Slashdot Mirror
Fun Things To Do With a Math Or Science Degree?
bxwatso writes "My niece just took the ACT and got a perfect score on the math section. 25 years ago, when I took the test, the kids who aced the math section were pretty special. Her score, combined with straight A's so far in high school, suggest to me that she might be able to go to a top university (MIT?) based on her math aptitude. The rub is that she doesn't like math or science, even though she finds them easy. She doesn't want to be an engineer or scientist. I thought the folks here would be a great group to ask: What are some creative, not too nerdy professions that nonetheless require a talent for math, engineering, or science?"
My first girlfriend have like a perfect score (not just math, but 36 composite score) and are ranked in the top 5 in our class across 500+ students. She got a B.A. in elementary education last year. Probably an influence from her pastor.
New Economic Perspectives
At my mid-level university, one quarter of all students who made it past the second year in my rigorous program had perfect scores on both sections. The test really isn't that difficult these days, and even a moderate amount of targeted prep combined with a targeted curriculum puts you in a strong position; put her in a Putnam and we'll see what she's made of. MIT is the sort of unpleasant experience that should be reserved for those who genuinely want it.
Federal Agent? Whether it be FBI, NSA, DEA, DHS etc. They need 'nerdy' people. Jobs in hot areas for them are Forensic Computing, Forensic Accounting, etc. I sure there are more but those require a math/analytical mind. Plus there's potential to shoot someone...
I was pretty gifted in mathematics when I was young, to the point I would easily win school-wide maths competitions despite not working and having skipped a grade. I never worked much on it anymore until my natural aptitudes weren't enough to keep up during high school (I must point out that I'm French and not American), and I got to college (CS) without even knowing what a complex number was or what the sigma sign represented. Then I dropped out of high school for numerous reasons, one being that I performed too poorly due to my lack of interest and investment, particularly in mathematics.
However at that time I had an idea which sounded pretty damn exciting, namely a spectrograph and spectrogram synthesiser, so I started this project and picked up C and digital signal processing, which progressively involved more and more mathematics until I would know everything about complex numbers, Fourier transforms and negative frequencies and would start scratching maddeningly long equations on sheets of paper.
Before I picked that up I thought maths were some sort of pointless intellectual masturbation that only really served mad scientists who write papers about crap like string theory, but when I found out how it relates to all that is multimedia, and even to our senses of sight and audition, it all became very alive and interesting, and the point is, with that sort of stuff you can do anything you want. You can make your own synthesiser and make music out of it, you can create your own visual effects, or you can work for a space agency's contractor and work on systems that will be sent in space, probably a handful of other stuff that could be "creative and not too nerdy". Not too sure what "not too nerdy" involves..
You just got troll'd!
I'm a woman who aced the math ACT but didn't feel like studying math or science. I was into foreign languages. So now I have a bachelor's in Spanish and a master's in French literature, and I'm a web developer. Go figure.
What might have convinced me to study one of the hard sciences is seeing people actually at work using them. If I had met any pharmaceutical researchers or civil engineers or software developers and seen what they do at work every day, I might have found it more interesting. As it was, I had no frame of reference for working with math or science, and therefore no interest.
I have no idea what current philosophy academics are interested in, so I can't accuse them of not keeping up. But if they aren't keeping up with AI, the Simulation Argument, Bayesian theory and other such statistical things, QM's implications for the many-worlds hypothesis, and computer science research into semantics, just to pull a few things off the top of my head, they are wasting their time in several fields traditionally included under the rubric of "philosophy" (epistemology, ethics, etc.).
We still have no rock-solid answers to speak of to the old questions, but for the first time in millennia, we actually have some data for some of them... and we're only going to be collecting more. And even what little data we have has opened up more questions; "what does it mean to be human?" will begin to take on new overtones when we start asking just exactly how augmented does an ape have to be before it is "human", just how smart does an AI have to be, and, of course, is a binary definition of "human" even feasible, and if not, what is? And so on.
(I know for a fact there are philosophers interested in this. I simply don't know if they are in or out of the mainstream. Certainly they will eventually be in the mainstream.)
That is always good advice, but remember, at that age it is difficult to see the value of science. It is difficult to understand, even for college seniors in technical majors (math, natural sciences, comp.sci..etc), the immense benefit of being someone who understands how the world works. It usually takes a little sit-back and thinking to come to grips with the fact that you are proving things about the very nature of logic itself, or modelling the universe at levels the human mind did not really evolve to deal with. Anybody capable of doing science(esp at a high level), and enjoying this incredible meaningfulness and understanding (read:enlightenment) that comes as a result.. those people should be at least encouraged to pursue it. No harm could come from an honest suggestion. She may owe him so much for it later.
There's a link my brother sent me awhile back with a guy with an interesting theory about why there are more men than women in advanced sciences:
Because a PhD in science is a really poor career choice, and women are usually smart enough to avoid it, while men are much more likely to be sucked into it.
The fact is that if you have the brains and discipline to get a PhD in science and become a prof at MIT or Harvard, you could probably make a *ton* more money, and quicker, and have much more job security, going into medicine, law, or business. Or you could be slave-labour grad student for 7 years, then serfdom post-doc for 6 years, slave as an untenured professor for 6 years and then be fired... er sorry, "denied tenure" and be looking for a brand new job or an entirely new career at the age of 35.
But back to the question: one really good career path is to study engineering for undergrad because of the analytics and problem-solving skills it gives you, and then go into business or law. A lot of engineers make awesome businessmen because of the way they've been trained to think by their engineering education.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Yeah, management, entrepreneurship, business development, business strategy... all of these are completely different activities requiring different skill sets. What I was talking about wasn't engineers going into management, so much as engineers using their analytical thinking to optimize business practices, finding the best place / the best way to make money in a particular competitive landscape, making strategic alliances for growth, &c.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.