Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Breotan wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
What is the point of a nice car if i have to drive it to a job I utterly loathe?

So you can go to job interviews in style as you climb the ladder to better jobs?

winner, winner chicken dinner!

I had to work through several jobs to land where I want. Use it as a stepping stone.

SO I should take course I utterly hate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I give up. It is clear that people here just only conform to their idea that the there are several good degrees and nothing else in this educational field can be useful

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
SO I should take course I utterly hate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I give up. It is clear that people here just only conform to their idea that the there are several good degrees and nothing else in this educational field can be useful

You need to decide what you want out of life. If a job you love (assuming you can actually get one) is the most important thing, go for it. Personally I can tolerate a lot to make enough to do and have the things I really enjoy. Going 10s of thousands of dollars into debt to study something You Really Like but which will be hard to find employment, let alone employment which allows you to pay off the debt you incur during your studies just isn't something I would advise anyone to do. Incurring debt without a way to get out of it is just a bad move, even if it means you have fun in school. At some point most people realize they can separate work from not work, and use the money earned through work to fund what they enjoy...

I am no where near incurring dept in anyway. All my general education has been paid for. And my entire first year of university has been paid for already.

Listen, math and science aren't the ONLY things that will get you jobs. You need to take classes that have practical application. Now, is it true that programming degrees are abundant right now (I think last time I looked there are like, 3 jobs for every one degree holder), but it's not the only thing.

Sauce, if you're interested in sociology, look into project management and development. While not as abundant as programming, there is a high level of need for those positions. And those positions all involve a sort of sociology; you have to be able to read people, figure out how they work, figure out the best ways to motivate them, and then figure out the practical application of putting their specialized work to use. It's funny, but it's really the scenario from Office Space, except the position iis pretty highly valued now.

 Easy E wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Neither does anwering a phone, but most call centers require a degree too.

Um where?

Every call center i've worked at just requires you talk on the phone.

No degrees needed, hell barely a high school diploma. Wells Fargo Auto collections, classy

Can I ask when the last time you worked at a Call Center was?

I've worked in, what, 6 different call centers? Three of them which are actually big ones, either for tax calculation assistance, relay service for the deaf and mute or a few other things. High school diplomas are asked for, but they never actually required proof of them. Most middle management jobs don't require a degree either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Hotsauce, sociology is not a science. But that's okay. It doesn't have to be a science to be a useful or important field. The problems looked at by sociology are not suited to the scientific method due to the large number of obscure variables and the trouble with taking statistical information from humans. But that doesn't mean the old fashioned methof of building airtight arguments cannot be used. Sociology gets a bum rap from scientists because some sociologists use very poor science like methods to push a social policy motivated by ideology rather than evidence.

I don't see why everyone here bashes on sociology. As far as low employment degrees goes, that's not the worse. Psychology is at the bottom (and that's a realler science!) and anthropology is much worse than sociology. Also, the demand for sociology follows the demand for economy, which follows a cycle that will start ascending again in 2017.

Also, sociology (when it is done properly and doesn't attempt to be social philosophy), is as much as science as any other. A science is an set of beliefs held for true and believed to be demonstrable, about a particular object. Sociology produces such knowledge ; for example, we know that during the time Durkheim made his study of suicides, that societies of Protestant affiliation was much more prone to suicide than societies of Catholic affiliation, which were still more prone to it than Jewish societies. That's as much a hard knowledge as knowing at what temperature ice forms from water.

If you want to bitch about a pseudo-science, bitch about anthropology, where it is actually impossible for the observer to distance himself from his object of study.

Doesn't anthropology deal with human evolution isn't that pretty sciencey?

 Cheesecat wrote:
Doesn't anthropology deal with human evolution isn't that pretty sciencey?

Anthropology has to do with studying culture, both modern and past.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Doesn't anthropology deal with human evolution isn't that pretty sciencey?

Anthropology is a pretty huge field with a lot of different areas of specialization.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
SO I should take course I utterly hate?

Well, it depends.

If your goal is to have a lot of money and try to retire early, then yes - you should absolutely take courses and even jobs that you hate if they are strongly likely to lead to better paying jobs.

If your goal is to pick something that makes you happy and can accept that you won't have as much financial success, then you should do that instead. You have to find your middle ground between the financial security you want and the lifestyle you wish to enjoy. Teaching doesn't pay well, but there are certainly people who are happy and fulfilled teaching.

I know perfectly well I can easily move into substantially higher paying positions either by relocating, or by continuing my programming education. I have chosen not to because I have inexpensive tastes, lots of free time, and a relaxing job I enjoy. I know I am trading off more money for those things and I am content with that decision.

You have to pick the balance you like as well. Also, stop listening to these guys about how there are only a couple of degrees that are worth anything, it's stupid. The exact flavor of your undergrad degree isn't that meaningful anyway if you decide you want to further with your education regardless of what it's in: Mitt Romney did pretty well with his B.A. in English, after all. You decide when to stop.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Doesn't anthropology deal with human evolution isn't that pretty sciencey?

Anthropology has to do with studying culture, both modern and past.

I thought it was the study of humanity in general both from a biological and social perspective.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Doesn't anthropology deal with human evolution isn't that pretty sciencey?

Anthropology has to do with studying culture, both modern and past.

I thought it was the study of humanity in general both from a biological and social perspective.

It depends on what part of the field you focus on. There are multiple subdisciplines.

Da Boss wrote:'Soft science' to me means 'I want to make you believe something counter intuitive, so I've done a t test for significance on some heavily smoothed data and written out a method to make it look like I'm doing science! Now I don't have to make any sort of argument because of the Science!' It discredits science and leads to bloody awful social policy.

I've underlined the part that basically removes any relevance the rest of the quote might have. What you believe, at least in this case, is not what is, no matter how hard you believe it. Sociology is at times as much a hard science as anything; often when combined with statistical analysis. Honestly, it sounds as if you don't understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative research, and are relying on the erroneous belief that sociology is the social-policy equivalent of the 19th-century armchair psychologists.

It isn't.

hotsauceman1 wrote:SO I should take course I utterly hate?

Also, I give up. It is clear that people here just only conform to their idea that the there are several good degrees and nothing else in this educational field can be useful

Learn about the things that interest you. I loved taking criminology and history, and I have a great job that utilizes both. And I did it without having to compromise. Now, I'm not saying that my situation is typical at all, but what I do intend to mean is that if you have a background in a field that you are passionate about, then you will find work in its field. That work might not pay you 250k a year, but honestly, how much better do you feel you need to eat? I would rather go to work and earn a middle class income doing something that I love, than begrudgingly dragging myself to work every day for a better wage in exchange for my soul and passion.

I recognize that I'm kinda speaking from the privileged position of earning an excellent wage and doing what I like, but ultimately the decision is up to you, and I think you should make the decision based on what you would want to spend 30-some-odd years doing, rather than making a career choice based upon the abstract notion that traditional "hard" sciences are the only option.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Learn about the things that interest you. I loved taking criminology and history, and I have a great job that utilizes both. And I did it without having to compromise. Now, I'm not saying that my situation is typical at all, but what I do intend to mean is that if you have a background in a field that you are passionate about, then you will find work in its field. That work might not pay you 250k a year, but honestly, how much better do you feel you need to eat? I would rather go to work and earn a middle class income doing something that I love, than begrudgingly dragging myself to work every day for a better wage in exchange for my soul and passion.

I recognize that I'm kinda speaking from the privileged position of earning an excellent wage and doing what I like, but ultimately the decision is up to you, and I think you should make the decision based on what you would want to spend 30-some-odd years doing, rather than making a career choice based upon the abstract notion that traditional "hard" sciences are the only option.

Best advice in the thread by far.

Oh no, wherever will I get my $5 ratburger served by a disinterested pimplebot?

Do you guys know if this is strictly Mcdonalds & Burger King that are striking, or are Subway employees striking as well?

 Irkhalu wrote:
What I think most people aren't getting about this strike is that it has nothing to do with "living wage" or "overwhelming profits". The fact is that IF McD's caves (they won't), then the prices of their food will scale accordingly to keep the profit margins similar.

I reckon I've probably posted five replies in this thread explaining why stuff similar to the above is junk economics. I reckon in other minimum wage threads I've posted explanation nearing 30 times now, maybe more. Truly, it is one of great junk economic theories, notable for its silliness and the fact that it will not die.

Anyhow, if McDonalds could just up their prices at will, they would have done so already. Prices are as they are because it represents the optimal point of variable profit, increasing them will result in a decline in sales that . If a fixed cost input increases on McDonalds alone, then the company just has to wear it. If it impacted McDonalds competitors like KFC as well, then you'll see a price increase that covers some, but not all of the price, depending on the level of substitition between the various companies.

And beyond the economics of it... just pretending the above claim was true, what kind of a selfish, hateful bs world must people live in where 'oh sure, the lowest paid workers would have slightly better living standard, but a Big Mac would cost me 12c more so it must not happen' becomes an economic argument?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Yes, the world only has room for Math and Science degreees!

There's plenty of science and math areas that have completely terrible employment prospects. The world gets a hell of a lot from physicists, but it only needs a small portion of the ones it trains. Some of the rest end up moving in to other high level math jobs like hedge funds, and the rest go back and do other degrees. The same is true of the most high end specialisations.

Stuff like sociology has pretty solid employment prospects - its just that the pay is pretty crappy for a position needing a degree. But then the same is true of nursing, and I don't think you'd see many people claiming that people shouldn't do nursing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Again, not a field that is gonna pay the bucks nor be in high demand anytime in the near to mid-term future. If you are happy with it and can actually get a job in it, good for you. As an investment in your future (time and $$s spent on your education) it does not have a high pay off at all, and in act is a risky investment. To be even slightly competitive you will need a PHD in it, and that is a huge investment.

If people were generic robots with a single function to maxmise earning potential, the above would be good advice.

A very strange thing has happened. In economics, starting a long time ago, people made assumptions that everyone knew weren't really true, but were important to making the models simple enough to demonstrate a general principal. ie It was assumed that people weren't really always seeking maximum profit, but trying to model their real motives in would have made utility maximisation graphs horrendously messy and obtuse and told us nothing about how the population as a whole tends to work.

Over time those models explained a lot of things very well, and people started to internalise them. But here's the weird thing - they started to internalise the assumptions as well. The idea that 'profit maximising' wasn't just a good enough assumption, but a thing that was actually true for all people, at all times. They started living their own lives that way, thinking that was all they were supposed to do.

The result is, well, some remarkably terrible advice, both at a policy level and a personal level.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Neither does anwering a phone, but most call centers require a degree too.

Um where?

Every call center i've worked at just requires you talk on the phone.

No degrees needed, hell barely a high school diploma. Wells Fargo Auto collections, classy

Can I ask when the last time you worked at a Call Center was?

I've worked in, what, 6 different call centers? Three of them which are actually big ones, either for tax calculation assistance, relay service for the deaf and mute or a few other things. High school diplomas are asked for, but they never actually required proof of them. Most middle management jobs don't require a degree either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Since the recession, I have seent he "qualifications" needed to be a decent applicant raise from no degree of any kind to College degree. Granted the geographic area I work in, all Call Centers are specialized and they are all at the "escalation" level. I.e. you have all ready talked to some low wage contractors in a different country before you get to the ones in my geographic area. Of course, this is usually also accompanied by some sort of quota and inbound sales requirement as well. Now, a lot of the Call Centers in my area won't look at anyone without a degree because there are enough unemployed people out there that they can be picky.

However, many of the people working in the call centers have been in these positions a number of years because they got in before the degree requirements, and now they are stuck on the bottom rung of the corporate ladder. If you need a college degree just to get in the door now, how are these non-college grads going to move up the ladder?

Again, this may not be a universal across the country gig, but specific to my local Call Center environment.

 Breotan wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wait, I thought all call centers where in india?

Sure seems that way, doesn't it?

Add "Communications Degree" to the list of useless degrees. And, yes, if you want to earn the big bucks, you will take math and computer programming (java/C#) and learn both competently. Who cares if you like it or not? That's what vacations in the Bahamas are for. I'll bet you'll like those. And a nice house in the good area of town. And a nice car. Try getting these with a sociology, communications, or lib arts degree.

No. You become a chemical engineer. Indians will do the programming.

Bah, computer algorithms will be able to do whatever you want to do better than you can soon enough.

Just drop out and be a reality TV star, until we have robots that can do that too.

 Frazzled wrote:

No. You become a chemical engineer. Indians will do the programming.

Actually, the Indians are getting too expensive. Last time I checked, the hotness for tech is China/Korea.

Maybe. Its hard to keep up.