If you could choose to major/re-major in anything at all, what would you choose?

[Tenacity]

Feel free to answer as many or as little as you prefer. Tangents are fine, trolls too, whatevz



If you could choose to major (or go back to school and pick a new major) in anything at all, what would you choose? Would you combine multiple, focus on one, or make your own? Why?


In a theoretical world where tuition costs were waived, if you could choose to major (or go back to school and pick a new major) in anything at all, what would you choose? Would you combine multiple, or make your own? Why?


If your current or previous major is/was the most sufficient, why?


What is education like where you are? Why is it awesome? Why does it suck?


What would you never major in? Why?


If you're a drop out or homeschooled and "over" the concept of education, why?


Did you look up to a role model when picking your major, or did you do research on the major, or both/neither?


"Do what you love, and you'll never work a day in your life" - What is the validity of this quote (or lack thereof) in regards to education and/or learning?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I was actually going to make the thread "what class would you take in your leisure time?"

I have a theoretical aa in health science (didn't do 1/2 internships)

At uni I moved between media studies, to international studies, and strategic communication. Double majoring was an option. I've wanted to minor in statistics or marketing. I'm all over the place. My curiosity made me go to a private school that was expensive as fuck. My curiosity cost me at least $25k for one year. I just wanted an idea of what was the real college experience for the upper class.

That was out of state though, and a lot of my credits aren't going to carry over. Right now I'm getting an aa multidisciplinary studies, which will transfer into any college in my state.

The more time that passes the more I see a bachelors as a useless diploma, especially since I plan on being self-employed. I feel like an introductory class with a good professor should be enough to get you into the discipline your in, at least let you know what's important. The rest can be self-taught via internet. There are much cheaper courses to get certificates in a lot of different things.

I respect pretty much ever major I can think of, save those with a ideological agenda..

That quote is bs.
EDIT: It's not bs when it comes to education. I've only ever been able to consistently study things I've been interested in.

 

[peoplesuck]

neuralengineering, engineering, electrical engineering, neuroscience, psychology, chemical engineering. currently learning norwegian to move to norway and go to school for free, because I cant afford a small student loan of one million dollars. I want to invent, understand, essentially just make things I want that dont exist yet. oh and genetic engineering. because cold blooded humans would consume much less and still function, we will just need electric clothing. I also like Norwegian culture( seriously if anyone lives in norway and wants a maid, mail order groom HMU! WILL DO SEX FOR CITIZENSHIP)
I would never major in trans studies because women with mustaches intimidate me.
If you are self aware and working towards what you want, the things that are needed to get there should bring some amount of joy even if its just because you are making progress.

 

[Cognisant]

Electrical engineering would have given me a lot more money and the freedom to work anywhere in the world.

Robotics is an obvious choice but I'm unimpressed with that they teach.

 

[Black Rose]

I would like to work at Googles a.i. lab but they require a ph.d. in computer science. I could get one now because I understand the school system. It's my mental stability that is the problem. I am not a coder, I am too slow for that. I have ideas much like an architect. I need money for all this.

 

[Rebis]

major in economics (I could pick it up easier than STEM subjects), or if there was a specific course on quantum physics to understand in depth the models a quantum computer can use to preserve information.

I'm technically on a Msc which I think is the equivalent of a major for computer science but they're potential back ups.

 

[Hadoblado]

I majored in psychology. I'm not sure if I'd exchange it for something else, but I'd like to get some political science, sociology, engineering, business, and economics under my belt.

Maybe some neuroscience too, but that'd largely be reinforcing the areas I've already covered.

 

[sushi]

i will never major in English literature, because most of my english teachers suck.

 

[Polaris]

Medicine with focus on diagnostics in radiology and pathology.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Math & conmputational science worked out pretty well for me. It’s quite general which means I can read papers about anything from medicine to AI and assess the methods and potentially replicate and repurpose their methods and theories for my own stuff. For example earlier I worked in finance, but now I’m working with machine learning and geospatial modeling although I have no specific formal education in neither.

The only subject I’m kinda fascinated by which I haven’t studied is astrophysics

 

[Minuend]

oh god, science seem just like a mess. Even if specializing in science and statistics and meta studies I'd probably be drowned in interests and biases. Maybe I'd just try to help people by specializing in whatever psychology bullshit field

 

[Rebis]

oh god, science seem just like a mess. Even if specializing in science and statistics and meta studies I'd probably be drowned in interests and biases. Maybe I'd just try to help people by specializing in whatever psychology bullshit field

Science is a mess compared to psychology bullshit field? If you have that view I understand why you would like to specialise in bullshit.

 

[Puffy]

Pretty happy with what I studied tbh. English Literature & Film, Philosophy. Through that I taught myself how to think and communicate, and it enabled me to build a deeper relationship with my intuition, creativity, and self-expression. I'm unsure that would have happened in quite as profound a way if I'd chosen a different subject.

In terms of what would be most practical for me now, that academies teach, I think skills related to applied psychology, psychotherapy, and clinical diagnosis. I may retrain as a counsellor, or potentially a life coach, somewhere down the line if a need is presented for it.

At the same time, if I was how I am now when I was in my early 20s I likely wouldn't have gone to university in favour of self-study and self-direction.

 

[Kormak]

Double major in Economics & Information Technology..
Why? They are fun and I never cease to enjoy this stuff.

University education here is cheap af... provided you are a high IQ hard working student.

 

[Rebis]

University education here is cheap af... provided you are a high IQ hard working student.

Is the average IQ and education level of romanians low so you get an opportunity at discounted education?

 

[Kormak]

University education here is cheap af... provided you are a high IQ hard working student.

Is the average IQ and education level of Romanians low so you get an opportunity at discounted education?

The average IQ is 94, that's 6 points lower than the UK (IMO significant). Thats brain drain for ye. Education level is the same as the rest of the EU tho, quality idk (most likely lower)
Private universities tend to be garbage here, all the top ones are old state-financed from taxes. If you are a good student and pass entrance exams you can get a free spot depending on your grades. There are only so many free spots tho, the rest is all paid, but since its state-financed, the expenses aren't that high. Every semester you have a chance to maintain or lose your position depending on performance.

If you have dual citizenship like me and your nation has universities in Romania (like Hungary does), you can also go there. Pretty much the same story.

 

[Rebis]

University education here is cheap af... provided you are a high IQ hard working student.

Is the average IQ and education level of Romanians low so you get an opportunity at discounted education?

The average IQ is 94, that's 6 points lower than the UK (IMO significant). Thats brain drain for ye. Education level is the same as the rest of the EU tho, quality idk.
Private universities tend to be garbage here, all the top ones are old state-financed from taxes. If you are a good student and pass entrance exams you can get a free spot depending on your grades.

Sounds like a good deal for you, with the exception of having to travel out of the country for big industry.

 

[Kormak]

Sounds like a good deal for you, with the exception of having to travel out of the country for big industry.

poop.jpg
My... uhm Romanian is not that good tbh (damn Latin languages)... e_e so I studied in a Hungarian university. English would have been much easier. My Romanian is on conversation level only, enough to function in society. (which is better than most Hungarians here lel)

This is what I get for going to Hungarian school & high school. Kinda odd considering I was born & grew up here... yet I still speak/write German and English better than RO.

 

[scorpiomover]

Feel free to answer as many or as little as you prefer. Tangents are fine, trolls too, whatevz

Whahey! Tangents are OK? Trolling too? This is like an all-you-can-eat buffet of my favourite ice cream.

In a theoretical world where tuition costs were waived, if you could choose to major (or go back to school and pick a new major) in anything at all, what would you choose? Would you combine multiple, or make your own? Why?

Probably psycho-history (See Asimov's Foundation series), combined with quantum physics.

Also, as a minor, I'd take "dating skills", "car mechanics", "investing for beginners", "personal accounting and financial management", "starting your own business", and "how to build a better world".

What is education like where you are? Why is it awesome? Why does it suck?

It's OK. I did maths for a degree.

But there wasn't enough for me on how to make it practical for me, including how to milk the career rat wheel.

What would you never major in? Why?

Beckhamology (the study of David Beckham's life). Because soccer stars are just not exciting enough for me to spend 3 years studying.

If you're a drop out or homeschooled and "over" the concept of education, why?

Had some burnout after uni. OK now. But still quite cynical.

Did you look up to a role model when picking your major, or did you do research on the major, or both/neither?

It was the only subject I was really good at in school.

"Do what you love, and you'll never work a day in your life" - What is the validity of this quote (or lack thereof) in regards to education and/or learning?

For one, if you love what you do, it doesn't feel like work.

For another, several very successful people said that to be successful, you should do what you love. To be successful, one needs motivation. Motivation is easy when it's something you enjoy.

 

[Rebis]

Probably psycho-history (See Asimov's Foundation series), combined with quantum physics.

That is damn well a unrealistic response, how dare you disappoint my expectations! If I could learn psycho-history I would. What about those paradox equations?

 

[redbaron]

learn 2 fly
then live in the sky

 

[scorpiomover]

That is damn well a unrealistic response, how dare you disappoint my expectations! If I could learn psycho-history I would.

You could.

It's just about studying emprical correlations scientifically, what actions are major influences over which major social and economic changes then occur, and then converting them to equations.

The ability is there. We just need the will for several liked-minded individuals to study these phenomena together.

What about those paradox equations?

Wiki describes a "paradox" as an "apparent contradiction", something that looks like a contradiction but isn't. Kurt Friedrich Gödel proved that any system will have contradictions that are resolved by expanding the set and thus show that the set is incomplete.

Now, by the same rules, every system we have will contain a paradox. But also, such a system will be an expanded version of a subset that will similarly both contain a contradiction and be incomplete.

So we can usually solve problems. But we never run out of new problems to solve, which means that the work is never complete, but at the same time, there is always something to keep us from boredom and always something to give our lives meaning and purpose.

 

[Rebis]

That is damn well a unrealistic response, how dare you disappoint my expectations! If I could learn psycho-history I would.

You could.

It's just about studying emprical correlations scientifically, what actions are major influences over which major social and economic changes then occur, and then converting them to equations.

The ability is there. We just need the will for several liked-minded individuals to study these phenomena together.

It was fictitious for a reason, it isn't logically deducible within mathematics. Probablistically yes, but with each tangent the butterfly effect is put into place and the synchronicity of the possibilities become asychronous with each other, their similarities become too disparate to calculate. All we can assess is general trends and their probabilities, not their finalities and certainly not to a highly precise probability that we could model the future around.

Incompleteness theorem doesn't infer the invalidity of statements it just proves that no system can be logically complete, that is we can make sweeping generalisations that hold true in all cases. We can make statements about cases that have values, but predicate logic not so much.
The paradox you're referring to is the system cannot prove it's logicality outside of the system, only within it. In which case, a system cannot prove itself to be true.

 

[walfin]

I'd major in Esperanto if such a major existed and become an Esperanto poet or songwriter or something.

 

[j_chrysostom]

I think it would be very enlightening to major in philosophy, but I wouldn't do it because I hate writing.

 

[Minuend]

Science is a mess compared to psychology bullshit field? If you have that view I understand why you would like to specialise in bullshit.

To help people caught in the web of bullshit. You can probably help more individuals as a psychologist than try to change things as a scientist. Psychologist's interpretations of individuals matters a lot. Individuals doing meta studies, probably not that much.

 

[Rebis]

Science is a mess compared to psychology bullshit field? If you have that view I understand why you would like to specialise in bullshit.

To help people caught in the web of bullshit. You can probably help more individuals as a psychologist than try to change things as a scientist. Psychologist's interpretations of individuals matters a lot. Individuals doing meta studies, probably not that much.

What about the millions of lives immunologists have saved?
What about the billions of people that relied on crude oil to break down into power? What about physics that's told us to how matter manouvres through the world using physical laws? Infra-red, radiowaves, microwaves?
What about the geologists/meteorologists that have mapped physical phenomena through seismographs, volcanic activity and climate cycles?
What about engineering of automated robots, preventing people from harming themselves through serious injury?
What about computers which automate critical safety code and improve our ability to immediately acquire information?

Most of these fields help the collective, which in turn help the individual. Maybe it's just me but I've never felt a psychologist can penetrate me to a degree that my own introspection can, that's mainly a product of me being honest to myself, expecting the psychologist to put me in a category I've already evaluated and due to this I wouldn't share much informatin with them anyways. Ultimately different things work for different people, I feel this is dependent on personality types. I can imagine other INTPs wouldn't rely on a psychologist as much predominantly because they introspect a lot.

 

[Minuend]

What about the millions of lives immunologists have saved?
What about the billions of people that relied on crude oil to break down into power? What about physics that's told us to how matter manouvres through the world using physical laws? Infra-red, radiowaves, microwaves?
What about the geologists/meteorologists that have mapped physical phenomena through seismographs, volcanic activity and climate cycles?
What about engineering of automated robots, preventing people from harming themselves through serious injury?
What about computers which automate critical safety code and improve our ability to immediately acquire information?

Most of these fields help the collective, which in turn help the individual. Maybe it's just me but I've never felt a psychologist can penetrate me to a degree that my own introspection can, that's mainly a product of me being honest to myself, expecting the psychologist to put me in a category I've already evaluated and due to this I wouldn't share much informatin with them anyways. Ultimately different things work for different people, I feel this is dependent on personality types. I can imagine other INTPs wouldn't rely on a psychologist as much predominantly because they introspect a lot.

The average scientist has absolutely no say in any of those. The idea of the brilliant scientist who has this superior knowledge to wipe everyone off their feet is just that, an idea. Even if you're a brilliant scientist who has this innovate idea, most likely you'll be put in the trash. There's no reason to trust your judgment. Being rational and clever are redundant qualities. That's my point, you can't change anything being one individual who proves his hypothesis. Having the right idea, being right, it doesn't matter at all.

 

[Rebis]

The average scientist has absolutely no say in any of those. The idea of the brilliant scientist who has this superior knowledge to wipe everyone off their feet is just that, an idea. Even if you're a brilliant scientist who has this innovate idea, most likely you'll be put in the trash. There's no reason to trust your judgment. Being rational and clever are redundant qualities. That's my point, you can't change anything being one individual who proves his hypothesis. Having the right idea, being right, it doesn't matter at all.

That is just untrue. The field changes with each incremental contribution, it's got millions of people around the world working on solutions. The whole system you live in is a product of scientists more than likely, everything to housing, transport, food production, electricity and so on. The world is less-individualised. Scientists don't have a say in terms of opinions but they provide practical solutions to problems that can't be reasoned through psychometrics alone.

I'm not saying a scientist can change the world by itself but it's downright silly to call science a mess in comparison to psychology, which has way more layers than the physical world. I literally can't think of a context which psychology isn't silly compared to "science", maybe complexes, who knows. Neurology has offered implicit solutions to behavioural problems, psychology not so much.

 

[Minuend]

That is just untrue. The field changes with each incremental contribution, it's got millions of people around the world working on solutions. The whole system you live in is a product of scientists more than likely, everything to housing, transport, food production, electricity and so on. The world is less-individualised. Scientists don't have a say in terms of opinions but they provide practical solutions to problems that can't be reasoned through psychometrics alone.

I'm not saying a scientist can change the world by itself but it's downright silly to call science a mess in comparison to psychology, which has way more layers than the physical world.

In a dream world, yes. Of course, I'm not saying science never has it right. I'm saying science has it dependent on politics etc. Science is supposed to be right and unbiased, but alas it's not. I want things to be the way you're arguing for. But it's not. Science is not objective or simple, it's dependant on people, their biases and how they approach a problem.

 

[Ex-User (16576)]

I would never want a major in English or Art Education.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If I could redo my education I would not even go to school. It was mostly a waste of time and I have spent current time to unlearn all the stupid.

 

[scorpiomover]

it isn't logically deducible within mathematics. Probablistically yes, but with each tangent the butterfly effect is put into place and the synchronicity of the possibilities become asychronous with each other, their similarities become too disparate to calculate. All we can assess is general trends and their probabilities, not their finalities and certainly not to a highly precise probability that we could model the future around.

It's not rationally deducible.

Most of maths is about taking subjects that defy deduction, and finding the few elements that are deducible in it, and then restructuring approaches to finding solutions around those certainties. e.g. calculus.

But it takes a huge amount of mental effort, which is why most people give up early and say that it's impossible.

Incompleteness theorem doesn't infer the invalidity of statements it just proves that no system can be logically complete, that is we can make sweeping generalisations that hold true in all cases.

Yes, the incompleteness theorem proves that all systems that rely on formal logic must be logically incomplete, by inferring the invalidity of statements.

We first consider completeness as meaning that all statements that can be constructed by the statements of the set, are also within the set. Then we consider any arbitrary map that satisfies our conditions for completeness, i.e. that the set of all statements that can be constructed from the statements of the set are mapped to the statement itself. Then we construct a particular statement using the map, that cannot be included in the mapping back to the original set of statements, by choosing a construction that is inherently contradictory to the definition of the map itself. Thus, all maps are able to generate a new statement that is excluded from the mapping, and thus all mappings from the original set of statements to the set of statements that can be constructed for them, are incomplete, showing that the number of constructible statements always exceeds the number of statements that we started with, even when we started with an infinite number of statements.

The paradox is resolvable, so long as we remove a requirement that the set conform to the law of the excluded middle, that is, that any statement can be true or false, but not both.

But regular sets that follow formal logic, would have the property of the law of the excluded middle, i.e. any statement about them would have to be true or false, but not both, which in turn violates completeness.

The paradox you're referring to is the system cannot prove it's logicality outside of the system, only within it. In which case, a system cannot prove itself to be true.

That's true even without the incompleteness theorems. Reflexivity of any statement is still technically true, even if the statement itself is false, because A => B is only false when A is true and B is false. Therefore, A => A is always true, even when A is false. Therefore, even if a system proves itself, that still doesn't mean that the system is true.

The important thing about the incompleteness theorems, is that it shows that all regular logical systems have exceptions, that can be generated by careful construction of the elements of the system itself.

So, for instance, the rational numbers can be used to generate equations with rational constants that have no rational solutions, the real numbers can generate equations that have no real number solutions, and so on. There's no way to make an crackable safe, an uncrackable encryption, and so on, not without allowing parts of the system to be both true and false at the same time.

 

[scorpiomover]

To help people caught in the web of bullshit. You can probably help more individuals as a psychologist than try to change things as a scientist. Psychologist's interpretations of individuals matters a lot. Individuals doing meta studies, probably not that much.

In theory, yes. In practice, no, because psychology is a science, and so subject to the same biases and pressures as the rest of science. In reality, though, psychology is even more subject to those biases and pressures than the rest of science. Science may be used to promote political policies. Psychology can be used even more so, because (a) psychology talks directly how and why people do things, and because (b) psychology can be used to decide which ways to present political policies, in order to convince people better.

However, when discussing topics that are likely to avoid those biases, such as matters that do not affect politics or economics amongst small therapy groups where the therapist is paid out of public healthcare, then there's no threat to politicians and corporations, and so far less of those pressures and biases.

Personally, I found mathematics and psychology useful to see through webs of BS, but in different ways. Mathematics is good for looking for the certainties in a sea of lies, and then re-organising one's thinking in terms of those certainties, so that one can see which conclusions are certain, and which are contingent, and which assumptions they are contingent on.

However, I find that mathematics isn't that great at convincing the non-rational parts of my brain, and it seems to be the non-rational parts of people's brains, like their emotions, that are great motivators for their physical behaviours. Psychology seems to be better at doing that, and so seems to be generally more useful for things like motivation.

 

[Rebis]

While the incompleteness theorem is a mathematical proof involving generated statements, could it not also be inferred that any closed system can only reason within its confines? Systems are just models after all.

I think this logic is as old as civilization itself, I guess the theorem was emphasised in popular science because people wanted to prove that mathematics wasn't infallible, or at least limited.

It's strange is it not that strains of logic seem somewhat insignificant for 100s of years, yet when applied to a certain topic (mathematics) people become fascinated by the idea.

Also my point was essentially countering the trajectories that predicted the events in the foundation series such as a Sheldon crisis, where the probability that each successive event occurring would decrease via branching of the tree.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rebis]

Also I've picked up the foundation series again, nearly finished foundation and empire (I started with the first two preludes). I picked up a collection of Nikola Tesla's patents so that's very distracting. I think it's necessary for us to call tesla by his first name as the company TESLA is pretty popular.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[rsnm]

I studied journalism for my undergraduate degree. Wish I had the option to combine it with sociology or political science.


I am now in my 10th year as a journalist and I am now applying to study gender in the UK (I'm from Malaysia). If my scholarship application fails, I will most likely study Southeast Asian history here in my country.

Feel free to answer as many or as little as you prefer. Tangents are fine, trolls too, whatevz



If you could choose to major (or go back to school and pick a new major) in anything at all, what would you choose? Would you combine multiple, focus on one, or make your own? Why?


In a theoretical world where tuition costs were waived, if you could choose to major (or go back to school and pick a new major) in anything at all, what would you choose? Would you combine multiple, or make your own? Why?


If your current or previous major is/was the most sufficient, why?


What is education like where you are? Why is it awesome? Why does it suck?


What would you never major in? Why?


If you're a drop out or homeschooled and "over" the concept of education, why?


Did you look up to a role model when picking your major, or did you do research on the major, or both/neither?


"Do what you love, and you'll never work a day in your life" - What is the validity of this quote (or lack thereof) in regards to education and/or learning?

I

 

[rsnm]

Feel free to answer as many or as little as you prefer. Tangents are fine, trolls too, whatevz



If you could choose to major (or go back to school and pick a new major) in anything at all, what would you choose? Would you combine multiple, focus on one, or make your own? Why?


In a theoretical world where tuition costs were waived, if you could choose to major (or go back to school and pick a new major) in anything at all, what would you choose? Would you combine multiple, or make your own? Why?


If your current or previous major is/was the most sufficient, why?


What is education like where you are? Why is it awesome? Why does it suck?


What would you never major in? Why?


If you're a drop out or homeschooled and "over" the concept of education, why?


Did you look up to a role model when picking your major, or did you do research on the major, or both/neither?


"Do what you love, and you'll never work a day in your life" - What is the validity of this quote (or lack thereof) in regards to education and/or learning?

I did a degree in journalism, though I really wanted to study sociology. Didn't have the grades for sociology. Journalism didn't turn out that bad. I am now in my 10th yr of working as a journalist and even created my own media website last yr. I plan to take a Masters of Art looking into women''s history and then take a PhD in sociology Life is what you make out of it.

 

[Elen]

Pretty happy with what I studied tbh. English Literature & Film, Philosophy. Through that I taught myself how to think and communicate, and it enabled me to build a deeper relationship with my intuition...

Same. Except my degree was in Literature with a Sociology and Philosophy minor. My classes taught me how to think about thinking. I learned how to organize my mind and see intricate big pictures. I have learned a lot of history and about the importance of context.

I would probably do it again but maybe be less lazy as a student. Though, as I've gotten older troubleshooting and problem solving have become a key aspect of my jobs. I am good at it. Really good. I can hold the larger picture in my mind without losing track of the details. I sometimes wonder if I should have focused on a harder science in school. Maybe engineering. The problem with that is every engineering student AND teacher I knew in school (an oddly large number given I was a Lit. major) were basically self-entitled assholes whom people fawned over for being "so smart" but were actually barely functional in most aspects of life. Not people I wanted to spend significant time around and certainly not the sort of people likely to respect me very much as I am female and many of them simply drooled or were condescending around women. It would have been a constant uphill battle to be respected in the field and I would have had to work twice as hard to be taken seriously.

Instead I went with the literature majors who were also self entitled but had better drugs, better coping mechanisms, better conversation, and better sex. I still ended up working "with the boys" in IT anyway. So, whatever.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I'm happy with having studied maths. Some environmental science, and good religion and philosophy classes would be nice.

If I go back to uni I'm doing maths/data science to be a data scientist. That might happen.

But yeah, something in the overlap of religion and philosophy would be ideal.