Is everyone that good? Forum

[foles]

.

[gnomgnomuch]

YES!!! So many people I know who are in STEM fields think they're SOOOOOO smart because they're taking physics or something. One of them once told me that my degree (poli sci) was the easiest class he took. After some probing, I found out that he took the introduction to government poli-sci class that basically teaches how our government is set up. He actually equated that ONE INTRO CLASS with the entirety of the poli-sci degree. Then, when I told him I took chem 1001 (science req) and aced it he told me "but thats the intro class, those are super easy."

Uh, no? Intro classes are infamously weed-out classes.

Ok, then I took a weed-out class and aced it. If anything that just means I could have "made it" in a STEM field. My point was that judging an entire major and the people in that major as intellectually inferior is wrong, and it's wayyyy more wrong (both factually and morally) when judging based on the first introductory class in that program.

[omegaweapon]

"S looks at softs" is a flame imho

FWIW, I got in at YH and wait-listed at S, so there's something at least a little holistic going on.

[jbagelboy]

This thread/OP is the worst

[lavarman84]

Gotta respect the fact that OP didn't even try to humble brag. He (or she) just went straight for it.

[appind]

seems OP was also sorta baited into it by one of those who judged writing skills based on a typo on an online forum

[Mack.Hambleton]

"S looks at softs" is a flame imho

FWIW, I got in at YH and wait-listed at S, so there's something at least a little holistic going on.

The thing about Y and S is that they're much more focused on softs than everyone else, but still lots of people with average softs get in each year (more so at S). It's unpredictable but a lot of 172/3.9s get into Stanford each year, and those with super high stats 175/3.9+ get into Yale too sometimes based on essentially just their stats (you can look at LSN and see people who are KJD, ORM etc getting in).

[Instinctive]

"S looks at softs" is a flame imho

FWIW, I got in at YH and wait-listed at S, so there's something at least a little holistic going on.

The thing about Y and S is that they're much more focused on softs than everyone else, but still lots of people with average softs get in each year (more so at S). It's unpredictable but a lot of 172/3.9s get into Stanford each year, and those with super high stats 175/3.9+ get into Yale too sometimes based on essentially just their stats (you can look at LSN and see people who are KJD, ORM etc getting in).

My read on it is that S is less about softs and more about "fit." Which I realize is a soft in and of itself, but my point is that it isn't about what impressive thing you've done as much as it is Faye asking, "Do I think he/she will fit here?"

[Ken Kesey]

Wtf are you ~4.0's in math/econ doing going to law school?

I'm also applying to MFIN and MFE programs. If I get into my top choice finance program, i'll probably go for it. However, if I don't, I would like to go to a top 5 law school.

What's top 5? Also, it'll be terribly sad when you end up with median grades at law school despite being so much smarter with your math and econ background

By top 5, I mean HYSCC. BTW, I only took 1 month to prep for the LSAT because I also took the GMAT

You should totally go to law school. Hiring partners would love to hear how smart you think you are.

But in all seriousness, the way you're acting leads me to believe you have terrible social skills so you should probably stick with the master of finance. The practice of law requires a lot of interpersonal interaction, which you have shown you can't go two seconds without bragging about yourself.

[salander]

YES!!! So many people I know who are in STEM fields think they're SOOOOOO smart because they're taking physics or something. One of them once told me that my degree (poli sci) was the easiest class he took. After some probing, I found out that he took the introduction to government poli-sci class that basically teaches how our government is set up. He actually equated that ONE INTRO CLASS with the entirety of the poli-sci degree. Then, when I told him I took chem 1001 (science req) and aced it he told me "but thats the intro class, those are super easy."

Uh, no? Intro classes are infamously weed-out classes.

Depends on the school and department. They weren't at mine. (If anything, the STEM departments generally tried to entice majors, and therefore generally offered among the easiest / most "fun" intro courses.) On the other hand, my friend went to a school where the Art History 101 class was the most widely acknowledged weed-out intro class. And I know one other top school where arguably the hardest department is Film.

Different folks have different skills, and STEM and humanities and social sciences all require different skills. Being able to ace a problem set or memorize and apply a complicated formula or design and execute a successful lab aren't greater or lesser skills than being able to write a beautiful paper on Madame Bovary or pull apart a philosophical argument. That we live in a society where there is any question about this is, IMO, a sad reflection of the deeply routed sexism that still underlies folks' assumptions about the world. I think it is no coincidence that the majors where the professors and the students are predominantly male are the "hard" majors, and the majors where the professors and the students are predominantly female are the "easy" majors.

For what it's worth, I have a HYS-level STEM graduate degree in addition to my HYS JD. For me, the STEM degree was far easier. I had to work substantially less for better grades, and ultimately finished higher in my class.

Totally agree with you on the two requiring different skills part. However, I think you can legitimately say that a specific major at a specific school requires more or less work than another major at that same school (but not necessarily who is smarter!)

Another important thing to consider here is grade inflation. Those subjects which are perceived to hold students to higher standards inevitably command more respect. This can go either way for STEM or the humanities; STEM just happens to have built a reputation for grade deflation in college.

Jumping on the anecdotal bandwagon... English was treated as one of the hardest subjects at my high school thanks to the work required to receive an A. Now in college, however, the humanities subjects are seen as some of the easiest subjects due to their grade inflation at my school. (Emphasis on the "at my school" part—of course this isn't to say that the humanities subjects are grade-inflated at every school in the country.)

[salander]

seems OP was also sorta baited into it by one of those who judged writing skills based on a typo on an online forum

+1

[PoopyPants]

Want to know what bugs me? When people think they're smarter than other people because of what they chose to study. It's cool that you think you can self-select intelligence. I'd discourage you from thinking that poli sci/english/ "soft" (?) majors aren't smart, despite being able to write well. Do you want to know what's completely useless? A STEM major who can't communicate their work. Want to know what else is useless? A social science or humanities major who can't analyze. There are plenty of STEM majors that could easily have chosen social sciences or humanities to study and done very well, just like there are plenty of social sciences or humanities majors who could have studied STEM fields and done very well. Don't pretend you know how hard or easy fields of study are until you've done them yourself. And no, I'm not simply suggesting we dabble in intro classes them make sweeping judgments about the difficulty of learning that field of study. Please consider the other side before launching an attack on something you evidently don't know much about, especially on a website filled with people, many of whom are social sciences and humanities majors, who like to argue and call people out when they need to be.

I majored in English and in Math. I will never argue that choice of major is any indication of intelligence, but I will argue that landing an extremely high GPA in a STEM major may be more impressive than in a "soft" major, depending, of course, on too many factors for it to mean anything.

One of the most intelligent guys I've met was my English advisor and Shakespeare professor. Absolutely brilliant guy who saw things in those works that most scholars didn't even catch. But, my English courses differed from my math courses in that I could get good grades without really using much intellect. You don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to get As in Shakespeare, but you do need a solid grasp of mathematics to get As in the upper level major courses.

That said, dick measuring based on GPA and LSAT scores are certainly signs of immaturity. And if that "gentleman" thinks that those lowly English or poli-sci majors are going to be at a disadvantage in a field that emphasizes good writing skills, that, I think, is a better indicator of his intelligence.

I didn't want to post anything about it using my own scores because I'm just PTing, but I'm about to graduate with a 3.92 math degree (a 3.86 if you include the English degree), and I've PTed 178-180. I also have several publications (scholarly and fiction), including a law journal article. And I did it while having an infant under a year, another baby on the way, and being active duty Navy with underways, training and a deployment now.

But I wouldn't use that as a way to say I'm smarter than anyone, because those arbitrary factors are meaningless without context.

[shump92]

I agree with the grade inflation discussion and I think it goes both ways. STEM majors usually use a normal distribution for grades, whereas other majors do a combination of approximate quotas and subjective feel at the margins. So sometimes it is really hard to jump from an A- to an A or a B+ to an A-, and humanities courses almost never give out A+s. But it's obviously hard to be in the top 20% of an intelligent class, so STEM majors are more likely to have a few Bs.

I used to be a hardcore numbers person. I thought CS was really cool, but just not applicable enough. I'm fairly confident that at the top end, most students could easily have done well on the other side of the major spectrum.

[salander]

I agree with the grade inflation discussion and I think it goes both ways. STEM majors usually use a normal distribution for grades, whereas other majors do a combination of approximate quotas and subjective feel at the margins. So sometimes it is really hard to jump from an A- to an A or a B+ to an A-, and humanities courses almost never give out A+s. But it's obviously hard to be in the top 20% of an intelligent class, so STEM majors are more likely to have a few Bs.

I used to be a hardcore numbers person. I thought CS was really cool, but just not applicable enough. I'm fairly confident that at the top end, most students could easily have done well on the other side of the major spectrum.

What do you mean by not finding CS "applicable enough"?

[shump92]

I agree with the grade inflation discussion and I think it goes both ways. STEM majors usually use a normal distribution for grades, whereas other majors do a combination of approximate quotas and subjective feel at the margins. So sometimes it is really hard to jump from an A- to an A or a B+ to an A-, and humanities courses almost never give out A+s. But it's obviously hard to be in the top 20% of an intelligent class, so STEM majors are more likely to have a few Bs.

I used to be a hardcore numbers person. I thought CS was really cool, but just not applicable enough. I'm fairly confident that at the top end, most students could easily have done well on the other side of the major spectrum.

What do you mean by not finding CS "applicable enough"?

To my interests. I am very aware that CS is a great major for certain types of placement right now.

[salander]

I agree with the grade inflation discussion and I think it goes both ways. STEM majors usually use a normal distribution for grades, whereas other majors do a combination of approximate quotas and subjective feel at the margins. So sometimes it is really hard to jump from an A- to an A or a B+ to an A-, and humanities courses almost never give out A+s. But it's obviously hard to be in the top 20% of an intelligent class, so STEM majors are more likely to have a few Bs.

I used to be a hardcore numbers person. I thought CS was really cool, but just not applicable enough. I'm fairly confident that at the top end, most students could easily have done well on the other side of the major spectrum.

What do you mean by not finding CS "applicable enough"?

To my interests.

Fair enough. I thought you meant to the world for a second there