I was in the philosophy & biology program, so I think I have a good opinion of both. I think most science students only care about grades, with competitive environment which fosters stress & closed-mindedness (from what I've noticed). While the humanities courses present so much conflicting information that there's no definiteness, thus people suffer from open-mindedness (remember, both can be bad in the extreme).

So both faculties have good & bad qualities, as it true for anything. But how they are currently, I wonder if the majority is fine with that?

Heh, anyone who's ever been told to grab a spatula at welcome week is well aware of the academic caste system. When I was in history, we looked down on the poli sci kids. When I was in poli sci, we looked down at the labour studies kids. Now I'm in econ and I just feel mostly out of place in the soc sci faculty since I have derivatives coming out of my ears. I'm well aware that the engineers, for instance, consider econ basically the softest science ever but I'm okay with that

It's the same reason you see science kids taking soc sci/humanities electives but rarely the reverse. It's extremely hard to fail a humanities class unless you actually don't try, and pretty much anybody can jump in unless it's something a bit more specialized (upper year econ comes to mind, but I'm sure there are other cases in the two faculties).

Originally Posted by Kudos

I'm well aware that the engineers, for instance, consider econ basically the softest science ever but I'm okay with that

As an engineer most of us will recommend the first year econs as super easy electives because you can look at it as very simple math and still get a 12 ignoring all the economic concepts. I think you will find that while, yes we consider 1st year econ soft, we understand it gets a lot harder in upper years , especially since a lot of us take those courses.

tl;dr only first year econ (like most 1st year courses) are soft, not the program itself by any means.

Originally Posted by Kudos

Heh, anyone who's ever been told to grab a spatula at welcome week is well aware of the academic caste system. When I was in history, we looked down on the poli sci kids. When I was in poli sci, we looked down at the labour studies kids.

I have to laugh at history looking down on polisci, it seems so random. Not like history has anything to laugh about really since besides something like classics or philosophy, history is probably the most "useless" of the humanities.

Actually, humanities in general gets the most stereotyped as the useless stream.

From someone who's taken both humanities and science courses,

Science courses are difficult in that there is a ton of information to memorize, lots of labs, quizzes, and little assignments that cause you to have a heavy workload. But if you're able to memorize things and pretty much barf things back onto a page you'll get a good mark.

Humanities courses are difficult in that there's not a lot of content to memorize, but the subjective nature of essays makes it so that it's hard to get an 80+

At the end of the day, a science or humanities degree alone isn't going to do anything. I know tons of people from both faculties that are still in grad school or are working in retail/restaurants, etc.

Originally Posted by Goran

besides something like classics or philosophy, history is probably the most "useless" of the humanities..

Ouch.

In my (personal) opinion, I find that social sciences/humanities courses are a lot easier to pass than science courses, but they are also harder to do well in. You can memorize everything, understand how to do the problems? Great, it's possible for you to get 100% on a midterm. Unless your prof/TA is soft as hell, good luck getting 100% on an essay (or at least, it's really not supposed to happen).

All the humanties, soc sci, poly, history, etc students are fighting among themselves. Interesting.

*insert quip about working at McDonalds*

Originally Posted by Lois

From someone who's taken both humanities and science courses,

Science courses are difficult in that there is a ton of information to memorize, lots of labs, quizzes, and little assignments that cause you to have a heavy workload. But if you're able to memorize things and pretty much barf things back onto a page you'll get a good mark.

Humanities courses are difficult in that there's not a lot of content to memorize, but the subjective nature of essays makes it so that it's hard to get an 80+

At the end of the day, a science or humanities degree alone isn't going to do anything. I know tons of people from both faculties that are still in grad school or are working in retail/restaurants, etc.

i am not going to join this argument about why one thing is better than the other. however i would like to point out that science is definitely NOT all about memorizing and regurgitation. yes i agree there are some topics that are regurgitation but not all. you're forgetting that science is also divided into many sub-fields, for example genetics, biochemistry, cell biology, physics, general chemistry, organic chemistry and environmental sciences (to name a few). by no means is everything in the faculty of science about memorizing and 'barfing things back onto a page and getting a good mark.' some memorization is found in all fields of studies including 'science', humanities, commerce, political science, religion studies and specially history, this doesn't mean that you can memorize and still be able to get a 4.0 gpa. every field is difficult AND easy in one way or another, and understanding and applying is involved in everything.

Originally Posted by kitty1

i am not going to join this argument about why one thing is better than the other. however i would like to point out that science is definitely NOT all about memorizing and regurgitation. yes i agree there are some topics that are regurgitation but not all. you're forgetting that science is also divided into many sub-fields, for example genetics, biochemistry, cell biology, physics, general chemistry, organic chemistry and environmental sciences (to name a few). by no means is everything in the faculty of science about memorizing and 'barfing things back onto a page and getting a good mark.' some memorization is found in all fields of studies including 'science', humanities, commerce, political science, religion studies and specially history, this doesn't mean that you can memorize and still be able to get a 4.0 gpa. every field is difficult AND easy in one way or another, and understanding and applying is involved in everything.

Two things. One, you are clearly not an English major... and specially history haha.
Two, i dont know about life sciences, but i always tried to aim for a bit higher than a 60 percent average, 4.0 was the cut off for my program, but maybe thats just me

by 4.0 she means 12, which more ppl in science care about than other programs.

Originally Posted by Silver

by 4.0 she means 12, which more ppl in science care about than other programs.

Please don't generalize. Many of us are attempting to get into grad school which does require non-science students to maintain a high average.

This thread is too funny

Originally Posted by sarahsullz

Please don't generalize. Many of us are attempting to get into grad school which does require non-science students to maintain a high average.

no, i do think a higher percentage of people in science care about getting higher marks than other programs.

I will say that people who are in university just to appease their parents are more likely to be found in soc sci/humanities. Why? Passing is easier. Fact. Excelling is harder. Fact. That combination works pretty well for slackers who want to explain why they aren't on the Dean's list.

There are, of course, exceptions to this. There are some very challenging programs in these two faculties, like social work, linguistics/cognitive science and econ (which would be the closest thing in either of these two faculties to a real science), and of course excelling in any hummer/soc sci program requires soft skills that a lot of folks in the hard sciences simply don't have. That said, in group projects with other soc sci kids, sometimes I'm shocked at how poor their writing skills are even in upper years so taking a liberal arts degree is no guarantee of those soft skills.

In the end, as Lois said, most science/soc sci/humanities degrees are utterly useless on their own. It's the skills you take from them that will serve you in the long run.