<p>I have to wonder if many people are simply anti-social science/humanities. From experience, I personally don’t find most of those significantly less rigorous (psyche is actually pretty hard, I don’t know how other places do it) as they are generally more writing intensive and require a more intense commitment outside of class and often in class. If anything, it’s the grading that’s annoyingly soft at times (w/exception of psyche, English, history, and polisci where even getting a “fair” grader can screw you if you don’t put out quality work). I guess LAC-like places (most which don’t have engineering) don’t have as much animosity toward these type of majors, because I don’t see it that much (many/most science/math math students double major in such disciplines. I thought Vandy was similar or is it not?).</p>
<p>I don’t care for that Torch article. Seems to be passing judgement based upon a weak introductory course. I’m sure that if the student does some exploring, he’ll find many other weak introductory sequences or courses throughout Vanderbilt just as at other elite schools (many will be in what is deemed as particularly or somewhat strong majors). They contradicted themselves when they essentially said: “I’m not judging based upon this…”, but basically did so throughout the whole article.</p>