ResolutePear wrote:You're really going to sit here and tell me that a History major can build nuclear bombs and particle accelerators with the sole skill of curiosity, aren't you? There is no amount of history that'll help you with these tasks.
I think engineering is just "more boring" to a whole lot of people who are intellectually "able" to handle it - for some reason or another, they just find it really dry.. so I guess what I'm saying is - engineering doesn't become "hard" just because its boring - its just what it is - boring - to a lot of people (not to me though)
Within engineering there are obviously varying degrees of difficulty - I don't think engineering is "hard" because its boring, sometimes it really is just hard. I couldn't understand electromagnetism no matter how hard I tried, and that was all there was to it. It wasn't because "I was bored and chose not to pursue it". Sure, there are a lot of intellectually capable people who chose not to "handle" engineering - hell, I have a friend who turned down MIT to major in history (she's doing great in it, too) but when you're looking at your average person, I would be willing to wager that there are more who could handle the humanities than those that could handle engineering.
This is not to say that there aren't many rigorous and intellectually challenging studies within non-engineering fields - so again, not depreciating the value of other areas of studies in any way. However, I would argue that an engineering degree is definitely harder to obtain than your average liberal arts & humanities degree because of the following:
- Generally a larger courseload (at my school, there are a LOT more hours required graduate for engineering)
- Completely objective grading (there's only one right answer, ever, and sometimes your professor is a sadist)
- Grade deflation (crushes the soul!) means you have to work a lot harder for that A
- Generally more time consuming (related to the above)