DescentBB

Who has an undergrad/grad/phd in a science? What science is it? I ask because I'm in college, I'm in the business school, and I just don't like it. I love science, only problem is I love all forms of it. Just wanted to get an idea of what kind of science you boys/girls have studied and what you're doing now.

Have a BS in Physics and Math. Finished my degree courtesy of the educational assistance benefit at my employer. Have worked for 28 years in corporate chemistry research, mostly feedstocks and polymers.

You know you might want to consider taking your love of sciences into your business career. Oftentimes science people don't have the best knack for realizing that it takes money to make some kinds of science happen. Conversely, some business types are all (and only) about the bottom line and have all the perspective and creativity of the average stone. If you can be good at both you can be part of a rare breed.

You love all forms of science? There's a long list you know, these are just some of the ones at my local univ:

- Anthropology
- Astronomy
- Biology/Ecology/Microbiology
- Chemistry
- Economics
- Geography
- Geology
- Physics
- Political Science
- Sociology

Not to mention, there are a vast number of other sciences and fields within them literally for the picking.

I have no inclination to science myself (other than maybe computer science, heh!), but my father studied a combo of electrical engineering and physics in college; while he's been out of the professional industry for some time now, he was primarily a plasma physicist and did research & development for a number of companies such as IBM, General Electric, and Granville-Philips.

Chemistry and physics are extremely tough at any good school, but if you're sure about it, there's no good reason why you shouldn't change your major...

I got my BS in physics, I have my math minor (which you almost get by default) and am currently 3 courses shy of a double math major (computational). It's a very tough field, You have to be good at math and solving problems to get the degree, in addition to liking science.

The good news is it has to be the most interesting non-repedative major out there, you tackle electronics, circuits, programming, mathmatics, mechanics, classical physics, particle physics, condensed-matter, materials, electromagnitism, hydro/fluid-dynamics, thermodynamics, quantum physics, quantum field theory, relativity (very little in undergrad though), astrophysics (which was optional, I didn't take it) etc.

You get to hit a little bit of everything and you hit it hard.

BS mathematics / computer science
MS applied mathematics (as soon as I fill out the right paperwork)
Working on a PhD Applied mathematics (focus: mathematical biology).

I really like it... but then, I've always liked math.

How early did you all realize science was the course for you? Were you all good at science/math early on in jr. high high school? Math has never been my favorite subject, and I always felt I had to try twice as hard to do as well as my fellow classmates. Maybe that's a tell tale sign I shouldn't mingle in science, but I just have an attraction to it. I love anthropology and archaeology. I barely passed Physics, and was farely miserable throughout it.

BS in Zoology, minor in Geology and partial Masters in Entomology. Got tired of school and went into construction. Problem back in the early 70's was life science degrees were dime a dozen.

I hate math. Art rules

Computer Science. I never failed a class but I could definatly tell what subjects I was better at.

I've always been good with electronics and as I grew up I learned about computers, so computer science was a no brainer.

I'm taking computer science courses--but they are a total piece of... well, you know. I do NOT NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE SAVE AS BUTTON DOES, YA STUPID PROGRAM!!

There are times when the best way to complete a course is with a blowtorch...

Having gone through a science career crisis, I have a lot of thoughts on this subject. First, my abbreviated CV:

BA, Geology
MS, Engineering Geology
8 years in Environmental Consulting as a Hydrogeologist
MS, Computer Science
Just began career in software R&D focused on computer security

You can break Arsale's list down into physical sciences and social sciences. When people use the term science, they generally refer to the physical disciplines. I'm guessing you're referring to physical sciences with your post.

Not that it matters too much. A bachelor's degree in either social or physical sciences won't get you very far in today's job market, statistically speaking. I made the mistake in college of choosing a major that was interesting but not very high paying; I wish I had chosen something both interesting and employable. When I went back to school for CS, half my fellow students had degrees in Physics and Math because they couldn't find work in their field (of course they were the best CS students!).

Do some serious web searching on current and projected job markets. Here's an example:

http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview1.asp ... s&x=32&y=6

You'll note that almost all the growing fields are in computer science and the health sciences. That's very telling. I moved from geology (crappy, static job market, low pay) to computer science (varied, growing job market, high pay) and so far, so good.

Now, you might want to go attend grad school instead of getting right to work. Careers for scientists with graduate degrees are a bit better. Or, you could look at business school or law school. It turns out that both business and law schools respond very favorably to applicants who majored in science or math during their undergrad. This is because they get a million applicants with government, history, and english degrees. They have found that the students with science and math degrees have better problem solving and analytical thinking skills, and do better than their counterparts.

Lothar should have pretty good career prospects. Take applied math and biology, throw in some computer skills, and you've got a high paying research career in biotech, genetics, pharmecuticals, etc. Very hot.

Computer science is interesting, fun, and varied. It opens a lot of different career doors. But it's not really science; it's more a bastard child of engineering, art, and science. Which is cool, if you like all those things.

For fun, let me counter Goob's plug for Physics being interesting and non-repetitive with my own plug for Geology. In Geology, I took courses in geology, paleontology, chemistry, oceanography, meteorology, astronomy, math, planetary geology (which I took from Steve Squires!), physics, environmental science, engineering, and geography. I often claim that geologists have the best-rounded education in the physical sciences, although perhaps not the most targeted. The only gap you have to make up on your own is the biological sciences. Based on your second post in this thread, you might really enjoy Geology. Just don't expect a rocking job when you get done (no pun intended).

Stryker, not to criticize but is it possible that your parents are choosing courses in computer use and not computer science? Intro computer science courses include discrete math, logic, programming, computer architecture, and data structures.

I've taken a few comp sci courses by your definition; an A+ certification course, programming courses etc.. But I also have to take these stupid courses... Who needs a course to tell them how to work M$ word, anyways?

First of all, as defined by my inborn prejudices, social "sciences" are not science. That being said, I'm working on a BS in Physics right now; I also plan on a Math minor, which, as Goob said, is almost a default. My school offers a concentration in Astrophysics, which I'm seriously considering. I plan to go for a PhD someday and get a job in research. I feel somewhat different than Genghis; I don't care how well my job pays, but I want to know that I'll enjoy doing it for the rest of my life. I didn't choose Physics for the job market; I chose it because I've loved science and math since a very early age, and I want to help further research into the fundamentals of how the universe works. If you think about it, physics is truly the core of all other sciences.

BigSlide, the people here are *great* resources for reference in a career path in the physical and computer sciences. The above posts by Lothar and Genghis nail it pretty well. The only thing I can add is to remember that over time, your interests can shift, even after your college years. I'm a pretty good example:

After beginning with a double-major in Physics and Computer Science, I discovered a love for Mathematics, and got my BS in Math / Physics minor. In graduate school, I ended up gravitating toward Pure Mathematics (theoretical stuff, as opposed to Lothar's Applied Math degree), and will get my MS as soon as I finish my thesis. When I got out of grad school I was a math teacher for a couple of years, but now I'm trying to get into Actuarial work (statistics for insurance companies, basically). So even though it's all in the realm of Mathematics, I've been all over the place in the last few years.

Just don't pigeon-hole yourself into anything. Let your interests wander just a little once in a while. And don't ever give up!

Stryker wrote:I've taken a few comp sci courses by your definition; an A+ certification course, programming courses etc.. But I also have to take these stupid courses... Who needs a course to tell them how to work M$ word, anyways?

I couldn't agree more about those application use courses; can't you "place out" of them, so to speak? I do take exception to calling A+ cert courses CS, I consider them closer to IT.

Top Gun wrote:First of all, as defined by my inborn prejudices, social "sciences" are not science.

I feel somewhat different than Genghis; I don't care how well my job pays, but I want to know that I'll enjoy doing it for the rest of my life. I didn't choose Physics for the job market; I chose it because I've loved science and math since a very early age, and I want to help further research into the fundamentals of how the universe works. If you think about it, physics is truly the core of all other sciences.

I agree about giving the social sciences equal status to the physical ones, but to be politically correct we're not supposed to say that or we might hurt someone's feelings.

I didn't mean to imply it was all about salary, but I did mean to imply you should at least be able to get a job in the first place!

Physics is the core; it's bad ass. My hero is Feynman.

The problem for me is that I'm homeschooled; I can't "place out" of any course my parents want me to do. Plus I need one credit of this type of stuff for the college degree I'm working towards, so...

Foil wrote:will get my MS as soon as I finish my thesis.

[hijack]
what's your thesis topic?
[/hijack]

Lothar wrote:

Foil wrote:will get my MS as soon as I finish my thesis.

[hijack]
what's your thesis topic?
[/hijack]

Well, actually it's not technically a full thesis. Since I took extra coursework, I can do what my program calls a "thesis component", which is somewhat smaller. Anyway, I wanted to do something in topology, so I'm verifying an alternate proof that 2-manifolds are triangulize-able.

Top Gun wrote:First of all, as defined by my inborn prejudices, social "sciences" are not science.

My wife (whose degree is in Sociology) would disagree. But then again, I think the argument always boils down to semantics; people often have varying definitions for the term "science".

Stryker wrote:The problem for me is that I'm homeschooled; I can't "place out" of any course my parents want me to do. Plus I need one credit of this type of stuff for the college degree I'm working towards, so...

I was home-schooled through high school as well (class of '95), so I know what you mean. Home-schooling parents can be over-cautious about things sometimes, so it takes some tact and patience when you talk with them about not taking a course you don't really need.

If the class has already started, you may not be able to "test/place out" of the course (which is what I did), but I would still suggest talking to the instructor to see if there are any other options. I've known of some instructors being willing to just give you a sort of "early final exam" if they're convinced you already know the material.

BS in Aerospace engineering.
Currently working on MBA in Entrepreneurship.

I agree with dissent, that you should find a way to combine your business education with your love of science. Business is what makes the world go round. Don't give that up if you don't have to.

Dedman wrote:Business is what makes the world go round.

Technically, it's physics, but I'll let it slide this time.

Dr. Science does!

wheres Testi spilling out my "Master's CS" story!!

Foil wrote:I wanted to do something in topology, so I'm verifying an alternate proof that 2-manifolds are triangulize-able.

My wife studied a lot of topology during her masters ("why is it that every time I say I study manifolds, people ask me about their car exhaust?") She might be interested in seeing your work. She posts here as Drakona.

I did really enjoy Manifolds, though I never passed the third quarter (Smooth Manifods). I'd love to go back and look at it again, but the topic Foil mentioned sounds a bit heavy for recreational reading! It's mentioned in my Manifolds book (Lee), but the sketch of the proof (which involves covering the manifold with a countable number regular disks, triangulating the disks, and adjusting for a possibly infinite number of overlaps...) sounds quite involved. I'm curious, though--how does the alternate proof proceed?

I don't envy having to work through a result like that. My master's talk, by comparison, was pretty easy. I got to look at the history and proof of the Four Color Theorem for my Master's degree (pure math, emphasis on geometry). It was an interesting bit of mathematatical history, but an utterly inaccessible proof!

Regaurding the discussion about soft and hard science, I don't see 'soft' or social sciences as unscientific, but rather science practiced in a less than ideal situation. The observe-deduce-experiment cycle still works, just the subject matter is so complex it's hard to fairly deduce, and it changes so much it's hard to cleanly experiment. It's still scientific, but less rigorously so, and the knowledge is less certain. That's no knock on those subjects though--you study different things by different methods, and you have differing degrees of success.

That's just par for the course. Lothar and I get into discussions about the methods of applied math vs. those of pure math frequently enough. There's a funny story to illustrate that, regaurding so-called (;)) Diraq Delta 'functions'. (You know--the ones that are 0 everywhere except at x=0, where for an instant they take on the value infinity--the area under the graph is supposed to be equal to one.) If I recall my history right, these were first used by physicists as simply an abstract function that integrated to a step function. This modelled certain physical phenomena very well, but the mathematicians went absolutely bonkers over them. Such a function made absolutely no mathematical sense, on several levels--it was like modelling things using square circles! But the physicists nonetheless went right on using their Delta Functions to obtain correct physical results. Finally, in the 1940's, a mathematician came along and explained how the functions weren't really 'functions', but rather 'distributions'--something else entirely that was nonetheless logical and worked the way the physicists thought the functions should. That satisfied everyone: the mathematicians were finally able to rest, convinced the physicists weren't using some Unholy Abominable Illogical math, and the physicists were able to get back to studying physics using the Delta 'functions' that had always worked for them.

The moral of the story is, the hard science people oughtn't to tease the soft science people about shaky and casual results. You never know when a swarm of shrieking mathematicians is going to descend and scorn you.

Drakona wrote: Lothar and I get into discussions about the methods of applied math vs. those of pure math frequently enough.

yea man... i like met this woman at the vfw... and she was all wearin' walmart pea green plastic pearls and havin' that egyptian fancy eyeliner to cover the wrinkles... we were not speaking in terms of science... it was more like a work visa to an impoverished nation called upon favor type thing.

now they want to adjust my marital status.

Drakona wrote:...sounds a bit heavy for recreational reading! It's mentioned in my Manifolds book (Lee), but the sketch of the proof (which involves covering the manifold with a countable number regular disks, triangulating the disks, and adjusting for a possibly infinite number of overlaps...) sounds quite involved. I'm curious, though--how does the alternate proof proceed?

You're absolutely right, it's a heavy proof (if you're seriously interested, it's from a 1961 paper by P.H. Doyle and D.A. Moran using the Jordan-Schoenflies Theorem). Honestly, I'm just about to give up on it and find another topic, for a number of reasons, including the fact that it's actually somewhat beyond the material covered in my topological coursework (though my advisor thought I could handle it). I actually haven't seriously touched it in over a year.

Drakona wrote:I got to look at the history and proof of the Four Color Theorem for my Master's degree (pure math, emphasis on geometry). It was an interesting bit of mathematatical history, but an utterly inaccessible proof!

Do you have any of the materials left from your presentation? I consider the Four Color Theorem ("Can I call it a proof if it can't be verified without a computer?") to be one of the more intriguing subjects in semi-recent math history, so I'd love to see any stuff you might still have.

Drakona wrote:Lothar and I get into discussions about the methods of applied math vs. those of pure math frequently enough. There's a funny story to illustrate that, regaurding so-called (;)) Diraq Delta 'functions'...

Yeah, I remember those! (I thought it was "Dirac", though...) I actually badgered my Physics professor a bit when he sort of brushed by the "integrates to 1" part. He wanted us to just take it at almost face value (he wanted to move on to the next topic), but I couldn't just accept it. After I asked him multiple times about it, he finally gave a brief argument about it being the limit of a distribution (it wasn't until later that I saw a full explanation). Hmm... it makes me wonder if my professor's "just accept it, it works!" attitude was one of the things that eventually led to my switching majors over to Math.

Drakona wrote:You never know when a swarm of shrieking mathematicians is going to descend and scorn you.

From my (albeit limited) experience, Mathematicians as a whole don't tend to "shriek" all that much... maybe we just "rigorously pester"?

Hmm, that does sound like the proof sketched in my manifold book. That set off all of my "Warning, Painful Proof" sensors. Kudos to you if you can hack through it!

I still have a whole folder full of my notes from the four color theorem talk, but nothing online. I didn't really do that much more than follow the history of the problem, outline its solution, and comment on the ensuing controversy. It is an interesting proof, but you do have no choice but to trust the computer. However, there are versions of it these days that you can program yourself in about half a day--and I consider putting the program together yourself to be about as good as being able to evaluate the proof yourself.

From my (albeit limited) experience, Mathematicians as a whole don't tend to "shriek" all that much... maybe we just "rigorously pester"?

Hehe... yeah, I guess that's true. Provide perverse counterexamples, and pester with brilliantly stupid exceptions. Though mathematicians also have a tendency to Smite You With Holy Logic. You have neither seen arrogance nor felt defeat until you have tried to argue with a mathematician who knows he is right.

BS in Genetics

I just isolated dna that is purple. I like my job. Good luck.

BS in Biology
working on PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology
(no official thesis topic yet, but will most likely be studying an enzyme involved in collagen destruction in arthritis)

I've had jobs in academia and biotech. Biotech pays better, but the environment can be stifling. Working in academia is more fulfilling, but you'll be eating ramen noodles more often

There's always government work too. Not sure how well that pays, but from what I hear the job security is pretty good.