<p>Harder classes are often harder because they're pedantic, the professor is an a-hole, or you have a million hoops to jump through to get a good grade.</p>
<p>It had nothing to do with rare knowledge or intellectual stimulation or learning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Spoken like a true liberal arts major. It's called being WRONG, something your cute little "opinions" can't hide.
[/quote]
Except that in this situation, you're wrong. I can't believe some people on CC actually think a Bachelor's degree is all that is needed to become a professional Economist, Biologist, Chemist, Psychologist, Mathematician (sp?), Physicist, or whatever - are you guys kidding? I realize that every other person on this message board is convinced they're a genius (and it seems most are pretty smart) but if you think having a Bachelor's makes you any of those things, you desperately need a reality check - no "cute little opinions" about it. I think if I went up to my Biology professor tomorrow and asked him if a BS in Bio would make me a biologist, he would burst out laughing or think I was kidding. I'm studying International Relations/Economics, and let me tell you, getting a BA in Econ is SO different from getting a Masters/Phd and becoming a real economist. First of all, there is a ton of math involved in becoming an economist, whereas undergrad Econ majors don't have to take that much math. No wonder so many economists study math for undergrad instead of economics. I have a Math major friend who wants to be an economist - a real economist, not a person with a Bachelor's in the subject.</p>
<p>I want to become an economist, and it's always really hard to explain it to people. If I say I'm majoring in economics, people assume I want to go into business. If I say I'm majoring in math, I get asked if I want to become a math professor. If I say I'm majoring in math and economics, the general response is "Wait. What?"</p>
<p>In my college, we have a Math major, Econ major, and Math/Econ major (combined), although I don't get how it's different from simply doing a double major in math/econ. Anyway, LogicWarrior, I hope you don't consider someone with a BA in Econ an Economist, because I think most economists would laugh their heads off at the idea of a bunch of teenagers thinking they're economists with their bachelor's degrees, after taking 2 calc classes and some stats lol....just like i'm sure a real physicist would think it's weird that some 22 year old kid with a bachelor's in physics thinks of himself as a physicist - I don't know why people think this concept is so crazy...it seems like common sense to me. CCC88's post summed it up perfectly.</p>
<p>I smirk at people because it can be misconstrued and cause them to mentally defend themselves against imaginary attacks about their majors. =P</p>
<p>Ha, no, I'm definitely going to grad school. I don't know why you feel the need to point out this issue so much though.</p>
<p>^ hah I guess because others are trying to convince me otherwise...I never really thought about it up until now. </p>
<p>i'm going to grad school as well...ahh so much schoolin' and book learnin' all for a fancy piece of paper.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Anyway, LogicWarrior, I hope you don't consider someone with a BA in Econ an Economist, because I think most economists would laugh their heads off at the idea of a bunch of teenagers thinking they're economists with their bachelor's degrees, after taking 2 calc classes and some stats lol.
[/Quote]
Well, even though I had a lot of things in my mind differently when I first uttered the word "Economist" I would say that if a guy with a major in economy manages to get a job as an economist then he is to be called an economist.</p>
<p>And really here we get masters in 4.5 years so we have plenty of 22 year olds economists and we apply to masters from the start meaning that every first grader will go up to a master and up until recently there weren't even an option to take out a bachelor at half time.</p>
<p>By the way, are economist the more math oriented and business the more social oriented version?</p>
<p>Also we have no bachelor in physics here and other such useless degrees, just masters. It gets hard to relate that you can actually get worthless degrees... I mean for me its quite foreign that your college studies are laid up very similarly to your high school where you still take a broad range of courses and when you are done you are still basically worthless.
How do the engineer programs even work when they are just majors? We had no bachelor in engineering before a few years back when they where introduced to increase the amount of engineers (But those with bachelors are still not really called engineers, they get the special notation "College engineers"), but still how much can you really do with the tiny amount of things they learn? </p>
<p>But I think I get your point now, those who just got bachelors are mostly quite clueless unless they are exceptional persons, but they can still do research and such so it is not impossible for them to get work in their field, I even worked on a real physics research project after my first year in my university (And not just as a lab assistant, I was there to evaluate the effects of non harmonic sonic waves in their system) so I would guess that it would be possible for me to get some more stable work if I had my full three years for a bachelor, anyway since we skip the bachelor exam paper we can shave of more time which we can put towards our master instead, which is why we can do it in 4.5 years compared to Europe's standard 5 years.</p>
<p>Education is pretty different in Europe/Asia, I like to think more efficient/quicker, because you guys get to study what you want at an earlier age - for example, Law/Med students study Law/Medicine right out of high school rather than do undergrad first, in Europe at least. I don't know your education system, but let me try to explain
[quote]
By the way, are economist the more math oriented and business the more social oriented version?
[/quote]
Well, a businessperson can really be anything - you can do Advertising, marketing, finance, accounting, management, etc, and really be a businessperson. Economists are definitely more math-oriented. Someone who is manager of a Grocery Store is a businessperson, but a professor who does research will consider himself an Economist. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also we have no bachelor in physics here and other such useless degrees, just masters. It gets hard to relate that you can actually get worthless degrees... I mean for me its quite foreign that your college studies are laid up very similarly to your high school where you still take a broad range of courses and when you are done you are still basically worthless.
[/quote]
It's not basically worthless - it's hard to explain. A Bachelor's in Physics won't get you far, but once you have that Bachelor's, you can get a Master's/Ph.d, whatever you like. Our college studies are NOT the same as high school. In HS, we have little choice over what classes we take - we study Math, Science, English, History, Govt, Econ, Foreign Language, etc. In many colleges, there are requirements students fullfill - like I'm required to take at least 1 foreign language class, 1 Science class, 2 Writing Classes - but most classes are related to our majors. So let's say you're a Physics major in America - most of your classes would still be Physics related, regardless of whether or not you had to take 1 Spanish class for 1 semester. </p>
<p>
[quote]
How do the engineer programs even work when they are just majors?... but still how much can you really do with the tiny amount of things they learn?
[/quote]
I'm not an Engineering student, but I know you don't need a Master's here to be an Engineer. Someone with a Bachelor's degree in Engineering is considered an Engineer here. I do know that Engineering is very rigorous and they require a lot of classes compared to most majors. You said in your country, 4.5 years will get you a Masters - in America, most Engineers study for 4 years to get a Bachelor's, so it's not really a huge difference...I guess 4 years is enough for them to learn enough to work? You can get a Masters in Engineering as well, but most don't. Sorry, an engineering student can probably explain this better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhhh...</p>
<p>You were the one spouting things about grammar and the usefulness of Latin out of your ass, remember?</p>
<p>I bet you don't.</p>
<p>Also, you think it's small and nitpicky.</p>
<p>People like you are the reasons why language prejudice continues to exist and why ignorance about the true mechanics of language spreads. You think grammar is what you learn in school. It isn't. This is such an important fact for public policy, much like "equilibrium market price is where supply meets demand" is an essential fact for any practice of economics. Because the ignorant idea that you "teach" native speakers grammar has been responsible for much public policy abuse with regards to language for thousands of years, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is.</p>
<p>(Also, the pointing out the very BASIC fact that ENGLISH is a GERMANIC language is by no way being nitpicky. Perhaps it's more of your missing that it's just YOU, a self-proclaimed pedant, being retarded. I love the Romance languages, but I hate people who think Latin is the foundation of English with a passion. You want to see people who think Latin has too much influence over what should fundamentally be an Anglo-Saxon language? Please see George Orwell, Strunk and White, and numerous other writers... )</p>
<p>
[Quote]
It's not basically worthless - it's hard to explain. A Bachelor's in Physics won't get you far, but once you have that Bachelor's, you can get a Master's/Ph.d, whatever you like. Our college studies are NOT the same as high school. In HS, we have little choice over what classes we take - we study Math, Science, English, History, Govt, Econ, Foreign Language, etc. In many colleges, there are requirements students fullfill - like I'm required to take at least 1 foreign language class, 1 Science class, 2 Writing Classes - but most classes are related to our majors. So let's say you're a Physics major in America - most of your classes would still be Physics related, regardless of whether or not you had to take 1 Spanish class for 1 semester.
[/Quote]
What I meant is, why even have a bachelor of physics when you will just continue on anyway?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
in America, most Engineers study for 4 years to get a Bachelor's, so it's not really a huge difference...
[/Quote]
Well, in our engineering programs we take almost only math/physics and courses directly related to the type of engineering you take, in the first 2.5 years we take only such courses (Our version of major but without the paper) and we don't take fewer engineering classes than you guys do we just take less other courses. </p>
<p>For example an electro engineer takes one variable calculus, multivariable calculus, linear algebra, complex and vector calculus their first year among with a few courses about electricity in general and computer science. </p>
<p>I have checked your requirements for majors and I got almost enough for both a math major and a physics major in my second year.(But I take quite a lot of extra courses so that is not normal)</p>
<p>Of course I don't got the language or writing and such but I mean all the courses directly related to those fields.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I meant is, why even have a bachelor of physics when you will just continue on anyway?
[/quote]
Becuase you don't have to get a Masters/Ph.D in Physics. You can get a Bachelor's in Physics, then go to Law, Med, Dentist, or Vet school. You have the choice of whether to continue in that field or not. I have a friend majoring in Physics who plans to go to Medical School after getting his BS in Physics. </p>
<p>Sorry I can't answer your Engineering questions, I have no clue what math classes they take. But I do know that you definitely don't need a Masters in Engineering to become an Engineer in America, so I guess they teach you what you need to know in 4 years.</p>
<p>What's this on about undergrad versus grad.</p>
<p>It's all about how much you can stand out as an undergrad.</p>
<p>Also, I believe the bachelor degree's breadth is a plus, not a disadvantage. It is why education in the US is fundamentally more intellectual than the PRC's, Korea's, Singapore's, and all these other countries that esssentially pump out public service robots that are specialised in what they do but have no independent thinking whatsoever (they are completely loyal to the governments that funded them). They know how to design dams and circuits for their country but are wusses outside their field.</p>
<p>It also equips you with the ability to tap into other fields, or change into other related fields as you go older, and synthesise new fields. The ability to combine economics, linguistics and evolutionary theory; the ability to combine cellular biology and nanotechnology, etc. I would think having a less broad undergrad education disadvantages you in that regard. (Eastern) European, and especially Asian-trained engineers are so delightfully boring. Specialised in their field after undegrad, but so what? No intellectual passion whatsoever.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Becuase you don't have to get a Masters/Ph.D in Physics. You can get a Bachelor's in Physics, then go to Law, Med, Dentist, or Vet school. I have a friend majoring in Physics who plans to go to Medical School after getting his BS.
[/Quote]
Hmm, but isn't that because you can't access those schools without a major?
I think you said it earlier, but here we got those programs directly from highschool.</p>
<p>And even though you say that your college is not at all like your high school I still think it is very comparable. I mean it is sort of a platform and you do not really make a choice there except if you want to do science or social or humanities. Here you start to specialize with your first choice, then every choice after that is further specialisation within the first field. Like physics first 3 years-> theoretical physics next two -> PHD in quantum field theory. Not physics->biology or physics->medicine, but you can go physics->biological physics or physics->medicine physics.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
It also equips you with the ability to tap into other fields, or change into other related fields as you go older, and synthesise new fields. The ability to combine economics, linguistics and evolutionary theory; the ability to combine cellular biology and nanotechnology, etc. I would think having a less broad undergrad education disadvantages you in that regard. (Eastern) European, and especially Asian-trained engineers are so delightfully boring. Specialised in their field after undegrad, but so what? No intellectual passion whatsoever.
[/Quote]
That have more to do with the teaching methods and the culture of the east, I live in Sweden and we have even less rigidity and forced assignments than the US while the eastern focuses more on such things. Or do you really think that a few college classes is enough to totally alter a persons personality? You know, we still study almost every subject in high school...</p>
<p>And we are free to study other courses if we want, and many do, its just that study 100% rate at your main subject is required, but you can take how many extras you want (Have time for).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmm, but isn't that because you can't access those schools without a major?
I think you said it earlier, but here we got those programs directly from highschool.
[/quote]
I don't think you understand - you asked why we allow just a Bachelor's in Physics. In America, you can study whatever you like and apply to Med/Law school (Med school requires certain science classes, but you can major in whatever). So it makes perfect sense for someone who likes Physics, but doesn't want to work in the field to get a Bachelor's and then go on to Med school or Law. So only allowing a Masters/Ph.D in Physics just wouldn't make sense in America.
[quote]
And even though you say that your college is not at all like your high school I still think it is very comparable. I mean it is sort of a platform and you do not really make a choice there except if you want to do science or social or humanities. Here you start to specialize with your first choice, then every choice after that is further specialisation within the first field. Like physics first 3 years-> theoretical physics next two -> PHD in quantum field theory. Not physics->biology or physics->medicine, but you can go physics->biological physics or physics->medicine physics.
[/quote]
Not really. The only difference is you guys start earlier, you don't have to do undergrad then Med, you can go directly to Med. You're a Physics major, right? If you were American and went to an American college, you would still do the same thing - You would study physics in Undergrad, and as you went on to Masters/Ph.D level, it would get more advanced and specialized. It's all about choice. But it's not like High school, because you pick a specialty and study it. But you have the freedom to take other classes as well. You can be a Biology major and take a French class if you like.</p>
<p>And the thing is, the bachelor's breadth does not work against its depth.</p>
<p>It's all about how ambitious you want to be. Sure, people who go to college in Europe and Asia may on average be more ambitious anyway, but that's because their college student pool is per capita smaller. The United States is the only nation (maybe with the slight exception of dirigist France, where it gets iffy) where college education is seen as some sort of right. Naturally, bachelors' degrees abound. </p>
<p>This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Those 4 years of intellectual training is worth something to society down the road, more than the cost of that education. It just may not be directly applied immediately. But this doesn't mean the bachelor's degree is worthless for the immediate pursuit of some fields ... again, it depends on your ambition in college.</p>
<p>For example, you can exit high school with 40+ credits worth of advance standing credit, take 22 credit hours per semester in school, stay for four years of school, take summer school, and get involved in original and independent undergraduate research.</p>
<p>And of course, it depends on the strength of the programme and the school you go to.</p>
<p>I also don't know why a bachelor's applied knowledge base is being ridiculed either. If you've seen the TAs at top colleges, the work they do and the stuff they publish, if they don't deserve to be called scientists already, they are damned near close to scientists. Young and budding scientists yes, but scientists nevertheless. (For one, they carry out professors' research interests independently and without supervision.) Some fourth-year undergrad TAs are impressive as well. It's all about ambition. If you've collaborated with landmark names in the field as a student, pursued your own independent research and won accolades, why shouldn't a graduate student with a bachelor degree be seen as approaching that of a scientist?</p>
<p>A scientist again, is just an occupation. So is an economist. Now, being a lab assistant does not a scientist make, but the stuff that graduate TAs do more and more approximates a scientist's work.</p>
<p>Galoisien makes a good point - in many countries, going to university is a bigger deal. In America a Bachelor's degree is not a big deal at all. Out of 203 students in my HS class, everyone but like 5 went to university - that's probably unheard of in many countries. College is starting to be seen as a right, not something elite people do. I agree a grad student with a bachelor degree is approaching that of a scientist, but because he is a grad student. If he just had a Bachelor's and stopped at that, I wouldn't see him as a scientist. Don't forget even Undergrads can help with research in a lab, they're not scientists.</p>
<p>Not everyone who studies Physics wants to be a Physicist or even Lab Assistant. Not everyone wants their Masters or Ph.D. You're allowed to get your Bachelor's, and then choose whether you want to continue. It's all about choice. </p>
<p>In the future, I think a Bachelor's will really be nothing special at all, at least in America. In Sweden it might be more special because fewer students continue education after high school.</p>
<p>you're the retarded one for getting so angry over someone who doesn't even give a donkey's ass about what you're trying to argue for. your posts are just rude and arrogant. quit accusing me of such and such. i have never said i was a whatever and ever.. i was just saying what seemed like common sense, but i guess not. umm aren't there something like latin "root words" in english? it doesn't matter, i never really cared. i can't even stand linguistics. all i was trying to say was "quit calling latin useless" b/c that person said something like that in every one of her posts. and the only person who seems to care over something so small like this is you. yes, it's small and nitpicky to me b/c i never cared and never will, so stop replying to me about this crap already!</p>
<p>Sweden is the kingdom of slackers though, most don't study the hard programs but some slacker program at the easy colleges. I go to our biggest tech university and take their most rigorous program but most are not really that much. Aside from our top engineering universities, the medical ones and a few economy ones our tertiary education is really bad.</p>
<p>Anyhow, we have one of the top amount of tertiary students in the world, its just that we bunch most of them together in the substandard colleges:</p>
<h1>1 United States: 72.6%</h1>
<h1>2 Finland: 70.4%</h1>
<h1>3 Norway: 70%</h1>
<h1>4 Sweden: 70%</h1>
<h1>5 New Zealand: 69.2%</h1>
<h1>6 Russia: 64.1%</h1>
<p>NationMaster</a> - Tertiary enrollment (most recent) by country</p>
<p>My question is more that why don't you allow them to skip other courses which do not have to do with their major and instead let them start with their master a lot earlier like we do?</p>
<p>Well I don't know much about the Swedish education system, but i never thought of them as slackers...a swedish girl came to my high school for 1 year, she was pretty average, in all regular classes, the typical B student. Her English was amazing though, she said they teach it at an early age so I guess it helps.
[quote]
My question is more that why don't you allow them to skip other courses which do not have to do with their major and instead let them start with their master a lot earlier like we do?
[/quote]
It varies from college to college. Some colleges do allow a student to study only their major, they have no requirements. For example, Brown University has an open curriculum, you take whatever you want. I have friends in other colleges who only have 1-2 required classes. But many colleges do have required classes. It's not a huge deal, really - at NYU, in the College of Arts/Sciences, we're required to take 1-2 semesters of Foreign Language, 1 Science class, 2 Writing classes, 2 classics-type courses. Other than that, we take whatever we want. I guess it bothers some people, but like I said, there are schools where you do whatever you want, so people are free to go to those instead.</p>
<p>As for why some colleges have these requirements - they believe in diversity of education. They don't want a student to graduate after studying only Physics for 4 straight years and not be able to write or know any history. but some colleges don't care at all.</p>