Reply With Quote
I don't know the answer to that question. But, then again, neither do you.
So you went to Duke. Otherwise you would say something like "top 19".
I don't know the answer to that question. But, then again, neither do you.
The real question is which had the lower SAT scores.
That answer is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets tbh. You and I both know the answer.
One finding that did separate engineering from other major fields of study was apparent in the percentage of graduates who had started college in their eventual major; that's an indication of how many switched into a major partway through their collegiate career. Only half of those with social science degrees started in that field, 60 percent of physical science majors did, but a full 93 percent of engineers began their academic career in engineering.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/...-dropout-rate/
just because most scientific papers are hard to read due more often to their poor comprehension rather than the complexity of science itself, it doesn't mean writing skills are "unnecessary" imho, instead it just illustrates the importance of writing skills in scientific papers. some scientific papers don't contain too much graphs or math formulas but they're still difficult to understand because the writers don't give a about comprehension, and im sure it's not just those majored in non-science subjects who often have a hard time reading those scientific articles. sometimes you need to have a great background knowledge about the subject which the scientific paper talks about in order to presume what its author really wants to say. good writing skills are needed everywhere IMHO
you can't expect the natural scientists to write state-of-art articles, knowing that most of them are foreign born, but they should at least express their ideas lucidly & intricately using the very basic language, which they still often fail to do.
Nope, didn't go to Duke.
That's as much as I'll say.
I asked because I wanted you to clarify your statement, not because I don't know how internships work.
That's rich. I'm not the one who feels it necessary to put down anyone else's field of study or to insinuate you and your fellow engineers are too stupid and/or lazy to hack it in my program. Or lashing out against insults that were never made.
I am extremely happy with the choices I have made in my education. Including the choice to move away from a business major that I found to be painfully boring.
Yes, but if the incident hadn't occurred, you wouldn't have it as a story to retell.
Your snark is duly noted, but, once again, I never stated and/or insinuated that engineering grads (or my friend, specifically) lacked the ability or the intellectual capacity necessary to do the volume and type of reading and writing required in my program. There's no doubt in my mind that someone who was able to make it through a graduate level engineering program is smart enough to also make it through a graduate level art history (or other humanities/liberal arts) program. My only contention, and this has been consistent throughout the thread, is that you cannot simply assume or make broad, blanket generalizations that the opposite may not also be true.
If you want to say that engineering is a hard degree, you'll get no argument from me. If you want to say that engineering is a more practical degree, from an employment/financial point of view, than a liberal arts degree at the same level, again you'll get no argument from me. However, taking either of those positions to their extreme and making the assertion that either a lack of intelligence or work ethic are the ONLY reasons people choose to pursue a liberal arts degree, or that engineering/science/math/business/whatever are the ONLY practical degrees, is not only problematic but is simply not supported by the real world. Just because they do not lead to the type of career or paycheck that you, personally, value as worthwhile does not mean that liberal arts degrees don't directly lead to careers that are both important and fulfilling. And just because they don't teach skills that you, personally, value as challenging or important to learn does not mean that liberal arts programs are wholly lacking in substance or academic rigor.
Yet you have consistently misunderstood my point in that and several other of my posts in this thread.
My degrees are exactly what I need to be compe ive in my chosen career. Just as your degree is what you needed to be compe ive in your chosen career. I'm not sure if they hand out better person trophies for merely setting a goal and taking the steps necessary to reach it, but if they did it sounds like we'd be equally eligible.
Last edited by CuckingFunt; 10-29-2012 at 11:11 PM.
I was speaking to the fact that if one enters a career out of genuine interest, the rewards (economic) tend to come more easily.
Can only speak for my own 1490.
its very hard for an engineering major to switch his career i suppose. engineering classes contain too much jargon and too little intelligence training cessions, and if you've done 4yr college study in an engineering major and choose to find a job after graduation, your either getting a well-paid job with your engineering degree or getting a ty one at starbucks
No, it's not.
If you know the answer, I'd love to see the study you got it from. Additionally, I'd be curious to see how those who conducted this study define "motivated and interested" students, how they measure those qualities, and how they would control for them in the experiment.
I was using Horatian satire.
Wasn't sure. F minus for the day.
And I did, then I got this "Do you honestly think this is unique to engineering internships?".
Oh really... I beg to differ.That's rich. I'm not the one who feels it necessary to put down anyone else's field of study or to insinuate you and your fellow engineers are too stupid and/or lazy to hack it in my program. Or lashing out against insults that were never made.
Some people prefer fun over career.I am extremely happy with the choices I have made in my education. Including the choice to move away from a business major that I found to be painfully boring.
But I wouldn't have been robbed of something that never existed, not unless you mean in some psychotropic drug trip kind of way.Yes, but if the incident hadn't occurred, you wouldn't have it as a story to retell.
Again...Your snark is duly noted, but, once again, I never stated and/or insinuated that engineering grads (or my friend, specifically) lacked the ability or the intellectual capacity necessary to do the volume and type of reading and writing required in my program. There's no doubt in my mind that someone who was able to make it through a graduate level engineering program is smart enough to also make it through a graduate level art history (or other humanities/liberal arts) program. My only contention, and this has been consistent throughout the thread, is that you cannot simply assume or make broad, blanket generalizations that the opposite may not also be true.
Can we put to rest this trail of denial when your statement is right there for others to see?
I didn't say any of that. Instead of using quotes then identifying my errors (the scientific method) you paraphrase and use hyperbole and emotive jargon to try to win your audience (human "sciences" method).If you want to say that engineering is a hard degree, you'll get no argument from me. If you want to say that engineering is a more practical degree, from an employment/financial point of view, than a liberal arts degree at the same level, again you'll get no argument from me. However, taking either of those positions to their extreme and making the assertion that either a lack of intelligence or work ethic are the ONLY reasons people choose to pursue a liberal arts degree, or that engineering/science/math/business/whatever are the ONLY practical degrees, is not only problematic but is simply not supported by the real world. Just because they do not lead to the type of career or paycheck that you, personally, value as worthwhile does not mean that liberal arts degrees don't directly lead to careers that are both important and fulfilling. And just because they don't teach skills that you, personally, value as challenging or important to learn does not mean that liberal arts programs are wholly lacking in substance or academic rigor.
What I did say is you have a grand slam of degrees. I believe (this is opinion) that, if you polled major universities and asked people to list the degrees, though you might get a few protests and some "our degrees are just as good as blah blah blah" responses from the ty degree majors, you would get overwhelming evidence that most people think the degrees you have, especially the Studies minor, are at the top of the list of degrees. I would love to be able to just get a degree in bass fishing or making a self bow, but I actually felt I needed to earn a living. You don't need my approval, but you have my opinion.
Odd, someone who spent so much time and money taking classes centered around understanding and being understood cannot get a point across in written media.Yet you have consistently misunderstood my point in that and several other of my posts in this thread.
Except your trophy would be much much cheaper because of your ty degrees.My degrees are exactly what I need to be compe ive in my chosen career. Just as your degree is what you needed to be compe ive in your chosen career. I'm not sure if they hand out better person trophies for merely setting a goal and taking the steps necessary to reach it, but if they did it sounds like we'd be equally eligible.
No, there are no losers here. There are only discoveries and healings.
At least as Starbucks you get to work with the Liberal Arts majors.
DMC ... with no regard for life
And that would mean... what, exactly? Your opinion (actually, it's more of a hunch, but there's really no need to get bogged down in semantics) is that other people's opinion is likely similar to yours. Is this meant to be substantive in some way?
About as odd as someone as thoroughly educated as yourself having such difficulties with reading comprehension.
There's absolutely nowhere in that post you keep quoting in which I state or even suggest that the reason my friend wouldn't make it through the work I had to do was in any way related to his intelligence or lack thereof. Which you'd know if only you followed your own convoluted advice of scientifically sticking to the words I actually used, rather than paraphrasing, using hyperbole, and, through emotive jargon, assuming a point I never made in order to try and win your argument.
I said LAW SCHOOL not New Jersey court system library.
I fail to understand how DMC just does not get that CF needs a Master of Art and an MLS/MIS to be an art librarian. They are both required for the job. That is an actual career.
Similarly, most university librarians have an MLS/MIS in addition to a second Master's Degree in a designated field of study for which they provide support and instruction to that academic department.
Whether you know it or not, you benefitted from some librarian while you were getting that engineering degree. Even if you never went to the actual building, who do you think selects, maintains, and provides access to all those engineering journals?
Last edited by ploto; 10-30-2012 at 12:48 AM.
While I agree with his premise to no small degree, by all accounts Feynman was an overbearingly arrogant and sanctimonious individual. I have talked to a few that have worked with him and they described him as brilliant but overbearing.
He even states in his piece that he does not know and it's ironic that in his criticism of 'not doing all the checks' that he himself doesn't do all the checks. Even worse he makes the types of gross generalizations that stand opposite of the notion if empirical reductionism that he is getting at.
What it comes down to though is that via Newton, Einstein, Mendelev, Bohr, etc engineers, physicists and to varying lesser degrees chemists and the like have a rational framework on which to base our predictions. When it comes to other sciences like sociology and economics there are not precise rational frameworks to operate off of. Supply and demand is not nearly so rigorous as the laws of thermodynamics for example.
What I am getting though is some vicarious arrogance though. Feynman I can get. His work on QED is fascinating but just because you know heat equations well enough to design an adequate storage container does not really give you the right to on someone that is fleshing out a lesser understood discipline. Quite frankly, people who base their superiority on empirical reductionist disciplines and then classify something as liberal arts as the basis to denigrate it is pretty damn ironic. Perhaps you should do the necessary checks.
Son by 25 years old I'm leaving this hole
in fact all college degrees are pretty ty these days to some extent based on investment-output ratio, knowing that about 50% of college graduates from 06 or later are either underemployed or unemployed. education has been treated more often as an easy path to a wealthy life & decent job in recent years, rather than a sacred process through which one gets a better vision of his life and becomes more intelligent.
So then you agree.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions