<p>For all the math and science people on here:</p>
<p>Pure or Applied? Why?</p>
<p>Pure because it's less messy. I get much more satisfaction out of writing an elegant proof than throwing Markov Chains into Matlab and letting the computer spit out a number. Also, I'm not so hot at CS, so doing pure math lets me avoid it. :)</p>
<p>How about you?</p>
<p>Pure Science all the way. Right now I am fascinated by physics. I dont know much about the subject (but then again, who does?). The feeling of discovery is so transcendent! If I get into Princeton, I would like to eventually study condensed matter physics. Love at first sight! ;)</p>
<p>Pure science is sexier, but if you want to make a real difference in the world, go with applied. The vast majority of pure science gets published in some journal where it promptly sinks into uncited oblivion. Applied science seeks to solve real problems that real people struggle with. Success in applied science can far more often improve people's lives than does success in pure science.</p>
<p>Good Point. Remember though that improvements made through applied science are often made possible by advances in pure science. For example, the Watson and Crick discovery of DNA and its shape paved the way for countless advancements such as genetic engineering that are categorized as applied science. So while meaningful breakthroughs in pure science occur less often that those in appied, they tend to have a more wide ranging impact.</p>
<p>Pure science is more about improving our understanding of the universe (be it on a micro or macro scale) than solving a specific problem. These developments in pure science naturally lead to practical applications (exempli gratia: with the development of quantum physics came both the atomic bomb and nuclear power). We will never be able to fully understand the fuzzy realm inside of pure science while the answers in applied science are quite palpable, so pure science may seem impractical at first. However, in truth, both can be fun and useful.</p>
<p>Haha "pure science is sexier." I couldn't agree more.</p>
<p>I'm saying pure, also. I don't know if any of you read American Scientist, but a while ago there was an article called "Mathematics as Creative Art" or something that spent eight pages highlighting the differences between "mathology" (pure) and "mathophysics" (applied). </p>
<p>The author, a pure mathematician, explained that he likes doing things just for the sake of doing them. He likes the beauty part of it. While applied math is more useful and easily explained (in the sense that the general public understands WHY you are studying applied mathematics), the aesthetics of pure mathematics win, in his mind, everyday.</p>
<p>It's a really cool article. I tried to find it online, but I don't have an account with American Scientist so I couldn't. </p>
<p>Anyway, my verdict is PURE, hands-down.</p>
<p>j07, what do you want to major in?</p>
<p>The difference between pure science and applied science is the same as the difference between having dreams and making plans.</p>
<p>The world needs dreams, but it's the plans that actually gets things done and moves the world forward.</p>
<p>The limitation with pure science is that there just aren't very many incredibly smart geniuses who are lucky enough to land in incredibly fortunate circumstances to permit the true Watson & Crick-type breakthroughs to occur. And after they do occur, it's a whole army of applied scientists (merely ordinary geniuses) who go about turning those dreams into reality -- into real tangible things like gene maps, DNA vaccines, diagnostic tests, etc.</p>
<p>So if you are convinced that you are the one-in-a-million genius who is going to turn the world upside down, go for it. I salute you. But I predict a few years or decades from now you'll back with a different opinion.</p>
<p>Weasel - I want to major in Philosophy. I love science as much as I love English, and there's really no in-between there. So I figure if I start off with Philosophy, I'll learn a lot about thought and myself on the way and I'll eventually figure it out.</p>
<p>Coureur - I understand what you're saying perfectly. I'm just too idealistic and in awe of everything around me to agree. :)</p>
<p>appliedappliedappliedapplied.
Then I can do something with it. I'm too lazy to learn stuff I can't use. (That came out wrong.) I just learn things with applications, or that are applications easier, because I can connect them to the real world and it makes sense. :)</p>
<p>ps. Markov Chains are Life.</p>