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.

The way my school worked it was very good in this regard.

Everyone from Years 8 and 9 (Year 7 and 8 in England), aged 11/12, takes Maths, English Language, English Literature, Science (alternates after each topic between Chemistry, Biology and Physics), ICT, Technology (tech drawing), geography, history, music, french and latin (because its old fashioned) and Religious Studies

In 3rd Year, you either continue or finish with Latin based on how well you've done. Extremely poorly you drop it, average or above you continue. You also choose one of the following to study that year at the expense of the others; German; Spanish; Music; ICT+Business studies.

At the end of 3rd year you pick your GCSEs. Everyone studies Maths, English Language, English Lit, French, Religious Studies short course, PE (exercise only). You also choose one of the following options;

Section A;
1) Physics+Chemistry+Biology (3 grades)
2) Any 2 sciences above + one other subject
3) Single Award Science involving 1 paper featuring all 3 subjects but only worth 1 grade + 1 other subject

Section B;
Music, Technology, Manufacturing, History, Geography, PE (theory and physiotherapy heavy)

Section C;
Latin, Spanish, German, History, Geography, Technology, Manufacturing, PE, Religious Studies (full course).

French was compulsary but those who struggled were put into an OLA class which is basic language stuff.


This way, you slowly built up subjects you enjoyed and could choose not to study those you did poorly at. At GCSE you took essential subjects in Maths, English Language and Science in some form, as well as other extremely useful subjects like Eng Lit, French and Religious Studies (the study of various religions rather than studying and teaching the Bible) as a short, half course. But it also gives you a scope to choose a wide range of careers and choose a maths based career early by taking science, technology, manufacturing, or go Arts by taking History and Spanish.

At the end of 4th Year you could choose to take Additional Maths which covers statistics and mechanics and the like.



At A Level you could then specialise and choose extra special subjects like Psychology and Media Studies, while you could drop unneeded things like Maths or English Literature.

The southern Irish system is somewhat similar. It varies a little by school but for the first three years of secondary school (which starts later than it does in the UK) you do the Junior Certificate (somewhat analogous to GCSEs but a little easier).
You do:
English, Irish, Maths and PE(compulsory), Science, History, Geography, a third language (not compulsory but offered in almost every school) and then some option subjects like Art, Technical Drawing, Music, Business Studies, Cooking, Metalwork, Woodwork and so on.

After that you go through a transition year with some work experience and projects, before doing the Leaving Certificate (analogous to A levels but again, a little less in depth), which consists of:
English, Irish, Maths and then four optional subjects. Since universities generally require a science and a third language, most students pick at least one science and does a third language, and then picks two subjects from a pretty broad list for their last two. Then you are assessed on your best six scores for consideration for university. It's a bit like the IB but without all the project and coursework.

 Da Boss wrote:
The other argument that I would use is that even if 95% of the population does not use advanced maths, that number should be far lower.

We NEED more engineers and scientists. These are the people who are solving the big problems to allow us to continue with our civilization. With the challenges facing us as we move towards a planet of ever increasing population and fixed resources, we need as many innovators and engineers and scientists as possible. They are among the most useful people on the planet.

I am focused in my job in helping kids get to the point where they can contribute positively to this struggle. Every kid I manage to convince to continue a technical education is a big deal for me.

Actually we don't. The average salaries and employment for same have been falling in many areas.

Average salaries and employment are not the only measure of need.

 Da Boss wrote:
Average salaries and employment are not the only measure of need.

You bet they are. They are the offtake of the nexus of demand and supply. Their effect will drive future supply.
Would you like me to write a formula that shows you?

(sorry couldn't resist that one).

It's a fair cop, but economics is not a real science real sciences pay attention to reality.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
The other argument that I would use is that even if 95% of the population does not use advanced maths, that number should be far lower.

We NEED more engineers and scientists. These are the people who are solving the big problems to allow us to continue with our civilization. With the challenges facing us as we move towards a planet of ever increasing population and fixed resources, we need as many innovators and engineers and scientists as possible. They are among the most useful people on the planet.

I am focused in my job in helping kids get to the point where they can contribute positively to this struggle. Every kid I manage to convince to continue a technical education is a big deal for me.

Actually we don't. The average salaries and employment for same have been falling in many areas.

This is completely wrong. I had no less than 5 job offers from companies offering six figure salaries straight out of my doctoral program.

https://www.asme.org/career-education/articles/early-career-engineers/engineering-salaries-on-the-rise

And the most general search index ever,



By the way, aren't you a lawyer? Clearly the world needs more of those.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
The other argument that I would use is that even if 95% of the population does not use advanced maths, that number should be far lower.

We NEED more engineers and scientists. These are the people who are solving the big problems to allow us to continue with our civilization. With the challenges facing us as we move towards a planet of ever increasing population and fixed resources, we need as many innovators and engineers and scientists as possible. They are among the most useful people on the planet.

I am focused in my job in helping kids get to the point where they can contribute positively to this struggle. Every kid I manage to convince to continue a technical education is a big deal for me.

Actually we don't. The average salaries and employment for same have been falling in many areas.

This is completely wrong. I had no less than 5 job offers from companies offering six figure salaries straight out of my doctoral program.

https://www.asme.org/career-education/articles/early-career-engineers/engineering-salaries-on-the-rise

And the most general search index ever,



By the way, aren't you a lawyer? Clearly the world needs more of those.

It depends on what type of specialty obviously, and a big driver is the import of foreign engineers.

Me, lawyer, lover, chocolate cake aficionado. However involved on that front as The Boy is in grad school. Doing something all sciency and mathy. He discovered last week that his research job allows him time on the supercomputer and he was giddy talking about it. Frazzled III-putting the love back in Dr. Strangelove.

We don't need engineers and scientists, so we import them from other countries? Come on Frazz...that doesn't make much sense. Don't confuse a free market's influence on salaries with a lack of need - scientist and engineers are necessary, but employers are finding ways of staffing those ranks more cheaply.

That said, the specific area can mitigate that effect to some extent. My work is almost entirely on defense projects for which American citizenship is mandatory, and ability to obtain a clearance usually also required. They don't just replace us with cheaper guys from India or China, and for obvious reasons.

Congrats to your son - he's learned useful skills that will net him a great deal of cash while making the world a better place.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
We don't need engineers and scientists, so we import them from other countries? Come on Frazz...that doesn't make much sense. Don't confuse a free market's influence on salaries with a lack of need - scientist and engineers are necessary, but employers are finding ways of staffing those ranks more cheaply.

Sure it does. It means you can be out-competed by cheaper foreign labor. If there is no demand for US labor, there's no demand for labor.

That said, the specific area can mitigate that effect to some extent. My work is almost entirely on defense projects for which American citizenship is mandatory, and ability to obtain a clearance usually also required. They don't just replace us with cheaper guys from India or China, and for obvious reasons.

Don't tell Toshiba...Enjoy it. Your budget will be cut soon enough.
I guess I should be clear. I am not trashing the argument we need engineers. I'm actually in agreement. I'm trashing open borders that allow companies to replace domestic workers with foreign ones (Disney looking at you).

Congrats to your son - he's learned useful skills that will net him a great deal of cash while making the world a better place.

Thats what we're hoping for.

Yes it is. I can tell from this statement that you haven't done any kind of math-heavy degree, and you're simply wrong about this. If you aren't taking your first calculus class in your first semester of college then you will not finish a math-heavy degree in four years. The classes you have to take are scheduled on the assumption that you have that level of math, and you will not be allowed to take them if you don't meet the prerequisites (even if they gave you a special exception you'd have no hope of passing). If you're taking basic algebra in college then you're going to have to spend at least a year or two taking pointless classes before you can start your degree.

My degree is in Military Intelligence and Counter Intelligence. And again you are wrong . Math above and beyond Algebra and Statistics is USELESS for 95% of the world. And no, it should not be lower. The world needs far more people working in actual jobs instead of theory jobs. Im not down playing the contribution from Scientists and Engineers im just pointing out a fact that for some reason has escaped most of you. if we had even twice as many engineers/scientists per capita as we do now that would mean that other industries would lose manpower and actual facets of our economy would fail because of a lack of work force. In the United States, MIT is arguably the best school for engineers and mathematicians, it is also one of the hardest schools to get into. And this is the pre reqs for a degree in mathematics:
•18.03 or 18.034 (Differential Equations)
[sufficiently advanced students may substitute 18.152 or 18.303]
•18.100 (Real Analysis)
•18.701 (Algebra I)
•18.702 (Algebra II)
•18.901 (Introduction to Topology)

So you don't think a student would be able to take those 5 courses in 2 years before they began the advanced mathematics part of the degree? Please, PLEASE tell me how I am wrong.

Sigh. And that's the point! Your field involves math, your job does not. That's fine if you can find one of those low-math jobs in your field and keep it for a whole career, but it does limit the work you can do. For example, if you want to turn that practical experience into a job designing equipment for people like you to use you're going to need a lot more math.

By that statement then every job in the world involves math in some form or another, and it does. But again you are wrong. You make it seem that finding a job with "Low-math" is hard, when its the opposite. Not only that my the vast majority of careers in the world are "Low-math". You are right that not having a math degree limits me to what I can do, but if you didn't have a degree in Intelligence it would limit you in how far you could go in a different field. Your argument is basically invalid because the points you are making are true for any degree and not just math. Math is just one type of degree and not the end all be all best degree in the world.

As far as designing equipment, yes you will need a more math then algebra and statistics but their is nothing stopping you from taking a course or two at a university to do that, or god help you, reading a book. I have friends who I served with who are currently working with universities around the country developing gear. none of them have any degrees in mathematics but they are still working those jobs. So again, going from my first hand ACTUAL experience and proof that I am right, tell me how your theoretical point is more correct then mine?

And, again, even if you aren't going to use math in your life you still have to take it because high school (where you take those math classes) is supposed to prepare you to make your career choice. If you don't take the higher-level math classes your career options are extremely limited. So we err on the side of keeping a student's options open and make them take enough math that they can choose any career path when they graduate, not just the low-math ones. We want to avoid the situation where a student graduates from high school and wants to become an engineer, but can't do it because of a choice they made when they were 12 years old

In the US High Schools offer and require Algebra and Algebra II, They also offer as an option calculus and statistics, at least in the 2 High schools I attended. I am not saying people shouldn't take Algebra, actually im saying the opposite. But the point I was making is that the REQUIREMENT should stop at Algebra and statistics. WHen you get to college almost every university wants you to take "College" Algebra and Statistics which is also FINE. But after that you, as a student, should not be required to take any higher level math, unless your degree is in a math heavy area. So for me I don't need Calculus or trig, but if I decided to become a Math Major I am still very much capable of getting my degree in 4 years.

Not sure where the doom and gloom is coming from...all available evidence suggests that salaries and employment opportunities for scientists and engineers are actually growing, despite your assertions to the opposite, and the directorate I work for is growing significantly with new hires galore, all of them American.

Funny you should bring up Disney...last summer I worked with a CMU doctoral student intern who was also working with Disney, and she made a killing with them. She actually turned down continued employment there to take an offer with the Air Force.

Again, really not sure where the doom and gloom is coming from. I'm on the front lines of this stuff interacting with these people every day and it's really nothing but sunshine, even with a Democrat in office. The limiting factor in lifestyle satisfaction for these people is functioning in a high stress environment where performance is carefully scrutinized, but I don't know anybody worth his salt who is actually concerned with getting a good job.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
if we had even twice as many engineers/scientists per capita as we do now that would mean that other industries would lose manpower and actual facets of our economy would fail because of a lack of work force.

We have a non-zero unemployment rate. If we turn burger flippers into engineers then some of those unemployed people can take the low-end jobs.

So you don't think a student would be able to take those 5 courses in 2 years before they began the advanced mathematics part of the degree? Please, PLEASE tell me how I am wrong.

They could take those classes in two years, but now you've turned a four-year degree into a six-year degree just so people can skip taking math classes in high school.

You make it seem that finding a job with "Low-math" is hard, when its the opposite.

I never said that finding a low-math job is hard. Obviously if you don't know math you can walk into your local walmart or fast food restaurant and ask for a minimum-wage job. Lack of math knowledge only becomes a problem when you want to get a good job.

Math is just one type of degree and not the end all be all best degree in the world.

I'm not talking about math degrees, I'm talking about degrees/careers that use math. A pure math degree is actually fairly useless from a career perspective. But there are a lot of degrees/careers that require math.

As far as designing equipment, yes you will need a more math then algebra and statistics but their is nothing stopping you from taking a course or two at a university to do that, or god help you, reading a book.

I have an electrical engineering degree, and I can tell you that you will not be able to understand things like antenna design by just "reading a book". You're going to need 2-3 semesters worth of calculus and a bunch of engineering-specific math. Maybe you could do that by yourself without formal classes if you're really motivated, have plenty of time to study, and are willing to hold yourself accountable with "exams" and "grades". But if all you know is basic algebra that textbook section on antenna design might as well be written in a foreign language, and most people are not going to be able to overcome that barrier.

So for me I don't need Calculus or trig, but if I decided to become a Math Major I am still very much capable of getting my degree in 4 years.

And if you want to get an engineering degree you're going to need 6+ years. Mine required calculus I, calculus II, calculus III, differential equations, statistics, engineering math I, and engineering math II. That's just the pure math classes, without even counting the engineering classes that included learning more math as part of the material. And all of those classes have to be taken in the right sequence. If you aren't ready to take calculus I then you can't take any of your other classes. Maybe you can finish your literature and PE requirements while making up the math you missed in high school, but you're still going to have a wasted semester (or more!) and you won't be graduating in four years.

This, again, is why we require more math in high school. Most people aren't ready to make career choices when they're 14-15 years old, so we make sure that they graduate high school with the ability to go into any career path, including ones that require math. We don't let people who don't have the long-term decision making of an adult decide that math isn't fun and sabotage their future career prospects.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
if we had even twice as many engineers/scientists per capita as we do now that would mean that other industries would lose manpower and actual facets of our economy would fail because of a lack of work force.

We have a non-zero unemployment rate. If we turn burger flippers into engineers then some of those unemployed people can take the low-end jobs.

So you don't think a student would be able to take those 5 courses in 2 years before they began the advanced mathematics part of the degree? Please, PLEASE tell me how I am wrong.

They could take those classes in two years, but now you've turned a four-year degree into a six-year degree just so people can skip taking math classes in high school.

You make it seem that finding a job with "Low-math" is hard, when its the opposite.

I never said that finding a low-math job is hard. Obviously if you don't know math you can walk into your local walmart or fast food restaurant and ask for a minimum-wage job. Lack of math knowledge only becomes a problem when you want to get a good job.

Math is just one type of degree and not the end all be all best degree in the world.

I'm not talking about math degrees, I'm talking about degrees/careers that use math. A pure math degree is actually fairly useless from a career perspective. But there are a lot of degrees/careers that require math.

As far as designing equipment, yes you will need a more math then algebra and statistics but their is nothing stopping you from taking a course or two at a university to do that, or god help you, reading a book.

I have an electrical engineering degree, and I can tell you that you will not be able to understand things like antenna design by just "reading a book". You're going to need 2-3 semesters worth of calculus and a bunch of engineering-specific math. Maybe you could do that by yourself without formal classes if you're really motivated, have plenty of time to study, and are willing to hold yourself accountable with "exams" and "grades". But if all you know is basic algebra that textbook section on antenna design might as well be written in a foreign language, and most people are not going to be able to overcome that barrier.

So for me I don't need Calculus or trig, but if I decided to become a Math Major I am still very much capable of getting my degree in 4 years.

And if you want to get an engineering degree you're going to need 6+ years. Mine required calculus I, calculus II, calculus III, differential equations, statistics, engineering math I, and engineering math II. That's just the pure math classes, without even counting the engineering classes that included learning more math as part of the material. And all of those classes have to be taken in the right sequence. If you aren't ready to take calculus I then you can't take any of your other classes. Maybe you can finish your literature and PE requirements while making up the math you missed in high school, but you're still going to have a wasted semester (or more!) and you won't be graduating in four years.

This, again, is why we require more math in high school. Most people aren't ready to make career choices when they're 14-15 years old, so we make sure that they graduate high school with the ability to go into any career path, including ones that require math. We don't let people who don't have the long-term decision making of an adult decide that math isn't fun and sabotage their future career prospects.

Honestly talking calculus should be taught pretty thoroughly already in highschool.

 Deadshot wrote:
So for those who haven't heard, today a GCSE maths question went viral after numerous students complained it was too difficult to be on a test like that. For those who don't know, GCSEs are your basic qualifications before progressing onto the final 2 years of school at Advanced Level and then degree, and a minimum of a C in English and Maths is required for most jobs.

The question revolved around Hannah's sweets.

Hannah has a bag contained n sweets containing orange sweets are a number of other colours. Hannah takes one orange sweet out. She then takes another sweet (unknown colour) out. The probability of getting 2 orange sweets in 1/3rd. Prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0


Apparently this question is stumping accountants with degrees for over 2 hours. Would any such Dakkanaut be willing to solve this seemingly impossible puzzle. I gave it a shot earlier but having finished my own Alevel, and finished GCSE two years ago with an A in maths, I really didn't care enough to finish it.

N's value below

Spoiler:

I have calculated N, I hust can't be bother finishing it.

N = -9 or 10

n2 - n - 90 = 0

(-9)^2 - -9 -90 = 0 10^2 - 10 - 90 = 0
81 - -9 = 81+9 = 90 100 - 10 = 90

However, as we're dealing with physical things, it must be positive so 10.is the value of N

just in case anyone needs a starting point.

OMG!

People were having trouble with a basic quadratic equation?

And one so stunningly obvious as this?

This has to be a satire, or joke.

Are people really that stupid?

MB

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
if we had even twice as many engineers/scientists per capita as we do now that would mean that other industries would lose manpower and actual facets of our economy would fail because of a lack of work force.

We have a non-zero unemployment rate. If we turn burger flippers into engineers then some of those unemployed people can take the low-end jobs.

So you don't think a student would be able to take those 5 courses in 2 years before they began the advanced mathematics part of the degree? Please, PLEASE tell me how I am wrong.

They could take those classes in two years, but now you've turned a four-year degree into a six-year degree just so people can skip taking math classes in high school.

You make it seem that finding a job with "Low-math" is hard, when its the opposite.

I never said that finding a low-math job is hard. Obviously if you don't know math you can walk into your local walmart or fast food restaurant and ask for a minimum-wage job. Lack of math knowledge only becomes a problem when you want to get a good job.

Math is just one type of degree and not the end all be all best degree in the world.

I'm not talking about math degrees, I'm talking about degrees/careers that use math. A pure math degree is actually fairly useless from a career perspective. But there are a lot of degrees/careers that require math.

As far as designing equipment, yes you will need a more math then algebra and statistics but their is nothing stopping you from taking a course or two at a university to do that, or god help you, reading a book.

I have an electrical engineering degree, and I can tell you that you will not be able to understand things like antenna design by just "reading a book". You're going to need 2-3 semesters worth of calculus and a bunch of engineering-specific math. Maybe you could do that by yourself without formal classes if you're really motivated, have plenty of time to study, and are willing to hold yourself accountable with "exams" and "grades". But if all you know is basic algebra that textbook section on antenna design might as well be written in a foreign language, and most people are not going to be able to overcome that barrier.

So for me I don't need Calculus or trig, but if I decided to become a Math Major I am still very much capable of getting my degree in 4 years.

And if you want to get an engineering degree you're going to need 6+ years. Mine required calculus I, calculus II, calculus III, differential equations, statistics, engineering math I, and engineering math II. That's just the pure math classes, without even counting the engineering classes that included learning more math as part of the material. And all of those classes have to be taken in the right sequence. If you aren't ready to take calculus I then you can't take any of your other classes. Maybe you can finish your literature and PE requirements while making up the math you missed in high school, but you're still going to have a wasted semester (or more!) and you won't be graduating in four years.

This, again, is why we require more math in high school. Most people aren't ready to make career choices when they're 14-15 years old, so we make sure that they graduate high school with the ability to go into any career path, including ones that require math. We don't let people who don't have the long-term decision making of an adult decide that math isn't fun and sabotage their future career prospects.

Peregrine if you think the only types of low math jobs available to people are minimum wage "Wal-Mart" style jobs then your basically incapable of common sense.

Furthermore, we discussed math in college and now its about an engineering degree which is what you have. I guess you have never heard of summer semesters? Bang out the preqs in your first year and then take the two summer semesters and boom right back on track, and if you wanted you could actually continue to take summer semesters and finish up your 4 year degree early if you continued to take summer courses.

Your argument so far as has been a nicer version of "I know advanced math and I am better then everyone, if you don't know advanced math enjoy working at Wal-Mart" now you didn't say that verbatim its become pretty clear you think very little of those who don't wish to do advanced math jobs. You have been wrong on such a consistent basis in this topic that I am officially done talking because at this point your have resorted to lying and misconstruing facts. A Job in politics is not far behind.

 Frazzled wrote:
You bet they are. They are the offtake of the nexus of demand and supply. Their effect will drive future supply.

Economics actually goes a long way past highschool demand and supply graphs. Price stickiness, expectations, relative bargaining strengths, social mores and countless other facts play a huge role in setting wages.

I mean, just think about it – if it was a simple as demand and supply, then you’d never see cyclical unemployment, as wages would rise and fall as the market always cleared. Even if we were oblivious of economic history, then at least the last 7 years would taught us how silly that model is – as we’ve seen very high cyclical unemployment while wages have remained flat, actually falls in nominal wages have been extremely rare.

The market is basically the best, most efficient way we have to allocate and price labour, but to claim it reflects the actual true value of anything is to cling to the most hopelessly simple of economic models.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You bet they are. They are the offtake of the nexus of demand and supply. Their effect will drive future supply.

Economics actually goes a long way past highschool demand and supply graphs. Price stickiness, expectations, relative bargaining strengths, social mores and countless other facts play a huge role in setting wages.

I mean, just think about it – if it was a simple as demand and supply, then you’d never see cyclical unemployment, as wages would rise and fall as the market always cleared. Even if we were oblivious of economic history, then at least the last 7 years would taught us how silly that model is – as we’ve seen very high cyclical unemployment while wages have remained flat, actually falls in nominal wages have been extremely rare.

The market is basically the best, most efficient way we have to allocate and price labour, but to claim it reflects the actual true value of anything is to cling to the most hopelessly simple of economic models.

To expand, economics is considered very complex by the scientific community. For example, psychologists who have received Nobel prizes have actually received them for their work in economics (Amos Tversky --> Daniel Kahneman is one example).

Interestingly, the Nobel Prize for Economics is not a real Nobel Prize established by a bunch of bankers.

Edit: Not to say that you are wrong Nuggz, your post just reminded me of that.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You bet they are. They are the offtake of the nexus of demand and supply. Their effect will drive future supply.

Economics actually goes a long way past highschool demand and supply graphs. Price stickiness, expectations, relative bargaining strengths, social mores and countless other facts play a huge role in setting wages.

I mean, just think about it – if it was a simple as demand and supply, then you’d never see cyclical unemployment, as wages would rise and fall as the market always cleared. Even if we were oblivious of economic history, then at least the last 7 years would taught us how silly that model is – as we’ve seen very high cyclical unemployment while wages have remained flat, actually falls in nominal wages have been extremely rare.

The market is basically the best, most efficient way we have to allocate and price labour, but to claim it reflects the actual true value of anything is to cling to the most hopelessly simple of economic models.

I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Of course economics is more complex. Some of it is even useful (ok thats mostly a lie... )
TIdbit: The Boy considered an economics degree but 1) the math wasn't hard enough; and 2) it didn't pay enough. Its all about the Benjamins...

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Your argument so far as has been a nicer version of "I know advanced math and I am better then everyone, if you don't know advanced math enjoy working at Wal-Mart" now you didn't say that verbatim its become pretty clear you think very little of those who don't wish to do advanced math jobs. You have been wrong on such a consistent basis in this topic that I am officially done talking because at this point your have resorted to lying and misconstruing facts. A Job in politics is not far behind.

There will always be less opportunity and lower ceilings for those people with gaping gaps in their knowledge or are highly specialized without at least a functional background across all levels of academia.

You cannot argue that a well educated and well-rounded person doesn't clearly have an advantage in life over those who are uneducated, partially educated or are functionally illiterate in many aspects of their education, math and reading being big ones.

Making decisions at 12 years old to drastically limit your opportunities in life is a really bad idea... In our county, the High School principal meets with every kindergarten class before schools tarts and tells parents the expectation is those kindergartners will have passed ALGEBRA before they set foot in high school. Why? because it can be done, most kids do it if you set the expectation and don't give them an out and to basically correct ignorant parents who tell their kids 'you never need math.' We have kids going to college for theater, music, English, history and for all sorts of other degrees with AP calculus in their pocket and they are better off because of it.

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Your argument so far as has been a nicer version of "I know advanced math and I am better then everyone, if you don't know advanced math enjoy working at Wal-Mart" now you didn't say that verbatim its become pretty clear you think very little of those who don't wish to do advanced math jobs. You have been wrong on such a consistent basis in this topic that I am officially done talking because at this point your have resorted to lying and misconstruing facts. A Job in politics is not far behind.

And you are better because...?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Learning Japanese is only worthwhile for people who need to be fluent in Japanese.

Or because it may be an interesting journey? Maybe a fun one?

You can rely one other people to do things for you, or actually try to understand how things work. Even if it's not useful, it can be very enlightening. Or even fun.

If you rely on translations, you'll totally miss Machiavelli's point. Si guarda al fine never meant the end justifies the means.

You'll also miss Dicken's rambling monologue about doornails. Or Heirich Heine's genius. Damn, this guy was even more brilliant than Oscar Pistorius : running with no knees is one thing, but writing german poetry that actually sound like poetry... that is one impressive achievement.

Studying foreign languages also makes you formulate ideas in a different canvas, and ultimately allows you to really elaborate new concepts. It's the anti-Newspeak.

Mathematics work in the same way. You can choose to completely ignore calculus or algebra, but you'll miss a lot of things.

 generalgrog wrote:
Why else would you Major in History unless you were planning on teaching it.

I actually was seriously contemplating, pursuing PHD in History with the plan on teaching, until I saw how much money Teachers made.

So I went engineering instead. I make a lot of money, but my heart really is in History.

My gf is my Marion Ravenwood. And I'm her Indiana Jones.

Well, sort of.

Actually, I'm both Indiana Jones and Leroy J. Gibbs...

(technically, my job looks more like Abby's, but let's pretend, shall we... )

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Bang out the preqs in your first year and then take the two summer semesters and boom right back on track, and if you wanted you could actually continue to take summer semesters and finish up your 4 year degree early if you continued to take summer courses.

You're assuming that all coursework is offered during the summer. This is foolish, as quite frequently courses are not even offered every semester.

Litcheur wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Learning Japanese is only worthwhile for people who need to be fluent in Japanese.

Or because it may be an interesting journey? Maybe a fun one?

I learned Japanese because I was curious how closely the dub or sub of an anime was to the actual Japanese.

I was absolutely stunned at the liberties taken with the various translations.

For instance:

そ。(So) is used in Japanese to mean all kinds of things ("Yes, I see." "Well, maybe." "Well, maybe not." "I don't think so." "I think so, too."), often contradictory things, and guessing which one is not always so easy from the context.

And.

はい。(Hai - supposedly meaning "yes") can also mean "What/I beg your pardon?" Or simply "No, but I don't want to upset anyone." OH! And there are at least three different common words for saying "yes," each for different social situations, and each that can also mean "Not really." (Aside from just saying べつに - Betsu ni).

But I didn't NEED to learn Japanese... It just seemed like something that might be fun while I couldn't walk.

MB

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Of course economics is more complex. Some of it is even useful (ok thats mostly a lie... )
TIdbit: The Boy considered an economics degree but 1) the math wasn't hard enough; and 2) it didn't pay enough. Its all about the Benjamins...

Da Boss said that average salaries are not the only measure of how needed a job is. You responded that average salaries are determined by the meeting of supply and demand. I responded that that isn't true, there's a whole lot of factors beyond demand and supply that influence salaries.

Oh, and economics degrees are a great option. You can walk in to anything that business will get you in to (except financial accounting, but that's probably a good thing). And if you want to do that whole life of the mind thing, economics is more lucrative than anything else, even more than proper, hard work fields like hard science. This is because economics consulting is stupidly lucrative, and its way more practical to take that work while working for a uni than in any other field.

I'm of the opinion that advanced math and science (Physics, etc) are of use to everyone. It's good to know how the world works. I have a job where I never use those things, but I'm glad I learned them.

Having the knowledge means that the populace is less easily manipulated by people lying about science/math. This is a good thing.

If nothing else, it will mean less arguments along the lines of 'It's only a theory'...