Post: #1

StudentBeans.com

Economics and business majors do fine. Computer science majors fare poorly. Religion majors are chaste. And tofu-eating, Birkenstock-wearing environmental science majors barely get get laid.


1 Economics and related 4.88
2 Social work, community care and counselling 4.7
3 Marketing 4.57
4 Leisure, hospitality, tourism and retail 4.56
5 Agriculture and related 4.44
6 Electrical engineering and related 4.35
7 Business Studies 4.31
8 Mechanical engineering and related 4.24
9 Sports science 4.16
10 Social science 4.05
11 Architecture and town planning 3.98
12 Geography 3.97
13 Science and research 3.97
14 Politics and international relations 3.92
15 Biology and related 3.86
16 Civil engineering, construction and related 3.85
17 Modern languages and linguistics 3.81
18 Law 3.8
19 Physics and related 3.8
20 Accounting and finance 3.79
21 Biochemistry and related 3.58
22 History and archaeology 3.57
23 Performing arts and music 3.52
24 Classics 3.52
25 Maths and related 3.5
26 Management, marketing, business and HR 3.48
27 Psychology 3.48
28 English 3.45
29 Chemistry and related 3.44
30 Medical sciences and related 3.43
31 Food and nutrition 3.38
32 Public sector 3.33
33 Chemical engineering and related 3.23
34 Art and design 3.18
35 Humanities 3.01
36 Media studies 3.01
37 Nursing, midwifery and healthcare 3
38 Computer science and IT 2.89
39 Philosophy 2.79
40 Education 2.74
41 Earth sciences 2.68
42 Theology and comparative religion 2.13
43 Environmental science 1.71

Post: #2

Interesting to see that engineers are so highly placed. It would be an indication that it's gaining weight as a career choice.

Post: #3

(12-20-2012 11:31 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Interesting to see that engineers are so highly placed. It would be an indication that it's gaining weight as a career choice.

I think the only majors that are statistically significantly different are Theology- comparative religion and Environmental science. Economics is significant but I'm not sure there is anything special beyond normal variation. Everything else is just normal variation of the average.

Post: #4

Number of Sex Partners:

For College Ecstasy Dealer: 275

Post: #5

I call bullshit on the study. It sounds like they didn't have random, representative sampling. They also only surveyed sexually active students.

Here's a much better take: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/interco...igence.php

Post: #6

(12-20-2012 02:11 PM)basilransom Wrote:  I call bullshit on the study. It sounds like they didn't have random, representative sampling. They also only surveyed sexually active students.

Here's a much better take: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/interco...igence.php

Count me on the bullshit bandwagon as well.

Not only is the sampling not representative of the whole (your sexually active men will probably account for less than half of the campus population), male-dominated majors (econ, engineering, anything to do with math) would never achieve higher scores than female majors (education, nursing), again if we are considering the entire campus population.

For a more accurate list, I would probably break down the major by gender and multiply (if female dominated) or divide (if male dominated) by 3.

I don't think Econ has any business being there, unless we're just talking about basic principles and not econometrics or any of the higher level stuff. In my experience, the more math you have, the less you are getting laid.

Post: #7

(12-20-2012 02:11 PM)basilransom Wrote:  I call bullshit on the study. It sounds like they didn't have random, representative sampling. They also only surveyed sexually active students.

Here's a much better take: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/interco...igence.php

Nice report. Before I could even wind my way through the article I'd concluded that lower testosterone levels are likely inversely correlated with higher IQ.

Post: #8

Male-heavy majors, possibly over-reporting their numbers.

Female-heavy majors, definitely under-reporting their numbers.

As a wise man once said, never trust female self-reports.

Post: #9

I interpret the results as "there isn't a significant difference between them, they're all sluts anyway". Sue me

Post: #10

(12-20-2012 02:11 PM)basilransom Wrote:  I call bullshit on the study. It sounds like they didn't have random, representative sampling. They also only surveyed sexually active students.

Here's a much better take: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/interco...igence.php

+1

Post: #11

I can vouch for "Computer Science and IT" being the anti-poon in college due to the intense math courses and the heavily male gender skewed classes, although I'm skeptical with the others that "Engineering" was ranked so highly...

Post: #12

(12-20-2012 02:53 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I'd concluded that lower testosterone levels are likely inversely correlated with higher IQ.

This stereotype does not play out from my own experience and the experience of those similarly situated around me. High enough IQ to realize how to boost your T levels and want to fuck everything that moves, versus high school athlete drop out working at Wal-Mart? Who is going to be colonizing pussy for several deceades?

Post: #13

The high IQ and diminished sexual activity is something fairly evident in the life of my friends and colleagues. That is a finding I would support. I think that one thing they didn't suggest in the 2nd posted article that may be part of the reason is people with higher IQ's may be more inclined to overthink things and overanalyze.

Post: #14

High IQ might be a barrier to sex when still in blue-pill mode, but it becomes a gift when learning the art of the red pill.

Post: #15

Interesting to see marketing and social work up top, their whole profession is interacting with others.

"What major to take to get laid?"

Post: #16

(12-21-2012 03:49 AM)PompeyChris Wrote:  Interesting to see marketing and social work up top, their whole profession is interacting with others.

"What major to take to get laid?"

Whichever one has the most chicks...downside is that they tend to be useless majors in the humanities and liberal arts. If I could have done it any different, I'd have taken business and just sat in on English and Psych lectures for the purposes of pipelining.

Women - Are a mixed bag; any girl above baseline attractiveness is going to rack up at least three and at most, over fifty (I knew one girl who claimed over 70, a cute-but not hot Psych major. Judging by both the ease at which the bang came, her skills and the fact that I personally knew two other guys who fucked her, I certainly believed her).

Men - A very small population of males are driving up the average significantly. As G said, a guy that's average in every way should get 1-4; a top-caliber athlete, affable drug dealer, charismatic student body president or just your standard good-looking guy with decent game and an active social life? Triple digits are possible. There is no time in a North American man's life where it's easier to sleep with a lot of attractive women than college.

Post: #17

Study seems poorly done

Post: #18

(12-20-2012 02:38 PM)Apollo Wrote:  sexually active men will probably account for less than half of the campus population