What is the hardest degree to get?

[solemnwar]

Now, I love history as much as the next guy, but as someone who is about to earn my bachelor's in History (alongside a Finance degree), I've gotta say it's not that hard. Flipping through the FRUS volumes, searching Proquest newspaper archives, and doing ever-interesting archival research of some dead senator's personal diaries is more work than people imagine, but it's more diligence and hard work than real difficulty. And there are only a few classes that require that level of primary research! Optimizing an investment portfolio using Markowitz Portfolio Theory and CAPM is a LOT tougher.

The problem is you stopped with a bachelors, which I'll admit isn't hard to get at all for history; most of it's just studying for tests and the occasional essay that you might have to actually research for in the higher level classes. Actual difficulty comes when you go for a masters or a PHD, since these both pretty much consist of some classes to prepare you for researching, researching, and then writing. The PHD also requires that you have an adequate grasp of anywhere from 1-3 foreign languages depending on where and what you're studying and overreliance on secondary sources in your dissertation will certainly cost you.

... you MIGHT have to research for essays?! What sort of piss-easy pansy-ass school did you go to?! History (well, arts in general, tbh) classes often had at least two essays that you had to write, with at least 3 peer-reviewed sources (no random internet sites!) at my university.

 

[mysecondlife]

I'm probably just speaking out of ignorance, but I would think psychology and sociology is the easiest degrees to get.

They seem to be the choice of major for every athletes who plan on attending 1 - 2 years of college before declaring him (her as well) as professional. I'd imagine its because they are less work intensive, which gives more flexibility for them to practice his sports.

 

[Archangel768]

I'm probably just speaking out of ignorance, but I would think psychology and sociology is the easiest degrees to get.

They seem to be the choice of major for every athletes who plan on attending 1 - 2 years of college before declaring him (her as well) as professional. I'd imagine its because they are less work intensive, which gives more flexibility for them to practice his sports.

Personally, I have found Psychology to be as difficult or more than the other things which I have studied at university including, language, business, political science, environmental science. What is strange to me is the amount of people that do Psychology. I feel as though the subject should be less popular than it is yet there are truck load of people (at least at my uni) which do it. Also, I appear to be one of the few males studying it. I'm sure psychology isn't the hardest thing out there, I'd find pure maths or the equivalent to be hell in comparison but I've definitely found it to be more challenging than most other stuff I've studied at uni.

 

[Cerebrawl]

Seems like Astrophysics is missing from the list... is that because there's only about 5000 of them in the world? (Source: Neil deGrasse Tyson). Seems like that should be pretty high up there.

Any high physics or math courses are going to require more aptitude(brain wiring) for logic/maths than more information retention based fields, which should boost their difficulty on the scale(IMO).

On the other hand some fields require deep and/or fast analysis with limited data, from a large store of memorized data, doctors specializing in ER for example, so they require good pattern matching, and excellent memory.

 

[The Squid King]

As someone who has studied both composition and programming, I found programming significantly easier. I've gotten quite a few surprised comments about how busy music students are from various science students.

 

[pearcinator]

I would say whatever it takes to become a neurosurgeon.

Operating on people's brains would be one of the most difficult things to do. You'll have to know your shit!

4 years college
4 years medical school
1 year as student surgeon
6-7 years training in hospital as a student neurosurgeon

Up to 16 years of schooling...after high school. At minimum you would have to be like 35 years old to be a fully qualified neurosurgeon.

 

[shootthebandit]

You wont lose your job if your coding is wrong. Coding is thoroughly tested for this very reason.

History isnt so much about x happened on y date its more about what factors caused x to happen and what we can learn from this to ensure it does or doesnt happen again. So yes getting history correct is a pretty big deal. Imagine the only historical documents of WWII we had were of holocaust deniers

Losing your job isnt a big deal. What if the doctor on your list makes a mistake. He could kill someone. If the engineer on your list makes a mistake he could kill thousands

By arguing that one degree has more weight than another you are also arguing that the associated careers have more weight. Yes medicine and engineering are important but what would society be without art or music. Art or music certainly dont save our lives but they do enrich our lives

I know a computer science and programming professor who burnt down a factory once because he didn't properly test the code for the assembly line robots he was programming. Really, that just shows all these jobs can carry a lot of weight. And they say art gives us a reason to do science in the first place. I don't even think I could do an art degree. It's not as easy as people think

That was exactly the point I was trying to make. No career/degree is harder or more important than another. Cleaners are hugely important in todays society without them disease would be rife do they get paid a lot?...hell no. Do they do a hard degree...no they can walk into a job with little to no training. Does this stop them from being important?...of course not

 

[prpshrt]

I say relative. I'm majoring in Computer Science in college and as part of my degree, I have to take humanities and social science courses. While I've done extremely well in my CS classes, I've never managed to get higher than a B in any of those other courses even though I put in more than twice the effort :\

 

[DaWaffledude]

-273.15 °C

Seriously, though, I have no idea, but I imagine it varies from place to place. At a guess, I'd say... Quantum physics? Something even experts in the field don't fully understand sounds like something it's hard to get a degree for. Talking completely out of my ass here, mind you, I just wanted to make the temperature joke.

 

[ForumSafari]

Computer Programming

Like most of the degrees you've listed this one isn't particularly difficult, the difficulty relies more on the level of dedication you have to show rather than the actual difficulty of the material. As a rule software engineering and other computing degrees aren't what I'd call difficult but they do have a pretty high level of necessary knowledge. Basically I think nearly anyone could finish a software engineering degree (though not actually work as one) but it's not one of those subjects you can cram for the finals, it needs high dedication all the way through.

 

[Yopaz]

Pointless discussion to be honest. You can't really determine difficulty by field easily. Let's say I take my masters in E. coli, a friend takes his degree in yeast and a third friend takes a degree in protein synthesis in eukaryotic single-celled organisms. All of this belongs in either molecular biology or microbiology, but the difficulty isn't the same for all three. However talking to people who study sociology a degree in biology is a lot harder to obtain based on the work that goes into it.

 

[Nomad]

Like someone who has a degree in education may get offended that their degree is not as intellectually challenging as an electrical engineering degree. Some people know this and don't get offended, because they know most electrical engineers probably couldn't deal with rooms full of first graders on a daily basis. They know they have special skills that aren't based on intellectual challenge, and are too content with their own value to be offended.

Do politically correct people also demand evidence when someone is making definitive statements about reality, rather than relaying personal perceptions?

Politically correct people pretend that we are all cookie cutter similar and don't have individual strengths and weaknesses.

Then that would make you a politically correct person, wouldn't it? You're the one claiming that there is one single skill and that different tasks demand different levels of it - the other side of the debate is claiming that the skills are fundamentally different, and that there is no similarity that might provide a proper basis for comparison.

I have more of a problem with people who say there should not be a ranking at all since the difficulty level in all subjects is equal.

That is not at all what people are saying. What they (including me) are saying is that there should not be a ranking because you cannot compare the difficulty level of subjects demanding different, uncomparable skills. They are not "equal", because being equal requires there to be a common scale. I ask again - is running 5mph faster than weighing 60kg?

-273.15 °C

Seriously, though, I have no idea, but I imagine it varies from place to place. At a guess, I'd say... Quantum physics? Something even experts in the field don't fully understand sounds like something it's hard to get a degree for. Talking completely out of my ass here, mind you, I just wanted to make the temperature joke.

There is no academic field that is fully understood by its practitioners. If it were, there would be no point in studying it. Quantum physics is not special in this regard. Also, that was a good joke and probably the best possible answer for this thread.

 

[theboombody]

This isn't enough to evaluate a whole field. A cert is not a degree, and a couple classes in the department is not a full program.

Then you do not have enough evidence to evaluate anything I say because you have not personally shadowed me my whole life. You don't have to completely evaluate something from head to toe to form an opinion that carries weight.

But all that's irrelevant. Here's the thing to consider. I want you to honestly think about this even though you're too afraid to say it. I want you to honestly sit there, look a sweet lady becoming a kindergarten principal for the first time, and tell me you're not sure if her training program was as intellectually rigorous as that of the lady trained to build more efficient mass-production manufacturing equipment for integrated circuits over at Texas Instruments.

This is what politically correct people like to do. They can intuitively tell what's easier intellectually and what's harder intellectually. But they dare not say it for fear of offending. So they hide behind the excuse of ignorance.

I guarantee you if I asked somebody, "What blowoff class did you take in high school?" nine out of ten people would not say, "chemistry." Instead they'd probably say something like, "art." In fact if chemistry wasn't required, I bet a lot of people would try to avoid it.

In fact, to avoid you trying to jumble that argument into something you shouldn't, I'll straight up put you on the spot and ask you, what blowoff classes did you take in high school? I can tell you I took took a few sociology classes in my first year of college as easy A's for a higher GPA, and it sure as heck worked. My adviser wanted me to take a lot more math classes, but I couldn't have handled that load.

 

[theboombody]

I have more of a problem with people who say there should not be a ranking at all since the difficulty level in all subjects is equal.

That is not at all what people are saying. What they (including me) are saying is that there should not be a ranking because you cannot compare the difficulty level of subjects demanding different, uncomparable skills. They are not "equal", because being equal requires there to be a common scale. I ask again - is running 5mph faster than weighing 60kg?

So you are saying the difficulty isn't equal, but we can't compare the difficulty level? How do you know it isn't equal then?

What, we have to now say WWE Trivia is potentially just as difficult as Quantum physics now since it's not apples to oranges?

 

[shootthebandit]

I guarantee you if I asked somebody, "What blowoff class did you take in high school?" nine out of ten people would not say, "chemistry." Instead they'd probably say something like, "art." In fact if chemistry wasn't required, I bet a lot of people would try to avoid it.

If you are genuinely into art then its not a "blow off". One of my "blow off" subjects was woodwork and its actually proved to be pretty useful around the house and apart from maths id say ive put it to use more often than any other subject I studied and chemistry I dont think ive ever really put that to practical use

 

[Nomad]

In fact, to avoid you trying to jumble that argument into something you shouldn't, I'll straight up put you on the spot and ask you, what blowoff classes did you take in high school? I can tell you I took took a few sociology classes in my first year of college as easy A's for a higher GPA, and it sure as heck worked. My adviser wanted me to take a lot more math classes, but I couldn't have handled that load.

Because you personally have a harder time with math than with sociology. Congratulations, you have identified your personal skillset. I have no problems whatsoever with statistical analysis, but struggle with certain types of qualitative analysis - discourse analysis, for instance. I will not take this as an indicator that discourse analysis is more intellectually challenging than statistical analysis - only as an indicator that I have a greater talent for (this form of) quantitative analysis than for (this form of) qualitative analysis.

So you are saying the difficulty isn't equal, but we can't compare the difficulty level? How do you know it isn't equal then?

I know it isn't equal because it's not comparable. Establishing equality is also a comparison. 5mph is not equal to 60kg, but one is not more than the other either.

What, we have to now say WWE Trivia is potentially just as difficult as Quantum physics now since it's not apples to oranges?

Your question is impossible to answer, not only because you're still stuck with comparisons, but because you're comparing something very specific (WWE Trivia) to something very unspecific (quantum physics). Yes, there are elements of quantum physics that are fully comparable to trivia (WWE or otherwise), namely the elements that demand only memorization. In this, the difficulty is equal, because remembering that unit vectors represent the possible states of a quantum mechanical system is no more or less difficult than remembering that "Smackdown!" was a program launched on UPN on april 29th 1999.

The aptness of the comparison ends there, and it is not possible to compare non-trivia elements of quantum physics to trivia of any sort - WWE or not. This does not make non-trivia quantum physics equal, superior or inferior to WWE trivia. It makes it different.

 

[theboombody]

I guarantee you if I asked somebody, "What blowoff class did you take in high school?" nine out of ten people would not say, "chemistry." Instead they'd probably say something like, "art." In fact if chemistry wasn't required, I bet a lot of people would try to avoid it.

If you are genuinely into art then its not a "blow off". One of my "blow off" subjects was woodwork and its actually proved to be pretty useful around the house and apart from maths id say ive put it to use more often than any other subject I studied and chemistry I dont think ive ever really put that to practical use

No one's denying woodwork is useful. It's useful as heck. I use it lots more than I use chemistry too. It's just not as intellectually challenging as chemistry. Bottom line.

 

[shootthebandit]

I guarantee you if I asked somebody, "What blowoff class did you take in high school?" nine out of ten people would not say, "chemistry." Instead they'd probably say something like, "art." In fact if chemistry wasn't required, I bet a lot of people would try to avoid it.

If you are genuinely into art then its not a "blow off". One of my "blow off" subjects was woodwork and its actually proved to be pretty useful around the house and apart from maths id say ive put it to use more often than any other subject I studied and chemistry I dont think ive ever really put that to practical use

No one's denying woodwork is useful. It's useful as heck. I use it lots more than I use chemistry too. It's just not as intellectually challenging as chemistry. Bottom line.

This is my problem with school. You are forced down an academical route and everything else is considered a "blow off". The very reason for this thread is testament to that

Id much rather schools prepared children for life and learning chemistry, biology etc is certainly not going to me any use to me what so ever. Barring maths and some elements of physics and electronics what i learned at school has had no practical use in my life

Just because something is hard it doesnt automatically give it more weight than something else.

If you can consider art a blow off then go and draw me a painting as beautiful as one of van gogh's. If you consider music to be a blow off then go write me a symphony

The truth is we cannot measure one subject against another. Its like comparing chalk with cheese

 

[theboombody]

Because you personally have a harder time with math than with sociology. Congratulations, you have identified your personal skillset. I have no problems whatsoever with statistical analysis, but struggle with certain types of qualitative analysis - discourse analysis, for instance. I will not take this as an indicator that discourse analysis is more intellectually challenging than statistical analysis - only as an indicator that I have a greater talent for (this form of) quantitative analysis than for (this form of) qualitative analysis.

Yeah, but my undergraduate is in math, not in sociology. However, if I would have taken all math classes, I would have drowned in the difficulty. I padded it out with sociology classes to make achieving a math degree, much, much easier. Because math is hard, and sociology is not. And that's probably how it is for 99% of people.

If I would have taken all sociology classes, it would have been much easier for me, and I would have gotten a sociology degree, but I wanted something that was more of a challenge. Something that I had to work much harder for.

There are times I think, man, I should have studied engineering instead, where I'd have a career all set, but looking back on it, I'm not sure I could have handled the course load there. I did as much as I could handle at the time. I suppose if I would have stayed in college longer and padded out my schedule some I guess it might have been possible, but who knows. That would have cost a lot of extra money too.

But to suggest an biochemist wouldn't have the "skillset" to obtain a sociology degree is beyond laughable to me. Whether it's rude of me to say so or not. Now there may be more than a few sociologists out there who very well could have been biochemists. I'm not saying they're incapable. But I AM saying EVERY single person with a biochemistry degree could have easily, EASILY obtained a sociology degree. Every one of them. Biochemistry is much more difficult to study than sociology.