Which of the following is the most worthless?

[Asher]

Originally posted by MRT144
i think the better inference is that unique skills that are better than other's within a limited pool of talent is what leads to higher income and whether that talent is prized by society.

The general gist of what KH is saying is this:

Anyone can get a history degree. Anyone can get a poli sci degree. Virtually anyone can get a philosophy degree.

The amount of people who can get high-level science and engineering degrees is less. It's simply harder to do.

That is why the pool is smaller, that is why they get paid more, and that is why there's way too many "philosophy" grads than any kind of reasonable job for them to use that in. They end up doing something completely unrelated.

But at the end of the day, you can reasonably make a correlation with intelligence (at least from a reasoning/problem solving perspective) versus the arts and sciences. Arts people clearly would be better at, well, artistic stuff. But let's be honest -- that means ****.

[Asher]

Simple question: If you took somebody who is taking computer science and somebody who is taking political science and gave them an IQ test...in general, who would score higher?

Ditto for physics and philosophy students.

[MRT144]

Saying that people who go after natural career paths for innate talents are somehow better because those pay more is simplistic. I don't think artists get paid on how smart they are, and hell, i know an artist or two that gets paid in spite of how stupid they are.

I think anyone can do engineering if they actually put themselves to the work. But it takes a real look at yourself to admit when the effort put in isnt worth what you get out. It's far better to be above average in philosophy than it is to be below average in engineering because at least you are choosing something you want to do rather than paper chasing.

That means **** in terms of income, which is an arbitrary measuring stick of worth to society. Especially when you consider that athletes and actors make millions more than the average engineer. and CEOs of companies make more than people actually doing the brilliant research.

i think it's much more preferable to be recognized within your own field of interest and career than try to play with a cross career standard that doesn't reflect the entire picture.

also i always like to remind engineering students that while they may spend hours and hours doing homework and studying while other majors can go out and have fun, and take it easy, they will almost be guaranteed a job out of college if they do the most basic networking. not so for the others.

i just imagine that if engineers were a race or religion they'd be conservative israeli jews who suffer a persecution/superiority complex.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Asher
Simple question: If you took somebody who is taking computer science and somebody who is taking political science and gave them an IQ test...in general, who would score higher?

Ditto for physics and philosophy students.

i don't know. would the computer science person bathe before the test because really points should be docked for neglecting basic hygiene.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Asher
Simple question: If you took somebody who is taking computer science and somebody who is taking political science and gave them an IQ test...in general, who would score higher?

Speaking of worthless things...

[MRT144]

if we were talking about who had a better chance of spreading their genes, in general who would fare better? again, considering the poor social/hygiene skills and the high level of homosexuals in engineering we could guess that the arts majors would be better.

the question is one of where do you place your standard of success. everything follows after that.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Asher

Physical talents/skills are a different ballgame and really have no bearing on intelligence. For example, I think the average NBA and NFL players have an IQ in the mid 50s.

Thats like retarded, they cant be that dumb, for real, dont you mean more like 80, 90?

[Jaguar]

Give Kuci his cookie

[Pekka]

Might be cultural or what ever, but no arts major is my boss in here, or in the organization charts other than cleaning ladies. This is not meant to provoke people, that's the way it is. In technical fields, our managers are technically competent as well, and/or from business field, period.

I repeat, I have never ever seen a single arts major in any kind of position where I've worked so far. Art majors in here either teach, are connected with organizations and do that thing (read volunteer work), do politics or are unemployed. The only place they are dominating force is the public sector. I don't know, maybe this is why public sector usually sucks?

So, when an art major might be my boss somewhere, in here, they make my burgers . Oh, and before going off about what POS company that was, it is the biggest cell phone manufacturer in the world. So, unless we have art majors who work for other market leaders like IBM, then I suggest the debate about who is boss is over. It is just another penis waving competition and has no content anyway. And we know art majors have smaller penises.

What I mean to say is, art majors in here tend to work for public sector, government etc. Usually technically versed folks, in here, do not wish to work for the government or the public sector, because the pay sucks.

You belong to one of the 3 groups, assuming you have a degree.. you either have a technical degree, business degree or 'the others' degree. So it' tech or business, if not, it's just the rest. There is a reason for this as well, we suffer from high unemployment... so... if you want to get a job, it's all about private sector, competence, and knowing what you CAN do. Period.

[Cort Haus]

I'm glad to see Saussiology is making a late surge in the poll. Definitely the most worthless.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Anthropology studies ancient or dead societies and civilizations

that's not right at all.

The answer is, anthropology studies other societies, in order to understand whatever universal principles govern them all.

So does sociology...

[Fake Boris]

And science types are desperately worthless at philosophy... usually can't even understand the basic premice of a text.
If you want to bang your head on the wall, work as a TA in a Philosophy of Science 101 course.

[Jon Miller]

All my physics freinds (who took the course) found the class to be a joke...

Are you sure it is science upperclass men who are taking the course?

JM
(very easy in other words)

[Harovan]

Any discipline, that needs to add the word "Science" in order to sound not completely trivial, is bound to be useless. So of the listed fields of study Political Science gets my vote.

[Fake Boris]

You mean computer science?