Do people choose degrees based on interests anymore? It seems everyone just chooses to do engineering cause of muh versitility.
I'm doing Science and Education, so yes. I will never be rich, but I will be satisfied.
Yeah they do.
[spoiler] I fucked up fàm [/spoiler]
>>7715337
I chose ChemE because it's interesting and yes muh versatility, I love learning from so many different fields, there's plenty of time for specialization in grad-school.
>>7715337
Why do you choose (insert discipline here) engineering?
>So that i can land myself in a job which companies are paying high for
Do you like (....) engineering?
>Nah, it's fuckin boring, but at least the pay's good.
>>7715345
It's funny, 80% of those people who major in it just because they think it's good money drop out first year and head to business, the intelligent ones spend 3 more years being miserable and constantly bitching, they maintain a 2.0-3.0 average and end up in every job except the high paying engineering salaries they wanted.
By senior year 90% of my classmates had a definitive interest though, they spend all their free time excitedly talking about engineering or working on some project. Admittedly some of my friends weren't interested until junior year; guy's who wanted to be patent lawyers doing grad-school in theoretical work etc.
>>7715337
yes
go to starbucks and ask the baristas what degrees they have
>>7715337
I chose electrical engineering because I think that the versatility in itself in this day is very important, and at the very least it is something that I was always interested in. These undergraduate degrees cover fields that are absolutely gigantic and most people end up doing different things with the same major by graduation. It barely matters at all what you major in, but whether or not it's challenging is what is important, I think.
For all I know though, I could end up switching into fucking graphics design or something out of left field. My grandma is paying for my university so I don't want to waste it on something that is easy and not worth the time and money.
I think that's a dilemma that a lot of guys in STEM now face.
>Do I actually find this interesting over other things available in university or am I just trying to prove something? Am I kidding myself?
I think that it's easy to spot these sort of people out that ONLY went to the major for money and possible safety in the job market, and I don't think that you have to be a genius to be able to major in these fields, but you have to have some sort of natural interest at least in the idea or what the graduates do as a job, basic things like that. I think that being cocky about any major is a bad way to go. I think that you have to look at the overall picture of a major more than the individual classes you take. Would you rather work in an office as a business person who's accounting for things or work in an office as an engineer/scientist, designing/testing/researching something? I don't even think you can answer that reliably without taking a step back and looking at yourself. I FEEL deep down in the back of my mind that I'd prefer doing the latter as the engineer or scientist, but the front of my brain automatically says business man because I know that it'd be easier and lacking of much responsibility, intellectually.
I knew I was going to get a CS degree when I was 12, family. Too bad I should have choose pure maths, 300k starting.
>>7715375
cont.
We all know what's right, or at least I'd hope so, and I naturally feel good when I pick one of the more challenging options because I feel that it's better for my mind in the long run. Physics, Mathematics and Engineering are hard majors that will make you a smarter person from the habits you create and things you learn as long as you aren't cheating yourself, pun intended.
Getting a degree in STEM say 50 years ago was a huge deal. You left your crappy town and went to a university filled with all of these extremely smart people and learned from them, came home and knew all of this ridiculous stuff that you could manipulate the world with, practically magic, and then you got a job at some cool technology company and worked on some neat things that not everyone could work on because they simply don't understand the work.
It still is all of that, but more people doing it has diluted the 'wow' factor of it. It's still extremely challenging and it's still extremely respectable. That's of course unless you graduated with a 2.5 GPA or something.
I just woke up so I hope I don't reread this and it sounds ridiculous to me.
>>7715377
>cont.
Fucking why? Do you really think your post is insightful at all?
>>7715337
Why would I do engineering when math gets me 300k starting?
>>7715377
>Getting a degree in STEM say 50 years ago was a huge deal.
You do realize that the amount of engineering graduates has LOWERED in the last 50 years right? That's lowered total, not even lowered per capita.
Sure your crappy townsfolk seem less impressed because they think Stacy getting her degree in feminism is just as good as your engineering because she's "a smart girl who got into college" (still somewhat impressive, half the young population doesn't go after all). But intelligent people know the difference.
I choosed pure maths and then took a Ph.D. in Machine Learning. I'm pretty good right now but in the shithole country where I live my wage is not that high...I will probably migrate to burgerland or the UK.
>>7715394
>pure maths
>Ph.D. in Machine Learning.
You won't get a high salary anywhere, it's not your country.
>>7715394
Let me guess, ur in India?
>>7715411
Italy senpai
>>7715428
In che università ti sei laureato? Dove vorresti andare a lavorare?
A parte Google o qualche grande azienda americana (o qualche piccola startup anche italiana) non ho mai sentito di grandi offerte lavorative per questo settore, anche se ultimamente questo sembra essere quello che rivoluzionerà il futuro.
>>7715504
Pisa, Normale.
Right now I'm working at IBM in Milan, but I'll try to get an interview at MIRI in Cali.
Also, stick to english anon.
>>7715616
Italian who prefers engish
top kek
>>7715616
How difficult is it to graduate in machine learning?
Did you study math, computer science or both?
Did you also study psychology, ethics or how the brain works?
The most of your work is about creating algorithms, programs or seeking new ways of improving machine learning?
At IBM are you doing a generic job or an AI related one? Do they pay well?
E comunque buona fortuna
I did computer engineering because I wanted to understand and demystify computers.
>>7715668
Oh and another factor in choosing that was that I don't like learning foreign languages or writing papers and iirc that was the only major that didn't require a foreign language.
Unfortunately I'm pretty shit at math so linear algebra and fourier analysis and number theory kicked my ass.
>>7715668
With computer engineering do you create software or design hardware?
>>7715337
I did.
Math.
I want to be a professor, and if I cant pull that off, a science/math teacher in middle/highschool
I did
It was a toss up between Physics, Math, and CS but I chose CS because it was the best option for having a career, and I figured it was logic and math anyway so I could still take math classes in Uni.
I've really grown to like Operating Systems and other CS concepts too, but sometimes I wonder what it would have been like the major in Electrical Engineering.
What if my interest is science and math?
I dont want to be some popsci pseudointellectual faggot. I want to be a real expert.
>>7715339
>mfw Secondary Science Education major
At least I'll have the summers off to enjoy my poverty.
>>7715743
It's just a bunch of NAND gates man.
I have always wanted to work in science. Cellular-level Biology is my favorite area, but I chose chemistry instead because its not as saturated, and there's no point getting a degree if you won't get a good job with it, may as well sit at home and read about it for free. I switched to ChemE, after seeing the salary stats, thinking it would still be a job where I "do chemistry" and make twice the money, but ChemE is boring af so I'm switching back to plain Chem.
>>7715337
>Do people choose degrees based on interests anymore?
Not everybody has the luxury of choosing their degree based solely on "muh passion". Honestly, if I had been born wealthy and money wasn't a concern, I'd probably be studying history. But I wasn't, so I'm studying EE, because it's interesting AND it offers plenty of well-paying job opportunities.
The idea that your career has to be something you’re passionate about is a millennial mindset. My grandfather retired from the railroad after busting his ass his entire adult life, and it sure wasn't because he had a passion for trains. Sometimes the career you choose is just a matter of practicality.
>>7715428
The only fuckin thing I know that is scientific and from Italy in Enrico Fermi
I'm a Computer Science and Physics major. I love what I study and I've already interned two different companies that both loved working with me.
I chose my major cause it interested me. I could make more money/be more secure as an engineer, but all I wanna do is study the options market.
I'm good enough at math to be engineer, but I would be bored.
>>7715337
If I studied what I enjoyed I probably wouldnt have a job.
I'm doing ee+math because I want to go on to grad school for applied math. So yeah, everything inteterests me. the option to go into a career instead of continuing to PhD is nice, although I think I will try for PhD.
>>7715981
Applied math is actually more difficult for me, but it's damn interesting.
>>7715919
Galileo was from Italy too but there isn't much more to it.
It's a country that prefers humanistic subject, like literature, philosophy and religion.
>>7715665
It's quite difficult. Let's say that you really have to love the subject. It's actually a mix of mathematical logic, CS and a bit of philosophy. Right now I study new algorithms and methods to improve the already existing IA protocols.
Thank you fellow anon!
>>7715337
>mfw like STEM
>mfw get a job i like AND pays well
>>7715337
You act like this is a bad thing. Would you rather more people be useless literature majors? We need more engineers
Well I'm studying physics, and I'm quite sure most of my fellow students do so because of interest
But yeah lots of people go for engineering because of muh big money 120k starting salary
I think very low of this, but I'm not really in a position to judge others so whatever
Fuck you, OP. Engineering IS my interest.
Why don't you fellas just go into frug dealing? Sure, it'll be shitty for a while, but think of all the money you'll eventually make?
>>7716549
Do you really want droves of shitty engineers?
>>7716914
Frug life
>>7716914
How much are frugs going for these days?
>>7715337
/sci/ always has a thread going where they can circle jerk about their superiority to people based on the majors people have.You can't bash people for choosing stupid majors they like and for choosing rewarding majors they have to work harder for.
>>7715343
Same, something like Civil looks boring as fuck to me, but I like that Chem E still teaches you actual science along the way.
Just finished my sophomore year as a CS major. At first I thought it was a terrible idea because I wasn't very good at math (Got a 61% in algebra) but I just finished Calc 1 with an A so I've been improving gradually. Taking calc 2 and intro to CS math next semester along with some cs classes.
Sometimes I wonder if I picked the right major, but I really don't have any passion or really even like anything so I figured CS was the way to go.
>>7717098
I love computer science, I'd do it even if it paid less than teaching. The programming is fun, it's like solving a puzzle.
If you take some higher level maths you can really do some creative stuff. All about getting as close as you can to that asymptotic. Some of the algorithms and theories are beautiful and elegant in their complexities.
I chose engineering because its quite versatile in today's job market, so on a purely pragmatic level it's a sound choice. But beyond that, I chose it because it's relatively easy and really interesting. Guess that just makes it a win-win situation since my passion lines up with a degree that just happens to be useful.
Most people here treat STEM degrees as some sort of compromise between what they know is a worthwhile investment and what they're truly passionate about. And for those people in particular, I can't relate or feel any sympathy for. If anything, they don't deserve it since those are the people whining about how calculus is difficult and shitting up threads in /sci/ with their general all around faggotry. Burn me at the stake if you'd like for sharing the same sentiment as Erdos did with regards to anyone who didn't do or like mathematics.
I think choosing a degree based on interests was a viable thing to do a few generations ago when college was much cheaper, but due to tuition hikes and the recession, college became less about "finding yourself" than it is about finding a job. But I'm not gonna go completely Deresiewicz on you and say that this is a step in the wrong direction. In a way this is good because pseudo-intellectual humanities majors are getting wrecked left and right regardless of tooting their "soft skills", "creativity", and "enlightenment" horns.
>>7717123
>In a way this is good because pseudo-intellectual humanities majors are getting wrecked left and right regardless of tooting their "soft skills", "creativity", and "enlightenment" horns.
You don't see any value in history, rhetoric, language, and art?
>>7717073
How much do Zoologists earn? I'm curious
>>7717141
I could sympathize in a very superficial standpoint
>heritage
> identity
>etc.
But i don't see a big deal with arts as compared to the Sciences
>>7717141
There's an important distinction in seeing no value in history, rhetoric, language and art and in seeing no value in attending college for those aforementioned things. If anything, I view those things as merely hobbies. They are important, but you'd find that the quality of work that turns up in those fields is really inconsistent - and the subjective nature of those fields makes it difficult for us to filter out what is important and what isn't.
There's a time and place for things like the humanities, but seeing as to how the open-endedness of those subjects have warped college kids into becoming rabid insane SJWs, I don't think that is what should be discussed in universities. If anything, humanities departments at universities these days are nothing more than leftist indoctrination centers and damaging higher education as a whole as a result of taking themselves too seriously.
We should stick to things that can be rigorously and strictly quantified and put those in priority over the subjective. Institutions of higher education should shift to fill a more pragmatic need, fulfilling the role of trade schools in today's environment, while aspiring artists, philosophers and humanities faggots in general should be encouraged to look for enlightenment on their own rather than be brainwashed by the singular truth of some department in a field where singular truths don't really exist. Same can't be said of science in general however, since it's quite mostly true that science is composed of a single dogma that works and thus can be espoused by a department without any agenda other than to educate.
>>7717168
>humanities faggots in general should be encouraged to look for enlightenment on their own rather than be brainwashed by the singular truth of some department in a field where singular truths don't really exist
You're talking out of your ass. It's not hard to tell you're still in high school. If you had ever taken a single college-level course, you'd know critical thinking is a huge part of the humanities.
Personally, the reason I chose electrical engineering was half of because I loved electronics and computers, and likewise, my father was a computer engineer, so all types of electronics always fascinated me. I didn't just want to play with some blinking LEDs in a plastic case, I wanted to build some kind of arm that would do something for me, make art more beautiful on a light level, or just make something that would help others altogether.
Sure, you could say lots of things have been invented, but I still love having the skill and I hope to see the field progress.
>>7715835
>TFW I live in Australia
>TFW I got an interest free Arts degree majoring in History that I don't need to pay back until I start earning 52k or over
>TFW the government paid me to do so and money wasn't an issue
I don't have a job, but I would do it all again.
>>7717168
Said an ignorant 18 year old who has never properly engaged in the Humanities. I challenge you to find one 'questionable' or 'bullshit' History journal article (assuming you actually do go to uni and aren't just a shittalking pleb). As the other anon said, the entire PURPOSE of the Humanities is to develop one's critical thinking and information synthesis skills to the highest possible level.
Yes, one can achieve this in the sciences, but the method that its approached is completely different and results in creating a different type of thinking.
>>7717174
It's hilarious to see how people will defend the humanities suggesting that the amount of "critical thinking" in the humanities is the same thing as the critical thinking in the hard sciences and mathematics, seemingly just by virtue of sharing the same buzzword.
But that's just a feature of language - as much as words communicate, they can obfuscate as well. Connotations, context, collocations can alter the meaning of any word. I'm not joking when I say you can create a case for anything using words. How else to politicians, trolls and debaters continue their work? Same can't be said of mathematics however; there aren't 10 ways to view a + sign, and it's the same regardless of what country you're from these days. It's almost as if the tower of Babel was a pillar of universal mathematical greatness before the words came along and people confounded one another.
It's therefore natural that all the critical thinking in the humanities, which use words as a staple of reasoning, really amounts to squat compared to the hard sciences. Hence you have all the needless arguments in philosophy, and economists who can't seem to figure out how the economy actually works,
And when someone actually comes by with an idea of how the economy works, it's usually a person with strong mathematical ability. Like Terence Tao for example, who's written some pretty hardcore papers on economics. Or the physics and engineering PhDs that run Wall Street using quantifiable models rather than vague notions as an economist might.
>>7717201
You literally have an autistic understanding of the world if you think that all critical thought should be distilled to a mathematical understanding.
>>7717159
The sciences are more useful, but they're more useful for letting us spend time on other things.
>“My mother explained the magic with this machine the very, very first day. She said, “Now Hans, we have loaded the laundry; the machine will make the work. And now we can go to the library.” Because this is the magic: you load the laundry, and what do you get out of the machine? You get books out of the machines, children’s books. And mother got time to read for me. She loved this. I got the “ABC.” This is where I started my career as a professor, when my mother had time to read for me. And she also got books for herself. She managed to study English and learn that as a foreign language. And she read so many novels, so many different novels here. And we really, we really loved this machine. And what we said, my mother and me, “Thank you industrialization. Thank you steel mill. Thank you power station. And thank you chemical processing industry that gave us time to read books.”"
The sciences are as interesting as any art, but they're only useful because they allow people to spend time on things they want to do. I like having a washing machine, and a heater, and a bus system, because it gives me the time to read up on math or practice my sketching or just waste time on video games. The arts don't give me free time, but the point of having free time is to spend it living my life in a way I find enjoyable. Putting science on a pedestal because it's useful is promoting progress for progress's sake.
>>7717200
It seems that you're overly eager to peck at my perceived lack of credentials than to actually engage any one of my points.
And what would a person as seemingly buttflustered as you know about critical thinking? You should know that emotions get in the way of critical thinking, but it's sad to know that emotions guide the thinking of many humanities majors. Quite pitiful indeed.
>As the other anon said, the entire PURPOSE of the Humanities is to develop one's critical thinking and information synthesis skills to the highest possible level.
Same can be said of underwater basket weaving really.
But to be completely serious, all the humanities really provides training for is the synthesis of one's ability to distort reality to fit whatever agenda that one is interested at the time being. Hence why humanities departments are overwhelmingly filled with overly emotional liberals and leftists. In a field where anything can be justified, it is easy to corrupt minds with various political agendas. And with so called "critical thinking" skills, one would justify the "truth" of their picking.
Even humanities at the college level is a joke, really. All one needs to do to get a passing grade is parrot whatever point of view the professor has. So much for "critical thinking".
Sorry, I'm not shelling out $100,000 for an "interest." I'm learning something marketable.
Then, on my own goddamn time, I can go ahead and read about and do stuff that interests me, which I would be doing at a university anyway, for much more money. Is that so hard to understand?
This isn't the students (our) fault. College expenses have become ridiculous and the new labor market is terrible, both thanks to baby boomers. I'm rolling with the punches.
>>7717216
>And what would a person as seemingly buttflustered as you know about critical thinking?
Enough to realize your arguments are bullshit.
>>7717205
Perhaps I am wrong and all critical thought should be condensed into a poem instead.
I'd like to view things from the point of a humanities major sometimes and pretend everything mathematical is intrinsically evil just as my Disney movies say.
>>7717223
Strawman. No one respond.
>>7717220
And you reached that conclusion with no train of thought. No capacity for discourse or argument. Where is this critical thinking you humanities apologists keep talking about?
All this proves is that you people are as illogical as I assumed.
>>7717226
>No one respond.
Or what? You might get hurt? It would help to use your brain from time to time and not simply hurl out buzzwords like "strawman". "Strawman" is not an argument, I'm sorry.
>>7717228
Not the guy you're responding to but dude you are literally autistic. Yes logic is crucial but the human experience expands further out than that. Logic is crucial for philosophy, but philosophy expands out into the subjective and attempts to discuss the human experience and reality.
I suggest you actually read some philosophy. Start with the Greeks.
P.s. note that I have not attempted to position one field above the other, philosophy over maths. They work in conjunction, and it is honestly disgusting and childish to say that maths is superior to Philosophy, or that History is more important than Zoology.
>>7717219
Same here and I honestly think being practical makes for better students, since they have more realistic expectations. The kids that end up failing out are the ones that have fantasies of sending a spaceship to Mars or working on AI for Google, but don't want to learn the boring stuff like math.
Besides, even if you don't begin the program with a natural interest in it, you'll develop an interest over time as you learn more about it.
>>7717229
I don't have as much beef with the humanities and philosophy itself as I do with pseudo-intellectual types that hide behind those disciplines to justify their "critical thinking". Or should I say, argument by closing their eyes and ears to any counterarguments.
That being said, I think philosophy is a field where any man's opinion is as good as that of any others. I'm familiar with some of the things the Greeks wrote, but I don't think they can or should be the definitive source for all things philosophical. As William James said, "“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”.
With regards to subjectivity, subjectivity is a function of one's self and experience. So where does that fit in into a scholarly discussion with others with differing experiences? Does it occur to you that in any serious academic setting it is important to leave out subjective details and count them as naught?
Thus I advocate philosophy and a majority of the humanities to be left out of a serious academic environment such as university and instead be encouraged as a personal pursuit, in order to aid one's own moral understanding of the world - whatever the fuck that might mean.
>>7717236
They do work in conjunction indeed, but mathematics is just a more formalized version of philosophy. It's no surprise that philosophers made their greatest contributions in mathematics and not philosophy, which remains relatively stagnant. An example of this would be Bertrand Russel. Therefore for anyone in a dilemma over which field to enter, I advise them to become a serious mathematician and have philosophy as a hobby - or a side hustle if you will.
And is it so childish to say something is better than the other? Or is it more childish to assume that everything and everyone is equal as in a just-world fallacy-esque worldview as advocated by Disney movies and the like?
Also,
>History
>Zoology
Shiggy
>>7717239
This is better, and finally constructive rather than inflammatory. However, I think it does show your lack of understanding. You say that 'anyone's opinion is philosophy', but if you had engaged in philosophy just for a moment you would see that this is completely untrue. If you wrote a philosophy paper, or attempted to argue a philosopher with 'just your opinion' and no deep understanding of philosophical thought you would be blown the fuck out. You'd fail your paper, the philosopher would embarrass you. Philosophical arguments must be supported by rigorous logic. Were talking academic philosophy, not pop philosophy. Kant, Hegel, Zizek. Its as rigorous as any other field, and requires formal academic instruction to come to a proper understanding of it.
I see your argument, but philosophy is not carpentry. Its a rigorous intellectual field that is just as profound and requires just as much instruction as something like Bio.
Furthermore, consider that your very cognitive state is the result of thousands of years of philosophical thought. From aesthetics, morality, and your understanding of existence and cognition itself. The thing that gets me about people who lambasted the Humanities is that it is arguable that they would not even be in a position to study science, or recognise why they believe that science holds such merit, without the thought processes and axioms established through the humanities.
>>7717244
Your implications just proved my point of childishness, and your incessance on this Disney trope is pretty indicative. Consider the pure state of ignorance you would be in if your entire understanding was mathematics. Just because it is the base field does not mean that it is more important. Its like saying that the metre is more important than the metre squared.
>>7717248
> If you wrote a philosophy paper, or attempted to argue a philosopher with 'just your opinion' and no deep understanding of philosophical thought you would be blown the fuck out
Does failing a paper in philosophy mean that the contents of said paper is indeed faulty? What does it mean to be faulty? Maybe what you wrote is simply too advanced for the current thought. Who knows? Who is to judge? Your advisor cannot prove or disprove that centuries later your work would become a staple of philosophy. There are many breakthroughs made by dead men after all...
>But philosophy is not carpentry
Disputable. But philosophically, everything is.
> requires just as much instruction as something like Bio
You couldn't pick a better example? I was thinking something that required more thinking than memorization.
>Furthermore, consider that your very cognitive state is the result of thousands of years of philosophical thought
So a bunch of old Greek men have shaped my mind without me ever having heard about them? My mind would sooner be ruled by girls having "deep" thoughts on tumblr or the stoned musing of an ancient Jamaican.
>thought processes and axioms established through the humanities
I'd argue that the axiomatic method was pioneered by Euclid. And his most well known work that introduced the axiomatic method to the masses was none other than a mathematical text.
>they would not even be in a position to study science, or recognise why they believe that science holds such merit
Science doesn't require justification since it is self evident and just works. That's the entire basis of its merit. The same can't be said of philosophy however, you'd have to come up with philosophical reasons for why philosophy is important. Which is quite ironic and would result in pointless speculation not unlike the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first.
>>7717244
>mathematics is just a more formalized version of philosophy
You cannot seriously be this dense.
>tfw science
>tfw my faggot school only cares about engineering and getting more chinese FObby fucks to fund it
>my fault but it's not encouraging
>>7717251
>Just because it is the base field does not mean that it is more important. Its like saying that the metre is more important than the metre squared.
That isn't exactly a very outlandish thought. After all we give the second time derivative of displacement the name "acceleration" and the first time derivative as "velocity" but the derivatives beyond acceleration are far less renowned or given attention to at all.
Considering that mathematics is the base field and that everything else is derivative, I don't see why it shouldn't but put above everything else.
>>7717282
My bad. I guess what I should be saying is that mathematics is philosophy without the stamp collecting.
The economic implosion is driving the career choices of many.
If my family had enough money I would have gone for medicine. I almost chose ChemE, I really liked chemistry, but I've thought more about it and went for physics instead.
>>7715363
This. They always go to business wtf
>>7715337
Intelligent people don't waste extremely valuable time and money getting degrees in things they like.
>>7715337
Yeah, I chose physics instead of engineering. Was it a mistake /sci/?
>>7717484
Enjoy business then
I chose eng in highschool because I thought civil would be interesting. After 1st year I decided civil is fucking boring so I guessed that I would enjoy ece. 3 semesters to go and I love what I'm doing. Had no idea about money in field.
>>7715337
I wanted to do physics but my dad convinced me to do EE for better job prospects
EE has not been able to get me a job so Im pretty peeved about that.
>>7717144
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes191023.htm
>>7715343
enjoy not getting internship
>>7715776
by the same token, physics is just a bunch of particles. Math is just a bunch of axioms.
>>7717062
The Chinese and Indian schools will take care of that, pumping out oceans of people who can only copy homework assignments and have no creativity or initiative.
>>7719005
I heard they fuckin hire people to write their college essays for them
>>7715337
I want to do something like animal biology and work in a zoo but I don't want to regret my life decisions so I might just do a trade like welding and make some money.
I just don't want to waste 60,000 in loans for no job.
I chose math out of interest.
I wanted to be a professor above all, the field wasn't that important. Chose math though because my AP credit would go the farthest and it was the subject I had some fun in. If I was to restart now, I would probably pick English, History, or Geology. When the end goal is to join academia, the degree is irrelevant as long as you can go the distance.
>>7715337
Should I risk picking something that I find interesting but doesn't have many jobs or pick something that's everywhere but I hate?
>>7719766
I chose the latter and deeply regretted it when it wasn't able to get me a job in the end.
>>7715835
underrated post
Here's your (You). Don't even mention it.
>>7715775
>At least I'll have the summers off to enjoy my poverty
Don't be surprised to see that get eliminated in the near future.
Enjoy your 12 hour work days all year round
>>7719737
This is very bad advice. Most fields have been overproducing PhDs for many years now. Your odds of getting a professorship in those fields is about equal to your chances of winning the lottery. However some fields, such as quantitative psychology and industrial design, have far more jobs as applicants. If all you care about is being a professor, you need to find out which fields are short on workers. (Just like any other job!)
>>7715377
>That's of course unless you graduated with a 2.5 GPA or something
In my undergrad, I graduated with a 2.35 GPA on a 9 point scale.
Now I'm almost done my masters and have already been accepted to do my PhD at McGill.
How does it feel knowing that grades mean nothing in comparison to knowing the right people.
>>7720301
it feels like someone would lie on the internet just to spite people.
>>7720005
Eh, not really. Remember "academia" includes all types of college and university, from community college to private research universities. Regardless of what field you go into, as long as you do well in your research, coursework, and networking, it isn't that hard to find SOME position.
>>7717075
You shut your whore mouth, Civil is fun as shit.
I spend most of my day making concrete cylinders fucking explode and ripping apart metal rods and it's awesome
I chose my major to challenge myself in something I'm not good at.
>>7717073
Do math majors and physics majors really do as well job wise as compsci and material science eng?
>>7721136
CSfag here. I know 4 physics majors who are programmers. 2 of them have Ph.Ds.
You can do well with a physics degree but, from what I hear, odds are you will not be doing anything related to physics.
>>7715337
I chose aerospace because I like rockets.
>>7715337
STEM only unless you want to be poor
>>7717073
>unbelievable tier
Why post the bait image?
>>7721177
Assuming Hotel Management makes you poor
Electrical Engineering major, I really enjoy the information so far. I'm a few classes into it (sophomore) and It's my actual interest. I don't really want to change my major, and if I did I would fall into research and probably try to stay in academia.
There is a lot of people that obviously don't care about the field and are just there because muh job security. I see most of them starting to fail, and many of them have already left the field.
I think it's fair to start off as engineering but the whole process is made to weed out people who don't care enough, so in the end I don't see it making much of a difference.
>>7718946
Already got one, faggot.
i have a shit major but at least i transferred from history after my first freshman semester
i saw some of the light at least
>>7715339
I have that same outlook. I honestly took a job that just pays my bills and the things I need, but still have the time to learn and take classes for the sake of learning something new.
Lately I've seen a increase in create your own degrees. Sure it's not money/credit worthy. But I think being able to create your own degree is like making a way to describe what you learned in one label. I've seen a lot of hobbiest get what they want out of what they love, without needing to follow an educational standard.
>>7720902
Maybe that's because you're just challenged in general, anon.
>>7715337
I was open to studying a lot of things at the end of high school, I seriously considered psychology, comp sci, philosophy, physics, applied math, economics, but I ended up picking EE since I didn't want to go into academia, which removes most of those as viable options, and I didn't have enormous preferences with what was left. I figured that I would just pick the one that was the most employable and profitable. I still go through the reading lists of universities and read their curriculum on my own. Granted it isn't at an academically rigorous level, but I do it because I enjoy it and I'd rather leave my interest my literature, philosophy and film studied as a hobby that I enjoy at my own leisurely pace.
>>7715363
Spring chicken 18 year old here. Do i fall under this category if i just generally wish to continue studying math and physics and wish to apply them?
>>7717123
>Burn me at the stake if you'd like for sharing the same sentiment as Erdos did with regards to anyone who didn't do or like mathematics.
What sentiment?
>>7720005
>Most fields have been overproducing PhDs for many years now.
Source?
>>7721856
Like Ph.D. in hotel management?
People choose degrees for a wide variety of reasons.
>>7721963
I chose hotel management solely because i wanted to manage a hotel, it was always my dream. If's something that at first i had my criticism and skepticism about, but what everyone didn't know was that it was a hidden gem. I'm able to increase my social skills communicating with various numbers of people, the chinese, the korean and even Bangladehis but those are less frequent. Definitely give it a try, others believe that this is a business degree, but i personally believe this is a Science degree because it involves a lot of axioms about how hotels work, hotels are unlike other businesses a business that works based on principle, if you know how to apply those principle you should do fine, that's why there's so many successful hotels across the world now, swissotel, Hilton Hotel and the Shangri-La, definitely give it a try 10/10 in my opinion.
>>7717280
>So a bunch of old Greek men have shaped my mind without me ever having heard about them?
Actually yeah, their ideas were pretty influential in how the big cultures of the world developed. The world you live in today and thus the experiences you've had would almost certainly be different to a reasonable degree without them. And if your experiences in life were different, you would have different opinions about things.
>>7722277
"their ideas were pretty influential in how the big cultures of the world developed."
>no supporting examples given
"the experiences you've had would almost certainly be different to a reasonable degree without them."
>mfw "almost certainly" and still a lack of support
You better back this shit up senpai because you just made a series of unqualified claims on the most autistic board imaginable.
>>7718977
Truth.
>>7715393
That's not true. The amount of engineering graduate has been higher the past three years. Even in the per capita basis. People these days are swarming STEM becuase muh six figure salary.
>>7717201
Its pretty obivous you never set foot in a college campus. You're still a snot nose high-schooler. Here is a newsflash, engineering is paid shit in the real world. Sales people make more than engineers. This is a fact. Nursing make more than engineers. Logistics folk make a boatload of money and swim in cash with their sigma six certs.
>DURRR HURRRRRRRRRR Injueerring is da future and I wilz makz 400k
I can expect a typical sperglord reply.
>>7717484
Intelligent people study whatever the fuck they want and learn a marketing skill at the same time. Its quite common to see liberal arts kids getting programming jobs because they studied coding on their own.
>>7722587
>>7717073
>cyber security
>good tier
bait?
>>7715337
Engineering students are some of the most boorish cunts on campus because of it, especially the zero-interest streams like civil and structural. Constantly dropping "muh (completely fantastic) starting salary" seemingly in an effort to reaffirm their otherwise dull and meaningless choice.
