As someone who came from the Liberal Arts & Social Sciences, and is living in the College of Science now, I find it fascinating to watch the hard science people struggle with concepts that are more subjective, or dare I say "ambiguous." There's a class project we're doing, and the science and facts of these people, A+, the ability to integrate it with culture and reality, not so much (for some, F-). One of my classmates was so angry with statistics because it wasn't concrete enough for her, and I operate within that framework so well I just didn't understand what her problem was if she's capable of calculus and above. Perhaps some of it comes from attending college in the post (post) modern era, but I can fully accept that a) my hypothesis is based off the best information I have at this point, and it is likely to change and b) I will never know or understand everything, and I can accept that, and so will my peers.

Yay post post processual archaeology, and kooky people like Ian Hodder and Shanks & Tilley.

This is why I still say that Sociological Theory was one of the hardest classes I took in college. Not that physics and human anatomy and physiology weren't, but I was surprised at how hard it was. I was pre-med my first two years, then switched to PR and minored in sociology (so, from a BS to a BA). Both majors had very hard classes, but naturally for very different reasons. Early pre-med studies are basically all about memorization, and you better get it down quick. But sociological theory and communications theory pound you to death with question after question...the type where the answer is another question - and then you have to write about it!