STEM Degrees

[Red]

*I'm aware that there's a thread by EquALLity about science careers, but this thread has more to do with people who don't choose, what I believe, useful careers, and choose crap like art classes and gender studies and such. Basically anything that isn't STEM.
I remember about a year ago, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do with my life. I said all this nonsense about being a comedian or an artist or a video game designer, and my opinion has changed substantially since then.
I was an angsty and insecure teenager, unsure of myself.

Now, I believe that I want to pursue a STEM degree, particularly in science, possibly agricultural science. There are a few colleges I'm looking at, such as Cornell, but I'm too much of a pansy to move away (for now, at least).

Whatever I pursue will be far more useful than what I wanted to do a year ago. I also have pipe dreams of entering political office, and hopefully getting the PV YouTube channel successful.

Now the reason why I was tempted to make this thread was due to people who take classes that relate to subjects such as he arts, media, or soft sciences, such as political sciences and social sciences.

I personally believe it to be unfortunate; there's a lot of potential out there, but I speculate people are taking these classes for one of the following reasons:
1) A STEM degree is too hard, and they wanna take classes that'll be easier for them
2) They were influenced by a childhood interest (usually video games or cartoons)
3) They are persuaded that it's what they want to do, it's their passion, it'll relieve their existential crises, etc.

I'm more concerned about people who go into the arts, since that's where most of the real (wasted) talent lies (the soft sciences are still an issue, but for more obvious reasons).

I don't know why so many millennials these days are going into art classes, but I speculate it is related to one of the reasons listed above. Now, there is genuine talent out there in the world of media, but I can't help but look on in regret seeing clearly intelligent and talented people use their innate abilities to accomplish something that isn't as worthwhile as something like science.

Now of course, it is possible to be an accomplished scientist and artist (just look at Leonardo da Vinci), but I personally don't believe that the arts offer much use to society.

Take for example the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Clear masterpieces, had almost half a decade put into it. But, and I hate to sound cynical, what the hell can we use it for? The priests probably thought they needed it back in the day, but now, to me, it's just some pigment on a ceiling.

I can apply standards to myself too; I rather enjoy history, and it's probably my favorite subject, but I'm honest enough to admit that it's not a necessity; knowing everything about history isn't gonna help anyone in a hard life position.

Now, I'm not saying that art and media serve no purpose. I mean, we're alive, we should be enjoying ourselves every now and then. People can make the argument that certain things such as video games or movies can help some people get through hard times, and I think that's a valid point. And also, things such as comedy can be useful in changing public opinion (for better or for worse). However, when it comes down to it, which is more effective at maintaining life? A team of scientists who manage to grow enough food using certain methods to provide a population with healthful and filling foods, or a video game that keeps some people from committing suicide?

I want to pursue a STEM degree for the following reasons:
1) Altruism
2) Wanting scientific knowledge
3) Pays pretty well, good job oppurtunities
4) Expand personal boundaries

Of course, I'm not saying that no one should pursue a career relating to media. However, I do believe that they should be viewed as hobbies rather than careers. Careers, I believe, are for helping society. I'm not saying get a 9-5 busywork job, but I am saying get a degree that can move humanity forward. Hell, I personally enjoy drawing and writing, and hopefully can get somewhere on YouTube with edutainment.

But I choose to pursue a STEM degree. I choose to get a STEM degree in the next decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of my energy and skills, because that challenge is one that I am willing to accept, one I am unwilling to postpone, and one I intend to win.

btw sorry if this sounds lazily written, I only got like 2 hours of sleep last night. My thoughts aren't organized at all right now.

[Lay Vegan]

I think you've covered a lot of topics, so I'll address you in separate points.

1. Are the arts useless?

Define "use" in this context. Are you defining "use" to mean providing some kind of meaningful skill or service to society? Or in terms of finding a decent job after university?

In terms of skill, can you design flyers and posters to increase sales? Can you speak Spanish or Chinese to direct communication between your company and its consumers? Can you write a book, edit a documentary, or act in a film that inspires people to do good things, like reduce their animal consumption or carbon footprint? Can you use public speaking, poetry, visual art, or comedy to sway public opinion and insight change in society? All of these are examples of how those pursuing the arts can benefit society. Architects plan and design the construction of buildings, (like the university you're thinking of attending). Journalists collect, write, and distribute news to the public, allowing us to have a sense of knowledge of the world. Surprise surprise, chemists and doctors don't provide the news. Numerous others, like animators, graphic designers, comedians, artists, musicians and actors provide entertainment, inspiration, and meaning for a lot of people through their work.

In terms of finding jobs, it's certainly true that STEM careers are high in demand, and are often the highest paying. But this doesn't mean that those pursuing arts degrees have no options. Some arts-related career fields like public relations, print design, interactive media, marketing research, social media, and content marketing are still in extremely high demand. All of these career fields require skills and experience in the arts.

In addition, soft sciences you speak of have similar objectives. Psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, archeologists, use the scientific method to study all things related to humanity; our physical behaviors, psychology, institutions, and language, and how each one relates. Again, studying the workings of the human mind doesn't feed the world, or get humans to Mars. But to disparage those who pursue soft sciences is my opinion, quite naive, and a misunderstanding of what science is about. Any scientific field of study that involves furthering human well-being is beneficial. ALL sciences work to give us insight about the natural world (and those who inhabit it) which lead to our progression as a species.



2. What is your criteria as "progression" as a species?

By progression, do you mean only the ability to transport humans to distant planets or alter genes? Only the ability to create synthetic materials or control weather? In this sense, yes, only science is useful. But I'd argue that there is more than one criterion by which to measure progression. Humans have progressed in many ways. We have studied our history extensively, and use our newfound knowledge of the past to prevent future wars. We now have a better understanding of human psychology. We have a better method of detecting, diagnosing, and treating mental illnesses that prevent us from persecuting others whom we view as different. Our view of ethics and morality has also progressed, slavery has been banned in the bast majority of modern countries. I view progression as not only a measure of technological and scientific discoveries but also as a transition into a world that drastically reduces harm and increases well-being. All of this, in my opinion, constitutes human progression.



2. Arts vs. Science = Stupid

I think your main problem is that you're comparing art to science in terms of its output, not it's input. However, art doesn't function like physics, astronomy, or chemistry. It's goal is not to help humanity reach distant planets or discover new species of bacteria. Rather, art is a means to facilitate communication.

For example, you view the Sistine chapel in terms of how it benefits you or society. Someone else may view it as a form of communication and information about the time period it was constructed in, as well as the people who created it. Art and science serve entirely separate purposes in that respect.

Rather than trying to pit the arts and sciences against one another, let's value and respect the usefulness of each.


3. What major should you choose?

This depends on a lot of factors. What are your strengths and weaknesses? What does the job market look like? What are you most passionate about?

While science and math, like any other subject require practice and endurance to become good at, there's no denying that math and science come easier to some people, and are more enjoyable to some than to others. Similarly, most people can learn foreign languages, but some pick up foreign languages faster than others, and some prefer not to learn foreign languages at all. When deciding which academic program you're going to pursue at university, it's extremely important to consider not only what "comes naturally" to you, but also what field you find enjoyable. Doing so will likely reduce your likelihood to drop-out of the program (and waste thousands of dollars doing so).

Though I might add, I also think that the general aversion to science and math in education is deeply problematic, and may stem from the American education system.


If your main concern is getting a high paying or high-demand job, than yes you might want to pursue a STEM career. Even so, you should factor in how passionate you are. It would suck to end up in a career field you aren't interested in.

[Red]

Are you defining "use" to mean providing some kind of meaningful skill or service to society?

Yes.

In terms of skill, can you design flyers and posters to increase sales? Can you speak Spanish or Chinese to direct communication between your company and its consumers? Can you write a book, edit a documentary, or act in a film that inspires people to do good things, like reduce their animal consumption or carbon footprint? Can you use public speaking, poetry, visual art, or comedy to sway public opinion and insight change in society? All of these are examples of how those pursuing the arts can benefit society. Architects plan and design the construction of buildings, (like the university you're thinking of attending). Journalists collect, write, and distribute news to the public, allowing us to have a sense of knowledge of the world. Surprise surprise, chemists and doctors don't provide the news. Numerous others, like animators, graphic designers, comedians, artists, musicians and actors provide entertainment, inspiration, and meaning for a lot of people through their work.

I think I forgot to mention that the issue is that the main issue was that a lot more people are going into the arts and soft sciences than in STEM, which is overall very harmful, likely due to the reasons I speculated.

I agree, when used correctly, art can serve a useful purpose. But I carry great skepticism that most would use it for improving the world.

In terms of finding jobs, it's certainly true that STEM careers are high in demand, and are often the highest paying. But this doesn't mean that those pursuing arts degrees have no options. Some arts-related career fields like public relations, print design, interactive media, marketing research, social media, and content marketing are still in extremely high demand. All of these career fields require skills and experience in the arts.

Of course they have a lot of options, but that's not really relevant to anything I am saying.
My main point, STEM is generally more useful overall.

In addition, soft sciences you speak of have similar objectives. Psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, archeologists, use the scientific method to study all things related to humanity; our physical behaviors, psychology, institutions, and language, and how each one relates. Again, studying the workings of the human mind doesn't feed the world, or get humans to Mars. But to disparage those who pursue soft sciences is my opinion, quite naive, and a misunderstanding of what science is about. Any scientific field of study that involves furthering human well-being is beneficial. ALL sciences work to give us insight about the natural world (and those who inhabit it) which lead to our progression as a species.

I'm pretty sure those sciences aren't in STEM programs.
The problem with soft sciences though is that, if I'm not mistaken, they aren't reliable sciences. I can see how political and social sciences can be open to bias, whereas hard sciences always try their hardest to avoid it.

In this sense, yes, only science is useful. But I'd argue that there is more than one criterion by which to measure progression. Humans have progressed in many ways. We have studied our history extensively, and use our newfound knowledge of the past to prevent future wars. We now have a better understanding of human psychology. We have a better method of detecting, diagnosing, and treating mental illnesses that prevent us from persecuting others whom we view as different. Our view of ethics and morality has also progressed, slavery has been banned in the bast majority of modern countries. I view progression as not only a measure of technological and scientific discoveries but also as a transition into a world that drastically reduces harm and increases well-being. All of this, in my opinion, constitutes human progression.

It probably relates to philosophy, which science is a branch of (I also have an interest in studying philosophy).

Our morals change, the way we view people and society change, and now we have cultures with varied opinions on people and societies, which is one of the main reasons why America is around.

2. Arts vs. Science = Stupid

I think your main problem is that you're comparing art to science in terms of its output, not it's input. However, art doesn't function like physics, astronomy, or chemistry. It's goal is not to help humanity reach distant planets or discover new species of bacteria. Rather, art is a means to facilitate communication.

For example, you view the Sistine chapel in terms of how it benefits you or society. Someone else may view it as a form of communication and information about the time period it was constructed in, as well as the people who created it. Art and science serve entirely separate purposes in that respect.

Rather than trying to pit the arts and sciences against one another, let's value and respect the usefulness of each.

The meaning of art is generally agreed as being subjective, which I think makes it worthless in a sense (like subjective moralists). Someone else may find value in it which is great, but what does that matter if I can't find value in it? It doesn't mean I can't appreciate the work and talent that went into it, but it also means I can view it from my point of view, which is worth just as much as the next guy.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.

While science and math, like any other subject require practice and endurance to become good at, there's no denying that math and science come easier to some people, and are more enjoyable to some than to others. Similarly, most people can learn foreign languages, but some pick up foreign languages faster than others, and some prefer not to learn foreign languages at all. When deciding which academic program you're going to pursue at university, it's extremely important to consider not only what "comes naturally" to you, but also what field you find enjoyable. Doing so will likely reduce your likelihood to drop-out of the program (and waste thousands of dollars doing so).

I'd rather take online courses that are shown to be more effective if I want to learn another language, rather than spend thousands of dollars on a class and get like half of the results in 4 years.

Though I might add, I also think that the general aversion to science and math in education is deeply problematic, and may stem from the American education system.

Agreed, we have a terribly flawed education system that turns students off from useful information.

[Lay Vegan]

My main point, STEM is generally more useful overall.

We agree on this point. I just don't want people to have the impression that the arts are totally useless.

I'm pretty sure those sciences aren't in STEM programs.

"Soft sciences" like psychology, anthropology, and archeology are considered STEM majors. I'm not sure about political science though.

The problem with soft sciences though is that, if I'm not mistaken, they aren't reliable sciences. I can see how political and social sciences can be open to bias, whereas hard sciences always try their hardest to avoid it.

This is true to some extent. In psychology, for example, carefully controlled experiments on human behavior are pretty difficult because of the inability to isolate all variables. This isn't to say that social sciences are entirely unreliable, just that they are far more difficult to test because of the complexity of human behavior. If I hypothesize that blacks are less intelligent than whites, or that girls are less likely to be proficient in math than boys, how could I identify or isolate all the variables that could affect the result? My study methodologies could be flawed from the ground up (IQ tests are extremely problematic because of this).

It probably relates to philosophy, which science is a branch of (I also have an interest in studying philosophy).

Interestingly, the ancient Greeks considered biology, physics, philosophy, astronomy, and cosmology all as "natural philosophy" literally anything involving the study of the natural world.

The meaning of art is generally agreed as being subjective, which I think makes it worthless in a sense (like subjective moralists). Someone else may find value in it which is great, but what does that matter if I can't find value in it? It doesn't mean I can't appreciate the work and talent that went into it, but it also means I can view it from my point of view, which is worth just as much as the next guy.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.

I'd disagree. Morality is subjective, but it is in no way useless. Morality does not exist without a subjective being to identify and describe it. Once we have defined morality into existence, we can speak objectively about what is right and what is wrong. But the standards which we use to define right and wrong are subjective.

This isn't to say that morality is useless. Only that is is literally creation BY humans to benefit humans. We create and use morality to facilitate social cohesion and to foster group living. Even though morality is no way objective, it isn't useless by any means.

I'd rather take online courses that are shown to be more effective if I want to learn another language, rather than spend thousands of dollars on a class and get like half of the results in 4 years.

Some people feel this way about school in general, lol.


I think we both agree that STEM is important in the progression of humanity, and that we should encourage more people to pursue STEM.

[Red]

alright i'm back

We agree on this point. I just don't want people to have the impression that the arts are totally useless.

Agreed, but maybe we can encourage people to do both?
I like studying sciences and history, but on the side, I like to draw stuff (although not as much as I want to), and have video-making experience. I think it's very useful to use both.

"Soft sciences" like psychology, anthropology, and archeology are considered STEM majors.

I heard that some psychology fields are hard, but most are soft. I believe if someone is willing to go into STEM, they should choose a hard science.

This is true to some extent. In psychology, for example, carefully controlled experiments on human behavior are pretty difficult because of the inability to isolate all variables. This isn't to say that social sciences are entirely unreliable, just that they are far more difficult to test because of the complexity of human behavior. If I hypothesize that blacks are less intelligent than whites, or that girls are less likely to be proficient in math than boys, how could I identify or isolate all the variables that could affect the result? My study methodologies could be flawed from the ground up (IQ tests are extremely problematic because of this).

That's an interesting point.
Is it possible to make a soft science a hard science if the bias disappears?

Interestingly, the ancient Greeks considered biology, physics, philosophy, astronomy, and cosmology all as "natural philosophy" literally anything involving the study of the natural world.

Well I guess that can be considered the hard science of those days.
Science though didn't really take off until the creation of the scientific method and the scientific revolution.

I'd disagree. Morality is subjective, but it is in no way useless. Morality does not exist without a subjective being to identify and describe it. Once we have defined morality into existence, we can speak objectively about what is right and what is wrong. But the standards which we use to define right and wrong are subjective.

This isn't to say that morality is useless. Only that is is literally creation BY humans to benefit humans. We create and use morality to facilitate social cohesion and to foster group living. Even though morality is no way objective, it isn't useless by any means.

Of course subjective morality is worthless.
If everyone is good according to their own moral standard, then what's the point of improving? What gives you the right to say that your moral system is any better?

Carnists believe that eating meat is moral, but pretty much everyone here believes otherwise. Do you believe the carnists to be moral? If they think they're moral according to their standard, then so be it. See how it kinda defeats the purpose?
Remember the Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Some people feel this way about school in general, lol.

It's the sad but probably unfortunate truth.
I heard from STEM majors that you HAVE to take classes if you want to get anything out of it, which is probably true.
Almost anyone can teach themselves how to draw, play an instrument, or make videos with limited assistance, guide, or teaching (although it likely takes a bit longer).

Not everyone can teach themselves physics and gravity like Newton did.

It's easier and faster to master 5 instruments than to master a hard science (that's a hunch, but probably not too far off base).

I think we both agree that STEM is important in the progression of humanity, and that we should encourage more people to pursue STEM.

Look, I think everyone should at least try science, instead of not taking it because they struggled with it in school.

[brimstoneSalad]

Art is very useful for communication of ideas from other fields (like philosophy or science, through edutainment), but something people don't seem to realize is that unless you want to be a university level art teacher there's not much of a point in getting a degree in it.

Art is also useful as intervention. Not as a university teacher (that's nearly useless), but as a teacher in public schools or community centers for at risk youth. Much like sports.

Art isn't like physics or biology; like you said, for art you can just buy some paints or download an art program and start making it at home. You don't necessarily have the budget to build a physics or biology lab. The hard sciences also prosper much more from professional guidance because you have to do things *just right* and there's very little tolerance, while art is forgiving and works very well with peer criticism from other learners.

Anyway, it's great to hear that you're going into STEM!
When do you graduate high school? You're almost done, right?

[brimstoneSalad]

My study methodologies could be flawed from the ground up (IQ tests are extremely problematic because of this).

IQ tests are fine, the problem is when people try to apply it beyond the individual level to society, or make broader claims because there are many variables that affect IQ (like lead in the water or paint chips in low income housing).
There are too many forces that depress the IQs of low income populations to make any useful claims when those huge confounding variables can't be reliably controlled for.

I'd disagree. Morality is subjective, but it is in no way useless. Morality does not exist without a subjective being to identify and describe it.

What do you think "subjective" means? Are shapes subjective, is a circle or square subjective? Is math subjective?

If so, in what way is such a broad definition of "subjective" helpful?

Lesswrong has some good discussion on different definitions:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/5u2/pluralistic_moral_reductionism/

I addressed one of the subjective-objective dichotomies here and showed how it's not useful:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3641&start=10#p36141

Once we have defined morality into existence, we can speak objectively about what is right and what is wrong. But the standards which we use to define right and wrong are subjective.

Are all definitions of all words equally credible?

Some definitions of some words are unhelpful, and do not comport with the teleology of the word.

Also discussed at more length here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3746&p=36447#p36447

You're welcome to start a thread on it, maybe we can convince you that morality is objective.

[Red]

Art is very useful for communication of ideas from other fields (like philosophy or science, through edutainment), but something people don't seem to realize is that unless you want to be a university level art teacher there's not much of a point in getting a degree in it.

I think most folks who go into art want to be artists for video games or maybe do commissions. I think the problem with that is the fact that it doesn't guarantee consistent money, much like YouTube. I just don't think it's reliable, but these people seem to be ambitious.

That's why I think it should be treated as a hobby, or a way to make money on the side.

Art is also useful as intervention. Not as a university teacher (that's nearly useless), but as a teacher in public schools or community centers for at risk youth. Much like sports.

What does that mean exactly? Like making people get through depression through art? I see how that can help. But (and I'm gonna be cynical here), I don't think most people are willing to do that, they probably just want to be accomplished painters that people will be talking about long after they die.

Art isn't like physics or biology; like you said, for art you can just buy some paints or download an art program and start making it at home. You don't necessarily have the budget to build a physics or biology lab. The hard sciences also prosper much more from professional guidance because you have to do things *just right* and there's very little tolerance, while art is forgiving and works very well with peer criticism from other learners.

Yeah, I think it's kind of a waste of money to be going to college to become and artist when you can just learn at home.
Why spend thousands of dollars on a class, when you can just spend only a few hundred dollars for supplies and teach yourself (or just enroll in an online course).

Anyway, it's great to hear that you're going into STEM!
When do you graduate high school? You're almost done, right?

Yeah, next year is Senior (which will be a breeze compared to right now).

[brimstoneSalad]

At risk youth, like those who might join gangs etc.

[Red]

At risk youth, like those who might join gangs etc.

Oh. Well that's what I thought.