>>7581283 >don't trust those anonymous posters, trust this one! Of my year's MSc a grand total of none became engineers, two went into teaching, a bunch went into consultancy, and four are either actuaries or quants. Some became PhDs.
I've worked at over 5 different international technical companies, 2 different engineering firms and since my return to academia I've done consulting for many, many different industries including petro, plastics, pulp, food, inorg. chemicals, mining and electronics industries. (most of these doing research in all the buzzwords you can imagine btw)
I have NEVER in my career seen a SINGLE mathematician employed at an R&D lab, never mind an engineering department/firm.
The only pure degrees that find jobs in industry is chemistry and the specialized degrees like forestry, genetics etc. (most tech companies employ a combination of (bio)chemists, engineers and MS&Es in their R&D labs) and I've known few physicists working in R&D, mostly in the smaller departments on product development type projects, not on the reactors, process synthesis or anything else on the engineering side. The general titles are "[junior/senior/lead] scientist" , "technician", "engineering [technologist/technician]" etc. never "[junior/senior/chief] [insert discipline] engineer".
Yet every single time I've encountered a math. department's brochure or seen a mathematician trying to shill his discipline on the internet/real life they will always try to imply they can get employment in a technical career with their degree. Where is the proof?
It's a complete fantasy.
Except for finance firms the mathematicians hired by technical companies are employed as vanilla white collars aren't working on the technical side. These people think they will be allowed to work on reactors, but they are about as qualified as a philosophy degree holder when it comes to applied science.
I have quite a few friends who are math PhDs so let me just sum up what people in the real world think their career options are: >Quants (if you're graduating from a top tier grad-school) >Other finance [by this I mean neo-blue collar type jobs for example "bankers" who are essentially helping customers fill in forms and punching it into a screen, not even accounting] >Academia >Teaching outside academia >General McJobs tier office drone
That's it, people who don't like those options go back to school for another degree.
There is a rather sickly case of academic inbreeding in mathematics departments, they have a delusional inflated sense of self-importance.
>>7581283 >beyond believeableanalytical skills. >then work on those certs Wow, no, being a code monkey writing simple algorithms is not using "beyond believeable [sic] analytical skills". Again with the inflated sense of self importance. Pure math might be abstract, but it's not nearly as difficult as you want to believe it is.
Any idiot can understand abstract ideas if they study it long enough, just look at all the religious and occultist fuckwits in the world.
>>7581305 >Honestly believing you'll be more qaulified than a CS major if you get your certs.
This delusional is unbearable, I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your posts.
OP don't listen to these morons. If you like pure fields, but don't want to stay in academia you NEED a science/applied degree. I recommend double majoring in math and physics at minimum if you don't know what applied fields you want to work in.
>>7581326 http://sce.uhcl.edu/helm/SWEBOK_IEEE/papers/10%20reprint%205.pdf >Calling Software Development Software Engineering >Unless these activities also include the design of hardware interfaces, power systems, or other engineered components, they do not appear to meet the legal definition of engineering practices. >It might be more accurately described as "code writing", "product support" or other tasks that the board doesn't regulate. >...if the practitioner is calling the activity software engineering, he or she is violating the law.
Why do you code monkeys always try to get fancy titles? You know you could literally see jail time under the consumer protection act right?
"Understanding" abstract ideas is not the same as abstract mathematics.
This is a really stupid argument. Say what you want about how "easy" you think maths are but at least come up with something that doesn't sound fucking stupid.
A mathematician in a software company will definitely not stay a code monkey. They would have to climb the ladder (probably the reason why math guys stick with teching and being consultants), so they would be code monkeys, but a mathematician could easily become the lead of the programming department.
But climbing the ladder is the same for anyone. The only point I'm making is that mathematicians can climb the ladder as fast as you can.
And to whoever said it. Of course you wouldn't let a mathematician touch your fucking reactor, that would be ridiculous. But are you saying he couldn't do the calculations for a building?
Of course they fucking could, and some do, but this kind of simple computation is so beyond most mathematicians that it would be tedious for one. Probably the other reason why they stick to academia.
All I'm saying is that they can do it, just like you. A math degree is worth no less than any other degree.
You're climbing a ladder that has a ceiling below entry level engineering. That is what your not getting and that's why shouldn't recommend doing only math and certs to people who want to work in industry. That is even more retarded than my religion=abstract analogy.
>>7581383 >There is no ceiling. Yes there is, no one is ever going to do anything even marginally important with just a math degree. Your beliefs isn't real life. You're like a technician diploma holder who thinks he can eventually climb the corporate ladder to be a chief engineer.
Not unless you go back to school for another 4 year degree at some point.
>>7581378 >>7581378 This is true but only for the mathematicians that were stupid enough to choose the ladder of engineering in the first place. I know that I used engineering and software development as my examples before but really... what mathematician would want to go to engineering?
If you had wanted to use 0 thinking and apply formulas made hundreds of years ago by real mathematicians then you would have gone to engineering. The mathematician is obviously not the kind of guy to do engineering.
But there are many other places to climb the ladder. Places that will stimulate you intellectually and will not put a glass ceiling on you because of some bullshit "Only people who did 4 year engineering degrees after this point" laws.
>>7581391 Guess what? The other places to climb ladders require law degrees, M tech. management (which requires an engineering BS) or MBAs.
A math degree is not intended for a professional degree. And there is no one in the real world that considers you on the same level as a professional degree holder. You're seen as being about as smart as a house wife/middle school teacher with your hobby degree.
Dont forget it's also a platform for an MS in literally all the "professional" degrees.
CS, EE, IE, CE all accept math majors and in the states in my area, you can get a PE license with an MS degree(even an AS in my specific) state.
Engineers at the undergrad level are literally the worker bees churned out to maintain infastructure and keepcthe economy functional. There is absolute nothing remarkable about them and most would fail higher level math(which is why they get their special engineering math courses.)
>>7581403 >One does not solve PDE's and the interesting questions in PDEs are not solutions as mostare intractable but on exsistence and uniqueness of solutions. No fucking shit retard, but also it's not the degenerate solutions are often useful in analyzing particular system properties in transport problems (continuum mechanics, heat transfer and reaction-diffusion systems since you are undoubtedly too retarded to know what transport means).
You will never deal with systems that are as complicated as engineering systems in your entire career. You've probably never even seen coupled non-linear classes never mind delayed non-linear functional classes.
Just because you were able to sit still like a good little autist and do a few simplified textbook math problems for 4 years, does not mean you're good at applied math, never mind actually understand science and engineering which is not about understanding idealized math at all.
You are so ridiculously delusional about your own abilities you don't even where you stand relative to other disciplines (which is at the very introductory level bottom; any advanced math you learned is not useful outside math academia).
I'm not going to convince you further, I'll just let figure out for yourself when you try to apply to jobs in the real world. Any that is stupid enough to trust you and major in math so they can meme on /sci/ deserves what's coming to them anyway,
>>7581420 Not that guy that you are arguing with but.... Fucking chill. Your shit is not the most impressive in the world man. PDEs are a very specific subject, and it's fine that you enjoy working with them. But they are no the hardest problem. They are not even "hard" by academia definition. Sure toy problems are good for creating abstraction. But you must realize that your field is not impressive and it is not harder than theoretical math. I do not enforce theoretical mathematics, I do not find it enjoyable. I'm more of an applied guy. But the theoretical problems are vastly, grossly harder than the applied problems. There is not even a competition here. You are suffering vastly from the Dunning-Krüger effect and should not have such a strong opinion on things you have not grasped.
However with this all said, sure - applied problems are hard, I find them hard, I only even find enjoyment in solving them. But they are not harder than theoretical problems, which is why I specialized in applied. It's fine if you and I are not doing the hardest jazz in the bar man. But we gotta realize that there are people who are, and they are generally more clever than us. Again, Dunning-Krüger effect for you, because I've worked it and failed. Google Dunning-Krüger if you don't know what it is.
>>7581406 >-Professor/Tenure track (the usual) Sure, but you are on 4chan, no one here will get this. >-Software Development/Engineering IT crowd tier code monkey. You'll never even get to the level of CS/real SE and even then the highest you can climb is still very low relative to other technical manages in most companies. >-Algorithm design (in cutting edge technology companies) >-Data Analyst There are more qualified people, but sure you can climb to VERY high-salaries, still not top management level. >-Statistician for industry >-Satatistician for research Rarely happens. No one needs a pet mathematician for these jobs, someone with AppSci can do it themselves. You overestimate how simple stats in industry and research is.
>Here you would be working as a mathematician for a HEALTH department. Doing donkey calculations or did you not read the job description?
>very math degree has statistics in it. So does every engineering degree, at least 3 credit hours often more, not that they'd take simple jobs like that.
>You would not be using specific formulas, There is not a single real world circumstance where does happens other than maybe technician work.
>And analysing data is actually a job that would stimulate you intellectually. No, design stimulates you intellectually. Research stimulates you intellectual. Analyzing data is feeding numbers into a computer and doing minimal thinking every now and then, but mostly you're just taking orders from your boss and plugging his ideas in.
>Once again, I stand my ground. My major claim in this thread still is that a mathematics degree is worth as much as your applied science degree. It's simply not. I would never recommend mathematics to anyone not intending to pursue an academic career and you'd be extremely dishonest to do it yourself.
>>7581423 I'm not the NukeE. I have degrees in ChemE (post) and physics (b.) and I rarely post in these type of threads.
>>7581425 Yes I'm talking about solving, you don't seem to understand
>Why are you so scared of the simple notion that a mathematician can have a decent living, working in a decent and satisfying job, just like do? I'm not, I have never said that mathematicians can't get decent (mostly non-technical) industry salaries. I said it's an extremely poor choice if you want a STEM career in industry, which it is. Math departments keep pushing the propaganda that their graduates are good enough to work in engineering, which is a bullshit fantasy and needs to stop. Usually when I confront faculty about this they backtrack and talk about getting applied degrees after a math B. Which negates their entire premise of math being anything more than a background to S&E.
>>7581428 Fuck off and stop pretending you know anything about the field you undergrad shitstain.
Math departments have entire research groups dedicated to it, the cutting edge of the field IS theoretical.
Mathematicians are the ones suffering from dunning-kruger effect (which includes you since you are obviously not in appSci, but a false flag math shill), their field is not difficult. Maybe you should actually try talking to math researchers to find out what they do before you suck their cock, none of it is particularly impressive or difficult. And they are generally pretty low functioning autists, not high IQ intellectuals like you imagine yourself to be.
>>7581434 >Sure, but you are on 4chan, no one here will get this. If you are going to undervalue the community then why the fuck are you even here? I hate the people who say "I'm so much better than anyone in here... but I'm still here." Or "This place sucks... but I'm still in this place." Fuck you, asshole.
>IT crowd tier code monkey. You'll never even get to the level of CS/real SE and even then the highest you can climb is still very low relative to other technical manages in most companies. Depends on the company. Working in an "app" company? Sure, code monkey work. You woul do this to get experience years anyways. Then you go to actual software companies working on the 21st century's problems of computation.
>There are more qualified people, but sure you can climb to VERY high-salaries, still not top management level. More qualified people? More qualified than who? More qualified than EVERY math major? Good luck proving that. Once again proving you are an idiot. Also, are you claiming that the end goal of STEM degrees is to get into business management? What the hell? If you mean the lead of your team, there is no reason why a math guy couldn't do this.
>Rarely happens. No one needs a pet mathematician for these jobs, someone with AppSci can do it themselves. You overestimate how simple stats in industry and research is. You say rarely happens when I took the time and effort to find a real example that has 2 openings. There is more from where that came from and it is specifically looking for math degrees. It does accept other people with hours in statistics but there is a reason why they are the B. and we are the A.
>>7581434 >Doing donkey calculations or did you not read the job description? Really depends. Here you would be working in an multidisciplinary team. You would learn from your peers and they would learn from you. It would expand your view on the world. While in your engineering firm? Everyone there is the same type of engineer, all of them learned the exact same shit. A bunch of drones programmed to do the same tasks. No variety,
>So does every engineering degree, at least 3 credit hours often more, not that they'd take simple jobs like that. All I can say to this is... good for you. It does not hurt me that you get statistics. Does it hurt you that I get a job?
>There is not a single real world circumstance where does happens other than maybe technician work. I don't get this statement. You win?
>No, design stimulates you intellectually. Research stimulates you intellectual. Analyzing data is feeding numbers into a computer and doing minimal thinking every now and then, but mostly you're just taking orders from your boss and plugging his ideas in. To some degree, analysis is design. Specially if you are allowed to innovate in the process by which the data is looked at. So I guess it depends, but just like there are engineers that design the projects, there are also the guys who sit in a cubicle 8 hours a day using their calculators to see if this pillar is going to break or not. Everyone has to do repetitive tasks in a job.
>>7581468 Wow that's some hardcore angst right there. What's the matter, a mathematician made you cry or something? Some are low functioning autists, some are neat. However your field is not the hardest, deal with it kiddo.
>It's simply not. I would never recommend mathematics to anyone not intending to pursue an academic career and you'd be extremely dishonest to do it yourself. To imply that X degree's only purpose is to teach it back is stupid. Specially if it is a discipline that has been with humanity for more than 3000 years.
I will give you something though. It is true that for a job in industry as a mathematician, you will have to work harder for it than other people.
But again, if you are a mathematician then you are used to working harder than other people and being successful at it.
You do not get into mathematics to go for the easy route. You do so if you actually care about the important of logic and formalization in order to solve the biggest problems.
And what about you engineers? By the numbers showing how over saturated your market is, it is so obvious that you choose engineer to go for the easy quick buck.
And not even this will be true in a couple of years, when half of engineers are not even employable because everyone and their mom has a bachelors in every engineering discipline.
>>7581448 If I wanted an applied math B degree I could just register and instantly have enough credits.
But there's no point considering my background already more than sufficient and S&Es develop their own math, actual applied math is very different from the superficial applied math taught at mathematics departments.
>>7581486 But we are very much working on real problems. Like making the planing algorithm for an unmanned helicopter for example. Planing, not planning. We are feeded real world problems, very often. Maybe it's your school that's a shithole and not the rest of the world?
>>7581469 I said 4chan, but I meant people here who waste time posting in major politics threads. So me and you.
>actual software companies working on the 21st century's problems of computation. Hire CS majors from top schools.
>Also, are you claiming that the end goal of STEM degrees is to get into business management? Yes, the end goal literally is management. What do you think professors' end goals are? What do you think research chairs do? For any real career it all ends in management whether you like it or not.
> If you mean the lead of your team, there is no reason why a math guy couldn't do this. Yes there is, the fact that they are a math major with no education in project management -unlike professional degrees. Which in the first place is not something you can quickly pick up, and secondly not something anyone will ever trust you enough with to promote you.
>You say rarely happens when I took the time and effort to find a real example that has 2 openings. Many pure math autists from top schools who weren't force to do stats don't even meet the requirements for that posting. In fact it's literally the people you make fun of regularly, the people who get math stats degrees are more employable than pure math. And statistician is not a fun or intellectually stimulating job like you want to believe it is.
>While in your engineering firm? Everyone there is the same type of engineer, all of them learned the exact same shit. You're an idiot. Engineering firms hire everyone form lawyers to biochemists to artists.
>multidisciplinary team. That means you'll be taking orders from the engineer/scientist PhD holder to plug numbers in and you'll be allowed 5% speaking time in a meeting to discuss your results.
>I don't get this statement. Most real world engineering work requires applying principles to develop new process models. There are no "formulas", there are not even heuristics solved problems is not engineering work, it's technician work, or more accurately a technician using software written by 20th century engineers.
>To some degree, analysis is design. No. >Specially if you are allowed to innovate in the process by which the data is looked at. You won't be. They send that work to the engineering department.
>there are also the guys who sit in a cubicle 8 hours a day using their calculators to see if this pillar is going to break or not. Show me those guys. You keep making up shit about professions you don't understand -including your own-, but your posts stem from /sci/ memes not the real world.
>>7581526 Yeah. The difference is that we don't have to sell our soul to work for them. Since you know, most governments are not corrupt to the bone and such. But you know, outside murica the world is a crazy place, right?
>>7581479 >Specially if it is a discipline that has been with humanity for more than 3000 years. Engineering has been around for even longer what's your point?
>But again, if you are a mathematician then you are used to working harder than other people and being successful at it. Math undergrads have 25% the credit hours of engineering degrees. You know jack fuckall about what hard work means.
Try a ChemE, medicine or even a law degree, then you can talk to me about hard work. You did an unprofessional light degree, you need to stop acting like it's so goddamn difficult when my housewife hobby comment was not even exaggerated. It's one of the easiest degrees to get unless you're studying at Cambridge.
You keep trying to steer it into your delusion "yeah ok, my degree is not that useful to industry, but it shows I'm intelligent because it was so hard for me". You're not useful precisely because you've never done anything hard, you didn't develop any creative problem solving skills that other professional stem didn't develop to a much greater extent. You are still in your diapers and you won't get good at problem solving until you're at a level where you can publish.
>By the numbers showing how over saturated your market is Except there are 4 times more math graduates than ChemE graduates you fucking idiot. You're confusing admissions with people who actually finish the degree.
There are 2.75 math graduates for every ChemE graduate and there are 3.35 math graduates for every physics graduate.
More interesting stats. There are less EEs and CIVIL engineering graduates than math graduates.
If you don't get over your delusions now you can just fuckoff and go back to your eco chamber. You'll find out how worthless you are compared to engineers when you graduate, but for now keep thinking your degree is in any way prestigious in your little inbred mono-disciplinary circlejerk.
>>7581499 >But we are very much working on real problems. Like making the planing algorithm for an unmanned helicopter for example. Planing, not planning. We are feeded real world problems, very often. That's a typical third year control engineering problem. Don't know what math department you're from working on solved problems.
And no, most math departments at good universities do pure research.
>>7581542 Better analogy: Engineers drop functional analysis like bitches drop panties for Channing Tatum. >>7581546 Lol fuck no, are you for real? SAAB(sweden, yes) just implemented this type of functionality. It was only solved a year before us, we solved it using a Ph.D paper. No, this is not a control theory problem, this is not an engineer problem, this is a very complex modern geometry problem, that engineers do not, can not and will not understand or even partake. This is how I know you are full of shit, saying shit like this. Man fuck off back to /b/.
>>7581553 lel engineers at our school have at most 3-4 courses at a time. Each semester is comprised of two reading periods, 3-4 each. Most engineers(that I know of, and know) only take 2-3 since they can't do a full schedule. Talking out of your ass mate. Do you think mathematicians only do 3-4 courses per semester?
>>7581553 Add to: >>7581556 Most engineers read 75% schedule, not even comprised of mathematics. Such shit as programming and lab courses. Holy shit man, I take programming courses to take the load off my schedule, they take lower course load because of programming. Engineers ain't shit.
Your engineering degrees aren't even internationally accredited. Why are you trying to talk as if you're on the same level as us? Get out of /sci/ you snowmonkeys, Jamal still needs to warm his cock in your ass tonight. Just in case you don't understand what I'm telling you -I know it's hard because you attend a school with a lower rating than my local CC-, you do NOT know any REAL engineers in the Western sense of the word.
>>7581573 hm u could go into Rx and sell out the Americans babies to the aliems you could go into Law and sell out the Americans to the aliems you could go into Weapons mfg and sell out natives to the aliems
>>7581639 math can be taken as a general degree in most institutions
engineering is the equivalent of a honors in math
did you fail stats 101 anon? arent you a wannaby engineer? shouldnt u be good at interpreting numbers in the context of real world? where is, where is your creativity anon? did, did you fail out of engineer school anon?
The minimum required for a math degree is fucking piss easy and a joke. That's why anyone in math who is remotely competent is taking graduate classes by their 3rd year and trying to do publishable research, or if they're interested in more technical areas like algebraic geometry that require a lot of background, they at least do independent study under a professor so that they can quickly get into research in grad school.
A math undergrad degree by itself is not impressive, I know I've got one.
>Students fails because the classes are too hard! >My kid is not retarded. Is just that your class is too hard for him! >I am not retarded, I just have too much work on my hands... on this... undergrad degree no less...
There is no reason to fail an undergrad year. All undergrad degrees are fucking easy. Even if you are retard level, all you need is to put more time than other people.
That means that most engineers are not only retarded, but are also lazy fucks that cannot put in the extra effort.
Also >People fail my degree, that means it is harder than yours!
>>7581714 Are you arguing that undergrad degrees are actually hard?
We can argue all day about which one is easier than the other, but all undergrad degrees are easy.
You are studying things that were discovered or proved decades and even centuries ago. Getting a phD is hard, you actually need to be the top at some discipline to do so. You can't just google your doubts away.
>>7581624 I think it's funny seeing people obsessively suck their own dicks and assert that their field of study is so much better than someone else's. This thread could have just been some polite discussion about career opportunities but I guess that's too much to expect.
Your last point is spot on, too. A math degree isn't as vocational as an engineering degree or even a pure science degree in the sense that there aren't really "math jobs." Everyone thinks that math majors must just go on to be teachers because of that, but like you said the degree works really well for going into pretty much anything that you need a degree but not a specific degree for.
Ideally though, for anyone that wants to major in math, it's best to either try and double major or get a minor in some sort of applied field that you are interested in. CS and Economics are the most common pairings with math and in a lot of cases just having that minor will make you stand out compared to a good chunk of people. >>7581330 That's completely wrong, though. Like the other guy said, all you have to do is pass the tests and you can call yourself an actuary, and most places will hire you for basic actuarial work before you've finished half of them. >>7581540 Number of graduates doesn't really prove much comparatively. There are less anthropology and philosophy graduates than any of the listed engineering disciplines but I wouldn't make claims for either of those fields being less saturated than any of the engineering disciplines.
>>7581739 >I think it's funny seeing people obsessively suck their own dicks and assert that their field of study is so much better than someone else's. This thread could have just been some polite discussion about career opportunities but I guess that's too much to expect.
you are on a website thats predominately 18-22 year olds what do you expect?
these people are recent highschool graduates with very narrow world view, whos identity is what they do in school like it has been for the last 12+ years. they have no idea how fluid the real world actually is. i mean, dumb engineers right?
>>7581739 >This thread could have just been some polite discussion about career opportunities but I guess that's too much to expect.
When someone tries to put forward how a math degree can get you all the jobs in any industry and will make people think you're some intelligent demi-god that's when productive conversation breaks down.
Do you really think it's a good idea to let people get away with telling this bullshit to freshman or anyone else for that matter? It's not healthy behaviour just so someone can stroke their e-penis on a Nepalese buffalo skin tanning forum and then have an eco chamber feeding his delusions.
>>7581767 >When someone tries to put forward how a math degree can get you all the jobs in any industry and will make people think you're some intelligent demi-god that's when productive conversation breaks down.
>i..i..i.. was triggered!!!! i cant control my emotions like an adult WAH WAH WAH
>>7581268 >But if you have connections and/or technical certifications on any other field you could work anywhere from a software company to an engineering company.
>>7581276 >>BSc >Teaching and literally nothing else. >>MSc >Teaching, actuary, consultancy (this is true for pretty much all M degrees), banking.
And of course the best sperg of all: >>7581283 >Probably a fucking engineer. >Just remember that your pure math class is so abstract that the only positive thing you get from it (when it comes to industry) is top tier, beyond believeable analytical skills. >For most jobs your analytical skills will carry you but if you want to get into a good spot in a really technical industry then work on those certifications.
>>7581767 You're right, that guy is a nut, but there's a lot of shit-flinging and dick-waving on both sides. I'm pretty sure it's just that one guy making those claims and he's probably (successfully) baiting in the first place.
I'm trying to become an analyst and work with lots of data
Right now I'm majoring in Economics (Econometrics) with a minor in Math (Stats) and I'm wanting to add in a second minor, and I want to pick up a something computer-related. I'm curious if I should go with:
>Computer and Information Science >introduces the theories and techniques of computer science while developing programming skills that are applicable to your major discipline. This will provide a general introduction to computer science including programming experience in at least two high-level languages.
>Computer Information Technology >prepares students to work with evolving technologies for work environments that require development and management of business databases, computer networks, web applications, and software systems.
I'm going to learn SAS, R, and VBA anyway but I'll probably pick up extra skills from doing one of these minors. Which should I choose?
>>7581936 Many universities define and mix classes together differently. For example, I never had a 'calc 3'. I had calc and multivariable calc and that's it. Covered all calc needs and advance topics as well.
Point is, even if the names of the courses are similar the content is substantially different and relies upon previous math knowledge. Not to mention with the supposedly rigid course load of engineering degrees there is no way they would have been able to take these additional math courses.
Irrespective of the economic value a mathematics degree is vastly more difficult and rigorous then the mathematics covered in engineering. Most engineers are mathematically inept.
Speaking of engineering I have a question. If engineering is so difficult why can mathematicians enter engineering graduate school? I mean surely with the rigorous nature of engineering(4 years of superxhard courses) and weakness of mathematics students(housewife degree) there is no way they could ever be successful.
I mean the fact the engineering department professors often have a bs in math is some type of anomaly. It couldn't be that mathematics is more difficult then engineering and gets respect of academic institutions moreso then engineering bs.
>>7582000 Everyone that says math is easy just look at the required courseload instead of actually look at what people in math study. I mean I could get a math degree with like calc 3 and a bunch of useless courses but most I know do only math courses/mathematical stats + some computer science
>>7582019 It's not allowed, even at shitty schools math students still have to take analysis and algebra.
That said, a math bs is a piss easy degree. That's why non-retarded math students are taking grad classes by late in their 2nd or at least by their 3rd year, and all of senior year is doing research, grad classes or independent study of grad-level topics
>>7582033 I purposely noted that what I said applies to non-retards. If you're only doing "advanced calculus" only at your 3rd year, then you can't really complain that the engineers think your degree is for housewives.
Even if you come in with a shitty background you can do your years 1-4 outline in 2.5 years easy, then start taking grad classes
>>7582045 What is advanced calc? In my country and uni baby calc is up to stokes theorem on year one and that you should be able to prove everything that you use on the exams i.e. babys first epsilon deltas, chainrule for several variables etc
This is factually impossible because of the pre-req restrictions. Few people go beyond Real Analysis at their undergrad(most don't even and stop at advanced calculus). Only the top grad-schools expect students to enter knowing Measure Theory.
If you come in and you take calc 2, calc 3, DE's (which usually only requires calc 2), LA in your first year. Now you can take intro analysis/algebra. Meanwhile you can take advanced LA, or Topology, and the 2nd semester of 2nd year you can take a 2nd course in analysis and algebra. In any case, by your 3rd year you are free to take measure theory analysis and whatever else you want including grad classes
>>7581241 http://www.maa.org/careers provides a non-exhaustive list of ideas.
http://www.mathclassifieds.org/jobseeker/search/results/ gives a list of employers seeking math majors (mostly professors or for research though). There is so much shit you can do with a math degree, so long as you know what you want to do and you specialize for it. If you specialize in financial options and learn statistics/stochastic processes, you have to be retarded to not get employed. If you like programming, specialize in being a numerical analyst or a system analyst: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm
If you enjoy math research, there's a lot of opportunities in meteorology and neurology.
>>7582147 I also want to add that there are a lot of deadbeat math majors. This is because being a math major can be terrifyingly easy if you choose to fill the minimum requirements and pick EZ-boi mathematics to complete the degree.
Don't be those guys. Fill your electives with math classes that will enrich your understanding of mathematics and be directly applicable to the field you are interested in. Take a few graduate level courses (Topology and Modern Algebra are great classes for a junior/senior to get their ears wet with graduate level math.)
Oh, so mathematics teaches you assembly language, computer architecture, data structures, analysis of algorithms, interpreted vs compiled languages, programming in object oriented programming language and operating systems?
All of the above is essential for software engineering. An A.S. or a Minor in Comp Sci with a math degree, maybe. But to do real software engineering a knowledge of operating systems and other items stated before is a must
>>7582381 My first paid internship as an undergrad math major was software development for Oracle/PeopleSoft, a highly competitive position. I have never taken any compsci classes, but I have significant experience with mathematical modelling, so I was able to perform well on the entry test.
I now have a letter of recommendation from my supervisor, so yeah, I can pick up positions as a software developer.
>>7582381 Do people even bother to read the entire thread before brain farting all over an otherwise insightful discussion?
Literally the first posts of this thread mention that as a math undergrad you should your free time to get technical certifications.
There are many schools that will give you official and valid certifications for any programming language.
But you don't need this anyways. I learned programming as a hobby. That's right, your 4 year CS major was my hobby since I was 12.
After I graduate, just by showing them my huge portfolio that I have kept well updated (to show the best programming practices, that I learned in the more recent years) and categorized (by language and platform) I could get hired. And if they test me with those popular "programming questions" they do to separate the serious people from the retards then I have no fear at all because I have solved more complex problems than they could ever ask me.
Also, most software development position do not require you to know assembly or computer architecture.
Even worse, you won't even need to know about data structures, algorithms, or the theory behind interpreted and compiled languages because as a CS guy you will end up as a code monkey that just needs to memorize the functions of X engine or mobile platform.
Stop stroking your dick so hard, you are bullshitting yourself if you think you need these things in most software development positions.
And surprise surprise, I know more about these topics than you will be taught in your petty CS classes. Just the fact that you have an OO class in college means the degree is for pure retards.
>>7582533 Sad. You are alive proof that mathematicians work harder.
Like I have said, trying to be as honest as posible so that I don't come out as the "300k starting" bullshit guy, if you are a pure math graduate you will have to work much harder to get a good job.
Why I said you are "used" to working harder? Because if you are not a complete retard, you worked on the side picking up technical certifications or working on individual research that can give you a head start in the market.
Where do you fit in my idea? You are taking chemistry. A degree that will clearly land you a good job. Had you not gone into chemistry you would have had to work on something else or end up as a poor high school teacher.
You're confused, pal. The crux of what some people are trying to argue here isn't that pure mathematics majors don't have it hard when it comes to finding jobs, but rather that the subject matter is not any harder than other STEM fields.
How is it my fault that chemistry jobs are more in demand than pure mathematicians?
>>7582546 In a lot of earlier math classes, being clever is usually enough to get by, especially in ODE, Linear Algebra, and Calculus I-III.
However, my experience with real analysis is that it demands precise memorization of a lot of proofs and definitions, which requires a lot of time, dedication, and discipline. It does require cleverness in the sense that the reader must understand each step to commit it to memory and call on it cold, but the amount of time required and the process is foreign to a lot of talented students.
If you are a hard worker, it is not a big deal going through every line of a proof to ensure you understand it. I notice a similar block with junior/senior physics students: many get by their first three years by committing important formulas to memory and applying it on a test, but there is a point where the advanced students need to go through derivations of equations line by line, understanding each step thoroughly.
TLDR: there reaches a point in math where being disciplined is measured in your grades, so many students fall off.
>>7582549 What I'm confused by this point is why the fuck you care about the workload of other peoples' majors? Clearly all of you have to much time on your hands if you can commit this much energy to such a stupid fucking argument. You all must be insecure if your degree has to be considered hard for you to feel satisfied.
>>7582000 >why can mathematicians enter engineering graduate school? I Uhm, they can't?
At my university only science majors can enter it, then they need to take 1-2 years of undergrad classes before they can start postgrad and they don't even get an engineering masters in the end, they get a masters in applied science. It's mostly meant for people intending on industry research who want a background in materials or control engineering.
Mathematicians aren't allowed at all unless they double majored with at least 2 years worth of credit in physical sciences. Then they have to take the same route and also don't get an engineering degree.
That's why I would never tell anyone to get only a pure degree even if they are 100% deadset on academia. Always couple a pure degree with engineering or you close way too many doors.
>>7582738 >Always couple a pure degree with engineering or you close way too many doors. The only door it closes is working as an engineer.
If one does not wish to work as an engineer, it would be utterly foolish to pursue an engineering degree.
While the job prospects for a pure science or math degree are more competitive and generally lower paying than for engineering, they at least cover a range of different fields and applications rather than simply working as an engineer in one specific field of engineering.
>>7582048 >Even if you come in with a shitty background you can do your years 1-4 outline in 2.5 years easy, then start taking grad classes This guy gets it. That's the point where you start getting respectable, but that's still a light courseload albeit difficult. If you really want a career in STEM you should also be taking more physics, modelling and dynamics classes.
>>7582750 >http://www.maa.org/careers If you would look at the other links posted there, you would see this one. Sure it's a math dept. however, the point is very easily made. Mathematical Modeling. This is being used more and more in almost any field. You know this, we know this, the future employers know this.
>>7582740 I'm saying this as the ChemE who also holds a Physics B.
You don't quite understand industry or how people there think.
"Engineering" is applied science only to a more professional extent including a more rounded education in business management, law, economics and engineering practice etc. All those jobs you are talking about is available to any engineering degree holder and usually only taken by weak engineering candidates who can't find other jobs. In the petro-, chemical and pulp industry for example you'll never find a job posting asking for BSc that doesn't also ask for BEng, but not vice versa, you aren't asking for a BSc to fill a control engineer's job.
>they at least cover a range of different fields and applications rather than simply working as an engineer in one specific field of engineering. Right see, but this is again wrong, engineering programmes have a more diverse scientific background because on top of the first two years studying pure physics, chemistry and app. math (which is more applied math than you'll encounter in your entire pure math degree), they also learn about biology in BiochemE, pharmacology in engineering kinetics etc. and many other fields. Engineering covers far more appsci than you think on top of the engineering specific courses.
You are also wrong about "one specific field of engineering", a ChemE will have many courses in EE to a second year level, CivilE up to strength of materials, share transport with MechE etc. Just like an EE will also have some training in Chem and material science. That's why the word "engineer" is often used colloquially to mean people with basic training in engineering disciplines.
An engineer is considered to be "trained" -aside from all the engineering and non-STEM disciplines- in physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. Because in the real world each industry has it's own science you need to study up on anyway, and so it's actually true the training they had is all they need, since the new science you need to learn builds from the fundamentals, not the cutting edge of the field. They are considered capable and professional enough to quickly learn anything they need.
A chemistry graduate is considered to be trained in chemistry and mathematics. You will be placed in a lab monkey grinder and you will stay there because no one respects your background enough to promote you out low level tech positions.
That's what we mean when we say pure BSc isn't a "professional" degree, because of the very limited exposure to science they had. If you only have a BSc or MSc you will be put in a team filled with other lab monkeys and you will be taking orders from an engineer- because in industry only an engineer is considered capable of leading multi-disciplinary teams to their wide background. Given /sci/s ego most people in that position would kill themselves (while people in the real world are more humble).
So in conclusion, it doesn't just "close the door for working as an engineer.", it closes the door for working as a STEM professional. The only way to reopen that door is to go all the way with a PhD; or to go back fro an engineering degree like I did. So like I said, if someone specifically says they don't want to stay in academia for long, then recommending pure degrees is like recommending English lit. to someone who wants to be a lawyer. Just stop doing it. It's not productive. if you're struggling to recover your ego from struggling with something as easy as a math undergrad degree, then you should consider leaving stem altogether instead of spouting fantastical bullshit on /sci/.
>>7582795 >Mathematical Modeling. This is being used more and more in almost any field.
By people in the field.
I don't think you understand what modelling is if you think a math major will be good at modelling in an applied science field. Doing the actual math is the easy part. Developing a good model from physical principles is what's difficult. It requires creative problem solving skills, not rigorous proofs and autism.
What do you guys think about a double major in applied math and computer science?
I have two options 1)double major math/compsci at the most renomated uni of my country (which only as a "good" math/compsci course) 2)major in applied minor in compsci at the best technical school of my country, which has a good reputation, but isnt that famous overall. this school has the best compsci course
so basically double major at a prestigious uni with an ok course of major/minor at normal uni with the best course
>>7582748 I can concede that. In fact, I hope it is the case that compsci majors are better at computer science.
>>7582907 I've done mathematical modelling in biology and physics. The latter required I take a few relevant graduate level classes, but the previous just required that I work closely with the biologists collecting data.
>>7582750 From my experience, there are only a few engineering options. I will post a few from SIAM (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) http://jobs.siam.org/jobseeker/job/24793608/Principal%20Process%20Simulation%20Engineer/__company__/?vnet=0&max=25&str=1
>>7582977 When they say applied math, they really mean applied math, as in it should say that on your degree, there aren't many degrees like that awarded, but the programmes include a lot of applied science classes, essentially what we've been recommending in these threads all along to couple your math degree with appsci. Especially things like cosmol and cfd you won't get much experience with that if you didn't some form of engineering or applied physics.
>>7583003 Yeah, I agree. Although I must say that the pure math classes have helped me tremendously with my applied math degree, what helped me the most was taking a lot of internships in different fields.
>>7582381 >assembly language Little to no real use in the real world, unless you have a very niche job that actually uses it. Sure it's always helpful to have a vague familiarity with it, but you could easily do that on your own time without paying thousands of dollars to have a college teach it to you. >computer architecture For the most part, same argument as above. >data structures, analysis of algorithms If you think there's anything monumentally difficult about these (especially for a math major) you're fooling yourself. >interpreted vs compiled languages You could literally learn this in 10 minutes
You have a decent point with the OOP and Operating Systems bit, but again, you could feasibly learn both those on your own time. Or just take a single class on each, and not worry about fulfilling CS degree requirements.
>>7581241 I'm in a similar boat to you OP, I posted pic related in the engineering thread, you might wanna look at both (pic related answers you question, the replies below are attempts to answer the question I raised in pic related) >>7579425 >>7579515 >>7581293
>>7581266 >Maybe engineering. But depends on your minor. Here's a question I've been struggling with for a while, how does a maths grad sells themself over an engineering grad when applying for engineering? The answer that this thread seems to give is "by getting qualified in engineering".
>>7581406 >-Professor/Tenure track (the usual) I wonder, how is this in the UK? Where can I learn more?
>>7581479 >And what about you engineers? By the numbers showing how over saturated your market is, it is so obvious that you choose engineer to go for the easy quick buck. Source? (even better if it's from the UK)
>>7581516 >Engineering firms hire everyone form lawyers to biochemists to artists. How do these people sell themselves over actual engineers?
>>7583098 >Here's a question I've been struggling with for a while, how does a maths grad sells themself over an engineering grad when applying for engineering? The answer that this thread seems to give is "by getting qualified in engineering".
Leadership experience that demonstrates your diversity is the number one thing I would suggest. For example, join a robotics team/club and actively participate or see if you qualify to join some engineering organization to work alongside engineering students, who usually need quite a lot of help with math, especially with Diff Eqs. The trade off is you learn some methods of analyzing engineering problems.
>I wonder, how is this in the UK? Where can I learn more? There are a lot of great organizations that are dedicated towards helping math majors find practice and jobs. I'm in the USA, so I don't intimately know the UK specific organizations. However, I know SIAM has a UK branch. Their website is here: http://www.siam.org/
I found the London Mathematical Society, but I cannot vouch for its efficacy: https://www.lms.ac.uk/careers
The absolute best thing you can do is be involved with the math faculty at your university. The professors and grad students have the best insight on what you should do, especially if you state that you are interested in participating in the private sector/industry. Talk with the professors who instruct your class. Go to math faculty events where undergrads are invited. Don't be like most students who think a degree alone will earn you a great job. You have to mingle, participate, and develop & demonstrate leadership skills in college. Try to get internships and/or REUs for the summer. The latter is a wonderful experience because you will be surrounded with clever people in your field who enjoy their subject, and you get paid a fair sum.
>tfw all your physics/math major friends don't have jobs in their respective fields.
One of my buddies that double majored in math and physics finished school and now works at fuckin KFC. My other buddy that did physics (started with IB programs etc) works as a programmer after giving up job searching for a year.
>>7583098 >How do these people sell themselves over actual engineers? For example environmental engineering uses a lot of biochemistry knowledge. As does most food processing and biochemical engineering processes.
To answer your question, the key selling point is "you can pay me less", which is just fine when you already have enough CEs on the team. Eventually as you gain experience you will be paid very well though. There's more than enough money to go around at engineering consulting firms.
>>7583349 That's not what happened at all. Everyone was discussing realistic math career pathways and then some Swedecuck took a break from letting Jamal fuck his boypussy to spout his math elitism nonsense.
>>7583047 >You have a decent point with the OOP and Operating Systems bit but again, you could feasibly learn both those on your own time
Then why dont I get a B.S. in Psychology and apply to a developer position if I "learned" everything a B.S. in Computer Science major took?
You shouldnt go to a university to learn. If people did, they would audit all of thier classes. People should take University classes to get certified.
How do I know someone really "learned" all of this information in their free time? There are tests for a reason
Operating Systems is a very complex topic and its not something you can pick up without a basic knowledge in discrete math, architecture, systems programming( multi-theaded programming in C, knowledge of assembly language)
inb4 math majors take discrete math, because I had a question for a math professor with pigeon hole theory and he couldnt answer because he hadnt taken discrete mathematics before
It's 100% false. I was considering an electrical engineering degree for my BS. EE degree is 100% EE courses besides the general ed courses(so 1 term of baby chem, 3 terms of baby physics, and a term of biology). EE degrees don't require any material science courses or any other non EE topics.
Conversely ME has 1 or two Materials Science courses but requires no EE(and in fact it's not in the plan of study).
Engineers are taught about their specific subject, your claims about engineering are becoming more and more absurd.
>>7583569 Not him, but I don't know what uni you went that you didn't cover it, sounds weird that your curriculum is so light. Are you sure it was even accredited? US state school?
Here's my undergrad ChemE curriculum: Sem1 (20) >Chemistry 4 >Chemical Engineering 2 >Physics 4 >Humanities & Social Sciences Elective 2 >Manufacturing and CAD 4 >Calculus I 4 Sem2 (20) >Organic and Physical Chemistry 4 >Chemical engineering 2 >Electricity and electronics 4 >Humanities & Social Sciences Elective 2 >Mechanics [statics] 4 >Linear algebra 2 >Calculus II 2 Sem3 (20) >Organic chemistry II 3 >Physical chemistry II 3 >Chemical engineering materials 2 >Programming 4 >Strength of materials 4 >Differential equations 2 >Calculus III 2 Sem4 (22) >Statistic for Engineers 2 >Analytical Chemistry 2 >General Thermodynamics 4 *>Electrical Engineering 4 >Mathematics 4 [eigen vals/vectors applied to systems of ODEs, convergence, power/fourier series, PDEs] >Numerical Analysis 2 >Departmental Elective 4 Sem5 (18) >Chemical Thermodynamics 4 >Mass transfer 4 >Transfer processes 4 [fluid mechanics and intro to HT] >Particle technology 4 >Engineering Management 2 Sem6 (20) >Heat transfer and piping design 4 >Kinetics 4 >Chemical engineering laboratory 4 >Process dynamics 4 >Departmental Elective 4 Sem7 (20) >Biotechnology 4 >Process control 4 >Process synthesis 4 >Reactor design 4 >Research project I 4 Sem8 (20) >Design project 8 >Chemical engineering practice 2 >Process analysis 2 >Research project II 4 >Specialization Elective 4
*Sem4 EE (taken by EE majors in 3rd semester) as an example covered microelectronics (semiconductors, diodes, transistors, logic gates, biasing etc.), power engineering, signals and filter design, analog-digital instrumentation and machines (motors/generators). We used Zekavat's text for this. steady+transient analysis, AC, three phase etc. covered in sem2 circuits. So a fairly broad exposure to fundamental EE. All disciplines except Civil I think has to take it.
>>7581923 Kinda true. I'm a nuke who had an A+ in all of my engineering math(calc 1,2,3,, ,diff eq, linear algebra) and I have the highest GPA in my class. I just got a 21% on my first analysis exam. Granted the class average was a 40% and had a bimodal distribution. I enjoy it, but I suck at it.
It really depends on the topics you have studied. If you've been up to your neck in abstract algebra or number theory then most of that is pretty fucking useless outside of your specific field. But if you've done analysis/PDEs/statistics you can find something related to those. You can also find work on some theoretical physics project that is related to your degree.
>>7581241 Ok OP, I have a serious answer for you. Sadly since I've been in the same boat as you for a while, I'm gonna have to repost this a lot now that I've got my answer, and I've posted in many different threads.
==Pasting begins here== Source for all of my claims: http://www.hecsu.ac.uk/assets/assets/documents/wdgd_september_2014.pdf Sadly, I couldn’t extract anything about finance from this data, because it lumps finance into 'Business, HR and finance professionals' (which is 2.2% of all graduates) but this ought to make a point, as far as I'm aware when this survey says "Chemistry" it means the pure science type, not stuff like Chemical Engineering.
Anyway, note the following, all data is taken from 6 months after graduating: Among all employed graduates, 4.2% were 'Engineering and building professionals' 0.6% of employed Biology students were 'Engineering and building professionals' 2.7% of employed Chemistry students were 'Engineering and building professionals' 2.7% (not a typo) of employed 'Physical and Geographical sciences' students were 'Engineering and building professionals' 10.5% (wow!) of employed Physics students were 'Engineering and building professionals' Let's not mention Sport Science >For me [and you OP], here's the kicker, 1.9% of employed Maths students were 'Engineering and building professionals' Computer Science was 1.4%, which makes me wonder if they lumped the jobs Computer Engineers do into IT jobs.
For engineering however, I don't even need to go into the specifics, the highest unemployment (defined as being NEET) in ANY field of engineering was 9.8% (that's not as bad as it sounds, the average for all degrees is 7.3%) and the lowest percentage actually working in engineering was 33.6%, although I should note that both of these weird figures were both from Electrical Engineering where people often apply for IT jobs, outside of that specific field, it's usually 6-7% NEET and well over 50% of engineers working in engineering.
>>7584867 >>7581241 Let me hammer that home, over 50% of engineers who are working are in engineering jobs. These are new graduates, 6 months after graduating, their CVs can't really be all that outstanding.
This tells me two things: 1) Engineering isn't fucking oversaturated or being outsourced or any shit like that, if it was, you wouldn’t see half of the new graduates getting jobs as fucking engineers. 2) While I can't at all conclude that pure science/maths graduates are hopeless at getting engineering jobs (clearly they're not, some of them have done it), it doesn't look very hopeful either, with the exception of physics, all of the pure science/maths areas have a higher percentage of people working in 'Retail, catering, waiting and bar staff' than they fucking do in engineering. Think about that for a moment, open a prospectus for a university or something and look at maths, I fucking bet it mentions how you can end up in engineering. Do you think that after all that propaganda, so few pure science/maths students would be trying for engineering jobs? I fucking doubt it.
Going back to an earlier point I made, >>7583661 (ignore any claim I didn't source) the only fields of engineering that say, a maths grad could get into would be Civil or Mechanical. Well, good fucking luck - 70.6% of Civil grads work as Civil Engineers, and it's 64.2% for Mechanical.
In short, fuck this - I'm a first year student in the UK studying maths at a Russell Group uni which means the propaganda told me that I could get a job in Engineering, but I believe I have debunked any claims that I have any chance doing so.
...I give my thanks to /biz/ and /sci/, if it weren't for you guys posting so many unsourced claims about saturation, I would still be sitting here today stuck between choosing finance or engineering as a backup plan, and now I know that engineering is not a valid choice... now I can only hope that I don't find the same of finance, anyone got any sources?
Firstly, what do you mean by jobs for a maths / stats major? If you mean a job outside of academia that can only be done by a maths major, using specialised maths skills that a physics / engineering student doesn't have, then the answer is...... very few.
If you mean a job that a maths major can do, can easily apply for and get, the answer is... many. Most graduate jobs don't require a specific degree. Repeat after me: Most graduate jobs don't require a specific degree! Nobody on 4chan can realise this! Nobody on 4chan realises that jobs such as accountant, investment banker, civil servant, many corporate function graduate jobs (finance, HR, operations), business consultancy DO NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC DEGREES.
IF YOU WANT TO USE YOUR REAL ANALYSIS SKILLS AND GET PAID, YOU'RE FUCKED. BUT YOU'RE NOT FUCKED IF YOU DO A MATHS DEGREE.
Also I did an engineering degree. I hated it. I troll engineering so much on /sci/, I regularly get accused of being a physics student lol. But even though I think engineering is a brainless load of shit that any maths of physics student could easily do professionally, that doesn't mean I think they can have access to tonnes of engineering jobs. Most engineering companies advertise most roles to only engineering students because they need to train them less.
Also many 4chan users have no perspective and are extremely dumb when using stats. They literally google "job stats" and see "engineer starting salary is £X while for maths graduates it's £Y". I don't accept that this is ever a valid line of argument. I just don't. Why would I judge my career choice based on information that's taken from mostly dumb people (i.e. most students), who wouldn't have even gone to university 20 years ago? I'm not competing with them. There are also other factors that I won't go in to here.
Also one more short note. Why does nobody on 4chan know that many graduate schemes are aimed at students of any degree, even liberal arts? My guess is that it's because most 4chan students go to low tier universities where many graduate employers don't bother to advertise themselves. These 4channers think that the big 4 pay high wages. Many of these 4channers go to Podunk Community College and transfer to Rinkydink State Technical College. They graduate and then apply to Mom and Pop's Local Engineering Company which is located in rural Buttfuck.
honestly I have no opinion except that you should get good grades, apply for internships as soon as your penultimate year starts, buff up your CV with bullshit roles in university clubs and hope that you're a normalfag. This is if you want to have a job outside academia.
I've applied for many engineering jobs and a few want maths grads for certain roles. I think BP does. But other than that, your best bet is one of the general things i mentioned
>>7584890 >Why does nobody on 4chan know that many graduate schemes are aimed at students of any degree, even liberal arts? We know, but no one here wants to do a job a BA in business can do
Also, I'd much rather be one of two engineers at Mom and Pop's, with the freedom to do my own research to expand and advance the business, than to work at a big 4 as part of a team analyzing a single rivet on a project that might get scrapped anyway
>>7584887 >Most graduate jobs don't require a specific degree. Repeat after me: Most graduate jobs don't require a specific degree! Nobody on 4chan can realise this! Nobody on 4chan realises that jobs such as accountant, investment banker, civil servant, many corporate function graduate jobs (finance, HR, operations), business consultancy DO NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC DEGREES.
You're the idiot. No one wants to work in those jobs, that's the point, people here want to work in STEM.
>Also I did an engineering degree. I hated it. I troll engineering so much on /sci/, I regularly get accused of being a physics student lol. You're that britcuck loser who has never posted his time stamped degree which is why we don't believe you. You're also wrong on almost everything you say and you don't understand the industry at all.
>>7581330 WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG You can walk into a job as actuary with a BS in buttfucking so long as you pass FM and P and can program a bit. A lot of people transition from other careers with two exams under their belt but the competition is heating up to 3 average.
>mathfags think they can walk into engineering jobs >no experience >have never designed anything in their entire lives >gaping hole in engineering coursework that they think can just be 'learned on the job' upon hiring >their entire knowledge of the field is based on googling and /sci/ memes >their major is so detached from real world application that this is what they actually believe
Thread replies: 236 Thread images: 21
Thread DB ID: 61284
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.