Are you Major-ist?

[B++]

But I find it hard to believe that the attrition rates of PhDs in engineering is all of a sudden because they don't find the curriculum interesting enough. Does it happen? Yeah. But enough to be nearly double? Hard to fathom.

My impression, at least for computer science, is that many students either aren't apt for or don't like research, which causes attrition in computer science PhDs.

[doogly]

I have more respect for STEM than I do for humanities majors simply because most likely, they have suffered more, and they have sacrificed more to attain a future goal.

What is this I don't even

[gorcee]

But I find it hard to believe that the attrition rates of PhDs in engineering is all of a sudden because they don't find the curriculum interesting enough. Does it happen? Yeah. But enough to be nearly double? Hard to fathom.

My impression, at least for computer science, is that many students either aren't apt for or don't like research, which causes attrition in computer science PhDs.

Yet studies don't support this.

From a 2002 study (emphasis mine):

Increases in attrition rates among science, mathematics, and engineering (SME) majors have produced a variety of deleterious effects for society. This paper attempts to clarify and interpret the interaction of those characteristics of the structure and culture of undergraduate SME programs that perpetuate high loss rates among their first-year college majors by looking at a number of studies of SME programs and undergraduate attrition. The interaction of instructional factors, differing high school and faculty expectations for entering SME undergraduates, and epistemological considerations was found to contribute to a higher dissatisfaction among SME majors as compared with non-SME major and to resulting student attrition. Significant support was not seen for the contribution of commonly cited explanations of SME attrition such as cognitive factors and large class sizes.

Linkity link

From the article (emphasis mine):

When asked to compare SME courses with non-SME courses, students expressed strong contrasts: coldness vs. warmth; elitism vs. democracy; aloofness vs. openness; and rejection vs. support. The most common words used by first-year students to describe their personal encounters with SME faculty were "unapproachable", "cold", "unavailable", "aloof", "indifferent", and "intimidating". Students further elaborated, according to results by Seymore and Hewitt (1994), describing the coldness of an SME classroom as based on sarcasm and ridicule by faculty. These practices, rarely found in non-SME courses, are described by students as discouraging voluntary student participation and creating an atmosphere of intimidation that swtichers cited as a main cause of their decision to leave their SME major."

In other words, to survive STEM, you have to be willing to suffer through some impersonal, aggressive, indifferent shit.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

So now the argument, in a nutshell, is that majoring in the humanities makes you a pussy?

[gorcee]

So now the argument, in a nutshell, is that majoring in the humanities makes you a pussy?

That's never been the argument. Throughout the thread, I've been saying that I have deep respect for the humanities and humanities majors.

However, I don't have respect for humanities majors who are pussies and whine about how hard the humanities are. There's a difference. I also find the notion that the humanities are of comparable difficulty to engineering to be a specious claim at best. The reason for my skepticism is founded not just in personal experience, but also has some research support.

I do not claim that the humanities are cognitively easier than STEM fields. I claim that STEM is much more emotionally and sometimes logistically difficult to complete. This claim seems to be supported by research, as well.

[gorcee]

Research! Hot shitty balls! I would so love to see some links to it.

One of my links was in my earlier post. Here it is again: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED465347.pdf

Here's another, from Australia, 2011: http://www.altc.edu.au/resource-engineering-qualification-curriculum-uts-2011

In the name of science, here is a press-release summarizing a study (2009) that suggest that retention rates for STEM is not that different than non-STEM: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090804114104.htm The original paper is: Matthew W. Ohland, Sheri D. Sheppard, Gary Lichtenstein, Özgür Eris, Debbie Chachra, and Richard A. Layton. Persistence, Engagement, and Migration in Engineering Programs. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering. I don't have access to the original journal article, though if you have university access you might. It seems to focus on the retention rates of women in engineering.

Recent statistics from UCSC (just internal student numbers, this is not controlled for the population at large, but the numbers do tend to agree with other similar multi-university statistics from the same time period): http://planning.ucsc.edu/irps/ENROLLMT/july02update/GradRatesTTD.pdf

This study suggests that the total graduation rate (in and out of discipline) for Engineering entry students is over 10% lower than humanities and social sciences (separate categories here) and about 8% lower than arts. The average time to degree was a full quarter longer for Engineering and natural sciences students than arts students (and a full quarter above campus average).

[gmalivuk]

I re-iterate the point that all life is suffering, and it is caused by desire.

And I re-iterate the point that millions of people think that's bullshit.

[gorcee]

I re-iterate the point that all life is suffering, and it is caused by desire.

And I re-iterate the point that millions of people think that's bullshit.

And many, many millions more do not. Like, 350 million.

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html


http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/bud_statwrld.htm

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Buddha said it so it's true. Obviously. I mean, it's not like anyone would disagree with the Buddha, right?

Actually, let me reiterate that more firmly: there are many billions more people who are not Buddhists than who are. So you are certainly not going to win such a claim by an argumentum ad populum.

However, I don't have respect for humanities majors who are pussies and whine about how hard the humanities are. There's a difference.

I suppose you read a paper where researchers lived the lives of all humanities majors who complain about difficult courses and found their claims to be false?

[gorcee]

Buddha said it so it's true. Obviously. I mean, it's not like anyone would disagree with the Buddha, right?

It means that it's a valid life philosophy. It's not the only one, but it's pretty well established beyond the point of saying "well that's just a childish, immature way of looking at things."

Or, in other words, the simple fact that millions of people think it's bullshit must be weighted at least equally by the hundreds of millions of people who hold it as like one of the fundamental tenets of their belief structure. Edit: And not being a Buddhist is not the same thing as finding Buddhist philosophy to be a bunch of bullshit. Also, I'm not the one trying to make a population argument. I'm specifically pointing out that gmalivuk's population argument is malarchy. I'm saying that because there are huge numbers of people both for and against that argument, that population numbers cannot validate or invalidate it.

I suppose you read a paper where researchers lived the lives of all humanities majors who complain about difficult courses and found their claims to be false

Such a study is unnecessary. The point is one of comparison. I've already stated that I think that things are hard. I love me some hardship. But my point is that STEM is harder. And these studies have also concluded that there is not a significant difference in the nature of humanities students vs. engineering students. So really, they're starting from the same point.

[doogly]

Hate to break it to you, but you are not really demonstrating an understanding of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism.
I recommend a religious studies course!

[gorcee]

Hate to break it to you, but you are not really demonstrating an understanding of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism.
I recommend a religious studies course!

No, I'm demonstrating a wonderful example of what a Buddhist isn't. Or maybe I'm a cynical buddhist. Or maybe I'm just cynical. Either way, I'm not unhappy. And that's pretty good for me.

Just because I haven't figured out the Third and Fourth Noble Truth for myself doesn't invalidate the philosophical framework of the first two.

[gmalivuk]

It means that it's a valid life philosophy.

Yeah, but you didn't say, "In my personal philosophical view, life is suffering caused by desire". You just said it like it was some kind of absolute truth. Like if I said, "I re-iterate the point that all life is a gift from God, and worshiping Jesus Christ is the only appropriate way to thank Him for His gift." Or, more completely, it's like if I said that and then went on to use it as an argument against everyone who goes into a career other than the ministry.

[gorcee]

It means that it's a valid life philosophy.

Yeah, but you didn't say, "In my personal philosophical view, life is suffering caused by desire". You just said it like it was some kind of absolute truth. Like if I said, "I re-iterate the point that all life is a gift from God, and worshiping Jesus Christ is the only appropriate way to thank Him for His gift." Or, more completely, it's like if I said that and then went on to use it as an argument against everyone who goes into a career other than the ministry.

I wasn't aware that it was convention to preface blindingly obvious personal philosophies as such. Regardless, it was fairly clear that the post was a matter of personal opinion:

This, I think, is what most college students do. Dream is right: people's dreams change. But I contend that people's dreams change more due to the fact that it's just so much easier to catch a small wave now, then to spend hours and hours working out waiting for the big one.

[gmalivuk]

Once again, sticking "I think" in front of something doesn't make it an opinion, and "I contend" even less so.

Especially when you go on in the same sentence to talk about "the fact that" something.

[gorcee]

Once again, sticking "I think" in front of something doesn't make it an opinion, and "I contend" even less so.

Especially when you go on in the same sentence to talk about "the fact that" something.

Once again, sticking "once again" in front of a point you haven't yet made doesn't make it stronger. We can nitpick pedantry all night. You know what I'm trying to say.

Ok, so I used the phrase "the fact that" as a non-strict colloquialism. Sorry. You got me. I use it all the time, and made a 60 second post without proofreading. Guilty as charged.

However, my point still stands. And, now that I think of it, given the context of the discussion, shouldn't the first two Noble Truths have been recognized by well-studied humanities majors? Shouldn't that alone have been sufficient evidence to say, "hey, he's referencing a religion and/or philosophy, not making a scientifically provable statement about the universe." I mean, if I mention the ten commandments and forget to capitalize them, does anyone think I'm referring to the return policy at Macy's?

Edit: oshit, I forgot quotes.

Edit edit: I was being a little ad hominem-y there, that was rude of me. I'll set the example. Sort of. I know that gmalivuk can still see it, though.

[gmalivuk]

I'm pretty sure most of us recognized straight away that you were parroting something you learned about Buddhism.

[gorcee]

I'm pretty sure most of us recognized straight away that you were parroting something you learned about Buddhism.

And if that was the case, then why would you assume it like it was some absolute truth?

So it was either a.) recognized appropriately, and ignored, which makes your first point invalid on the basis of "you just willingly missed the point" so arguing is pointless because you can't effectively debate anything if the person just sticks their fingers in their ears whenever a point is made or b.) wasn't recognized, in which case my previous counter to your "millions of people think it's bullshit" statement still stands.

Also, again with the subtle ad hominem from gmalivuk, implying that I just repeat what other say, with no connection to what it means. I'm pretty sure I'm being trolled at this point but I'm not very tired so I don't very much care.

[doogly]

The point is that the way you are stating them has very little to do with the actual beliefs of 350 million people.
I did major in this sort of thing ; )

[gmalivuk]

So it was either a.) recognized appropriately, and ignored, which makes your first point invalid on the basis of "you just willingly missed the point"

I didn't ignore it or miss any point. What point do you think I missed?

[gorcee]

The point is that the way you are stating them has very little to do with the actual beliefs of 350 million people.
I did major in this sort of thing ; )

Like, I'm just gonna quote directly from the website I linked earlier.

To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

The emphasis I added were the elements that I was most directly, but not exclusively referencing.

Now, are you saying that these things are not part of Buddhism, or are you saying that practical Buddhism in the modern world doesn't focus on these things, or are you saying that I'm not speaking to these particular points in some non-exclusive way?

If it's the second, then that's a valid point, and I should adjust my number down from 350 million. But we've already established that arguments based on demographics don't serve anyone well.

if it's the third, well then that's because I don't feel like a full exposition of my own philosophy, or the validity and/or prevalence of derived philosophies, is really relevant to the current topic.

I was trying to address a single comment in an offhand fashion. Gmalivuk et al are trying to dismiss the entirety of my posts by pointing out a seeming flaw in one not-even-tangentially related field. So if you want to dismiss my discussion of philosophy based on the fact that it is derived from many sources, fine. But that doesn't change the validity of my other points.

And if you want to re-visit the "millions of people think it's bullshit" because "Gorceeism" isn't a widely-accepted worldview, then I can still fall back on the validity of the shared elements as they stand. Part of my philosophy is "murder is bad". Do we negate that on the same basis, too?

Edit: If you do want to hear my personal philosophy, then we can take it elsewhere. To summarize, however, in an attempt to put the current discussion to rest, and to revisit actual studies and science (!), I don't fully subscribe to Buddhist principles because I don't follow the no-self viewpoint. I am a reductionist of sorts, but I take a viewpoint that the construction of self is unknowable and therefore irrelevant, not non-existent. So I don't subscribe to either traditional no-self or reductionist principles. I do subscribe to the concept of the Noble Truths, including the elimination of self, but on the aforementioned basis that the construction of self is irrelevant, not non-existent. I also subscribe to many, but not all, of the principles of the Eightfold Path. The irrelevancy of self is derived partly from Kierkegaardian existentialism, where I prescribe the irrelevancy of essence (ie, the unknowable construction of consciousness) as a causal notion for the existential view. Also, I'm really tired now and I'm rambling. Rambling is a big part of my life's existence, too.

[gorcee]

I re-iterate the point that all life is suffering, and it is caused by desire.

And I re-iterate the point that millions of people think that's bullshit.

And many, many millions more do not. Like, 350 million.

Buddha said it so it's true. Obviously. I mean, it's not like anyone would disagree with the Buddha, right?

It means that it's a valid life philosophy.

Yeah, but you didn't say, "In my personal philosophical view, life is suffering caused by desire"..

So here, you claim to have not recognized it as a personal philosophical view.

But then you say,

I'm pretty sure most of us recognized straight away that you were parroting something you learned about Buddhism.

So you DID recognize it as a personal philosophical view! Or did you? Maybe you didn't recognize it as a philosophical view. Hmm.

It means that it's a valid life philosophy.

Yeah

Ok, well there's your acknowledgement that it is a philosophy. So maybe you didn't recognize it as personal. But then you say

I'm pretty sure most of us recognized straight away that you were parroting something you learned about Buddhism.

So you do recognize it as something coming just from me, and not as a grand statement of some uniform philosophy.

[Jahoclave]

Gorcee: I don't think that research shows quite what you think it shows. Are you really suggesting the interpersonal abilities of professors and student interaction is the same as actual hardness of the material? One of the very things they referenced was simply the difference between what the students thought they were getting into versus what really goes on in college. Your first article, especially your bolded part disagrees with you. Plus, that only refers to first year undergrad retention, not graduate level work, which is again, different from undergrad. And are you really arguing that humanities classrooms are just filled with better human beings?

Further surmised that humanities degrees don't often have rigid class prerequisite requirements that make scheduling easier. However, that doesn't speak to the relative hardness of a degree.

You can keep harping on external measurements all you want, but that's not going to prove your point that stem is somehow harder and more worthy of respect. All you've done is point out that you're a bitter individual who wants to make himself feel better by pretending his major is somehow harder and more worthy of respect than everybody else. I've no respect for it, and like others, find it rather immature.

After all, I'm not willing to concede that external suffering caused by a degree is a mark of the distinction to be accorded to that degree. If anything, it would make me rate it lower because those external factors could be dealt with, but haven't been.


And: I think you're missing gmal's point that you claimed Buddhism was automatically a valid view of life for all people rather than a personal held belief for your own life. The point is, a majority of the people on Earth don't subscribe to a Buddhist view on the world. That doesn't negate that you're essentially parroting a simplistic view of it.

[gorcee]

Gorcee: I don't think that research shows quite what you think it shows. Are you really suggesting the interpersonal abilities of professors and student interaction is the same as actual hardness of the material?

No. I, again, have never once stated that the cognitive requirements for either such major is greater or less than the other, and that would include the inherent difficulty of the material.

What I am saying, and what the research supports, is that statistically, folks who fail to complete STEM programs do so largely because of emotional reasons that are not as prevalent in non-STEM fields. I am also saying that successful students in STEM programs are successful despite the program taking longer and despite lacking the same levels of personal, educational and emotional enrichment experiences that non-STEM students have. In fact, the studies specifically state that engineering retention rates are not lowered because of a perceived difficulty of the subject matter.

As a result, I am saying that yes, STEM programs are harder. Not because of the material, but because success in those programs on average requires greater sacrifices and, for lack of a better term, greater emotional resilience to deal with what the researchers have dubbed a "chilly climate." Also, on average, STEM students go into college less prepared. Given the relative uniformity of pre-collegiate education, this does in fact mean that non-STEM majors are better prepared and that is a factor of an easier experience. It's definitely easier to hike a mountain if you're in shape.

My references to graduate-level retention rates should be taken to be separate but related. Let's focus on undergrad success now, but let's keep the graduate statistics in mind. I'll get the link later; I don't think I posted it.

You can keep harping on external measurements all you want, but that's not going to prove your point that stem is somehow harder and more worthy of respect. All you've done is point out that you're a bitter individual who wants to make himself feel better by pretending his major is somehow harder and more worthy of respect than everybody else. I've no respect for it, and like others, find it rather immature.

And how is this different than the humanities majors attempting the same arguments? I'm not bitter, I'm proud. The one thing I would save from a fire, aside from my pets, is my diploma. And the reason I would pick that thing over all other things is because of all the things I have overcome to get it, because my road was more difficult than others, even my classmates' and peers'. I am not bitter because I suffered, I am proud because I did. Without suffering we cannot perceive the greatness of our triumphs. And although my road was difficult, I know it was a cakewalk compared to many others. Despite my difficulties, I still recognize my fortunes. And that fact inspires me.

And, for the last time, I've never said that engineering students or whatever deserve more respect than a similarly successful humanities major. I've said that BOTH of them deserve more respect than a whiny humanities major that just runs around talking about how hard everything is. And the reason I single out the whiny humanities major is because, as their discipline is epistemiologically and systematically easier (according to the earlier arguments), that they don't have a good benchmark for difficulty.

To me, it's like a couple of construction workers settling in at the bar after 12 hours in the heat, and hearing some pampered, spoiled banker type complaining about how difficult it is to find a good egg salad sandwich. A valid complaint, perhaps, but one must consider the venue.

[Jahoclave]

Gorcee: I don't think that research shows quite what you think it shows. Are you really suggesting the interpersonal abilities of professors and student interaction is the same as actual hardness of the material?

No. I, again, have never once stated that the cognitive requirements for either such major is greater or less than the other, and that would include the inherent difficulty of the material.

What I am saying, and what the research supports, is that statistically, folks who fail to complete STEM programs do so largely because of emotional reasons that are not as prevalent in non-STEM fields. I am also saying that successful students in STEM programs are successful despite the program taking longer and despite lacking the same levels of personal, educational and emotional enrichment experiences that non-STEM students have. In fact, the studies specifically state that engineering retention rates are not lowered because of a perceived difficulty of the subject matter.

As a result, I am saying that yes, STEM programs are harder. Not because of the material, but because success in those programs on average requires greater sacrifices and, for lack of a better term, greater emotional resilience to deal with what the researchers have dubbed a "chilly climate." Also, on average, STEM students go into college less prepared. Given the relative uniformity of pre-collegiate education, this does in fact mean that non-STEM majors are better prepared and that is a factor of an easier experience. It's definitely easier to hike a mountain if you're in shape.

My references to graduate-level retention rates should be taken to be separate but related. Let's focus on undergrad success now, but let's keep the graduate statistics in mind. I'll get the link later; I don't think I posted it.

I don't think you understand. Petty bullshit isn't a badge of honor to me. The fact that STEM has a bad culture does not make it a harder major. It just makes it a major with a bad culture that needs to be worked on. It doesn't make you special to have completed that degree or make the degree any harder. Nor does it mean that humanities majors lack the same emotional resilience, just that their fields have managed to be better at managing their culture. Ergo, the converse of your argument is that non-stem are better because they teach you to be a better person. So you've gained nothing with your pretentious grandstanding. I'm not impressed.

[gorcee]

I don't think you understand. Petty bullshit isn't a badge of honor to me. The fact that STEM has a bad culture does not make it a harder major.

Persistence is not an admirable quality to you?

You're basically saying that STEM majors are worse people because they choose to suffer a hostile environment.

I say they're good people because they choose that route despite the more hostile environment.

Sure the culture of STEM needs to be adjusted. But until that happens, the people who endure it are not fools, and they deserve accolades for having completed it.

[Jahoclave]

I don't think you understand. Petty bullshit isn't a badge of honor to me. The fact that STEM has a bad culture does not make it a harder major.

Persistence is not an admirable quality to you?

You're basically saying that STEM majors are worse people because they choose to suffer a hostile environment.

I say they're good people because they choose that route despite the more hostile environment.

Sure the culture of STEM needs to be adjusted. But until that happens, the people who endure it are not fools, and they deserve accolades for having completed it.

What isn't an admirable quality to me is bitching about how hard you have it and pretending like it's a badge of honor. Following your logic starving orphan children in Africa should be aspired to. The problem you have is saying that they're somehow better than everybody else just because they chose a major that has a worse culture. They're not, end of story. They're people, same as everybody else, with the same capacities to tolerate. People persist in the non-stem fields as well. The world doesn't need stem people more than it needs non-stem. The fact is, your pretentious grand-standing is petty.

And you know, going by the idea that STEM majors are going to make more money off their degree than non-stem, who is more persistent, the one doing the degree for less payoff and earnings in the long run, or the one whose starting salaries are largely higher? Your suffering measurement is ridiculous.

[gmalivuk]

You're basically saying that STEM majors are worse people because they choose to suffer a hostile environment.

I say they're good people because they choose that route despite the more hostile environment.

No. Jahoclave is simply saying they are not better simply because they've chosen a hostile environment.

Saying someone is not better than someone else is not the same as saying they're worse.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Still, who do you think perpetuates the shitty atmosphere? Fucking leprechauns and pixies?

[semicharmed]

Still, who do you think perpetuates the shitty atmosphere? Fucking leprechauns and pixies?

As an engineer, I actually would like to say that the shitty atmosphere was actually caused by unicorns and fairies, not leprechauns and pixies. At least in my department. /facepalm.

Seriously, though, I didn't feel like my department was particularly hostile - liked most of my professors, didn't get too much crap for being female - and we still lost a lot of people between freshman seminar and graduation. Don't have exact numbers, but we entered with a class of 45 and graduated with around 25.

And those of us that stayed didn't stay because we were better people. A lot of us who stayed were more stubborn, sure - but most of us just enjoyed our major. While the people that left... didn't.

[gorcee]

You're basically saying that STEM majors are worse people because they choose to suffer a hostile environment.

I say they're good people because they choose that route despite the more hostile environment.

No. Jahoclave is simply saying they are not better simply because they've chosen a hostile environment.

Saying someone is not better than someone else is not the same as saying they're worse.

the converse of your argument is that non-stem are better because they teach you to be a better person

How can non-stem be better people and then stem not be worse?

My entire argument boils down to these points:

1.) STEM requires greater persistence to succeed (supported by retention studies)
2.) Persistence is hard!
3.) Persistence is admirable!

Which of these three points are you rejecting?

[Dream]

1.) STEM requires greater persistence to succeed (supported by retention studies)

As noted several times above, this is rubbish. There is so much more to university life than just how hard your classes are.

2.) Persistence is hard!

Maybe it is, but not necessarily. Not unless you are circularly defining STEM study as requiring persistence because it is hard to do, which it is because it has a higher drop-out rate (ie requires persistence) because it is hard.

3.) Persistence is admirable!

And is far from limited to STEM study, so what does that prove about anything?

[Izawwlgood]

There is so much more to university life than just how hard your classes are.

It should also be pointed out that 'hard' classes aren't limited to the STEM fields.

[gorcee]

1.) STEM requires greater persistence to succeed (supported by retention studies)

As noted several times above, this is rubbish. There is so much more to university life than just how hard your classes are.

*FACEPALM*

I cited like 8 different studies from two countries earlier. Each of them concluded that the material was not harder. And each of them concluded that STEM majors require greater persistence. The conclusions include the idea that STEM majors don't get to experience as much of university life as non-STEM majors.

Like, debate it if you want, but it is almost a generally accepted fact among higher education research that presently STEM majors require greater persistence. The statistics support this notion, and it seems like every major university has commissioned a study on how to combat this. Seriously, I linked a bunch of studies that talk about this. You can go read the PDFs.

2.) Persistence is hard!

Maybe it is, but not necessarily. Not unless you are circularly defining STEM study as requiring persistence because it is hard to do, which it is because it has a higher drop-out rate (ie requires persistence) because it is hard.

3.) Persistence is admirable!

And is far from limited to STEM study, so what does that prove about anything?

Let's dispel the idea that engineering classes are cognitively harder. I've never once made that argument. I'm citing multiple supporting studies that say that STEM programs have higher attrition rates and take longer to complete on average; that STEM students experience fewer facets of the university experience, including fewer extracurriculars, electives, independent studies, and study-abroad opportunities, despite taking longer to complete their programs; and that STEM students and non-STEM students are equally cognitively capable and often have similar backgrounds, but STEM students are less well prepared for their majors (a statement on the quality of pre-collegiate education as much as it is on the cultural mores of STEM faculty).

Again, to reiterate my three points.

1.) STEM requires greater persistence. I've cited a bunch of peer reviewed studies, some internal statistics, and findings from commissioned reports to support this. If you want to debate this, bring an equal level of support for your rebuttal.

2.) Persistence is hard! Nothing specific to STEM. Just that the act of persisting through something is not easy, whether it's a Baconator or an engineering program, pulling through to the end requires you to be a champion!

3.) Persistence is admirable! Nothing specific to STEM. Just a statement that we, as a culture, admire those who persist, those who battle the odds. It's why many sportswriters consider the Stanley Cup to be the most difficult trophy in professional sports to obtain, and why 60 years later, we still know who Bobby Thompson is (or was... I don't recall if he passed away). It's why we have what David Nye calls the "technological sublime". It's why we learn about Shackleton and Hillary. It's why Lance Armstrong is considered a hero, and it's why the doping scandals leave such a sour taste in our mouths.

EDIT: I linked four studies earlier. Here they are again:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED465347.pdf

http://www.altc.edu.au/resource-engineering-qualification-curriculum-uts-2011

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090804114104.htm

http://planning.ucsc.edu/irps/ENROLLMT/july02update/GradRatesTTD.pdf

Here are some new ones:

http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/assessmentsymposia/asee97/3553.pdf

http://www.jee.org/2010/october/4.pdf

And another:

http://itll.colorado.edu/images/uploads ... octJEE.pdf

A newer body of research has investigated the impact of students' college experiences on retention. Research in this area has been fueled by mounting evidence that only a small portion (8.5% in one study) of engineering students leave due to academic difficulty.

Again, I am not claiming STEM programs are harder because the courses are harder. I am claiming they are harder because it requires more persistence to succeed.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

I cited like 8 different studies from two countries earlier. Each of them concluded that the material was not harder. And each of them concluded that STEM majors require greater persistence.

For the record, this is where we start to disagree. Actually, I'm beginning to wonder if we are using the word "persistence" the same way...

It's why we have what David Nye calls the "technological sublime".

You mean it isn't a reference to Romanticism?

[gorcee]

I cited like 8 different studies from two countries earlier. Each of them concluded that the material was not harder. And each of them concluded that STEM majors require greater persistence.

For the record, this is where we start to disagree. Actually, I'm beginning to wonder if we are using the word "persistence" the same way...

Persistence, as I'm using it, is the drive to succeed despite the odds being against you. The studies I linked show that engineering/STEM retention rates trail other disciplines. You could argue that this alone is enough to say that "the odds are against you", but other studies go on to identify certain factors of the college experience that seem to stack the odds against engineering/STEM students. So in other words, to succeed at engineering, you have to do so despite higher likelihood of failure (and by which I don't mean getting an F) than other disciplines. To succeed at engineering, you have to combat a lot of statistics that are not working in your favor, including chilly climates (nothing to do with weather), weaker college experiences, and the like.

It's why we have what David Nye calls the "technological sublime".

You mean it isn't a reference to Romanticism?

The technological sublime as Nye defined it shares a Romantic root with the concept of the "sublime" that came a century or so before. But the technological sublime he talked about specifically addressed both the scale and the permanence of the technology. The skyscrapers and bridges he wrote about in The American Technological Sublime represented defiance against nature, a persistence against natural forces that work in every way to make that thing not so. This differs somewhat from the romantic concept of the sublime in that it is specifically counter-nature.

EDIT: Actually, I should clarify that remark. It's not that the technological sublime is counter-nature. It is integrated with nature in a way that evokes both rational and emotional awe. The Hoover Dam, for instance, should not be there. And yet, it exists. The sublimity of the creation is linked to its surroundings; it would perhaps be less impressive in a different location. But a big reason that it is awe inspiring is because it persists against all expectations.

[KestrelLowing]

Still, who do you think perpetuates the shitty atmosphere? Fucking leprechauns and pixies?

As an engineer, I actually would like to say that the shitty atmosphere was actually caused by unicorns and fairies, not leprechauns and pixies. At least in my department. /facepalm.

Seriously, though, I didn't feel like my department was particularly hostile - liked most of my professors, didn't get too much crap for being female - and we still lost a lot of people between freshman seminar and graduation. Don't have exact numbers, but we entered with a class of 45 and graduated with around 25.

And those of us that stayed didn't stay because we were better people. A lot of us who stayed were more stubborn, sure - but most of us just enjoyed our major. While the people that left... didn't.

You know, I'm going to have to agree with semicharmed here. It's not a hostile environment, unless you don't try. While the biggest problem that I've found in STEM majors is the fact that many of the professors are hard to understand (accents) and aren't necessarily the best teachers. My guess is that would be true for humanities too - although obviously the number of foreign (particularly from Asia as they're harder to understand than European) professors would decrease.

The only time I've ever seen anyone be hostile is when someone goes to office hours, hasn't been to class and asks the prof to reteach everything without even reading the textbook. Obviously the prof won't do it and shouldn't do it.

Now, the problem could be that the professors' personalities aren't particularly open and welcoming. There's a type of personality that is often drawn towards STEM fields. If we put that in Myers-Briggs terms just for a convenient example, I'd be talking about the INTJs and the INTPs and obviously others as well. They tend to be less social than others, more direct, and less worried about social convention. I really think the hostility is people who aren't used to that (because, for example, INTJ and INTP are some of the rarer personalities) and don't know how to deal with it.

The best thing about college when I got there was that there were actually people who thought like me. I wasn't the only one who didn't care about typical social conventions and just wanted to get to the point. My guess is that some students go from being at home (the typical world) to being in a personality environment that they don't understand (school) while a good portion of STEM majors are finally someplace where people understand them.

I have hardly heard of or seen any professor actually being hostile. Yeah, it happens occasionally (probably just about as often as hostile humanities majors), but the majority will just want to get the material across and won't pass you if you don't understand it - something I find perfectly fine and laudable, but something others could view as cold and harsh.

So while some drops from STEM fields may be from just not understanding the people in the field and feeling slightly alienated, I would guess that a good portion are due to the fact that STEM is hard and demanding and it does take more time. The main reason I think it's hard and demanding? The linear nature of the fields - you have to know A to do B to do C to do D. If you've got a bad background or didn't do as well in a prereq, you're going to be way behind. No, the actual material isn't harder, but if you have difficulties in one class, you're going to have those same difficulties later on.

Humanities isn't like that - everything's more fluid. Even if you flub (pass, but don't understand it terribly well) a sophomore class in the humanities, you can pretty easily continue to other classes. This would be more disastrous for a STEM sophomore class. You flub differential equations? You're screwed.

Also, another thing that could have an effect on hostility is GPA. Let's face it, a good portion of students base their self-worth at least partially on their GPA. GPA in STEM fields tends to be lower than that in humanities. (Here's a paper, but it's just about one college) This could be another reason people will tend to drop out of STEM fields. Why are STEM graded harder? Maybe it's because the majority of STEM grades aren't as subjective, I don't know. But I do think that would be a significant deterrent as getting the grades you want will be more difficult in STEM majors in general. (Not always, philosophy was another one that had a low average GPA, and at that college, CS was actually one of the higher GPAs)

[Belial]

Persistence is admirable!

Nope! Too broad. All things in context. Persistence for the right cause is admirable. Persistence for its own sake is just bullheadedness. Choosing the hardest path for no reason other than "because it's the hardest" isn't a virtue, it's just masochism.

[Dream]

To succeed at engineering, you have to combat a lot of statistics that are not working in your favor,

Statistics aren't personal experiences. You don't have to fight them.

Persistence, as I'm using it, is the drive to succeed despite the odds being against you.

I see your definition is wrong. Persistence is just continuing to do a thing in spite of some reason it is difficult to do. You can be 100% certain to succeed at a task that is very easy to do and still have to be persistent, for instance if it is simply a long and boring task. It's nothing to do with your odds of success.

[doogly]

Gorcee, I think you are getting your values from a slave morality. Go read up on your Nietzsche.