does anyone else here go to a top uni and feel tremendously underwhelmed by the whole experience?
I hate the job-oriented curriculum, and I'm constantly disappointed by the limited intellectual capabilities and narrow academic interests of my fellow students.
No one is capable of engaging in a serious and meaningful debate; free speech is dead, and I have doubts as to whether there is a single person here who has willingly read both a Socratic dialogue and a book of the New Testament.
It feels as if nobody is interested in learning, only in the university brand. The professors tend to be great, but access is limited, and that limited access is limited even further by driveling try-hards who squander scant resources.
How do we fix academia? How do we become educated? Does Harvard or Oxford avoid these pitfalls?
if you want to shitpost about your stem degree please refrain. community college supremacists need not apply.
What kind of people do you expect universities to produce in this kind of mode of production exactly?
David Foster
The hope is that they would admit people with spark, and shepherd them along their path towards understanding.
In reality, they mostly produce up-and-coming wagies. The remainder tend to be misguided ideologues, armed with a hodgepodge of theoretical knowledge, who set out into the world like bronze-age children with a book of matches.
Hudson Roberts
>why are people who go to top schools so unbearably optimistic? Go fix a car or something instead
Jordan Rodriguez
If you aren't doing STEM, you're wasting your time. The humanities automatically selects for the people who couldn't make it in STEM:
I don't know if you've ever gone around listening to different people with different degrees talking about different things - but a discussion of mathematical theories and their real-world applications is infinitely deeper, abstract, and more complex than anything some humanities major could come up with. Analytical philosophy can be similarly deep and abstract.
Like, you people read literature so you can come to a closer understand of the world right? That's what mathematics is - especially if you talk with the people who deal with fractals or recurrent patterns in nature. Except it's "tangible", and not some pseudo-profound DFW-tier sentence about human nature.
-------
Another thing, a question you have to ask yourself is, what is the value of Greek myths or dialogues today, besides the historical or referential - what do I read them for really? Just so that I can say "yoooooo, I know that name from Greek myth or dialogue #1012" or "yoooooo, I know that biblical reference from this part of this chapter of this book of the new testament"?
What's the value of being able to discuss that sort of thing with another person?
Nicholas Walker
the solution is to constantly look down on the job seeking imbeciles and pigeonhole yourself further into academic hell by pursuing only the most esoteric knowledge
Caleb Gray
Go to a small scale university, not a factory-degree university. My professors are also my friends, I've even been to the homes of some. IQ is a STEM-created nonconcept created to reflect STEMsperg ideals.
Mathematics is not an understanding of anything, it is a presumption.
Lincoln Robinson
>Another thing, a question you have... The works of the Greeks and the text of the Bible are intellectual common currency, and ground the entire oeuvre of many a great mind. Without that background knowledge, comprehension is a pipe dream. I'd rather not be precluded from partaking in the grand dialogue of western thought.
this really isn't me at all. i just want a decent liberal arts education.
>Go to a small scale university, not a factory-degree university I'm not an undergraduate, and I already said I go to a top university, as in top 10.
Hudson Jenkins
>separating stem and humanities knowledge is knowledge
Dylan Price
Why do people care so much about IQ?
Jace Parker
I went to university to escape being an unfulfilled working class guy, went to pretty good schools and eventually postgrad. It's really disheartening and shitty all around, for so many reasons that all pile up on each other and become hopelessly entangled.
The only thing I can say is that the system still has some throwbacks within it, usually old-ass professors from different eras or from less globalized countries, who still received traditional educations and weren't thinned down into mediocrities by the publish-or-perish bureaucratic model of intellectual life. Find those people. The system can also still be used as a vehicle for pursuing your own goals, especially with help from those types. But you have to be very diligent about reminding yourself of how small and shallow the pond has become.
>Does Harvard or Oxford avoid these pitfalls? Jesus Christ, no. They're worse. Someone on this board recently described it as "finishing schools for the rich," which is 100% accurate.
>How do we fix academia? The problem isn't with academia itself, it's with deep structural causes that can only be solved from the bottom up. Right now we just have to keep the flame alive and thank God there are still people who care, in spite of everything.
We are living in the collapse of the bourgeois attempt at civilization in its own contradictions. Don't try to reconcile the contradictions for the bourgeois, who can't even see it themselves. Definitely don't go wading into the worst of the worst of bourgeois soul-deadness, like a Harvard or Oxford, and expect any sympathy. Those people are the pinnacles and ultimate expressions *of* the contradictions inherent in their own system. They are the maximum outgrowths of their own failure. At least the dregs of the failing order can faintly tell something is going wrong. Its rulers and beneficiaries will keep deluding themselves that their order is eternal until the last second.
t. ivy
Jace Stewart
>I'm not an undergraduate, and I already said I go to a top university, as in top 10. Top does not mean good, it means glorified by factory idiots.
Grad school is no different. Knowledge doesn't exist.
Ryder Murphy
Should have gone to St John's and started with the Greeks.
Aaron Reed
It's the current method used by clinicians to estimate a person's intelligence. Concrete, easy to perceive as being factual. Most people want to be smart. Simple.
Where is it better? Military academies? Jesuit schools? Feel free to elaborate.
the old professor thing is real, too bad you can't carry those contacts on for too long in life.
Oliver Phillips
Nobody goes to uni for that. They just want a degree.
Dominic Brown
Small-scale universities. I told you.
Or you you really think they're all gigantic?
Owen Moore
an IQ score is like being tagged to only operate at a certain capacity and no more but possibly less. Admittedly I care about it as well, although I really wish I didn't
are some people just dumb and that's that? disregarding IQ tests and scores, how would someone know that they're dumb?
user to you, what are some key characteristics of someone who is dumb?
Lincoln Price
>Where is it better? Military academies? Jesuit schools?
Being 34 and seeing which of my friends enjoy life the most, I would say: A. Being a bartender in the Caribbean or the north coast of australia B. Going to state school premed, and then graduating from medical school and doing a residency in emergency medicine, and traveling around the world with a girl out of your league who is a legit Veeky Forums qt C. Retiring from your junior executive position at a fruit juice factory and making maple syrup and whiskey in the maine woods with your qt wife and kid.
There's two Materials Engineering it seems, one is 129, another is 104
Oliver Cruz
It gives you a estimate for the depth of comprehension you're able to work with. Its importance isn't apparent in the humanities - since everything's so "subjectified", but in Math, IQ straight-up determines how far you can go in the field.
Think of it like a sphere with a radius = (IQ meters) * some function. The more IQ you have, the bigger that sphere of comprehension gets.
Gavin Robinson
Old hags aren't attractive.
Logan Rodriguez
Knowing there are things I don't and never will have the capacity to do, or there are things that others excel at when I fall flat makes me feel bad about myself to a worrying degree. Is this normal?
Julian Powell
IQ doesn't exist, though.
Mathematics is also subjective, as are all fields. Even the use of bodies as an object (sports?) is subjective.
Benjamin Nelson
For starters, my cousin scores low on IQ tests, but was admitted to a gifted charter school. They invited him, which is incredibly rare.
These tests are designed based on concepts psychologists have researched and found to be essential to cognition, how the brain should ideally function. However the IQ tests designate answers, leaving out realms of subjectivity and the fact that in highly intelligent brains information flows so quickly one understands many complex ways to approach a presented problem (excluding the verbal portion, which is more or less axiomatic). If IQ tests are testing processes and outputs, why not examine them intuitively and discover their complexity by discussing with your client how they approached it?
Aside from that what makes a person dumb essentially is imperceptibility and an inability to penetrate problems in some innovative fashion. It's an absence of divergent thinking. Intelligent people see more. They're known to be more emotional, they care more about the world, they experience reality differently (and if one experiences reality differently, how can they be expected to agree with the consensus designed by someone who doesn't perceive things the way the smart person does?), they understand information in a very unique light. There's also the aspect of learning, but in creativity one processes information as well as connects ideas within its confines. Why this is? The denser the brain, the faster they're going to run over different conclusions in their minds. This leads to an entirely different outlook on things in the mind of a highly intelligent person. They don't only see, they create.
.... This is all just my opinion though from having read a lot about psychology. Ask a psychologist, one that knows what they're doing. I could be completely wrong.
Matthew Ramirez
The format of information is important. Like, some people are god awful at math... but I think we forget that one can think sequentially/logically and still be bad at math due to the way the field is structured in order for it to serve its necessary functions in the world... a student has to adapt accordingly to learn it well. Kind of like how they tell you to 'get in the test's mind' in order to take it well. Philosophy for example requires a huge amount of logic but is not presented as though it's a foreign language. If you did well in your logic classes then you don't have to really feel stupid over being bad at math.
Ryder Perry
I think the problem is university's got too big in order to accommodate more students who believe they have a right to such education.
It's turned into a business, and most students see education as a stepping stone to get where they want. Stoner touches on these things
Nathan Morgan
>don't want to attend state school cause of its sports and party culture >want a hard rigid academic environment >not sure if I could afford anything else
Adrian Hall
I've been to that statue, it's ridiculously large and extremely impressive.
Kayden Wilson
You won't get that rigid atmosphere anywhere except for very few places these days, and then those places usually suck ass anyway for other reasons.
Most people who want rigid academic training aren't like you, with a clear idea of it. Most just have some vague good intentions that they want to do their personal best and go to an environment that fosters it. But the rich ones and the ones with good parents just end up going to expensive or exclusive prep schools, assuming that it's "the best" because it's the "best" that money or a high SAT score could buy them, and the majority end up petering out and becoming boring fucks without even realizing it.
When you have a really clear lucid idea of what YOU want in an objective sense, like rigor and hard work, and not just some vague idea that there must be a "most rigorous" school out there that will impose what's "best" for you, you are a lot less subject to fate and luck. You're kind of better off in a way. Plus you get the satisfaction of sticking it to the spoiled brats who had more opportunities and easier starting positions, and did less than you.
You should apply to schools that have the atmosphere you want. Chicago is interesting for example. But even if you end up at an "OK" state school, you can absolutely find what you are looking for by creating it yourself, and then you can go to any school you want for grad school if that's your ambition.
The party atmosphere is a problem, but a much bigger problem is that "good enough" mentality of most people at elite schools. They assume that because they're at Chicago or Johns Hopkins they are future elites. Most of them end up as boring middle managers living fake lives. But someone who values rigor for its own sake can create their own ascetic life even at a community college.
Our society sucks fucking dick for systemically favoring the rich for high intellectual training, and degrading high intellectual training to accommodate them as a result. But the one nice thing about it is that you really can go to virtually any institution, from where you are now, as long as you really really give a shit.
Undergrad goes by surprisingly quick, everyone squanders it, no one remembers it, it's never the Hogwarts anyone wants it to be.
Evan Ramirez
well said
Connor Ortiz
>IQ is a STEM-created nonconcept created to reflect STEMsperg ideals
This. IQ tests are not some magical sheets that tell about your mental capabilities or "how much smarts you have".
Back in elementary and HS we had age-appropriate IQ tests, and schools were ranked based on the results. Welp, what does the school-leadership do? Assign IQ test worksheets to students, to be completed during math lessons. Surprise surprise, the results were comparable to high-tier schools for talented kids. We had experience, we looked at an exercise and said: "Shit dude, we've done this before". It was routine.
The results are based on former education and experience, not simply "smarts". IQ tests are glorified math/logic exercises. You can study for them the same way you can study for an exam.
Carter James
google g factor you retard
Dylan Carter
Who else went to a lower ranked university or did a subject they hated and regret it massively?
I went to my nearest university. I feel ripped off even though I paid literally nothing for it. Compared to good universities the courses were light on content and depth. In the UK all universities and subject courses arent standardised. You dont always have maths / physics / engineering students all taking the same Calc 1 (etc.) class in first year. You get "[Subject] for Engineers" and so on. So they feel free to skip shitloads of stuff (at the bad universities). They skip shitloads of stuff. I remember being in the third or fourth year of my degree, doing this really stamp collecty course and then having this crushing demoralised feeling when looking at the exam papers for Cambridges maths degree in third and fourth year. It was like staring at the secrets of the universe in comparison with my own course, which was a big fat joke.
I remember overhearing two students talking in my first year. One of them said that people who go to the library were "weird". Of course when the new shiny library opened up it was a normie haven. The old library was too small and run down yet had a lot of free space because nobody went there.
Of course your university matters a lot for how many job interviews you get. Why does Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums never mention this factor? Someone who does history of art at cambridge would find it easier becoming an investment banker / other high paying job than someone who does mathematics at a lower ranked place.
John Rodriguez
Also I hated my subject. Engineering degrees, even at good places, are, at best, just introductory chemistry / physics / mathematics introductory classes along with a shitload of stamp collecting corporate wagecuck training courses after the first year or two. Who the hell cares about that crap? Theres nothing fundamental about it. It is telling that Harvard and Oxford dont offer Engineering degrees, they offer Engineering Science degrees. They agree with me. Only fucking monkeys go to university to learn skills for jobs.
Someone with a physics or mathematics degree can do a PhD in engineering but not vice versa. That sums it up. Why would you want to limit your options with an engineering degree? For an engineering job, when all the smart engineers go in to higher paying finance jobs? top kek.
[Offensive paragraph] At universities like Cambridge and MIT, where students all enter with equally perfect grades and high intelligence, engineering has zero reputation for being difficult. Maybe it has more grunt work than other degrees. But at shit universities where people with varying levels of intelligence attend, many lower class (not judging them, but they do have less career advice than others) people go in to engineering because they see it as leading straight to a job. These are the types of people who get scared by Calc 2 and claim that it is a conspiracy to make them fail. That is why you hear so much about the "difficulty" of engineering.
Notice that I am not denigrating engineering PhDs or research, of course they have intellectual worth. But I have said that you would have to be stupid / uninformed to think that physics / maths degrees are not the best option if you plan to do an engineering PhD. On a side note, many engineering PhDs seem to be funded by corporations in what seems like a clear case of outsourcing work to PhD students at stipends at the same levels as low paying graduate jobs.There is a cucky dimension to it that cant be denied.
Tyler Davis
They don't produce "wagies", mediocre people just go to University now.
Levi Hernandez
>The results are based on former education and experience, not simply "smarts".
That's exactly what IQ tests are not you retard. IQ tests measure your analytical capacities, which are quasi constant through your life. You can't train "more smarts".
Every single fuck who cries about them simply doesn't understand it or doesn't get an satisfaying result.
Fucking pleb infested board.
Liam Morris
Most people don't read anything at all, but you can always find someone who does. Most of my close friends are patrician as fuck.
Robert Hill
>People can't get smarter.
Jesus christ, kill yourself.
Christian Reed
Indeed, Feynman should've killed himself over his pathetic 125 IQ score lennyface.jpeg
Jaxson Gonzalez
People can learn shit, but there isn't any evidence based method to push your IQ. Either your capable of high analytical problem solving or you're not. You can't change that, only use what you've got (or neglevt it).
You can train your muscles to your max potentual but they won't outgrow your genetical boundaries. Fucking humanities, don't they teach you basic fact in there?
Robert Morales
>125 IQ Points >pathetic
100 is the northern european average, you potato.
Matthew Lee
>People can learn shit, but there isn't any evidence based method to push your IQ.
There is though: Fucking study the type of questions asked.
Do something enough times and you'll get better at it. Analytical problem solving is no exception. It can be learned and practiced.
> which are quasi constant through your life. Actually believes that shit and calls me a retard kek. Do an IQ test right now and do it again a few years later if you want to prove yourself wrong. Better yet, find some kid in your family and make him do the test. Repeat 5 years later.
Austin Cox
fuck you're smart
Bentley Taylor
What the hell are you talking about, of course you can teach critical thinking, it's not a magic power.
Jaxon Clark
>There is though: Fucking study the type of questions asked.
You can study the type of logical questions, this will lead to better results - yes. But as I said, in this way you can only max out your potential.
Given the fact that no body really does that, every one is on their own "middle ground" which makes them perfetely comparable. With learning you might gain 1-2 points (which isn't really that relevant) but so would everybody else, making it useless.
The point in IQ is, that it whil show how quick your brain is able to process analytcal questions which has (with our current scientific knowledge) its boundaries. Just like the amount of your fingers is fixed. You can train them for specific tasks, but that will not make you grow more fingers or give you the genetical potential that your neurals will tranport given information quicker. Someone whos genes expressed in a better way, given the same training will be better in every task than you.
You simply cannot go further with your IQ than what nurture and nature have given you.
>Do an IQ test right now and do it again a few years later if you want to prove yourself wrong.
IQ is contant, given you take it 10y upwards. As I said, you learn, but that doesn't change the way in which speed your brain functions.
But also as I said, you can max out or neglect (eg because of depression, which will fuck your IQ up badly) your "brain skills".
Sadly thanks to all the social egalitarianism out there studies on this subjects aren't really well funded and people who would like to study it to max out our knowledge get called rassist and what not.
Elijah Diaz
You can learn critical thinking, but you can not learn in that way that will lead to your brain being able to eg produce more neurons to convey information quicker.
That the reason why every real IQ test is taken under a stop watch.
Jeremiah Peterson
Can we stop with this stem vs humanities debate. It's petty and childish, both fields are striving towards greatness and understanding, they are two sides of the same coin.
Grayson Russell
You just need to understand most of your classmates are retards who chose a major and are going to college only because they felt like they had too. Just act like they don't exist when they say stupid shit and become buddies with your professors. Professors love when students take an interest in the subject and most will happily discuss it with you.
Oliver Phillips
Never mind I didn't realize this thread had already devolved into IQ argument shit posting.
Noah Bell
I'm not at a "top" uni, but I go to a big state school and it's very underwhelming.
I've been here 4 years and I can't recall a single time I've ever overheard a remotely intellectual conversation.
On the other hand, the group of people who seem to still think of university as an institution of higher education tend to be pretentious try-hards or middle class strivers.
I have a feeling most people go to uni just to prolong their adolescence and to meet members of the opposite sex. There isn't anything really wrong with that because in this day and age there isn't really an alternative social organization for doing that, but it's very strange how it has come at the expense of what we are accustomed to think of as the supposed university experience.
Jackson Miller
In my school we have people in the smoking gazebos always talking about astronomy and history. That's always pretty cool but it's the only place I've seen discussion about anything related to academics other than bitching about homework.
Jacob Campbell
There are gems out there. I feel the same way, but I was lucky enough to find some sharp crayons in the box.
I would hang around the campus bars and jump into conversations that sound non-idiotic to find some good people.
Also, see if you can find people in Classics. I feel that Classics is the least atrophied and pitiful department around university campuses - few people are willing to dedicate themselves to Latin and Greek for shits and giggles.
As for fixing Academia, we bring back the Trivium and the Quadrivium and we make everything in Latin again - I'm serious.
Fine small university that only hold humanities courses.etc
Find a 'Great Books Programme'.
Brayden Campbell
There are small pockets like that but their conversation tends towards autism rather than intellect or spirit. Like, it's practically guaranteed that the group you are talking about is really annoying and constantly performing fake shriek-laughs calculated to get attention from passers-by.
Brandon Smith
What is the statue for? To represent triumph?
Thomas Gonzalez
Serious question here: do employers care about your schooling credentials as long as you appear and can demonstrate competence?
Gavin White
I wouldn't be surprised. The only one I've ever talked to just had a discussion about raising bees with me. They all seem kind of euphoric though.
Noah Young
School hasn't been for education for a long time now. The classics, ANCIENT LITERATURE, is your friend. Wiser men said it first, and wrote it down. School dilutes it, turns it upside town, and teaches you fiction as fact. Oxford and Harvard have the same problem. It is the teachers, churned out of the education system themselves and thrown in front of impressionable minds while still children themselves, and the "curriculum," with a big focus on diversity and making everyone feel like they did a good job.
John Rodriguez
Depends on what field you're going into. For example, striver-cred is tremendously important for those practicing law, while in engineering, demonstrated competence via internships/personal projects are much more valued.
Adrian Ward
...
Nathan Scott
>How do we fix academia?
Academia never "worked". It was always shit. Anyone thinking differently are just nostalgic for their own childish fantasies of what they hoped academia was.
Higher education and wissenschaft is truly the greatest spook of our time.
Chase Edwards
If this post rings true with anyone, they should read The Secret History
John Rogers
>reading female autors
Levi Roberts
95% of people are there to get a piece of paper that says they're allowed cushy jobs, not to learn.
Lucas Bailey
Not to sound like a memer but the only true education is self-education I believe.
At the end of the day no amount of lectures will awaken any understanding in you if you don't do the work yourself. University can only be seen as a scaffold that supports and surrounds your mind by pre-digesting knowledge and information, but in the last you have to do all the work.
School gives you the critic in the supervised learning model that corrects you when you go off track, which is the one thing you're missing when you educate yourself in an unstructured environment, but honestly google can play an analogous role.
All you need is a notebook, an agenda outlining what exactly you want to learn and you plan to learn it, and a shit ton of willpower and self-discipline.
If what you want to learn does not require expensive machinery or resources there's no limit to this method if you're smart.
Dylan Cook
Don't expect the lectures at the top universities to blow you away. Professors are hired/tenured for their research more than their teaching skills. Two two main values of going to a top tier school are the pedigree and the people you meet. Hanging out with smarter people is one of the best ways to learn.
Talking about IQ is embarrassing and needs to stop. It's a way for NEETs to salvage self-esteem.
Gavin Nguyen
its to commemorate the battle of stalingrad
Julian Green
All schools are like that. >analysis exists >analysis is smarts cuz le science men sed so >dont question muh dogma >fact top ideology
David Young
>all universities are is lectures Idiot
Jaxson Reed
>do a 5 year stem degree >graduate >cant get a job because every man and his dog did it too and there are no jobs left >the few jobs left are outsourced to pajeet in new delhi for $1/hour nice one bro
Hunter Gomez
>when neckbeards with politics formed by a video game consumer-rights movement think they can think about literature
Nolan Barnes
>when you're a fat burgerclap that likes sex too much
Isaac Brown
>when neckbeards think you can like sex too much
Zachary Hill
Listen my dude, most women simply aren't good writers. My life is too short to go out of my way to waste it looking for the needle in the haystack.
Dominic Martinez
You don't even need to look. He gave you one to read. Just handed it to you.
Aiden Brown
read to the lighthouse or man who loved children or something
Chase Smith
I've read the reviews and my points have been confirmed once again. The exception proves the rule but ther propability with this book is not worth the hassle.
Ian Howard
you're just lucky you got in before Hillary makes it "free" and lowers the standards even more
>How do we fix academia? by making it less accessible
Ryder Stewart
I'm at St. John's right now and it is no meme. All of you should feel ashamed and demoralized at your mistake
Sebastian Harris
>when flapbeards think anybody wants to have sex with them
Gabriel Gutierrez
>not liking THICC
Christopher Cook
Both books are a pain in the ass. Too many words without a point. Typical female writers (focusing on feelings and peoples thinking). There might be people who like this style, but it simply isn't what I would select although I'm a woman myself.
Tyler Powell
You're embarrassing yourself compadre. Get a less self-pitying worldview or fuck off. And don't come at me with some Schopie or Nietzsche quotes either. They were both neurotic shutins who knew very few people and were financially abused by the few women they had in their lives. Not the best people for understanding people.
Jeremiah Lewis
>too many words without a point >Veeky Forums in 2016
Caleb Myers
Well, I simply don't like the style most female writers work with. Gender differences are a think, you know. Don't be so butthurt, desu.
Nathaniel Wood
I think what you're touching on is the idea that people now see universities as a utility for, or obstacle to, getting a job rather than a place for higher education.
I grew up poor and my mom always taught me school was about hoop-jumping. So I always did bare minimum and never developed a love for learning until it was too late
Easton Rodriguez
Not butt hurt, just perplexed as to why you'd voluntarily limit yourself. Most women don't write like one another btw. You're applying you're applying your meme-ideology to something that's way too complex for anything as primal as as sexual dimorphism.
Caleb Brooks
I don't see it as limiting myself, but as to not wast my time on books which have a high propability to not conform to my interest. Those women might not write "like one another" but nearly all off them write through a "female lense", if you will, which simply doesn't align with the way I prefer my books.
As I said, I'm a women myself and simply play with the meme because it fits, not because it's "cause vagina" in general.
Aaron Martinez
CCC Oxford here. No it does not avoid these pitfalls. This is what universities are now, even good ones. After nearly five years here, I have come to accept it.
David Richardson
>I have doubts as to whether there is a single person here who has willingly read both a Socratic dialogue and a book of the New Testament.
I certainly hope that's not true.
Wyatt Flores
here again.
Quick not for with regard to Oxford being a 'finishing school for the rich'. I cannot speak for Harvard, but despite its failings, that is certainly not what Oxford is. If anything it is slavishly proletarian in outlook and in its admissions targets - primarily for the sake of virtue signalling. But nonetheless, the description you have given is very far from '100% accurate'.
Samuel Davis
>>How do we fix academia? >by making it less accessible
This. This. This.
/thread
Leo Wood
I'm going there in the spring. How is it? Pls give full review.
Logan Adams
>driveling try-hards The worst. My roommate meets with one of our professors for half an hour after each class, even when he has nothing to say.
Luke Carter
Woah, hey, slow down there, Mr. Stem. What's a sphere?
Nathaniel Moore
Who else went to a lower ranked university or did a subject they hated and regret it massively?
I went to my nearest university. I feel ripped off even though I paid literally nothing for it. Compared to good universities the courses were light on content and depth. In the UK all universities and subject courses arent standardised. You dont always have maths / physics / engineering students all taking the same Calc 1 (etc.) class in first year. You get "[Subject] for Engineers" and so on. So they feel free to skip shitloads of stuff (at the bad universities). They skip shitloads of stuff. I remember being in the third or fourth year of my degree, doing this really stamp collecty course and then having this crushing demoralised feeling when looking at the exam papers for Cambridges maths degree in third and fourth year. It was like staring at the secrets of the universe in comparison with my own course, which was a big fat joke.
I remember overhearing two students talking in my first year. One of them said that people who go to the library were "weird". Of course when the new shiny library opened up it was a normie haven. The old library was too small and run down yet had a lot of free space because nobody went there.
Of course your university matters a lot for how many job interviews you get. Why does Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums never mention this factor? Someone who does history of art at cambridge would find it easier becoming an investment banker / other high paying job than someone who does mathematics at a lower ranked place.
Dominic Williams
Also I hated my subject. Engineering degrees, even at good places, are, at best, just introductory chemistry / physics / mathematics introductory classes along with a shitload of stamp collecting corporate wagecuck training courses after the first year or two. Who the hell cares about that crap? Theres nothing fundamental about it. It is telling that Harvard and Oxford dont offer Engineering degrees, they offer Engineering Science degrees. They agree with me. Only fucking monkeys go to university to learn skills for jobs.
Someone with a physics or mathematics degree can do a PhD in engineering but not vice versa. That sums it up. Why would you want to limit your options with an engineering degree? For an engineering job, when all the smart engineers go in to higher paying finance jobs? top kek.
[Offensive paragraph] At universities like Cambridge and MIT, where students all enter with equally perfect grades and high intelligence, engineering has zero reputation for being difficult. Maybe it has more grunt work than other degrees. But at shit universities where people with varying levels of intelligence attend, many lower class (not judging them, but they do have less career advice than others) people go in to engineering because they see it as leading straight to a job. These are the types of people who get scared by Calc 2 and claim that it is a conspiracy to make them fail. That is why you hear so much about the "difficulty" of engineering.
Notice that I am not denigrating engineering PhDs or research, of course they have intellectual worth. But I have said that you would have to be stupid / uninformed to think that physics / maths degrees are not the best option if you plan to do an engineering PhD. On a side note, many engineering PhDs seem to be funded by corporations in what seems like a clear case of outsourcing work to PhD students at stipends at the same levels as low paying graduate jobs.There is a cucky dimension to it that cant be denied.
Joshua Harris
That's pasta? Cause I've read that shit already two times here.
Lucas Morris
I go to an Ivy League and it's fucking awful. Everyone is pretentious as fuck and generally SJW as all hell
