<p>...is a 4.00. All A's and a few A+'s sprinkled here and there. Pre-Polysci/Pre-History double major, I know, not exactly premed competition, but I'm not taking "easy" classes, either. Honestly I'm just flat-out bored. I thought I was signing up for a rigorous university experience, yet I've found that most of my peers don't think critically and don't share my level of pedagogical interest and intellect. Not only that, but damn, I'm not being academically challenged. One time I waited until 10 hours before an essay was due to start on it. This wasn't procrastination - it was intentional, just for kicks. I didn't so much as even glance at the prompt until 11:30pm the night before, didn't drink caffeine, and still ended up with a 99% on it. Another time, I had a TA in a history class ask me what graduate programs I was thinking of applying to. No, seriously. She actually thought I was a grad school-bound junior or senior based on the quality of my contributions in section, and when I told her I was just a freshman she was literally taken aback.</p>
<p>Obviously this thread is incredibly obnoxious and arrogant, but please tell me it gets harder from now on.</p>
<p>Good for you. Now take some premed classes “just for kicks” and you can see if you’re “academically challenged” there. Maybe if you still own at those premed classes, you’re just a freaking genius and should take over MENSA.</p>
<p>I suggest organic chemistry (choose the engineering 20 series for even more of a challenge) and a computer science course. For dessert, add in a couple organic labs. You will be pleasantly surprised.</p>
<p>All individuals inherently gravitate towards a particular subject matter/major/vocational choice. Try googling Holland Codes and see how they relate to academic subject areas. Mine is EIC, which (not coincidentally) corresponds with my majors. The fact that I’m studying these “easy” fields doesn’t mean I’m dumber or lazier than south campus majors; it just means that I don’t have the attitudinal predisposition that’s needed to study mathematics and the life/physical sciences. It’s the same reason why south campus majors as an aggregate can’t write for ***** You’re not predisposed towards being good writers.</p>
<p>You can’t quantify intelligence from one’s choice of major, and it’s ridiculous that south campus majors continue to trump up the difficulty of their classes. The only reason south campus has a reputation for being “hard” is because of the huge number of students taking south campus classes who don’t belong there in the first place. In other words, they have Holland Codes suitable for north campus majors, but they’re flunking OChem and Calc because they’re desperate to make the big bucks that surgeons and engineers make, or because their parents are forcing them to.</p>
<p>History and Poli Sci classes “ARE” easier than South Campuses courses. I don’t know what classes you took, but a lot of pre reqs, like Poli Sci 40, History 1C, and even GEs like Art and Architecture 10 are joke classes that are super easy to get As in.</p>
<p>South campus courses are harder because they have a curve. It means that even if you score 95/100 on your Chemistry exam, you can still end up getting a C- because the median was probably a 98 with a standard deviation of 1.</p>
<p>There are no curves in Poli Sci or History classes. Courses like Chem 14A are required to give out a limited percentage of A’s (less than 15%, and that accounts for A+, A, A-). Meanwhile courses like History 9C (History of Japan) 40% of the class gets A’s. Why do you think many football players and other Athletes are North Campus majors?</p>
<p>OP, for a very “smart” guy, your post reveals a lot of immaturity, ignorance, and elitism. Have you asked your friends who are taking Chem14A, Chem20A, LS1-4, or any Engineering class, what it is actually like? At UCLA, the median GPA for engineers is very low compared to students at College of Letters and Science. I suppose those engineering students are just stupid and not gifted like you are. Maybe they should’ve majored in History and gotten a 4.0 instead of studying a useful, vocational subject.</p>
<p>P.S. I was originally a Biochemistry major. I’m a History major now. History is significantly easier.</p>
<p>You are really one conceited individual. Look at your post. You admit that you “believe” to some extent in the Holland Codes and that you study what matches your personality, something that your ALREADY GOOD AT AND ENJOY, so why wouldn’t you do well. If you want a challenge, you will find something HARD and study it. not easy (relative to you).</p>
<p>What did you do this year at UCLA theHutt?
Were you one of those people who was either in class or in your room? Were you constantly on your computer looking for random people on the internet to share an intellectual conversation with?</p>
<p>Oh, and one last thing - you’re right that you can’t quantify intelligence, at least book smarts, from majors, but you can to some degree quantify street smarts. What are you gonna do with that history/poli-sci degree? Seriously, it seems like you have one road ahead of you - law school. That looks like your only option compared to anyone in south campus. </p>
<p>Oh and before you knock on me and say I’m a ______ studies major, I’m a Biz-Econ major with a 3.9 my first year, so yeah, I didn’t get your lucid 4.0… Is it really a big deal, **** no. </p>
<p>I suggest you fill out that transfer application ASAP. Head over to an intellectual school that will challenge you, because clearly UCLA is failing. If I were you, I would get my judicial skills prepped early by filing a lawsuit against UCLA (maybe you can find a few to go class-action with you) for failing to deliver on their contract with you.</p>
<p>Boo effin’ hoo. University, at least where I’m from (England), isn’t about your teachers doing anything for you, about them making it too easy or too hard. If it’s too easy for you, do something about it, try and get grad courses or do some independent studies classes and write your book or whatever. Or just **** and get your easy easy degree. This is so not a serious problem. If you were in high school I’d understand, I often felt quite under-challenged in sixth form (last two years of high school for the US) but that’s because at that stage you’re totally dependent on teachers. At university it’s not at all, you make of it what you want.</p>
<p>i have a 4, ive taken a years worth of more classes, and im getting an engineering degree.</p>
<p>looking for a challenge? i promise you real life will be MUCH harder than school, once you get out it in the real world and see how hard it is to make a living, especially with a history degree (4.0 and all). no need to start a thread on yourself man.</p>
<p>you can double major in LESS UNITS combined versus 1 science degree. Not to mention with social science courses you can easily take 20 + units. With Science courses hell no you can’t take 20 + units!</p>
<p>haha seriously! Get a f*#ing life! Are you looking for praise? I consider your path void of all bragging rights! you are just like most other students. set yourself apart with all your self-proclaimed creativity and intellectual ability…</p>
<p>No, most of us go for ~16 units per quarter.</p>
<p>I really don’t think you’re trying to be conceited and arrogant ******bag in this thread. I think you’re just bored and disappointed with your major/academic life. You said you like what you do so you shouldn’t change that just to be more challenged. Unfortunately, not all of your peers in your subject area are as intelligent as you seem to be (if any).</p>
<p>So like someone else said in this thread, I’d suggest starting/joining a club, getting a job, or taking up to the unit cap each quarter if you want an extra challenge. There’s no point in changing majors into something you’ll be miserable in just to “be challenged.”</p>
<p>You may have chosen history as a major because you like it and are good at it but keep in mind that there are most likely a lot of other people who chose it for a very different reason (if you know what I mean).</p>
<p>yeah, UCLA is not very stimulating intellectually. But this is just the university system at play, and not so much a reflection on UCLA’s academic quality. I’m a history major too, and my GPA is not as good as yours, but that is because I’ve grown bored and listless. Whatever. At least you’re younger than me. You still have time to change your major into something a bit more competitive. Also, like others mentioned, try getting a job or a research position or an internship or something. Anything. Write a blog, write a book, do your own historical research. UCLA is more of an aid to help YOU develop yourself intellectually (and beyond), not the primary tool!</p>
<p>And remember, if you’re bored then your boring. I don’t mean that in a mean way; it’s how I remind myself that I’m the cause of my own joy or displeasure.</p>
<p>Wow. You can spin it however you want to, but south campus classes are harder, and they are a hell of a lot harder to get A’s in. And no, they are not just harder because of the number of crazy premeds in the classes. Does that contribute? Sure. But to say that the difficulty of the material in south campus classes and north campus classes is comparable is laughable. You can write an essay without looking at the prompt until the night before? Good for you. Try that studying the night before crap in a chem class and see how much material you absorb. Then get back to us. Thanks.</p>
<p>I’d personally have a 3.7gpa and not feel the need to make threads just to find some sort of recognition from others. Maybe you should just wear a shirt that has your gpa on it and walk around ucla, it will probably reach a lot more people than this tread.</p>
You’re right, obviously on balance south campus classes are more difficult than north campus classes on the basis of grading policies alone. The rationale for this is that there is a need to distinguish between “excellent” students and “exceptional” students, and the way to do that is to create a grading distribution with an artificially high standard deviation. That doesn’t speak to the difficulty of the course material, but it does mean that the grading practices require a higher degree of mastery over the material to get an A than in north campus classes.</p>
Again, choice of major isn’t an indicator of intelligence. A lot of my friends take those classes, spend a lot of time studying, and they’re really smart in those areas. They would certainly own me in terms of their ability in Chem and whatnot, and I would likewise probably beat them down in a political or historical discussion. My post is not a commentary on the difficulty of science classes, it is a commentary on absence of a more challenging curriculum presented by the history and political science departments.</p>
A challenge doesn’t equate to forcing myself to toil in something I hate. It means pushing myself to work harder at something I love. Obviously, the genius math student is ALREADY GOOD AT AND ENJOYS math, but in south campus he’ll still be challenged. That’s not true with students like myself.
No, I actually have a few ECs with like-minded individuals that satisfy my intellectual needs. One of which, I might add, is a competitive, traveling, inter-university academic team that’s ranked top-15 in the nation. My social life is just fine, thanks.
Sometimes I hate that I was born to be a history guy instead of the science/math genius who can make big bucks and be on the cutting edge of everything. Sure, I’ll probably wind up in law school barring a segue into academia. Doesn’t matter to me, though, at least I’ll be happy with myself.
Good advice on all fronts, although I’m already heavily involved with ECs on campus, and also off campus with volunteering to teach/mentor LAUSD kids. Don’t get me wrong, outside the classroom, UCLA has been phenomenal. I’m just looking for more intellectual stimulation inside of it. (Taking more classes, while something I’ll probably do this quarter, doesn’t necessarily provide that…it’s just a larger quantity of the same stuff).</p>
An all-nighter on an essay isn’t comparable to an all-nighter cramming for a chem exam. When you write an essay, you’re not “absorbing” material, you’re expressing it. Students write essays after having studied the material for weeks beforehand - the essay is simply a measure of how well you understood that material. If you’re cramming for a chem exam the night before, you’re not expressing anything, just studying. Two different things.
I’m not looking for commendations, frankly I was borderline ■■■■■■■■ with the OP (I obviously succeeded, didn’t I?). If bragging was my goal I wouldn’t be posting anonymously. I just need to know that I’ll be challenged academically once I move beyond these lower division prereqs.</p>