What are the easiest majors here?

[sakky]

<p>

The hardest class I’ve had my first two years at Cal was Comp Lit 1A, I’ve never worked as hard for a C.

</p>

<p>Yeah, and how about your last two years at Cal? </p>

<p>

The concept of a major’s difficulty is pretty subjective. A lot of engineers are pretty skilled at the scientific structure of the coursework but very uncomfortable at the open-ended essay-based approach in a lot of social science classes, and vice versa.

</p>

<p>Yet numerous national studies attest to the extremely high rates of attrition in engineering (and natural science) majors, something for which there is no comparison in the humanities and many social science majors. </p>

<p>One can also consider what Berkeley’s own undergraduate colloqiuum found.</p>

<p>“The physical sciences and engineering had rigorous grading standards roughly in line with the recommendations from 1976,” stated Rine, “while the humanities and social sciences in many classes had all but given up on grades below a B, and in many courses below an A-”</p>

<p>[Undergraduate</a> Education Colloquium, The College of Letters and Science, UC Berkeley](<a href=“http://ls.berkeley.edu/undergrad/colloquia/04-11.html]Undergraduate”>http://ls.berkeley.edu/undergrad/colloquia/04-11.html)</p>

<p>

I don’t think the grading differential makes that much difference, because graduate schools and many employers are aware of it and factor it in. I got into top MBA programs with a pretty low undergrad engineering GPA.

</p>

<p>Yeah, because MBA programs don’t place a high emphasis on grades, instead keying on work experience. Law and medicine, as I’m sure you know, are quite different. </p>

<p>Besides, if you are right, and grading differentials don’t make much of a difference anyway, then there is no reason not to change them to make them more aligned with each other. After all, if grad schools and employers really do factor in the GPA differentials as you assert, then they would be able to change them again in the face of a new grading scheme. </p>

<p>

The one variable that is more objective is the workload differential between majors, and there architecture and CS are near the top of the scale.

</p>

<p>And that just begs the question - why? Specifically, why don’t the ‘gut’ majors simply assign more work, and then give failing grades to those students who don’t do the extra work? There seems to be no reason not to do this; that is, unless one wants to defend student laziness. After all, if it’s good for the engineering students to have to learn how to work hard, then it should also be good for all of the other students to also have to learn how to work hard.</p>