#majorism

I've met too many hard science majors with a condescending mindset towards those who are studying fields in humanities. The mere enrollment in hard science classes is in no way a signifier of intelligence. It's only impressive if your performance is up to par. Science and math classes are hard--we get it. But in the end, there's really no point in belittling Humanities majors or categorizing them as worthless and deficient just because their studies are less demanding. 

It doesn't help in achieve anything, nor does it introduce new ideas to consider. 

The only possible benefit of castigating other majors is to make one feel more credible and praise-worthy. If it helps to stay motivated to believe a hard science major is smarter, more hardworking than students in other majors--then the desire to excel in that field stems far from a genuinely honest place. 

  If you truly believe that studying and excelling in science is the most important and beneficial contribution that you can offer to society, then you would do just that--excel. Downgrading other majors plays no role in achieving this goal. 

The truth is, one can never truly compare the intelligence of a lethargic, biological science major on academic probation with a hardworking, straight-A English major. It really doesn't matter what the major is because each field demands inimitable expectations from its students. But even more important than that, it's completely arbitrary to generalize and group the study habits of thousands of students just by their major. This stigma attached to the English major has been long standing among biased math and science majors. English is not an "easy" major--it is challenging in its own depths and incomparable to science majors. 

It's like apples and oranges, but you gotta have both: one is not conclusively superior than the other.  I think the biggest, most definitive difference between fields in science versus fields in the Humanities is the lack of personalization or application of human interrelations in science fields. Majors like English, sociology, anthropology and psychology monitor and analyze the behavior among people in the real, sociable world. Scientists and mathematicians, on the other hand, while they discover undoubtedly essential, technical functions of organisms, are completely distant from the normal, real world. This isn't to say that science isn't applicable to the real world at all--it obviously is, but if we relied solely on the technical functions, we would lack a complete and comprehensive understanding about the world. 

My grandma was a psychology professor at a university in India. She made an excellent point that even though such narrow-minded biological science majors may feel that abstract ideas are useless to society, these soon-to-be doctors will eventually learn themselves that possessing an open mind and understanding human behaviorism will be just as critical to their career when they are practicing on patients one-on-one. It's just a matter of time until they will learn that science--though it is undeniably critical--science alone, is not enough.

The greatest minds alive were abstract philosophers. Without Fernande de Saussure, we would have never learned the significance behind semiotics and how this structuralism in language acts as a window to culture and society's progression. I concede that such cultural theory and interpretation would not stand in this world alone, but likewise, science and math would not be as effective if great minds like Aristotle did not apply fundamental principles to society.

  In the end, however, reprehending other majors only displays a sense of insecurity and weakness in regards to one's own abilities. This goes for any topic--the only accomplishment that achieved by talking badly about other people is to make one's self feel superior. This need for reassurance is a definite sign of major insecurities.