What is the hardest degree to get?

[Tarfeather]

Definition of a "highly intellectual course" would be a course where intelligence (measured by IQ) is very highly predictive of success in that course. Basically a more intellectual course where general intelligence is most important.

My IQ is below average, but my grades in maths have always been far above average with little to no practice. Don't put too much faith into the IQ. ^^'

 

[K12]

Definition of a "highly intellectual course" would be a course where intelligence (measured by IQ) is very highly predictive of success in that course. Basically a more intellectual course where general intelligence is most important.

My IQ is below average, but my grades in maths have always been far above average with little to no practice. Don't put too much faith into the IQ. ^^'

I don't put that much faith in IQ but if you want to have a general measure of intelligence that you can make comparisons with then you pretty much have to use it. I think this whole endeavour is stupid but if anyone wants to go through with I think that measuring against IQ is the only way I can think for judging how "intellectually demanding" a course is.

Later on in my earlier comment I said that my paradigm would get all the same criticism as IQ plus some extra. I didn't list the criticisms because the comment was long anyway but I'm well aware of them.

 

[Nomad]

Here would be my experimental paradigm to create this ranking:

Definition of a "highly intellectual course" would be a course where intelligence (measured by IQ) is very highly predictive of success in that course. Basically a more intellectual course where general intelligence is most important.

Pick a cross section of students in the subjects being tested for in a collection of university's in whichever country you are doing this (I'd say either the top ten/twenty rated universities overall or the top-ten/twenty rated universities for each subject)

You'd need to control for things like socio-economic background, time spent studying (with teachers, in groups and alone seperately), available resources and probably some other things to.

They you just see which subject most closely fit the "high IQ ->" prediction and there's your rankings.

Obviously you'd get all the same criticisms that IQ tests get plus a few extra ones but it'd be a doable experiment.

Although fundamentally I have no idea why you'd care.

This is an interesting proposition, but my main problem with it lies in the bolded part. There are too many sources of error to control for, and for some of them it's just not even practically possible. It would be a simply massive undertaking, requiring an experimental design in order to guarantee a reasonable measure of validity - and even then, you'd still have enormous problems with some of the relevant factors.

Time spent studying, for instance - you'd have to either monitor students 24/7, or have them input their own time spent. The latter is what is conventionally done in course evaluations, and the results are horribly shaky - either the students don't actually keep track of how much time is spent, or they basically lie about it (in both directions - and not always on purpose!). Then add the fact that "time spent" is a fuzzy concept - if I think about a course assignment while cooking, does that count as studying? There could be any number of answers to that question alone. While none of these issues are damning, consider that they are all tied to one single factor you need to control for.

My IQ is below average, but my grades in maths have always been far above average with little to no practice. Don't put too much faith into the IQ. ^^'

This is not a valid criticism against IQ as a concept, because it does not claim that high IQ invariably leads to high math performance and vice versa. What the concept does claim is that there is a strong correlation between the G-factor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)] (measured by IQ - which is a scale, like in the metric system) and performance at various cognitive tasks. The concept is ironclad. The correlation is there, and it is strong. It does not imply that a strong G-factor (high IQ) guarantees academic performance or vice versa. That's not how correlations work, unless they're r=1. For reference, the strongest correlations between G and performance are around r=0.8.

 

[theboombody]

I'll take that challenge. Construct a degree program that conforms to the rules and regulations of existing programs, fulfilling conventional expectations of academic quality. Manage that, while still making it genuinely and qualitatively easier than the other programs, and I will cede the point to you. Heck, as a gesture of good will, I'll even let you pick any country you want as a starting point for your project (since regulations and academic traditions will differ from country to country).

I didn't say I'd conform to existing rules and regulations. I'm not about rules. I'm about common sense. There are many rules out there in this world that are based on common sense, and many that are not.

I'm not playing by your rules. Instead I WILL say that if I construct a degree program called, "Operating a cell phone" then that degree program is a farce. Regardless of whether I go by the rules and regulations of existing programs.

Interesting you chose the term conventional. I could brow beat you forever on what that term means, but that's the style of many others in the forum, not mine. As far as I can tell, conventional means common sense. I could also brow beat you as to what expectations and quality mean and to define them and cite sources and all that BS. But that's a tactic you guys use. If I get the idea, I don't care about the semantics or the references. Many of you guys like to ignore the idea and focus only on the semantics. I don't like to do that. It's too much like a scumbag lawyer finding ways to defend an even worse scumbag to me.

I do digress to other ideas obviously, but that's not the same as browbeating somebody over what a stupid term means.

 

[theboombody]

If we're talking undergrad, then the hardest are Electrical Engineering and Chemical Engineering. It can be argued which is harder between the two.

If we're talking Doctorate level, then everything is hard

Finally, someone who sees the obvious, and doesn't just automatically jump to calling everything equal right off the bat. That's what I can't stand, even though I wanted to see how many people would say it.

 

[Nomad]

I didn't say I'd conform to existing rules and regulations. I'm not about rules. I'm about common sense. There are many rules out there in this world that are based on common sense, and many that are not.

I'm not playing by your rules. Instead I WILL say that if I construct a degree program called, "Operating a cell phone" then that degree program is a farce. Regardless of whether I go by the rules and regulations of existing programs.

Prove the bolded part by doing it. If you disregard the the rules of the game, then your statement becomes tautological - of course you can put together an easy program if you throw all requirements of stringency out the window. If I wasn't constrained by gravity, I would be able to fly.

Interesting you chose the term conventional. I could brow beat you forever on what that term means, but that's the style of many others in the forum, not mine. As far as I can tell, conventional means common sense. I could also brow beat you as to what expectations and quality mean and to define them and cite sources and all that BS. But that's a tactic you guys use. If I get the idea, I don't care about the semantics or the references. Many of you guys like to ignore the idea and focus only on the semantics. I don't like to do that. It's too much like a scumbag lawyer finding ways to defend an even worse scumbag to me.

I do digress to other ideas obviously, but that's not the same as browbeating somebody over what a stupid term means.

Let's review what "conventional" means, then, since you brought it up:

Full Definition of CONVENTIONAL
1
: formed by agreement or compact

2
a : according with, sanctioned by, or based on convention
b : lacking originality or individuality : trite
c (1) : ordinary, commonplace (2) : nonnuclear 1

3
a : according with a mode of artistic representation that simplifies or provides symbols or substitutes for natural forms
b : of traditional design

4
: of, resembling, or relating to a convention, assembly, or public meeting

There's absolutely nothing about common sense in there, and especially nothing about your idea of common sense. Because the thing is that there's nothing common about your sense of common sense. It is, in fact, very specific for you.

I am also puzzled by how you're putting forth an argument in one breath, and then say you won't do just that in the next breath. Clearly you intended to "brow beat" me with the definition of "conventional": you attempted to do so in the starting two sentences of that paragraph, and then continued on by attempting to do so over "expectations" and "quality". That's tantamount to me saying "I could quote Merriam Webster's definition of conventional, but I won't" - when I clearly just did.

Frankly, you're the only one I've seen who's gotten hung up on semantics so far. There's a difference between discussing a term and discussing a concept, especially when the latter is a baseline requirement to build a common idea of what is being discussed.

As an aside, I would still like you to respond to the main question I posed before: Why shouldn't you have to prove your point? I am genuinely interested. How do you think we should determine what is true and what is not, if we can't defer to empirical testing or intersubjective perceptions?

I'd also appreciate it if you could pick up on all (or even a couple) of the points I put forward to you, rather than just consistently picking out the least relevant part. I kind of feel like I'm arguing against the wind here - whatever I say appears to just blow straight past the recipient. It's a little frustrating, because I genuinely think this is a very interesting topic of conversation, and there's a lot of wasted potential for a fruitful debate here.

Finally, someone who sees the obvious, and doesn't just automatically jump to calling everything equal right off the bat. That's what I can't stand, even though I wanted to see how many people would say it.

Again, noone is saying everything is equal. What we're saying is that everything is different and uncomparable. Furthermore - what you consider obvious is obviously not obvious, since most people obviously don't agree. That much is obvious.

 

[theboombody]

As an aside, I would still like you to respond to the main question I posed before: Why shouldn't you have to prove your point? I am genuinely interested. How do you think we should determine what is true and what is not, if we can't defer to empirical testing or intersubjective perceptions?

As much as I like to argue, even I don't want to spend that much time doing it.

Proof is only for someone who wants to convince, not for someone who wants to plant seeds of doubt. I like to dwell on unprovable truths and unprovable falsehoods, since they're so very close that they might as well be the same.

 

[Nomad]

As much as I like to argue, even I don't want to spend that much time doing it.

A follow-up question, then: why do you start discussions (and even sub-discussions) if you're not interested in participating fully in them?

Proof is only for someone who wants to convince, not for someone who wants to plant seeds of doubt. I like to dwell on unprovable truths and unprovable falsehoods, since they're so very close that they might as well be the same.

You're not planting seeds of doubt by tossing out random, baseless statements, though. They'd have to be either empirically grounded or logically coherent for that to work - or better yet, they'd have to point out logical incoherence in the opposing argument. Simply claiming something does not make it so.

Putting aside the fact that the concepts of "unprovable truths" and "unprovable falsehoods" generate a Schrödinger's cat-situation (oh look, quantum mechanics!), that kind of thinking and focus also generate the kind of "cookie cutter similarity" that you're criticizing. What makes you sure the "unprovable truth" you put forward is more true than the "unprovable truth" (or the provable one, for that matter) someone else puts forward? You're claiming that you're right and we're wrong - and that it's obviously so, even, but you simultaneously claim that there is no way to prove this (making the truth potential of both stances equal - and yes, this time equality is actually on the table).

Can you provide one good reason not to just dismiss your claims outright?

 

[theboombody]

As much as I like to argue, even I don't want to spend that much time doing it.

A follow-up question, then: why do you start discussions (and even sub-discussions) if you're not interested in participating fully in them?

Proof is only for someone who wants to convince, not for someone who wants to plant seeds of doubt. I like to dwell on unprovable truths and unprovable falsehoods, since they're so very close that they might as well be the same.

You're not planting seeds of doubt by tossing out random, baseless statements, though. They'd have to be either empirically grounded or logically coherent for that to work - or better yet, they'd have to point out logical incoherence in the opposing argument. Simply claiming something does not make it so.

Putting aside the fact that the concepts of "unprovable truths" and "unprovable falsehoods" generate a Schrödinger's cat-situation (oh look, quantum mechanics!), that kind of thinking and focus also generate the kind of "cookie cutter similarity" that you're criticizing. What makes you sure the "unprovable truth" you put forward is more true than the "unprovable truth" (or the provable one, for that matter) someone else puts forward? You're claiming that you're right and we're wrong - and that it's obviously so, even, but you simultaneously claim that there is no way to prove this (making the truth potential of both stances equal - and yes, this time equality is actually on the table).

Can you provide one good reason not to just dismiss your claims outright?

Reason and coherence are overrated. I'm bored. You can have the last word. Just for fun, see if you can make it shorter than my post.

 

[Axolotl]

Yeah, but the consequences of a wrong historic theory aren't as drastic as the consequences of an incorrect program. If your program is typed in incorrectly it won't work at all. At least if your theory in history is off a little bit, you won't lose your job. At least I'd hope you wouldn't.

The real life consequences of histories being wrong include genocide. Now a program not working is serious business but not that serious.

 

[viscomica]

Yeah, but pure math sometimes makes you wonder why you're doing it.

EVERY career makes you wonder why you're doing it at some point.

Not law It's pretty straight-forward. And you know you want to be a lawyer from the get go.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Yeah, but pure math sometimes makes you wonder why you're doing it.

EVERY career makes you wonder why you're doing it at some point.

Not law It's pretty straight-forward. And you know you want to be a lawyer from the get go.

I dunno panda, a classmate of mine dropped law school to go to film school. Straightforward career doesn't necessarily mean straightforward person. Surely you've lost a classmate or five since you started law school?

 

[viscomica]

Yeah, but pure math sometimes makes you wonder why you're doing it.

EVERY career makes you wonder why you're doing it at some point.

Not law It's pretty straight-forward. And you know you want to be a lawyer from the get go.

I dunno panda, a classmate of mine dropped law school to go to film school. Straightforward career doesn't necessarily mean straightforward person. Surely you've lost a classmate or five since you started law school?

Nope. We actually don't have the same classes with the same people you decide which courses to take and in which order. With the massive student population my university has it's very unlikely to run into the same people twice. My university mates and I know each other from first year of college though! And I reckon the drop out curve is lower than in other careers.

 

[Goldeneye1989]

I was just going to say Geology ..... It's rock hard

 

[Dragonbums]

Any degree that requires more than 4-5 years in college is in my opinion a degree that's really hard to obtain.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I think you got the content of the top and bottom halves right, but the order of the subjects in those halves? lolnope. Law should be much higher, and electrical engineering should be SO much lower (I have an electronic engineering tech diploma, dangerous work =/= excessively difficult work).

oh lawdyyyy, if you said that around my college it'd be like mentioning Voldemort name in the first book, our electrical engineering undergrads is fucking tiny for a reason, it is balls to the walls hard and most people (myself included) scrape by barely getting a C in the classes that involve electrical we were required to take. In the 3 years of the electrical engineering class I took (year before me, my year, and year after) there was only ever 3 A's and maybe 20 B's, when the class sizes each year averaged around ~70 students (3 A's out of ~210 students? That is ridiculous for non graduate level course). Also, Law is pretty much an easy joke around here, it isn't remotely hard, just slightly tedious at times reading the fine print and wording. (I took business law and got an A while most of the business law majors around me got a B, obviously there is something wrong there considering I didn't even open the book once to study).

OT: Definitely has to do with which university you are at and which teachers you get. There are teachers I've had (thank god I passed them and never have to see them again) where every single day they were like this to students:

Spoiler

I still shudder at the fact that all nighters were normal for me many semesters and how many teachers made their classrooms feel like a torture dungeon. (semi-joking there obviously, but I've never been so depressed in my life when taking those teachers classes.)

as for the order of the list, it's hard to say, depends on how you define "hard". My cousin is a neurosurgeon at a hospital but he's definitely not cream of the crop when it comes to being smart, he just was stubborn as fucking hell about it in his OCD work ethic. I still would consider that a degree that is hard as hell to get though.