Letter to the Editor 2

To the Editor, The column in the Nov. 25 issue headlined ‘English Majors Reign Supreme’ by… To the Editor, The column in the Nov. 25 issue headlined ‘English Majors Reign Supreme’ by Molly Green casts a wrongful, diminutive light on all science majors. She puts forth a dichotomy to suggest that science students are robots ‘mdash; void of creativity and introspection into deeper meanings. She writes: ‘Science majors are ruled by such geometric patterns, which stimulate the left half of the brain and effectively overpower any and all creative urges.’ But she clearly misses the main point of science. Science is indeed based upon creativity and presenting novel ideas to describe certain phenomena. These creative ideas aren’t willy-nilly conjectures, but rather ideas based upon something observed and known. Additionally, scientists are also writers and have to utilize critical reasoning and coherent structuring when describing scientific findings. Although the lexicon might not be as flowery as a critical analysis of early Shakespearian sonnets, words like allosteric, inertia, nucleus solitarius tractus and steric all mean something unique and important in a given scientific discipline and are used colloquially. It is language that gives power to a discipline, and why shouldn’t there be precise terms for subtle nuances in science? From Green’s article, science majors are characterized to be swarming ‘creatures.’ I think she is just misconstruing a shared camaraderie among the majors. We commiserate with each other over difficult exams, all-nighters and failed experiments. We also help each other learn reactions, anatomy, concepts and theories. Therefore, it is quite immature to simply characterize science majors as ‘a ferocious pack of wolves.’ There are not dichotomies in academia, but rather majors that complement each other with expertise in certain fields. Richard Barnhart Neuroscience ’10