- Joined
- Aug 19, 2015
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
Preface: I hereby declare that multiple majors do not in any measurable way increase your chances of getting into medical school or the MD/PhD program. Do not crucify me.
However, one of the biggest slights against modern education is the notion that majoring in more than one thing, or even triple-majoring, is an utter waste of time that should be condemned and rebuked till not a single pretentious snot-nose daring to learn about more than one thing remains. If you think I'm blowing it out of proportion, I'm not; merely meandering the forums, even academic ones, regarding double- or triple-majoring, one finds comments against people pursuing such ideals like, "They're d**k measuring," or "Somebody thinks he's hung," or "People who get more than one major come across as indecisive and unprepared."
You might say that people only say these things to expunge the false belief that double- or triple-majoring supplements medical school applications--but that's not always the case. Looking at it qualitatively, the average opinion of most academic critics toward undergraduate majoring in multiple fields can be described by one word: pretentious. From magazine articles decrying it to retired professors on rants at my school, it is the obvious attitude.
I believe this is hogwash. SO LONG as no more than 4-5 years is spent pursuing your interests, double- and triple-majoring should be ENCOURAGED. A friend of mine was going to pursue a dual-degree in music and in chemical engineering, but dropped the second music degree because of people left and right discouraging him. Granted, they had a point--there's not much music in chemical engineering, but that is beside the point, and that's something nobody seems to get. I believe there is a dissolution of fascination with knowledge making its way around the developed world. People get degrees for "job" insights and "career" moves, rather than truly going all out with the things that interest them. And to say that devoting all your time on any one thing during your undergraduate years is the wiser move is fallacious. True, eventually you will specialize beyond undergraduate, but that doesn't mean you should be disenchanted with the thought of diversifying earlier on. Knowledge is never wasted.
The "advice" given by most people regarding multiple majors is almost NEVER positive, despite many successful people having done so (like Bill Maher, the guy who discovered the Titanic shipwreck, etc.). Some of the greatest figures in history (Newton, Galileo, Aristotle, Einstein, etc.) were learned in WAY more than one field. It seems as time progresses less and less people are encouraging the pursuit of multiple areas of knowledge, and are completely disregarding the possible benefits. For example, someone pursuing a PhD in medicine can EASILY benefit from a bachelor's in psychology, due to the intensive, literature-based empiricism of latter psychology courses that one does not comparably receive while pursuing a bachelor's in biochemistry or biology. I'm almost finished with Biochem, and I'll be damned if I know any of the procedures involved in setting up an experiment, amassing sample sets (volunteers, subjects), or how to write a proposal, etc.,whereas in my school these facets are all commonplace learning points in the upper-division psychology courses.
In one sentence: Whether or not it gives me an edge in medical school, if you asked me whether I wanted to be knowledgeable in psychology AND biochemistry versus just one of the two at the risk of seeming "pretentious," I will choose the former.
However, one of the biggest slights against modern education is the notion that majoring in more than one thing, or even triple-majoring, is an utter waste of time that should be condemned and rebuked till not a single pretentious snot-nose daring to learn about more than one thing remains. If you think I'm blowing it out of proportion, I'm not; merely meandering the forums, even academic ones, regarding double- or triple-majoring, one finds comments against people pursuing such ideals like, "They're d**k measuring," or "Somebody thinks he's hung," or "People who get more than one major come across as indecisive and unprepared."
You might say that people only say these things to expunge the false belief that double- or triple-majoring supplements medical school applications--but that's not always the case. Looking at it qualitatively, the average opinion of most academic critics toward undergraduate majoring in multiple fields can be described by one word: pretentious. From magazine articles decrying it to retired professors on rants at my school, it is the obvious attitude.
I believe this is hogwash. SO LONG as no more than 4-5 years is spent pursuing your interests, double- and triple-majoring should be ENCOURAGED. A friend of mine was going to pursue a dual-degree in music and in chemical engineering, but dropped the second music degree because of people left and right discouraging him. Granted, they had a point--there's not much music in chemical engineering, but that is beside the point, and that's something nobody seems to get. I believe there is a dissolution of fascination with knowledge making its way around the developed world. People get degrees for "job" insights and "career" moves, rather than truly going all out with the things that interest them. And to say that devoting all your time on any one thing during your undergraduate years is the wiser move is fallacious. True, eventually you will specialize beyond undergraduate, but that doesn't mean you should be disenchanted with the thought of diversifying earlier on. Knowledge is never wasted.
The "advice" given by most people regarding multiple majors is almost NEVER positive, despite many successful people having done so (like Bill Maher, the guy who discovered the Titanic shipwreck, etc.). Some of the greatest figures in history (Newton, Galileo, Aristotle, Einstein, etc.) were learned in WAY more than one field. It seems as time progresses less and less people are encouraging the pursuit of multiple areas of knowledge, and are completely disregarding the possible benefits. For example, someone pursuing a PhD in medicine can EASILY benefit from a bachelor's in psychology, due to the intensive, literature-based empiricism of latter psychology courses that one does not comparably receive while pursuing a bachelor's in biochemistry or biology. I'm almost finished with Biochem, and I'll be damned if I know any of the procedures involved in setting up an experiment, amassing sample sets (volunteers, subjects), or how to write a proposal, etc.,whereas in my school these facets are all commonplace learning points in the upper-division psychology courses.
In one sentence: Whether or not it gives me an edge in medical school, if you asked me whether I wanted to be knowledgeable in psychology AND biochemistry versus just one of the two at the risk of seeming "pretentious," I will choose the former.