melee = 64 > brawl
sempiternity said:
You should note that my assertions about intelligence are largely in jest. Like I said, I'm just mad because engineering is hard (B'AWWWWW).
Not to sound super-serious (note that I’m on here procrastinating for an assignment lol) but I can’t laugh at it because some people actually believe that the
extreme is the case (i.e. that most English and Business majors should be looked down at by all the other subjects). There's a trend of cockiness coming from engineering majors. Still, Engineering clearly deserves its reputation for being one of the most difficult (if not the most difficult) program in undergrad. The mistake would be to take it to the extreme and assume that the other programs at their highest levels aren’t also hard.
sempiternity said:
I do agree that the best anything major would outdo the best engineering major at their respective topics. That makes sense. What I am arguing is that if somebody who succeeded at engineering had applied himself and majored in something different, he would do better than that 'anything major' at that topic. Sorry if that's confusing.
It’s confusing. Do you mean that any engineering major can major in any other major and do better than any of the people in his new program? …better than the average? Or do you mean he/she can do better than all people in his/her new program?
I’m pretty sure you meant the first one (any person) but then I’d like to entertain the idea that the reverse is true for arts majors going into engineering (yes I would argue it is true although it doesn’t seem like it. Force a competent arts major to go into engineering and he/she will find a way to do well.)
sempiternity said:
Also, I realize that this is a startling jump of an assumption to make and it might not necessarily hold true, but what I still hold true is that somebody who can do engineering has a larger capacity for learning and doing other things than most people, meaning they could potentially do anything (and do it at least adequately well).
Ok, but I’ll entertain the idea that the reverse is true. Some arts majors have larger capacities for learning and doing other things than most people. Also, some arts majors can potentially do anything and do it adequately well too.
The reason I’m entertaining this idea is to, again, make sure that people don’t take things to the extreme and assume that all engineers are better at everything. You humble, yet cocky engineers.
sempiternity said:
And that spoiler was merely noting my observations. Maybe UConn is a dumb **** school, but some of the English and business majors I've met there make me lose faith in humanity.
No, it’s probably not the school. That fact is observed even where I live (Ontario). But I would say business majors over here are not the same as they are in the US. It is very competitive at its highest levels and even average students become CPAs/CMAs etc. and make close to six figures. I don’t know about the English majors – most seem pretty normal over here, what’s wrong with the ones over there?
sempiternity said:
Not necessarily smarter, but it's just one example supporting my claim that engineers can do anything. You don't find it odd that a physicist who spends all his days studying quantum mechanics and astrophysics can just sit down to an LSAT, ace it, and resume his science?
Here’s some free information about the LSAT just in case you were wondering. Studying for the LSAT has nothing to do with your program. Studying for the LSAT is done through practice tests and mental preparation. The components of the LSAT are unlike anything studied in undergrad (except intro to logic for the logic section). It’s not odd – I think it’s because the average physicist probably has better study skills than some of the other majors. Note that there are people from all majors who have gotten the top score on the LSAT.
sempiternity said:
Meanwhile a pre-law guy has been studying this for his entire college career. He should be the most prepared and should theoretically do the best on a LAW EXAM. Yet he severely underperforms. I really don't know what exactly this means below the surface and I don't really care to find out, but it certainly is intriguing and says a lot about a person's predispositions (an engineering/analytically-minded person seems to have a lot of them...)
I know you said you don’t care (although you also said it’s intriguing lol) but then this is for anyone else: There’s probably some misconception that there exists pre-law programs. Law schools don’t care what major you took. They mainly only care about your GPA and LSAT score. And as I said above the LSAT is unreflective of anything studied in undergrad (except intro to logic for the logic section).
To be brief, there is no pre-law program and thus there is no burden for anyone doing a program other than the sciences/maths to succeed on the LSAT. There are both engineers and arts majors who do poorly on it.
There seems to be a lot of engineers on this forum so get at me if you’re bored.
).
