I started out in a Computer Science/Finance program and then switched into Math halfway through first year, now I'm doing my thesis Masters (also in Math).
If you want to teach Astrophysics or things along those lines at a university, you will need a Ph.D, you will need a post doc, and you will need motivation and lots of time. From what you're saying about your university experiences, I seriously advise you not to undertake this. When I hear you talk about "I failed a bunch of courses because I simply did not do the work", I know you are not suited for it. It does not matter if, when you apply yourself, you are Albert Einstein (and 92% in Calculus really isn't anything to call home about if you plan on becoming an academic). The people who you will be competing against, especially in such a small field, will not only have better marks, but more work ethic and motivation.
Doing graduate work is a slog. You need to find a professor who cares, you need to get funding (and trust me NSERCs aren't easy to get, since you're Canadian), you'll need to spend long hours in the office doing research and grinding through academic papers that are seemingly written to be as confusing as possible. You'll need to deal with internal politics, which are brutal, you'll need to throw yourself into your work, and you'll need to be prepared to be cutthroat and watch for other people trying to steal your work.
It's hard to get out of the academic Ph.D/Post doc land. Some people are trapped there for years, getting paid < $30k per year, hoping that someday they will get a Faculty position when really it will never happen for the majority of postdocs.
I see that one of your goals was to humble people to the universe, but perhaps you should be humbled to the life of science and academics. Listening to a TED lecture and Carl Sagan extolling the virtues of the universe is awesome and enjoyable, but when you get down to the nitty gritty of it you're pounding math and staring at a piece of paper for hours.
That said, I do tell people to follow their dreams. In the best case, they're happier and live a fulfilling life; in the worst case they'll learn a hard lesson which they need to learn. If you are fully prepared to throw your whole life into science, then by all means, go for it. But if you start and you find yourself failing courses because you're not paying attention or doing the work, do not say "I can do the work, I just didn't put the effort into it!", because that's not true. If you don't put in the effort, it means you can't do the work.
On June 09 2011 22:15 TheGiz wrote: Engineering and Business are the two best things to be in right now. Bonus points for both. Sciences come in a close second, but the applicability and availability of jobs is not as prevalent.
Unless you go into a rigorous program like Wharton or something (and by something I mean a very few select other programs), you're not going to learn anything substantive, and the glitzy high pay jobs you're going after will have been taken by computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Is this something you know is true or something you really want to believe is true? Because I really want to believe this is true but it runs counter to everything everyone tells me
On June 09 2011 22:15 TheGiz wrote: Engineering and Business are the two best things to be in right now. Bonus points for both. Sciences come in a close second, but the applicability and availability of jobs is not as prevalent.
Unless you go into a rigorous program like Wharton or something (and by something I mean a very few select other programs), you're not going to learn anything substantive, and the glitzy high pay jobs you're going after will have been taken by computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Is this something you know is true or something you really want to believe is true? Because I really want to believe this is true but it runs counter to everything everyone tells me
I fully believe this to be true. I view undergraduate business the same way I view law school. Sure, you can be quite successful at it, but unless you're in a top top program, you pretty much just wasted your time and money for the degree.
However, be very aware that as others have said, you will do math and lots of it in any science major. It's best to be sure that you enjoy the practice of science as well as the facts or mystery of science.
Many interesting points have already been pointed out especially from TheGiz and mmp. Since this is a quite important decision you have to figure out what it actually means to take a major in physics/astrophysics. Here's what I would suggest:
Buy: "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" by Richard Feynman (it's a bit expensive but it's your future), read the first hundred pages or so and see whether you like it or not. Are you still as excited as before?? If you are then I would say go for it. You will spend many hours each weak solving exercises. This can be quite fun but requires that you have the intellectual capacity. Expect a lot of math! It is possible to find a job afterwards but it's tougher than if you have an engineering degree unless you want to be a teacher (at least in Scandinavien).
Tbh, I would say that an engineering degree is better for you in the long run. More money to travel around in the world, meet cultures, and to take time off to read philosophy which is pretty much what it seems like you want to do.
On June 09 2011 22:15 TheGiz wrote: Engineering and Business are the two best things to be in right now. Bonus points for both. Sciences come in a close second, but the applicability and availability of jobs is not as prevalent.
Unless you go into a rigorous program like Wharton or something (and by something I mean a very few select other programs), you're not going to learn anything substantive, and the glitzy high pay jobs you're going after will have been taken by computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Is this something you know is true or something you really want to believe is true? Because I really want to believe this is true but it runs counter to everything everyone tells me
I fully believe this to be true. I view undergraduate business the same way I view law school. Sure, you can be quite successful at it, but unless you're in a top top program, you pretty much just wasted your time and money for the degree.
I feel the same with business. But I don't think the problem is where you study but in what you specialize after. The biggest industries are always looking for business people to manage their regional or international branches, but people don't come prepared to work in a certain industry so the companies have to teach them how the business works and it takes from months to years until they are able to do the job they are expected to do. I have a major in Business Administration & International Business and I didn't have to struggle to get hired since I live in Panama which has the largest free trade zone in America, you just need to find what the market demands and specialize.
I'd say the biggest businesses are looking for people with a demonstrated quantitative aptitude and are quick learners. This is why mathematicians, computer scientists, statisticians, etc. who decide to go into business get a far greater share of highly sought after jobs with high pay while generic "business graduates" usually get stuck doing low-mid level grunt work.
EDIT: And generally where you study correlates very well with demonstrated intellectual skills.
On June 09 2011 23:48 JodoYodo wrote: I started out in a Computer Science/Finance program and then switched into Math halfway through first year, now I'm doing my thesis Masters (also in Math).
Started out in Waterloo CFM?
On June 10 2011 00:39 Empyrean wrote: I'd say the biggest businesses are looking for people with a demonstrated quantitative aptitude and are quick learners. This is why mathematicians, computer scientists, statisticians, etc. who decide to go into business get a far greater share of highly sought after jobs with high pay while generic "business graduates" usually get stuck doing low-mid level grunt work.
EDIT: And generally where you study correlates very well with demonstrated intellectual skills.
So what do you think of the people that major in Quantitative Finance/Math & Economics/Financial Economics/Economics that actually require you to use math. Do you think they would be more successful than the other business majors?
I am starting my 3rd year as an electrical engineering major and I can tell you that you better be ready for what your getting in for. Some of my hardest classes were physics and basic quantum physics of semiconductors. Astrophysicists not only have to learn all about the heavens, but about general physics as well. Physics is what I call an acquired taste, its extremely difficult, yet extremely useful. I wouldn't jump into a program in astronomy without taking several physics and chemistry classes, they are the best test to see if you can take the course load. Also, be prepared to be fluent in mathematics and maybe some light programming.
Aside from actually taking the classes, I can tell you the best advice I've been given when choosing a major is to be practical. Not only should you note your own abilities, but whether or not its all worth it in the end. I don't think you will have much use from an astronomy degree to be honest. A degree in astronomy, will likely only lead you to being a lab rat or a professor (both routes are often riddled with mundane lab work). Being a professor takes obscene devotion imo, you have to take something seriously enough to spend almost a decade to master, and afterwards all you do is teach and research. I don't have the desire nor patience to be a professor for my younger years, I suggest you consider it yourself.
Another suggestion that you might consider if you don't think you could be a lab rat/professor is mechanical engineering/aerospace engineering. This may be the engineer in me talking, but I would recommend it as it is a more practical job for someone interested in physics and astronomy. You might not get to do research on the little subtleties of astronomy, but you could work on something valuable which is used in space research.
Right now you come off as a dreamer who has just found a new "puppy love". If you are really devoted, take some difficult physics (Newtonian mechanics, electricity and magnetism) and chemistry (general university chemistry for engineers and scientists). Best of luck in what ever you decide.
I agree with Empyrean here. When employers look at your CV and stuff, they want to see what you can contribute to the business. They want to know the skills you have and how you think. What you think isn't important, because that can be taught. To a business, someone with a massive skillset and great potential is much better than someone who already knows business but not much else since you can always sponsor the first guy for a part-time MBA or something while you can't teach the second guy how to think.
When you get a degree, the grade is a form of signalling. It doesn't say "hey, I know how to differentiate between the individualism and holism as methods of inquiry". It says "I can get things done". The university you go to is also a good form of signalling. It shows "I want to succeed so I worked hard to get here and I will continue to work hard".
As for the OP's problem... Astrophysics isn't fun and games. Even at the basic level there's a load of math. Science in general at the academic level is all about the research you produce. For every big name professor there is, there are hundreds of people who got their PhD, worked away trying to get funding and grants and never got anywhere. You pretty much have to start at the bottom doing lab work before you really get a chance to do anything big. You really have to be committed. This webcomic is actually pretty accurate about how Grad life is like...
On a similar note, the reason why so many science grads go into finance and business is because it pays well, and there's not enough good opportunities in the field of science. Why try and fight for a professor chair (and then have to deal with tenure) when you can just get a decent job in finance?
On June 10 2011 00:43 The_LiNk wrote: So what do you think of the people that major in Quantitative Finance/Math & Economics/Financial Economics/Economics that actually require you to use math. Do you think they would be more successful than the other business majors?
Definitely. It doesn't take long to figure out things like basic accounting principles or marketing or whatever. However, if you asked a business major to understand, say, why the Black-Scholes Model works or the nitty gritty of the models used to price CDOs they can't.
A point to the OP: in the astronomy class I took, I remember that for one of the more fun homework assignments, the question was basically along the lines of "launch a rocket to Mars." Sounded like a lot of fun. Part of my solution ended up with me using an elliptic integral to estimate distance for part of a trajectory I was calculating. I ended up having points taken off because I didn't account for non-constant speeds along the flight path.
If the idea of slogging through three more semesters of calculus (I actually don't remember learning how to evaluate elliptic integrals at all, to be honest) to be able to solve homework problems excites you, then by all means, pursue it.
Keep in mind, though, that you're competing against hundreds of motivated engineers in calc 3 for whom multivariate calculus is the introductory weed-out class. Then you're going to deal with the basic physics weed out classes (intro mechanics and intro electricity/magnetism), a math weed out class or three (linear algebra, partial/ordinary differential equations) and then more weed outs for the actual physics majors (things like generic electives for statics or thermo or whatnot).
It's not easy, and to be frank, I don't see it being feasible. Keep your interest, though. Going to planetariums/observatories, teaching your kids things about the night sky, etc. is a great thing to do. I just don't see a PhD in physics or astro happening.
EDIT: Full disclosure: I'm not getting a degree in Physics, so someone who is can probably give you more first-hand experience.
On June 09 2011 22:15 TheGiz wrote: Engineering and Business are the two best things to be in right now. Bonus points for both. Sciences come in a close second, but the applicability and availability of jobs is not as prevalent.
Unless you go into a rigorous program like Wharton or something (and by something I mean a very few select other programs), you're not going to learn anything substantive, and the glitzy high pay jobs you're going after will have been taken by computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Is this something you know is true or something you really want to believe is true? Because I really want to believe this is true but it runs counter to everything everyone tells me
I think that it's true. Almost everyone recognizes that undergraduate 'business' degrees are just jokes for people who can't even handle econ. Even at business schools, most of the classes are pitched at a high undergrad level, and the entire school exists partially due to the networking potential.
The people who succeed in business are: a) People trained well in useful quantitative skills. Engineers, math majors, physics majors, compsci, and the more rigorous econ programs. b) People who are really good at networking. This is pretty much regardless of major. Especially for certain business fields (marketing, etc.), it's 90% networking. c) People who get lucky. Often related to b.
On June 09 2011 23:48 JodoYodo wrote: I started out in a Computer Science/Finance program and then switched into Math halfway through first year, now I'm doing my thesis Masters (also in Math).
Started out in Waterloo CFM?
Yep. Pretty glad I switched. Have a full time job offer where I'll make pretty good money too.
Becoming a scientist was probably the worst decision I have ever made. Funding keeps getting cut and jobs are harder and harder to get. Most people get stuck as postdocs forever and then find themselves with no clear career route. Stay with business and get that Ferrari man.
I'm derailing pretty hard on the economics/business stuff, but I don't think this really warrants another thread, and since it's sort of a mini discussion here. If I should make a new topic in blogs, pm me i guess.
So a BSc in Financial Economics or Math & Economics > BCom/BBA in Finance. I sort of have to make this choice right now and frankly, there really isn't enough information out there about the future of the average holder of these degrees. The information that's out there is really biased.
Also, is there real significance between the future prospects of a BA Economics and a BSc Financial Economics or Math & Economics?
I'm taking this from University of Toronto; since that's the school I'm going to in September. Maybe it's different in other schools/America and you guys are all confused from the distinction.
On June 10 2011 00:52 Chimpalimp wrote: Aside from actually taking the classes, I can tell you the best advice I've been given when choosing a major is to be practical. Not only should you note your own abilities, but whether or not its all worth it in the end. I don't think you will have much use from an astronomy degree to be honest. A degree in astronomy, will likely only lead you to being a lab rat or a professor (both routes are often riddled with mundane lab work).
Let me start off by saying that my undergraduate degree is in physics, and I had a fleeting eight week career as an astrophysics grad student before ditching it for reasons that were unrelated to my interest in the subject matter.
I think that an undergraduate degree in the physical sciences or engineering is almost always going to be a choice that pays off many times over. Regardless of your particular choice of field you'll end up with skills that are broadly useful and exceedingly time consuming to learn, which makes them very valuable for the jobs where they're needed.
A graduate program in the physical sciences should be something you pursue for one reason only: because you love doing the work. Your opportunities as a Ph.D. in any physical science are going to be a lot better than your opportunities with a graduate degree in, say, a humanities field, but they'll likely be fewer than if you had stopped with your bachelor's degree, because some employers will be concerned about hiring someone for a job that doesn't need the credential after you've spent all that time working on it.
That said, I have a number of friends with graduate degrees in the physical sciences who have gone into fields unrelated to their work and been highly successful. A Ph.D. in a physical science is a credential that clearly sets you apart from most of the other people out there in terms of your analytical skills and mathematical ability. The only real question is whether the (substantial) time and effort to get there is worth it.
If you are passionate about the research, get a Ph.D. in a physical science. If you're not, the time spent probably would have been better spent doing something else no matter where you end up afterward.
On June 10 2011 01:02 Empyrean wrote: A point to the OP: in the astronomy class I took, I remember that for one of the more fun homework assignments, the question was basically along the lines of "launch a rocket to Mars." Sounded like a lot of fun. Part of my solution ended up with me using an elliptic integral to estimate distance for part of a trajectory I was calculating. I ended up having points taken off because I didn't account for non-constant speeds along the flight path.
If the idea of slogging through three more semesters of calculus (I actually don't remember learning how to evaluate elliptic integrals at all, to be honest) to be able to solve homework problems excites you, then by all means, pursue it.
Keep in mind, though, that you're competing against hundreds of motivated engineers in calc 3 for whom multivariate calculus is the introductory weed-out class. Then you're going to deal with the basic physics weed out classes (intro mechanics and intro electricity/magnetism), a math weed out class or three (linear algebra, partial/ordinary differential equations) and then more weed outs for the actual physics majors (things like generic electives for statics or thermo or whatnot).
It's not easy, and to be frank, I don't see it being feasible. Keep your interest, though. Going to planetariums/observatories, teaching your kids things about the night sky, etc. is a great thing to do. I just don't see a PhD in physics or astro happening.
EDIT: Full disclosure: I'm not getting a degree in Physics, so someone who is can probably give you more first-hand experience.
Yeah I take a butt ton of Math and can qft your thoughts on the numerous weed out classes.
To the Op: If you're 'really' interested, but, are unsure - I doubt you'd be wasting your time to spend that extra year and finish your business degree and THEN go 'attempt' a sciences bachelor. There are a ton of hurdles in sciences and as the good sir above states, the weeding out is quite repetitive and numerous until 3rd year. It's definitely not your safest option to automatically switch into something you may find is much too hard.
Even the friends I have that are super keeners and really intense about school complain to me all the time about how much work their science degrees are and even though they studied for like 10 hours a day they still didn't get the grades they wanted.
I'm guessing if you were bummed out by homework in high school you're going to be overwhelmed by a science degree. My advice is don't do it lol.
EPT
