<p>This is a ridiculously vague question, but I did it on purpose. I want an overview of each without clouding any responses with any bias I might add in extra information I add.</p>
<p>Pros and Cons would be nice. Job security, salary, demand, benefit etc would be great. And speaking of demand, since the gov. always predicts 99% of the jobs are on the rise, please don't use that as a source :P</p>
<p>I like Physics and Math, haven't done AP Chem yet, so i'm not sure of anything.</p>
<p>“always predicts 99% of the jobs are on the rise, please don’t use that as a source :P”
- Just so we’re all clear, this is willful ignorance. There is no reason to suspect anything is wrong with the BLS OOH numbers. Perhaps there are problems with interpretation, but this is not the fault of the study. </p>
<p>I post this for the benefit of the wider community which might read this thread and somehow believe that they are better off listening to anecdotes than consulting published studies. Try to get input from both sources. It really annoys me when people defend conspiracy theories about the government propaganda machine. Give me a break.</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>I was merely asking for less of a blatant source, and more of a personal one. I never trust raw statistics by themselves, no matter where they are from. I never said it was inaccurate or believe in any government conspiracy theories out there. I don’t know what made you come to the conclusion.</p>
<p>^ Perhaps I misunderstood. If you want some anecdotal information, that’s certainly your right. I hope you understand that there are many people who dismiss statistics out of hand because of various paranoias, and that is why I was a little short with you.</p>
<p>That being said, you really shouldn’t adopt the attitude “I never trust raw statistics by themselves”. If you won’t, who will? The BLS OOH gives the raw numbers as well as some brief interpretation, and as such there’s really no reason not to trust them. If it’s just a question of your ability to interpret the information, that is valid, but you can’t distrust the raw data without believing it to be inaccurate. Maybe I’m beating a dead horse here.</p>
<p>Lol I know, I know. No harm done. I understand where you’re coming from. </p>
<p>I just didn’t want the same post over and over.</p>