess I got the biggest laugh from the guy that asserted quite confidently that an engineer on average would perform better at learning new stuff than someone from another discipline. Just off the top of my head I would argue that there is no such thing as "new stuff" just things that are derivations of the past. Of course, DNA intelligence makes a difference but so does exposure, drive and interest in any given discipline. You take an electrical engineering nerd and ask him to learn Japanese at 40 and he will look pretty fucking stupid compared to a basket weaving major who knows five languages already trying to learn the same thing. Also that same gifted electrical engineering student who lived his life over again with an interest in arts and music would never have the same aptitude in higher level math if he was introduced to it for the first time in university as an elective. Many things in your youth, including intelligence, create aptitudes in other areas later on in life, and trying to assert one discipline takes more intelligence than another or presenting it as some kind of fact that we should all accept only proves the short-sightedness of the person making that ridiculous statement.
PS note to engineering geeks - I am not an Arts major. I actually am good in math but suck at music, art and the languages (i.e. I don’t possess linguistic or creative intelligence to any high degree). It also just so happens I didn’t have an interest in music, art and languages in my youth but more of an interest in math and sports. I could probably solve a math equation better than Eddie Van Halen but I sure as hell can’t play the guitar like him, and I think it would then be stupid to say I am smarter than him based on some pecking order of the different types of intelligence. It takes a great deal of intelligence to be a master at anything in life and whether something is prestigious or difficult is solely a matter of perspective and life experience arising from the individual making the judgment.
PPS - Fuck I was 5 months message board free before this post.
Thinking back I probably should have gone through dentistry. It's like money for nothing chicks for free. (ducking for cover now) Most medical fields have very little to do with intelligence, but more so with building up a vast library of cases and symptoms in your memory that you can draw on. That's why med students are memorizing all day long.
Does it take intelligence to become a lawyer? I think they need strong analytical skills. The LSAT is fairly difficult.
http://ftp.ets.org/pub/gre/01210.pdf
The above link shows average GRE scores for students from different areas of studies.
The GRE has been proven, just like it's sibling the SAT, to be a very strong indicator of IQ.
According to the report, education majors perform the worst, while engineering majors perform the best, especially in math, where they even outscore physical science majors.
Ok, there may not be a pre-med program in Canada. But instead, please interpret it to mean life sciences (bio, biochem) coupled with basic courses in physics, math, chem. Also, please note that, as someone said before, you have to have almost all A's in a pre-med program to get into a medical school, which makes it harder. Passing is easy, but there is really no point in taking pre-med if you're going to get all C's.
The above link shows average GRE scores for students from different areas of studies.
The GRE has been proven, just like it's sibling the SAT, to be a very strong indicator of IQ.
According to the report, education majors perform the worst, while engineering majors perform the best, especially in math, where they even outscore physical science majors.
Ok, there may not be a pre-med program in Canada. But instead, please interpret it to mean life sciences (bio, biochem) coupled with basic courses in physics, math, chem. Also, please note that, as someone said before, you have to have almost all A's in a pre-med program to get into a medical school, which makes it harder. Passing is easy, but there is really no point in taking pre-med if you're going to get all C's.
People mock engineers, because it is stylish to call them fools, to call them geeks, say that soft skills are more important. In my world the smartest guy gets the prize, not the guy who can sell ice to an eskimo. I hope I can perhaps live my delusion for the rest of my life and never face the realities you guys face.
The smartest guy may get the proverbial "prize" but that certainly doesn't mean that he's an engineer. 
OK, I'll bite.
If "most fifficult" means intellectually most challenging, I would pick physics, particularly mathematical/theoretical physics. If "most difficult" means heaviest workload, it has to be engineering. Combining both of the above, I would say engineering science.
Engineering physics also comes to mind. These guys pretty much take all the physics courses of a physics major, and the workload of an engineering student on top of that. I also call this begging for punishment.
We must also be aware that not all data can be taken at face value. While education majors in the States are weak, this is certainly not the case in Ontario, where students must earn a first degree before going into education. My only criticism here is that they tend to attract mostly females with non-science degrees.
Finally, business students may be weak in general, but there are exceptions to the rule. I would not consider business undergrads at places like Wharton or Queen's weak. In fact, they are probably among the strongest students in their respective universities.
If "most fifficult" means intellectually most challenging, I would pick physics, particularly mathematical/theoretical physics. If "most difficult" means heaviest workload, it has to be engineering. Combining both of the above, I would say engineering science.
Engineering physics also comes to mind. These guys pretty much take all the physics courses of a physics major, and the workload of an engineering student on top of that. I also call this begging for punishment.
It is great to see that folks actually use empirical evidence to support their position. I agree that GRE/SAT/ACT are highly correlated with IQ scores. I only wish the data are more precise. For example, if phycial sciences are separated into disciplines of physics, chemistry, and mathematics, I am sure the physics and the mathematics students would have higher GRE scores than the reported composite. The same can be said for social sciences and humanities. From other studies, I know that students in government (political science?), economics, and philosophy do extremely well in standardized testing. From personal experience, I find students in philosopy of science very impressive. They seem to be able to combine the best traditions of humanities and sciences into one.
We must also be aware that not all data can be taken at face value. While education majors in the States are weak, this is certainly not the case in Ontario, where students must earn a first degree before going into education. My only criticism here is that they tend to attract mostly females with non-science degrees.
Finally, business students may be weak in general, but there are exceptions to the rule. I would not consider business undergrads at places like Wharton or Queen's weak. In fact, they are probably among the strongest students in their respective universities.
Really? Damn those elitist Christians!!!red said:
But on a serious note, why did Knox and other "Christian" Colleges join U of T if it was a matter of religion?
PSS - I bet the forefathers of Trinity would be pissed seeing all those Jewish professors today ... hehe
It is popular to say that there are lots of different kinds of intelligences, that people who are good at math tend to be horrible at arts, etc. But this theory is not proven out by research. Research repeatedly shows that IQ is the best predictor of success at just about anything, and that no theory of multiple intelligences can explain observed data.
The book "The Bell Curve" by Hernstein and Murray is very informative on this subjective.
The book "The Bell Curve" by Hernstein and Murray is very informative on this subjective.
If you measure the "prestige" of philosophy based on how much it's students can earn, then, I am sure Socrates would not be Plato and Aristotle's hero as he was nothing more then a bumb.DonQuixote said:
Compensation? Who needs compensation for studying philosophy? It's a reward for the human spirit.
exactly, there are phases to what people value as intellegence. At one time perhaps holy men were the viewed as most intellegent, later on socrates, guys like gallaleo(sp?) achieved intellegence before there time and so he was viewed as a fool.DateMasamune said:
The ultimate reward is the satisfaction to the human spirit, if you get compensated well for it, it is only because you were born at the right time.
Right now the benchmark is book type arithmetic smart, maybe in time smarts will be about more important things like spiritual enlightenment. One day technology will enable computers to be integrated into our brains, then everyone will be able to do the most complex math in a split second and recite volumes of information learned years ago. Then obviously the definition of smarts will change, what it will be is anyone's guess.
This technological/computer/IT stuff is just a fad, it is not timeless. What is timeless is still the search for "the truth" if it exist, and, some of the most basic and general questions like "what am I doing here?"bishop said:
Furthermore, even with the advent of technology, it has allowed us to express art in a different form. Yet, it is the ideas and the will behind these artistic presentations which is the essentials. The method used is just a medium and once the message is recieved, the courier no longer has use.
On a side note, technology has proven the existence of "spirits" (at least according to "White Noise" and whatever technology they incorporated in finding these spirits") which means that there is "life" after death. Your spirit still hangs around doing something. If spirits exists, that means the existence of god or some superior being is made more relavant. If this is the case, then, intelligence could possibly mean being "closer" to this supreme spirit by learning and deciphering or at least trying to decipher what this superior being has given us.
I mean yeah, technology/applied science requires all the different branches of what we call "engineering" or "science" or whatever, but what lies behind the drive for human innovation and applying these technologies and theories we have unraved? - The very essential which makes us human: that is, to survive and our innate curiousity to know and understand and to a certain extent make our lives easier and more comfortable or else why the hell do we have remote controls? So we don't have walk up to the TV/VCR/DVD. Why the hell did we have horse drawn carriages and now cars? So we don't have to walk. Why the hell do we have potties? For sanitation so we are more clean and live longer. Why the hell do we have e-mail? So we don't have to send mail and it's faster.
And finally, why are we having this discussion in the first place? So that engineering degree holders can have an ego boost? Heh! But that's a very human thing. But why?
Yeah but those extra features on the White Noise DVD looked pretty convincing. Or it could be another scam by Hollywood.stinkynuts said:
There is generally one type of person that takes IQ tests and that is the mathematical/analytical type or "math geek". I can't see someone that is good at the music or arts actually caring or limiting themselves in this kind of analytical way or at least not anywhere near to the same degree as a math geek with an inferiority complex would ( it's just a way to say I'm better than you for a person with no social skills). So all you have really proven is that math geeks who have better math type (analytical) skills than their fellow math geeks would probably do better in other areas of their life but that doesn't prove they would do better in other areas of life than people of differing types of intelligence that can't be bothered with the test (because it is not testing their key strength - how does an IQ test really test creative intelligence for example and because of that it doesn't appeal to someone with great creative intelligence so you are not getting a random sample set across the broad spectrum of intelligences). Basically then, an IQ test doesn't appeal to a broad spectrum of people with differing intelligences in the same way, and it doesn't test the various forms of intelligence in any real way because it is limited in its scope and nature so therefore I bet you can't really draw half the forced conclusions that book is trying to set up (and tell the audience of their book -math geeks- the things they want to hear).C Dick said:
I used to be a bit of a math geek too until I opened up my eyes and learned to appreciate the various forms of intelligence for what they were instead of limiting myself to what is traditionally thought of as intelligence. Anyone who thinks that because they did great on an IQ test it means they would do better than most other people in different facets of life that can't possibly be quantified in such a way as to be able to test it is really showing their ignorance as to the true nature of the test and what it actually means.
