Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440
and again, must emphasize the point, comparing imperial's jobs and starting salary to other universities focussed primarily on ACADEMIC RESEARCH is bullshit use of statistics. imperial is, functionally, something between a medicine school and an engineering/practical science school. you can't compare imperial's average starting salary even to a powerhouse like oxford, because 50% of oxford graduates aren't people finishing medical school and going on to become full-salaried doctors!

Last edited by Uzique (2011-11-08 13:24:47)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6548|Columbus, OH

blademaster wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Official threads are lame, it's not like people post that often about their problems. Just let them have individual threads.
I dont give a fuck... plus there are number of official threads on here they seem to be doing ok...
This is the first time I saw BM swear :
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5931|Places 'n such
Anyone know anything about fermats principle? My optics lecturer is shite.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:

Anyone know anything about fermats principle? My optics lecturer is shite.
Have fun with that
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5931|Places 'n such
He speaks in a monotone, the lectures monday morning 9-12 and by about half 10, 2/3rds of the class will be asleep. He doesn't even notice, the guy who sits next to me was snoring last week.
The textbook is shite to.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440
perhaps he's research focussed and doesn't care about teaching. a lot of profs are like that. it's your education, isn't it?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6075|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique wrote:

and again, must emphasize the point, comparing imperial's jobs and starting salary to other universities focussed primarily on ACADEMIC RESEARCH is bullshit use of statistics. imperial is, functionally, something between a medicine school and an engineering/practical science school. you can't compare imperial's average starting salary even to a powerhouse like oxford, because 50% of oxford graduates aren't people finishing medical school and going on to become full-salaried doctors!
50% of Imperial graduates don't become Doctors, more like 5-10%. Plus first year Doctors essentially earn nothing, so if anything they'd skew the figures downwards.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440
first-year doctors earn a hella lot more than 'average' first-year graduates (i.e. menial office donkey) in anything else, dilbert, and you know that. the fact still stands that you're comparing employment/salary statistics from a highly specialised and (by comparison) vocationally-focussed institution, to broader academic universities. are you really contesting that imperial is more 'employable', overall, than an oxbridge degree? of course it isn't. imperial just plays a niche and plays it well, because that is all it does. same with LSE. same with SOAS. same with goldsmiths, and a lot of other smaller and specialised university of london institutions. they are extremely strong in their respective fields but not-so-much in the broader academic/work work (LSE is obviously the standout exception, because it's specialisation is economics and business, and the outside workplace is, uh, well, market capitalist, so obviously an economics school is going to flourish academically and in a working environment).
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6075|eXtreme to the maX
Not all graduates become menial office donkeys, Junior Doctors pay was low to average for graduates and is about average these days.

Imperial also produces swathes of 'academic' graduates too, Maths and pure science graduates for example. That they're also highly employable because they have good maths skills and experience of hard analytical work is not my fault.

Imperial isn't all work-ready drones, even the engineering degrees were far more academic than in any way practical - especially compared with most other unis.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6686
Bachelor of English is just pissy that his brethren aren't pay as much as math and science "nerds."
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5931|Places 'n such
Meh, research pays fuck all for graduates to. Not to mention you have to have a Phd and do shitty unpaid internships before even landing a job.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440

presidentsheep wrote:

Meh, research pays fuck all for graduates to. Not to mention you have to have a Phd and do shitty unpaid internships before even landing a job.
post-doctoral research jobs in the arts and humanities start at £26k and you don't have to do any shitty industry blowjobbing or 'workplace' internships.

and cybargs what are you talking about? of all the people i know that graduated in my class, the eng lit majors are in the best jobs. from a social group of about 40-50 people i only know a handful of science/math graduates that are even in work. most are taking a freebie master's degree (which the scientists are a lucky bunch to get) because the jobs market is so shitty and they couldn't find anything. the rest have taken lab placements or research posts that don't pay hardly anything. i don't know where this idea comes from that its the science/maths grads that take all the best business jobs because of their 'analytical' skills. every other degree is 'analytical' too - what isn't analytical about forming a cogent 15,000 word argument from a year's worth of reading material? what isn't analytical about synthesizing two approaches together? analysis is a philosophical concept as much as a logical one. granted, maths/science grads will suck up the actuarial and pure numbers types jobs in the city... but those types of jobs only appeal to maths/science grads. i don't want to work as a number cruncher in an office, even if the graduate pay is good.

at the end of the day this is dilbert's same old tired schtick about 'my choices in life were ultimately the best, all other disciplines and approaches are bullshit and will never merit as much happiness and wealth as i have found' (evident in a childless 40-something man belitting university age students on a computer gaming forum, and arguing the same 2 stock arguments about israel-palestine and america's evil in some faux-intellectual debate subforum). chill out dilbert, there are many other career ladders out there that pay a hefty sum of money that don't involve non-euclidean geometry or accountancy skills.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Uzique wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Meh, research pays fuck all for graduates to. Not to mention you have to have a Phd and do shitty unpaid internships before even landing a job.
post-doctoral research jobs in the arts and humanities start at £26k and you don't have to do any shitty industry blowjobbing or 'workplace' internships.

and cybargs what are you talking about? of all the people i know that graduated in my class, the eng lit majors are in the best jobs. from a social group of about 40-50 people i only know a handful of science/math graduates that are even in work. most are taking a freebie master's degree (which the scientists are a lucky bunch to get) because the jobs market is so shitty and they couldn't find anything. the rest have taken lab placements or research posts that don't pay hardly anything. i don't know where this idea comes from that its the science/maths grads that take all the best business jobs because of their 'analytical' skills. every other degree is 'analytical' too - what isn't analytical about forming a cogent 15,000 word argument from a year's worth of reading material? what isn't analytical about synthesizing two approaches together? analysis is a philosophical concept as much as a logical one. granted, maths/science grads will suck up the actuarial and pure numbers types jobs in the city... but those types of jobs only appeal to maths/science grads. i don't want to work as a number cruncher in an office, even if the graduate pay is good.

at the end of the day this is dilbert's same old tired schtick about 'my choices in life were ultimately the best, all other disciplines and approaches are bullshit and will never merit as much happiness and wealth as i have found' (evident in a childless 40-something man belitting university age students on a computer gaming forum, and arguing the same 2 stock arguments about israel-palestine and america's evil in some faux-intellectual debate subforum). chill out dilbert, there are many other career ladders out there that pay a hefty sum of money that don't involve non-euclidean geometry or accountancy skills.
The UK is a weird place if the goal for science and math degree holders is to end up in a lab doing research. IJS.

Most of my classmates got jobs in the private sector at engineering firms, on ships in the engine room, or at power plants. Those jobs all pay well, and are usually in demand even during a recession like this one.

I'm not joining the pissing match that this thread has become, just wanted to point that out. Your goal seems to be to end up in academia as a researcher or professor. That's fine. If that was in fact your goal, your degree is just as good as any other. In the private sector it's quite different.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440
of course it's not the goal. the job market is fucked. we have about 30-40ish top universities that churn out just as many maths, science and economist-type graduates as ever, but a shitty job market and an increasingly nervous and closed City. the top business graduate jobs that the maths/science/economist types would go for, normally the jobs requiring number skills or as dilbert calls it 'hard analysis' (as opposed to philosophical analysis, which must be soft. cioran gently weeps...), are extremely hard to come by. you have to understand that in the uk, 90% of the top graduate jobs (and therefore 90% of the nation's best income bracket) are in london, and london is not expanding. all i'm saying is that from my experience of friends that have tried to get onto these highly competitive graduate schemes, it's a 100:1 sorta ratio right now. my humanities and arts friends have settled into typical bourgie jobs in stuff that doesn't require hard number skills, but other types of skill, that still pay. dilbert seems to think that the only graduate schemes worth applying for are actuarial positions at pricewaterhouse or something.

i also don't understand why you science/maths guys think arts and humanities degrees are 'useless' in the real private-sector of employment. i was bombarded with plenty of conferences and letters by City firms looking for arts/humanities graduates with a 2:1. a 2:1 is a strong, good degree over here- magna cum laude in the US system. there are plenty of graduate schemes that take on people that aren't 'strong with numbers', per se, to fill other roles in the organisation. you seem to think that literature majors read books for 3 years and then have to become florists, because the world of business shuns them and their fanciful culture. not so. as i said, anecdotally in my experience (which obviously can't cover everything, my social world is only so big...), my humanities friends have found it much easier to find graduate-level jobs because they're not all competing for the high-profile, high-paying jobs for investment banks in the city. there are other careers to be had that lead to just as much a comfortable lifestyle. we are not, as much as dilbert would like us to be, 'suffering for our art'. his view of the world is far too binary (perhaps fitting for a guy obsessed with all that pure, hard, manly, unphilosophical analysis) and doesn't allow any mediums to success. you're either an engineer making £100k a year or a maths grad working for a top-bank, or you're a history flunk giving guided tours around a provincial museum, or a literature grad with a heroin problem. sigh.

fyi i graduated summa cum laude, a higher qualification than any City graduate scheme typically asks for. i know 4 other people that graduated in my class with the same level: 2 of us are now doing postgraduate courses on full scholarships, 1 is now in risk and compliance for one of the City's top auditing firms (according to her linkedin), and the other is making a shit-load of money in the recruitment industry. so i don't know where this whole cybargs thing comes from about me being "pissy" because i don't have any earning power. all the graduate schemes are still there, if i fancy the rat race. basically i still don't understand why after 3 years of posting this tiring bullshit, dilbert is still dropping the subtle "i chose the science path so i could earn money and afford nice things" and "reading books is for wasters that will always be poor" kinda crap. almost every single post he makes about education or life-choices has some snide little snub in it, as if everyone that takes a different path in life to him is doomed to penury.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Uzique wrote:

of course it's not the goal. the job market is fucked. we have about 30-40ish top universities that churn out just as many maths, science and economist-type graduates as ever, but a shitty job market and an increasingly nervous and closed City. the top business graduate jobs that the maths/science/economist types would go for, normally the jobs requiring number skills or as dilbert calls it 'hard analysis' (as opposed to philosophical analysis, which must be soft. cioran gently weeps...), are extremely hard to come by. you have to understand that in the uk, 90% of the top graduate jobs (and therefore 90% of the nation's best income bracket) are in london, and london is not expanding. all i'm saying is that from my experience of friends that have tried to get onto these highly competitive graduate schemes, it's a 100:1 sorta ratio right now. my humanities and arts friends have settled into typical bourgie jobs in stuff that doesn't require hard number skills, but other types of skill, that still pay. dilbert seems to think that the only graduate schemes worth applying for are actuarial positions at pricewaterhouse or something.

i also don't understand why you science/maths guys think arts and humanities degrees are 'useless' in the real private-sector of employment. i was bombarded with plenty of conferences and letters by City firms looking for arts/humanities graduates with a 2:1. a 2:1 is a strong, good degree over here- magna cum laude in the US system. there are plenty of graduate schemes that take on people that aren't 'strong with numbers', per se, to fill other roles in the organisation. you seem to think that literature majors read books for 3 years and then have to become florists, because the world of business shuns them and their fanciful culture. not so. as i said, anecdotally in my experience (which obviously can't cover everything, my social world is only so big...), my humanities friends have found it much easier to find graduate-level jobs because they're not all competing for the high-profile, high-paying jobs for investment banks in the city. there are other careers to be had that lead to just as much a comfortable lifestyle. we are not, as much as dilbert would like us to be, 'suffering for our art'. his view of the world is far too binary (perhaps fitting for a guy obsessed with all that pure, hard, manly, unphilosophical analysis) and doesn't allow any mediums to success. you're either an engineer making £100k a year or a maths grad working for a top-bank, or you're a history flunk giving guided tours around a provincial museum, or a literature grad with a heroin problem. sigh.

fyi i graduated summa cum laude, a higher qualification than any City graduate scheme typically asks for. i know 4 other people that graduated in my class with the same level: 2 of us are now doing postgraduate courses on full scholarships, 1 is now in risk and compliance for one of the City's top auditing firms (according to her linkedin), and the other is making a shit-load of money in the recruitment industry. so i don't know where this whole cybargs thing comes from about me being "pissy" because i don't have any earning power. all the graduate schemes are still there, if i fancy the rat race. basically i still don't understand why after 3 years of posting this tiring bullshit, dilbert is still dropping the subtle "i chose the science path so i could earn money and afford nice things" and "reading books is for wasters that will always be poor" kinda crap. almost every single post he makes about education or life-choices has some snide little snub in it, as if everyone that takes a different path in life to him is doomed to penury.
Well, two reasons: 1) They're pretty much a dime a dozen. It's an extreme bias, but we math geeks tend to look down on those in the arts because we don't feel that sociology or political science or english are difficult at all, which is why the majority of students seem to gravitate towards them.

and 2) http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp which pretty much proves the validity of 1) if you look at salary as a function of supply and demand.

It's by no means universal of course. There are, I'm sure, highly successful people holding nothing but an arts degree. You just have to deal with the bias attached to your degree that exists because it attracts the dross of most universities, the types that have no idea what they want to do but stick with humanities classes because they offer the path of least resistance.

Last edited by Jay (2011-11-14 08:20:06)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440
i like how you posted an essay here a few months ago with shitty formal english and an extremely weak argument that was passable as a D-grade piece of work at best, and you proclaim that english "is not difficult at all". if you're evidently shit at it, how is it easy? and do not put sociology or political science on the same level of difficulty as the 'pure' arts/humanities subjects, haha. english literature, classics and philosophy are much harder than sociology and polit sci and all of these new disciplines. also, it is englit and not just 'english' - a lot of shittier colleges will offer an 'english' degree that has nothing to do with the classical version of the subject, and is more like a course in public speaking and basic language study.

i find it laughable that someone with clearly no ability in a subject can say it is "easy". i can't do engineering but do i say it is simple because it is all taught from a textbook? do i think physics is easy because the physics students i know hardly know anything about geopolitics, or even basic geography? we're all specialising in vastly different disciplines requiring entirely different skillsets. if you somehow think you're 'better' than people taking other (serious) academic degrees, then that only betrays either your own intellectual insecurity, or your own mad fucking delusion. fair enough if you have a political science department at your university that is pretty laid-back and lenient - basically a cash-spinner for the dim minded. but don't be condescending about people doing hard, rigorous work in proper academic disciplines. just makes you look more like an idiot. whether or not it pays according to the 'functions of supply and demand' is completely divorced from the intellectual merit of a subject. i'm betting you wouldn't last 2 minutes in a post-structuralism seminar.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440

Jay wrote:

It's by no means universal of course. There are, I'm sure, highly successful people holding nothing but an arts degree. You just have to deal with the bias attached to your degree that exists because it attracts the dross of most universities, the types that have no idea what they want to do but stick with humanities classes because they offer the path of least resistance.
i don't agree at all. maybe we have vastly different university cultures (though i don't think this is the excuse for your bad judgement), but over here there are just as many people coasting through math and science degrees because it was the only thing they were good at in school - 'the path of least resistance'. i can't account for colleges in the states that pass people easily based on crappy work with little effort, but it's not that way over here at all. from what perspective are you even writing? i don't understand what informs your opinion so that you think you can make it a universal edict: 'arts and humanities are lesser subjects for the lazy, science and maths are the paths of genius'. of course that's a very convenient worldview for you, but i don't know where you're coming from. you didn't go to an academic, research-focussed college. neither did your fiancee. so what do you know of the work and difficulty of academic disciplines? maybe it's simply best for you not to say, or to issue such demeaning comments, when you have no qualification to do so whatsoever? trust me, nobody here 'flunks' into one of our academic institutions (talking 1994/russell, of course, the only ones remaining) because english was "easy" and "the path of least resistance". a ludicrous statement.

there is also hardly any "bias" attached to our degree. as i said, we are sought after by respective employers that seek our skillset. a different skillset to maths/science graduates, but a skillset that is rewarded with a graduate-level, graduate-paying job, nonetheless. what makes us a lesser species? i am puzzled. the only "bias" attached to our degree is the bias pinned on us by intellectual insecure science/math students themselves - perhaps as a reaction to the "bias" view attached to you guys by us arts/humanities students that you're all socially awkward neckbeards. we could be here all day, going around in circles with this. at the end of the day a degree is just a degree to 90% of employers-- and for the top percentile of graduate schemes that convey the most prestige and biggest paycheck (i.e. The City), there are career paths for both the sciences/maths and for the humanities grads. you're just talking shit, really, the typical galt strategy of 'big up what i have done so i can feel better and feel less inferior'.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Uzique wrote:

i like how you posted an essay here a few months ago with shitty formal english and an extremely weak argument that was passable as a D-grade piece of work at best, and you proclaim that english "is not difficult at all". if you're evidently shit at it, how is it easy? and do not put sociology or political science on the same level of difficulty as the 'pure' arts/humanities subjects, haha. english literature, classics and philosophy are much harder than sociology and polit sci and all of these new disciplines. also, it is englit and not just 'english' - a lot of shittier colleges will offer an 'english' degree that has nothing to do with the classical version of the subject, and is more like a course in public speaking and basic language study.

i find it laughable that someone with clearly no ability in a subject can say it is "easy". i can't do engineering but do i say it is simple because it is all taught from a textbook? do i think physics is easy because the physics students i know hardly know anything about geopolitics, or even basic geography? we're all specialising in vastly different disciplines requiring entirely different skillsets. if you somehow think you're 'better' than people taking other (serious) academic degrees, then that only betrays either your own intellectual insecurity, or your own mad fucking delusion. fair enough if you have a political science department at your university that is pretty laid-back and lenient - basically a cash-spinner for the dim minded. but don't be condescending about people doing hard, rigorous work in proper academic disciplines. just makes you look more like an idiot. whether or not it pays according to the 'functions of supply and demand' is completely divorced from the intellectual merit of a subject. i'm betting you wouldn't last 2 minutes in a post-structuralism seminar.
I got an A on that paper Uzique. That shitty, shitty paper was an A grade. THAT is why people look down on english majors. The grading is entirely subjective.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

and do not put sociology or political science on the same level of difficulty as the 'pure' arts/humanities subjects, haha. english literature, classics and philosophy are much harder than sociology and polit sci and all of these new disciplines.
  Hey now I had to take some philosophy classes to fill in my pol sci degree requirements! Knowledge is relative ;;
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i like how you posted an essay here a few months ago with shitty formal english and an extremely weak argument that was passable as a D-grade piece of work at best, and you proclaim that english "is not difficult at all". if you're evidently shit at it, how is it easy? and do not put sociology or political science on the same level of difficulty as the 'pure' arts/humanities subjects, haha. english literature, classics and philosophy are much harder than sociology and polit sci and all of these new disciplines. also, it is englit and not just 'english' - a lot of shittier colleges will offer an 'english' degree that has nothing to do with the classical version of the subject, and is more like a course in public speaking and basic language study.

i find it laughable that someone with clearly no ability in a subject can say it is "easy". i can't do engineering but do i say it is simple because it is all taught from a textbook? do i think physics is easy because the physics students i know hardly know anything about geopolitics, or even basic geography? we're all specialising in vastly different disciplines requiring entirely different skillsets. if you somehow think you're 'better' than people taking other (serious) academic degrees, then that only betrays either your own intellectual insecurity, or your own mad fucking delusion. fair enough if you have a political science department at your university that is pretty laid-back and lenient - basically a cash-spinner for the dim minded. but don't be condescending about people doing hard, rigorous work in proper academic disciplines. just makes you look more like an idiot. whether or not it pays according to the 'functions of supply and demand' is completely divorced from the intellectual merit of a subject. i'm betting you wouldn't last 2 minutes in a post-structuralism seminar.
I got an A on that paper Uzique. That shitty, shitty paper was an A grade. THAT is why people look down on english majors. The grading is entirely subjective.
not subjective, no. relative. relative, jay. you go to a completely non-academic college that just had the english assignment as some minor 'tick the box' hoop to jump through to satisfy the criteria of your ENGINEERING DEGREE. are you seriously naive enough to think that the same essay, handed in to a serious academic department, at a university of real weight, would earn a top-grade? haha, ok. all english is easy because jay did a high-school level book-report and got an A. you didn't even quote derrida or foucault, jay! that's the first-step for a "lazy, path of least resistance" english student at a mediocre college. without any exaggeration that essay would have not even earned a pass-grade over here. we come from vastly different worlds. you're doing your thing, which is fine, but that doesn't mean arts and humanities are 'easy'. your experience of them is basically a non-experience. to claim furthermore that, because grading of arts and humanities is 'subjective', and not verifiable by a textbook answer-sheet, makes it a 'lesser' subject, is fucking hilarious. i'm not even going to counter that. if you're writing philosophy or theory essays for an oxbridge-educated professor, and they're grading your work with due academic rigour, it is a worthy intellectual pursuit. i don't care what you say. just because they can't put a tick or a cross next to your response, doesn't mean it's the work of a lesser intelligence. you are so full of delusional bullshit sometimes that it physically hurts me to read-- though i'm not sure whether it's hilarity or sadness.

essentially your only 'college-level' (i put that in hugely spurious quotemarks) english is some token minor module to 'round out' your education. that's like me taking a basic high-school calc level module for part of my degree and then saying degree-level math is natch, no problemo. thankfully over here we don't have a degree structure that forces you to superficially dabble in other disciplines: you study what you study, and you study it damn hard and damn thoroughly. the problem with the american degree, it seems to me, is that you're forced to engage only at a surface level with other fields -- e.g. macbeth taking philosophy as part of a polit sci class -- and then think you have seen all there is to see, and command a good knowledge of the field. "english is a lowly easy subject because i got an A in a book-review assignment whilst doing an engineering course" isn't quite credible. the level of work simply is not comparable, jay. the flaw, it seems to me, is with your college culture and with your degree structure itself. being forced to take one-semester long tokenistic courses in vastly disparate disciplines is going to edge you towards being more of the "jack of all trades, master of none" student that you spoke-out against earlier with disdain. over here, we bury ourselves in one discipline for 3/4 years, as a serious academic pursuit. fyi i have not been asked to write an assignment with a question like the one you posted since i was about 15, in high-school.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

is that you're forced to engage only at a surface level with other fields -- e.g. macbeth taking philosophy as part of a polit sci class -
Eh sorta. The classes I had to take just dealt with political philosophy. As far as that goes I am learned a bit more than someone who had to take a philosophy class to fill in his humanities requirement.  Political philosophy is pretty narrow compared to what someone would learn during a full philosophy degree track of course.

I am not trying to talk up my philosophy credentials or anything but just pointing out that philosophy isn't as foreign to a political science student as it would be an engineering student. It that makes any sense.
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5931|Places 'n such
1/3rd of Physics graduates at my uni go onto further research (shit pay)
1/3rd go to research (again, shit)
1/3rd go to law/banking and finance/usual city shit. (good pay)

Dunno where the idea that the sciences pay well comes from. Engineering sure, natural sciences no.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5513|Toronto
Professional disciplines, business, and some comp sci. programs are the only ones that generally guarantee decent wages. In all others it's determined by your own intelligence, performance, and connections.  Hence the reason I'm high tailing it to a professional Masters.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440
computer science is the least employable degree path here in the UK, now. we're all full on IT technicians and compsci majors are generally perceived as lacking any other skillset or social skills that are more desirable in other graduates. computer science regularly comes flat-bottom on tables of graduate employability. we have like an internationally renowned information security group here at my uni and the compsci and cryptography grads that come through here are some serious hardcore nerd-shit. one of my housemates is here doing a master's in crytography after getting top honours in pure math at warwick (very prestigious) - but he was saying to me that unless he relies on his undergraduate maths qualifications to get a business-finance job, his compsci masters is extremely niche and a bit of a gamble.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5513|Toronto
The comp sci graduates' job prospectives are a little better over here (or at least out of my university), but still not nearly the best. I hesitated to add them to the list, but did, as the ones who do get employed are generally paid well.

Last edited by Pochsy (2011-11-14 14:51:13)

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard