/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3368395]

>Want to be econ major

"Man, there are too many econ majors around. You gotta take math. Like *serious* math"

>Okay, I guess I'm pretty good at math, maybe I'll double major

"Pure Math majors are worthless unless you go into academia. You need programming skills along with math"

>..Alright, maybe I'll minor in computer science as well

Don't forget, an Econ major also needs lots of statistics! In the real world it's all about econometrics. Also finance and accounting are important too

>Look at course plan
>Six years to finish undergrad
>Not even including electives related to my major(s), let alone other interesting electives

Fuck.

[Anonymous No.3368420]

How did you guys limit down your fields of interest in college

[Anonymous No.3368430]

I hated classes in undergrad. Fucking hated them. Most of the time I studied programming on my own. I only took classes on subjects that I would kill me to self study, like stat, or was too difficult, like math. As a result I got an applied math major with a stat concentration, while studying programming (did they some classes but not enough for a minor) and self studied econ on my own.

Also you can take classes and not declare a major/minor. Your education is what you make of it, the only people who care about classes are the graduate school committee (employers usually look not for hybrid majors, but a 'specific' trigger like mech eng or comp sci that fits their bill, they don't care about perfect workers, just specialties). If you want to do it to look good, then that's fine. But it's not worth the money; education is actually free, though if you're having trouble with something like real analysis, it's best to seek help with a professor.

[Anonymous No.3368450]

> Why go to college when you can work as a bartender in a night club, banging hot chicks.

Riddle me this.

[Anonymous No.3368455]

>>3368430
As I've been told, it tends to be that academia looks more closely at your transcript and what classes you've taken, whereas the corporate world just takes a look at your degree and maybe your major/minor breakdown.

As much as I'd like to learn programming on my own, I find that I don't enjoy it much without a realized need to immediately apply what I'm learning. I suppose an alternative would be to join in on some programming/development projects during college rather than take classes, and hope my math skills alone can take me through the algorithms

[Anonymous No.3368482]

>>3368395

>Pure Math majors are worthless unless you go into academia. You need programming skills along with math.

>Pure Math majors are worthless

Thats why you took Economics with it.
Wow you are irrational.

Perhaps you should just take Arts, im sure you'll fit in there.
And it wont take your "precious" time
Lazy faget.

[Anonymous No.3368501]

>>3368482
Change my mind, what are good jobs for a Math major without any programming experience (though I technically have some, albeit flaky)

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3368507]

>>3368450
It gets boring stressful. You turn to coke. Eventually you crash your motorcycle into a cop car and soend 6 months in jail. Upon release you are required to maintain sobriety for 2 years, but spend 11 hours aday around alcohol. If you are lucky you have insurance and pick up a opiate addiction, if unlucky you fall into a meth habit, because it,is cheaper than cocaine.

Eventually all the hot women,turn into toothless heroin addicts, and your bartending job turns into sucking cock in the bathroom of the local quickiemart.

[Anonymous No.3368520]

>Six years to finish undergrad
>mfw my undergrad is 3 years

[Anonymous No.3368547]

I gave up on academics after freshman year. I declared myself an economics major and did about 2 hours of work a week and skipped the majority of classes. Now I'm a poorfag. srs.

[Anonymous No.3368556]

>>3368520

>done in two
>stop bragging

[Anonymous No.3368561]

>>3368520
Hows ITT tech treatin ya?

[Anonymous No.3368574]

>>3368561
what's ITT tech?

Most undergrad courses in england are 3 years. not just specific ones. where I live it's 4.

[Anonymous No.3368583]

>>3368574

>undergrad courses in england
>england
>............england

[Anonymous No.3368595]

>>3368547

>implying with anything remotely econ related you cant walk into the finance industry

[Anonymous No.3368597]

>>3368507
implying that all of that stuff isnt related to a personal extract from your own tale of woe that you or some other misinformed beings may refer to as your "life".

[Anonymous No.3368649]

>>3368574
I had to choose between the UK and US system too. I decided on US because 1) US unis have better branding (if you get into the good ones), as well as a larger market that recognizes that branding 2) I actually do love learning things, even not related to my major, so a broad-based liberal arts education is great for me 3) I *could* actually graduate in 3 years... if I wasn't trying to do a double degree with a minor as stated in OP. Hell, math/econ can be squeezed into 3 years if I really wanted to, just that I'd have little time for electives

[Anonymous No.3368760]

>>3368395
who gave you this retarded advice? six years to finish undergrad? fuck that: just do math and economics

[Anonymous No.3368773]

>>3368455
>implying you'll need math skills to implement common algorithms

that's a good idea though: do compsci stuff in your spare time, if you think you will be motivated to do it. Get involved in a OSS project or something

[Anonymous No.3368801]

>>3368760
Nah, I'm just stitching together advice given by different people. Which basically result in a "major in everything".

That said, I do have issues figuring out what to focus on and what to drop. I will probably be doing Econ/Math, and learn programming on the side. The bit about statistics is legit though, which means I'll need to allocate some classes to that

>>3368773
The problem with joining OSS is the catch-22. Can't join till you're good enough, can't get good enough until you join a project

[Anonymous No.3368806]

>>3368395
>Want to be econ major

Theres your problem op. Cut that shit out and you'll be fine.

[Anonymous No.3368816]

>>3368806
Overlaps with math, and actually doesn't take up that many credits at all. Also it is what I'm actually interested in. Ideally, I would do Econ/CS, but Econ/Math is a much better subject combination

[Anonymous No.3368851]

>>3368816
unless you do psych and sociology, you'll just be a fancy bullshit artist.

Good luck.

[Anonymous No.3368859]

>>3368851
... what?

[Anonymous No.3368890]

Don't listen to them OP. They're just jelly of your quant prowess.

Do well in school, and you'll be making g's on Wall Street in no time. Meanwhile, they'll be slaving away in some lab or academia.

Real contributions to society is for losers and poorfags. AHAHAHA.

[Anonymous No.3368895]

>>3368859
cause that's the basis of the economy. Everything else is just fucking around with numbers to manipulate people.

[Anonymous No.3368906]

>>3368395

What do you want to do with your degree OP? If you want to get a masters/phd in Economics then just do economic major and a math minor, you don't need double major. You basically just need a few courses of linear algebra, stats and calculus.

If you want to be a Quant or statistician then I would do a math major and econ minor. Then get masters/phd in applied math or stats.

[Anonymous No.3368938]

>>3368895

The study of economics in Sociology is all derived from Marx and is pretty useless.

Psychology might tell us how we go to a problem (i.e., the fact that fund managers gambled with derivatives so much because physical money was so far removed from the equation), but it doesn't tell us how to fix a problem.But there's already a field of behavioral economics that exists.

Besides, shouldn't we want the manipulation of people? People are fucking stupid and need to be engineered to do the proper thing.

[Anonymous No.3368943]

>>3368906
I'm looking to Quant (who doesn't like money?), but other than that, anything that gives me money in general (hence my aversion to academia). My school happens to have a special degree for Math that specializes in econ, so I'm leaning toward that, which is actually not far from a double major.

As for doing a Masters/PhD, I'm honestly not sure at this point. I've been under the impression that a PhD takes too much time for it to be worth the trade-off of not entering the workforce immediately since the bump in opportunities and compensation doesn't make up for it.

So /sci/'s verdict is just pick up computing on the side?

[Anonymous No.3368961]

>>3368938
You're just asinine. Value doesn't exist except in sociolably exchangeable manner and in arbitrary psychological desires.

The entire of economics could change tomorrow if culture, psychology and human interest were also changed.

As such, there is no pure economics, just alot of hand waving.

>mfw OP tries to be dirty and clean simultaneously

[Anonymous No.3368964]

>>3368943

If you know MATLAB, you're all set. Seriously, you don't need too much else (everything else can be picked up on your spare time)

[Anonymous No.3368970]

>>3368961
Best of both worlds man

[Anonymous No.3368977]

>>3368970
No, you'll have to choose one eventually. Especially when people realize you're now on the wrong track.

[Anonymous No.3368983]

>>3368977
I think you'll have to take that issue up with economics departments. As subjective, qualitative and flimsy as it might be, they insist on rigorous math and statistical techniques.

[Anonymous No.3368996]

>>3368961
>The entire of economics could change tomorrow if culture, psychology and human interest were also changed.


>The entirety of science could change tomorrow if nature changed

Thus there is no pure science.

[Anonymous No.3368995]

>>3368983
I get that. The point is you'll devote 30-40 years to some arbitrary valuation, and in a blink of an eye, it'll all change and you'll be so far up your ass, you'll have no idea what to do.

[Anonymous No.3369002]

>>3368995

That's how science works. It's tentative and subject to change.

[Anonymous No.3369009]

>>3368995
I'm pretty sure 30-40 years later I'll be high enough up the work ladder that my undergraduate transcript from 30-40 years ago no longer matter and starting to prep for retirement

[Anonymous No.3369025]

>>3368961

I'm not OP who you responded to. That may be true, and for the sake of argument, we'll assume that it is. However, sociology and psychology as fields by themselves aren't equipped to deal with economic questions. Especially not sociology, which was my main point.

However, maybe you should clarify what you're getting at. Do you think that economics shouldn't be studied at all, or that the study of it is going about that wrong way? I mean, the main drivers of economic growth, besides the other usual suspects, are technological advancement, so that should be main our focus anyway.

I just wouldn't want sociologists to be my central bankers.

[Anonymous No.3369032]

>>3369025
OP here, I'm assuming he was referring to my post with his picture and the last line, and your posts separately

[Anonymous No.3369044]

>>3368996
I'm sorry, are you saying human values are as malleable as physical constants?

good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.3369058]

>derive something like the Black-Scholes formula
>use it to bet on the markets and make billions for several years
>everyone starts using the formula so it takes away the advantage, but at least you got a nobel prize
>several years later, lose billions and have to be bailed out by the government

feelsgoodbutalsobadman.jpg

[Anonymous No.3369064]

>>3369058
>derive something like the Black-Scholes formula
>use it to bet on the markets and make billions for several years
>everyone starts using the formula so it takes away the advantage, but at least you got a nobel prize

>earn millions for years
>several years later, your hedge fund loses billions but is bailed out by the government, you keep your millions

feelsgreatman.jpg

[Anonymous No.3369068]

>>3369058
but but, MATH IS NEVER WRONG!

[Anonymous No.3369085]

>>3369064
>>3369058
>live in a world easily manipulated
>derive formula to manipulate world
>find world is no longer easily analyzable

feelschaotic.rm

[Anonymous No.3369097]

>>3369085
>live in a world easily manipulated
>derive formula to manipulate world
>find world is no longer easily analyzable
>oh wait I still have millions, and a nobel prize

idontgiveafuck.mpg

[Anonymous No.3369111]

>>3369097
>be selfish

obviouslyaneconomist.mp4

[Anonymous No.3369123]

i used to like math/econ, but it's not a very stable/accurate field outside of academia. math/biology is a pretty awesome field, though. look into it.

[Anonymous No.3369136]

>mfw the creators of the Black-Scholes model were awarded a fuckin Nobel Prize for something that arguably wrecked the world economy.

What a joke. Before them, derivatives were barely in existence. Years later, the widespread trading of them has fucked everyone big time.

[Anonymous No.3369147]

>>3369123
What do you mean by "not a very stable/accurate field outside of academia"?

Also biology is not my thing. Never took it in high school, taking AP Bio by learning off a book basically destroyed any chance of my doing or liking the subject. I have great respect for biologists and what they do, but it's just not my thing.

[Anonymous No.3369167]

>>3369136
well back to the track. OP will spend his days filling his head full of random and arbitrary relationships between people, society, corporations, certificates, interests and so forth, and he'll even believe he's found some way to quantify that relationship.

But at the end of the day, theres no unifying theory of economies, since the study of the subject is for purely selfish and self motivated reasons.

[sage No.3369170]

>>3369147

Do what you feel like OP, /sci/ is the worst place you can come to looking for advice.

[Anonymous No.3369176]

>>3369170
>Do what you feel like OP, /sci/ is the worst place you can come to looking for advice on sociology and psychology.

FTFY

[Anonymous No.3369203]

>>3369167
Accountants fill their heads with arbitrary definitions of numbers on paper or computer
Statisticians fill their heads with arbitrarily defined techniques of what defines "reliability"
Political Scientists fill their heads with arbitrarily defined notions of society and rule
Lawyers fill their heads with arbitrarily defined legalese and precedents

A large portion of the "productivity" in the world has no ties to any foundational truth or value. The sooner you realize that the work you do will likely little value in the giant picture (unless you happen to be an incredible researcher or inventor), the better

[Anonymous No.3369227]

>>3369203
Oh I get that. But none of those professions claim or have claimants who demand to be lumped in with physics.

YOu'll have to go here:
>>3368961

[Anonymous No.3369234]

>>3369227
For the record, I don't think economists should put themselves anywhere even near the sciences. That's just pretentious

But that doesn't preclude them from having legitimate and valuable contributions to the world.

[Anonymous No.3369235]

1) it does not take 6 years to finish any undergraduate program anywhere.

the schools loose money (federal funding) when students take more than 4 years to get a bachelors degree.

they WANT you to graduate in 4 years

2) math majors typically involve "focus" in the final 2 years.

you focus by taking classes in Applied, or pure math subjects. during the first 2 years you will almost certainly end up taking computer science coursework. This is the norm

you can ALWAYS include inter-departmental classes in Statistics and Probability and "focus" in terms of financial math

here is an example: you would take some advanced probability/stats and stochastic mathematics classes offered through your school's economics or prob/stat department (which are often separate from the math department, have seperate class numbers, etc).... Advanced PDE, Advanced ODE/nonlinear DE, Advanced numerical analysis, etc.

another good choice is statistical mechanics (taught through the physics or chemistry department) and possibly even fluid mechanics.

why? because many of the problems in economics obey the same exact equations.

[Anonymous No.3369262]

>>3369235
The 6 years thing was a joke for "if I took everything that people advised I take"

I'm not getting your point regarding "focus" though. Why would I be doing compsci... if I'm not taking compsci

[Anonymous No.3371330]

[Anonymous No.3371444]

1 word: actuary
its one degree, but you will gain skills in math, business, economics, accounting. You have to be really good at math though. It pays extremely well and job security is second only to doctors.

[Anonymous No.3371471]

>>3369203
I am assuming you are non of those. If you were then you would know how much they actually do. At least Lawyers and Accountants. Both have to have a large knowledge of laws and regulations so that people/business don't get in trouble. Also a lot of accountants are really consultants who give a large amount of advice on how a company should spend its money and what assets should be bought and sold. Accounting is the farthest thing from arbitrary. The whole point of accounting is for precision and accurate data.

[Anonymous No.3371563]

>>3371471
My point is not that they don't do much. I chose them because they all do a lot and contribute a lot to society. My point was that a lot of things are arbitrarily defined. Laws and precedents that go on for hundreds of years were probably somewhat arbitrary when they were being drafted and finalized. Accounting classifications are primarily meant to be internally consistent, arbitrariness be damned.

My whole point is that a lot of jobs deal with arbitrarily defined things and are still worthwhile and meaningful, in response to the guy who said that economics was dealing only with arbitrary value, relationships and theories and has no inherent value/.

[Anonymous No.3371564]

>>3371444
How well?

[Anonymous No.3372743]

[Anonymous No.3372755]

>>3372743

faggot

[Anonymous No.3372758]

>>3368507

>The millionaire and bum on the street still inevitably die in the end.

[Anonymous No.3373753]

[Anonymous No.3373764]

Computer science isn't a practical application of math.

[Anonymous No.3373768]

>>3368450
Because that's a pathetic, shallow life of no interest to anybody with more intelligence than an eggplant

[Anonymous No.3373788]

>>3373764
It does use the skillsets also required for application of math though