Yes, but, I've coined a term to underscore the fundamental distinction between the two worlds: empiricity. A wing section, just for example, generates lift because of principles that are beyond man's control. Ultimately, the "hard" sciences are disciplined by reality. The airplane flies or does not. The "soft" topiics, and I include part of what I learned in b-school here, but not most of it, since things like econ and finance to mea re really much like engineering, have no such test, ultimately, and, as such, also seem to have diminished utility and difficulty. Understand also, I could've gone either way, having a perfectly balanced SAT before I embarked on the whole Aero Engin thing.
Next time your English major friend talks to an engineer, tell him to reserve judgment and, instead, do his job and ask the engineer, "do you want fries with that?" Empiriicty again: if they're really that stupid, how come they tend employable and valuable, yet the same does not obtain for English majors? I accept that the latter work. The problem for them is, that work does not provide a lot of valued utility to others, at least as measured by the market. That's okay, so long as they understand the tradeoff... but judging by a lot of complaints I hear from people, many do not.
As for you: Chem... hmmm... probably a pretty good way to go these days.
Chemistry probably isn't that great a field anymore, but realistically none of the rest of the sciences are either. Whether you're coming out with a chem, physics, or bio degree a B.S. is practically a high school diploma anymore. And while a high school diploma is better than no high school diploma, if I'm going to have to get a master's anyway...
(granted I'm getting the minor and jumping ship anyway, and geology is already looking up in terms of fulfillment and job prospects- I already get to be a "real scientist" come July or September)
I also will not tell him to reserve his judgment, I like hopping on. I had enough of the engineering student attitude in my first few semesters to not feel bad for them anyway. And that friend puts way more work into his studies than just about any engineering student I've ever met, and certainly genuine passion.
From my perspective it's practically as easy to skate on through a chemistry or biology degree as it is any other one, the difference being if you skate on through a STEM field you'll get a mediocre job and if you skate through anything else you'll get no job. Either way if you excel, likely are doing it for genuine passion instead of security or whatever you'll be better off. I really have respect for people who don't do STEM because they don't have that mediocre-job-safety-net. Ever since starting school I've looked at my getting into science as taking the easy way out.
Or at least that's what it seems to be to me. 5-10 years from now I might have a different perspective.
Granted 5-10 years from now you'll probably need a PhD to manage a McDonalds
In education, there are competitive, high-pressure programs that are non technical (think of getting into Juilliard). There are elite programs in nearly anything, even if it is practically useless for getting a decent job. Yet there are many nearly 100%-useless programs that are easier to drift through (xyz studies, art history, theater, underwater basket weaving, etc.) than STEM programs. It amazes me that people major in such things. It doubly amazes me that there are people who go into debt to do so. It triply amazes me that they are shocked after graduation to find out what their job prospects are.
I don't know if I'd knock art history so much, afaik there are a couple reasonable career paths with that depending on what else you major in.
