Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's pretty easy to understand..., Engineering demands the necessary aptitude to develop the quantitative skills in order to obtain the degree itself. You simply mixed up the order of what was written and misunderstood your own interpretation. It happens all the time on this board.
Sorry, I still don't follow, Engineering is more demanding because it demands the necessary aptitude to develop the quantitative skills in order to obtain the degree? How do your assertions explain in what way Engineering is more demanding?
If all you're saying is that Engineering is more demanding in the sorts of skills that Engineering teaches than you're not saying anything at all....
Sorry, I still don't follow, Engineering is more demanding because it demands the necessary aptitude to develop the quantitative skills in order to obtain the degree? How do your assertions explain in what way Engineering is more demanding?
If all you're saying is that Engineering is more demanding in the sorts of skills that Engineering teaches than you're not saying anything at all....
In laymen's terms...people find engineering to be too "difficult" to seek out the right help or commit the necessary amount of time to grasp the demands (demand being the operative word here) of the subject matter (subject matter being the the mathematical/quantitative skills). I think that's pretty much the easiest way to say it without actually saying "math is simply too hard for some people."
"A recent study found that undergraduate business majors study less than other students, and lag behind in assessments of critical thinking and writing skills -- scoring lower than students in education and communications, and well behind liberal arts majors."
Whats your opinion on the Nation's most popular degree?
When I was in college at a D1 school in what is now the Big East conference, the football players were almost all business majors. I think an MBA is great, but the undergrad should be in something more weighty.
In laymen's terms...people find engineering to be too "difficult" to seek out the right help or commit the necessary amount of time to grasp the demands (demand being the operative word here) of the subject matter (subject matter being the the mathematical/quantitative skills). I think that's pretty much the easiest way to say it without actually saying "math is simply too hard for some people."
So its more demanding because you think others think its too difficult on some level? I thought you were trying to say that there was something intrinsically more demanding about Engineering, instead you're just talking about your perception of others perceptions of the subject.
I'm sure math is too difficult for some people, not sure what that has to do with Engineering being more demanding than other subjects though.
I majored in business and aced everyone of my liberal arts/humanities/social science classes, with ease. Also studied way more than my liberal arts dorm mates at the time. There's just no way any can sit there with a straight face and tell me that Sociology 200 or English 5 (common among Liberal majors) are more rigorous than business staples such as Calculus 2, Trig 10 or Accounting 400 or Finance 300.
Part of the difference could be that liberal arts (and science) majors tend to be passionate about, or at least interested in, their subjects in the abstract, whereas business majors are often more concerned with getting jobs and making money. Of course a person is going to study more if s/he is actually interested in the subject for its own sake.
Also, business degrees at the undergraduate level are comparatively recent. The old liberal arts curriculum was designed to teach students critical thinking and writing. The specific subject matter, be it history, philosophy or literature, was almost irrelevant. People studied philosophy, not to become professional philosophers, but to learn how to read very complex texts closely and write about them clearly. These are precisely the skills that the article says business majors lack.
There's just no way any can sit there with a straight face and tell me that Sociology 200 or English 5 (common among Liberal majors) are more rigorous than business staples such as Calculus 2, Trig 10 or Accounting 400 or Finance 300.
Firstly, sociology is not a liberal arts, its a social science. Secondly, more rigorous in what sense? More homework? More study time? More in-depth?
I certainly never found basic mathematics courses like Calculus 2 or Trig (Trig isn't even college level...btw) any more difficult than say an English class, in fact I had to put more effort into English classes.
The old liberal arts curriculum was designed to teach students critical thinking and writing. The specific subject matter, be it history, philosophy or literature, was almost irrelevant.
The old liberal arts curriculum? Like when? These majors have been around for a while and each have a different idea about "critical thinking". I mean, History and English students aren't even required to take a logic course, yet people claim that these majors teach critical thinking? Philosophy both today and in the past has been the only liberal arts major that can seriously claim to teach critical thinking. But I suppose the idea is that students in English and History learn it via osmosis from the Philosophy department? I don't know...
Part of the difference could be that liberal arts (and science) majors tend to be passionate about, or at least interested in, their subjects in the abstract, whereas business majors are often more concerned with getting jobs and making money. Of course a person is going to study more if s/he is actually interested in the subject for its own sake.
Also, business degrees at the undergraduate level are comparatively recent. The old liberal arts curriculum was designed to teach students critical thinking and writing. The specific subject matter, be it history, philosophy or literature, was almost irrelevant. People studied philosophy, not to become professional philosophers, but to learn how to read very complex texts closely and write about them clearly. These are precisely the skills that the article says business majors lack.
Business degrees now perform worse in regards to income compared to Philosophy, Political Science, and history. So business, for the most part, fails in every category.
"What's ironic about this glut of business majors is this: The students, often egged on by their parents, are pursuing their vocational degree because they assume that it's the ticket to a six-figure income. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise.
When PayScale conducted its latest annual survey of starting and mid-career salaries for college grads in dozens of college majors, business came in as the 60th best-paying college degree. It fared worse than such supposedly impractical degrees as history, political science and philosophy."
Hmmmm.....don't know which report you looked at, but the Payscale 2010-2011 report is linked below:
The only liberal arts major in the top 20 is economics.
Finance ranked 18th at career mid-point. Accounting is not so special at 45.
Political Science ranked 37th, the other you list were lower.
It would be nice if you didn't make up data.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
