|
I find it rather interesting that in American society, we place such a strong emphasis in going to college. In America, two-thirds of all high school graduates go on to college, in some middle class suburbs, that number reaches 90 percent. It must be hard for those students at graduation day in high school, the ones that are not planning on going to college. At my high school, all but one of the graduates went on to some sort of post-secondary institution. It makes sense why so many students are going to college straight after high school, it makes you normal to go to college. You see the kids who don't go to college. Generally, they have no idea what the hell they want to do, and usually they're too poor to afford it, so they spend the rest of their lives working as a cashier for McDonald's or some shit.
I find it also rather interesting that students go into college with no clue what they want to do. About 80% of students change their major at least once. To me this is striking, because if one is going to invest somewhere between 15000$ - 50000$ a year, wouldn't you want to know why you're investing this money? That's basically what college should be to every student, an investment. You're investing somewhere around four years and 100000$ for a degree that can hopefully get you a job which will easily pay the college cost off. Honestly though, not many students think about it in these terms. People mindlessly go into college, without knowing why they are doing it. The University of Minnesota graduates barely half of it's students + Show Spoiler +, showing that people often go into college without thinking about it, and drop out because they either didn't think about how costly it would be, or because they realized how useless a college degree is to their lives.
College isn't for everyone. People seem to go into it because they listen to the misleading statistic that college graduates make more money. Which is true. But that doesn't mean that you HAVE to hold a college degree to make a lot of money. Think for a second. Who makes more money? A mechanic or a philosophy major (no offense to you philosophy majors out there). Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, dropped out of college after one semester and he's one of the richest men in the world.
I am in no ways saying that college is useless. Do you want to be a doctor, a lawyer, or a teacher? Great! You should go to college. There are many professions which require college degrees, and if you know you want to do one of those jobs, then college is an excellent choice for you. In the same respect, there are many occupations that do not require college degrees, where you can still make a considerable amount of money + Show Spoiler +. But there are so many people out there, especially high school seniors, who are forcing themselves to figure out what they want to do for the rest of their lives. And even though they do not know what they want to do, they choose to go to college anyway. Sure it may cost you 20000$ a year, but all your friends are doing it, and maybe four years of college will spark the epiphany of “what the hell am I doing with my life” that four years of high school did not.
It's almost like students are too scared to go off into the real world. Or feel that they are not ready yet. Which is true in many cases, I have the balls to say that a majority of student who just finished high school are not mature enough to handle the hardships of the adult world. Things such as looking for jobs, paying bills/taxes, cooking, etc. So they do what they do what is most secure for them, which is being a student. I guess in many ways college is good because it can also serve as preparation for the adult world. You get an education which can help with jobs, and you get to live on your own and learn how to take care of things without the aid of your parents.
So, you high school seniors who have no clue what you want to do, I'm going to tell you that instead of forcing yourself to figure out what you want to do (because honestly, you won't know whether or not you like something unless you actually experience it), you should consider whether or not college is right for you, rather than making it a default option. College takes four years, and you'll be forced to take a lot of BS classes (Bullshit, not Bachelor of Sciences). It can cost anywhere from Full Ride (0$) to 50000$ a year (if you are graced with the former, then you have a relatively easy choice). And your degree will not guarantee you a job.
I made this post originally as a question. “Is college necessary?” But it seems I answered my own question as I wrote this up. I am currently in college. I'm paying 15000$ per year, and it's all coming out of loans which I have no clue how I'm going to pay off. I originally came in as a music major. But I didn't realize at the time that you don't need a degree to be a competent musician. And you also don't need a degree to be able to teach private lessons (which is what I want to do), and get gigs in restaurants. But honestly, I don't even know if I want to do music for the rest of my life. So for now, my plan is to teach saxophone, clarinet, and piano lessons in my hometown to make some money (15$/half hour lesson), find gigs, drop out of college, and find a new hobby that can potentially become my profession. A big limiting belief that many kids in high school have is that the only place you can go to find out what you want to do with the rest of your life is in college. I might come back to do the whole college thing, again, it depends on what I want to do at some time... lol.
|
Well, depends on what you want to do. If i had wanted to be a businessman all my life, id probably wouldnt go, yeah.
|
Honestly I would do the whole college thing if I could see myself doing a normal job like being a doctor, or lawyer, or office worker, etc. But I can't. Maybe I'm just weird.
|
some stuff dont require college, well, basically what cloud said.
|
im not doing it for the job, im doing it to have a sense of self fulfillment; saying "i did it man."
|
im an academic
its hard to become a physicist without going to college
that is all
|
Isn't college meant to be the place where you find what you want to do with the rest of your lives? I don't think it is a bad thing that many people go to college without a good idea of what they want to do. I have no idea what I want to do once I graduate(after grad school ofc), but there's no way I want to go without a college education whether or not I'm going to need it. Btw I am also a music major and your age too.
The only way I could justify dropping out of college would be if I couldn't pay for it, which seems to be your problem anyway.
|
College is pretty heavily subsidized, ergo, far more people go to college than should.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
I agree that it's not for everyone but there's nothing wrong with changing majors imo. In my case, I knew I wanted to go into a field in mathematics, so I went into a math & business admin program. Now I changed my focus to just math and will major in mathematical finance. I found out more about my BBA program and made a decision based on my experiences at the universities I attended. This doesn't cost me any more money and I will graduate at the same time.
Sure, I knew I was a mathie since I was in elementary but I didn't know what field of mathematics I will be specializing in back then. Most people won't know until they've taken the courses in university.
|
On February 18 2009 12:38 infinity21 wrote: I agree that it's not for everyone but there's nothing wrong with changing majors imo. In my case, I knew I wanted to go into a field in mathematics, so I went into a math & business admin program. Now I changed my focus to just math and will major in mathematical finance. I found out more about my BBA program and made a decision based on my experiences at the universities I attended. This doesn't cost me any more money and I will graduate at the same time.
Sure, I knew I was a mathie since I was in elementary but I didn't know what field of mathematics I will be specializing in back then. Most people won't know until they've taken the courses in university. Yea in your case you didn't lose anything other than maybe 8 dwindling credits that don't go to your degree requirements. It's the people who plan on going on four year tracks that turn into six year tracks that I'm really against. And it's also the people who just use college as an excuse to party and mooch money off their parents for another four years that I'm against (e.g. my older brother)
|
It seems to me that you're trying hard to rationalize your decision to drop out of college, which is fine.
As a musician myself, I have to say that I benefited from taking music classes in school. The theory classes gave me a perspective that I wouldn't have been able to reach on my own.
That said, a competent private tutor could have taught you that better for a cheaper price, so I guess college isn't completely necessary for that.
There is something that nothing can replicate though, and it's the peer group. Nowhere else will you be around a mass of similarly aged people trying to learn and educate themselves. That might be worth something to you.
|
For me it was a must, hell for me grad school is a must in my field (anthropology). I knew I was going into Anthropology from day 1, never changed majors and now im in graduate school.
|
It's necessary for certain goals.
Unnecessary for others.
The public education system (High School) does put WAY too much emphasis on the 4 year university; vocational training is essentially shoved out of the discussion.
|
On February 18 2009 12:25 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: im an academic
its hard to become a physicist without going to college
that is all Well obviously you know what you want to do with your life and see that college is the best way (and maybe even only way) to get what you want.
I think StarN is referring to everyone who goes to college purely because of social pressure telling them that it's the only way for them to become a success. While a college degree does help immensely, blowing tens of thousands of dollars on classes without even knowing what you want to do with your life seems like a waste, which is what a lot of people end up doing.
|
ooh, to think i could be a dental hygenist and making $55k a year
god damn these graduate degrees holding me down
|
I still encourage those to go to a community college for the first 2 years if they are undecided on their major. You save a lot of money since the first 2 years is mainly general education courses. I have a friend who goes to San Jose State University and he said his classes are about $500 each while I pay only $13 (excluding material fees) at De Anza Community College (top rated CC in the U.S. with high transfer rates ).
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On February 18 2009 12:43 StarN wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 12:38 infinity21 wrote: I agree that it's not for everyone but there's nothing wrong with changing majors imo. In my case, I knew I wanted to go into a field in mathematics, so I went into a math & business admin program. Now I changed my focus to just math and will major in mathematical finance. I found out more about my BBA program and made a decision based on my experiences at the universities I attended. This doesn't cost me any more money and I will graduate at the same time.
Sure, I knew I was a mathie since I was in elementary but I didn't know what field of mathematics I will be specializing in back then. Most people won't know until they've taken the courses in university. Yea in your case you didn't lose anything other than maybe 8 dwindling credits that don't go to your degree requirements. It's the people who plan on going on four year tracks that turn into six year tracks that I'm really against. And it's also the people who just use college as an excuse to party and mooch money off their parents for another four years that I'm against (e.g. my older brother) Oh, THAT kind of changing. Yeah, it can be a waste for people who jump from one field to another. It's a shame people don't really know what they like to do even after they graduate from high school. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't figure out the general field they want to be in or at least narrow it down to 2-3 choices by the time they start applying to universities. They should be able to make a smart choice based on that but I suppose most people don't think that deep into it. It's their life to waste though... oh well =/
I don't know any people who mooch money off their parents just to party and not go into the workforce personally but that is a terrible way to live. I'm in a co-op program right now so by the time I graduate, I would have paid back all the money that my parents paid for my education as well as any loans I have outstanding and still be up $20k or so. Plus, I get 2 years of work experience (related or not) who helps with networking as well I suppose I'm rather fortunate that universities don't cost an arm and a leg to attend up here (yay Canada~).
|
|
On a slight sidenote, I always laugh when people say college is great because they need to "find themselves." The only thing I found is that if you picked engineering, college is hard.
|
While I'm inclined to agree with your assessment that college isn't necessary--obviously it's not--I pretty adamantly disagree with the way you phrase it as a basic cost-benefit analysis where it's all about how much it costs vs. how much you make to repay said costs.
That's basically what college should be to every student, an investment. You're investing somewhere around four years and 100000$ for a degree that can hopefully get you a job which will easily pay the college cost off. Honestly though, not many students think about it in these terms.
I realize I'm an idealist and not always the most practical or realistic, but education should be an end unto itself. I think that way too many people view college only as the path to a job. Therein lies my problem though: college is about so much more than that. Higher learning isn't valued for itself, but rather for what it will lead to. College is really the only time in your life that you'll be surrounded by your peer group with free time, without parents, without curfews, with few real, difficult responsibilities. It's a time to learn who you are, and, if you don't know, to try and figure out where your place in the world is--what you want to do. It's a unique and generally great experience that not enough people really take advantage of. (caveat: I do agree that people who mooch and people whose only goals are to party and nail sorority girls typically shouldn't go to college)
I'm not saying it's for everyone, and I suppose I do agree with your general thesis that college isn't necessary, but I also think you sell it a bit short. Now, there are plenty of people that don't have the desire and/or aptitude for college and who lead perfectly good, happy lives without it. Hell, only one other person in my family has graduated with any kind of degree. It's not necessary, but it's a wonderful experience and, if done right, can be absolutely worth it, even if you don't wind up in a field that necessarily pays more than you'd make otherwise.
One other point I'd like to make is that I don't know how everyone is really expected to know what they want to do right after high school. I'm 24 now, and looking at 18 year old students is such a surreal experience. I wouldn't but hardly trust one of them to make a major life decision, let alone choose a career path with any kind of certainty. Of course, just as I might counsel a fairly young person against early marriage because it's likely to fail, there are many exceptions to every rule, and I'm sure there are lots of people that are just such exceptions.
|
So many people are going to college now a days because a highschool degree is absolutely worthless
|
On February 18 2009 13:00 Ender wrote: On a slight sidenote, I always laugh when people say college is great because they need to "find themselves." The only thing I found is that if you picked engineering, college is hard.
and if you picked a liberal arts major, welcome to the same struggle you would've had anyway 4 years ago.
|
all degrees are hard, don't be a douche
|
On February 18 2009 13:00 Ender wrote: On a slight sidenote, I always laugh when people say college is great because they need to "find themselves." The only thing I found is that if you picked engineering, college is hard.
Yea, but you've stuck with it even though it was hard you've discovered something about yourself.
I think the perception about college varies from country to country so it's very hard to argue about the purpose and intent of college without stating your country.
|
United States24342 Posts
Don't more and more jobs lately require that you prove you were able to get a college degree? Even jobs that don't 'require' a college degree 'require' it nowadays (obviously not all... but a lot). As others might have said, you also learn a ton of things in college.
If I had moved out on my own after HS I would have been really overwhelmed by the whole experience, but in college I spent my junior and senior years living in apartments, but still protected by being in college... and it was a great learning experience.
|
CA10824 Posts
On February 18 2009 13:17 benjammin wrote: all degrees are hard, don't be a douche definitely false
|
On February 18 2009 13:28 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 13:17 benjammin wrote: all degrees are hard, don't be a douche definitely false
|
On February 18 2009 13:00 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 12:43 StarN wrote:On February 18 2009 12:38 infinity21 wrote: I agree that it's not for everyone but there's nothing wrong with changing majors imo. In my case, I knew I wanted to go into a field in mathematics, so I went into a math & business admin program. Now I changed my focus to just math and will major in mathematical finance. I found out more about my BBA program and made a decision based on my experiences at the universities I attended. This doesn't cost me any more money and I will graduate at the same time.
Sure, I knew I was a mathie since I was in elementary but I didn't know what field of mathematics I will be specializing in back then. Most people won't know until they've taken the courses in university. Yea in your case you didn't lose anything other than maybe 8 dwindling credits that don't go to your degree requirements. It's the people who plan on going on four year tracks that turn into six year tracks that I'm really against. And it's also the people who just use college as an excuse to party and mooch money off their parents for another four years that I'm against (e.g. my older brother) I don't know any people who mooch money off their parents just to party and not go into the workforce personally but that is a terrible way to live. I'm in a co-op program right now so by the time I graduate, I would have paid back all the money that my parents paid for my education as well as any loans I have outstanding and still be up $20k or so. Plus, I get 2 years of work experience (related or not) who helps with networking as well I suppose I'm rather fortunate that universities don't cost an arm and a leg to attend up here (yay Canada~).
seriously? shit how much do you make on your co-op jobs exactly? being up 20k is crazy (about 3-4k per workterm i guess?). my math certainly doesn't add up to that.
one term is about 10k for me (7k+change tuition and 2k+change living expenses, plus books, etc.), with a 4k surplus? 14k/16wk = 23/hr after tax which is like at least 26/hr before tax? plus living expenses for the actual work term, unless you're living at home? damn hook me up with some of those jobs :O mine are just hovering in around low 20s or flat 20 so far =/
edit: although i guess if you worked in usa i can see that. i.e. my friend who works at nvidia makes 22/hr + 1k/month on living expenses + subsidized lunches and shit which is basically 30+/hr
hmmm maybe i should go to usa
|
On February 18 2009 13:28 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 13:17 benjammin wrote: all degrees are hard, don't be a douche definitely false
did you major in everything? or are you an engineering major
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 18 2009 13:32 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 13:28 LosingID8 wrote:On February 18 2009 13:17 benjammin wrote: all degrees are hard, don't be a douche definitely false did you major in everything? or are you an engineering major On the internet don't expect everyone to use the word 'hard' as reasonably as you want to.
I remember the science/engineering majors making fun of the humanities/business majors all the time. Lots of people like to draw the line for 'hard' below them and their friends, but above the people who are different.
Although technical majors do tend to be more difficult on average, as far as I've seen.
|
only the lucky ones dont go have to college. if you already have a good job, have great connections, done some very awesome things, then you dont have to go to college. college is there for you to put on your resume, and its great as a starting point. and cuz of "no child left behind" there is also financial aid available for those rly poor families. there are lots of money out there you just have to find it. im getting a free ride to my university cuz of that. if you cant get financial aid, then try scholarships. college is just a starting point for people who dont know better and to get those connections and skills you wouldnt be able to get otherwise.
|
as far as you've seen from what?
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On February 18 2009 13:31 JeeJee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 13:00 infinity21 wrote:On February 18 2009 12:43 StarN wrote:On February 18 2009 12:38 infinity21 wrote: I agree that it's not for everyone but there's nothing wrong with changing majors imo. In my case, I knew I wanted to go into a field in mathematics, so I went into a math & business admin program. Now I changed my focus to just math and will major in mathematical finance. I found out more about my BBA program and made a decision based on my experiences at the universities I attended. This doesn't cost me any more money and I will graduate at the same time.
Sure, I knew I was a mathie since I was in elementary but I didn't know what field of mathematics I will be specializing in back then. Most people won't know until they've taken the courses in university. Yea in your case you didn't lose anything other than maybe 8 dwindling credits that don't go to your degree requirements. It's the people who plan on going on four year tracks that turn into six year tracks that I'm really against. And it's also the people who just use college as an excuse to party and mooch money off their parents for another four years that I'm against (e.g. my older brother) I don't know any people who mooch money off their parents just to party and not go into the workforce personally but that is a terrible way to live. I'm in a co-op program right now so by the time I graduate, I would have paid back all the money that my parents paid for my education as well as any loans I have outstanding and still be up $20k or so. Plus, I get 2 years of work experience (related or not) who helps with networking as well I suppose I'm rather fortunate that universities don't cost an arm and a leg to attend up here (yay Canada~). seriously? shit how much do you make on your co-op jobs exactly? being up 20k is crazy (about 3-4k per workterm i guess?). my math certainly doesn't add up to that. one term is about 10k for me (7k+change tuition and 2k+change living expenses, plus books, etc.), with a 4k surplus? 14k/16wk = 23/hr after tax which is like at least 26/hr before tax? plus living expenses for the actual work term, unless you're living at home? damn hook me up with some of those jobs :O mine are just hovering in around low 20s or flat 20 so far =/ What program were you in again, math CA? I pay only 3.6k for math tuition and about 3k for food + housing. And I don't usually buy textbooks Works out to be around 7k for me total per study term. Plus I live at home during work terms I'm also anticipating that I'll get paid more in later years lol
|
On February 18 2009 13:40 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 13:31 JeeJee wrote:On February 18 2009 13:00 infinity21 wrote:On February 18 2009 12:43 StarN wrote:On February 18 2009 12:38 infinity21 wrote: I agree that it's not for everyone but there's nothing wrong with changing majors imo. In my case, I knew I wanted to go into a field in mathematics, so I went into a math & business admin program. Now I changed my focus to just math and will major in mathematical finance. I found out more about my BBA program and made a decision based on my experiences at the universities I attended. This doesn't cost me any more money and I will graduate at the same time.
Sure, I knew I was a mathie since I was in elementary but I didn't know what field of mathematics I will be specializing in back then. Most people won't know until they've taken the courses in university. Yea in your case you didn't lose anything other than maybe 8 dwindling credits that don't go to your degree requirements. It's the people who plan on going on four year tracks that turn into six year tracks that I'm really against. And it's also the people who just use college as an excuse to party and mooch money off their parents for another four years that I'm against (e.g. my older brother) I don't know any people who mooch money off their parents just to party and not go into the workforce personally but that is a terrible way to live. I'm in a co-op program right now so by the time I graduate, I would have paid back all the money that my parents paid for my education as well as any loans I have outstanding and still be up $20k or so. Plus, I get 2 years of work experience (related or not) who helps with networking as well I suppose I'm rather fortunate that universities don't cost an arm and a leg to attend up here (yay Canada~). seriously? shit how much do you make on your co-op jobs exactly? being up 20k is crazy (about 3-4k per workterm i guess?). my math certainly doesn't add up to that. one term is about 10k for me (7k+change tuition and 2k+change living expenses, plus books, etc.), with a 4k surplus? 14k/16wk = 23/hr after tax which is like at least 26/hr before tax? plus living expenses for the actual work term, unless you're living at home? damn hook me up with some of those jobs :O mine are just hovering in around low 20s or flat 20 so far =/ What program were you in again, math CA? I pay only 3.6k for math tuition and about 3k for food + housing. And I don't usually buy textbooks Works out to be around 7k for me total per study term. Plus I live at home during work terms I'm also anticipating that I'll get paid more in later years lol
oh.. no, not math/ca but basically the same fees. every specialized program has "slightly" higher fees (damn you marketing) i know cecs has a salary survey somewhere on their site, you can look into that to see how the salary will increase to give a better estimate. generally a few bucks/hr above the average has been my experience so far.
whoaaaa side-track
anyway uni is just a thing to put on your resume and make connections. don't make it anything more than it has to be, unless you really happen to be passionate about the subject you're learning. and out of all the people i've known so far, the number of times i've seen that i can count on one hand.
|
On February 18 2009 13:44 JeeJee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 13:40 infinity21 wrote:On February 18 2009 13:31 JeeJee wrote:On February 18 2009 13:00 infinity21 wrote:On February 18 2009 12:43 StarN wrote:On February 18 2009 12:38 infinity21 wrote: I agree that it's not for everyone but there's nothing wrong with changing majors imo. In my case, I knew I wanted to go into a field in mathematics, so I went into a math & business admin program. Now I changed my focus to just math and will major in mathematical finance. I found out more about my BBA program and made a decision based on my experiences at the universities I attended. This doesn't cost me any more money and I will graduate at the same time.
Sure, I knew I was a mathie since I was in elementary but I didn't know what field of mathematics I will be specializing in back then. Most people won't know until they've taken the courses in university. Yea in your case you didn't lose anything other than maybe 8 dwindling credits that don't go to your degree requirements. It's the people who plan on going on four year tracks that turn into six year tracks that I'm really against. And it's also the people who just use college as an excuse to party and mooch money off their parents for another four years that I'm against (e.g. my older brother) I don't know any people who mooch money off their parents just to party and not go into the workforce personally but that is a terrible way to live. I'm in a co-op program right now so by the time I graduate, I would have paid back all the money that my parents paid for my education as well as any loans I have outstanding and still be up $20k or so. Plus, I get 2 years of work experience (related or not) who helps with networking as well I suppose I'm rather fortunate that universities don't cost an arm and a leg to attend up here (yay Canada~). seriously? shit how much do you make on your co-op jobs exactly? being up 20k is crazy (about 3-4k per workterm i guess?). my math certainly doesn't add up to that. one term is about 10k for me (7k+change tuition and 2k+change living expenses, plus books, etc.), with a 4k surplus? 14k/16wk = 23/hr after tax which is like at least 26/hr before tax? plus living expenses for the actual work term, unless you're living at home? damn hook me up with some of those jobs :O mine are just hovering in around low 20s or flat 20 so far =/ What program were you in again, math CA? I pay only 3.6k for math tuition and about 3k for food + housing. And I don't usually buy textbooks Works out to be around 7k for me total per study term. Plus I live at home during work terms I'm also anticipating that I'll get paid more in later years lol oh.. no, not math/ca but basically the same fees. every specialized program has "slightly" higher fees (damn you marketing) i know cecs has a salary survey somewhere on their site, you can look into that to see how the salary will increase to give a better estimate. generally a few bucks/hr above the average has been my experience so far. whoaaaa side-track anyway uni is just a thing to put on your resume and make connections. don't make it anything more than it has to be, unless you really happen to be passionate about the subject you're learning. and out of all the people i've known so far, the number of times i've seen that i can count on one hand.
what does that tell you about the subject you are studying?
|
CA10824 Posts
On February 18 2009 13:32 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 13:28 LosingID8 wrote:On February 18 2009 13:17 benjammin wrote: all degrees are hard, don't be a douche definitely false did you major in everything? or are you an engineering major i'm a double major in korean and biology.
|
On February 18 2009 14:05 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 13:32 benjammin wrote:On February 18 2009 13:28 LosingID8 wrote:On February 18 2009 13:17 benjammin wrote: all degrees are hard, don't be a douche definitely false did you major in everything? or are you an engineering major i'm a double major in korean and biology.
then what makes you so sure that other majors aren't difficult?
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 18 2009 13:37 benjammin wrote: as far as you've seen from what? Comparing the experience between technical majors, and some other majors. Looking at the effort you have to put in, and the levels of thinking required for specific tasks, I've found the trend evident even though there are many exceptions.
|
if that's not conclusive evidence, i don't know what is
|
A college degree affords better opportunities. It doesn't guarantee money. In addition, citing the likes of Steve Jobs (Bill Gates also comes to mind) is kind of moot...they are huuuuge exceptions.
Students generally go due to pressure from their parents. Their parents want to put their kids through college for the better job potential a degree allows for. In addition, there's nothing wrong with taking a bit to decide what you want to do when you enter. College is a new experience, and most people end up living away from their families and even friends for the first time. It takes time to get used to.
The money is definitely an issue, but the idea is you'll make enough extra money with your degree than you would have without that you can pay it back before you retire... -____-;;
There's nothing wrong with universities...and quite frankly, I like them. They churn out intelligent people, even if they drop out after a couple years.
There's too much dumb in society to do without college.
|
If you want a reasonable job, college is necessary. Even if college doesn't teach you the skills you need to succeed (in fact, it very well probably won't teach you anything you use in your future jobs), having a college degree tells people who are hiring that you had the commitment and/or brains to go through with it.
If you are not applying to jobs but rather starting your own business (like being a music teacher), you will need the network connections and referrals to make your business succeed. You use a cost/benefit analysis approach to the necessity of college, but you highly undervalue the importance of networking. Most people you would meet in college will have a lot more future income (and potential business to you) than people you would meet if you weren't in college. Whose kids are you going to teach music when you're 40? A McDonald's worker or a professional?
It's unfortunate, but it's the harsh reality of the American system. The odds are really stacked against those who don't have college degrees, so hedge your bets and go to college.
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 18 2009 14:13 benjammin wrote: if that's not conclusive evidence, i don't know what is
On February 18 2009 13:35 micronesia wrote: Although technical majors do tend to be more difficult on average, as far as I've seen.
I fail to see the part where I claimed I had evidence. I was expressing my personal observations.
Your apparent inferiority complex has you being illogical which just buys into the stereotype (the sarcasm doesn't help either)
|
CA10824 Posts
On February 18 2009 14:07 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 14:05 LosingID8 wrote:On February 18 2009 13:32 benjammin wrote:On February 18 2009 13:28 LosingID8 wrote:On February 18 2009 13:17 benjammin wrote: all degrees are hard, don't be a douche definitely false did you major in everything? or are you an engineering major i'm a double major in korean and biology. then what makes you so sure that other majors aren't difficult? i really don't get the attitude that you have to be a major in something to realize whether it is difficult or not.
i am majoring in two completely unrelated fields. biology and korean, guess which one is the difficult major? i've taken an upper div classics course for fun and realized that the material was extremely easy with minimal studying.
also, simply based on observations of my friends:
i have friends that never study and complain about trying to maintain their 3.5 gpa as business majors. i have a friend who has a 3.5+ gpa who watched TV for 7 hours a day and went out every weekend, never studied, and only had to write 4 papers for an entire semester as an anthropology major. i know people that are communications majors that go to class for 12 hours a week as a full time student (16 units on the semester system).
i have many friends who are chemical/biomedical/mechanical engineering that work their asses off to maintain a 3.3 gpa. likewise i have many friends that are hard science majors who do the same. my architecture major friends are constantly in the studio, frequently pulling all-nighters.
it's not difficult to draw conclusions.
|
anecdotal examples aren't evidence of the difficulty of a major
i am constantly amazed at the arrogance of science majors, but i suppose i'm fighting an unwinnable war on TL
|
United States32008 Posts
If you don't mind being the quintessential starving artist, then yes, college isn't necessary in your case.
|
also, i don't have an inferiority complex. i know what i do is hard, i know what science majors do is hard
but to walk around like your major is the hardest thing in the world and that everyone else is just a freeloading, lazy liberal arts student is pure arrogance
|
I wouldnt say any major is easier than another except for business majors. They most definitely have it easy. Sociology too. Psych is a little harder than the aforementioned two, especially at my school, but its near the same realm.
i would respect the difficulty of most other majors though
|
I don't go to college beacuse I want to fit in
I go to college so I can get a job that doesn't suck, or at worst, a job that sucks but pays a lot better than the jobs open to people with not post secondary
and some majors are CERTAINLY easier than others. You'd have to be blind (or be in one of those courses and have a really strong ego) to think otherwise
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 18 2009 14:32 benjammin wrote: anecdotal examples aren't evidence of the difficulty of a major
i am constantly amazed at the arrogance of science majors, but i suppose i'm fighting an unwinnable war on TL The social sciences are always insecure about criticism from the "hard" sciences but when you truly apply yourself, both are incredibly hard. That said, you can (and many people do) half ass their way to a 3.0+ GPA in social sciences, like LosingID8's anthro friend, especially because the first two years aren't particularly difficult. That still doesn't mean his friend is actually worth a damn as an anthropologist and without a decent paper to his name he probably won't get into a decent grad school. As someone who actually does all his readings because I want to be good at what I do in the future, I can tell you that I do not get free time like that, and I'm a relatively fast reader.
Any idiot can read the Communist Manifesto and understand Marx's general criticisms. Not everyone can read Das Kapital and have any idea what he was talking about. Not everyone can learn 6+ languages like most Ottoman scholars in order to do primary historical research and apply it to social theories.
And in the past 40 years, there has been a major shift to use mathematics and formal modeling in the social sciences, although the quality of its findings is questionable.
EDIT: It's also worth noting college doesn't have to be that expensive anymore. Most state schools are excellent and fairly cheap, and most places offer credit transfer programs with community colleges so you're only paying for university for two years.
|
On February 18 2009 13:14 Enrique wrote:While I'm inclined to agree with your assessment that college isn't necessary--obviously it's not--I pretty adamantly disagree with the way you phrase it as a basic cost-benefit analysis where it's all about how much it costs vs. how much you make to repay said costs. Show nested quote +That's basically what college should be to every student, an investment. You're investing somewhere around four years and 100000$ for a degree that can hopefully get you a job which will easily pay the college cost off. Honestly though, not many students think about it in these terms. I realize I'm an idealist and not always the most practical or realistic, but education should be an end unto itself. I think that way too many people view college only as the path to a job. Therein lies my problem though: college is about so much more than that. Higher learning isn't valued for itself, but rather for what it will lead to. College is really the only time in your life that you'll be surrounded by your peer group with free time, without parents, without curfews, with few real, difficult responsibilities. It's a time to learn who you are, and, if you don't know, to try and figure out where your place in the world is--what you want to do. It's a unique and generally great experience that not enough people really take advantage of. (caveat: I do agree that people who mooch and people whose only goals are to party and nail sorority girls typically shouldn't go to college) I'm not saying it's for everyone, and I suppose I do agree with your general thesis that college isn't necessary, but I also think you sell it a bit short. Now, there are plenty of people that don't have the desire and/or aptitude for college and who lead perfectly good, happy lives without it. Hell, only one other person in my family has graduated with any kind of degree. It's not necessary, but it's a wonderful experience and, if done right, can be absolutely worth it, even if you don't wind up in a field that necessarily pays more than you'd make otherwise. One other point I'd like to make is that I don't know how everyone is really expected to know what they want to do right after high school. I'm 24 now, and looking at 18 year old students is such a surreal experience. I wouldn't but hardly trust one of them to make a major life decision, let alone choose a career path with any kind of certainty. Of course, just as I might counsel a fairly young person against early marriage because it's likely to fail, there are many exceptions to every rule, and I'm sure there are lots of people that are just such exceptions.
I agree
Education is an enrichment of one's self. go to college with that perspective, all knowledge is something gained.
College is not necessary for everyone, but it has something to offer everyone.
there are bigger priorities than college.
I have always wanted to be a business man, and as such it is not necessary for me to go to college i guess, but it would benefit me in many ways, alas i am a high school drop out.
|
United States32008 Posts
On February 18 2009 14:44 Jibba wrote: EDIT: It's also worth noting college doesn't have to be that expensive anymore. Most state schools are excellent and fairly cheap, and most places offer credit transfer programs with community colleges so you're only paying for university for two years.
Pffft, that shit's going to go way up. But CC is a good place to start, being that everyone changes their mind about 10 times in college. You just kinda miss out on all the fun debauchery that comes with being a degenerate college student who drinks too much and posts on the internet when he should be finishing a paper.
|
CA10824 Posts
On February 18 2009 14:32 benjammin wrote: anecdotal examples aren't evidence of the difficulty of a major
i am constantly amazed at the arrogance of science majors, but i suppose i'm fighting an unwinnable war on TL what are you trying to argue? that non-science majors are just as rigorous as hard science / engineering ones?
so far i have seen zero evidence from your side that non-science related fields require as much effort/time/work as science related majors. all you have stated thus far is that "all majors are difficult" and "anecdotal examples aren't evidence." you can't argue a point and only deny opposing viewpoints while providing no support for your own.
obviously we know in a careful scientific study that anecdotal evidence in this situation would be worthless. however it is pretty plain to me (and most non-science major friends also agree) that science majors tend to be harder than others.
also for the record, i find that some humanities degrees are difficult, such as english/writing majors. there are many majors that are easier than others though. i don't really see how you can disagree with this statement.
|
also, in this recession, guess which type of jobs are the first to go?
|
CA10824 Posts
On February 18 2009 14:44 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 14:32 benjammin wrote: anecdotal examples aren't evidence of the difficulty of a major
i am constantly amazed at the arrogance of science majors, but i suppose i'm fighting an unwinnable war on TL The social sciences are always insecure about criticism from the "hard" sciences but when you truly apply yourself, both are incredibly hard. That said, you can (and many people do) half ass their way to a 3.0+ GPA in social sciences, like LosingID8's anthro friend, especially because the first two years aren't particularly difficult. That still doesn't mean his friend is actually worth a damn as an anthropologist and without a decent paper to his name he probably won't get into a decent grad school. As someone who actually does all his readings because I want to be good at what I do in the future, I can tell you that I do not get free time like that, and I'm a relatively fast reader. Any idiot can read the Communist Manifesto and understand Marx's general criticisms. Not everyone can read Das Kapital and have any idea what he was talking about. Not everyone can learn 6+ languages like most Ottoman scholars in order to do primary historical research and apply it to social theories. And in the past 40 years, there has been a major shift to use mathematics and formal modeling in the social sciences, although the quality of its findings is questionable. EDIT: It's also worth noting college doesn't have to be that expensive anymore. Most state schools are excellent and fairly cheap, and most places offer credit transfer programs with community colleges so you're only paying for university for two years. oh yeah, obviously if someone is extremely dedicated to their field of study and really applies themselves then of course it will be a difficult path of study.
but think of it this way, in order to truly excel in sciences/humanities you need to put forth a crapload of effort.
in order to do well (say a 3.5) in sciences you have to work your ass off like crazy in both lower and upper divs, whereas in humanities you can get by doing next to nothing in lower divs.
|
United States22883 Posts
There's definitely a steeper curve, but there's also many more job opportunities for an engineer with a 3.0 GPA than an unremarkable 3.5 sociologist.
By lower divs do you mean the first two years? I started out in engineering school at Purdue and half assed my way through the first year and a half as well. I assume you went to school at 5s on all your APs, so you were taking 200+s as a freshman?
|
On February 18 2009 14:54 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 14:44 Jibba wrote:On February 18 2009 14:32 benjammin wrote: anecdotal examples aren't evidence of the difficulty of a major
i am constantly amazed at the arrogance of science majors, but i suppose i'm fighting an unwinnable war on TL The social sciences are always insecure about criticism from the "hard" sciences but when you truly apply yourself, both are incredibly hard. That said, you can (and many people do) half ass their way to a 3.0+ GPA in social sciences, like LosingID8's anthro friend, especially because the first two years aren't particularly difficult. That still doesn't mean his friend is actually worth a damn as an anthropologist and without a decent paper to his name he probably won't get into a decent grad school. As someone who actually does all his readings because I want to be good at what I do in the future, I can tell you that I do not get free time like that, and I'm a relatively fast reader. Any idiot can read the Communist Manifesto and understand Marx's general criticisms. Not everyone can read Das Kapital and have any idea what he was talking about. Not everyone can learn 6+ languages like most Ottoman scholars in order to do primary historical research and apply it to social theories. And in the past 40 years, there has been a major shift to use mathematics and formal modeling in the social sciences, although the quality of its findings is questionable. EDIT: It's also worth noting college doesn't have to be that expensive anymore. Most state schools are excellent and fairly cheap, and most places offer credit transfer programs with community colleges so you're only paying for university for two years. oh yeah, obviously if someone is extremely dedicated to their field of study and really applies themselves then of course it will be a difficult path of study. but think of it this way, in order to truly excel in sciences/humanities you need to put forth a crapload of effort. in order to do well (say a 3.5) in sciences you have to work your ass off like crazy in both lower and upper divs, whereas in humanities you can get by doing next to nothing in lower divs.
okay, how about this: you can halfass your way through any major, it just might be easier to halfass some; on the upper end of achievement though, all majors are very difficult and scaling that difficulty is entirely student-dependent
also, does having a master's in english literature and pursuing a writing degree get me a free pass from being on easy street?
|
United States22883 Posts
BTW, this is just an aside but my roommate is an econ major and he goes to 7 classes because he sits in on and does upper level physics for fun.
|
CA10824 Posts
On February 18 2009 15:02 Jibba wrote:There's definitely a steeper curve, but there's also many more job opportunities for an engineer with a 3.0 GPA than an unremarkable 3.5 sociologist. By lower divs do you mean the first two years? I started out in engineering school at Purdue and half assed my way through the first year and a half as well. I assume you went to school at 5s on all your APs, so you were taking 200+s as a freshman? no i had to take intro bio and intro chem here at USC and it was tough as hell. ruined my gpa, actually. we have classes of ~700 students including post-baccs, and only 15% of the students can get an A or A-. it's curved so that 40% of students get a C- to a C+
|
United States22883 Posts
Yeah, I got out of bio but I had chem with like 500. They were giving out ridiculous curves for the tests, but I didn't really do that badly given the effort I put in. I'm not sure how much the difficulty really changes from school to school though, since they're both top of the line engineering schools. Maybe we had less asians (ours were imports) to kill the curve?
My GPA certainly wasn't stellar but I wasn't motivated at all. The hardest part of physics and calc2 was having Chinese TAs who barely spoke English. When we were reviewing things the first week, this guy kept talking about soap and no one had any idea what he was talking about or what he was drawing. Later on I figured out he meant washer. >.>
|
United States3824 Posts
dammit then what am I doing here?
|
United States3824 Posts
BTW ID8 you have a lot of friends
|
CA10824 Posts
On February 18 2009 15:39 cgrinker wrote:BTW ID8 you have a lot of friends yeah it's tough being so popular -_-;
|
Sorry if this has been already asked but is there a more current list of high paying jobs without needing a degree?
|
United States22883 Posts
The first two that come to mind are plumbers and electricians. I know in big cities trash collectors can make bank.
|
United States12607 Posts
This OP is totally misguided. Yes, it is possible to not attend college and still make as much or more than a college graduate - however, if you did this, you would be amongst a tiny-bordering-on-unmeasurable minority.
Every study that has ever been conducted on the returns to a college education (especially at a school as prestigious as the one you are attending, OP - I'm guessing the high tuition means it's somewhat selective at least) shows that there's basically no better investment in existence. Yes, the average person who goes to college, even if he has to go into massive debt to do so, will see returns to his education which dwarf the costs he paid, included forfeited wages (some studies place returns to an education at a highly selective college at above 10,000%. Yes. And these aren't some BS magazine, they're economics PhDs publishing in economics journals).
Consider this: if college isn't necessary, why to people go through SO much trouble to attend? At the nation's most prestigious universities, there are queues of tens of thousands lining up to pay $40,000+/year in tuition. Isn't that some indication of the value of a college education? If college was really so worthless, why would all of these people be desperately trying to enter it? To argue that college is unnecessary in light of its overwhelming popularity amongst motivated, rational individuals, you would have to construct an impossibly elaborate conspiracy theory.
Go to college. Finance it however possible. Pay for your kids to go to college, if you can. It's the best investment you'll ever make.
Edit: I also resent your line about "American society" pressuring kids to go to college. A strong emphasis on college education isn't nearly an "American" phenomenon - in all developed countries, university is the social norm for anyone who is mildly intelligent.
What's more frustrating about you insisting this is an American phenomenon is that the United States' education system actually offers students much more flexibility than foreign systems - in many countries in Europe, you have to "figure out what you want to do with your life" at a much earlier age, and tests are structured to weed out likely college attendees from vocational school attendees at a much earlier age. Pointing out pressure to attend college as American is just plain ignorant.
Edit 2: maybe the OP should just follow his own advice and drop out of school? I find it funny that we are hearing this news from someone who's as invested in college as he is.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On February 18 2009 12:18 StarN wrote: Honestly I would do the whole college thing if I could see myself doing a normal job like being a doctor, or lawyer, or office worker, etc. But I can't. Maybe I'm just weird.
It makes you a normal teenager, its a phase that passes for most people. Ultimately the internet is the worst possible place to try and get perspective on an issue like this, there are certain kinds of people who can get away with the 'not going the traditional path' thing and people who post on internet forums are rarely in that group.
Take a good look at that list in the op, those are all absolute shit jobs. You are never, ever, ever going to meet an air traffic controller/sales manager who doesn't drink themselves to sleep every night.
|
Jibba can I have your babies? You write everything I would write but much more eloquently and clearly
|
On February 18 2009 12:15 StarN wrote: Think for a second. Who makes more money? A mechanic or a philosophy major (no offense to you philosophy majors out there). Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, dropped out of college after one semester and he's one of the richest men in the world.
People like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc. are successful because they are GENIUSES, and they were smart enough to realize their ambitions--without the help of a college education. People like them make up .1% or less of the total population. So please, unless you're a genius and have this one amazing idea, don't discredit the value of college by citing Steve Jobs as an example.
|
On February 18 2009 17:49 intoyourrainbOW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 12:15 StarN wrote: Think for a second. Who makes more money? A mechanic or a philosophy major (no offense to you philosophy majors out there). Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, dropped out of college after one semester and he's one of the richest men in the world. People like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc. are successful because they are GENIUSES, and they were smart enough to realize their ambitions--without the help of a college education. People like them make up .1% or less of the total population. So please, unless you're a genius and have this one amazing idea, don't discredit the value of college by citing Steve Jobs as an example.
yeah, this is a big time logical fallacy that i see everywhere
what is more compelling: 2 examples (gates, jobs) in the last 35 years or 35 examples in the last 2 years?
|
About the difficulty of majors, it really depends on what type of person you are. At the bachelor's level, hard science and math majors tend to have a very heavy focus on memorization, whereas social sciences/liberal arts tend to have a focus on developing analytical skills and expression. If you can memorize well, you will excel in the sciences; if you have excellent analytical skills, you will excel in social sciences/liberal arts. To really do well in either field though, you will need to do both and that doesn't happen very much until the tail end of college and/or grad school.
Evidence: personal experience. Triple major of molecular biology, economics, and a major combining the two.
|
On February 18 2009 19:29 gchan wrote: About the difficulty of majors, it really depends on what type of person you are. At the bachelor's level, hard science and math majors tend to have a very heavy focus on memorization, whereas social sciences/liberal arts tend to have a focus on developing analytical skills and expression. If you can memorize well, you will excel in the sciences; if you have excellent analytical skills, you will excel in social sciences/liberal arts. To really do well in either field though, you will need to do both and that doesn't happen very much until the tail end of college and/or grad school.
Evidence: personal experience. Triple major of molecular biology, economics, and a major combining the two.
biology is the only hard science that requires memorization like that. you don't have equations that you can use, so you have to memorize pathways, mechanisms, etc
for engineering, chemistry, physics, there are way more concepts to apply to real problems, you have equipment design, you have site design, way more stuff to undestand rather than memorize
|
I agree with op. I graduated early and chilled for a year to try and decide what I wanted to do. Still not knowing what I wanted to do I joined in anyways (poor too, so have to take full load of classes to get financial aid and there are some other requirements as well). So I ended up just trying a bunch of things that interested me Helicopters, art-graphic design/commercial art, photography. Not only are just the classes expensive themselves, but the books and supplies and all the other random fees here and there are ridiculous. And on top of all the they pretty much doubled the cost of units from my first year to the next which totally stopped me from continuing a second semester.
I also realized that I don't have some of the talent and passion that others have in art. Not to say I suck but I can't see myself ruining my spontaneous hobby for a forced profession where I don't draw on my own time or even draw my own content. I still don't know what I would want to do but I can say that I matured and learned much more in a telemarketing job than I did at college.
I retried a couple of classes here and there but random circumstances caused me to drop back out again. Imo it's not what you know but who you know. So many stupid people I chat with at parties and shit have decent jobs making 15-30$ an hour doing some non degree requiring job (on top of that they could actually go to school and advance in the position and earn more or move up).
College isn't for everyone, I mean I enjoy learning new stuff (even the boring history classes about US tariffs and shit lol) it's just not worth the cost and payout. Even If I do get a degree, I still have to land a job. And if I do land a job, I might find that I hate and and I wasted all my time in college. Not to mention all the student loans debt I'll be paying back every month, so it looks like I'd be stuck in a shitty job that pays low for the next 10 years after all.
edit- oh yea and I forgot to mention. Every job you go to that has a new boss and work place and has their own routines, rules, and way of doing the same thing that another identical job would. So basically you still have to learn the job and go to training when you get there. Most of the shit you learned in college doesn't even matter and can be thrown out the window. It's pretty laughable that a degree is even required. I mean you could take the basic classes related to the job/career and skip all the other GE stuff and do the job equally well (if not better, because it's all still fresh in your head). College is mostly a scam imo.
|
Some people will be happy making $15-30 an hour Not that I'm greedy or anything, but if my starting job is anything less than $90k before bonuses I'm going to be extremely disappointed in myself
|
On February 18 2009 20:50 KOFgokuon wrote: Some people will be happy making $15-30 an hour Not that I'm greedy or anything, but if my starting job is anything less than $90k before bonuses I'm going to be extremely disappointed in myself
LOL you might want to find a new country to live in with that goal
|
On February 18 2009 21:52 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 20:50 KOFgokuon wrote: Some people will be happy making $15-30 an hour Not that I'm greedy or anything, but if my starting job is anything less than $90k before bonuses I'm going to be extremely disappointed in myself LOL you might want to find a new country to live in with that goal
i'm getting a phd in chemical engineering, it's a realistic goal my classmates had offers of 70k+ out of undergrad
|
On February 18 2009 12:18 Cloud wrote: Well, depends on what you want to do. If i had wanted to be a businessman all my life, id probably wouldnt go, yeah.
I havent been to college and im a businessman so totally agree on that (tho I went to college for 1.5 years but then I dropped out)
|
there's more to college than just the education. there's college life, a priceless experience.
also, a college degree seems to be the standard, just like high school diploma was back then.
|
On February 18 2009 19:29 gchan wrote: About the difficulty of majors, it really depends on what type of person you are. At the bachelor's level, hard science and math majors tend to have a very heavy focus on memorization, whereas social sciences/liberal arts tend to have a focus on developing analytical skills and expression. If you can memorize well, you will excel in the sciences; if you have excellent analytical skills, you will excel in social sciences/liberal arts. To really do well in either field though, you will need to do both and that doesn't happen very much until the tail end of college and/or grad school.
Evidence: personal experience. Triple major of molecular biology, economics, and a major combining the two.
... So you're lumping in math with biology? Any decent math program won't be focussing on memorization and if you do that, then you'll get reamed on midterms and finals. It's pure thinking skills for the most part other than memorizing some of the basic theorems and honestly, how many of fields don't require you to memorize anything at all? I'm in a math/economics double degree right now and in my economics classes you have to memorize and understand some of the models. It's about what you have to do in math.
Yes, the difficulty of the relative majors will vary depending on where your strengths lie, especially if you're highly averse to either writing papers or abstract thinking. However, the majority of people find understanding processes down to very minute details or thinking about abstract topics that are frankly completely inconceivable harder (but less tedious) than writing paper after paper, which is why most people say that a math degree is harder than a liberal arts degree.
To the OP: To the average person, the extra money you'll probably get after university/college far oustrips the money that you'll spend on it. You're going to earn it back; while you can do well without a degree, unless you're one of the chosen few, you probably won't do as well as if you did get your degree. So unless you're sure of being able to strike it rich, why take the chance? Bite the bullet, take the four years and learn something about yourself and what you want to do for the rest of your life.
|
On February 18 2009 16:28 JWD wrote: This OP is totally misguided. Yes, it is possible to not attend college and still make as much or more than a college graduate - however, if you did this, you would be amongst a tiny-bordering-on-unmeasurable minority.
Every study that has ever been conducted on the returns to a college education (especially at a school as prestigious as the one you are attending, OP - I'm guessing the high tuition means it's somewhat selective at least) shows that there's basically no better investment in existence. Yes, the average person who goes to college, even if he has to go into massive debt to do so, will see returns to his education which dwarf the costs he paid, included forfeited wages (some studies place returns to an education at a highly selective college at above 10,000%. Yes. And these aren't some BS magazine, they're economics PhDs publishing in economics journals).
Consider this: if college isn't necessary, why to people go through SO much trouble to attend? At the nation's most prestigious universities, there are queues of tens of thousands lining up to pay $40,000+/year in tuition. Isn't that some indication of the value of a college education? If college was really so worthless, why would all of these people be desperately trying to enter it? To argue that college is unnecessary in light of its overwhelming popularity amongst motivated, rational individuals, you would have to construct an impossibly elaborate conspiracy theory.
Go to college. Finance it however possible. Pay for your kids to go to college, if you can. It's the best investment you'll ever make.
Edit: I also resent your line about "American society" pressuring kids to go to college. A strong emphasis on college education isn't nearly an "American" phenomenon - in all developed countries, university is the social norm for anyone who is mildly intelligent.
What's more frustrating about you insisting this is an American phenomenon is that the United States' education system actually offers students much more flexibility than foreign systems - in many countries in Europe, you have to "figure out what you want to do with your life" at a much earlier age, and tests are structured to weed out likely college attendees from vocational school attendees at a much earlier age. Pointing out pressure to attend college as American is just plain ignorant.
Edit 2: maybe the OP should just follow his own advice and drop out of school? I find it funny that we are hearing this news from someone who's as invested in college as he is.
lol hey. How's it going?
I mostly agree with what you have to say. I only said American yet I never said it was exclusive to American society (I just don't have enough research on other societies and their college attendance rates).
And if you read my post better you would know that I am dropping out of school. (it's in the last paragraph fyi)
Anyways I think a lot of people are taking my post the wrong way. College is an option always open for people. You don't HAVE to enter it straight out of high school. I realize that college degree holders generally make more money and acknowledged that in my post. But then again, those that go to college are usually more motivated people in general than those who choose not to. I think what I forgot to mention in my post is that I guess the reason so many people go to college is also because so many people genuinely want to live normal lives and have normal jobs such as engineering, teaching, etc. (which is what makes them 'normal')
My post is meant to force one to question themselves to the reasons of why they are going to attend university. I don't want you guys to drop out of college and try to become pioneers in math and science or anything. I just think there are too many people out there going to college for the wrong reasons and with the wrong ideas in mind.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 18 2009 16:45 KOFgokuon wrote: Jibba can I have your babies? You write everything I would write but much more eloquently and clearly <3
|
United States22883 Posts
I think everyone in this thread should go to the library and read through Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition just to feel what I feel.
|
I went to college with no idea what I wanted to do. At least I have my own appartment now, and im getting 30.000 NOK (5.000 USD) if I dont fail. <3 europe.
|
On February 18 2009 19:29 gchan wrote: About the difficulty of majors, it really depends on what type of person you are. At the bachelor's level, hard science and math majors tend to have a very heavy focus on memorization, whereas social sciences/liberal arts tend to have a focus on developing analytical skills and expression. If you can memorize well, you will excel in the sciences; if you have excellent analytical skills, you will excel in social sciences/liberal arts. To really do well in either field though, you will need to do both and that doesn't happen very much until the tail end of college and/or grad school.
Evidence: personal experience. Triple major of molecular biology, economics, and a major combining the two.
yeah
compsci is basically like 10-16 hours of problem solving a day.
there is barely any memorization other than theory or syntax
|
United States12607 Posts
On February 19 2009 00:12 StarN wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 16:28 JWD wrote: This OP is totally misguided. Yes, it is possible to not attend college and still make as much or more than a college graduate - however, if you did this, you would be amongst a tiny-bordering-on-unmeasurable minority.
Every study that has ever been conducted on the returns to a college education (especially at a school as prestigious as the one you are attending, OP - I'm guessing the high tuition means it's somewhat selective at least) shows that there's basically no better investment in existence. Yes, the average person who goes to college, even if he has to go into massive debt to do so, will see returns to his education which dwarf the costs he paid, included forfeited wages (some studies place returns to an education at a highly selective college at above 10,000%. Yes. And these aren't some BS magazine, they're economics PhDs publishing in economics journals).
Consider this: if college isn't necessary, why to people go through SO much trouble to attend? At the nation's most prestigious universities, there are queues of tens of thousands lining up to pay $40,000+/year in tuition. Isn't that some indication of the value of a college education? If college was really so worthless, why would all of these people be desperately trying to enter it? To argue that college is unnecessary in light of its overwhelming popularity amongst motivated, rational individuals, you would have to construct an impossibly elaborate conspiracy theory.
Go to college. Finance it however possible. Pay for your kids to go to college, if you can. It's the best investment you'll ever make.
Edit: I also resent your line about "American society" pressuring kids to go to college. A strong emphasis on college education isn't nearly an "American" phenomenon - in all developed countries, university is the social norm for anyone who is mildly intelligent.
What's more frustrating about you insisting this is an American phenomenon is that the United States' education system actually offers students much more flexibility than foreign systems - in many countries in Europe, you have to "figure out what you want to do with your life" at a much earlier age, and tests are structured to weed out likely college attendees from vocational school attendees at a much earlier age. Pointing out pressure to attend college as American is just plain ignorant.
Edit 2: maybe the OP should just follow his own advice and drop out of school? I find it funny that we are hearing this news from someone who's as invested in college as he is. lol hey. How's it going? I mostly agree with what you have to say. I only said American yet I never said it was exclusive to American society (I just don't have enough research on other societies and their college attendance rates). And if you read my post better you would know that I am dropping out of school. (it's in the last paragraph fyi) Anyways I think a lot of people are taking my post the wrong way. College is an option always open for people. You don't HAVE to enter it straight out of high school. I realize that college degree holders generally make more money and acknowledged that in my post. But then again, those that go to college are usually more motivated people in general than those who choose not to. I think what I forgot to mention in my post is that I guess the reason so many people go to college is also because so many people genuinely want to live normal lives and have normal jobs such as engineering, teaching, etc. (which is what makes them 'normal') My post is meant to force one to question themselves to the reasons of why they are going to attend university. I don't want you guys to drop out of college and try to become pioneers in math and science or anything. I just think there are too many people out there going to college for the wrong reasons and with the wrong ideas in mind.
Fair enough...sorry for missing the part about you dropping out. Anyway, GL to you man.
|
On February 18 2009 13:50 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 13:44 JeeJee wrote:On February 18 2009 13:40 infinity21 wrote:On February 18 2009 13:31 JeeJee wrote:On February 18 2009 13:00 infinity21 wrote:On February 18 2009 12:43 StarN wrote:On February 18 2009 12:38 infinity21 wrote: I agree that it's not for everyone but there's nothing wrong with changing majors imo. In my case, I knew I wanted to go into a field in mathematics, so I went into a math & business admin program. Now I changed my focus to just math and will major in mathematical finance. I found out more about my BBA program and made a decision based on my experiences at the universities I attended. This doesn't cost me any more money and I will graduate at the same time.
Sure, I knew I was a mathie since I was in elementary but I didn't know what field of mathematics I will be specializing in back then. Most people won't know until they've taken the courses in university. Yea in your case you didn't lose anything other than maybe 8 dwindling credits that don't go to your degree requirements. It's the people who plan on going on four year tracks that turn into six year tracks that I'm really against. And it's also the people who just use college as an excuse to party and mooch money off their parents for another four years that I'm against (e.g. my older brother) I don't know any people who mooch money off their parents just to party and not go into the workforce personally but that is a terrible way to live. I'm in a co-op program right now so by the time I graduate, I would have paid back all the money that my parents paid for my education as well as any loans I have outstanding and still be up $20k or so. Plus, I get 2 years of work experience (related or not) who helps with networking as well I suppose I'm rather fortunate that universities don't cost an arm and a leg to attend up here (yay Canada~). seriously? shit how much do you make on your co-op jobs exactly? being up 20k is crazy (about 3-4k per workterm i guess?). my math certainly doesn't add up to that. one term is about 10k for me (7k+change tuition and 2k+change living expenses, plus books, etc.), with a 4k surplus? 14k/16wk = 23/hr after tax which is like at least 26/hr before tax? plus living expenses for the actual work term, unless you're living at home? damn hook me up with some of those jobs :O mine are just hovering in around low 20s or flat 20 so far =/ What program were you in again, math CA? I pay only 3.6k for math tuition and about 3k for food + housing. And I don't usually buy textbooks Works out to be around 7k for me total per study term. Plus I live at home during work terms I'm also anticipating that I'll get paid more in later years lol oh.. no, not math/ca but basically the same fees. every specialized program has "slightly" higher fees (damn you marketing) i know cecs has a salary survey somewhere on their site, you can look into that to see how the salary will increase to give a better estimate. generally a few bucks/hr above the average has been my experience so far. whoaaaa side-track anyway uni is just a thing to put on your resume and make connections. don't make it anything more than it has to be, unless you really happen to be passionate about the subject you're learning. and out of all the people i've known so far, the number of times i've seen that i can count on one hand. what does that tell you about the subject you are studying?
uhm, nothing? the question you should've asked was either "what does that tell you about the people you meet?" or "what does that tell you about the people that go to college?" unless you're referring to something else entirely, in which case feel free to elaborate
|
Well, you made some good arguments, but you neglected one major benefit (perhaps the greatest) of going to college -- networking. University (undergraduate especially) is the best place in your lifetime to meet people. By going through college, you effectively increased your social network ten-folds (roughly speaking).
|
On February 18 2009 13:31 JeeJee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 13:00 infinity21 wrote:On February 18 2009 12:43 StarN wrote:On February 18 2009 12:38 infinity21 wrote: I agree that it's not for everyone but there's nothing wrong with changing majors imo. In my case, I knew I wanted to go into a field in mathematics, so I went into a math & business admin program. Now I changed my focus to just math and will major in mathematical finance. I found out more about my BBA program and made a decision based on my experiences at the universities I attended. This doesn't cost me any more money and I will graduate at the same time.
Sure, I knew I was a mathie since I was in elementary but I didn't know what field of mathematics I will be specializing in back then. Most people won't know until they've taken the courses in university. Yea in your case you didn't lose anything other than maybe 8 dwindling credits that don't go to your degree requirements. It's the people who plan on going on four year tracks that turn into six year tracks that I'm really against. And it's also the people who just use college as an excuse to party and mooch money off their parents for another four years that I'm against (e.g. my older brother) I don't know any people who mooch money off their parents just to party and not go into the workforce personally but that is a terrible way to live. I'm in a co-op program right now so by the time I graduate, I would have paid back all the money that my parents paid for my education as well as any loans I have outstanding and still be up $20k or so. Plus, I get 2 years of work experience (related or not) who helps with networking as well I suppose I'm rather fortunate that universities don't cost an arm and a leg to attend up here (yay Canada~). seriously? shit how much do you make on your co-op jobs exactly? being up 20k is crazy (about 3-4k per workterm i guess?). my math certainly doesn't add up to that. one term is about 10k for me (7k+change tuition and 2k+change living expenses, plus books, etc.), with a 4k surplus? 14k/16wk = 23/hr after tax which is like at least 26/hr before tax? plus living expenses for the actual work term, unless you're living at home? damn hook me up with some of those jobs :O mine are just hovering in around low 20s or flat 20 so far =/ edit: although i guess if you worked in usa i can see that. i.e. my friend who works at nvidia makes 22/hr + 1k/month on living expenses + subsidized lunches and shit which is basically 30+/hr hmmm maybe i should go to usa
CA costs 7k????
I pay 5k and I thought it was ridiculously high!
|
Hard sciences always need to put in more work at the undergrad lvl, everyone knows this. Social science undergrad is easier because if you REALLY want to be a social scientist you ARE going to grad school while a lot of engineers enter work force after undergrad not quite as much in hard sciences. Also in most social science fields you pretty much have to have a great gpa. 3.5 is considered non competitive if you want to get into a biological anthropology program that is worth to get into. I dont know how much work hard scientists/engineers put in in grad school but as a bio anthro major in a masters program I can say you work your freaking ass off. Long papers, purposals, exams etc. I spend at least 3-5 hours in the bio anthro lab doing projects and I have about 3-4 hours of reading a day and I have it easy with this being my 1st semester.
|
On February 18 2009 19:29 gchan wrote: About the difficulty of majors, it really depends on what type of person you are. At the bachelor's level, hard science and math majors tend to have a very heavy focus on memorization, whereas social sciences/liberal arts tend to have a focus on developing analytical skills and expression. If you can memorize well, you will excel in the sciences; if you have excellent analytical skills, you will excel in social sciences/liberal arts. To really do well in either field though, you will need to do both and that doesn't happen very much until the tail end of college and/or grad school.
Evidence: personal experience. Triple major of molecular biology, economics, and a major combining the two. I wouldn't call biology one of the "Hard sciences" really, you just explained the difference between a heavy soft science course and an easy soft science course.
If you study physics you get all formulas you need for each test so there is zero memorization, instead it is all analytical thinking, math is roughly the same but you need to learn some basic expressions in most courses which you then can derive the rest of the course from.
The reason I am reluctant to call biology a hard science is just because of the reason you mentioned: It is just like the social sciences a lot more about memorization than understanding. In social science they don't want you to think, they want you to repeat what some great thinkers have said before you.
Edit: And with this I mean in terms of how it is to study, Biology is of course a hard science due to the fact that the experiments you set up can be repeated with near 100% accuracy even though it is less so than chemistry and physics it is still infinitely more accurate than the real soft sciences.
|
hecks yes.
and btw all your teacher is belongs to me now.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 19 2009 04:49 Klockan3 wrote: In social science they don't want you to think, they want you to repeat what some great thinkers have said before you. This is just patently false. Everything that's been done before is constantly under review for selection bias and other methodological errors and developing new ideas happens all the time. You speak as if there's a universal authority in each of these fields, when if you go down the line through every single social science, everything is up for dispute including the viability of observation itself.
Seriously, this has to be one of the most ignorant opinions I've ever read on here, probably based on nothing more than a 100 level class. At the undergraduate level, the exact same system exists for the hard sciences. Everything you do is practicing and mastering the previously accomplished.
Edit: And with this I mean in terms of how it is to study, Biology is of course a hard science due to the fact that the experiments you set up can be repeated with near 100% accuracy even though it is less so than chemistry and physics it is still infinitely more accurate than the real soft sciences. Their experiments are more accurate and selection biases are more easily identifiable, but qualitative and quantitative research in human sciences follow the scientific method as well and must be open to re-testing.
|
On February 19 2009 05:52 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 04:49 Klockan3 wrote: In social science they don't want you to think, they want you to repeat what some great thinkers have said before you. This is just patently false. Everything that's been done before is constantly under review for selection bias and other methodological errors and developing new ideas happens all the time. You speak as if there's a universal authority in each of these fields, when if you go down the line through every single social science, everything is up for dispute including the viability of observation itself. Seriously, this has to be one of the most ignorant opinions I've ever read on here, probably based on nothing more than a 100 level class. At the undergraduate level, the exact same system exists for the hard sciences. Everything you do is practicing and mastering the previously accomplished. I am fairly sure that this thread is about undergraduate studies, and in undergraduate studies you are not allowed to think in social sciences while doing out of the box solutions are encouraged in the fields of physics/math.
"You speak as if there's a universal authority in each of these fields" And you know, all of the social sciences worship a few figures and those figures views are what is taught and is the only acceptable views of the undergrads. If you don't solve the task in the way the supervisor intended you to solve it you wont get much score, the correct solution is subjective and not objective. (Edit: Of course there is never an universal figure, didn't say that)
The difference to this is of course that in the hard sciences there is an objective truth to everything taught at an undergraduate level, as long as the answer you provide is correct it do not matter if it was the views of some old genius or not, what matters is that its the truth. Technically you could ace a master in math without doing anything but reading up on the definitions and then derive all formulas from that yourself, try doing that for some social science... It can't be done since there are an infinite amount of correct answers and the supervisor only wants one or maybe a few of them depending on what the course is based on.
Of course this is not to say that social sciences are all about memorisation, since then it would be an awful amount to remember, so what you instead need to do is to understand the views of the major figures of your field and then apply that logic to the assignments.
On February 19 2009 05:52 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +Edit: And with this I mean in terms of how it is to study, Biology is of course a hard science due to the fact that the experiments you set up can be repeated with near 100% accuracy even though it is less so than chemistry and physics it is still infinitely more accurate than the real soft sciences. Their experiments are more accurate and selection biases are more easily identifiable, but qualitative and quantitative research in human sciences follow the scientific method as well and must be open to re-testing. I don't say that social science is not fit being a science, why is this explanation necessary?
Edit:
On February 18 2009 13:17 benjammin wrote: all degrees are hard, don't be a douche You could say that the difficulty of a major is related to how many fails at taking that major because it was too hard, and I am fairly sure that there are more who fails at hard science majors compared to social science ones.
What was the drop out rate of engineering now again?
Of course you could say that the difficulty of a major is compared how much work you must put in to get a good job afterwards and then some obscure social science major would be by far the hardest.
|
there is an objective truth to everything taught at an undergraduate level Really? I think your understanding of science is lacking. There is nothing objectively true about Newton's laws of physics. They have been empirically denied, but remain useful. Theories in physics can be described more accurately in math because it is easier to control for certain variables, but it is the same process utilized by the social sciences.
Without understanding newton's ideas you can't understand relativity, just like you can't delve into heidigger without first reading neitzsche. While math isn't a science, the same applies: you learn algebra before you do calculus. No, you cannot "read up on the definitions" and understand it. Try. I dare you.
It's true that social sciences tend to only introduce "mainstream" understandings. But so do the hard sciences. There is nothing "objectively true" about undergraduate studies. Yet without first being "indoctrinated," you can't develop your own theories. Before you can credibly bitch about how string theory doesn't have any experimental basis, you have to understand string theory to begin with. Get what I'm saying?
|
United States22883 Posts
Uh... how do you think you correctly arrive at an answer in math or physics and why is such a heavy emphasis placed on showing your work? It is exactly because you are going through the steps that are being taught to you. The answer itself is usually less important, or only 50% at most, compared to the work that's being shown, which is a combination of the different tools you've been taught over the past semester.
Students don't have the time or resources to put high level theorems together, and when they're proven, they're done so in a step by step basis so they can determine each rational move.
|
Im reading a book now that covers the fight for biologists to the physical sciences get off their back and to accept biology as true science. Biology is much more complex then physical ones because it obeys all laws physical objects do but also deals with undefinable laws that only living organisms have. Physicists and mathematicians tried for years to reduce bio down to laws and rules like you do in their sciences, now they realize their folly. Biology is about memorization on the high school level. Try learning about biology and its side branches. Social science does the complete opposite of what you said. It never worships a few key figures. They still teach what they said but its not for as much as what they say but how they did it. Its just background, laying a foundation to get you thinking in the way that is useful.
|
All I know is my first compsci course started with 40 people and finished with 7
and at least some of the people who didnt drop didnt exactly have As in the course.
And this was considered normal.
Until I see that happen in a social sciences first year course, I'm not really going to call it equal. If you see first and second years slacking off, its usually humanities, social science, or business. There is a difference between those courses and medicine/compsci/engineering/hard science whether it bruises people's egos or not.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On February 18 2009 19:29 gchan wrote: About the difficulty of majors, it really depends on what type of person you are. At the bachelor's level, hard science and math majors tend to have a very heavy focus on memorization, whereas social sciences/liberal arts tend to have a focus on developing analytical skills and expression. err there is barely any memorization in bmath...
|
Canada9720 Posts
i think it's the workload that introduces those kinds of failure rates, and not the concepts. most arts courses that i've taken, even up to 3rd year courses, have work loads that pale in comparison to all the first year engineering and computer science courses i've taken.
i mean, yeah, vector dynamics is hard, but the real shitty thing is having to do an assignment on it every week. take a group of engineering or cs majors, and get them to do weekly assignments on doing critical readings of a text using post-structuralism or modernism and they'd probably have a hard time.
one of the reasons it's like this anyway, is that it's generally more of a labour to produce one great essay than 1 great assignment, but it's a lot easier to bullshit your way through an essay. again, this is based on my academic experience
|
On February 19 2009 09:08 fusionsdf wrote: All I know is my first compsci course started with 40 people and finished with 7
and at least some of the people who didnt drop didnt exactly have As in the course.
And this was considered normal.
Until I see that happen in a social sciences first year course, I'm not really going to call it equal. If you see first and second years slacking off, its usually humanities, social science, or business. There is a difference between those courses and medicine/compsci/engineering/hard science whether it bruises people's egos or not. of course there's a difference, genius. it is harder to crack down on students who don't do the reading in the social sciences, because the grading system is different. but doing all the required reading in most humanities courses is just as difficult.
the social sciences tend to attract more slackers for the reasons above. but that doesn't make it a less legitimate major. most of the really intelligent people i've met have been social science majors, and believe me, i've spent equal amounts of time in "hard major" courses.
i would love to see somebody as well-versed in hard science as yourself try to understand foucault. since your intellect is so far ahead of ours, why not try it yourself?
|
sure
as soon as you write a functional 5000 line program
|
United States22883 Posts
Foucault is easy breezy. Start reading Arendt, I'm telling you!
I actually enjoyed my CS classes, except that was one where I got in trouble for going outside the professor's expectations. No 5,000 line programs at that point though.
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 19 2009 10:44 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 09:08 fusionsdf wrote: All I know is my first compsci course started with 40 people and finished with 7
and at least some of the people who didnt drop didnt exactly have As in the course.
And this was considered normal.
Until I see that happen in a social sciences first year course, I'm not really going to call it equal. If you see first and second years slacking off, its usually humanities, social science, or business. There is a difference between those courses and medicine/compsci/engineering/hard science whether it bruises people's egos or not. of course there's a difference, genius. it is harder to crack down on students who don't do the reading in the social sciences, because the grading system is different. but doing all the required reading in most humanities courses is just as difficult. Your claim is that 'doing all the required reading' is as difficult as the homework and other assessments in technical major? I think you meant something else. Also, I don't think you mean to assume that the only hurdle in completing a humanities majors is to complete the reading...
the social sciences tend to attract more slackers for the reasons above. but that doesn't make it a less legitimate major. most of the really intelligent people i've met have been social science majors, and believe me, i've spent equal amounts of time in "hard major" courses. I don't think anyone was saying humanities aren't legit... they were just comparing level of difficulty.
i would love to see somebody as well-versed in hard science as yourself try to understand foucault. since your intellect is so far ahead of ours, why not try it yourself? The technical people are usually the ones who flaunt this idea (let's trade) because it favors them XD
|
The roomate I had in undergrad was an electrical engineer who had a 3.9 gpa. He didnt "go all out and study study study" like some of you claim that the "hard sciences" people do. He also highly respected social sciences because he had trouble understanding them (prolly between me and his phd psych sister lol). Seriously not everyone has to work their ass off to pull a 3.0 in hard science. Hard science classes just attempt to weed out people earlier so their intro classes are harder. Hell the intro bio class has a really high rate of fail because its the weeding class to get into high lvl bio and I 4.0ed it as a "social science" major. I also took decent level of math and chem. Hell intro chem/phys were easy as pie just because they didn't weed out at that level of class. If you want to be a social science major and not study you'll most likely get a 3-3.5 gpa. well guess what you most likely wont be working in a social science field because that low of a gpa won't get you into grad school.
|
On February 19 2009 10:55 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 10:44 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 09:08 fusionsdf wrote: All I know is my first compsci course started with 40 people and finished with 7
and at least some of the people who didnt drop didnt exactly have As in the course.
And this was considered normal.
Until I see that happen in a social sciences first year course, I'm not really going to call it equal. If you see first and second years slacking off, its usually humanities, social science, or business. There is a difference between those courses and medicine/compsci/engineering/hard science whether it bruises people's egos or not. of course there's a difference, genius. it is harder to crack down on students who don't do the reading in the social sciences, because the grading system is different. but doing all the required reading in most humanities courses is just as difficult. Your claim is that 'doing all the required reading' is as difficult as the homework and other assessments in technical major? I think you meant something else. Also, I don't think you mean to assume that the only hurdle in completing a humanities majors is to complete the reading... Show nested quote +the social sciences tend to attract more slackers for the reasons above. but that doesn't make it a less legitimate major. most of the really intelligent people i've met have been social science majors, and believe me, i've spent equal amounts of time in "hard major" courses. I don't think anyone was saying humanities aren't legit... they were just comparing level of difficulty. Show nested quote +i would love to see somebody as well-versed in hard science as yourself try to understand foucault. since your intellect is so far ahead of ours, why not try it yourself? The technical people are usually the ones who flaunt this idea (let's trade) because it favors them XD I have completed every lower division math course available at my school. On top of that I've done mechanics, modern physics, political theory, comp gov, and international relations. So in reply to your first question, yes, I do think it's just as difficult. I'll give that grade inflation is a more serious problem with the humanities.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
but then again i went to the university of kabul
Foucault is easy breezy. Start reading Arendt, I'm telling you! I actually skipped my foucault reading in my political theory class hehehe. Also, I have Arendt on my bookshelf and I keep promising myself I'll get to it.
|
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 19 2009 11:13 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 10:55 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 10:44 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 09:08 fusionsdf wrote: All I know is my first compsci course started with 40 people and finished with 7
and at least some of the people who didnt drop didnt exactly have As in the course.
And this was considered normal.
Until I see that happen in a social sciences first year course, I'm not really going to call it equal. If you see first and second years slacking off, its usually humanities, social science, or business. There is a difference between those courses and medicine/compsci/engineering/hard science whether it bruises people's egos or not. of course there's a difference, genius. it is harder to crack down on students who don't do the reading in the social sciences, because the grading system is different. but doing all the required reading in most humanities courses is just as difficult. Your claim is that 'doing all the required reading' is as difficult as the homework and other assessments in technical major? I think you meant something else. Also, I don't think you mean to assume that the only hurdle in completing a humanities majors is to complete the reading... the social sciences tend to attract more slackers for the reasons above. but that doesn't make it a less legitimate major. most of the really intelligent people i've met have been social science majors, and believe me, i've spent equal amounts of time in "hard major" courses. I don't think anyone was saying humanities aren't legit... they were just comparing level of difficulty. i would love to see somebody as well-versed in hard science as yourself try to understand foucault. since your intellect is so far ahead of ours, why not try it yourself? The technical people are usually the ones who flaunt this idea (let's trade) because it favors them XD I have completed every lower division math course available at my school. On top of that I've done mechanics, modern physics, political theory, comp gov, and international relations. So in reply to your first question, yes, I do think it's just as difficult. I'll give that grade inflation is a more serious problem with the humanities. + Show Spoiler + Er.... I'm glad you are wonderful but your post doesn't seem to respond to mine at all.
|
understanding foucault vs writing 1000s of lines of functional code
I don't know guys...
|
United States22883 Posts
We're really comparing apples to oranges at this point, since every individual will respond to each task differently.
|
Who cares about foucault? Can you explain early human evolution and the genus homo? Its useless to compare this shit. I obviously cannot write code because I didn't learn it. But from what ive seen its not hard it just takes a lot of time and patience to accomplish which is almost everything that seems "hard" can become easy with enough time put in.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 19 2009 13:18 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Who cares about foucault? Can you explain early human evolution and the genus homo? Its useless to compare this shit. I obviously cannot write code because I didn't learn it. But from what ive seen its not hard it just takes a lot of time and patience to accomplish which is almost everything that seems "hard" can become easy with enough time put in. ur a genus homo
|
I agree that it's easier to get decent and maybe even good grades in less technical majors, however I don't see how anyone could think that actually engaging with the material is easy.
I'd be really interested to see a paper written by any one of you guys who think non-technical majors are easy. Whoa, what?! You don't want to post one even though you'd have no problem posting some code you wrote? Interesting.
I'm a CS major, btw.
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 19 2009 13:38 enthusiast wrote: I agree that it's easier to get decent and maybe even good grades in less technical majors, however I don't see how anyone could think that actually engaging with the material is easy.
I'd be really interested to see a paper written by any one of you guys who think non-technical majors are easy. Whoa, what?! You don't want to post one even though you'd have no problem posting some code you wrote? Interesting.
I'm a CS major, btw. You are stereotyping too much which hurts your argument.
|
On February 19 2009 12:48 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 11:13 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 10:55 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 10:44 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 09:08 fusionsdf wrote: All I know is my first compsci course started with 40 people and finished with 7
and at least some of the people who didnt drop didnt exactly have As in the course.
And this was considered normal.
Until I see that happen in a social sciences first year course, I'm not really going to call it equal. If you see first and second years slacking off, its usually humanities, social science, or business. There is a difference between those courses and medicine/compsci/engineering/hard science whether it bruises people's egos or not. of course there's a difference, genius. it is harder to crack down on students who don't do the reading in the social sciences, because the grading system is different. but doing all the required reading in most humanities courses is just as difficult. Your claim is that 'doing all the required reading' is as difficult as the homework and other assessments in technical major? I think you meant something else. Also, I don't think you mean to assume that the only hurdle in completing a humanities majors is to complete the reading... the social sciences tend to attract more slackers for the reasons above. but that doesn't make it a less legitimate major. most of the really intelligent people i've met have been social science majors, and believe me, i've spent equal amounts of time in "hard major" courses. I don't think anyone was saying humanities aren't legit... they were just comparing level of difficulty. i would love to see somebody as well-versed in hard science as yourself try to understand foucault. since your intellect is so far ahead of ours, why not try it yourself? The technical people are usually the ones who flaunt this idea (let's trade) because it favors them XD I have completed every lower division math course available at my school. On top of that I've done mechanics, modern physics, political theory, comp gov, and international relations. So in reply to your first question, yes, I do think it's just as difficult. I'll give that grade inflation is a more serious problem with the humanities. + Show Spoiler + Er.... I'm glad you are wonderful but your post doesn't seem to respond to mine at all. ya it does. i combined an opportunity to boast about myself with establishing credibility for my claim that both are equally difficult, after accounting for grade inflation.
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 19 2009 13:51 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 12:48 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 11:13 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 10:55 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 10:44 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 09:08 fusionsdf wrote: All I know is my first compsci course started with 40 people and finished with 7
and at least some of the people who didnt drop didnt exactly have As in the course.
And this was considered normal.
Until I see that happen in a social sciences first year course, I'm not really going to call it equal. If you see first and second years slacking off, its usually humanities, social science, or business. There is a difference between those courses and medicine/compsci/engineering/hard science whether it bruises people's egos or not. of course there's a difference, genius. it is harder to crack down on students who don't do the reading in the social sciences, because the grading system is different. but doing all the required reading in most humanities courses is just as difficult. Your claim is that 'doing all the required reading' is as difficult as the homework and other assessments in technical major? I think you meant something else. Also, I don't think you mean to assume that the only hurdle in completing a humanities majors is to complete the reading... the social sciences tend to attract more slackers for the reasons above. but that doesn't make it a less legitimate major. most of the really intelligent people i've met have been social science majors, and believe me, i've spent equal amounts of time in "hard major" courses. I don't think anyone was saying humanities aren't legit... they were just comparing level of difficulty. i would love to see somebody as well-versed in hard science as yourself try to understand foucault. since your intellect is so far ahead of ours, why not try it yourself? The technical people are usually the ones who flaunt this idea (let's trade) because it favors them XD I have completed every lower division math course available at my school. On top of that I've done mechanics, modern physics, political theory, comp gov, and international relations. So in reply to your first question, yes, I do think it's just as difficult. I'll give that grade inflation is a more serious problem with the humanities. + Show Spoiler + Er.... I'm glad you are wonderful but your post doesn't seem to respond to mine at all. ya it does. i combined an opportunity to boast about myself with establishing credibility for my claim that both are equally difficult, after accounting for grade inflation. I think you are going to need to write what you really mean when you say completing the reading is as difficult as the work of technical majors... because as you stated it, you are completely wrong. A 5 year old can complete the reading. How do you use the reading and test yourself on the knowledge/understanding gained? That's where it really is. Also, how well rounded you in particular are, has almost nothing to do with it.
|
On February 19 2009 13:48 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:38 enthusiast wrote: I agree that it's easier to get decent and maybe even good grades in less technical majors, however I don't see how anyone could think that actually engaging with the material is easy.
I'd be really interested to see a paper written by any one of you guys who think non-technical majors are easy. Whoa, what?! You don't want to post one even though you'd have no problem posting some code you wrote? Interesting.
I'm a CS major, btw. You are stereotyping too much which hurts your argument. Where?
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 19 2009 13:59 enthusiast wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:48 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 13:38 enthusiast wrote: I agree that it's easier to get decent and maybe even good grades in less technical majors, however I don't see how anyone could think that actually engaging with the material is easy.
I'd be really interested to see a paper written by any one of you guys who think non-technical majors are easy. Whoa, what?! You don't want to post one even though you'd have no problem posting some code you wrote? Interesting.
I'm a CS major, btw. You are stereotyping too much which hurts your argument. Where? The part where you make it seem like most technical majors never write papers.
Now that I think about it... you can just look at general education (core). The technical skills required of any technical major are virtually unrepresented in core (even though it doesn't seem like it if you are pushed out of intro bio and placed into intro physics) whereas most humanities core classes require you to write at least a few papers (freshman composition, junior English possibly, any specific literature course... hell almost any other course). So... a technical major needs to be able to write papers, whereas a humanities major does not need to code, solve advanced problems, etc. Of course, the papers of upper level humanities courses are more difficult than the core level ones (I'd have to assume).
|
On February 19 2009 13:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:51 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 12:48 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 11:13 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 10:55 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 10:44 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 09:08 fusionsdf wrote: All I know is my first compsci course started with 40 people and finished with 7
and at least some of the people who didnt drop didnt exactly have As in the course.
And this was considered normal.
Until I see that happen in a social sciences first year course, I'm not really going to call it equal. If you see first and second years slacking off, its usually humanities, social science, or business. There is a difference between those courses and medicine/compsci/engineering/hard science whether it bruises people's egos or not. of course there's a difference, genius. it is harder to crack down on students who don't do the reading in the social sciences, because the grading system is different. but doing all the required reading in most humanities courses is just as difficult. Your claim is that 'doing all the required reading' is as difficult as the homework and other assessments in technical major? I think you meant something else. Also, I don't think you mean to assume that the only hurdle in completing a humanities majors is to complete the reading... the social sciences tend to attract more slackers for the reasons above. but that doesn't make it a less legitimate major. most of the really intelligent people i've met have been social science majors, and believe me, i've spent equal amounts of time in "hard major" courses. I don't think anyone was saying humanities aren't legit... they were just comparing level of difficulty. i would love to see somebody as well-versed in hard science as yourself try to understand foucault. since your intellect is so far ahead of ours, why not try it yourself? The technical people are usually the ones who flaunt this idea (let's trade) because it favors them XD I have completed every lower division math course available at my school. On top of that I've done mechanics, modern physics, political theory, comp gov, and international relations. So in reply to your first question, yes, I do think it's just as difficult. I'll give that grade inflation is a more serious problem with the humanities. + Show Spoiler + Er.... I'm glad you are wonderful but your post doesn't seem to respond to mine at all. ya it does. i combined an opportunity to boast about myself with establishing credibility for my claim that both are equally difficult, after accounting for grade inflation. I think you are going to need to write what you really mean when you say completing the reading is as difficult as the work of technical majors... because as you stated it, you are completely wrong. A 5 year old can complete the reading. How do you use the reading and test yourself on the knowledge/understanding gained? That's where it really is. Also, how well rounded you in particular are, has almost nothing to do with it. i was talking about workload. from my experience, doing the reading for a social science course, especially when the material is from primary sources, takes a lot more time to complete than your typical math assignment. a 5 year old can never complete the reading because he would never understand it.
|
also, i like to brag about myself. let me know if this is a problem.
|
On February 19 2009 14:03 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:59 enthusiast wrote:On February 19 2009 13:48 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 13:38 enthusiast wrote: I agree that it's easier to get decent and maybe even good grades in less technical majors, however I don't see how anyone could think that actually engaging with the material is easy.
I'd be really interested to see a paper written by any one of you guys who think non-technical majors are easy. Whoa, what?! You don't want to post one even though you'd have no problem posting some code you wrote? Interesting.
I'm a CS major, btw. You are stereotyping too much which hurts your argument. Where? The part where you make it seem like most technical majors never write papers. Now that I think about it... you can just look at general education (core). The technical skills required of any technical major are virtually unrepresented in core (even though it doesn't seem like it if you are pushed out of intro bio and placed into intro physics) whereas most humanities core classes require you to write at least a few papers (freshman composition, junior English possibly, any specific literature course... hell almost any other course). So... a technical major needs to be able to write papers, whereas a humanities major does not need to code, solve advanced problems, etc. Of course, the papers of upper level humanities courses are more difficult than the core level ones (I'd have to assume).
I don't see where I assumed that technical majors never write papers. I have a paper due Friday D:
I was trying to point out that if someone thinks non-technical majors are easy, then I assumed that to mean they think they are good at them. Therefore I would be interested to see one of these "good" non-technical papers they are capable of writing. I went on to guess that no one would post such a paper because they probably realize on some level that it probably isn't so "good" after all, and therefore maybe non-technical majors aren't so easy.
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 19 2009 14:08 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 13:58 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 13:51 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 12:48 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 11:13 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 10:55 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 10:44 ahrara_ wrote:On February 19 2009 09:08 fusionsdf wrote: All I know is my first compsci course started with 40 people and finished with 7
and at least some of the people who didnt drop didnt exactly have As in the course.
And this was considered normal.
Until I see that happen in a social sciences first year course, I'm not really going to call it equal. If you see first and second years slacking off, its usually humanities, social science, or business. There is a difference between those courses and medicine/compsci/engineering/hard science whether it bruises people's egos or not. of course there's a difference, genius. it is harder to crack down on students who don't do the reading in the social sciences, because the grading system is different. but doing all the required reading in most humanities courses is just as difficult. Your claim is that 'doing all the required reading' is as difficult as the homework and other assessments in technical major? I think you meant something else. Also, I don't think you mean to assume that the only hurdle in completing a humanities majors is to complete the reading... the social sciences tend to attract more slackers for the reasons above. but that doesn't make it a less legitimate major. most of the really intelligent people i've met have been social science majors, and believe me, i've spent equal amounts of time in "hard major" courses. I don't think anyone was saying humanities aren't legit... they were just comparing level of difficulty. i would love to see somebody as well-versed in hard science as yourself try to understand foucault. since your intellect is so far ahead of ours, why not try it yourself? The technical people are usually the ones who flaunt this idea (let's trade) because it favors them XD I have completed every lower division math course available at my school. On top of that I've done mechanics, modern physics, political theory, comp gov, and international relations. So in reply to your first question, yes, I do think it's just as difficult. I'll give that grade inflation is a more serious problem with the humanities. + Show Spoiler + Er.... I'm glad you are wonderful but your post doesn't seem to respond to mine at all. ya it does. i combined an opportunity to boast about myself with establishing credibility for my claim that both are equally difficult, after accounting for grade inflation. I think you are going to need to write what you really mean when you say completing the reading is as difficult as the work of technical majors... because as you stated it, you are completely wrong. A 5 year old can complete the reading. How do you use the reading and test yourself on the knowledge/understanding gained? That's where it really is. Also, how well rounded you in particular are, has almost nothing to do with it. i was talking about workload. from my experience, doing the reading for a social science course, especially when the material is from primary sources, takes a lot more time to complete than your typical math assignment. a 5 year old can never complete the reading because he would never understand it. Ah you are clarifying now. Which math courses exactly did you take? When you say lower division I assume you mean calc1-3, diffeq, linear algebra? Depending on where you take it, the workload for those could range from pretty light to pretty heavy. But.... those are lower. You are comparing the workload of upper level humanities courses with lower level math courses? That hardly seems fair.
Also I can understand that understanding a reading can be a lot of work... but you said so yourself that there isn't proof that you've read it elicited from you (often), so why does it matter if you do it? We aren't talking about learning here, we are talking about getting a degree :p
|
i'm actually comparing lower div to lower div. i'm still technically a sophomore.
well, as far as getting a degree, i will admit u are absolutely right about it being much easier. i just don't like to hear people dismiss social sciences as valueless which is what i thought people were doing.
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 19 2009 14:14 ahrara_ wrote: i'm actually comparing lower div to lower div. i'm still technically a sophomore.
well, as far as getting a degree, i will admit u are absolutely right about it being much easier. i just don't like to hear people dismiss social sciences as valueless which is what i thought people were doing. Ah good point.. that we should make the distinction between the difficulty of getting the degree, and the potential difficulty the field can provide for you if you actually take it seriously. I've seen people make fun of business or humanities majors, but I don't think they usually actually thought the disciplines were 'bad' so much as their negative views were a reflection on its role in the academic (college) community.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 19 2009 14:16 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:14 ahrara_ wrote: i'm actually comparing lower div to lower div. i'm still technically a sophomore.
well, as far as getting a degree, i will admit u are absolutely right about it being much easier. i just don't like to hear people dismiss social sciences as valueless which is what i thought people were doing. Ah good point.. that we should make the distinction between the difficulty of getting the degree, and the potential difficulty the field can provide for you if you actually take it seriously. How would you actually quantify difficulty in either case?
Someone earlier mentioned drop out rates would indicate difficulty of field, but there is no clear deducible connection between drop out rates and difficulty of field. There is an inference to be made, but in this case the methodology would be extremely flawed. First, you would be assuming that the end goal is to measure 1a. conceptual difficulty or 1b. workload difficulty, which varies in importance for every single individual. Then there's the obvious selection bias of choosing drop out rates (which is inherent in any standard chosen, whether the number benefits our side or not, but is more pronounced in this case because of the familiarity of it to the engineering fields.) Depending on whether you want to measure 1a or 1b, you would need to exclude the other type, as well as any other group, such as full dropouts, or those who fall in love with an elective and move towards that, those that get addicted to BW, etc.
You would also be making the assumption that the people who dropped for 1a/1b truly had their heart set on being an engineer but dropped because they realized they "couldn't cut it", and not simply because many indecisive people are inclined to go towards engineering at the beginning because of potential salary or some other reason. If sociologists made $80k straight out of undergrad, you could potentially switch the class sizes around and find that just as many prospective social science students drop to rediscover themselves in the hard science fields. Unlikely, but not dismissable either.
Another obvious issue is the assumption that lower level classes are indicative of the field as a whole, and that both classes are being taught in similar manners. I know engineering classes usually like to weed out prospects with heavy workloads, largely for the professor's benefit because there are so many students to handle, but if that's not the intent of professors in social sciences, does that automatically indicate a higher level of 1a or 1b across the entire field? Isn't this an artificial representation of difficulty on the part of the hard science professor? Our physics exams were specifically designed to make people score 20%~ lower than a normal bell curve representation, and were often a step above what we were prepared for. If the teaching goal were the same, a professor in the social sciences could also recreate that scenario.
You would also need to qualify that in this case the difficulty is relative to products of the American education system, where math and science are largely neglected from 6-12.
There's plenty of other methodological errors in trying to show X is harder than Y, especially in this case, but I'm pretty sure the only nerds that are going to read this are ahrara and micronesia so I'm going to stop and just end with: apples and oranges, unless one of you mother fuckers can complete this research project.
|
On February 19 2009 16:00 Jibba wrote: You would also need to qualify that in this case the difficulty is relative to products of the American education system, where math and science are largely neglected from 6-12.
They are in all parts of the world, the lower grades are almost only teaching social sciences.
Basically it takes as long for them to go through half a language as it takes to go through plus, minus, multiplication and division. And people still have problem with math at those stages.
|
United States24342 Posts
On February 19 2009 16:00 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:16 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 14:14 ahrara_ wrote: i'm actually comparing lower div to lower div. i'm still technically a sophomore.
well, as far as getting a degree, i will admit u are absolutely right about it being much easier. i just don't like to hear people dismiss social sciences as valueless which is what i thought people were doing. Ah good point.. that we should make the distinction between the difficulty of getting the degree, and the potential difficulty the field can provide for you if you actually take it seriously. How would you actually quantify difficulty in either case? Someone earlier mentioned drop out rates would indicate difficulty of field, but there is no clear deducible connection between drop out rates and difficulty of field. There is an inference to be made, but in this case the methodology would be extremely flawed. First, you would be assuming that the end goal is to measure 1a. conceptual difficulty or 1b. workload difficulty, which varies in importance for every single individual. Then there's the obvious selection bias of choosing drop out rates (which is inherent in any standard chosen, whether the number benefits our side or not, but is more pronounced in this case because of the familiarity of it to the engineering fields.) Depending on whether you want to measure 1a or 1b, you would need to exclude the other type, as well as any other group, such as full dropouts, or those who fall in love with an elective and move towards that, those that get addicted to BW, etc. You would also be making the assumption that the people who dropped for 1a/1b truly had their heart set on being an engineer but dropped because they realized they "couldn't cut it", and not simply because many indecisive people are inclined to go towards engineering at the beginning because of potential salary or some other reason. If sociologists made $80k straight out of undergrad, you could potentially switch the class sizes around and find that just as many prospective social science students drop to rediscover themselves in the hard science fields. Unlikely, but not dismissable either. Another obvious issue is the assumption that lower level classes are indicative of the field as a whole, and that both classes are being taught in similar manners. I know engineering classes usually like to weed out prospects with heavy workloads, largely for the professor's benefit because there are so many students to handle, but if that's not the intent of professors in social sciences, does that automatically indicate a higher level of 1a or 1b across the entire field? Isn't this an artificial representation of difficulty on the part of the hard science professor? Our physics exams were specifically designed to make people score 20%~ lower than a normal bell curve representation, and were often a step above what we were prepared for. If the teaching goal were the same, a professor in the social sciences could also recreate that scenario. You would also need to qualify that in this case the difficulty is relative to products of the American education system, where math and science are largely neglected from 6-12. There's plenty of other methodological errors in trying to show X is harder than Y, especially in this case, but I'm pretty sure the only nerds that are going to read this are ahrara and micronesia so I'm going to stop and just end with: apples and oranges, unless one of you mother fuckers can complete this research project. I agree that quantitatively comparing them is very difficult. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an 'apples and oranges' thing... since most people would actually find one major more difficult than the other, overall, if they tried both. I can't think of any methodology to check this that isn't highly flawed though, short of recruiting random people and forcing them to try different majors XD
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 20 2009 02:13 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 16:00 Jibba wrote: You would also need to qualify that in this case the difficulty is relative to products of the American education system, where math and science are largely neglected from 6-12.
They are in all parts of the world, the lower grades are almost only teaching social sciences. Basically it takes as long for them to go through half a language as it takes to go through plus, minus, multiplication and division. And people still have problem with math at those stages. My Chinese roommate disagrees.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 20 2009 03:16 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 16:00 Jibba wrote:On February 19 2009 14:16 micronesia wrote:On February 19 2009 14:14 ahrara_ wrote: i'm actually comparing lower div to lower div. i'm still technically a sophomore.
well, as far as getting a degree, i will admit u are absolutely right about it being much easier. i just don't like to hear people dismiss social sciences as valueless which is what i thought people were doing. Ah good point.. that we should make the distinction between the difficulty of getting the degree, and the potential difficulty the field can provide for you if you actually take it seriously. How would you actually quantify difficulty in either case? Someone earlier mentioned drop out rates would indicate difficulty of field, but there is no clear deducible connection between drop out rates and difficulty of field. There is an inference to be made, but in this case the methodology would be extremely flawed. First, you would be assuming that the end goal is to measure 1a. conceptual difficulty or 1b. workload difficulty, which varies in importance for every single individual. Then there's the obvious selection bias of choosing drop out rates (which is inherent in any standard chosen, whether the number benefits our side or not, but is more pronounced in this case because of the familiarity of it to the engineering fields.) Depending on whether you want to measure 1a or 1b, you would need to exclude the other type, as well as any other group, such as full dropouts, or those who fall in love with an elective and move towards that, those that get addicted to BW, etc. You would also be making the assumption that the people who dropped for 1a/1b truly had their heart set on being an engineer but dropped because they realized they "couldn't cut it", and not simply because many indecisive people are inclined to go towards engineering at the beginning because of potential salary or some other reason. If sociologists made $80k straight out of undergrad, you could potentially switch the class sizes around and find that just as many prospective social science students drop to rediscover themselves in the hard science fields. Unlikely, but not dismissable either. Another obvious issue is the assumption that lower level classes are indicative of the field as a whole, and that both classes are being taught in similar manners. I know engineering classes usually like to weed out prospects with heavy workloads, largely for the professor's benefit because there are so many students to handle, but if that's not the intent of professors in social sciences, does that automatically indicate a higher level of 1a or 1b across the entire field? Isn't this an artificial representation of difficulty on the part of the hard science professor? Our physics exams were specifically designed to make people score 20%~ lower than a normal bell curve representation, and were often a step above what we were prepared for. If the teaching goal were the same, a professor in the social sciences could also recreate that scenario. You would also need to qualify that in this case the difficulty is relative to products of the American education system, where math and science are largely neglected from 6-12. There's plenty of other methodological errors in trying to show X is harder than Y, especially in this case, but I'm pretty sure the only nerds that are going to read this are ahrara and micronesia so I'm going to stop and just end with: apples and oranges, unless one of you mother fuckers can complete this research project. I agree that quantitatively comparing them is very difficult. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an 'apples and oranges' thing... since most people would actually find one major more difficult than the other, overall, if they tried both. I can't think of any methodology to check this that isn't highly flawed though, short of recruiting random people and forcing them to try different majors XD Another problem still exists between measuring people who have tried both: who are better college students, 18 or 20 year olds?
Personally, I was way too immature when I first entered to be a productive student in any field.
|
i was better at 18, i started drinking at 20 ><
|
On February 20 2009 05:43 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2009 02:13 Klockan3 wrote:On February 19 2009 16:00 Jibba wrote: You would also need to qualify that in this case the difficulty is relative to products of the American education system, where math and science are largely neglected from 6-12.
They are in all parts of the world, the lower grades are almost only teaching social sciences. Basically it takes as long for them to go through half a language as it takes to go through plus, minus, multiplication and division. And people still have problem with math at those stages. My Chinese roommate disagrees. Did he go to a normal school?
I mean, just because I did university physics in 8th grade do not mean that that is a good representation of the Swedish school system as a whole.
|
you guys are more sensitive than D level protosses.
It doesnt mean that your business/non-science majors are easy. Just easier than some other majors.
But you can keep arguing if you want that every major has exactly the same difficulty.
|
Honestly, engineering/science majors are harder. But so what??? The real reason they're harder is because the assholes that teach them grade you harder. It's not that math/science is intrinsically harder than humanities, in fact as far as 'advanced education', math is a joke: students all around America routinely finish their first two years of calculus in 10-11th grade and could conceivably learn linear algebra or multivariable calculus if schools would incorporate that into the curriculum. I've seen too many 'trained math monkeys' to believe that something is intrinsically hard about math. Many people get an A in their vector calculus class without even being able to visualize a surface, let alone a solid and while still making basic algebra mistakes.
What makes engineering/math/science hard is the brutal curving and all the damn problem sets, and while these are legitimate difficulties--they are difficulty of the lowest caliber. The only thing you can claim from having a harder workload is that you have masochistic tendencies. It doesn't make you smarter or more deserving, it doesn't mean you learn more. It just means you get worked harder.
|
United States32008 Posts
On February 20 2009 07:09 KOFgokuon wrote: i was better at 18, i started drinking at 20 >< ROOKIE
20 year old me was a much better student. I dropped out at 19 cuz I spent a year and a half partying
|
|
|
|