4 ms·

> You believe that you understand ekm2's situation and goals better than ekm2 does? No, I don't believe that. My suggestion about the graduate schools in the f

> You believe that you understand ekm2's situation and goals better than ekm2 does? No, I don't believe that. My suggestion about the graduate schools in the fields ekm2 named comes from having thought of some of those graduate schools myself, but of course ekm2 would know about the specific schools and programs ekm2 is interested in better than I would. My question to ekm2 about why one would choose to double major vs. single major was sincere, and the answer enlightening: in ekm2's case, the double-major ensured that there wouldn't be scheduling conflicts or prerequisite issues. > My question to you is, why get a degree at all? Because the difference between having a degree and not having one is an order of magnitude larger than the difference between graduating with a single major and graduating with a double major, enough to make the utility loss worth it for most people.

dalke 13y ago
> enough to make the utility loss worth it for most people The author of the essay (I believe you are the author) says "don't double major" and that a double major is "a very suboptimal strategy." You now write that it's not worthwhile "for most people", which implies that it is the optimal strategy for some people. These two statements are not in accordance. Which is it: a bad strategy for everyone, or good strategy for only a few? That you think it is never worth the effort therefore more likely means that you have incomplete information about the utility of a double major, and not that the myriad of people with double majors have made the wrong decision. I actually think it's because you don't understand your own mental model. Many fewer people double major than get a single major. In a utility maximization framework, this indicates that double majoring is sometimes worth the extra effort. In your statement here, you believe the additional utility is an order of magnitude less than getting a degree in the first place. In which case, if the additional effort is also an order of magnitude less (assuming linear scaling) then it's worthwhile. Assuming 120-130 credit hours to graduates implies 12 hours for a second degree is an acceptable amount of additional work. You mentioned elsewhere people who were "three boring classes" away from a double major. That's 9 credit hours, which means it's likely a reasonable decision under the model you just proposed. Your statements don't seem to be in agreement with your model. Can you explain how you used that model to come to a different conclusion?

dalke 13y ago

> enough to make the utility loss worth it for most people The author of the essay (I believe you are the author) says "don't double major" and that a double major is "a very suboptimal strategy." You now write that it's not worthwhile "for most people", which implies that it is the optimal strategy for some people. These two statements are not in accordance. Which is it: a bad strategy for everyone, or good strategy for only a few? That you think it is never worth the effort therefore more likely means that you have incomplete information about the utility of a double major, and not that the myriad of people with double majors have made the wrong decision. I actually think it's because you don't understand your own mental model. Many fewer people double major than get a single major. In a utility maximization framework, this indicates that double majoring is sometimes worth the extra effort. In your statement here, you believe the additional utility is an order of magnitude less than getting a degree in the first place. In which case, if the additional effort is also an order of magnitude less (assuming linear scaling) then it's worthwhile. Assuming 120-130 credit hours to graduates implies 12 hours for a second degree is an acceptable amount of additional work. You mentioned elsewhere people who were "three boring classes" away from a double major. That's 9 credit hours, which means it's likely a reasonable decision under the model you just proposed. Your statements don't seem to be in agreement with your model. Can you explain how you used that model to come to a different conclusion?