It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Are you implying said softer sciences lack intelligence of say an Engineer/Physicist?
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: KyoZero
Are you implying said softer sciences lack intelligence of say an Engineer/Physicist?
Sciences don't have intelligence. People have intelligence.
But yes, I am implying that most of the people who study the kind of subjects I mention above at university level are of inferior intelligence compared to the average intelligence of, say, a physics or mathematics class.
Here's a chart of stuent IQ estimates by 'intended college major', from a very reliable source. It proves my point — unless you want to argue that IQ does not correlate with actual intelligence, in which case I still have some pre-2001 internet stocks you might be interested in buying.
No I prefer to argue that IQ is not even close to the only level or measure of intelligence.
I prefer to argue that IQ is not an indicator of future performance when vast amounts of variables exist.
I prefer to argue that just because a person chose a soft science does not neccessarily equate to the lack of ability to perform in so-called "superior sciences.
originally posted by: Blackspider928
a reply to: Isurrender73
Also, college means nothing anymore. Everyone goes now. A college diploma means jack. Anyone can get them. Not enough kids are actually learning anything useful. Just mindlessly going through the motions and trying to do enough to get by.
If you just show up for class and put forth even the tiniest bit of effort, you will be handed a diploma. Having one or attending college does not equate to you having intelligence.
hint - what is the comedy value of people giving the correct answers ??????????????????