> I have not seen any evidence that on average STEM is harder in a meaningful sense than non-STEM subjects. 1) STEM admissions require vastly higher GPA's, SAT

> I have not seen any evidence that on average STEM is harder in a meaningful sense than non-STEM subjects. 1) STEM admissions require vastly higher GPA's, SAT/GRE scores, and admit a smaller fraction of applicants. https://www.admissionreport.com/university-of-cambridge https://www.admissionreport.com/university-of-cambridge (10% of 1330 applicants accepted for Computer Science, 60% of 57 applicants accepted for BA Classics) 2) STEM graduates earn more. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?TABID=2&Lang=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=1325190&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=110935&PRID=10&PTYPE=109445&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2017&THEME=123&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt... (72k/85k median/mean for STEM in Canada, 56k/69k for non-STEM) 3) Most STEM undergrad programs require students to take roughly half of their credits in non-STEM subjects, which they pass just fine, but non-STEM students are not required to learn about chemistry, electrical circuits, etc. 4) Math and compsci departments split (read: simplify) intro courses like "Statistics" into separate courses for STEM vs non-STEM students, for obvious reasons. I've never seen gender studies simplified for STEM students. > if you tried to push me as an undergrad through a philosophy or history or literature degree or whatever I'd probably fail. Ridiculous. I'm calling out your false modesty. If you obviously had enough intelligence and work ethic to get a PhD (any doctorate, but especially math), and then gainfully work as a physicist, you obviously could have passed any other 4-year undergrad program in any field. Undergrad is a low bar to clear. --- One more note on this topic: when comparing fields/careers like this, I don't find it useful to look at how difficult things are for the top performers. Everything is super competitive at the very top level. Is it harder to be a Fields medalist or a Formula 1 driver? I don't know; there's literally only a handful of genius/superhuman people at that level. But looking at the median level, ask people if they would rather take a math test or a driving test and the results will be predictable.