<p>I’m not a computer science major (I’m getting a minor in it, I’m a physics guy) but I’ve learned pretty fast that I hate formal language theory and automata. Not all that into proving program correctness or that type of thing. Basically, I don’t care for any of the theoretical computer science (though I love computer programming and software design). I’m definitely a continuous math guy, not a discrete math guy. I’m glad other people are studying it but it doesn’t interest me at all and having to take classes in it is just torture for me.</p>
<p>How 'bout you?</p>
<p>Anthropology. Anthropologists are about the most close-minded people you could imagine. Mention that the Sphinx has water damage and you’ll never get a job in academia again.</p>
<p>Cognitive psychology. Way too technical for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being open minded and believing crazy nutter theories with no evidence to commend them are two very different things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TRY bringing it up for discussion. Period. There’s no need to believe it, but numerous geologists agree that there’s water damage. Anthropologists refuse to hear anything of the sort. THAT is closed-minded. Open-minded would be to listen to the evidence and then make a conclusion based on that. Anthropologists look at their defined history and make calls based on that. It’s obnoxious and the reason I won’t be pursuing it in grad school.</p>
<p>BTW, that was just an example. My point was that many anthropologists are close-minded. They are, they really are. It’s because most who have new or innovative ideas are pushed out of the field very early.</p>
<p>I don’t hate it, but musical dictation is not my favorite thing. The “best” part was when other people in the class would hum along and screw me up because it would make me tense.</p>
<p>We can always count on good old Tom to complain about something</p>
<p>Anthropology and history:</p>
<p>Why exactly do we need to take so many math courses for these disaplines?</p>
<p>Also, I’ve never heard the spinx one before rofl. Another is the argument of which stone tool came first. Oh gods, a debate is started then.</p>
<p>People should probably put their majors as well if this is to make any sense. As a computer science major with a linguistics emphasis, formal languages/automata are one of my favorite things, but one thing I’m not a fan of is the assumption that CS majors are all aiming for cubicle jobs with silicon valley giants.</p>
<p>@romani: What is the significance of a water-damaged sphinx, besides a slightly different construction date?</p>
<p>^ Think a 10,000 year difference, as that was the last time rain damage could have caused that much damage.</p>
<p>I don’t know if I believe it or not, I just want the ability to have a debate about it rather than have it be shunned as simply “impossible”. After all, the earth older than 5000 years was “impossible” not too long ago.</p>
<p>I’m a biology major, and while I really like 90% of biology (especially genetics), I find organic chemistry to be interesting, but extraordinarily frustrating. I also considered physics, and while I really really like relativity theory, astronomy, etc. I find electricity and electromagnetism to be painfully boring (haha).</p>
<p>ecological theory. I’ve only studied a few so far but there are tons of them, and they’re a lot more complicated than I was expecting.</p>
<p>Economics. Econometrics is so tedious and boring. I hate statistics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:-D Most thoughts that enter my head are not complaints, but I find that message boards are the best venue for discussing things like that, so that’s why I come here. A message board where everybody talks about what a swell time they’re having is rather boring. Only by discussing problems can they be fixed.</p>
<p>romani, tectonic plate theory used to be considered quackery in geology, and Friedman’s notions about monetary policies and their effects were also considered heresy in economics, once upon a time. Both are now dominant paradigms in their respective fields. I don’t know much about this sphinx brouhaha (I’m doing some reading now) but if there is any truth to this water erosion idea, it’ll just be a matter of facts and maybe, JUUUUUUUUUUST maybe, a new generation of historians will have to wrestle Egyptology away from the currently prevailing generation.</p>
<p>I’ll be happy when Zahi Hawass is out of his role as head Egyptologist. He is the worst of the worst when it comes to not even looking at any new evidence about anything. He is an arrogant know-it-all and more or less controls all of Egyptian archaeology.</p>
<p>I’m a biology major and I think organic chemistry is probably the most infuriating classes I’ve ever had the misfortune of taking .</p>
<p>International relations/comparative politics. That stuff is honestly made up as you go along.</p>
<p>I hate when people make boards just to complain</p>