What To Major In ???

Off Topic
41

Good read so far. I didn’t see this concept posted yet, so here is my take. Keep in mind, this is NOT for everyone, it’s rather the opposite of the “just have a job” angle which was brought up on page 1. Nothing wrong with that, I just think differently.

Preparing yourself to a higher level, with the direct intent of getting a better job, is selling yourself short. Okay, maybe you get benefits and pull down a solid middle-class salary, but to me, that is mediocre. That is settling. If you want to get somewhere, you have to fight for your own piece out there. Find something that you can use for a job, a stable base, it’s just a start though. Supply chain has been advocated here, I think it’s a good example. You can work in the field like a normal Joe, but the knowledge and experience should position you to find your own income streams outside of work. Learn to build distribution systems, do it for emerging companies (think about supplement companies for example - they have to get the product to people somehow, and the more efficiently they do, the more profit they keep.) Set up things for yourself, get involved in business, something, anything legit with good money potential that doesn’t suck your life dry.

That’s just me. It’s a learning for learning’s sake approach, more than a learning for work approach. I don’t know a damn thing about supply chain so the example might seem a little clunky. I am currently working through an architecture degree, not because I want to work in an arch. office, but because it directly benefits my own business while being relevant to my interests/personality. I actually hate the idea of an arch. office job and plan to avoid it. The knowledge I have gained will, and already has, proved invaluable to my future though, because it fits my plan.

42

[quote]mutantcolors wrote:
Good read so far. I didn’t see this concept posted yet, so here is my take. Keep in mind, this is NOT for everyone, it’s rather the opposite of the “just have a job” angle which was brought up on page 1. Nothing wrong with that, I just think differently.

Preparing yourself to a higher level, with the direct intent of getting a better job, is selling yourself short. Okay, maybe you get benefits and pull down a solid middle-class salary, but to me, that is mediocre. That is settling. If you want to get somewhere, you have to fight for your own piece out there. Find something that you can use for a job, a stable base, it’s just a start though. Supply chain has been advocated here, I think it’s a good example. You can work in the field like a normal Joe, but the knowledge and experience should position you to find your own income streams outside of work. Learn to build distribution systems, do it for emerging companies (think about supplement companies for example - they have to get the product to people somehow, and the more efficiently they do, the more profit they keep.) Set up things for yourself, get involved in business, something, anything legit with good money potential that doesn’t suck your life dry.

That’s just me. It’s a learning for learning’s sake approach, more than a learning for work approach. I don’t know a damn thing about supply chain so the example might seem a little clunky. I am currently working through an architecture degree, not because I want to work in an arch. office, but because it directly benefits my own business while being relevant to my interests/personality. I actually hate the idea of an arch. office job and plan to avoid it. The knowledge I have gained will, and already has, proved invaluable to my future though, because it fits my plan.

[/quote]
I like you.

43

[quote]mutantcolors wrote:
Good read so far. I didn’t see this concept posted yet, so here is my take. Keep in mind, this is NOT for everyone, it’s rather the opposite of the “just have a job” angle which was brought up on page 1. Nothing wrong with that, I just think differently.

Preparing yourself to a higher level, with the direct intent of getting a better job, is selling yourself short. Okay, maybe you get benefits and pull down a solid middle-class salary, but to me, that is mediocre. That is settling. If you want to get somewhere, you have to fight for your own piece out there. Find something that you can use for a job, a stable base, it’s just a start though. Supply chain has been advocated here, I think it’s a good example. You can work in the field like a normal Joe, but the knowledge and experience should position you to find your own income streams outside of work. Learn to build distribution systems, do it for emerging companies (think about supplement companies for example - they have to get the product to people somehow, and the more efficiently they do, the more profit they keep.) Set up things for yourself, get involved in business, something, anything legit with good money potential that doesn’t suck your life dry.

That’s just me. It’s a learning for learning’s sake approach, more than a learning for work approach. I don’t know a damn thing about supply chain so the example might seem a little clunky. I am currently working through an architecture degree, not because I want to work in an arch. office, but because it directly benefits my own business while being relevant to my interests/personality. I actually hate the idea of an arch. office job and plan to avoid it. The knowledge I have gained will, and already has, proved invaluable to my future though, because it fits my plan.

[/quote]

I see what you’re saying and I think you make quite a few good points, but what’s mediocre/selling yourself short/settling about someone going to college, finding what they’re interested in, then working doing that? Even if the salary’s mediocre middle class, they would still be enjoying what they do as an occupation. I’d bet here are a lot of people who would be happy to earn 30-50k a year if it meant doing what they love.

I guess my point is that I don’t think there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with having a stable, comfy, mediocre paying job IF you enjoy what you do and you can live comfortably (whatever standard that is, for you.)

Personally, I think taking something you really enjoy doing and doing something badass with it is best. But I’m sure that’s probably the point you were trying to make, though. haha

Learning for learning’s sake is great, too.

44

There is not a thing at all wrong with getting that middle class slice of the pie. It’s just not good enough for me because I know I can do better, but it requires going out on a limb.

Some people hate limbs. I find they are they place where I thrive.

45

[quote]mutantcolors wrote:
There is not a thing at all wrong with getting that middle class slice of the pie. It’s just not good enough for me because I know I can do better, but it requires going out on a limb.

Some people hate limbs. I find they are they place where I thrive.[/quote]

How so?

What examples do you have where you “went out on a limb” and ended up “doing better” ?

46

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
The second type of degree are trade degrees. These are the degrees that directly prepare you for a job in a specific field directly out of undergrad. Examples are: computer science*, engineering, nursing, accounting, actuarial mathematics, etc. These degrees tend to be very specialized (duh) and the classes tend to require more time and effort then the next type (the BS degrees). These degrees are for people who are going to college who have no real marketable job skills and do not have the desire or ability to continue in academia. These degrees both teach you the skills that you need to perform the jobs in those fields and the minimum degree required to get a job in them. If you do not yet have any solid, marketable job skills and are not going into an academic field, these degrees are your best bet. For these types of degrees, the ranking of your school is important since most people hiring for these jobs do not understand the lack of difference between the differently ranked schools like academics like myself do, so they put more emphasis than they should on the ranking of a school.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you would say that school ranking is important here. I work in industry and always assumed school ranking was more important in academia. I am an engineer and interview new graduates in engineering (mostly electrical and mechanical). Geographically, we have access to the best schools in the world. MIT looks good on your resume, but a good GPA and compelling project work is enough to get a phone screen.

Once I’m on the phone with a candidate, it completely doesn’t matter where he or she went to school. Double that if you make it to an interview. Once you have a couple years of real world experience, school ranking isn’t even an important part of your resume. The reality is that it’s fairly easy to distinguish a technically competent engineering graduate from one that partied his way through school in a ten minute interview. It’s foolish to place much weight on school rankings.

47

[quote]carbiduis wrote:

[quote]mutantcolors wrote:
There is not a thing at all wrong with getting that middle class slice of the pie. It’s just not good enough for me because I know I can do better, but it requires going out on a limb.

Some people hate limbs. I find they are they place where I thrive.[/quote]

How so?

What examples do you have where you “went out on a limb” and ended up “doing better” ?
[/quote]

Buying real estate I could barely afford at 21 yrs old on pizza delivery money and turning it into a business.

48

[quote]mutantcolors wrote:

[quote]carbiduis wrote:

[quote]mutantcolors wrote:
There is not a thing at all wrong with getting that middle class slice of the pie. It’s just not good enough for me because I know I can do better, but it requires going out on a limb.

Some people hate limbs. I find they are they place where I thrive.[/quote]

How so?

What examples do you have where you “went out on a limb” and ended up “doing better” ?
[/quote]

Buying real estate I could barely afford at 21 yrs old on pizza delivery money and turning it into a business.
[/quote]

oh ok, nice.

Do you rent out houses?

49

[quote]carbiduis wrote:

[quote]mutantcolors wrote:

[quote]carbiduis wrote:

[quote]mutantcolors wrote:
There is not a thing at all wrong with getting that middle class slice of the pie. It’s just not good enough for me because I know I can do better, but it requires going out on a limb.

Some people hate limbs. I find they are they place where I thrive.[/quote]

How so?

What examples do you have where you “went out on a limb” and ended up “doing better” ?
[/quote]

Buying real estate I could barely afford at 21 yrs old on pizza delivery money and turning it into a business.
[/quote]

oh ok, nice.

Do you rent out houses?[/quote]
Pimpin is hard work

50

No but rental income is part of what I strive for. I don’t like saying what exactly I do because I’m superstitious I’ll eventually tell someone who will yoink my idea. Anyway, hence the arch. degree, so I can design my own projects instead of paying someone else, and it has a plethora of applications beyond that.

51

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I am going to apologize in advance because this is going to be a long post, even for me, but this is a very important subject and you should not make this decision lightly.

First, a common misconception about college needs to be addressed: The point of college and obtaining a college degree is not to prepare you for a job, no matter what anyone (even college administrators) tell you. The point of college is to teach you a subject of your choice and to allow you to demonstrate a sufficient grasp of said subject, for which they will award you with a degree which is just a formal way of saying you have sufficient knowledge in a field. Now, some degree programs within a college are designed specifically to prepare you for a career but more on that in a little bit. That being said, it is on you to choose your academic path to fit your goals and needs. If you fail to do that, then it is your fault that your goals are not met, not the college system. The college system in the developed world is very carefully designed, but you must know how to take advantage of it, which is what I am going to outline for you.

Now, a note on the tier system. When I refer to a schools “tier,” I am referring to their rankings. The general rule is each tier, 1-4 represents 50 schools. Tier one is the top 50, tier 2 is the second 50 and so on. For all intents and purposes there is no difference between any of the undergraduate programs in tiered schools, but do not go to an unranked school, they are not worth it. This means that there is virtually no difference between number one and number 100. The only difference at this level is the students. Top rated schools, through the strength of their reputation and admission standards and other factors, get the best students. The ones that have displayed drive, ability, and desire above those that make up the average student body of lesser ranked schools. This means that a much higher percentage of students at top ranked schools are able to achieve top scores. So, while say half of the student body at a tier 1 school can demonstrate the ability to study a field at the graduate level, maybe only 10-15% of tier 2 school students are capable of this, which is why you will see more graduate students from top rated schools. The major difference between top ranked schools and lower ranked ones does not really become all that important until one begins graduate level studies, and for trade degrees.

Now, there are three main types of undergraduate level degrees that are offered. The first type are strictly academic degrees, by which I mean their primary purpose is to prepare you for further academic study in that area. These are your hard sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, etc), math, computer science*, history, philosophy, literature, etc. These degrees are for people who have the desire, drive, and ability to study these topics at an advanced (read PhD) level and wish to become academics and/or researchers in those fields. If you do not plan on studying these topics past the undergraduate level, they are roughly the equivalent of BS degrees, which I will get to in a little bit. Anybody who does plan on going the academic route, you had better make sure that you love studying and solving problems in whatever field you choose because that is what you will do for your entire time in that field.

For these undergraduate degrees, the tier of your undergraduate program does not matter one bit because at this level all of the course material is the same everywhere. Yes, that means that there is virtually no difference between the introductory level calculus or calculus-based physics courses taught at the top ranked school in America and your local community college. The only difference is that far more of the students admitted to top ranked schools are capable of doing well in these courses than your average community college student. The important thing to do is to do as well as you possibly can and master the material you are taught, and get a good score on your graduate level entrance exams. The key thing to remember is that a student with a 4.0 GPA from a tier 4 school and a GRE score comparable to the average matriculating grad student in a given program will be chosen over a student with a 3.2-3.5 GPA from Harvard and comparable or lower GRE score. The major downside of these programs is that you can plan on spending about a decade as a student, and academia is very competitive. The major upside is that no matter what field you can choose it is very rewarding knowing that you have directly increased the knowledge humanity has in a given subject.

The second type of degree are trade degrees. These are the degrees that directly prepare you for a job in a specific field directly out of undergrad. Examples are: computer science*, engineering, nursing, accounting, actuarial mathematics, etc. These degrees tend to be very specialized (duh) and the classes tend to require more time and effort then the next type (the BS degrees). These degrees are for people who are going to college who have no real marketable job skills and do not have the desire or ability to continue in academia. These degrees both teach you the skills that you need to perform the jobs in those fields and the minimum degree required to get a job in them. If you do not yet have any solid, marketable job skills and are not going into an academic field, these degrees are your best bet. For these types of degrees, the ranking of your school is important since most people hiring for these jobs do not understand the lack of difference between the differently ranked schools like academics like myself do, so they put more emphasis than they should on the ranking of a school.

The third type of degree are known to us in academia as BS, or “bullshit” degrees. Do not let the name fool you, they can and are very useful and valuable to certain people. Every single degree program that you mentioned falls under this category. These degrees are for people who already have marketable trade skills but need a degree to advance in their career. Examples are IT professionals, electricians, retailers, and such trades that do not necessarily require a 4 year undergraduate degree to get into, but do require one to move up into, say mid level management positions. The content of these degrees typically do not matter, since you already have developed your skills in your given field and you just need the paper. They are designed to be easy to pass so people can attain them while working full time. The downside to these degrees are that if you do not have any specific trade skills, you will have to develop them. Without any trade skills, these degrees will not help you with finding a job. This will mean an additional couple of years or so at least worth of training, education and gaining experience before these degrees start to be worth anything.[/quote]

If you plan on going to graduate school with a major from you first example like Psychology does it matter if the school is unranked if you get your graduate degree from a ranked school?

Input from anyone is appreciated I know Dr.Matt has not been posting much.

52

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

If you plan on going to graduate school with a major from you first example like Psychology does it matter if the school is unranked if you get your graduate degree from a ranked school?

Input from anyone is appreciated I know Dr.Matt has not been posting much.[/quote]

No it does not matter one bit. Once you are at the point where you have a graduate degree, master’s or doctorate, what matters is, in this order:

  1. The quality of your research (this is more for doctorate level graduates). This is by far the most important factor, since nobody wants to hire an academic of any kind who cannot do good research. If your research is top notch then that alone will open many, many doors for you. One of the things people looking to hire recent PhD graduates do is check out their dissertation and any published research.

Where you get your PhD from is a factor in this because top universities can afford to charge higher tuition, and generally have more money over all and thus attract the more skilled researchers who are better at their jobs and are also able to teach better at the graduate level and can better guide a student to becoming proficient at original research. They also have much higher standards for what they will accept for a dissertation. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen applications from a recent graduate with a PhD from some crappy school whose dissertation I wouldn’t accept as a master’s thesis. There are also much better networking opportunities at top universities.

  1. Your grades in graduate school. Grades are important, especially if you plan to enter academia. A single C in one class is enough to close some doors, so no matter what level you are at right now, get the highest grades you can because higher grades will never close any doors, but low ones can.

  2. Where you went to school and who your graduate advisor was. Where you go to graduate school does matter because, unlike at the undergraduate level, every school has a different graduate program and the quality is not the same and all graduate advisors are not the same, but top schools have the best graduate programs and the best graduate level professors.

Now, you mentioned being in an unranked undergraduate program, and this may potentially be a problem. You need to be careful about unranked undergraduate schools, their programs do not usually include all of the courses that graduate schools consider core requirements. Part of the first year or two of graduate school, usually before you start your first semester, is to put you through something called Preliminary Examinations. These are sometimes oral and sometimes written, but they are no joke. The point of these exams are to ensure that you possess the basic undergraduate knowledge that the school requires. You can think of them as taking a final exam from all of your undergraduate major-specific classes.

When I was a grad student at CMU, my preliminary exams consisted of a three day long series of oral exams covering undergraduate level classical mechanics, electrical/magnetic theory, thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, waves and optics, special relativity, quantum mechanics, calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra. It was the roughest exam I ever took, next to the Comprehensive Exam which is a nearly universal prerequisite to begin working on your dissertation. In some ways, it was even rougher than my dissertation defense. If you fail your preliminary exams you will either be dropped from the program immediately or you will have to retake the undergraduate level classes and retake the preliminary exams, so make sure you know that your undergraduate program has all of the classes the graduate schools you are looking at require.

53

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

If you plan on going to graduate school with a major from you first example like Psychology does it matter if the school is unranked if you get your graduate degree from a ranked school?

Input from anyone is appreciated I know Dr.Matt has not been posting much.[/quote]

No it does not matter one bit. Once you are at the point where you have a graduate degree, master’s or doctorate, what matters is, in this order:

  1. The quality of your research (this is more for doctorate level graduates). This is by far the most important factor, since nobody wants to hire an academic of any kind who cannot do good research. If your research is top notch then that alone will open many, many doors for you. One of the things people looking to hire recent PhD graduates do is check out their dissertation and any published research.

Where you get your PhD from is a factor in this because top universities can afford to charge higher tuition, and generally have more money over all and thus attract the more skilled researchers who are better at their jobs and are also able to teach better at the graduate level and can better guide a student to becoming proficient at original research. They also have much higher standards for what they will accept for a dissertation. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen applications from a recent graduate with a PhD from some crappy school whose dissertation I wouldn’t accept as a master’s thesis. There are also much better networking opportunities at top universities.

  1. Your grades in graduate school. Grades are important, especially if you plan to enter academia. A single C in one class is enough to close some doors, so no matter what level you are at right now, get the highest grades you can because higher grades will never close any doors, but low ones can.

  2. Where you went to school and who your graduate advisor was. Where you go to graduate school does matter because, unlike at the undergraduate level, every school has a different graduate program and the quality is not the same and all graduate advisors are not the same, but top schools have the best graduate programs and the best graduate level professors.

Now, you mentioned being in an unranked undergraduate program, and this may potentially be a problem. You need to be careful about unranked undergraduate schools, their programs do not usually include all of the courses that graduate schools consider core requirements. Part of the first year or two of graduate school, usually before you start your first semester, is to put you through something called Preliminary Examinations. These are sometimes oral and sometimes written, but they are no joke. The point of these exams are to ensure that you possess the basic undergraduate knowledge that the school requires. You can think of them as taking a final exam from all of your undergraduate major-specific classes.

When I was a grad student at CMU, my preliminary exams consisted of a three day long series of oral exams covering undergraduate level classical mechanics, electrical/magnetic theory, thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, waves and optics, special relativity, quantum mechanics, calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra. It was the roughest exam I ever took, next to the Comprehensive Exam which is a nearly universal prerequisite to begin working on your dissertation. In some ways, it was even rougher than my dissertation defense. If you fail your preliminary exams you will either be dropped from the program immediately or you will have to retake the undergraduate level classes and retake the preliminary exams, so make sure you know that your undergraduate program has all of the classes the graduate schools you are looking at require.[/quote]

Awesome, thanks.

Now, is there anyway to check this (graduate core requirements) or will I have to check what courses I took and then look at the individual requirements of graduate schools I am interested in?

Edit: If I had to take some extra courses would this be before applying to graduate school, after or would passing the “preliminary exams” prove I know the material?

54

Dr.Matt, can you go into more detail about what you consider proper/improper research, theses, dissertation, like (un)common mistakes, etc.

55

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

Awesome, thanks.

Now, is there anyway to check this (graduate core requirements) or will I have to check what courses I took and then look at the individual requirements of graduate schools I am interested in?

Edit: If I had to take some extra courses would this be before applying to graduate school, after or would passing the “preliminary exams” prove I know the material?[/quote]

Each school will have different requirements, so you just have to go on the websites for schools you are interested in and check. Most schools will have a list of the subjects on their Preliminary Exam and past exams. If they don’t, just e-mail their graduate program director and say you are interested in their school and want to know what is on their Preliminary Exam to make sure you take the necessary courses.

As for taking extra courses, you are going to want to take all the courses necessary for the Preliminary Exam before starting grad school, that way you can pass the test and not have to go back and retake undergraduate level courses, since that time will still count towards your residency time as a graduate student.

56

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

Awesome, thanks.

Now, is there anyway to check this (graduate core requirements) or will I have to check what courses I took and then look at the individual requirements of graduate schools I am interested in?

Edit: If I had to take some extra courses would this be before applying to graduate school, after or would passing the “preliminary exams” prove I know the material?[/quote]

Each school will have different requirements, so you just have to go on the websites for schools you are interested in and check. Most schools will have a list of the subjects on their Preliminary Exam and past exams. If they don’t, just e-mail their graduate program director and say you are interested in their school and want to know what is on their Preliminary Exam to make sure you take the necessary courses.

As for taking extra courses, you are going to want to take all the courses necessary for the Preliminary Exam before starting grad school, that way you can pass the test and not have to go back and retake undergraduate level courses, since that time will still count towards your residency time as a graduate student.[/quote]

Thanks, Dr.Matt.

Two more question. Not sure If you would be able to answer since it is not you department but, UCLA states that it looks for: Research experience–gained as a laboratory assistant, through independent studies or prior graduate work, or by writing a senior or honors thesis"

If you are close to graduation or are an able to get an internship. Any Idea how “independent studies research” might work? I have looked online but, all I could find is independent studies for college credit, do yo have to be working with a professor?

Even if your school does not require it can you choose to do a senior thesis? Would you just talk to the department?

57

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Dr.Matt, can you go into more detail about what you consider proper/improper research, theses, dissertation, like (un)common mistakes, etc.[/quote]

Well, that really depends on the degree that one is seeking. For most master’s degree programs, you are really just getting what amounts to an advanced undergraduate degree, meaning that original research is not a large part of the requirement and mastery of the material is what is really important. There are some exceptions to this, however. I am aware of several master’s level programs, particularly in the biological sciences, that require a higher level of original research than usually seen at the master’s level.

Really, the whole point of master’s programs are to prepare a student for doctoral study by expanding on the basic ideas taught at the undergraduate level and introducing graduate students to the real of academic research, and to weed out those who are unsuited for it. There is actually a major problem right now in certain fields like mathematics and physics with finding students suited for doctoral study, and that problem is the internet.

You see, one of the major points of undergraduate study and the first couple of years of graduate study are to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills, but that is becoming harder for professors to do with all of the information on the internet. You see, at the undergraduate and master’s level you are primarily learning about things that have already been figured out. Math students learn the fundamental theorems of important mathematical topics like calculus, algebra, matrix theory and such. Physics students learn the classical topics like thermodynamics, E&M, and classical mechanics, and the most basic of introductions to modern topics like quantum mechanics. The way that we teach these topics is by teaching the theorems of these topics and then assign problems to solve that require the students to really think about those theorems and how to apply them to solving problems. Unfortunately, now students have access to solutions to really any problem that we can ask at the undergraduate level thanks to the internet and now instead of really gaining an understanding of the material, they just copy their answers from the internet and skip the whole learning how to solve problems for themselves thing, which leads to huge problems for students seeking to become doctoral students which means solving problems that there are no answers to copy yet.

Anyway, about what constitutes good research. Good research is, basically, original, relevant, meaningful, and above all, honest. One of the major habits that we have to break at the doctoral level is the habit that the vast majority of people have, and that is assuming that what they think is right and only seeking to reaffirm that belief. In order to be a good researcher, you have to learn to let go of this and learn how to really think critically about your ideas. You have to learn how to assume that what you think is wrong and how you would go about demonstrating that and most of all, learn to be able to change your ideas if and when (usually when) they turn out to be invalid. You have no idea how many PhD students I have taught that spent months stuck in their research because they were trying to prove a hypothesis that they could have easily figured out to be invalid if they had just thought about it from that angle. As far as original, that should be pretty obvious. At the doctoral level, we are concerned with new knowledge, not just rehashing and reinterpreting stuff that has already been figured out. That is what trades like engineering are for. You must learn how to come up with ideas that nobody has thought of to answer questions that have no answers.

58

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

Thanks, Dr.Matt.

Two more question. Not sure If you would be able to answer since it is not you department but, UCLA states that it looks for: Research experience–gained as a laboratory assistant, through independent studies or prior graduate work, or by writing a senior or honors thesis"

If you are close to graduation or are an able to get an internship. Any Idea how “independent studies research” might work? I have looked online but, all I could find is independent studies for college credit, do yo have to be working with a professor?

Even if your school does not require it can you choose to do a senior thesis? Would you just talk to the department?[/quote]

There are several ways to go about getting research experience as an undergrad. The most common way is to find a faculty member at your school involved in a current research project that is willing to take on an undergraduate research assistant. Your undergraduate advisor should be able to help you with this. Most schools also have a “directed study” type class that you use to study a topic under the direction of a faculty member that would count as research, and as far as the senior thesis goes, you will need to talk to your undergraduate advisor on that one, since it varies by school.

59

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Dr.Matt, can you go into more detail about what you consider proper/improper research, theses, dissertation, like (un)common mistakes, etc.[/quote]

Well, that really depends on the degree that one is seeking. For most master’s degree programs, you are really just getting what amounts to an advanced undergraduate degree, meaning that original research is not a large part of the requirement and mastery of the material is what is really important. There are some exceptions to this, however. I am aware of several master’s level programs, particularly in the biological sciences, that require a higher level of original research than usually seen at the master’s level.

Really, the whole point of master’s programs are to prepare a student for doctoral study by expanding on the basic ideas taught at the undergraduate level and introducing graduate students to the real of academic research, and to weed out those who are unsuited for it. There is actually a major problem right now in certain fields like mathematics and physics with finding students suited for doctoral study, and that problem is the internet.

You see, one of the major points of undergraduate study and the first couple of years of graduate study are to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills, but that is becoming harder for professors to do with all of the information on the internet. You see, at the undergraduate and master’s level you are primarily learning about things that have already been figured out. Math students learn the fundamental theorems of important mathematical topics like calculus, algebra, matrix theory and such. Physics students learn the classical topics like thermodynamics, E&M, and classical mechanics, and the most basic of introductions to modern topics like quantum mechanics. The way that we teach these topics is by teaching the theorems of these topics and then assign problems to solve that require the students to really think about those theorems and how to apply them to solving problems. Unfortunately, now students have access to solutions to really any problem that we can ask at the undergraduate level thanks to the internet and now instead of really gaining an understanding of the material, they just copy their answers from the internet and skip the whole learning how to solve problems for themselves thing, which leads to huge problems for students seeking to become doctoral students which means solving problems that there are no answers to copy yet.

Anyway, about what constitutes good research. Good research is, basically, original, relevant, meaningful, and above all, honest. One of the major habits that we have to break at the doctoral level is the habit that the vast majority of people have, and that is assuming that what they think is right and only seeking to reaffirm that belief. In order to be a good researcher, you have to learn to let go of this and learn how to really think critically about your ideas. You have to learn how to assume that what you think is wrong and how you would go about demonstrating that and most of all, learn to be able to change your ideas if and when (usually when) they turn out to be invalid. You have no idea how many PhD students I have taught that spent months stuck in their research because they were trying to prove a hypothesis that they could have easily figured out to be invalid if they had just thought about it from that angle. As far as original, that should be pretty obvious. At the doctoral level, we are concerned with new knowledge, not just rehashing and reinterpreting stuff that has already been figured out. That is what trades like engineering are for. You must learn how to come up with ideas that nobody has thought of to answer questions that have no answers.[/quote]

I’m doing an undergraduate BSc major in biotechnology.

Right now, there’s so much regurgitation, that it’s making me feel bored of the material. Like for biochemistry, to do well you had to remember like 50 some pathways, draw the structures, names, co-factors, the organic chemistry of a few key reactions, etc. I understand the need to have an above average or exceptional memory, sort of like computer RAM, but the constant memorize and repeat is just getting old.

Like the scientific method, if it were a spectrum, and I’m sure this doesn’t fit perfectly but it’s how I’ve come to see things.
It’s like 90% of the work is before the results/interpretation. To me, this includes the design, troubleshooting, understanding the methods/techniques/reagents involved etc, like the stuff that doesn’t show up in a textbook or would be in the further reading or references section. And we spend so much time learning about what people discovered in their experiments, but not the methods/techniques that they were able to utilize to observe of discover what they found.

To me, it seems like it would be far more valuable to learn methods/techniques and understand why or how they enable one to observe certain things. I’m talking more from a microbiology perspective because that’s what many of my classes revolve around.
Does that make sense? I know it’s pretty ranty, but it just seems like I’m wasting my time with the memorize and regurgitate-type classes.

60

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

I’m doing an undergraduate BSc major in biotechnology.

Right now, there’s so much regurgitation, that it’s making me feel bored of the material. Like for biochemistry, to do well you had to remember like 50 some pathways, draw the structures, names, co-factors, the organic chemistry of a few key reactions, etc. I understand the need to have an above average or exceptional memory, sort of like computer RAM, but the constant memorize and repeat is just getting old.

Like the scientific method, if it were a spectrum, and I’m sure this doesn’t fit perfectly but it’s how I’ve come to see things.
It’s like 90% of the work is before the results/interpretation. To me, this includes the design, troubleshooting, understanding the methods/techniques/reagents involved etc, like the stuff that doesn’t show up in a textbook or would be in the further reading or references section. And we spend so much time learning about what people discovered in their experiments, but not the methods/techniques that they were able to utilize to observe of discover what they found.

To me, it seems like it would be far more valuable to learn methods/techniques and understand why or how they enable one to observe certain things. I’m talking more from a microbiology perspective because that’s what many of my classes revolve around.
Does that make sense? I know it’s pretty ranty, but it just seems like I’m wasting my time with the memorize and regurgitate-type classes.
[/quote]

That is just what undergraduate and the first years of graduate study are, especially in scientific disciplines. You are doubly unlucky in that the biological sciences require knowledge of a lot of different things, which means a fair amount of memorization especially at the beginning. For some reason that I do not get, people do not want to memorize anything but that is the first necessary step in intellectual development, and must take place before one learns to analyze and develop new knowledge.

After all, what is the point in learning and understanding something if you do not remember it? Do you think that I would be able to do original research very well if I do not remember what has already been done, say if I had to go back and relearn Schroedinger’s Equation and how to analyze it every time I began a new research project? Try looking at it this way, in order to move forward scientifically, we must be aware of and remember what has already been done, so before you learn about and how to do original research you must start at and remember the old knowledge.

Another way to look at it is like this, the perspective of professors like me who teach at the doctorate level: learning advanced research methodology and the techniques involved in original research is very, very time intensive for the professor and student. The kind of attention that a student needs to master these is astronomical, and it requires a lot of one on one time. You cannot teach these things through three hours a week of lectures/labs and there are just not enough of us capable of teaching these things to bother with teaching these topics to undergrads. I know that that sounds a little stuck up on my part, but that is just the way it is. I am not going to spend 20+ hours a week for several years working with one, or a small group (I currently have 4 doctoral students, and they take up more of my time than my own research!) of students, on learning advanced research methodology if they can’t even be bothered to learn and remember the knowledge that has already been accumulated and progress through the different levels of intellectual development.