We Should All Be Theatre Majors

[praying4MD]

I took "History of Theatre" to fulfill a fine arts requirement this semester. I chose because it just fit my schedule well. No real interest in the subject and I thought it would be a boring blowoff class. Boy was I wrong! The class suprisingly kicked my butt, even more than some of my science classes. I had no idea what I was in for.

2 observations I made:
1) THEATER MAJORS ARE AWESOME! Contrary to popular belief, these people are incredibly smart; a lot of them could blow us out of the water in terms of brains. What also struck me is how they offered each other a great deal of support and camaraderie, more than ANY premed I've ever seen. Not only that, they were inclusive, as opposed to exclusive, they kicked butt on the exam (and these exams were hard) but did not feel the need to tell people about it & they really helped me out.

Not to mention they were absolutely hilarious (& quite good looking.) It was really a pleasure to go to class and coming out laughing like I just hung out with friends.

My point... Why is there such a stark contrast between them and premeds? Their GPA is important to them too, as many plan on studying theatre academically & pursuing higher education, yet they didn't need to break every curve or boast about it.

2) People in the sciences often greatly underestimate the amount of work, time and energy that non-science majors put into their work. Ok, so I'm biased because I'm a non-science major, but hear me out.

A lot of my non-science profs feel that they must Overcompensate for the fact that they are non-science profs and so they actually make the course harder than the science courses in an effort to "prove" something to them. I suppose it's an inferiority complex or something. Has anyone else seen this?

Anyway, the end result is that the non science class was very difficult, yet, many assume they are easier. Why?

Another fact to consider is that there are totally different skills involved in each. A lot of premeds I know would've failed this theatre class because it required a certain amount of depth, understanding and communication skills while maintaining a sense of humor and studying a lot. All that in one class.

So that's my take on the injustices that we as science-oriented people create in the world.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Hmm...I will nod my head in agreement to some and disapprove elsewhere.

I have found competitive people in every single class I have ever taken. I wouldn't say it's a "premed" thing...For example, business classes at my university are super cutthroat. If you miss 2 questions on a 35 question MC exam, you will NOT get an A...maybe an A-..NOT an A. I knew a girl who took the class a total of FOUR times b/c she kept dropping the damn class after the first or second test. So, there are classes where people are competitive that are not science. I have taken drama and there sure as hell were not very many good looking people in my class. I have taken a good amount of history courses (I should have majored in it), and I completely disagree on the ease of the courses! History and other humanities are much easier...Though the two majors ARE different it's still easier...
Do I think that humanities are easier? Hellz YEA!
Do I think that humanities prof's have an inferiority complex b/c they are not science?Hellz NO!
Do I think that humanities people are any less intelligent than us? Hellz NO!
I think everyone has a niche to fill, and some do one thing and others do others. I personally could never be an actor..I would get too much stage fright.
As for time requirements,
It all comes down to how you do it.
From my experience, nonscience majors DO NOT put in nearly as much time as SCIENCE majors. YOu go to class, take notes, write a paper every now and then, and study a couple days before the test.
Science you go to class, take notes, do homework, go to lab, do prelabs, write lab reports, study on your own outside of class, and then study however long you need to before a test.
MUCH MUCH LONGER...
Ok..gotta get back to work...

 

[moo]

I agree with you for the most part. In fact my science GPA is quite a bit higher than my non-science GPA, but that could be attributed to the fact that I like the physical and mathematical sciences rather than anything. I have the utmost respect for humanities people, English majors, History majors, etc. I could never study that stuff and maintain a high GPA. And I think you will find competitive people wherever you go. In my department, physics and mathematics, there are plenty of gunners out there who aim to kick everybody's ass just so they can get into a good grad school. But for the most part, I have enjoyed my major, as I have always told myself I would not associate with premeds any more than I have to when I began this long journey three years ago. As for the difficulty of the classes, I think that is all relative. For example, I never made an A in biology I or II (not even close) but I have never gotten below an A in my math and physics courses... I attribute this fact to the grand old theory that if you study something you are interested in, you'll do well in it. Thus, I hate it when people (science majors especially) start knocking people in English, history, economics, etc. just because they think their subjects are easier... it may not be.

 

[WarmFuzzyKittens]

i agree with scoob, even though he's a dirty old man. i'm a religious studies/science major, and all my rs classes were cake compared to the sciences. i never studied and always did well in those classes...not something that happened in mcb...

 

[rpames]

My room mate and I are both Bio majors so we often make fun of buissness majors (our favorite are advertising majors), not because they are dumb, but because they always seem to be going to parties and having more fun than us. Like said in an earlier post, science has labs on top of lecture. This semester I only had 4 classes (one is a one credit pre req) but the others are Physics, Organic, and Cellular bio. All with labs, disscussions and prelabs. It ended up being 22+ hours of time in class but only 15 credits. Most other majors would have 15cr. = 15hrs. Science credits are a little different than non-science.

 

[rpames]

I also wanted to mention, my soon to be wife is and english major and my roomate is double majoring in bio and english. I say that because I know how hard they both work. Non-science student work hard too and I would never say they were less intelegent. Probably more intellegent for not going into science and wasting so much time in labs.

 

[NE_Cornhusker1]

My ex-gf was a theater major. About three months after the split I found she was faking orgasms (quite well). So yes, there are drawbacks to the theater major.

 

[Trek]

Sorry, can't. I ain't gay. Well, thanks folks, you've been a great crowd, thank you, thank you, thank you!

Seriously though, you are right. Non-premeds in general are much more laid back, fun, cooperative and caring (now that's ironic) than pre-meds, at least at his hell-hole. I guess that's why i don't have any premed friends ;-) Let's hear it for theatre majors! --Trek

 

[praying4MD]

Sorry Scoob, gotta disagree with you here.

1) I wasn't complaining about competitive people per se, because hey, I'm very competitive myself... but only against myself. The example you gave of the girl dropping that class was because she wanted to perform better, not because she wants to prove to others how smart she is. Likewise with the theatre majors, who are incredibly bright, and have great GPAs, but don't have to bring others down to accomplish this feat.

So, yes, while there are competitive people everwhere, premeds often feel the need to discount others accomplishments in order to feel "smart" while others are happy just doing well, regardless of how their peers did. They need to validate their accomplishments by making sure they are the only one at the top, whereas others can feel just as satisfied if everyone gets an "A."

2) I guess it is a matter of personal opinion about the difficulty of the classes because the majority of my non-science courses were HARD. Perhaps it is a function of your prof's attitude, but I strongly disagree that non-sciences are easier than the sciences.

As for the amount of time & agony put in, I still feel it is equal in the humanities and sciences. It really bothers me when people think that just because they majored in a science that they worked harder in their degree. This is SO wrong! (not directed at you, just in general.) My good friend did his masters/undergrad in creative writing and I used to think it was a joke. So I tried to do it one day and it was very difficult work. I spent hours and hours on a page of writing and when showed it to my friend, he told me I'd get a D- if I was in his class! And I Like to think of myself as a good writer too!

Take poetry for instance. Try writing a poem that is decent enough to get published and actually make some money. I took a "great books" course and discovered that understanding some of the world's truly great poets takes a lifetime of work, and it's NOT easy! It will take weeks to simply write a verse of decent poetry, and even then if you're me, it still sucks.

So No, I do NOT believe humanities are any easier than the sciences; however, as always, the difficulty of a course is reliant upon your prof and your aptitude. I personally find humanities fascinating so I tend to perform better in them. But let me tell you, writing a 40 page paper on Marx's world theory related to the current state of the political spectrum is a lot harder than any lab I've ever completed. (It's also a lot more fun though.)

In sum, difficulty is in the eye of the beholder, and the amount of time spent in each field pretty much evens out, so IMHO there's no reason to think that science majors work any harder or spend more time or effort in their degree than humanities majors.

 

[Ranger Bob]

Different people excel in different areas. Many humanities majors would crack under the pressure of organic chemistry or physics, but so too would many science majors fail to excel in upper-level English, history, or drama courses. There are more intelligent, and less intelligent, students in both camps.

Having said that, I do think that science and engineering majors have to spend more time studying and attending class than humanities majors. As an earlier poster mentioned, a science major may end up spending 20+ hours in class for 15 credit hours. This is because lab classes give little credit and require a lot of time.

 

[nitemagi]

Ok, feel I gotta speak up here. I was a double major- theatre and psychology. Took my pre-meds during summers and a post-bacc year.

Theatre is a humanity, but it's a hell of an exception. Many of the theatre majors I knew, worked with, and loved, worked harder than pre-meds I've known. I don't necessarily believe it had to do with the curriculum, but greatly to do with the fact that so much theatrical work is extracurricular. Many theatre majors don't do the work just to get good grades, they do it because they love it. Because of that, I would see people(myself included) doing more hours than medical residents(that's not an exaggeration). They work in the theatre. All night. They sleep there. They build the sets, hang the lights, rehearse at all hours, plan, and after all that they do their class work. It's all they do. I'm talking about 3-5 hours of sleep a night. All year.

That being said, theatre courses are a bit of another deal. Intro theatre courses(what many non-humanities majors take) are often quite easy. They have to be. They require little effort, even for theatre majors. I don't think this makes it inherently easier material. Try moving to more advanced theatrical classes. Try designing a multileveled stage that fits the dimensions of the theatre, the functional needs of the script, the desires of the director, the color palette of the costume and lighting designer, and your own creative impulses. It's not easy. Talk about compromising. Even more difficult is working with theatrical theorists, such as Artaud, Brecht, Grotowski. It goes beyond understanding theories, but creatively applying them to a new process, and even going beyond them. This can involve parts of yourself you've never really used before. It's challenging personal work. It's hard work, intellectually, emotionally, physically.

As for competition, yes it can exist, but usually not within a production. Maybe between different production companies, but all that depends on the environment. More often you will see everyone doing everything they can for a production to get it going, including working with people they absolutely hate for a six week rehearsal/preparation process, and a three week performance run.

Now to get off that soapbox, I've worked in the other camp as well, doing the sciences. It's a different form of difficulty. It's more mechanical. It doesn't feel as rewarding. You have to cut off a huge part of yourself because there's no place for it in the work. But it's a means to an end. And that end is worth it all.

Funny, I was actually thinking just last night about advanced work in the sciences and in the arts. Typically there's this cross-discipline respect. Each respects the amazing abilities of the others, simply because the other can do something so amazing that they themselves cannot do. I find it interesting.

In the end, let's exit the hierarchy. Science is not more difficult. It's mired in a great deal of terminology that makes it appear more difficult to the layman, but the material is not inherently more complicated. The arts are not simple or easy either. The difference is that art is so subjective, that many people enter the art world and do work that they believe is high quality, when they have no experience in it at all, and often no one knows the difference. Not to be an art snob in any way, but it's much easier to pass off truly bad work in the art world as something meaningful than it is in science. But then you start to get into the larger arguments of art for the artists sake instead of for the audiences' experience, and let's not go there on this thread.

 

[watto]

It's only anecdotal, to be sure, but in my four years as a film major I knew some of the laziest slobs you would ever meet.

I notice this now after having my butt kicked in science classes by demanding teachers. To think that I used to complain about having to watch Hong Kong action flicks for class...

 

[nitemagi]

Watto, LOL
I hear you actually. There are the worst slackers in film and in theatre(most of the ones in theatre are actors). I can hack on them because I used to be an actor. And a director. But film theory is a whole nother ballgame.

 

[praying4MD]

Sorry to bring this back up again, but I just wanted to say Thank You nitemagi!! You expressed my point exactly! I agree 110% with your assessment of the situation.

 

[Elysium]

Hey YA! There are some other converted film majors out there!

I could have slept through my four year film major (even though the first two years were mostly liberal arts classes). Sure, you spend time working on films hours out of class, but it's an entirely different ballgame than preparing for the Alkene Reactions. I had several classes where we watched a movie for our final and then wrote an essay on it. Hmmm.
That said, the arts incorporate a part of the brain that science does not. They are apples and oranges. But medicine is something else all together. It is a true marriage of science and communication.

 

[GoatBoy]

Originally posted by praying4MD:
•Sorry to bring this back up again, but I just wanted to say Thank You nitemagi!! You expressed my point exactly! I agree 110% with your assessment of the situation. •••

110% is impossible. By definition the highest you can agree with someone is 100%. If you took more science classes you would have learned that.

 

[USeF]

Anybody ever been to a Halloween party thrown by Theatre majors? that must be awesome. Missed my chance to go this year after being invited by my first roomate. Truly an awesome southern baptist rodney dangerfield-look alike. To think, we both started in Gen chem and calc together. He hated them so much he went to theatre. Nitemagi echoed his feeling: very mechanical, not so rewarding.
I personally loved them so much I majored in both! So it really is a personal choice.

On a side note, I ended up going down to New College in Sarasota for their all-night outdoor Halloween party. I dont think even the theatre kids could've matched the hysteria of this fiasco. Liberal arts colleges are a sight to see..

 

[GoatBoy]

Originally posted by USeF:
•Anybody ever been to a Halloween party thrown by Theatre majors? that must be awesome. Missed my chance to go this year after being invited by my first roomate. Truly an awesome southern baptist rodney dangerfield-look alike. To think, we both started in Gen chem and calc together. He hated them so much he went to theatre. Nitemagi echoed his feeling: very mechanical, not so rewarding.
I personally loved them so much I majored in both! So it really is a personal choice.

On a side note, I ended up going down to New College in Sarasota for their all-night outdoor Halloween party. I dont think even the theatre kids could've matched the hysteria of this fiasco. Liberal arts colleges are a sight to see..•••

Hey what happened to your name? You are no longer a bull.
I thought we had some kind of connection before because we are both animals.

 

[fourthwatch96822]

Originally posted by praying4MD:
•I took "History of Theatre" to fulfill a fine arts requirement this semester. I chose because it just fit my schedule well. No real interest in the subject and I thought it would be a boring blowoff class. Boy was I wrong! The class suprisingly kicked my butt, even more than some of my science classes. I had no idea what I was in for.

2 observations I made:
1) THEATER MAJORS ARE AWESOME! Contrary to popular belief, these people are incredibly smart; a lot of them could blow us out of the water in terms of brains. What also struck me is how they offered each other a great deal of support and camaraderie, more than ANY premed I've ever seen. Not only that, they were inclusive, as opposed to exclusive, they kicked butt on the exam (and these exams were hard) but did not feel the need to tell people about it & they really helped me out.

Not to mention they were absolutely hilarious (& quite good looking.) It was really a pleasure to go to class and coming out laughing like I just hung out with friends.

My point... Why is there such a stark contrast between them and premeds? Their GPA is important to them too, as many plan on studying theatre academically & pursuing higher education, yet they didn't need to break every curve or boast about it.

2) People in the sciences often greatly underestimate the amount of work, time and energy that non-science majors put into their work. Ok, so I'm biased because I'm a non-science major, but hear me out.

A lot of my non-science profs feel that they must Overcompensate for the fact that they are non-science profs and so they actually make the course harder than the science courses in an effort to "prove" something to them. I suppose it's an inferiority complex or something. Has anyone else seen this?

Anyway, the end result is that the non science class was very difficult, yet, many assume they are easier. Why?

Another fact to consider is that there are totally different skills involved in each. A lot of premeds I know would've failed this theatre class because it required a certain amount of depth, understanding and communication skills while maintaining a sense of humor and studying a lot. All that in one class.

So that's my take on the injustices that we as science-oriented people create in the world.•••

I totally agree with you. Many years ago I took an abnormal psychology class because I thought it was going to be an interesting and easy class. Boy was I wrong. The instructor was sooo anal: we could only use certain types of reference material to write our term paper and other things that he required. I never went to sleep the night before the paper was due. His tests were so hard that some of the grad students felt that he was being too difficult for an undergrad psych course. But, I see what you mean.

 

[UCLA2000]

Ok I can only agree with some of what you said. I have met alot of theater majors at UCLA. I've dated a few of them, and my sister is also a theater major at UCLA.

1. None of the theater majors that I have met have been all that smart. Their SAT scores sucked, and they were accepted solely on their musical/acting talent. They do not go by the same admissions requirements as the rest of the school. I have seen many with SATs in the high 900's or low 1000's.

2. Theater majors are funny as hell. They generally know how to enjoy their lives, and they
are, on the average, better looking than premeds. Gee why is that? Well because theater majors hardly ever study. They spend most of their time relaxing..enjoying life...and making sure that they look good. An ugly actor is generally an out of work actor (not in all cases).

Please don't try to tell me how hard theater majors work. Like I said I dated one for a long time, and my sister is one. I heard the same argument from both of them. The bottom line is that aside from the 1-2 hours per day of singing they hardly ever studied. My sister would start to study for an exam 2 days before, whereas I would be studying at least a week in advance prior to tests.

Please don't tell me that PREMEDS would fail most theater classes. I basically sat down with my ex to force her to study. I showed her new strategies and things to help her remember the stuff. The pathetic part is that in the short time I would study with her before each exam I'd know the material better than she would.

Also don't tell me that GPA is important in theater. UCLA accidentally changed one of her pass/fail classes to a grading basis without telling her. She earned a C- in the class(which gives credit if it's graded but fails on a pass/fail basis). Rather than getting it changed to a fail she took the MAJOR gpa hit. I urged her strongly to retake the class so that her gpa wouldn't be affected, but she flat out told me that GPA DOES NOT matter in theater. It's all about singing and acting skills, and letters of rec. Nobody cares about your grades.

The last thing that caught my attention about you post was the title "we should all be theater majors"....trust me....you don't want to hear me sing.

 

[edmadison]

I would have liked to be a theater major, but I don't smoke and don't have enough black cloths.

On the science vs. non-science issue, it depends on your school. At my school, science classes were difficul, but generally were curved, so there were always a fair number of As. Not so in history (I was a history/Comp Sci double major). In most classes (40-50 students) there would be one or two As and two or three A-. And it's not like science, where you can memorize facts, formulas and mechanisms. In the humanities they expect you to say insightful things on your exams.

Ed

 

[ExistentialistPhilosopher]

And it's not like science, where you can memorize facts, formulas and mechanisms. In the humanities they expect you to say insightful things on your exams.
••

That's definitely true at a lot of schools, including mine. Although I'm not so sure about the theatre arts, I feel as though the humanities require and emphasize different intellectual skills than the sciences, like creativity, perception, and the ability to verbally convey complex thoughts. Although understanding the concepts taught in humanities classes may be much more "easy" than understanding the concepts of quantum physics, you are also expected to demonstrate your understanding of the material in different ways (essays vs. calculation) using different skills. In my opinion, the humanities has been rendered "easy" by lenient professors reluctant to set challenging grading standards.

As for theater arts, some drama majors may not be "intelligent" in the usual sense of the word, and many of their courses may not be hard, but they may have the ability to act, which requires deep knowledge of human behavior and the whole gamut of human emotions. I doubt that many science-oriented people would be able to stand up on the stage and do for one minute what actors must do for a living. Most humans, contrary to what they themselves may believe, can't act worth a damn, to the point where their "acting" is painful to watch. Good acting, directing, etc. does take fierce talent, intelligence, and human understanding, and neither the arts nor the humanities should be dismissed too lightly.

 

[nitemagi]

Oh man, can of worms.

1. None of the theater majors that I have met have been all that smart. Their SAT scores sucked, and they were accepted solely on their musical/acting talent. They do not go by the same admissions requirements as the rest of the school. I have seen many with SATs in the high 900's or low 1000's.

••

Really? Was that why my SAT was 1400?
And only BFA/ training programs involve judging on acting/singing skills, which does not include most colleges. Furthermore, just because you've met some "actors" at UCLA doesn't mean they represent all theatre majors, nor do all actors sing. That's like saying every doctor needs good hands because they are all judged by their appie procedures. Ridiculous. You haven't even taken any theatrical courses, yet you rush to judge others. KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU MAKE BLANKET SWEEPING STATEMENTS ABOUT AN ENTIRE FIELD IN WHICH YOU HAVE NEVER WORKED.

JEEZ, you really believe you're superior, don't you?

Given, SOME theatre majors, many of which are actors, are slackers. But until you know the real time, concentration, and committment it takes from the various members of the cast and crew to put together a show, go back to your F****ng lab.

 

[Wednesday]

So I WAS a theater major and now I'm going to med school. Can you believe it!?!

The first mistake that some of you are making, is that you are assuming that all theater majors are actors. Absolutly not true. I am not the best actor on earth (although I was required to study it to complete my major). Most of the stereotypes associated with theater majors are those attributed to actors. Ever tried to get a job based on your looks, personality and contacts? Ever had to put your WEIGHT on your resume? It's a completly different world.

I didn't really act much, but I did everything else and I was much busier than most people at my undergraduate school. We took a lot of flack from everyone else about how we were stupid and lazy, since we were taking "easy" theater classes. You know those extensions people always try to get for big papers or projects? When I had a "deadline", it was not negotiable. Basically the audience paid to see the show and if we weren't ready, they weren't going to go home and come back the next week. My friends went to football games on Saturdays and I sat in the theater all weekend for 12 hour rehearsals.

I am not trying to say that theater majors work harder than premeds. However, the work is different. In theater, you must be well spoken, have the ability to communicate effectively, be creative and basically well rounded. It is not imperative that you be super intelligent (although many are), but I don't think you have to be super intelligent to be a physician either. The one thing you don't have to be that premeds do, is good at science, although there are many on the technical side who are.

The biggest simularity that I've seen between premeds and theater majors is the absolute single minded desire to do what they love. But you must remember, when we're MDs, we will have respect, relative stability and a decent paycheck. Theater professionals are guaranteed none of these things.

Everyone should NOT be a theater major. I'm afraid that most would find it much harder than they anticipated, mostly because you usually can't study yourself into a good grade. However, I think that taking a theater class or two is a great foundation for medicine. In addition to practical experience in communication, creativity and real responsibility, it might give premeds insight into this strange breed of theater major. What better preparation for medicine than learning to respect the life and work of someone who is so different from yourself?

 

[USeF]

Originally posted by GoatBoy:
•
Hey what happened to your name? You are no longer a bull.
I thought we had some kind of connection before because we are both animals.•••

Not only am I no longer a bull, I'm no longer the Bull One day I realized that I didn't like all the real long names like "I still can't think of a name" so what better way to make this statement than do it myself. That and the fact that this is my last semester as a Bull (mascot here at U of South Florida). Besides, the pun is lost on everyone unfarmiliar with the USF Bulls and my story of trying out to be the mascot my freshman year, whereby I would've become USeF the USF Bull

Don't worry though, Goatboy, I'm still an animal at heart!

 

[UCLA2000]

Nitemagi I think that you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
My statement is a fact.

" None of the theater majors THAT I HAVE MET have been all that smart. THEIR SAT scores sucked, and THEY were accepted solely on their musical/acting talent. They do not go by the same admissions requirements as the rest of the school. I have seen many with SATs in the high 900's or low 1000's"

Your response "Really? Was that why my SAT was 1400? "

You literally made me laugh because it shows that you don't understand what you read. Did I ever say that YOUR SAT score was a 900? No. I merely stated a fact. The ones THAT I MET were not that smart...PERIOD.

Also you said "You haven't even taken any theatrical courses, yet you rush to judge others. "

How the hell do you know if I've ever taken theater classes? Did you bother to ask me before you rushed to judge me? Also I'm well aware that not all theater majors are singers. It was a f*cking joke that I tacked on to the end of my statement. Get over it.

"until you know the real time, concentration, and committment it takes from the various members of the cast and crew to put together a show, go back to your F****ng lab. "

Ok I'll give you that much...The work put in by ALL of the cast and crew CUMULATIVELY adds up to more work than I do individually. So I'll go back to my f*cking lab and keep working harder than they do INVIDUALLY...hell maybe one day I'll make a breakthrough that even saves their lives.

Let's cut the crap and get to the issue. UCLA has a ton of science courses specifically for non science majors. "Physics for poets" for instance is one example of the over simplified science courses aimed at allowing theater majors to pass.
How many do you think would survive if they competed against science majors in science classes? Neither my sister nor my x are capable of doing math. Algebra was as high as they got. Lucky for them the theater school has different requirements than the regular school.

Why is it that science majors are expected to compete against non science majors in humanities courses? I've never seen a course called history for pre-meds, or literature for scientists.

Pray4md stated.."try writing poetry for instance."
OK well...I'm a published poet. I've also won several awards from the international library of poetry. In fact my NON science gpa (3.97) was MUCH higher than my science gpa. Frankly it's irrelevant because it still doesn't change the fact that the theater students that I know don't work as hard as I do.

 

[nitemagi]

Alright. Point made. This could absolutely be a contrast in schools. In fact it probably is. I didn't attend UCLA, and you didn't attend Hampshire/Umass/Smith/MtHolyoke/Harvard(schools where I've done theatre). Admittedly it's different in different environments. Your comments were from your specific experience, but they came off as a reinforcement of a previous argument made here, and somewhat as the logic to back up the sweeping generalizations.

Some of the schools I attended did have science for non-science majors, but I didn't know anyone that took them.
As for scores and the like, I commend you on your poetry work, but you have to admit that you likely have a weak area. True many artists are weak in math. But let's not generalize there either. Many women have traditionally had difficulty in math simply because of the academic environments in which they learned. They were discouraged, and thus turned to other fields.

And your judgment about the individual contributions of theatre-workers is also off. Maybe it's true at UCLA. I have no experience with that. I could write pages about the amazingly ingenuitive hard-working people I've known and worked with, but it's not really worth it. You have your opinion and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you about issues in which you believe you are well informed but really make sweeping generalizations based on two people you've known. Maybe that's a judgment on my part, but I'm working from the internet here, where there's always incomplete info.

Whatever

 

[fourthwatch96822]

One cannot judge someone's intelligence by an SAT score or an MCAT score.

Also, your major does NOT state anything about your abilities in other areas. A person may choose to major in art and still be great in math and science. I have met art majors that were good at college level physics for science majors.

In fact, a person can choose not to go to college and still bave the potential to be great at academics. One of my cousins took three semesters of calculus during high school, on a university campus. He aced everything and never went to college.

So, you can't judge one's intelligence by their major or SAT score.