Do technical degrees limit you?

Student Lounge College Life
101

<p>The difference is that creative and design professions focus on idea generation itself. Can you get creative when studying physics for engineering or writing a paper about Shakespeare? Maybe, but it’s not the same. ~ Pandem</p>

<p>Well, who the hell is going to pay you to write a creative paper about Shakespeare after you graduate college?</p>

<p>Either way, you’re wrong. It takes much greater “creativity” and decision making to design a bridge (those aren’t cookie-cutter), a building, a parking lot, a drainage system, a mechanical device than it does writing some paper about Shakespeare.</p>

<p>Millions of HS and college students have written papers about Shakespeare, and at some point they all ended up in the trash. So that’s where your creativity gets you.</p>

<p>Take your creativity and use to to actually create something, like a sewage system, roads, locomotive, ect.</p>

<p>Besides, who creative is it to write a paper about a book (any shakespeare) that has had millions of papers written about it before.</p>

102

<p>

</p>

<p>peter_parker, you hit the nail full force on the head right there. 100% agree.</p>

103

<p>Of course it is. The economy doesn’t need mindless followers, it needs radical thinkers who are used to generating ideas. Relegating it to out-of-class research defeats the point. ~ Pandem</p>

<p>LOLOLOLOL</p>

<p>So you’re saying that a guy who can design and build say a water tower for a small community, or design the sewage system for a new housing development is a “mindless follower?”</p>

<p>Or a guy who designs prosthetic devices for wounded Marines is a “mindless follower?”</p>

<p>I guess philosophy majors are the ones doing all that stuff, huh?</p>

104

<p>

Okay, I’m agreeing that most traditional majors don’t do a good job of creating radical thinkers. Where I disagree is with your assertion that design majors are inherently more radical. Do you have either evidence or analytics to support this argument?</p>

<p>By the way, some followers will always be needed and may actually be paid well for following.</p>

105

<p>BIGeast, I couldn’t bother to read anything you wrote after you mentioned me saying tax credits being welfare and '‘dismissing’ my knowledge for it because I never actually said tax credits were welfare. BTW I would like to believe that i know something about taxes since I am after all a finance major believe it or not.</p>

<p>My point was that major preference and use is arbitrary, if you believe neuroscience is more useful than sports management then that’s good for you, but I can guarantee you that there are others who feel otherwise (including professionals).</p>

<p>I presented my opinion and alternatives to your ‘‘tuition tax credits’’ for various majors because you asked for it and your rebuttal did nothing more than emphasize how ‘‘disillusioned’’ and ‘‘high’’ I am.</p>

<p>EDIT: I agree with pandem, sometimes I believe you make some good points then other times I wonder whether you’re being serious or not?</p>

106

<p>@ BIGeastBEAST
Once a ■■■■■, always a ■■■■■, as far as I’m concerned. Even if you sometimes do make good points, you’re blatant ■■■■■■■■ (here and specifically on the Pitt board) makes you sound like a nut. I also love your discussion about the world needing neurosurgeons, yet you’re a political science major. What the world doesn’t need is more bureaucrats. </p>

<p>@noimagination
I don’t necessarily mean to imply that design majors are that far ahead in the creative department. A lot of those programs are still locked into some specific industry (product design, etc.) and therefore are missing the greater point. There are only a few schools (at the undergrad level) out there that have started incorporating ‘design thinking’, which basically amounts to attacking problems using creative methods. Grad, on the other hand, is much better. Stanford’s d.School is a great example.</p>

<p>Compare a company like IDEO to your typical product design/engineering company. Big difference.</p>

<p>Watch these videos to get an idea of what I mean.
[David</a> Kelley on human-centered design | Video on TED.com](<a href=“http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_kelley_on_human_centered_design.html]David”>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_kelley_on_human_centered_design.html)
[Tim</a> Brown urges designers to think big | Video on TED.com](<a href=“http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.html]Tim”>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.html)</p>

107

<p>“peter_parker, you hit the nail full force on the head right there. 100% agree.”</p>

<p>I didn’t read the whole thing you quoted, just stopped at the first flaw I saw, so…</p>

<p>Multivariate Calc and DiffEQ aren’t engineering classes. That’s math. At any school I’ve heard of, those are in the Math department, not in any Engineering or Science department. </p>

<p>Further, on the same point, the fact that he did well in those classes and others did poorly says nothing about those classes, any similar classes, or anything of the sort. It at best says something about how he compares to others in those two specific classes. </p>

<p>You have low standards for 100% agreement.</p>

<p>I’m going to continue to only half take a side here, but as a lot of people, this thread is filled with stupid comments from people arguing on either side or any point.</p>

108

<p>Also, stop editing your posts after someone’s already responded.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Reading comprehension. I guess you didn’t learn it in college.</p>

109

<p>Northwestern, my frosh year alam mater has really made sure design was a major part of all engineering students’ first year education. I’m no longer doing engineering work (got a BA somewhere else…irony or ironies), but I really think NU has a great undergrad engineering model. </p>

<p>Pandem…I’m so glad to find someone on CC who’s up to speed with the IDEO stuff. Assuming the world doesn’t blow up in the next 50 years, the direction that company is taking, will be the future. It’s not just about designing products, but also rethinking organizational structure, which is applicable to everything from public policy, health care, non-profit management, arts and media, national infrastructure etc. </p>

<p>@BIGeastBEAST: I agree with pandem. I didn’t always agree with everything you had to say, but you’ve always made some sensible points. Too bad you’ve decided to just go ahead and attack everyone who disagrees with you in the slightest with the most condescending tone possible.</p>

110

<p>

I agree with all of that but don’t see how it is relevant.</p>

111

<p>It’s extremely relevant because the tools used in the design industry are being used in the business world. This. is. a. big. deal. Watch the videos about IDEO.</p>

<p>As already stated by WindCloudUltra:

</p>

112

<p>Well hey, don’t let reality get in the way of your world view folks.</p>

113

<p>That’s all you’ve got? Cmon, try harder, ■■■■■. You were foaming at the mouth with lies on the Pitt board.</p>

114

<p>

  1. In the context of this thread, most design majors would qualify as “technical”.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I don’t see a link between design major and “design thinking”. You admitted that this link is tenuous at best: “There are only a few schools (at the undergrad level) out there that have started incorporating ‘design thinking’, which basically amounts to attacking problems using creative methods.”</p></li>
<li><p>If there’s no link to field of study, why are we discussing this?</p></li>
</ol>

115

<p>Pandem:</p>

<p>Hey, if you’d actually address my points and debate, I’d have something to say. But you just call me a ■■■■■, like that is somehow intelligent or clever.</p>

<p>You just got upset because I told you how people are going to snicker at you after you leave job interviews because of your fake major. You haven’t had an original thought yet, you just stomp your feet like a lil kid then start calling people ■■■■■■.</p>

<p>You can call me a ■■■■■, I careless, you’re just a nerd. Probably always have been.</p>

<p>"if you believe neuroscience is more useful than sports management then that’s good for you, but I can guarantee you that there are others who feel otherwise (including professionals). " ~ Xptboy</p>

<p>Please, you really are high. What person (let alone a “professional”) is going to say sports marketing has more value to society than neuroscience? That’s just stupid, and you are sounding like a moron because of it.</p>

<p>BTW: The “lies” pandem is accusing me of is that I said his school, Pitt, isn’t a safe campus, which it isn’t. He got all huffy-puffy and started crying and holding his breath, stomping his feet. </p>

<p>He then used his “creative” powers to call me a ■■■■■.</p>

116

<p>^ Post #111, BIGeast.</p>

117

<p>I’m not going to explain something that the TED videos already does. In the past, design schools focused exclusively on a limited industry and the skills associated with it. Most still do, but “design thinking” is just a way of applying these skills to broader topics. It’s just like a “liberal arts” education supposedly gains you writing, etc. skills, except design tools are actually useful to society. Schools are beginning to realize this, and it’s going to be a bigger deal educationally in the near future.</p>

<p>But I agree, it’s a waste to talk about it in this topic. I just felt like commenting that education is often divided into “the technical people” and “the liberal arts” people, which leaves out an entire group of fields (architecture, product, graphic design, etc.)</p>

118

<p>

I understand what you’re saying. I guess I’ve just been debating too long to let something so blatantly non-topical go. And based on the OP’s definition of “technical”, I feel safe saying that architecture/* design fields fit that category.</p>

119

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re the one who sounds like a moron when you don’t understand what people mean by a perfectly legible post and all you do is incandescently dismiss others opinions as stupid and worthless.</p>

120

<p>

This is a point that deserves emphasis, one the OP (the one this thread is supposed to help, remember?) should keep in mind. In almost any job I can think of, the people that get ahead are those that put in more than is required. If you’re an engineer it means staying late or coming in on the weekend to help your team keep the schedule when something unexpected happens. Extra effort. As Randy Pausch, who gave the famous ‘Last lecture’ at CMU said, "junior faculty members used to come up to me and say. “Wow, you got tenure early; what’s your secret?” I said, “It’s pretty simple, call me any Friday night in my office at 10 o’clock and I’ll tell you.”</p>

<p>So if you’re just thinking about money, pretty soon you become used to what you make and the extra work it takes to (eventually) get raises and promotions doesn’t seem worth it. For some, this may be an acceptable plateau; the good-enough nurse or accountant or engineer makes a decent salary, although as they get older they run a higher risk of layoff. It’s the people that love what they do are disproportionately represented in those that get higher up on the ladder, simply because putting in the extra effort is fun for them. If the upper rungs are what you’re aiming for, then find a way to combine something about what you love to do with the working world.</p>