Don't Double Major
naftaliharris.com
naftaliharris.com
I assume many people who get multiple degrees do so because they are interested in the topics.
That's why I got my triple degrees in math, physics, and CS. Even with years of hindsight, I can't think of which one, much less two, degrees I would drop. I can think of which additional courses I would have taken, but I didn't have the time for them.
The author states "you would presumably choose the schedule that maximized this utility to you."
Someone who chooses to acquire a double major has presumably done so to maximize utility. The author seems to say that a double major rarely maximizes utility given the available constraints. It's hard for me to believe that the author understands every student's goals better than the student does.
Also, the author's statement presumes that students are meaningfully able to judge utility. The number of students majoring in "undecided", or students who changed programs, convinces me otherwise. There are a couple of courses I would have changed in retrospect (eg, tensor calculus), but could not make that judgement before taking the course. Maximizing utility also requires risk analysis.
Degree requirements exist because the degree committee (and accreditation organization) believe they have have a better sense of overall utility than most students. I agree with them. And for those exceptions, it's also possible to define one's own degree program, such as Will Shortz's college degree in enigmatology, the study of puzzles.
With that in mind, I think it's reasonable to conclude that taking courses which fulfill the requirements for two degrees is more likely to lead towards improved utility than doing the equivalent work for one degree plus a number of sophomore/junior-level courses.
That's great! This means, of course, that the maximum utility schedule happened to lie in the subset of schedules satisfying both constraints, and you so there is no utility loss. The double-major in this case is just an added bonus of doing what you wanted to do, and I'm happy for people lucky enough to find themselves in that situation. From my time in college, though, I remember a number of people who were reasoning along the lines of "Well, I'm just three boring classes away from a double major... might as well pick it up I guess." For people in that situation, where they don't really want to take the extra three required classes, I'm arguing that the double major isn't worth the utility loss.
> Degree requirements exist because the degree committee (and accreditation organization) believe they have have a better sense of overall utility than most students.
Indeed, and good point: If you don't have a good sense of your utility function, then the decision to double major is roughly equivalent to using the implied utility function of the degree committee to help estimate your own utility. However in this case, I'd argue that you would probably get better results from asking a trusted professor or mentor for advice on classes to take, since the person you ask for advice would know you better than the degree committee.
It looks like you now agree that there are acceptable reasons for some people to get a double major. Your original argument says that a "[d]ouble majoring in college is a very suboptimal strategy". Have you changed your mind?
You have observed that people do get double and even triple majors. Thus, if people make rational decisions - your basic premise requires that people maximize utility - then either your conclusion that people are making the wrong decision must be incorrect, or you are privy to information that students don't have.
You have not demonstrated any evidence that you have extra information. To the contrary, you've received information from people who have stated things like "[i]t has given me more choice".
Your response has been to challenge the judgement of those people, when the appropriate response would be to question your own premises.
Otherwise, all you can conclude is that to those people "slightly improved credentials" is worth "three boring classes."
FWIW, I had no "trusted professor or mentor." In any case, what's to say that hypothetical mentor wouldn't have suggested a triple major anyway?
The question is: By fulfilling the requirements for a double major, what does one gain above and beyond what one would have gained by majoring in Math, but taking a lot of CS classes? Or majoring in CS, but taking a lot of math classes?
The beauty about double majoring is that the sequence for math and CS are harmonized for you.I do not have to worry about class conflicts or jumping into a course with no prerequisites.And hey,the degree says double!Not everyone has the time to check your transcripts to confirm what you did.
My question to you is, why get a degree at all? Why not just take a lot of courses instead of fulfilling the degree requirements?
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.
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?