Hmm…good point.I don’t like that because it assumes too much. Sometimes it isn’t the major but how it is pursued. For example, I know many psyche majors who took more research method oriented classes that also required the use of computational skills in a particular programming language. This was also often the case among the many that pursued research in the field (I’ve known some psyche majors who have to mostly do coding and programming for their researc). Many CS majors I know don’t even do research and many don’t even pursue internships to apply what they learned. In addition, there is also the assumption that all CS classes are high quality just because of the exposure which I do not think is true. I know the MATLAB class at Georgia Tech, for example, primarily emphasizes memorizing code and taking computer graded exams (this could be hard but maybe in the “wrong” way) whereas the equivalent class elsewhere may emphasize more project based and immersive learning experiences that makes sure that students “own” the material and are able to personalize it. Depending on how such classes are taught, they could be encouraging creativity or they could be doing something else. And I’m sure students, when they have a choice or many sections to choose from, will probably choose a more rote class if possible as it is simply less demanding and grades are much more predictable.
There is a lot of trickery to be accounted for when considering majors and course and instructor selection. Many do not want the risk that comes with learning something better so naturally we take shortcuts that allow us to get the course on the transcript with a good grade, but without necessarily the best instruction. Sometimes, difference between 2 sections is night and day to the point where the better section finds out and starts complaining. The issue of rigor and training now is an issue of fairness. Again, there needs to be more ways of proving how well one was trained in a particular area, especially if they didn’t get an A. I know when I would see pre-meds, for example, back at Emory take a more difficult instructor for organic chemistry, and the get to know the professor well, I would advise them to ask for a rec. letter if they got at least a B and showed improvement between the 2 semesters (as in B/B- one and then B+/A- the next). Often difficult instructors explain when they do things differently than others and attest to the work ethic and grit needed to get in a certain range or to improve in the course.
There still is the odd perception that STEM is a) harder and b) more valuable than the humanities or other fields.
And frankly I think that’s the refuge of those who would have bombed out in those other fields, who don’t have any sensitivity or depth or nuance, who would be horrible about providing empathetic psychological counseling or couldn’t see anything novel in a piece of literature or couldn’t compose music or couldn’t figure out how to run a successful communications campaign or whatever - and so rather than admit that there are fields that are worthwhile that they just aren’t talented at, wipe them away with a pathetic “oh, those are the easy majors.”
It says more about them than it does about humanities majors, frankly. And what it says about them is not flattering in the slightest.
"From a different source, a former recruiter for one of the elite consulting firms wrote that they use a minimum of 750 math and a M plus V combine well over 1500 as an initial screen. "
Goody for them. I fail to see why you seem to think that what these firms do is all-so-important.
Getting back to the title of this thread: I went to a pretty rigorous university with a reputation for grade deflation; if it matters, I majored in two pretty rigorous subjects (chemistry and English) while I was there. This college was fairly well-known in the region of my youth, but sometimes I think no one has heard of it here in the Midwest. (“Isn’t that a suburb of Chicago?”)
All this is to say - who cares if no one else has heard of it? I didn’t choose it because I cherished the opinions of strangers, but because it was reputed to be challenging and offered small class sizes and relationships with professors. I had no clue what its ranking was, and I’m glad my parents helped send me there.
Again, this is CC, we must cherish the opinions of strangers. It matters much more than our actual education. Prestige, a good time, and being rewarded with a good job because of the “education” we pretended to get…I mean received, is what it is all about
@bernie12, I would not say that most smart kids would prefer memorization classes, though obviously, we are all biased by who we hang around.
@pizzagirl, there was another poster who noted that there exists many more STEM majors who can get an A in a graduate level English or philosophy class than there exists English majors who can get an A in any graduate level STEM class (granted, there exists philosophy majors who can handle graduate-level STEM classes).
@PurpleTitan: Most “smart” kids don’t. I know that for a fact. My peer group was mainly those who did not prefer those classes, but I am talking about a lot of STEM majors, especially those in life sciences. I don’t assume that most STEM majors are “smart” beyond their record in HS (which rewarded memorization often). In addition, it may not be “preference” in terms of liking to learn that way, but a mere recognition that learning and being assessed on rote memorization is certainly easier and more comfortable based upon the skills that got us through many HS courses. It is often less risky to go with what we know even if we know, internally, the other route is more beneficial in the long run.
Graduate level courses are not the best example because they all grade inflate and are almost peripheral to graduate training. Graduate English Classes likely continue in the tradition of the undergraduate courses by giving nearly everyone A/A- whereas the graduate STEM courses are more likely to curve to B/B+. In addition, the two disciplines are built differently. STEM classes, especially at the graduate level require knowledge from lower division courses whereas humanities courses will often not build upon each other (this isn’t to suggest that the UG STEM classes do so. Some are so memorization oriented that you could learn them in a vacuum without the pre-reqs. You’ll understand it less, but you can still make an A because actual understanding isn’t required). I remembered taking my cell biology class, both the undergraduate and the graduate version, and I had a distinct advantage partially coming from my chemistry background which taught me to problem solve and partially coming from taking more challenging social science courses which honed quick reading skills and thinking on the spot. The UG instructor was unusual (he was the honors biol instructor I referred to before. He now teaches cell. biol and epigenetics) in that his class was only based on primary research articles and case studies.
Likewise, his exams were just 3-5 research abstracts often on issues that were tangential to the research articles and techniques emphasized in class. You pretty much had to figure out a way to rather quickly connect what you were exposed to in class to whatever abstract you just read and the questions being asked. Sometimes it would require quite the creative spirit or at least being able to think ones way out of a box (played right into my hands!). And the first part was understanding what the heck you were reading (because often the abstracts were describing genes and phenomenon you hadn’t learned about but had to derive a model for). Likewise, the grad. class would have similar prompts except honestly with less hints. The UG course would have “leading” prompts that ask students to relate the abstract back to a concept covered in class (I guess this is to jog our memory or reorient our thinking toward something we should know. Of course, even with this, for those who can’t think, it goes downhill once you get to prompts associated with the abstract that say: “explain and draw a model for this weird phenomenon and why it occurs only under these conditions”, “design a therapy for this”, “design experiments that will distinguish between these two hypotheses and be sure to explain the results you would expect”. That is usually the sequence for each abstract, 1 easy and 2 tough, and 1 tough and tedious), but the problems in the grad. class were kind of more open ended in that they just presented some data on some phenomenon (sometimes ones not presented in class) from a set of experiments and you had to figure out whatever concept was relevant to help you along the way. There was no “leading”. You either figured out some familiar connection and was able to use the data to defend your response or you were SOL. The thing about the grades may be true, but I can’t deny that taking more serious non-science classes didn’t make me sharper in STEM classes that veered from the standard regurgitation protocol. There is no way I would have picked up those skills in previous biology courses. I would be loaded with content knowledge with no idea how to use it and would have been like my peers who were slapped in the face by the UG version (they literally didn’t know how to take that sort of exam and until then took biol classes with averages hardly ever dipping below 80 or even 85 because they are so straight forward. It shows when his means are 65-75).
Not only would I not want to work for a company that demanded the scores from a “test” that someone took while they were 17, but I wouldn’t want to do business with them either. Shows very poor judgement IMO.
I don’t even remember my SAT score and many of my friends only took the ACT.
When I was in college, and in the ensuing decade, conventional wisdom held that women’s colleges had never implemented the grade inflation that existed elsewhere because women were not subject to the Vietnam-era draft and professors did not worry about placing their student deferments in jeopardy by failing them. I’ve heard since then that it was a myth, but it was certainly widely believed. Some women’s colleges fell by the wayside, but others have survived and retain excellent reputations for academic rigor. I think a young woman who graduates at the top of her class from Bryn Mawr or Wellesley will be perceived as having as strong an academic foundation as anyone anywhere by anyone who knows anything.
IMHO, STEM majors are held in higher esteem because that is where the money is. That fact hit home to me this Spring. D got a degree in social science major from Ivy league college. Boyfriend got degree in STEM major from same college. GPAs almost identical. Both applied to Phd programs (D in social science, boyfriend in STEM). He was flown to every grad interview, lodging / meals paid for…she was lucky she got a link to google maps! Her, out of 4 interviewed, offered full assistantship at 1. Him, offered tuition remission & 30K stipend at all 5 he interviewed.
Broad generalizations for social studies vs STEM majors are often inaccurate. This includes generalizations about where the money is. It is unlikely that you are comparing economics and biology majors if you are suggesting that the STEM major is where the money is.
@ucbalumnus : Bingo! The most marketable of STEM majors are honestly may CS, engineering, and math (and the actuary friend I referred to was econ/math joint major). Also, anecdotal evidence from interview rounds of all things is not the best. For example, when it comes to life science and physical sciences, the phenomenon of full stipends and whatnot is because many are going into the life sciences as a fast path to medicine which is indeed where the money is (which is why med. schools don’t do things like stipends…it is in high demand). The idea is that they have to pay someone (like me) to risk attempting to pursue a career in research whether it be industry (which many mentors may not even support their students doing) or academia.
BTW: I pulled some numbers ucbalum: This upcoming fall there are already 120 students enrolled in foundations of math and the 50 person section has a waitlist. The foundations class is the last course or highest level courses that joint majors need to complete and is like midway for many full math majors. Of course physics and applied physics majors do not have to take it at all. Also note that math majors (BS) are told to complete this foundation of math by the end of sophomore year. Most joint majors I know take it junior or senior year. Last spring, about 115 took it. So even if we don’t have that many BA and BS majors, there are HUGE amount taking beyond the typical requirements for say, engineering, physics, or chemistry majors. On top of this, the foundations requirement seems stringent compared to many places because most just say: single variable, multivariable, diff eq, lin. alg, and then “take whatever you want for the remaining x classes”, but we throw that one in whether you are a BA, BS, or joint major. That is why I use it as a approximation tool. Physics majors don’t have to take it for example, so likely only joint majors and straight up math majors would take it. If I am still wrong on the amount of joint majors (which are with social sciences or CS) and majors at Emory even after that accounting, it is something to be proud of that that many students at a medium sized private school are willing to that far in math.
@jym626 You mean, the school? Emory…lemme know if you were talking about something else.
Here is the website: http://quantitative.emory.edu/index.html Hopefully it will develop into something really good (as in more controlled than the math dept). They already have undergraduate research fellowships which I think is a good thing and shows that they are serious about immersing the UG’s. Most of our best depts have either connections to or host such programs.