Jesse Adams said:And what exactly did you prove with that?
I don't know the full breakdown for the GRE—I'm actually prepping for the GMAT myself—but let's be real: it isn't much different from a standard IQ test. It’s not some innate measure of genius; it's strictly about concentration and putting in the reps. Besides, you can drastically boost your scores on actual IQ tests just by practicing—it really comes down to mental readiness.
Yeah? And?
Second point—I wouldn't count these results as applicable to many places where the physics and math education systems haven't seen a serious update since the Middle Ages.
What kind of environments are you even talking about?
If you're talking about the US, that’s just an insult without any actual proof. If we were to rank countries based on their h-index for physics papers versus economics papers—or even just looking at GDP per capita—the US would sit way higher on that first list than it does on the second or third. So yeah, that claim is nothing but a blatant insult.
Look, the physics and math programs at top-tier US research universities—think places like MIT—are basically the gold standard, and our curriculum follows that exact blueprint. We’re talking identical coursework, the same mandatory textbooks, and nearly identical problem sets on written exams. It’s definitely not some "medieval" level of education. So why are you even talking about this when you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Most people only enroll in this field when they've run out of actual options—there are plenty of exceptions, sure, but that's the reality.
Prove it. Without proof, you’re just peddling a prejudice—and a bad one at that. People who enroll in these programs simply because they have no other options? They don't even make it through freshman year. I guarantee it—I've seen it happen firsthand.
Take Economics, for instance—natural selection kicks in right at the admissions stage, plain and simple. Though, let's be real, most STEM students are basically trained to be super-students, which makes an Economics course feel like a breeze in comparison. 🙂
Which country are we talking about here? The US? If that's the case, you're dead wrong. Admissions for Economics involve much easier math—say, compared to a math or physics program.
Comparing selection rigor between Economics and Physics based on math is absurd. Most of the math covered in an Economics program gets brushed over in a single lecture in a physics department. Besides, I won't dwell on Economics—I don't know enough to comment without just relying on stereotypes.
But let's assume the results are representative and absolute—training one skill necessarily contributes to the development of another skill that might be unmeasurable by tests, such as emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence doesn't exist.
Where am I convincing you that psychologists would crush us, when body language recognition is more important to you than knowing quantum field theory....
Oh really? And what is it more important for? It certainly isn't for technology or the modern world.
Further lamentation regarding the topic of intelligence isn't my field, and regarding your point, I can respond that it's just one indicator which—without knowing how data is collected and the context behind it—isn't even applicable in court: Based on research, we can conclude that on average, PhD students in physical sciences in the USA are more intelligent than PhD students in Economics.
Wow. Bravo. You've clearly reached a conclusion.
By the way, what is referred to as "economics" in certain contexts is actually called Business in the USA, which is what you're actually preparing for. In the US, Economics is a mathematically demanding field—distinct from what people often mean when they say "Business."
I have to say, I’m not entirely sure if your whole "calling out" approach is actually hitting the mark. It feels like there might be some language barriers at play here—something you often see in university programs that host a large number of international students. Because of those hurdles, the group GPA tends to look lower than it really is. Since you’ve chosen such an aggressive tone with your critique, I suppose I can afford to be just as blunt in return...
Jesse Adams said:And what exactly did you prove with that?
I don't know the full breakdown for the GRE—I'm actually prepping for the GMAT myself—but let's be real: it isn't much different from a standard IQ test. It’s not some innate measure of genius; it's strictly about concentration and putting in the reps. Besides, you can drastically boost your scores on actual IQ tests just by practicing—it really comes down to mental readiness.
Yeah? And?
Second point—I wouldn't count these results as applicable to many places where the physics and math education systems haven't seen a serious update since the Middle Ages.
What kind of environments are you even talking about?
If you're talking about the US, that’s just an insult without any actual proof. If we were to rank countries based on their h-index for physics papers versus economics papers—or even just looking at GDP per capita—the US would sit way higher on that first list than it does on the second or third. So yeah, that claim is nothing but a blatant insult.
Look, the physics and math programs at top-tier US research universities—think places like MIT—are basically the gold standard, and our curriculum follows that exact blueprint. We’re talking identical coursework, the same mandatory textbooks, and nearly identical problem sets on written exams. It’s definitely not some "medieval" level of education. So why are you even talking about this when you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Most people only enroll in this field when they've run out of actual options—there are plenty of exceptions, sure, but that's the reality.
Prove it. Without proof, you’re just peddling a prejudice—and a bad one at that. People who enroll in these programs simply because they have no other options? They don't even make it through freshman year. I guarantee it—I've seen it happen firsthand.
Take Economics, for instance—natural selection kicks in right at the admissions stage, plain and simple. Though, let's be real, most STEM students are basically trained to be super-students, which makes an Economics course feel like a breeze in comparison. 🙂
Which country are we talking about here? The US? If that's the case, you're dead wrong. Admissions for Economics involve much easier math—say, compared to a math or physics program.
Comparing selection rigor between Economics and Physics based on math is absurd. Most of the math covered in an Economics program gets brushed over in a single lecture in a physics department. Besides, I won't dwell on Economics—I don't know enough to comment without just relying on stereotypes.
But let's assume the results are representative and absolute—training one skill necessarily contributes to the development of another skill that might be unmeasurable by tests, such as emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence doesn't exist.
Where am I convincing you that psychologists would crush us, when body language recognition is more important to you than knowing quantum field theory....
Oh really? And what is it more important for? It certainly isn't for technology or the modern world.
Further lamentation regarding the topic of intelligence isn't my field, and regarding your point, I can respond that it's just one indicator which—without knowing how data is collected and the context behind it—isn't even applicable in court: Based on research, we can conclude that on average, PhD students in physical sciences in the USA are more intelligent than PhD students in Economics.
Wow. Bravo. You've clearly reached a conclusion.
By the way, what is referred to as "economics" in certain contexts is actually called Business in the USA, which is what you're actually preparing for. In the US, Economics is a mathematically demanding field—distinct from what people often mean when they say "Business."
So, you presented that study—that scientific paper—just to achieve some kind of widespread recognition, right? Something that would carry weight among the entire population of physicists, mathematicians, and psychologists here in the States...
Honestly, someone who’s spent their whole life working in the field can't possibly grasp the nuances here. I have a few friends working as teaching assistants, and let me tell you, some of them have zero respect for the curriculum, the organization, or even basic professionalism when it comes to the professors at our College of Science... But if that's just a way to mask some massive superiority complex, then I guess that's exactly what it is... 🙂
Jesse Adams said:And what exactly did you prove with that?
I don't know the full breakdown for the GRE—I'm actually prepping for the GMAT myself—but let's be real: it isn't much different from a standard IQ test. It’s not some innate measure of genius; it's strictly about concentration and putting in the reps. Besides, you can drastically boost your scores on actual IQ tests just by practicing—it really comes down to mental readiness.
Yeah? And?
Second point—I wouldn't count these results as applicable to many places where the physics and math education systems haven't seen a serious update since the Middle Ages.
What kind of environments are you even talking about?
If you're talking about the US, that’s just an insult without any actual proof. If we were to rank countries based on their h-index for physics papers versus economics papers—or even just looking at GDP per capita—the US would sit way higher on that first list than it does on the second or third. So yeah, that claim is nothing but a blatant insult.
Look, the physics and math programs at top-tier US research universities—think places like MIT—are basically the gold standard, and our curriculum follows that exact blueprint. We’re talking identical coursework, the same mandatory textbooks, and nearly identical problem sets on written exams. It’s definitely not some "medieval" level of education. So why are you even talking about this when you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Most people only enroll in this field when they've run out of actual options—there are plenty of exceptions, sure, but that's the reality.
Prove it. Without proof, you’re just peddling a prejudice—and a bad one at that. People who enroll in these programs simply because they have no other options? They don't even make it through freshman year. I guarantee it—I've seen it happen firsthand.
Take Economics, for instance—natural selection kicks in right at the admissions stage, plain and simple. Though, let's be real, most STEM students are basically trained to be super-students, which makes an Economics course feel like a breeze in comparison. 🙂
Which country are we talking about here? The US? If that's the case, you're dead wrong. Admissions for Economics involve much easier math—say, compared to a math or physics program.
Comparing selection rigor between Economics and Physics based on math is absurd. Most of the math covered in an Economics program gets brushed over in a single lecture in a physics department. Besides, I won't dwell on Economics—I don't know enough to comment without just relying on stereotypes.
But let's assume the results are representative and absolute—training one skill necessarily contributes to the development of another skill that might be unmeasurable by tests, such as emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence doesn't exist.
Where am I convincing you that psychologists would crush us, when body language recognition is more important to you than knowing quantum field theory....
Oh really? And what is it more important for? It certainly isn't for technology or the modern world.
Further lamentation regarding the topic of intelligence isn't my field, and regarding your point, I can respond that it's just one indicator which—without knowing how data is collected and the context behind it—isn't even applicable in court: Based on research, we can conclude that on average, PhD students in physical sciences in the USA are more intelligent than PhD students in Economics.
Wow. Bravo. You've clearly reached a conclusion.
By the way, what is referred to as "economics" in certain contexts is actually called Business in the USA, which is what you're actually preparing for. In the US, Economics is a mathematically demanding field—distinct from what people often mean when they say "Business."
I proved it to myself back when I was applying for both programs; I could see my competitors' actual scores for class ranking right there on the screen... you might want to take a closer look at that...😉
Jesse Adams said:And what exactly did you prove with that?
I don't know the full breakdown for the GRE—I'm actually prepping for the GMAT myself—but let's be real: it isn't much different from a standard IQ test. It’s not some innate measure of genius; it's strictly about concentration and putting in the reps. Besides, you can drastically boost your scores on actual IQ tests just by practicing—it really comes down to mental readiness.
Yeah? And?
Second point—I wouldn't count these results as applicable to many places where the physics and math education systems haven't seen a serious update since the Middle Ages.
What kind of environments are you even talking about?
If you're talking about the US, that’s just an insult without any actual proof. If we were to rank countries based on their h-index for physics papers versus economics papers—or even just looking at GDP per capita—the US would sit way higher on that first list than it does on the second or third. So yeah, that claim is nothing but a blatant insult.
Look, the physics and math programs at top-tier US research universities—think places like MIT—are basically the gold standard, and our curriculum follows that exact blueprint. We’re talking identical coursework, the same mandatory textbooks, and nearly identical problem sets on written exams. It’s definitely not some "medieval" level of education. So why are you even talking about this when you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Most people only enroll in this field when they've run out of actual options—there are plenty of exceptions, sure, but that's the reality.
Prove it. Without proof, you’re just peddling a prejudice—and a bad one at that. People who enroll in these programs simply because they have no other options? They don't even make it through freshman year. I guarantee it—I've seen it happen firsthand.
Take Economics, for instance—natural selection kicks in right at the admissions stage, plain and simple. Though, let's be real, most STEM students are basically trained to be super-students, which makes an Economics course feel like a breeze in comparison. 🙂
Which country are we talking about here? The US? If that's the case, you're dead wrong. Admissions for Economics involve much easier math—say, compared to a math or physics program.
Comparing selection rigor between Economics and Physics based on math is absurd. Most of the math covered in an Economics program gets brushed over in a single lecture in a physics department. Besides, I won't dwell on Economics—I don't know enough to comment without just relying on stereotypes.
But let's assume the results are representative and absolute—training one skill necessarily contributes to the development of another skill that might be unmeasurable by tests, such as emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence doesn't exist.
Where am I convincing you that psychologists would crush us, when body language recognition is more important to you than knowing quantum field theory....
Oh really? And what is it more important for? It certainly isn't for technology or the modern world.
Further lamentation regarding the topic of intelligence isn't my field, and regarding your point, I can respond that it's just one indicator which—without knowing how data is collected and the context behind it—isn't even applicable in court: Based on research, we can conclude that on average, PhD students in physical sciences in the USA are more intelligent than PhD students in Economics.
Wow. Bravo. You've clearly reached a conclusion.
By the way, what is referred to as "economics" in certain contexts is actually called Business in the USA, which is what you're actually preparing for. In the US, Economics is a mathematically demanding field—distinct from what people often mean when they say "Business."
The math on an economics entrance exam doesn't necessarily have to be harder than what you'd see on the math and physics entrance exams at the College of Science (though I can't quite recall when the physics exams were held lately)...😉
I'll just say that when I was applying to the College of Science, I was actually exempt from the entrance exam. Still, I decided to take it just for the fun of it since I had taken both physics and math in high school—so, being all high and mighty, I think you would have kicked ass back then...
I'm talking about selection density. You have to cover a specific range of subjects, and there are fewer people competing for those spots compared to the numbers we see in the sciences...
Okay, sure, the math on the entrance exam might be pushed to an extreme, but my question is this: even with such an idealized exam and an ideal education system, why does such a huge percentage of students drop out?
Jesse Adams said:And what exactly did you prove with that?
I don't know the full breakdown for the GRE—I'm actually prepping for the GMAT myself—but let's be real: it isn't much different from a standard IQ test. It’s not some innate measure of genius; it's strictly about concentration and putting in the reps. Besides, you can drastically boost your scores on actual IQ tests just by practicing—it really comes down to mental readiness.
Yeah? And?
Second point—I wouldn't count these results as applicable to many places where the physics and math education systems haven't seen a serious update since the Middle Ages.
What kind of environments are you even talking about?
If you're talking about the US, that’s just an insult without any actual proof. If we were to rank countries based on their h-index for physics papers versus economics papers—or even just looking at GDP per capita—the US would sit way higher on that first list than it does on the second or third. So yeah, that claim is nothing but a blatant insult.
Look, the physics and math programs at top-tier US research universities—think places like MIT—are basically the gold standard, and our curriculum follows that exact blueprint. We’re talking identical coursework, the same mandatory textbooks, and nearly identical problem sets on written exams. It’s definitely not some "medieval" level of education. So why are you even talking about this when you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Most people only enroll in this field when they've run out of actual options—there are plenty of exceptions, sure, but that's the reality.
Prove it. Without proof, you’re just peddling a prejudice—and a bad one at that. People who enroll in these programs simply because they have no other options? They don't even make it through freshman year. I guarantee it—I've seen it happen firsthand.
Take Economics, for instance—natural selection kicks in right at the admissions stage, plain and simple. Though, let's be real, most STEM students are basically trained to be super-students, which makes an Economics course feel like a breeze in comparison. 🙂
Which country are we talking about here? The US? If that's the case, you're dead wrong. Admissions for Economics involve much easier math—say, compared to a math or physics program.
Comparing selection rigor between Economics and Physics based on math is absurd. Most of the math covered in an Economics program gets brushed over in a single lecture in a physics department. Besides, I won't dwell on Economics—I don't know enough to comment without just relying on stereotypes.
But let's assume the results are representative and absolute—training one skill necessarily contributes to the development of another skill that might be unmeasurable by tests, such as emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence doesn't exist.
Where am I convincing you that psychologists would crush us, when body language recognition is more important to you than knowing quantum field theory....
Oh really? And what is it more important for? It certainly isn't for technology or the modern world.
Further lamentation regarding the topic of intelligence isn't my field, and regarding your point, I can respond that it's just one indicator which—without knowing how data is collected and the context behind it—isn't even applicable in court: Based on research, we can conclude that on average, PhD students in physical sciences in the USA are more intelligent than PhD students in Economics.
Wow. Bravo. You've clearly reached a conclusion.
By the way, what is referred to as "economics" in certain contexts is actually called Business in the USA, which is what you're actually preparing for. In the US, Economics is a mathematically demanding field—distinct from what people often mean when they say "Business."
Not for coexisting with other people? 🤣 Or is there nothing in the modern world besides technology? Or could you please—since I appreciate precision—quantify your cost/benefit analysis for me? And you can include only your own contribution, like your contribution to the advancement of science, to me as a user...
I hate condescension, prejudice, and any other kind of judgmental labeling, but considering this is a psychology subforum, what kind of impression do you think someone makes with those statements—someone who has clearly never been in a relationship? Someone for whom technology isn't a tool, but the end goal itself? Do you honestly think our education system directed you toward making a significant contribution to technological development?
No, but the College of Science turned you into a psychological case study. You seem to think you're God, but sooner or later, you're going to realize you aren't... 🙂
Jesse Adams said:And what exactly did you prove with that?
I don't know the full breakdown for the GRE—I'm actually prepping for the GMAT myself—but let's be real: it isn't much different from a standard IQ test. It’s not some innate measure of genius; it's strictly about concentration and putting in the reps. Besides, you can drastically boost your scores on actual IQ tests just by practicing—it really comes down to mental readiness.
Yeah? And?
Second point—I wouldn't count these results as applicable to many places where the physics and math education systems haven't seen a serious update since the Middle Ages.
What kind of environments are you even talking about?
If you're talking about the US, that’s just an insult without any actual proof. If we were to rank countries based on their h-index for physics papers versus economics papers—or even just looking at GDP per capita—the US would sit way higher on that first list than it does on the second or third. So yeah, that claim is nothing but a blatant insult.
Look, the physics and math programs at top-tier US research universities—think places like MIT—are basically the gold standard, and our curriculum follows that exact blueprint. We’re talking identical coursework, the same mandatory textbooks, and nearly identical problem sets on written exams. It’s definitely not some "medieval" level of education. So why are you even talking about this when you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Most people only enroll in this field when they've run out of actual options—there are plenty of exceptions, sure, but that's the reality.
Prove it. Without proof, you’re just peddling a prejudice—and a bad one at that. People who enroll in these programs simply because they have no other options? They don't even make it through freshman year. I guarantee it—I've seen it happen firsthand.
Take Economics, for instance—natural selection kicks in right at the admissions stage, plain and simple. Though, let's be real, most STEM students are basically trained to be super-students, which makes an Economics course feel like a breeze in comparison. 🙂
Which country are we talking about here? The US? If that's the case, you're dead wrong. Admissions for Economics involve much easier math—say, compared to a math or physics program.
Comparing selection rigor between Economics and Physics based on math is absurd. Most of the math covered in an Economics program gets brushed over in a single lecture in a physics department. Besides, I won't dwell on Economics—I don't know enough to comment without just relying on stereotypes.
But let's assume the results are representative and absolute—training one skill necessarily contributes to the development of another skill that might be unmeasurable by tests, such as emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence doesn't exist.
Where am I convincing you that psychologists would crush us, when body language recognition is more important to you than knowing quantum field theory....
Oh really? And what is it more important for? It certainly isn't for technology or the modern world.
Further lamentation regarding the topic of intelligence isn't my field, and regarding your point, I can respond that it's just one indicator which—without knowing how data is collected and the context behind it—isn't even applicable in court: Based on research, we can conclude that on average, PhD students in physical sciences in the USA are more intelligent than PhD students in Economics.
Wow. Bravo. You've clearly reached a conclusion.
By the way, what is referred to as "economics" in certain contexts is actually called Business in the USA, which is what you're actually preparing for. In the US, Economics is a mathematically demanding field—distinct from what people often mean when they say "Business."
I don't mean to brag, but I feel like I could wipe the floor with you and people like you when it comes to understanding and quantifying the phenomena around us. There are groups of people who started with a clear goal and direction, driven by a genuine curiosity that keeps them moving forward...
If you actually had a scientific mind, you would always analyze results with skepticism and adjust your own conclusions based on the level of knowledge you acquire...
Honestly, all the best to you on your little island, and I suppose the standard error of population estimation among physicists is what?...🙂