I'm starting to reliase that all majors except for mathematics and physics are vanity majors or wageslave majors. Either thye're like enigneering: designed to act as a conveyor belt for unfortunate youths from school to wageslavery such as engineering / finance careers, or vanity stuff like english, biology, chemistry, huamnities, arts: a 4 year country club experience where a pretense of learning is instilled yet nothing rigorous ever takes place.
I'm unsure where to put computer science. It ranges from maths / physics tier to wageslave tier, depending on the course and university.
>chemistry
>vanity
I don't understand
>>7719756
ok, maybe wage slave if you go in to rgaduate work, but it's vanity. It's like the dumbest people go in to it in the hope of seeming like smart stem people.
I did math because I'm literally too stupid to do anything else
>>7719756
Chemistry is like astronomy. It is science that looks 'cool' to the kids because of the kkraazzyeey reactioonnss m8. Chem majors probably have the attention span of a goldfish. If they didn't they would take something more pure.
>>7719753
Math is the ultimate vanity degree.
The majority end up teaching primary school or doing some bullshit in finance or IT unrelated to SEM because a bachelors in math is one of the easiest degrees to get.
People want to be associated with the more prestigious and difficult to obtain STEM degrees like engineering, but they didn't meet the minimum entry requirements to the engineering college so they do math degrees instead, but end up not getting a STEM job anyway.
Engineering isn't about "salaries" it's about the fact that they are the ones who actually get to work in STEM which is why the salaries are so high in the first. Physics is similar to math only for more ambitious people who are trying to transfer into the engineering college because they didn't get in directly.
Everyone in this thread is a literal waste of flesh.
Kill yourselves.
>>7719770
Why must you be so unkind.
>>7719769
Having entry requirements says it all, there are too much engineers and a little bit of engagement will get you the degree, so theres the need of artificially keeping the absolvents number low
>>7719753
You have no use for math/physics without engineering in society so you're not making any sense. People with engineering degrees can do whatever they'd like and have more options than someone with a maths or physics degree. A guy with a physics or maths undergraduate is not useful in any way to anything in the field they're studying. A guy in an engineering major can actually do things while they're still an undergraduate student, let alone when they're graduated with the degree. If you're paying for university at all, you'd be an idiot to go for a degree that doesn't allow you to utilize what you're learning as soon as possible.
Physics and maths guys do nothing that 99% of people care about other than once in a while designing the mental tools that the engineers use to make actual tools on a daily basis/whatever you get it i said that to make this sound cool faggots shut up
>>7719769
Typical faggot with the delusion that engineering is the only valid STEM path.
Lets do this point by point, shall we.
>The majority end up teaching primary school
False. Surveys show that 20% of graduates en dup working teaching high school, not primary school. And this 20% figure is the same for software, which is STEM. The rest of the 60% is scattered across finance and many, many other things. It truly is the degree that allows for the most extensive career options.
>bullshit unrelated to SEM
So what you fucking faggot? There are a bunch of people in finance making double your salary you kek. Seriously, this argument infuriates me because it assumes that math majors are so autistic that they want to do science. No, we want money. And we make more than you. Anyways, even in finance you will be closely working with mathematics and that is STEM you sperg.
>bachelors in math is one of the easiest degrees to get.
This argument is pointless. You obviously take engineering. I obviously take pure mathematics. You say that my major is easy and I would say that yours is easy. None of us would win because we don't know what the other's position is like. But even then, pure mathematics is the only undergrad degree that teaches things that were discovered after the fucking 1800s.
> the fact that they are the ones who actually get to work in STEM
Huge fucking lie. I already answered it with pure mathematics but there are so many more degrees that allow you to work in STEM and earn more than you keks.
>inb4 you have no statistics to back that up!!1111!!!111
Yeah and neither did you so I'm not going to bother to google my sources. You can do that yourself because I've actually seen these graphs and know what I'm talking about. Do you?
>>7719773
It has higher requirements because it has a much higher course load and is therefore more difficult to succeed in, not because it's in more demand, despite having higher requirements it also has a larger dropout rate and most objective analysis shows that it's the most difficult major at most universities.
>>7719776
>Typical faggot
>ad hominem
Stopped reading right there.
>>7719782
How are you so dense? How don't you realize that your entire post was an ad hominem on math majors.
Engineers these days man. Also, very convenient that you stopped reading right there. Of course you did.
>>7719776
Who's side are you even on?
>Surveys show that 20% of graduates en dup working teaching high school,
Oh wow, really only 1 in 5 graduates.
>. Surveys show that 20% of graduates en dup working teaching high school, not primary school. And this 20% figure is the same for software, which is STEM. The rest of the 60% is scattered across finance and many, many other things.
Right, but you might as well have studied IT or gotten an associates in CS to get the same job.
> It truly is the degree that allows for the most extensive career options.
Are you serious? You do realize that engineers can do finance too, only you are considered a failure if you do it because it's soul crushingly boring work and lower salaries than engineering.
Also trying to turn the fact that most math graduates end up in loser jobs as
>look at muh extensive career options
is fucking hilarious.
>So what you fucking faggot?
So it turns only engineering majors are passionate about wanting a to work in SEM for a living and you actually only care about money and a career. Who's the vanity faggot now?
>There are a bunch of people in finance making double your salary you kek.
Myth. Look up the actual salaries, finance is 50-60k, even top wall street firms have sub 6 figure salaries due to overstaturation.
>And we make more than you.
You objectively don't. Look at the salary data. Only actuaries make as much as engineers, but still make less than petroleum, ChemE PhDs etc. Math is at around 23rd below most normie degrees.
>Anyways, even in finance you will be closely working with mathematics and that is STEM you sperg.
At best you get assigned to SPDEs (and you won't) which are boring, you are literally working with less advanced mathematics than most engineers do which is saying something.
>>7719776
Any physics undergrad will learn quantum mechanics and general relativity, both developed in the 1900s.
>>7719771
because he's right
this place is a cesspool
>>7719753
Meh bait, probably new on board?
6.5/10 for the effort
>>7719776
>This argument is pointless.
No it's not, one objectively has more coursework. Engineering takes most of your courses verbatim as peripheral to it's own degree. Engineering is objectively more difficult. You want to avoid this argument because you know you have no footing to speak of. Math is way way easier than engineering and even professors in math admit that at an undergrad level. Only students on the internet with fragile little egos get butthurt about it.
>But even then, pure mathematics is the only undergrad degree that teaches things that were discovered after the fucking 1800s.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that? Do you know anything about other majors at all? My third year chem sol thermo concerned results from a paper published in the 70s. Physics and certain engineering students obviously study QM which wasn't around before the 1800s. You're retarded.
>I already answered it with pure mathematics but there are so many more degrees that allow you to work in STEM and earn more than you keks.
I was specifically talking about Engineering and Math, and code monkeying isn't our idea of STEM. Working on designs or in research is.
You know, the best part about your rant is that in the OP you were whining about how supposedly engineers only care about salary, and the very first thing you tried to was "but muh finance salary is higher than yours!"
Pathetic family. Your jealously could not be more blatant.
>>7719776
>math earns more than engies
Kek
Math grad from Berkeley, here.
Am published and had a 3.72
i'm a code monkey making 60k a year, and most of my peers don't have jobs
>>7719792
Just going to leave this here.
https://career.berkeley.edu/Survey/2014Majors
Average salaries:
Math 84k
MechE 72k
NukeE not enough data for them, the sad fucks.
EE 108k
Civil 62k
Not even gonna comment on it. Just going to post the data.
>>7719802
No, you take a few undergrad math courses and spread them over several years of engineering courses. Doing anything beyond superficial undergrad courses is probably beyond the ability of most engineers.
>>7719812
Not going to comment on this, just going to post NATIONAL data with more than fucking 30 sample points.
>>7719800
ur mom is a cesspool for dick
>>7719815
>>7719812
>>7719814
Try learning about other fields before commenting, engineers are ahead of math majors in applied math because they don't need to take more rigorous analysis courses.
Engineers do PDEs and numerical analysis by second year while math doesn't usually start PDEs until 3rd year.
Engineers do control theory (involving complex and harmonic analysis etc) by senior year while most math majors either never take it, or start it only in grad-school.
Engineers do optimization by senior year which again most majors either never take, or only do as grad-school electives.
But math isn't even 20% of the engineering coursework and is considered the "easy A" courses in engineering compared to the more difficult engineering core modules.
>>7719822
kinda this, some non-math courses go broader earlier than math but math courses will go deeper and will cover everything eventually
please note the >some
ARE YOU AWARE, POST SECONDARY EDUCATION LAYS THE FOUNDATIONS OF PROLETARIAN EXPERTISE IN MANAGING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, SO IN THE MIDST OF OF THESE APOCALYPTIC TIMES IT MAY TAKE CONTROL OF THE WORLD?
sniffs nose
>>7719822
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
This fucking post is such a fucking gigantic bunch of lies.
>Engineers do PDEs and numerical analysis by second year while math doesn't usually start PDEs until 3rd year.
LOL NO. Most universities, at least in the U.S., do not have numerical analysis or PDEs for engineers. Many of them don't even require PDEs or numerical analysis for mathematics majors (i.e. they're electives). And for those that do include them, they are 3rd/4th year courses.
>Engineers do control theory (involving complex and harmonic analysis etc) by senior year while most math majors either never take it, or start it only in grad-school.
Why the FUCK would mathematicians give a flying fuck about control theory unless it is their sole area of focus? And big fucking deal, only EEs, and perhaps MEs, take a 4th year control theory course that is MODIFIED for engineering.
>Engineers do optimization by senior year which again most majors either never take, or only do as grad-school electives.
LOL NO. Even most mathematics majors don't take optimization.
Most of your post is full of fucking bullshit, unless you attend ETH Zurch or Ecole Polytechnicque.
>>7719855
>Math majors don't even do this.
I know, that's what I said, why else do you think we have such a low opinion of you? You are behind us even on the math itself.
>>7719822
>>7719824
>layman, shitty "explanations" of more advanced math topics without knowing the prerequisites, the formality or the actual ideas and theorems means you're going "ahead" of math majors
>Some examples:
>PDEs where you mindless chuck methods without knowing why or how the work, stumped when you are given a problem that isn't "APPLY THE LATEST TRANSFORM WE LEARNED :^)"
>control theory done without knowing even real analysis and fucking daring to call it "complex and harmonic analysis" kill yourself seriously I don't even want to joke about you doing this it makes me angry
>optimization aka "APPLY SIMPLEX, APPLY DUAL, WHY DOES IT WORK? WHEN DOES IT FAIL? WHO KNOWS! IT WORKS ON THE TEST! WHAT DO YOU MEAN A COMPUTER CAN DO THIS TOO?"
>>7719855
Numerical analysis or at least numerical methods is actually a requirement for an engineering degree to be accredited.
My university is rated somewhere between 400-500 and we started PDEs second year (Separation of Variables and D'Alembert only, built from there) second year. I really don't see how you can do something heat transfer without having solved at least the proto-typical PDEs before, Cengel's heat and mass transfer textbook, which is a third year subject for most engineers, require you to know how to find the analytical solutions of non-homogeneous parabolic and elliptic linear PDEs as easy as you would a single variable integral. It's impossible to follow the dynamic chapters without previous exposure.
Do American universities really have such low standards as you are suggesting? I'd like to hear it from someone who isn't on a butthurt rampage, but I know you just don't know you are full of shit anyway because I have plenty of friends in the US that used Cengel for heat transfer.
>>7719855
The reasons for your rebuttal are really off. What kind of fucking degree in math are you taking where you don't take optimization or diff eqs? Harmonic analysis is acceptable not to take, complex variable I'd say not really.
>>7719878
There's a pretty big difference between doing applied methods in PDEs for engineers (where you simply apply magical objects and they promise you they're going to work) and doing PDEs as a math subject (where you prove the main results in the field, hopefully in the context on functional analysis, and gain an understanding of how, why and when things work)
Anyway I'm really surprised with what he described too, see >>7719883
This Us vs Them mentality is short sighted. I've personally noticed the physics people that spout this bullshit about other fields when to undergraduate schools where they were not required to take even basic undergraduate chemistry. Thankfully the few mathematicians I've ran into have been pretty well adjusted people and see value in other fields. I don't know how insular the environment you operate in, but the core sciences cooperate all the time and some of their most profound advancements have come from working together, rather than shit talking in ivory towers.
>>7719822
Math courses in engineering aren't half as rigorous as Math courses for actual Math majors.
>>7719822
Lol.
>>7719877
Alright I fully admit I put analysis in there just to bait OP (which is the purpose of most of my posts ITT, faggots like OP deserve it), but also it's not like we just blindly learn methods either, we always derive every PDE we use and there are usually some epsilon-delta proofs examined etc. We learn as much as we need to, it's not just blindly plugging methods, we understand the principles behind, just not in the most formal way it can be. And also undergrad math isn't always formal either, the first exposure to a subject uses the exact same textbooks we do, only in junior to grad-school level coursework do they really start going in depth.
Formality is not important to us and our field doesn't actually rely on the foundations of mathematics to be valid either. There's a reason Mathematics degrees exist in the first place. The extent of modern knowledge is such that no one can learn it all in one life time and team work is required. You will all need to collaborate at some point eventually. And trying to associate inherent superiority of a "degree" is retarded not only because there are people out there graduating other degrees who in self study have become better at your field than you are, but there also Stacey's who get Mathematics degrees to be a high-school teacher (and Chads in engineering who become IT code monkeys etc.).
However, this shit needs to end. This is a weekly fucking thread
>Hurr pure math mustard race, enjineers are stoopid xD
>*Engineer enters thread and crushes delusion*
>W-hwat? You d-don't think I'm smarter than you just because I study math,
>y-you're just an idiot who doesn't know how hard math is for me!
>Waaaah why are engineers so arrogant and mean waaah.
Every. Fucking. Week.
>>7719862
Yeah, and neither do most engineers. I'm an EE/math double major, you sperg.
>>7719878
Nope. I'm at an accredited school (and ranked higher than 400-500 worldwide). EEs here are not required to take any kind of numerical methods course.
We don't have to take PDEs either. We do Calc 1 - 3, ODEs, linear algebra, and a course in probability. There were some PDEs introduced in some upper level EE courses and E&M, but the solutions were explained as needed.
>I'd like to hear it from someone who isn't on a butthurt rampage
Not even raging. That guy is just plain fucking wrong.
>>7719883
A normal math degree. Most math majors at most schools do not have to take ANY fucking optimization. And, usually, complex variables is an elective course. The "core" mathematics major courses are calc 1 - 3, ODEs, analysis, an advanced course in linear algebra, and abstract algebra. Everything else is usually, at most schools, left as an elective for students to choose. At my school, you can either take a more pure route and take courses like topology, diff geometry, number theory, etc. or take a more applied route and do courses on numerical methods, PDEs, etc. But its left to the student to do those as electives.
>>7719959
>I'm an EE/math double major,
Timestamped proof of registration or bullshit.
You're a pure math student by your own admissions and you don't even know that ABET requires any accredited course to have a dedicated numerical class.
>>7719959
>upper level EE courses and E&M
E&M is a second year course you fucking idiot. You're lying out of your ass and you didn't even bother to check up a curriculum. Fuck off.
>>7719959
>Most math majors at most schools do not have to take ANY fucking optimization. And, usually, complex variables is an elective course. The "core" mathematics major courses are calc 1 - 3, ODEs, analysis, an advanced course in linear algebra, and abstract algebra. Everything else is usually, at most schools, left as an elective for students to choose.
Math major here, can confirm that this is true at my school too. The thing is though, the core requirements for the math degree are really meant for people intending on doubling with something (usually CS or Econ). Every math major I know who isn't doubling is taking way math classes than just the core requirements for no reason other than that we want to learn it. That being said, I have plenty of friends in engineering and they were all pretty happy to be getting done with Calc III or DiffEQs so that they never have to take an actual math class again (probability isn't required as far as I know, though there may be a specialized course for engineers that I just don't know about). PDE's are touched on in their engineering courses even close to the same way they are in the actual PDE for math majors class.
OP here. There's a guy on sci who literally lies by saying that engineers take ALL classes that physicists / chemists take PLUS many more engineering ones. This guy is shameless.
>>7719997
Shut the fuck up OP, you've already been BTFO in your own thread, just surrender with grace.
>>7719784
>Of course you did.
Engineers are sensitive people.
Their feelings get in the way of sound logic and relationships, in general.
>>7719916
I'm just happy to see you won't shit on math majors in return. We're not all retarded like OP here. You're absolutely right. We take Abstract Algebra, Analysis, more advanced courses in Linear Algebra and Discrete Math with courses in Complex and Numierica Analysis if we choose or depending on the school. I've taken engineering classes and they tend to learn vector calc, PDE's, numerical methods etc if not in a class on the fly anyway. The math engineers and math majors take at a lot of schools tend to be disjoint.
Engineers itt think they take a ode class and a mathmethods class and it makes them as good as a math major, such delusion.
>>7719997
>guy
I'm a girl actually.
>>7719979
>E&M is a second year course
Well that depends. If you mean intro to E&M that could be a 2nd year course (first in some cases). An E&M course that would require griffiths entire text usually span over 1-2 semesters in 3rd year depending on your school.
>>7719916
Your intention to stop these threads is absolutely right, but saying engineers are ahead of math majors in applied math is just bullshit for the reasons I said earlier.
If you can't write it, you don't really understand it. That's something that they teach majors in the first semesters.
But this isn't a useful discussion. The concept of "understanding" you need for engineering is very different than the one you need for mathematics, and there's a good reason for that. You want to jump to applying stuff as early as possible, and careers are different.
Just don't reply to trash with trash, go directly to the "majors are different and complementary" point.
>>7719762
Do you know anything about chemistry? Contrary to popular belief, we aren't just making that sciency looking piece of glassware holding that red liquid turn green.
>>7720120
No he doesn't, he is a scared little math major that desperately wants to believe his field is all there is to the world. Hench this thread.
>wow I'm having a hard time completing my degree + look at all the stuff I can explain with it! That must mean I'm superior in every way! Move out of the way chemist! Why would a lab hire you when they could hire a math/physics major? Back off finance! Why would they even consider you when I'm on the table? Fuck off engineers! You only learn the basics and therefore I am far more qualified.
This would have been a serious reply, but I already did so for the other 10+ math/engineering superiority threads.
Either major if you're an undergrad you're probably an idiot unless you've actually gone and achieved something to prove yourself. No portion of the undergrad curriculum of any major is difficult enough to qualify as proving yourself.
>>7719753
you realise there are people who actually enjoy engineering right? building cool shit is fun
>>7719910
This. Do Engineers have o prove the equation or algorithm works possibly use that in another equation? NO. But I , a pure math major, have to do that all the time. Anyone that says it's easy. take fucking Analysis 1 & 2. You'll see that you're full of shit. I fucking had to prove that real line could be constructed from the rationals. That's eons ahead of the plugging and chugging involved in engineering. It takes way more creativity and logic to pursue a pure math major than any engineering major.
>>7720036
I think most US schools require a certain number of upper level math electives that would be filled by classes like those. Mine does, anyway.
>>7720892
First, it's not a contest. Second, engineers still have to solve problems without plugging and chugging when it comes to building/designing something.
>>7720892
>engies don't bother proving shit that's known to be true
>buncha fags
>muh cauchy sequences
>muh dedekind cuts
quit crying, you fucking baby.
be honest with yourself, and admit that pretty much every non-trivial proof you've ever written has been an informal argument that uses technical language. but, that's okay. if you didn't avail yourself of the option to write informally, you'd never get anything done. if an engineer insisted on proving every theorem that his tools relied on, neither would he.
engineers abuse math to the same extent that mathematicians abuse logic.
We're just treating comp sci like an offshoot of math, right?
Also, how the fuck are Chemistry or Biology "vanity stuff"? Those are still very much sciences, and I have a bit of respect for them, because the amount of work you have to do for those courses is fucking brutal and tedious.
>looking into biology and chemistry
Should I turn back?
>>7721103
You should probably turn back from anything that a random retard on the internet can turn you away from.
Advisors are good people to ask for advice, hence the name.
>>7721110
There's some validity to that, but it's difficult to judge my future in a field when I have barely begun.
>>7719762
Confirmed for never taking chemistry. 99% of reactions in chemistry are mixing white powders and clear liquids then doing a bunch of math to figure out what happened.
>>7719762
Bait, but I'll bite. Chemistry weeds out most of these people by before uni with thermo and quantum mechanics (not hard, dense and math-based enough to turn many away).
Then you get into uni with O chem (fast-paced and manageable, but turn even more away), P chem (good luck with weak math), and inorganic chem.
Too much bullshit to go through for 'vanity.' Might as well go study biology.
(jk I love you biologists)
>>7721118
If you're aiming for natural sciences, you'll need some chemistry either way. You'll know if it's what you really want soon enough.
I liked Chem, but Bio bored me to tears. Only CC class I ever got a C in.
>>7721128
And inevitably finding out that you fucked up royally somewhere.
Enjoy the B, fag lord!
>come over from /sp/ because MNF is shit tonight and i should be studying for Data Mining final
>haven't been on /sci/ in a while, let's see what's going
>first thread i see is this whiny >wageslave post that's putting all majors into the shit except the two least employable majors in STEM
>le probable college dropout OP has the world figured out and wants to place where the last degree, comp sci, goes in his shit-list
Being a comp sci who goes to an engi school, I have never heard the term "vanity major". What abysmal wasteland do you live in that such a term depicts a large enough slice of the population for it to be a term in the first place? Especially in STEM. Lmao
I-I guess the Gnats/Phins game isn't so bad after all...
>>7721142
>Being a comp sci who goes to an engi school
Oh cool, that's the setup I'm going for!
Comp sci at UIUC's college of engineering.
I have my calc and physics all squared off. All I have left before the transfer is an intro to discrete.
What kind of shit did you learn, after data structures and discrete math?
>>7719753
I think you should stick computer science right up your ass
>>7721142
Those dolphins unis are sooooo nice though
>>7720022
>>7721140
This. A good part of chemistry is basically physics
>inb4 all science is basically physics
>>7719753
Then what tier is math and physics? What use do theoretical stuff have for anything?
>>7719802
Here anon, I made a venn diagram that actually reflects reality
![Comfy_guy[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8VGzc2R.jpg "Comfy_guy[1].jpg")
I just take a lot of pleasure in knowing that, no matter what your major is, if you're the kind of faggot that spends your time arguing about what major is the most prestigious or which one earns the most -- as opposed to spending time studying to gain mastery of your subject and making real-world connections for graduate school or careers -- then you're a neurotic doormat who will spend the rest of his life in mediocrity. Have fun always blaming others for your own failures while desperately clinging on to a pathetic narcissistic illusion for the sake of your own ego. Cheers fellas.
>>7721071
Engineering wouldn't exist without the theoretical framework that mathematics provides. Of course there's going to be some degree of imprecision in any proof; people aren't computers. But if it wasn't for extremely basic theory that any good mathematician should know like the back of his hand (linear algebra, analysis, logic) then engineering would be dead in the water.
>>7721222
Everyone knows math is the easiest major. At most universities, the sciences department has non-competitive admission while engineering requires sciences in high school. Furthermore, math majors tend to sleep 9 hours / night and have girlfriends. Everyone knows that this is a sign of a not serious major.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-study-math-at-Caltech
>>7719782
there's such a demand and dropout rate because there are a lot of dumb fags who think engineering is prestigious and cool and gets you at least a decent salary. They try and fail. There's just a tiny amount of people who study math because they have the illusion to pick up girls with it.
Math is the most difficult because you have to use your mind.
Engineering is difficult because it's much.
Physics is kind of a mixture... more than math but more demanding than engineering and less demanding than math.
Some people are good at one but not the other. Some at both, some at none. I personally think i'd be better of with math (would be easier for me) but i like how physics makes me able to understand technical things easily. Learning things from an engineering background is very easy then.
>>7719822
srsly all of these things (besides maybe optimization) are in the first 2 years. Control theory is very easy to understand if you know the basics (which engineers mostly don't)
Most of you will be doing the same job in 10 years so who gives a fuck.
>>7719769
>bachelors in math is one of the easiest degrees to get
Depends so much on the programme. If you live in USA were math teacher and pure mathematicians take classes together in the bachelor, then yes. If you however take pure math as a seperate degree, then absolutely no.
Maths done the right way is the hardest thing there is.
>Chemistry
>Biology
>Vanity
