what is the most difficult undergraduate major? [Archive]

Caius Textor

23rd July 2007, 01:19 PM

I don´t have the exact figures, and I don´t know how it is around the world.

I voted physics, being myself a physics major drop-out. Physics undergrad here has one of the highest drop-out rates. In my college, for instance, admittance was 190 a year. We had an average 20 graduating each year.

I place mathematics very close by. Honestly, math and physics are very similar. An advanced undergrad course in topology or analysis isn´t going to be much different from statistical mechanics in the senior year, difficulty-wise.

Both are the most difficult ones among all undergrad courses, not only the sciences.
Computer Science is a piece of cake. :)

slyjoe

23rd July 2007, 03:17 PM

During my undergraduate degree, we had several folks drop out of electrical engineering to become math majors because of the difficulty of the math.

I would also probably put physics at the top, but from my perspective in some ways engineering was much more difficult than math.

Organic chemistry was a nightmare. I guess some of the difficulty regarding ANY subject would have be how a student's thought processes are aligned to the subject.

With the limited options in the poll, it has to be physics.

Geek Goddess

23rd July 2007, 03:17 PM

I don't know what Computer Engineering is, as I did not attend a university that offered that degree and have never met anyone with that degree.

If it is a classical engineering degree, in which one must be licensed by a board, endorse a code of ethics, and must take exams and be licensed by a board to practice engineering, and can receive Professional Engineer license, and you take classical engineering classes such as thermodynamics, material sciences, physics, statics, fluid mechanics, calculus and differential equations, then I would say that it would be the most difficult.

For reference, I started out as a chemistry major and switched to chemical engineering, and have a BS and have a PE after my name.

slyjoe

23rd July 2007, 03:19 PM

Geek Goddess: Computer engineering is not the same as mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineering. They don't have the math.

ETA: I guess I should bow. I'm only a lowly EE. :)

Phil

23rd July 2007, 03:21 PM

. . . For reference, I started out as a chemistry major and switched to chemical engineering, and have a BS and have a PE after my name.

What is that, eastern European or something?

RecoveringYuppy

23rd July 2007, 03:37 PM

slyjoe

23rd July 2007, 03:52 PM

In fact, one of my co-workers had a bachelor's in Ballet, and went straight for a Computer Science master's, with zero problems.

196

23rd July 2007, 04:16 PM

I earned a computer engineering degree. In my opinion, the difficulty of a degree is very individual. I entered the engineering program as a mature student and quickly found that my math preparation was inadequate. I struggled through the first year while I caught up. I found the remaining three years to be easy.

I took my engineering degree in Canada from 1991 to 1995. Things may have changed. The first year of my engineering program was common for all engineering disciplines. The second and most of the third year was common for electrical and computer engineering students. Parts of the third year and most of the fourth year were specific to computer engineering. I took the same math courses as electrical engineering students until fourth year, where I took specialized applied math courses on such topics as microelectronics and parallel computing. Canadian computer engineers are eligible to take additional training to earn the PE designation. We are also entitled to attend a ceremony and wear the "Iron Ring" that is unique to Canadian engineers.

For me, the hardest degree was my master's in education. I've had many people tell me this is an easy program, but it was a challenge to find a "process" to get the answer to a question where all you have are words and ideas. I kept at it and in the end, it was a rewarding and illuminating experience.

andyandy

23rd July 2007, 04:18 PM

rjh01

24th July 2007, 02:33 AM

Can I throw in some non random words here
Law
Medicine.

They all require many years of study. I cannot see them on your list.

quixotecoyote

24th July 2007, 03:03 AM

I think he's going for 'of these options'

Depending on where you are social sciences can be an incredible amount of work if you're doing it right. Setting up good studies and interpreting data correctly isn't easy.

Katana

24th July 2007, 05:17 AM

Can I throw in some non random words here
Law
Medicine.

They all require many years of study. I cannot see them on your list.

The question was about undergraduate majors.

These don't fit the bill.

Just thinking

24th July 2007, 06:04 AM

I chose Physics as being the most difficult.

Next most difficult is Mathematics.

Ha! ... I always told my physics students the reason you chose this course was because you felt you weren't getting enough math in your math class.

Anyway ... Chemistry can be quite the strain as well.

As for law (another's mention) ... all I can say is that I know 2 people (one friend, one family) with law degrees and have had arguments with them. Both have at times used fallacious logic in arriving at conclusions, so what gives?

pgwenthold

24th July 2007, 08:56 AM

I never wanted to be a physics major, but if I had gone that route, the class that would have gotten in the way was E&M. I wish I could have a better understanding of Maxwell equations. That stuff is hard.

Advanced Mechanics would be challenging, but would be very cool so I could do it.

MilwaukeeMike

24th July 2007, 09:47 AM

What, communications didn't make it onto the list!?!

MilwaukeeMike

24th July 2007, 09:50 AM

Hardest in most cases also correlates with $$$$... At least Accounting is fifth...

Chemical Engineering: $55,900
Electrical Engineering: $52,899
Mechanical Engineering: $50,672
Computer Science: $50,046
Accounting: $45,723
Economics/Finance: $45,191
Civil Engineering: $44,999
Business Administration: $39,850
Marketing: $36,260
Liberal Arts: $30,828

Top Degrees by $$$ (http://cornell.elliottback.com/archives/2006/04/11/most-lucrative-college-degrees/)

slyjoe

24th July 2007, 10:05 AM

I think the $$$$ correlates with demand, not difficulty. :)

Just saying...

Undesired Walrus

24th July 2007, 11:20 AM

I do film theory. It's a 'doss' subject as we call it here in the UK.

MilwaukeeMike

24th July 2007, 12:29 PM

I think the $$$$ correlates with demand, not difficulty. :)

Just saying...

Yes, but the difficulty of the degrees influences the demand.

Jorghnassen

24th July 2007, 12:31 PM

Jimbo07

24th July 2007, 01:38 PM

I'd vote for Engineering Physics, just because it's what I've done, but honestly, I'd say physics is the hardest.

Now... in demand...

If you stop at a B.Sc. or even M.Sc. in pure physics, you're relatively screwed, even if you are more mathematically astute than 90% of the populace. You either need more physics training, education training or finance training to be employable.

E.P. allows me to pretend to be an engineer...

:D

BTW, 196, where'd you go to school (U of S for me)?

pgwenthold

24th July 2007, 02:05 PM

If you stop at a B.Sc. or even M.Sc. in pure physics, you're relatively screwed, even if you are more mathematically astute than 90% of the populace. You either need more physics training, education training or finance training to be employable.

This is also why the average salary for physics majors is so high. There are so few jobs for low-level physics degrees. BS chemists go work on the bench in industry for $25K. Same for BA engineers. People with physics degree have to go beyond that.

Jimbo07

24th July 2007, 02:11 PM

This is also why the average salary for physics majors is so high. There are so few jobs for low-level physics degrees.

What would the average salary be for a B.Sc. in physics alone? My guess... MUCH lower...

pgwenthold

24th July 2007, 02:46 PM

What would the average salary be for a B.Sc. in physics alone? My guess... MUCH lower...

I won't even guess, given that I really have no clue what jobs physics BScs take. I knew most of the physics folks in college, but the ones who I knew where they ended up didn't end up in physics. One spent a few years teaching elementary science and then got a PhD in comp sci. The other went to grad school in chemistry and got her PhD in biochem.

BillC

24th July 2007, 04:29 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th July 2007, 05:29 PM

I suspect physics first, then math or computer science. However, it depends on the specific program, doesn't it? When I worked for my computer science degree* at Brown University in 1970--74, even the slackers put in at least 30 hours per week.

Back in my day, ... :D I guess it's easier now.

~~ Paul

* I'm proud to say that I received the very first BS in Computer Science ever awarded by Brown.

Brown

24th July 2007, 08:20 PM

* I'm proud to say that I received the very first BS in Computer Science ever awarded by Brown.And I was proud to award it.

As for the listed subjects, their difficulty is institution-dependent. Some schools have excellent physics programs, some have good math programs. If a program is a poor program, then its difficulty factor is greatly multiplied.

Also, some colleges' degree programs are far more demanding than others. At the school I attended, the University of Iowa (which had a medical school and which fielded thousands of students hoping to get into that med school), the Chemistry program was very tough. It was an excellent program, but it was tough. A chemistry program at a nearby community college was, by comparison, far less demanding upon the students' time or intellect.

At Iowa, the two most difficult programs in the whole university were: med school tract, especially Biochemistry; and Engineering, especially Electrical Engineering. My brother took the former, I took the latter.

bpesta22

24th July 2007, 09:18 PM

Yes, but the difficulty of the degrees influences the demand.

Er, I think it would influence supply, not demand.

Part of the reason why school teachers get paid low is there's too many of em. An education degree seems much easier to get than one in physics.

SezMe

24th July 2007, 09:51 PM

My observation was the guys in Veterinary Science had it far, far tougher than all the rest of us. In addition to the rigorous academic stuff, they also had to work long, long hours in the field. Undergrad school was Purdue.

Modified

24th July 2007, 10:44 PM

When (and where) I was an undergrad, EE was probably the most difficult. The EE program had higher requirements (gpa) for entry than math, physics, or other engineering, and had been that way for some time, so the program was filled with top students. When that happens, competition is higher and the classes become more difficult. But that was fifteen years ago; I'm sure that trend reversed when EE programs started shrinking in the years since then. I have no idea what the current situation is.

LostAngeles

25th July 2007, 12:11 AM

Math is a difficult major, but I don't think it's the most difficult, necessarily. A lot of the difficulty comes in the workload, which, while I have a lot, I'm under the impression that the folks over in the School of Engineering have it even worse.

brodski

25th July 2007, 12:23 AM

LostAngeles

25th July 2007, 01:26 AM

Er, I think it would influence supply, not demand.

Part of the reason why school teachers get paid low is there's too many of em. An education degree seems much easier to get than one in physics.

Actually, in CA, there's an drive to recruit Math and Science teachers with Math and Science degrees. You merely need to be credentialed (by taking the exams or certain courses). If I'm not mistaken, Teach for America takes people of any degree and places them in teaching postions.

bpesta22

25th July 2007, 08:09 AM

Actually, in CA, there's an drive to recruit Math and Science teachers with Math and Science degrees. You merely need to be credentialed (by taking the exams or certain courses). If I'm not mistaken, Teach for America takes people of any degree and places them in teaching postions.

Makes sense to me that supply would vary by subject. I tried searching for data on whether teachers are indeed over-supplied (elementary school in general, or by subject area taught) and can't find anything good.

Not to derail the thread, but if anyone has a link to info on the economics of teacher salaries (as dictated mainly by supply), I would appreciate it!.

Tsukasa Buddha

25th July 2007, 11:48 AM

Waah, those are all the majors I want to do T_T .

PogoPedant

25th July 2007, 05:06 PM

I'll go against the grain and Computer Science tops the list, based only on the stats from where I got my Master's. It seems that Math and Physics students know when they start that they chose something hard, while CS students assume that their amazing World of Warcraft and blogging skills will get them high marks*. So when they're expected to produce something, they all drop out.

* Of course, then there's the CS departments where this is true...

Jorghnassen

25th July 2007, 08:47 PM

Yeah, a computer science major can vary from the basic code monkey level to hardcore math, depending on the type of school (and student). Similarly, a math major can be relatively easy or really difficult, math being such a vast subject with multiple branches, it is possible to graduate by just picking a wide variety of low level courses, or take a more specialized and challenging path.

opqdan

26th July 2007, 02:22 PM

Unless we can find somebody who has a degree in all of them (Dr. Sam Beckett? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Samuel_Beckett)), I think this will be very subjective.

I always viewed math and physics as being extremely difficult, but that was partially due to their theoretical nature. I ended up going with computer engineering which comes with it's own hefty dose of math. At my university, all engineering (computer, chemical, electrical, biomedical, etc) took the same math classes, 3 semesters of calculus for engineers and differential equations.

I have met a couple math majors who pretty much failed at anything above elementary calculus. How they managed to get a degree, I will never know.

Geek Goddess

26th July 2007, 05:49 PM

Geek Goddess: Computer engineering is not the same as mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineering. They don't have the math.

ETA: I guess I should bow. I'm only a lowly EE. :) EE requires a huge amount of math!

What is that, eastern European or something?

Phil, I don't get the question. Huh? Do you mean the "PE" designation? Legally, in every state, you cannot call yourself an engineer unless you have passed the board, have a certain amount of experience (that has to be documented in a very detailed way - how, why, how, when, how much), work under the supervision of one or more PEs during all of the time you are claiming, have written references from a certain number of PEs, and so on. Of course, you will see advertisements for engineers, as many people will latch onto the title 'engineer' even without the certification. Think of having an MD versus calling yourself "The Auto Doc".

I think the $$$$ correlates with demand, not difficulty. :)

Just saying...

This is also why the average salary for physics majors is so high. There are so few jobs for low-level physics degrees. BS chemists go work on the bench in industry for $25K. Same for BA engineers. People with physics degree have to go beyond that.

If the demand is so high that starting salaries are through the roof (meaning, for fresh out of school with no experience), then people would be flooding into these degree programs. However, the reason that there is such a high demand/low supply is that these degrees are very difficult. When I attended, you needed at least 3.2 in high school and a 9-percentile SAT (measured in 1970-ish scores), to even be allowed to enroll, and you hard to be ready to start with Calculus I or higher. And even then, the drop-out rate in my chemical engineering class was about 80% between freshman and senior year. As someone who currently hires engineers, I'd say this salary range posted is actually a bit low. A petroleum or chemical engineering degree brings in $70 grand right now, out of school, for the average candidate. For a very high GPA candidate, the salaries are in the $80 grand range. The 4-5 semesters of calculus and differential equations is tough, I admit, but I saw more people drop out because of advanced thermodynamics or 'Kinetics of Reaction' than the math classes. Of course, you can't DO the kinetics class without understanding the calculus.

pgwenthold, in my experience a BA in engineering is exceedingly rare. I've only met one, myself, and he got a job in sales, not an an engineer, because the BA requires so much less math and doesn't require many of the senior level engineering classes that require the maths as prerequisites. The companies aren't going to hire an engineer with a BA degree, IMO. Also, although I've not checked the regs lately, you couldn't become licensed and registered as an engineer unless you had a BS (along with the documented years of experience under the direct supervision of a PE (registered engineer), references, detailed work history, and passing the EIT and PE exams). There are certain cases where non-degreed engineers may be licensed, but it's usually a special applications and is based on having a LOT of experience (more than 20 years?) and demonstrations of engineering expertise acquired on the job.

latent aaaack

26th July 2007, 06:33 PM

I'd echo parts of Caius' and slyjoe's post. Computer science is piece of cake. I switched out of a straight EE program in to the Computer Science option, blew through it and then switched back to the math/physics intensive EE program. Didn't seem to be much in the Computer Science curriculum that couldn't be picked up later with a proper EE/Math background.

By 'picked up later' do you mean the material in Computer Science was easy enough to learn on your own if you have an EE/Math background or that many Computer Science courses are contained in EE/Math programs?

If I started another thread on this I'd include other engineering majors, pre-med, law degrees, architecture, and chemistry and I'd expect the results to much closer to eachother. Can anyone think of others to include?

malbui

27th July 2007, 04:12 AM

I have met a couple math majors who pretty much failed at anything above elementary calculus. How they managed to get a degree, I will never know.

Well, I was pretty much hanging on desperately in my final year of maths. Fortunately I was doing joint honours and had the ModLang to drag my marks up with less effort required. :D

illogical

27th July 2007, 04:41 AM

at many schools, EEs take 2 years of calc/DEs, and CS/CompE take 1 year. so a typical BSxE has taken 2 years math, 1 year gen physics, 1 or 2 chems, thermo, plus engineering/physics hybrid courses like dynamics or EM.

my guess is that the hardest major is physics with an emphasis on mathematics, hep, or GR.

intimidating classes (maybe): string theory, QFT, algebraic geometry, number theory.

illogical

27th July 2007, 04:46 AM

pre-meds can major in bio or chem. pre-law can major in history. no??

illogical

27th July 2007, 04:51 AM

EETs can become PE now. kinda scary the bridge you drive over could, hypothetically, be designed by someone with 2 years of school.

unless i misunderstood, the point of PE is liability and accountability. thus there are some branches of eng where a PE would be pretty pointless. "theoretical" engineering being one example. it is indeed a protected term in some states.

Geek Goddess

27th July 2007, 09:54 PM

EETs can become PE now. kinda scary the bridge you drive over could, hypothetically, be designed by someone with 2 years of school. :jaw-dropp

unless i misunderstood, the point of PE is liability and accountability. thus there are some branches of eng where a PE would be pretty pointless. "theoretical" engineering being one example. it is indeed a protected term in some states.[/QUOTE]

You aren't required to have a PE to work for a private company that does not do engineering work that will affect the public directly. For instance, you must have a PE to design highways or water systems, but not to design a water injection system for a petroleum company's oil field. But you cannot advertise engineering services 'for sale or let' without a PE. It's not just liability, but akin to a lawyer passing the bar before he can practice law. I know several individuals with law degrees, but because they could not pass the bar, they aren't working as lawyerss. We had one guy heading up our contracts division, who was in that situation. He could write great contracts and understood the law, but couldn't be called a 'lawyer' because he wasn't licensed/certified/whatever it's called.

sam catte12

28th July 2007, 02:21 AM

are undergraduate (bachelor) degrees in quite a lot of places in the world, albeit taking longer than usual to complete(4-6 years).

For example I have an LLB (bachelor of laws) which entitles me to work as a lawyer and an LLM (Masters of Laws) which does nothing but take up space on the wall.

Most people in NZ doing law now do a double degree in Arts or Commerce simultaneously with their law degree.

That said, Sam-Catte-son is presently engaged in obtaining a law degree together with a BSC majoring in physics with english literature as a side interest. He went straight into 2nd year in the physics after high school based on scholarship marks and has postponed the required maths papers till next year but the main problem is that the timetables for classes don't mesh very well.

Tez

28th July 2007, 02:45 AM

Unless we can find somebody who has a degree in all of them (Dr. Sam Beckett? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Samuel_Beckett)), I think this will be very subjective.

I think it'll be subjective even if you do. I guess I'm close to having done them all. I have degrees and have done research in math and physics. Though I avoided CS as a student, I have done CS research that I could publish in computer science journals (if it would help me, which it certainly wouldn't!) and I could certainly teach a course on complexity theory. I don't have engineering experience per se, but my little brother did EE specializing in computer architecture and I know a lot about his course, having helped him with it. So I have a pretty good overview of each field.

As the EE didn't require a particularly deep understanding of either the math or the physics behind it, I would rate it last. I would say math was easier to get through as an undergrad than physics, but in the long run is much harder to do publishable research in. CS is very discrete. There are some very, very difficult problems in discrete math, but they are not at the same level of conceptual difficulty (for me) as those in other areas of math (where I struggle to make out what the basic problems even are).

Geek Goddess

28th July 2007, 06:49 AM

are undergraduate (bachelor) degrees in quite a lot of places in the world, albeit taking longer than usual to complete(4-6 years).
I don't know in general, but when I applied for engineering college, the course book showed a 4-1/2 program that assumed you would be taking 18 hours every semesters, and attending two summers. I'd call that 5 years. With ever-new discoveries, it gets more difficult to cram what is needed to a basic understanding of the your field into only four years. And in engineering, unlike law, where you can take the bar immediately, in the engineering field you must work for a minimum of four years before you can apply for your license. And the work must be under the directions of a PE, or it doesn't count towards the four years. I know many engineers that have 10-15-20 years experience working in corporations (such as the chemical or oil industries) that never worked under a PE and so have a difficult time becoming licensed themselves.

As the EE didn't require a particularly deep understanding of either the math or the physics behind it, I would rate it last. Wow. I'm not an EE, but that wasn't my experience in my degree plan, or with the friends I had that were in the EE department. The coursework was nearly all theoretical. I had to finish my class in partial differential equations before I could understand the math in my fluid mechanics classes (gradients in cylindrical coordinates, useful in developing mathematic models of fluids flowing down pipes). We used to joke, right after starting work, that we could all use LaPlace transforms and and EEs understood Fourier series, but none of us knew what a controller "looked" like.

Tez

28th July 2007, 07:43 AM

Wow. I'm not an EE, but that wasn't my experience in my degree plan, or with the friends I had that were in the EE department. The coursework was nearly all theoretical. I had to finish my class in partial differential equations before I could understand the math in my fluid mechanics classes (gradients in cylindrical coordinates, useful in developing mathematic models of fluids flowing down pipes). We used to joke, right after starting work, that we could all use LaPlace transforms and and EEs understood Fourier series, but none of us knew what a controller "looked" like.

Its certainly very theoretical and the math used is highly nontrivial. But the way it was taught (at a top Australian university) was very functional - it did not require students understanding (or being able to reproduce) the deep theorems of analysis which lie underneath why all that stuff works (or has the sometimes arbitrary looking features it does). Many physicists don't understand them either of course - but at least the expectation is that you should do, and in practice you often find you do need to once you're doing research.

Somewhat off topic: Having studied and/or lectured grads and undergrads in 5 different countries now, the biggest differences I see are really to do with whether a course is either (i) put together as a completely structured entity: i.e only expecting them to know things which are exactly in their lecture notes - which themselves follow some consistent logical progression - and making them do assignments which carry a lot of credit, or (ii) a seemingly random (to the student) flitting through the hardest features of a subject area, where the student is expected to fill in the details via many library hours of their own work (and is given much more time to do so than students under system (i)).

Both philosphies have advantages and disadvantages, but one thing is for sure: If the students are expecting version (i) and get version (ii) (Which often happens when a department hires someone from another country) there is lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Personally I think undergrad education should progress from (i) to (ii) over the 3-4 years (I find the spoon fed grad school courses followed by "quals" in the US patently absurd for example).

illogical

28th July 2007, 08:49 PM

illogical

28th July 2007, 08:53 PM

the assumptions in this thread are that pure math and theoretical physics are the only difficult subjects. which is ********.

Tez

29th July 2007, 01:57 AM

"I find the spoon fed grad school courses followed by "quals" in the US patently absurd for example."

have you visited Cal Tech, MIT, et cetera? do your australian schools teach string theory and QFT at an undergrad level?

Yes - I'm talking about those schools (Columbia, in particular, I know the system and the quals courses very well - Princeton and MIT I have vague knowledge of what some of their physics grad courses entail). U of Toronto I also have extensive knowledge of the grad courses.

In Australia we did advanced QFT in our 4th year (which was called "Honours" and classified postgraduate). It didn't include string theory. I have very little experience of Australian postgrad study. When I went to study in Canada they let me do the required grad exams when I arrived (either orally or by doing the previous years exam) and this saved me at least a year. They did make me do a conformal field theory (string theory basically) reading course for which I've been grateful in later years, though at the time it was a drag.

My case was likely exceptional and I'm not at all saying it should be done the way I did it. I don't object to having graduate courses per se - if the students haven't studied the material then they need to learn it. I just completely object to the high-school style way in which its taught. It would be much better for them (though still not ideal!) if we went to the other extreme: gave them a list of topics, and said "Here - in 1 year youre going to have an exam covering all this stuff, go learn it". That would prepare them to do research much better.

Geek Goddess

29th July 2007, 01:21 PM

the assumptions in this thread are that pure math and theoretical physics are the only difficult subjects. which is ********.

Who said that? You can bring up other degree plans. I thought my advanced engineering classes were much more difficult than my differential equations, linear algebra, and calculus classes.

slyjoe

29th July 2007, 05:42 PM

I have to agree with the Goddess here. BTW GG - I was bowing because of the PE, and the fact CE just seemed harder than EE (to me at least).

And to Tez - I don't which school you went to, but 2 years for EE is laughable. It was more like 4 and 1/2, because all of the math after DiffEq was extremely difficult - tensors, anyone?

illogical

30th July 2007, 01:06 AM

Tez

30th July 2007, 01:19 AM

LostAngeles

30th July 2007, 02:19 AM

...
Tez, research level math is likely difficult in any field, except "unimportant" branches. Terrence Tao works in 4 branches, and he might know the answer to this.

Just because I pass his office about every day on my way to the Sekrit Shop to get coffee doesn't mean I'll ask him. :p

He does a lot of work in Analysis according to his webpage and from my (so far) one class in it, I'd have to say it's probably among the tougher fields out there.

Tez

30th July 2007, 02:25 AM

Tez, research level math is likely difficult in any field, except "unimportant" branches. Terrence Tao works in 4 branches, and he might know the answer to this.

Huh? I said it wasn't? Was this actually meant to be a comment on anything I said?

You think you need to ask Terry Tao the answer as to whether research level math is difficult in any field? Be my guest, I hope he's more polite than I would be.

BTW, 7 years undergrad to PhD is the norm in UK and Australia. 7 years just on Masters and PhD is the norm in much of the rest of the world. Fortunately this is well understood within academic circles, and people are judged on their actual ability and not the length of time they spend in some degree class or another...

illogical

30th July 2007, 03:06 AM

strawman arguments. i never said to ask him anything.

illogical

30th July 2007, 03:14 AM

of course it's based on works. there are idiot PhDs and genius PhDs. there are unselective American schools that will graduate anyone who walks through the doors, and that's why you see very few graduates of Random University teaching at Yale.

slyjoe

30th July 2007, 08:15 AM

Tez: My apologies. I was getting my quotes mixed up. I should have quoted and responded to the illogical quote below:

at many schools, EEs take 2 years of calc/DEs, and CS/CompE take 1 year. so a typical BSxE has taken 2 years math, 1 year gen physics, 1 or 2 chems, thermo, plus engineering/physics hybrid courses like dynamics or EM.

...snip.

My issue was with the quote saying BSEEs take 2 years math. Sorry for the misattribution.

Stir

30th July 2007, 09:24 AM

I was a math undergrad at UC Berkeley in the early 70's. One of my roommates was a Veterinary Science major ... and he worked far, far harder than I did.

My entire study program was: go to all classes, do all assignments, and transcribe class notes slowly: don't write it down until it is understood. And I was done. In upper division courses, almost all tests were either open book or take home ... testing comprehension rather than memorization. But if I hadn't grasped the concepts readily, it would have been impossible to pass.

The VetSci major spent essentially all his time studying ... mainly memorizing for very hard closed book tests, and was in competition with all the pre-meds (and cut-throat competition it was).

So if work required is the measure, math was easy, VetSci impossibly hard . If complexity and difficulty of comprehension is the criterion, math would rate as very hard

Modified

30th July 2007, 09:46 AM

Despite good grades, I feel I only sort-of learned Calc and DiffEq in the math courses I took. I really learned it in electromagnetic theory, communications theory, advanced circuit analysis, device physics, thermodynamics, and physics courses. For some reason the math department presented many topics, such as vector calculus, without applications. This seems a bit silly. I imagine that for many, like me, math is much easier to understand and remember if it related to real-world problems.

illogical

30th July 2007, 11:55 AM

It was more like 4 and 1/2

what classes are you referring to?

My issue was with the quote saying BSEEs take 2 years math.

this is an example schedule posted at Caltech, and may not be indicative of the programs elsewhere.

Ma 2 ab Sophomore Mathematics 9 9 -
HSS Electives2 9 9 9
EE 20 ab Electronics Laboratory 9 9 -
EE 40 Intro. to Solid-State Sensors and Actuator.- - 9
EE/CS 51 Principles of Microprocessor Systems - 9 -
EE/CS 52 Microprocessor Systems Laboratory - - 12
Electives - - 15
36 45 45
Third Year
E 10 Technical Seminar Presentations 3 - -
E 11 Written Technical Communication - 3 -
ACM 95 abc Intro. Methods of Applied Math. 12 12 12
HSS Electives2 9 9 9
EE 111 Signals, Systems, and Transforms 9 - -
EE 90 Analog Electronics Project Lab - - 9
EE 160 Communication-System Fundamentals - 9 -
EE 113 Feedback and Control Circuits 9 - -
or
CDS 110 a Introductory Control Theory
Electives - 9 9
42 42 39
Fourth Year
HSS Electives2 9 9 9
EE 91 ab3 Experimental Projects in Electronic
Circuits 12 12 -
EE 151 Electromagnetic Engineering 12 - -
Electives 9 18 36
42 39 45

Tez

30th July 2007, 01:21 PM

Tez: My apologies. I was getting my quotes mixed up. I should have quoted and responded to the illogical quote below:

My issue was with the quote saying BSEEs take 2 years math. Sorry for the misattribution.

No prob. Methinks discussions with the person you had me confused with are somewhat pointless however.

slyjoe

30th July 2007, 02:10 PM

what classes are you referring to?

Math classes, whether the title includes the word "math" or not.

this is an example schedule posted at Caltech, and may not be indicative of the programs elsewhere.
Ma 2 ab Sophomore Mathematics 9 9 -
HSS Electives2 9 9 9
EE 20 ab Electronics Laboratory 9 9 -
EE 40 Intro. to Solid-State Sensors and Actuator.- - 9
EE/CS 51 Principles of Microprocessor Systems - 9 -
EE/CS 52 Microprocessor Systems Laboratory - - 12
Electives - - 15
36 45 45
Third Year
E 10 Technical Seminar Presentations 3 - -
E 11 Written Technical Communication - 3 -
ACM 95 abc Intro. Methods of Applied Math. 12 12 12
HSS Electives2 9 9 9
EE 111 Signals, Systems, and Transforms 9 - -
EE 90 Analog Electronics Project Lab - - 9
EE 160 Communication-System Fundamentals - 9 -
EE 113 Feedback and Control Circuits 9 - -
or
CDS 110 a Introductory Control Theory
Electives - 9 9
42 42 39
Fourth Year
HSS Electives2 9 9 9
EE 91 ab3 Experimental Projects in Electronic
Circuits 12 12 -
EE 151 Electromagnetic Engineering 12 - -
Electives 9 18 36
42 39 45

You need to examine what those classes entail. For EE majors, anything with the words "signals", "control", "communications" or "electromagnetics" tend to be pretty heavy math.

illogical

30th July 2007, 05:13 PM

does basket weaving count as a topology course?

illogical

30th July 2007, 05:15 PM

You need to examine what those classes entail. For EE majors, anything with the words "signals", "control", "communications" or "electromagnetics" tend to be pretty heavy math.

ah, whatever.

illogical

30th July 2007, 05:20 PM

Methinks discussions with the person you had me confused with are somewhat pointless however.

say my name instead of being spineless.

Brown

30th July 2007, 09:09 PM

As long as we're telling "war stories," here's a good one.

On the day I first started Engineering classes, the auditorium was packed. Every seat was taken, and people were sitting in the aisles. From this, I was able to estimate almost exactly the number of classmates who started at the same time I did.

Four years later, I graduated. The university published the names of all the Engineering graduates, and I counted them.

Nearly six out of seven students who started in the Engineering program washed out: they quit before they got their degrees.

The university's chemistry program had a high wash-out rate, too. So did the biology and biochemistry (pre-med) programs.

the escape plan

31st July 2007, 09:53 AM

The difference between an EE and CE, at least in my university, was three elective classes. I didn't go down the CE path because I had really bad experiences with the CE professors that taught the basic EE classes (intro to programming). My EE classes were not that difficult. So I can't vote for the CE option.

I would say that CS is pretty hard, but that is due to my somewhat poor programming skills. But that's just me. My brother is in the CS program and he doesn't have a large workload. Math is that hard either. From my experience, if you have a good Math prof. math is not that hard.

I would have to say that Physics is the most difficult. The physics classes I took to satisfy my EE requirments were some of the hardest classes I took.

illogical

31st July 2007, 10:12 AM

Nearly six out of seven students who started in the Engineering program washed out: they quit before they got their degrees.

my uni had a 60% completion rate. i don't believe that counts the freshmen women who dropped out the first year, or the people who switched to non-technical majors.

illogical

31st July 2007, 10:22 AM

The difference between an EE and CE, at least in my university, was three elective classes.

when i went to school, CompE was a hybrid of EE and CS. now it has its own set of classes to supplement the others. one gripe of mine is that EE were required to take engineering electives (e.g. mechanics), but CS courses would be more valuable on the job.

Geek Goddess

31st July 2007, 02:09 PM

my uni had a 60% completion rate. i don't believe that counts the freshmen women who dropped out the first year, or the people who switched to non-technical majors. Freshmen males didn't drop out? What are you trying to say?

Nearly six out of seven students who started in the Engineering program washed out: they quit before they got their degrees.

The university's chemistry program had a high wash-out rate, too. So did the biology and biochemistry (pre-med) programs.

That was my experience, Brown. When I started out, as a chemistry major, all my chem and biochem classes were the same ones required by the pre-med program. There were separate classes for the non-chem/med majors. And that rate was about the same for the chemical engineering majors. My ex was a civil engineer, and he noticed pretty high drop rates, although not quite as high as the chems.

My own alma mater is trying to reduce the wash-out rate drastically, not by making the curriculum easier, but by toughening up the standards by which someone can choose to major in certain degrees. They don't want to set kids up to fail.

illogical

31st July 2007, 02:23 PM

You think you need to ask Terry Tao the answer as to whether research level math is difficult in any field? Be my guest, I hope he's more polite than I would be.

the difference is that Tao has a Fields Medal, and you don't. he's certainly more polite than you, he kept his cool in online debates with lesser-knowns. how dare you even put yourself and Tao in the same paragraph.

Geek Goddess

31st July 2007, 03:26 PM

the US system varies from the Australian and UK. with summer classes and high school credits, it's possible to get an engineering degree in 2.5 years, but it may take 5 if the student is taking 12 credit hours. the system is designed so a gifted student can get a BS and PhD in 6 years..

I took 16-18 hours each semester, and some summer classes, and I took AP classes in high school. Classes have prereqs. You must have three semesters of calculus and two differential equations BEFORE you can take at least two of the upper level engineering classes. Assuming you could place out of even two calc classes, that is still three semesters before you could take the first of the fluid dynamics classes. You have to have two semesters of thermo before you could take kinetics. The upper level engineering classes weren't even offered in summer, just some of the non-lab classes like thermo. If you didn't have to take any of your English, history, government, humanities, and could take summer classes that fit into the schedule, maybe 2.5 years.

Hindmost

31st July 2007, 07:41 PM

It seems the business school was fueled by engineers that couldn't make the grade--the number of changes in majors that first few weeks was quite significant. When I started as a nuke, there were over 200 freshman ready to save the world from global warming. 71 of us made it to senior year. I needed 142 credits for my BS...which was irritating when so many people I knew needed about 128. Many times, I don't know how I made it.

glenn

Sun Jester

31st July 2007, 08:34 PM

You aren't required to have a PE to work for a private company that does not do engineering work that will affect the public directly. For instance, you must have a PE to design highways or water systems, but not to design a water injection system for a petroleum company's oil field. But you cannot advertise engineering services 'for sale or let' without a PE. It's not just liability, but akin to a lawyer passing the bar before he can practice law. I know several individuals with law degrees, but because they could not pass the bar, they aren't working as lawyerss. We had one guy heading up our contracts division, who was in that situation. He could write great contracts and understood the law, but couldn't be called a 'lawyer' because he wasn't licensed/certified/whatever it's called.

This seems far afield from where this thread started, but your description does not mesh with my understanding of the PE, GG. In my experience it is highly dependent on the laws in a particular state as to what an engineer is allowed to do with and without a PE. In TN, where I work, there is a very strong industrial exemption and I don't have to have a PE to do design work for my chemical manufacturing firm. When I do work for our plants in South Carolina, I have to work under the responsible charge of a PE licensed in that state (I am only licenced in TN) doing the exact same work for the exact same company. My work is for my own company, but it could be said to have a potential impact on public welfare since I do relief design, process hazard analysis, risk assessment, and safety instrumented system design.

Geek Goddess

1st August 2007, 09:58 AM

This seems far afield from where this thread started, but your description does not mesh with my understanding of the PE, GG. In my experience it is highly dependent on the laws in a particular state as to what an engineer is allowed to do with and without a PE. In TN, where I work, there is a very strong industrial exemption and I don't have to have a PE to do design work for my chemical manufacturing firm. When I do work for our plants in South Carolina, I have to work under the responsible charge of a PE licensed in that state (I am only licensed in TN) doing the exact same work for the exact same company. My work is for my own company, but it could be said to have a potential impact on public welfare since I do relief design, process hazard analysis, risk assessment, and safety instrumented system design.

This was what I was going at, although I didn't talk about industry exemptions, etc., because I figured I would then have to explain what that was, and that most people interested in reading this thread don't care. I work in the oil/gas processing business, and used to have to do the bolded portions as well (I was the "PSM expert" at more than one company! Ugh!) The industrial exemption is a bit muddy from state to state, but generally, you can't work unlicensed at a place that does work directly for the public (ie, municipal or public works, environmental permitting, etc), but some states allow you to work in specific industries without registration. Where you work in South Carolina, does everything have to be sealed? In the few states I've worked in, we don't need seals on internal projects, except for things related to spill protection, environmental permitting.

I would push to get every engineer that works as an engineer, registered.

Sun Jester

1st August 2007, 11:15 AM

Where you work in South Carolina, does everything have to be sealed? In the few states I've worked in, we don't need seals on internal projects, except for things related to spill protection, environmental permitting.

I believe that the engineer in charge does stamp all of the key documents (i.e. P&IDs, relief designs, safety requirements specifications, etc.) In TN, where I live, we do not stamp them but if we get a contractor to work on them, they do stamp them since they are not covered under our industrial exemption.

I would push to get every engineer that works as an engineer, registered.

I am not a fan of registration or licensure since I think that it creates a state controlled monopoly and is really just another means of revenue generation for the state. If I thought the registration process actually had a demonstrable impact on the quality of work and the protection of the public, then I would not have a problem with it, but I have encountered too many PEs that are a menace and many great engineers who have not obtained their license to think that it has that impact.

[I feel the need, in the interest of full disclosure, to state that my leanings in this area are at least supported by my political views. As a libertarian, I am not a fan of governmental interference in the market at any level.]

illogical

1st August 2007, 10:59 PM

.You must have three semesters of calculus and two differential equations BEFORE you can take at least two of the upper level engineering classes.

true. Physics 16 at Harvard and the Yale analog are courses for freshmen that use differential equations. while it was uncommon when i went to "secondary" school, Stuveysant and others teach LA and ODEs to seniors.

my uni was odd in that you take chem first, then physics (unless u did AP). so you might be taking emag until mid 3rd year.

Beerina

7th August 2007, 02:48 PM

Computer Science, my major, didn't require differential equations, just the first 3 calculus courses. I still took it, but it wasn't required.

I remember taking chemistry through organic, which was a pre-med washout class, and thinking how illogical chemistry was. Not the low-level physics part of it, but the "art" aspect of how molecules and atoms interact to change the molecules into other molecules. I remember sitting down multiple times, and applying the new rules they were teaching for that week with all the logic that got me A's in computer science...and arriving at precisely the wrong answer. They never could answer why my answers were wrong. I began to wonder if they knew what they were doing.

I managed to get 108 (of 200) on the final, when the average was 98, but that was it for me.

maddog

7th August 2007, 08:15 PM

Given the choices, physics. Computer "science" is a cakewalk, relatively speaking -- it would rate far easier than all the real sciences and engineerings.

Oddly, there are no real engineerings among the choices, unless "computer engineering" truly is an engineering major, though some people call glorified programming by that name.

Personally, I'd rate:
1) Physics
2) Engineering (Bio-Medical, Mechanical, Chemical, Materials, Electrical, in that order, followed by all the other flavors -- Civil, Aero, etc.)
3) Chemistry, Biology, Bio-chem, and the other real sciences (i.e. not "Political Science" or the so-called "Social Sciences", Psychology, etc.)
4) Math / Statistics

As for me: B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Masters in Project Management (with honors!), Professional Engineering license

Loss Leader

7th August 2007, 08:16 PM

Get thee down to the Communications Department. Those guys can't even read.

LostAngeles

7th August 2007, 09:03 PM

Get thee down to the Communications Department. Those guys can't even read.

True Factoid-type-thing:

11 years ago, I was a Communications major at Bridgewater State College.

This fall I'll be taking a class called, "Algorithms for Elementary Algebraic Geometry," at UCLA.

latent aaaack

11th August 2007, 09:13 AM

This is a link I found interesting to a description and tables that compare accross countries percentages of the population with bachelor degrees and also percentage with science or engineering degrees. This data is over 15 years old though, does anyone know where more recent data could be found?

Basically the US, Canada, and Norway have the highest rate of people with bachelor degrees all with about 30%. In highest rate of people with science or engineering degrees the US is average. Given the frequently lamented state of public schools in the US I found it suprising that the US comes out better than average (edit: compared to developed nations) according to this, although rates of people with s & e degrees is still exceeded by many other major countries.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind96/ch2_glob.htm

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind96/at02-01.xls

BPScooter

29th August 2007, 01:12 AM

Monza

2nd September 2007, 12:06 AM

Yes, but the difficulty of the degrees influences the demand.

I think the difficulty of the degrees influences the supply.

Similar to other who have posted here, in my experience as a BSME student in the early 90's we had a high drop out rate. I can't cite the numbers, but it was very noticible.

I don't think the degree of difficulty among the engineering disciplines (mechanical, electrical, chemical) is that inherently different. Rather, it is a personal affinity with the material. The math is the same. But some people naturally visualize one discipline over another.

Example: When I think of electricity and wires, I tend to think in terms of water flowing through a pipe; flow is current, pressure is voltage, pipe thickness is insulation, etc. So I consider electrical engineering harder than mechanical. I know EE's who think the opposite.

Even if engineering is considered one of the harder degrees, it is amazing the people who are able to graduate. I am currently Senior Mechanical Engineer at my company and have seen several engineers come and go, including those interviewing for a job. Not all are what you would expect and not all are able to correctly apply their knowledge to real world applications.

Monza

2nd September 2007, 12:16 AM

Has anyone mentioned music as a tough major? I can pretty much 100% guarantee that somebody would never get admitted, much less graduate, without a high degree of musical skill, probably acquired beginning before age 10. Those skills are pre-requisite, and there are still a lot of people that don't have the Right Stuff to be able to succeed in a rigorous program of music study. The skills are definable and teachable, even with the "head start" of a good music background, sometimes motivation and desire don't add up to reaching the highest levels.

Are fine arts degrees as difficult or perhaps more difficult than licsenure sorts of degrees? I'd be happy to know that they're all diffcult and make people sweat cold from time to time. Makes the graduates better.

Music theory is tougher than most people think. There is a considerable aount of math, even though it is not always presented as such. OK, it is not like taking a mechnical vibrations course, but there is some cross-over.

Off topic story: My brother was a music major. A couple semesters before graduating he started looking for career opportunities. He started to worry when he realized his guitar teacher, who had studied with Andreas Segovia in Madrid, was eeking out a living by teaching. So he quickly changed majors and ultimately went to work for the FBI.

Only once in our college careers did we share a class. It was a humanities class and required to satisfy a credit on each of our curriculums. There was not much thinking or logic required, only rote memorization. We competed against each other to see who would get the highest grade. After the mid-term exam we were both stunned by the number of people comlaining about the difficulty and general low scores. I don't know how some of these people made it through their other classes, because we did not consider this class in any way difficult.

By the way, I ended up with 98/100 and my brother received a 99/100. I was crushed.

GoodGuysEatPie

2nd September 2007, 08:55 AM

I'll chime in on the original theme of the thread (not going to touch the EE argument stuff).

I have undergraduate degrees in both physics and mathematics, and a graduate degree in astrophysics. In undergrad, I got minors in music and English (I started out as a music theory major). I can give my own subjective perspective on the OP question based on this experience.

Like the majority, I voted physics as the hardest. There many different degrees of difficulty within physics undergraduate majors, depending on your concentration (pure, applied, environmental, etc) and also depending on where you go to school. However, across the country, physics majors have to take classes not only in physics, but also in math (generally up to differential equations) and computer science (2 or 3 semesters, if they actually plan on getting a job in science). The best programmers I have known have all been either physicists or astronomers.

Because I was also getting a math degree, I took courses above differential equations (real analysis, probability & stats, 2 more semesters of advanced diff eq's, etc). Those were tough classes, but nothing in math was difficult as my courses in electromagnetism (E&M) and quantum mechanics over in physics. Of course, I was also taking all the astronomy classes on top of this, so I had it particularly bad.

Of course, nothing compared to the soul-sucking difficulty of graduate physics/astrophysics classes, but that's another poll. ;)

I took upper-level English courses and I was always surprised to see the English majors complain about their homework/reading load. I thought their complaints were laughable. Not to brag or anything, but I always finished with the top score in those classes, which is not something I can say for my physics classes. In my physics department, we often joked about the students who you always see playing frisbee in the grass. We called them "communications majors". :p

Now... in demand...

If you stop at a B.Sc. or even M.Sc. in pure physics, you're relatively screwed, even if you are more mathematically astute than 90% of the populace. You either need more physics training, education training or finance training to be employable.

I don't think that's quite an accurate statement.

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/states/pie.jpg

A bachelor's degree in physics (or engineering or math) still gives you a $10,000-20,000 lead in salary ahead of non-science majors (http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/emp.pdf) (link to the full AIP report). A competent person with a physics degree can get a job in almost any field (e.g. business, programming, R&D, etc).

When I was a music major, I heard a joke:
Q:"How do you know a music major is at your door?"
A:"His hat says 'Dominos'"

~goodguyseatpie~

technoextreme

2nd September 2007, 01:16 PM

I don't think that's quite an accurate statement.
I actually had a physicist turn me away from that field because he said the same exact thing.

I don't think the degree of difficulty among the engineering disciplines (mechanical, electrical, chemical) is that inherently different. Rather, it is a personal affinity with the material. The math is the same. But some people naturally visualize one discipline over another.
The math isn't the same. Electrical engineering involves complex numbers, transforms, and linear algebra. I can't think of any mechanical engineering application that involves the squareroot of -1. If you can get back to me on that.

Oddly, there are no real engineerings among the choices, unless "computer engineering" truly is an engineering major, though some people call glorified programming by that name.
Actually, computer engineering is a degree in my college. I can't really explain what the major is but it's more well rounded than a computer scientist because I know computer engineers that was in my electronics class. Also, Im pretty sure computer engineers have to take the same math, science, and other courses that any other engineer would have to take. It's completly irrelevant to them but they do take it.
EETs can become PE now. kinda scary the bridge you drive over could, hypothetically, be designed by someone with 2 years of school.
Whats an EET? The only acroynm I can think of is an electrical engineering technologist. It could be worst though. I was debugging bonesaw parts and Im not even out of college yet.:)

fishbob

2nd September 2007, 01:32 PM

I would vote that psychology has to be the most difficult undergrad degree.

Slogging though all those classes knowing that you won't find a job when you get through.

---------------------

But seriously, the toughest undergrad class for me was "gravity and magnetic geophysical methods" (Univ of Houston).
30 people started, 4 of us finished.

aerosolben

7th September 2007, 02:06 PM

Like the majority, I voted physics as the hardest. There many different degrees of difficulty within physics undergraduate majors, depending on your concentration (pure, applied, environmental, etc) and also depending on where you go to school.
Applied was (IIRC) probably the most difficult where I went to school. However, I was never a physics wiz, especially optics and quantum physics - that's a good part of the reason I went less deeply into computer graphics research than I originally intended.

The weakest science/engineering program I recall was information engineering - that's where all the washouts from other engineering disciplines went. It's an interesting field (I have a minor in Optimization) with strong applications for a dedicated student, but you could get through it learning just linear programming, some fairly basic stochastic techniques, and not much else.

Minadin

7th September 2007, 04:28 PM

I think architecture was one of the most difficult degrees at my university, based on the time involvement / workload / and range of subjects that were required to be studied. But, that's probably biased by the fact that it was my degree, and comparatively my roommates were majoring in Communications and Education, and had little to no homework, ever.

John Smith

7th September 2007, 08:54 PM

Joint honours in math and physics. But really, there isn't a toughest one, in part because of each individual's strengths and weaknesses, each school/department standards and the fact that most majors can be made arbitrarily difficult (though not necessarily arbitrarily easy).

i can relate, i took on a joint honours course in math and physics, and.... dropped out before I got the honours degree. it was really hard, i say do one at a time. i also say have enough money, I ran out of money big time.

BPScooter

8th September 2007, 12:24 AM

Some of the issue might be that "difficult" is a moving target--you say Potato and I say Po'tah-to. But we can't call the whole thing off, right?

I'm sure you've met people that breeze through mathematical, scientific types of work and probably have a lot of creativity in those fields, given the right circumstances. Ditto with people that seem to be very non-quantitative, but can detect and analyze a trend or summarize complex multivariate situations or historical arcana better than most.

My interest would to be to identify and nurture the strengths of these folks during the college major selection process--this is done fairly well but there does need to be some mentor for a student to either redirect their energies to a more suitable field or hold a flaming blowtorch behind them to make them work to their capacities. Unfortunately, most 18-20 year old people aren't that good at self-evaluation and probably most don't encounter a good situation for figuring out where they can excel. So lots of kids shift around, drop out of higher education, or otherwise choose to exit the system.

Elite schools have pretty good methods for identifying and encouraging students they believe have potential, but they aren't good enough in my field (music and education) and leave a lot of room for improvement. I suppose the major shouldn't be "hard" for a student with the right stuff, it should be irritatingly challenging while rewarding intrinsically (for life) as well as extrinsically (for scholarship, job, prestige).

lise

11th September 2008, 01:31 PM

Almo

11th September 2008, 01:51 PM

I voted math because I finished a Master's in Physics and always found the Math classes to be the hardest. Well, except for Electricty and Magnetism and *********** Quantum Mechanics.

ETA: I voted on the ones in the list. I'm sure I would have found an art degree difficult.

pgwenthold

11th September 2008, 02:44 PM

why are only left brained disciplines included in the poll? what's easy for one person is difficult for another. you may be mathematically inclined but be as clumsy as an oaf in which case dance would be difficult. which is more difficult acting, dance or singing? can anyone do anything if they're given enough training or is there really a born propensity toward different disciplines?

It's a legitimate point. I could not be an art major. In fact, I have told people in the past that I define art as "that which I cannot do." I am pretty competent in a lot of areas, even things like sports, but when it comes to art, I am completely and utterly useless. And believe me, I've tried. I took an art class in high school. I stunk it up (but it was high school so I still got a B). I'd never get anywhere in even an introductory art class in college.

One of the skills that I view as critical for an artist is the ability to take an image in your head and convey it in some sort of medium. I have not yet found a medium with which I can do that. I can be staring at a wine bottle sitting on a table, and I am not able to draw a picture that resembles that wine bottle. I can't draw shapes in the correct proportions, and I can't reproduce colors.

I can dance, a little, but I need to count hard, and can't be distracted (yeah, my wife loves that!). And I'm still not good at it, I can just hold the beat. I don't sing well, either, so I consider these artistic endeavors.

lomiller

11th September 2008, 03:09 PM

IMO Electrical Engineering is more difficult then any of those. The biggest problem is that you need to be using some fairly complicated math very early on, before you really have time to teach it properly. This means you need to accelerate the math coursed and can still have trouble doing a good job of teaching subjects that are needed for later courses.

joobz

11th September 2008, 03:16 PM

My penis major is harder than your's.

Gord_in_Toronto

11th September 2008, 03:27 PM

I majored in Math and Physics and have often said that if I could start over I would have taken straight Math. The biggest difference being that there are no math labs. The physics labs took a few extra hours per week and then you had to write the experiments up. This took time from my social schedule. My friend in Organic Chem had even longer labs and I always figured that he had picked the worst major. :(

Zytheran

24th September 2008, 09:20 AM

I always viewed math and physics as being extremely difficult, but that was partially due to their theoretical nature. I ended up going with computer engineering which comes with it's own hefty dose of math. At my university, all engineering (computer, chemical, electrical, biomedical, etc) took the same math classes, 3 semesters of calculus for engineers and differential equations.

Only 3 semesters of calculus and de's? WOW:eye-poppi

Try 3 years ...:eek:
In did an Engineering degree in Australia in the 1980's and had to do applied math for 3 years, basically until we ran out of textbooks. It was neeed for the the hairy scary fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. (Matices of non-linear partial de's...shudder) I also needed to do pure math for 2 years (the weird topology stuff was also needed for fluid dynamics and a whjole lot of other weird stuff) and that was scary math too. We only had 1 year of physics and chemistry but physics had a pretty high fail rate.
The full degree was 4 years and was probably the hardest course based on contact hours (32+), length and number of hours and overall workload, which pushed it way over 40 hours per week, more like 50 in the last 2 years. Most Uni's in Australia are like this.
The next hardest course would be medicine,6 years, couple of years as an intern and then another 6 years to be surgeon. Math and physics are much easier from an overall effort point of view, only 3 years. However you might need one of those weird aspergers type brains to understand it and there is hardly any demand for people with math and physics degrees.

GreyICE

25th September 2008, 10:40 AM

Mark6

25th September 2008, 02:35 PM

I voted physics, although not from personal experience. My B.S. is in math, and the only college physics course I ever took was Microprocessors -- cross-departmental with CompSci.
Organic chemistry was a nightmare. I guess some of the difficulty regarding ANY subject would have be how a student's thought processes are aligned to the subject.

Agree completely. Organic Chemistry was a nightmare for me too, in part because I do not have good spatial imagination -- I could not visualize molecules well. Although the fact it was an 8:00 AM class may have had more to do with it ;) And yes, writing lab reports DEFINITELY did not help.

As for people who expect CompSci to be a breeze because of their awesome FaceBook and World of Warcraft skills, I can not say. When I was an undergrad (or grad, for that matter), personal computers were still a province of geeks among high school students.

Furcifer

25th September 2008, 10:49 PM

This sums it up for me. Right down to the leaky thermos.

Caution: Just a tiny bit of potty mouth.
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html

TMiguel

26th September 2008, 02:54 AM

The answer must be either math of physics, because computer science/engineering is relatively simple and there isn’t much to say about it.
Both math and physics are very broad and complicated, but because of the fact that physics is studied and quantified using math (small part of math) has a primary tool, and math ranges very extensively in to the non (directly) particle applications in much more complicated ways then physics uses. While math is certain, physics has to deal whit uncertainty and that could tip the scales a little bit, but I think that is not quite enough to win.
I would have to say math is more complicated (although I love math).

TMiguel

26th September 2008, 03:01 AM

This sums it up for me. Right down to the leaky thermos.

Caution: Just a tiny bit of potty mouth.
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html

You know that in such link is jus none sense right? Simply because the operator is dumb, it doesn’t mean that it is the right conclusion.

Ps. I can prove in 5 seconds that the data was fabricated.

GreyICE

26th September 2008, 07:24 AM

You know that in such link is jus none sense right? Simply because the operator is dumb, it doesn’t mean that it is the right conclusion.

Ps. I can prove in 5 seconds that the data was fabricated. Wow, you've seriously never does this at all. Like... never. That data was not fabricated, I've gotten equally 'quality' data from some experiments I've performed.

On the other hand I've derived absolute zero to within 15 degrees.

Some weeks you just get results like that, everyone has. I once had a sample test on the Mohs hardness scale that SHOULD have been reasonably uniform. For no apparent reason, I tested anywhere from 3-8 on the same sample.

Yeah, that was a great lab report. "Experimentally, two of these samples confirm your theory perfectly well, and one suggests that it's absolute bunkum. Since the professor confirmed the equipment and was watching several of the data points as it was being tested, I blame unicorns."

Furcifer

26th September 2008, 09:24 AM

Wow, you've seriously never does this at all. Like... never. That data was not fabricated, I've gotten equally 'quality' data from some experiments I've performed.

In my experience, usually fabricated data sets tend to fit the curve a little better. I mean I never spent 3 hours in a lab banging my head against the wall, ultimately leading to my tracking down a fellow student to "borrow" a data set or two. Nope, never happened.

Between the labs and Special Functions (the monster that also goes under the name Fourier Analysis) I think the Math students had it a little easier than us. The EE's didn't have a cake walk either, but they padded their course load with a few professional courses here and there.

Of the three, Math, Engineering and Physics, it's also been my experience that the actual Physics students were more likely to complete multiple degrees during their course of study. I know several Physics students who subsequently completed Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, as well as Math degrees.

technoextreme

26th September 2008, 02:26 PM

Engineering. Of the Engineering majors, Chemical Engineering usually wins the hardness award, because of the requirement for Physical Chemistry, on TOP of all the other horrible garbage. P. Chem is the hoser of the Chemistry majors, so that's not exactly a soft requirement.
Ummm.... I've literally had chemical engineers laugh at me when I said that. And this was at an honors banquet for my college. And pfftt... P. Chem? P. Chem is all you have to show for difficultly. Try Noise and Stoichiometric Processes, Electro-magnetics, and Communication Systems. Never mind the fact that as someone pointed out you end up learning up learning everything backwards.
Between the labs and Special Functions (the monster that also goes under the name Fourier Analysis) I think the Math students had it a little easier than us. The EE's didn't have a cake walk either, but they padded their course load with a few professional courses here and there.

Heh... I remember using a spectrum analyzer in my one lab. I remember asking the TA," Is this supposed to look like a 2 year old scribbled over the screen?" The sad fact was the answer was yes.
Between the labs and Special Functions (the monster that also goes under the name Fourier Analysis) I think the Math students had it a little easier than us.
You didn't have a specialized EE math course/modeling course/I have no clue what it falls under called linear systems? I pity you.

Molinaro

26th September 2008, 04:40 PM

I went to University for a Bachelor of Technology in Aplied Computer Science, 4 year course.

Our class started with 160 students.
2nd year began with 86.
3rd year began with 44.
4th year began with 26 left.

Of those 26:

16 had not failed a course.
9 had not dropped a course.
6 had not dropped or failed a course.

At our University Comp Sci is considered the hardest by far.

GreyICE

26th September 2008, 11:46 PM

Ummm.... I've literally had chemical engineers laugh at me when I said that. And this was at an honors banquet for my college. And pfftt... P. Chem? P. Chem is all you have to show for difficultly. Try Noise and Stoichiometric Processes, Electro-magnetics, and Communication Systems. Never mind the fact that as someone pointed out you end up learning up learning everything backwards.

Heh, I don't really care about chemistry. Everything after it devolves into nonsensically long carbon chains is boring, and all of the labs are either boring, make you high, or blow up.

So if you're telling me that stoichiometry is harder, fine, I'll buy it.

Point is, chemical engineers are all nutso insane.

technoextreme

27th September 2008, 09:08 PM

Heh, I don't really care about chemistry. Everything after it devolves into nonsensically long carbon chains is boring, and all of the labs are either boring, make you high, or blow up.

So if you're telling me that stoichiometry is harder, fine, I'll buy it.

Point is, chemical engineers are all nutso insane.
No I actually wasn't telling you that. For some stupid reason I mixed up stochastic with the word stoichiometry. It was a class on random processes.

TMiguel

28th September 2008, 05:53 AM

Wow, you've seriously never does this at all. Like... never. That data was not fabricated, I've gotten equally 'quality' data from some experiments I've performed.

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/fittedHall.gif
This is the data sheet (more like a graphic but whatever), see the note R/R0. So he probably used a simple source circuit certainly whit a base resistance besides the test resistance R.
Now if he is just changing the temperature, why does that data oscillate wildly (randomly I would say) like temperature had nothing to do whit it?
If the problem was the source, then R/R0 wouldn’t feel anything at all, if the problem was the measuring device, then it should produce errors on both R and R0 (and should figure that was something wrong when he can’t get a stable signal on any single measurements). What you have left is a problem on the circuit itself, now there is no material form which you can build a circuit that does that.

Do you still believe that the data isn’t fabricated?

Furcifer

28th September 2008, 09:33 AM

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/fittedHall.gif
This is the data sheet (more like a graphic but whatever), see the note R/R0. So he probably used a simple source circuit certainly whit a base resistance besides the test resistance R.
Now if he is just changing the temperature, why does that data oscillate wildly (randomly I would say) like temperature had nothing to do whit it?
If the problem was the source, then R/R0 wouldn’t feel anything at all, if the problem was the measuring device, then it should produce errors on both R and R0 (and should figure that was something wrong when he can’t get a stable signal on any single measurements). What you have left is a problem on the circuit itself, now there is no material form which you can build a circuit that does that.

Do you still believe that the data isn’t fabricated?

If you look carefully you can actually make out what looks like three seperate sets of data plotted on this graph. One set on or about the plotted curve, one set below the curve, and one small set of 5 points, where R/Ro -->0 at 225K.

GreyICE

28th September 2008, 02:54 PM

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/fittedHall.gif
This is the data sheet (more like a graphic but whatever), see the note R/R0. So he probably used a simple source circuit certainly whit a base resistance besides the test resistance R.
Now if he is just changing the temperature, why does that data oscillate wildly (randomly I would say) like temperature had nothing to do whit it?
If the problem was the source, then R/R0 wouldn’t feel anything at all, if the problem was the measuring device, then it should produce errors on both R and R0 (and should figure that was something wrong when he can’t get a stable signal on any single measurements). What you have left is a problem on the circuit itself, now there is no material form which you can build a circuit that does that.

Do you still believe that the data isn’t fabricated? Because the f***ing solder is crap, the damn wires fall off the crystals, and the entire thing sucks.

Seriously, if you haven't done an experiment where you're sitting there banging your head against the wall because you can't get good data no matter what the hell you do, you've never done this. Period.

I don't care if its parody or if he actually got that data set, I've been there, I've done that. There's nothing like getting a Mohs reading for quartz on your steel sample and being like "Err... what. the hell." And the Prof looking at it and being like "Eh, I'd discard that data point. And that one. And that one."

TMiguel

28th September 2008, 06:07 PM

Because the f***ing solder is crap, the damn wires fall off the crystals, and the entire thing sucks.
Then why aren't there any zeros or non-valid results?
if the problem is the wire falling all the time, why he is constantly messing whit it?
I don't know, it really doesn't sound good to me.

Seriously, if you haven't done an experiment where you're sitting there banging your head against the wall because you can't get good data no matter what the hell you do, you've never done this. Period.

Yes have I done experiments that have made crap results that didn’t look liked my pre-predictions, and I had to bang my head a couple of times before figuring out that I screwed up somewhere (never had a mistake unanswered tough).
Now discrediting a concept, principle or theory on the premise that I screwed up it is something that not even a crazy person would do.

Furcifer

28th September 2008, 06:56 PM

I don't care if its parody or if he actually got that data set, I've been there, I've done that. There's nothing like getting a Mohs reading for quartz on your steel sample and being like "Err... what. the hell." And the Prof looking at it and being like "Eh, I'd discard that data point. And that one. And that one."

Too true. This happened more often than you'd like. All of our equipment was post WWII surplus, at best. The task was much more of a task in Lab reportng than the actual physical principle. In particular, the Lab reports for Electrodyamics come to mind.

GreyICE

28th September 2008, 07:51 PM

Yes have I done experiments that have made crap results that didn’t look liked my pre-predictions, and I had to bang my head a couple of times before figuring out that I screwed up somewhere (never had a mistake unanswered tough).
Now discrediting a concept, principle or theory on the premise that I screwed up it is something that not even a crazy person would do.

You don't even have the smallest little sense of humor, do you :p

lomiller

28th September 2008, 09:47 PM

Then why aren't there any zeros or non-valid results?
if the problem is the wire falling all the time, why he is constantly messing whit it?
I don't know, it really doesn't sound good to me.

Solder is not exactly a great tool for connecting a lead to a crystal to begin with and IMO that is exactly how you would expect a poor solder joint to behave when you apply heat. The expansion/contraction of the metal alone is enough to change the resistance of the gap between the two things you are trying to join.

technoextreme

29th September 2008, 07:27 AM

Solder is not exactly a great tool for connecting a lead to a crystal to begin with and IMO that is exactly how you would expect a poor solder joint to behave when you apply heat. The expansion/contraction of the metal alone is enough to change the resistance of the gap between the two things you are trying to join.
I love how this topic went from the hardest undergraduate major to the mechanics of how solder joints fail. We are all nerds. Also, I would love to mention that everyone's definition of hard is different so I think the original post is a bit biased. But it's fun to discuss because I have no idea what most other majors learn. :p
You don't even have the smallest little sense of humor, do you :p
I wonder what major he is.

Furcifer

29th September 2008, 05:07 PM

Also, I would love to mention that everyone's definition of hard is different so I think the original post is a bit biased.

I agree. Most people choose a major based on how it easy it will be. I probably would have had a much more difficult time with math or chemistry.

That being said, I think this may be an appropriate explanation of why Physics was a difficult major, and what hand I played in making it that way.

http://brightlywound.com/comic/wallpaper01-800x600.jpg

I hope I'm not the only one who found out at about 10PM the night before, the problems from the Electrodynamics homework required knowing how to solve nth degree polynomials and apply Laplace trasforms. All of which had yet to be covered in a Differential Equations class (well it had been, but I haven't done that homework yet, it's not due until next Friday)

alysten

30th September 2008, 07:37 PM

Also, I would love to mention that everyone's definition of hard is different so I think the original post is a bit biased. But it's fun to discuss because I have no idea what most other majors learn.

Personally I would rather take physics and math than the Human Interaction and Physiology of Human Factors classes I suffered through. There is only one answer to the problem in math and physics as a general rule. But how people "feel" about the color blue... kill me now.

Darth Rotor

30th September 2008, 09:42 PM

Physics is engineering without the joy. Hardest, IMO.

Arkayik

30th September 2008, 11:28 PM

Aptitude, inclination, self-discipline, astrological symbol.... Well with the possible exception of one, those will likely diktate which is the hardest...

Either follow the money and be miserably rich, or go with your passion and become an interesting individual, totally up to you...

Hope it all works out for you. Let us know in 20 years or so.

cheers,

Ark

GreyICE

1st October 2008, 01:14 PM

Physics is engineering without the joy. Hardest, IMO.

Engineering is physics, only useful.

Stir

1st October 2008, 01:25 PM

if "difficulty" is measured in % of the population who could achieve such a degree, I'd have to vote for maths and physics....

I mean, anyone who can string a few sentences together can get a BA :) :duck:

I agree that it depends on what 'difficulty' means: if it means how hard it would be for a randomly selected undergrad to successfully complete, math or physics might be the one.

But I was a math major, and I had by far the least out of class work: no memorization, all open book or take-home tests, no labs or anything outside the lectures ... a complete breeze as long as I understood the material (whch I was luckily able to do).

One of my room-mates was in veterinary medicine with an incredible amount of memorization required, lots of labs, and in direct competition with all the pre-meds. He studied at least 10 hours to my 1.

Slydermv

1st October 2008, 01:30 PM

In terms of abstract concepts, math and physics may be more difficult, but Engineering has a ridiculous workload, and in my experience the highest dropout rate. Of course. I'm an Engineer. We started with 60-70 in our first year (I skipped the common year as OAC's were in at the time) of common with mechanical and civil engineers. By the end of the second year (end of the tech program), there were 7 civils left and even less mechanicals. While work may be more abstart or difficult in other programs, the sheer work load in engineering was ridiculous.

technoextreme

1st October 2008, 05:52 PM

Engineering is physics, only useful.
Engineering is composed of a bunch of fields. Oddly, enough borderline philosophy got thrown in yesterday. And it depends on what field you are talking about. A lot of system work only involves math.

Skeptic

2nd October 2008, 11:33 PM

A friend of mine beat you all. He took a *Triple* major: Math / Physics / Computer science. Took about 12 to 15 courses per semester. Maintained a "95" (3.7) average, too.

Jorghnassen

3rd October 2008, 07:57 AM

A friend of mine beat you all. He took a *Triple* major: Math / Physics / Computer science. Took about 12 to 15 courses per semester. Maintained a "95" (3.7) average, too.

Hey, I know someone like that! Did he touch the kosher microwave with his finger too?

/long story you don't want to hear

Actually, I know someone who did both engineering and joint honours math/computer science (two degrees, one BEng, one BSc) at once as well, and also got the GG's medal (so did the math/physics/cs guy, in fact, but I think that was only one degree).

Furcifer

3rd October 2008, 08:26 AM

A friend of mine beat you all. He took a *Triple* major: Math / Physics / Computer science. Took about 12 to 15 courses per semester. Maintained a "95" (3.7) average, too.

Well not to be the "One Upsman" but a friend of mine beat that, did Math, Physics, EE and Mechanical (I don't remember him doing CompSci) all on a full ride at MIT. Finished his Master's in Physics and EE there before moving on the a Ph.D. in Physics at Harvard. Subsequently went back to Harvard Business school for ??? (The last time I talked to his mom she just said he went back there, I never followed up to see what he "got" when he went back)

Not to down play what he did in any way, but the Quadruple major wasn't that much more work for him at the time, Physics follows pretty close to the EE, which follows the Mechanical. If I'm not mistaken the Math required the most additional courses to complete. Anyone who went to MIT can feel free to correct me, but from what I remember this Quadruple major wasn't that uncommon there.

a_unique_person

4th October 2008, 09:32 AM

About 30 years ago I started a course at RMIT in Communications Engineering. At the first lecture I was cheerfully informed that about 30% of us would complete the course.

Cavemonster

4th October 2008, 09:48 AM

This may go against the grain a little.
I attended RISD as a film major.
We were proudly informed when we started as freshmen that our school now had more cumulative work hours per week (class + homework) than MIT, making it the most in the country. It also soon became clear that the freshman foundation courses were designed to break you and make everyone quit who was not absolutely serious.

There used to be balconies on some of the freshman dorms, but the doors to these had been welded shut to prevent further suicides.

I put forward that in the right program, art is the most difficult major offered.

Dubbi

4th October 2008, 07:32 PM

At my university, our POSTs come in 3 forms: minor, major, specialist.
If anyone has heard of this before, would a "specialist" be a synonym for an honors program elsewhere? The way a specialist differs from a major program is in having tougher courses and having more courses.

Miss_Kitt

7th October 2008, 01:43 PM

I think many posters have already covered this, but so much depends upon the program at the particular school, and also the student's comfort-zone and style of learning in various subjects. I attended Harvey Mudd College, where the overall "wash-out" rate the years I was there ran about 1/3rd of entering freshmen never got their degree from Mudd, so it was tough tough tough no matter what major you had.

For me personally, physics is where I learned to really use calculus, so it made my math classes much easier. On the other hand, I never really "got" rotational kinematics, and neither did the tutor the Physics Dept helpfully provided for me--when her answer didn't match the back of the book either, we both just threw up our hands. (And she now has a PhD and is a researcher in Physics!) Nevertheless, I loved the class and might have majored in it had I stayed in school.

Depending upon what "Computer Engineering" means, it could be relatively easy or very difficult. Is that a degree in how to design /combine / analysis hardware systems? Operating systems? Chips??

My advice to the OP is to pick a subject he/she really enjoys! Life is too short to spend time doing things you don't like--at least, no more than you have to--and for most purposes, any BS degree is worth the same on the market...it mostly tells a potential employer that you have a certain base skill set (for that field) and that you can make and stick to a multi-year plan.

Darth Rotor

8th October 2008, 04:27 PM

Engineering is physics, only useful.
The Physicist delights in finding out whether or not she is a witch, or even a dark witch.

The engineer builds the bridge out of her.

TellyKNeasuss

9th October 2008, 06:19 PM

I'm rather late to this thread, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway. I was surprised to see Computer Science as a candidate. I worked on an M.S. in Computer Science a while ago and I wasn't impressed by either the challenge of the coursework or by the other students, almost all of whom had an undergraduate degree in CS. It didn't compare at all to the M.S. program that I actually finished. I would substitute Electrical Engineering in that list. My vote would go for a tie between Electrical Engineering and Physics.

Michelle Lyon

10th October 2008, 12:38 PM

I put forward that in the right program, art is the most difficult major offered.

In addition to rigorous programs, artists' inherent temperament can play a role, I think. They have a certain sensitive temprament to begin with. It's why a lot of them become artists. This puts them at a disadvantage though, when facing failure, frustration or rejection. Worse if there's a mental disorder involved.

Not that there aren't any scientists out there who aren't emotional. ;) Just that artists (generally speaking) are not as prepared to deal with frustrations that come with such a program.

technoextreme

10th October 2008, 12:51 PM

One of the skills that I view as critical for an artist is the ability to take an image in your head and convey it in some sort of medium. I have not yet found a medium with which I can do that. I can be staring at a wine bottle sitting on a table, and I am not able to draw a picture that resembles that wine bottle. I can't draw shapes in the correct proportions, and I can't reproduce colors.

You have the ability to do that. In fact I would say that engineers have an easier time doing the above in mediums that most artists do not typically work with. In fact I do that all the time with my robots.
See an image in my head->Build a robot
See an image in my head->Build a robot
See an image in my head->Another robot