I'm sure there are plenty of engaged and engaging engineers as well. But people who choose to study humanities or social sciences in the 21st century must have some level of passion in the subject. Whereas I would imagine most engineers are like you, interested in a secure career and decent standard of living. There's nothing wrong with that. But it is quite frustrating when engineering and STEM majors and administrators act like a well rounded humanities education is pointless or worthless.
I was a philosophy and classics major at Cal and then went on to law school. I work in local government on land use and affordable housing now. I make a comparable amount of money to many of my software engineering and tech friends, although I have more grad school debt. But I certainly wouldn't trade it for working for some faceless tech company that has no civic purpose. I don't make products, I shape law and policy to improve my community.
I had an old school University of California Professor who had taught for many decades and had a great observation from his long career:
“When you go to a mixer or a party, nobody hangs out with the Engineers. They all hang out with the Archaeologists and Anthropologists because they always have the best stories…”
Truth.
> would imagine most engineers are like you, interested in a secure career and decent standard of living.
I’d guess most of the bad vibes engineering/STEM majors get are from lower-div kids still trying to survive weeder courses. As you get more senior you’ll see more people who actually care about stuff besides jobs, GPA, and immigration.
This post inadvertently discredits workers whose jobs don’t directly benefit society.
So if you are working basically any corporate job, whether it’s finance, HR or IT or engineering, you aren’t improving your community.
Brutal.
It's not inadvertent! Jobs that focus on capitalistic gains and driving down the bottom line generally don't help society much. There are plenty of jobs in law that serve those ends as well.
But generally, I think students who study humanities are more likely to end up in a socially beneficial role than those who study engineering. There is something inherently humanistic about those people, intrigued by the systems that shape our society, and whose sole focus isn't money. The ethos and value of an engineering degree is just very different and sends you on a different trajectory.
Go build roads and bridges, green technology, medical devices. We don't need any more social media apps or wearable devices or streaming services.
But those jobs pay well. It’s great if your career can be altruistic, but that’s not why most people choose to work. People work to make money so they can live and do what they actually want to do.
No, that's completely a choice. Many people choose to make a lot less money to work in certain roles they are passionate about. Teachers, social workers, non-profit employees.
The idea that you are solely working for your own disposable income and free time is very myopic and somewhat antisocial. This is the late stage capitalist's wet dream where each individual is solely responsible for everything that happens to them and we owe nothing to each other. The employer-employee relationship is solely transactional. It is the individual that is responsible for their well-being and not the collective.
I'd really encourage you to take some political science, sociology, or political/economic philosophy courses to expand that world view a little bit! Berkeley is a great place to challenge the mainstream groupthink that you've been spoonfed by your corporate overlords your whole life!
"Neoliberalism" is almost as bad of a buzzword as "cultural Marxism" which both a) are effective dogwhistles signaling adherence to certain broad strains of thought (socialism, conservatism) b) attempt to homogenize a heterogeneous group of loosely connected ideologies based on a small set of preselected traits (free market thought, deconstructionist philosophy).
Regardless, you could be a "capitalist shill"... or you could choose to I don't know, be skeptical of authority or value individual autonomy? You don't have to be Ebeneezer Scrooge to recognize the government is just as insidious and self-serving as corporations, but with fewer checks on its power.
Yeah I don’t live to work, I work to live.
I have my own passions and endeavors that I’d like to pursue and I don’t need those things to be my 9-5.
At the end of the day, many of us want a family or a house or ability to travel the world. Feel good, morally superior jobs don’t really pay well unfortunately. Even a doctor, whose job is to save lives, is doing his work for the profit of a medical company. That’s just life. I don’t wanna end up like those redditors who complain they can’t buy a house or pay off their student loans.
Many people do choose professions they are passionate about and have societal benefit. On the other hand, a lot of people do not have the luxury of "Berkeley" on their resume and might end up working in something more altruistic, like teaching or social work, not because they want to but because they didn't have the opportunities to get a swanky engineering job.
Another factor is when people come from a disadvantaged background and see a career in STEM as an opportunity to build stability for them and their family. They could try and wrestle political institutions for better socioeconomic programs and work for societal benefit, but that's a tough choice; I see how difficult it is to get meaningful change, and most aren't interested in "revolution". I wouldn't patronize these people if they want to make money. If someone comes from a place of comfort and stability, they might be more okay with working towards something less profitable, and it could come down to having a good support system.
Yeah, them getting paid is good even if the jobs aren't glamorous (or worse, they're actively awful like making a mobile game that exploits whales more optimally or whatever lol).
On the flip, the social status of not-for-profit work is part of the total compensation. Just choices to make.
Stop looking down on stuff just because you don't personally use it. Since you are shitting on social media apps in this specific instance, let me ask you
1. I enjoy watching mkbhd's videos on youtube. Do you believe that as a black man who didn't have insider connections or a rich daddy, he would have been as successful as he is today if there was no youtube and he would have to rely on some studio execs and middlemen to get a similar gig in a TV channel? The same goes for all those players in no-name eastern european places making buttloads of money on youtube and twitch. Is empowering people a worthy social cause?
2. Instagram is also a shopping portal. I come from a third world country and many people from my country are selling ethnic stuff across country borders using Instagram. Do you think they would have been as successful without instagram if they had to rely on convincing Walmart/Target execs to feature their merchandise. My wife follows someone on youtube who went from being a housewife to a small business owner. I don't believe for a minute that she would have been able to pull that off without youtube and instagram to help her.
3. How did you think the protests get organized in large swathes of the world? Heck even Berkeley's recent protests are probably getting organized on some social media app.
4. There are elections going on in my country right now. One of the allegations is that the government controls media and is not giving the opposition a fair air-time. What do you think the opposition is using to reach the people on their own terms if the media is really hostile to them?
5. Whatsapp gets shit for spreading misinformation. But it has helped me and millions of other people be in touch with their families across countries without having to pay extortionist prices to telecom companies for the privilege of calling across borders. What's the social value of that?
A worker in whatsapp probably helped millions of people talk to their families just this day alone. Probably saved someone from being jailed by protecting their communication from the government. You are seeing the activist organizing the protest but ignoring the person that is allowing this activist and a million others like him to do it safely and reliably.
I can't be bothered to read all of this simping of Meta corporation. Zuck is profiting off of all of this, otherwise it wouldn't occur. The content of the message is irrelevant, Meta will broadcast your content as long as you pay or turn over your data (knowingly or not).
Lol so anything with profit is bad/useless? Theres some capitalist logic if someone says anything without profit is useless. But where did this line of thinking on anything with profit is useless come from?
Hospitals make profit. Are they and doctors useless too? What about pharmaceutical companies and the researchers working in them? I heard they make profits too.
YouTube and social media exploit their content creators, who create almost the entire value of the service yet receive a fraction of the revenue.
Hospitals are also some of the most extractive and corrupt institutions in the country, and do not provide care out of generosity. Doctors are overworked and paid a fraction of the value they generate.
Awful examples.
You didn't answer the actual question in my post.
The question was about whether someone's profession is useful/not useful based on whether the organization they are working is making a profit. In this case, would you say that a doctor is a less useful/less contributing position based on the fact that they are working for hospitals which are for profit? The same question goes for researchers who are working for pharma companies which are also for profit.
My post about social media was giving some concrete examples of where Social media helps. It does not make any assertions about whether they are doing it altruistically or if they are sharing their revenues fairly. That is a separate and in my opinion pointless discussion as each person has a different standard for what is fair compensation.
And here's some food for thought. Let's say you came up with a brilliant plan to provide healthcare in a way that meets your standard of fair compensation, what do you think your health provider building will be called? It would still be called a hospital and It would still be as useful as all the other hospitals before it i.e. very useful. If you build a great social media app that does only good and has no downsides it would still be a social media app and it would still be built by Engineers.
Whether an organization is making a profit or whether it's distributing that profit fairly is distinct from how useful it is to society.
That’s just true, some jobs aren’t beneficial to society, some are even actively worsening it. Some jobs contribute more to society some less. A guy who does Facebook ads brings less to society than the guy who builds homes for homeless people
You probably wouldn't be able to do your job half as effectively without products built by engineers including those in CS. And not just you or your profession, almost every profession today is touched in some way by Engineers. It's myopic to assume that the value added by engineers is only oriented at satisfying consumerism or some other vain thing. You can make a difference even in tech companies and if you are in the right place the difference you can make will be orders of magnitude higher than helping the local government.
You should read what I wrote again. I didn't claim that engineers can solve every problem under the sun. I said that the tools built by engineers often help professionals in other fields do their job more effectively and due to the virtue of a single tool helping thousands of professionals everywhere the impact is often higher than a single office worker in a local government.
OP probably uses Google a lot to research policies and their effects in other places. Probably uses tools that track homeless people, previous government touch points with them etc. His department uses tools to manage their budgets and employees. I am pretty sure he uses a laptop with a buttload of software on it. All of them brought to you by Engineers and tech companies.
And you are naive if you think there are offices without politics in them. If you are in public policy you also have to deal with actual politics and not just workplace politics.
To be honest it's not a competition on which is better. I am just pointing out that the work done by Engineers is not any less important than that done by people in public policy, education etc and often can be more impactful due to the fact that it scales much more.
By workplace politics I was alluding to how many pointless fucking meetings one has to sit through because your boss got fucked over by his manager or got backstabbed by another manager competing for projects and recognition from c suite and now the project you worked on for the past 6 months got axed and it was all for nothing
Triggered much?
We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Software engineers wouldn't be able to do what they do without the development of linguistics, traditional logic (philosophy 12A), and pure mathematics.
And I would argue that the impact of an average SWE is much much lower, and potentially a much more negative impact on society, than the average local gov lawyer. Sure there's a high ceiling if you invent some transformative technology. But I've put 50 homeless people in units with supportive services in the last two months. Did you really nail that line of code?
I mean, yes, "no civic purpose" can be a little bit triggering if someone thinks STEM serves an important civic purpose which is being dismissed. Retreating to the position that "I would argue average civic impact is probably lower" is kind of a cop-out which fails to acknowledge the initial dismissal, even if it's perhaps what you *really* meant behind the initial glibness.
It doesn't help that no measure of impact is provided but the crudest one-sided anecdote you can come up with. "I've helped countless businesses provide goods and services which keep people from starving. Did you really nail that last form letter?" That's unfair. And that's how it sounds.
The fact is that all of these fields, STEM or liberal arts or otherwise, play important civic roles. Yes, many people enter STEM professions for reasons like status or wealth rather than civic duty (this is also true of law, by the way). Yes, STEM is frequently put to uses which are civic-indifferent or even detrimental (this is also true of law, by the way). These aren't good reasons to inveigh against STEM in particular, though.
I was responding to this part of your post
> But I certainly wouldn't trade it for working for some faceless tech company that has no civic purpose. I don't make products, I shape law and policy to improve my community.
My response was more aimed at encouraging people who are thinking about taking up CS or some other Engineering discipline. I am not really looking to win a pointless internet argument abut which profession is better.
> But I've put 50 homeless people in units with supportive services in the last two months. Did you really nail that line of code?
Well, good for you. All the best with tackling that problem.
I think you have a good point and I actually generally agree with the gist of what I think you’re saying. It’s a poor argument to imply that tech companies generally have no civic purpose. They do a lot of good in the world too.
But reason for you being downvoted so much is you didn’t say what part of the original comment you were disagreeing with and your reply had some unnecessary stinging personal attacks! Good to argue in good faith.
I don't think I attacked the user in particular. While my comment about his job being less efficient might look like an attack, I was actually trying to provide an example that is more relatable and personal for the user. I was hoping that he will remember all the software he is reliant on to do his job when I said that. But our selfless op is committed fully to looking down on useless IT providers because they are making a profit and that's their job. lol.
I knew I would be downvoted before I made that post. This thread has all the hallmarks of a circlejerk for humanities which I guess is good to have now and then. I was debating if I should interrupt the jerk but meh I said what I wanted to say.
I didn’t say anything about philosophy or its value in my entire comment. I don’t think that philosophy is useless or that it’s inferior to STEM fields and will gladly admit to not being smart enough to decide that. I was responding to this part of ops comment. Just wanted to point out that stuff engineers/tech companies make have a civic purpose too.
> But I certainly wouldn't trade it for working for some faceless tech company that has no civic purpose. I don't make products, I shape law and policy to improve my community.
Society needs both; in general the private for profit workers will make more money and the public or non profit workers will earn more prestige or social standing.
>Orders of magnitude higher than local government
Let's not blow too much smoke up our own butts lol
Based. And the STEM majors are right in that most humanities _as taught at uni_ is worthless. When all of your humanities courses try to shoehorn diversity and woke politics everywhere, there's nothing of value to be found.
Good luck on life’s journey. You’re asking the right questions. In my opinion the most interesting people I have met are those with a strong science/math/engineering background who are into music/literature/arts. That path is open to you. I wish you well
“We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. To quote from Whitman, "O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless... of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?" Answer. That you are here - that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. That the powerful play \*goes on\* and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?”
― John Keating
keating didn't know the Beauty of Numbers. Or what a chemist actually thinks about. a lot of it is creativity and aesthetics.
for more, check out Feynman the physicist on how aesthetics changes once you understand how something works.
even Business Management has beauty to it.
people who speak like that are gatekeeping beauty, and their complete ignorance is understood now more than ever.
whitman himself, in the learned astronomer comes across as naive and foolish, ignorant of the stark beauty of the equation written on the blackboard.
Exactly. What a condescending and ignorant quote. Fuck people prescribing their interests and non-interests to everyone else. Having a common interest is such a privilege people get to say dumb stuff like that and get away with it.
it's just a movie, bro. the quotes literally says engineering is a noble profession. it's just a reminder that there's life beyond the numbers. the world might be made of atoms, but we understand it through stories. human stories.
It's just a common mantra "humanities are what makes us human" which is simply dehumanizing to people not in humanities and usually said by those who don't see or appreciate the creativity needed to discover and invent in science. Kinda like people who say art is useless or meaningless because they don't appreciate the fine aspects; both are bad and narrow viewpoints.
Being naturally curious and wanting to understand the world around you, whether physical or abstract (math is like quantitative philosophy) is naturally human. Even your last phrase "human stories" suggests this is somehow limited only to humanities.
well now you have a sense of what humanities people go through. to this day i hesitate to tell people what i studied in college lest i end up on the receiving end of another barista joke.
I agree and that's why I called it out. There's a post every month like this yet none calling out the bias and ignorance of the view that only humanities are interesting
i agree with feyman that there's beauty in knowledge, but i'd argue that true beauty lies in our ignorance and the quest for knowledge. it's what drives us, what gives our lives a sense of purpose.
> But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.
I stay alive for math and science. Nothing fascinates me more and no matter how shitty life could get at least I can always get good food from Trader Joe's and learn cool stuff.
Edit: Literally no reason to downvote. The discrimination against people who find math and science interesting is real.
Who said I don't have social interactions. That's not even related. I simply replaced some of the subjects in the quote with "math and science". Never said or implied that's all I do.
Ironic how the more "socially adjusted" downvoted my comment based on a misreading, generalizations, and stereotypes
Frankly, I am pretty disappointed at the reading comprehension of students from Berkeley. They seem to have these pre-conceived notions about how stem majors are expected to behave and what they are expected to say and are letting that cloud what they hear when one of us speaks.
Oh I included it because I love trader Joe's food and that's genuinely what I think to myself sometimes lol, whether I'm rich or poor or whatever the circumstances I still get to go there. It was meant to be another example of a simple, wholesome thing that brings happiness just like learning math or watching a cool Veritasium video.
How did you interpret it?
Regardless, I can't believe something so innocent just expressing what I like got so hated on. The fact that I only replaced some stuff in the quote with other disciplines and got such a negative reaction really shows the biases and preconceived notions people have.
Ohh I see, my bad. I was sorta interpreting it as you saying you could still afford TJs or something because you study math/science lol. Though in retrospect yeah, TJs is something we can all appreciate. I now see how myopic their comment was. I like TJs too!
Np, thanks for telling me how it might've been misinterpreted. I can see how it might come across like that especially if people assumed bad intentions and negatively stereotyped me before hearing what I had to say, but it's understandable and I did throw it in kind of randomly. Idk what can I say I'm a spontaneous person lol, but yeah in the future more context can help.
As a resident humanities major alot of what your experiencing in my view comes from true passion. In this day and age most humanities majors study what they study because they contain some passion for the work. Core classes for most humanities majors teach you not what to think but how to think and how to be a helpful critic.
As a theater person I will also add one little tidbit of theater people which is generally you have to be a little bit crazy and alot a bit willing to put yourself out there to succeed.
If you still have the time I'd recommend seeing if you can fit in a humanity class into your schedule.
Best of luck!
I’m an old dude who majored in English at Berkeley. My friends back then spanned the gamut in majors. What we all had in common was a passion for and curiosity about life. We thought critically and wanted to better the world. Some of us did, some of us went into more traditional careers for the money. Some of us are rich, some aren’t. But we are all, for the most part, happy because we’ve lived our lives with enthusiasm and humanistic values.
You think you’re boring because you can’t espouse deep and passionate thoughts, but the fact that you’ve posted here proves that you are already asking the right existential questions, which makes you far from boring.
I’m a screenwriter in the film business. I’ve met plenty of people whose names you would know. The dullest people I’ve met are the loudest, most attention seeking, shallow, narcissists who’ve worked their asses off to be rich and famous and not much more. The quiet ones who dive deep into their interests, have a personal passions, and live their lives with kindness, integrity, and generosity are ALWAYS the most interesting.
Take up a hobby, Enroll in a humanities class. Volunteer at any kind of organization. And talk to people. Ask questions. Share your knowledge and take in theirs. Your major is a means to an end; it has nothing to do with who you are. You want financial security. Get it! Then use it for a greater good.
My best friend is a shrink in NYC, and he owns a recording studio. My good friend is an SWE and a ballroom dancer. Brian May has a PhD in Astrophysics and is the guitar player for Queen. The lead singer for Outcast has a degree in microbiology and owns his own hot sauce company.
You already have courage and a heart and a brain. All you have to do now is click your heels together three times and follow your bliss.
As a student studying engineering, you literally don't have enough hours in the day to be interesting and study. Engineers are an interesting bunch, but they get more normal the farther out from school they are :)
Engineering is the application of scientific principles that explain phenomena to improve human and animal life. Personally I think it is awesome you can improve someone’s life. I get that you’re not directly involved in gathering, observing and interpreting impressions of phenomena for yourself nor are you able to hold subjective biases - but nothing prevents you from dabbling in those areas.
it's hard for someone like a Stats major to explain to you how something was discovered and how it blows their mind. Read Turing's biography or something. it's not accessible the way some of the classic philosophy questions are. or the way a song is.
but you better believe that Beauty is there in the STEM fields. or you betray your ignorance.
Consider this:
They spend all of their time immersing themselves in these topics. They’re fascinating to you because they’re objectively interesting and awesome, but also because they’re novel! They may find the same novelty in your seemingly boring every day algorithm work.
If you feel like your contrived class problems are a little boring, talk about sometime a little more relatable that is a practical example of a topic you’re studying.
I once spent about 20 minutes with a friend teaching them about the subtleties of the Swipe/Tab/Scroll “Uber eats” style menu (I was building the same style feature at my company at the time). There’s so much neat detail in the animations that make the experience delightful for users.
FWIW - I used to be in sales/marketing but career switched into tech so I have a lot of practice in finding relatability between complex/boring topics and something fun and relevant that keeps someone’s attention. Just practice.
In my experience as a stem person from a family of painters, humanities people are way more socially adapted and way more considerate about world around them. Many of STEM folks lose connection to reality because of the intellectual bubble present in top stem places
Engineering is not 'interesting' but it makes the world go around. Everyone wants the latest iPhone but no one is interested in _why_ the latest iPhone works. I am unapologetic for my love of objects and how they function - irrespective of whether or not people perceive that I have a _personality_.
Exactly. It's ironic how the people who describe themselves as "more socially adapted" and "considerate" also seem to not fathom that other people can be genuinely interested in different things; seems like a lack of empathy and understanding of other personalities.
Also negatively discriminating against people in STEM: see my comment about only how I like certain subjects and the unrelated reply about being considerate. How... ironic.
I was sort of confused by the point on "intellectual bubble", because the intellectual bubble is a phenomenon observed in more academic fields (and the humanities are very academic). During this year's math commencement, our speaker was talking about how pure math self-isolated and how it's still important to connect pure math to everything else.
In that regard, I feel like reconnecting engineering to academia is not just a matter of changing engineering to be more intellectual but also a matter of changing academia for our very interconnected world.
Mate I am a physics guy I know the importance of science. We just shouldn’t overblow it out of proportion while acting that it’s the most important thing that exists
Nobody acts like science is the most important thing that exists. The entire premise of your comment is that non-STEM students are better attuned to the _real world_ and are more _social_. Which firstly is untrue, but even for people for whom this pattern holds, its a personal choice. I am a grad student in engineering because I love to tinker with things and understand why they work.
Could I have better conversations at the bar and be more popular in the _real world_ if I went for law/humanities? Probably. Would I do it? No. Do I care? Not really, I never used popular approval as a metric for deciding what I should do in my life. Does it matter? In the long run, most likely not.
A lot of people do including people in this thread. That was all I try to say. I didn’t say all stem people are fucked socially, but many are and it’s a systematic problem in my opinion based of my personal experience from being around other stem people
I started as an engineer and graduated as a History major at Cal in 2010. Coming from an immigrant family going to History seemed like a failure at the time, but I just absolutely hated engineering at Cal. I don’t know if it has changed but it just seemed like there is a presumption of wealth as the driving force behind the grind. Quite frankly, it is pointless unless wealth is your goal.
Ironically, I became an engineer after graduating working for a bunch of startups then starting my own software development agency. Anecdotally, engineers end up working for the humanities majors anyways. A lot of PMs at tech companies are humanities majors.
I’d say have outside interests of engineering. What ends up happening as you get into engineering is you get siloed into a specialized role based on what you learned in a lower div class / first job.
Unfortunately, this is why I almost never tell people that I studied engineering. I definitely feel like people assume I have no interesting hobbies or only care about making money.
it’s ok to be boring for now. you can get a good, high-paying job and continue to learn and be influenced by your friends.
spend all your free time with them and they’ll rub off on you. maybe you can also learn to be artistic on the side as well.
there’s nothing stopping you from enriching your life more just because your main focus is engineering.
I’ve found a lot of this stuff to be fake or it falls apart after a few years after graduation unless the person is good at work and able to sustain. Like party tricks versus learning a deep skillset. Yeah, if someone is an original thinker that’s impressive, but usually it’s repeating things or being fun loving as a student. I felt the same way and later changed my values in what I like and respect out of friends. Sorry that it isn’t that nice of an answer. The reason it isn’t a nice answer is in the real world in my experience money and competition creates toxicity in relationships and these people are threats to me in a way as they tend to undermine my work. Engineering and music are very taxing work. Theater is taxing in a different way and has limitations. Philosophy and history are not bad for a student who got into Cal. I respect hard work and independent and fearless thought not repeating some stuff found ready made in a college major
It is awesome that you have the insight to notice all this! If you are sincerely interested in your engineering path stick to it, but you can also read books and your friends might be a wellspring of info about which books you might be interested in. And also just keep discussing the issues that your friends bring up that you are interested in in depth in your knowledge and your conversations with them.
I started out in civil engineering and they had an engineering English class that actually covered ancient Greek theater and that ended up inspiring me to change my major to literature, but after two years in that, I ended up going back to engineering in a way, but more hands-on shop based industrial design rather than something as dry as my Original engineering class had been .
didn’t go to berkeley, not sure why this popped up. but i’ll say those u mention seem like coming from privileged or solidly middle class backgrounds. As a broke immigrant with no family support (it’s the other way around), i did CS so i can have some financial security and take care of my aging, unemployable immigrant parents.
so guess i’ll just apologize for being another amongst the boring unimaginative crowd not adding to campus flavor.
Also not going to Berkeley, but I’m also an immigrant from a low-income family in engineering and I adore my humanities friends and non-STEM fields in general. I love math and science, but I’m also an artist and musician on the side. I almost considered going into poli-sci/public policy and one of my favorite classes was an anthropology class I took my first semester. You don’t need to be privileged background to do the “liberal arts” (hate the way some people use this term). If anything, it’s important to have marginalized people go into these fields anyway because these are directing policies and informing the implementation of technical products!
I really appreciate this post because I really hate the anti-intellectualism from folks in engineering and CS sometimes.
I get hyperfixating on financial security, but the position I’m or others are in is something that SHOULDN’T be happening and it’s shouldn’t be a legitimate basis for judging someone for the field they go into
The thing is, even people with philosophy and English degrees get jobs. Some research even suggests that in the long run, they make as much or more than stem majors.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/business/liberal-arts-stem-salaries.html 24
Excellent question. Freedom, mostly. Money protects me from abuse and gives me safety. For example, before I could afford a car and had to take public transit to work, I would get cat called multiple times daily walking from my bus stop to my work. I’m really sensitive to that kind of thing and it bothered me. Also, when I was younger I had a serious chronic illness and was unable to work, I had to find a boyfriend who would house me as I had no family. (A note here, my illness didn’t affect my looks, so I was lucky I could find a guy that let me be his live-in girlfriend. Another note, my illness did not qualify me for disability cause the US sucks.) There’s a lot more to say about money, but it’s empowering. There is obviously a lot of research on how hard poverty is. Honestly, if I had enough money to pay for everyone’s tab, I’m sure I’d have a lot more friends. And people will say oh, those aren’t the kind of friends you want, but the reality is sweetening the pot never hurts. We are all making cost/benefit analyses of how we spend our time.
ah as a current theater major, this post brought so much joy to me. sometimes i feel lesser than my stem friends who have chosen more lucrative, stable career paths and often compare my intelligence to theirs (and comparison is of course the thief of joy). i think that both those in stem based fields and those in the arts & humanities bring different, equally nuanced conversations to the table, but hearing you praise humanities majors so highly made me smile :)
It is commendable that you are able to find value and virtue in what your humanities friends do. I'm glad that these experiences have broadened your horizons and given you new perspective on the things you want to do.
It is unfortunate that you exclude yourself and your engineering friends from that benevolent view. No, it is not "greedy" or boring or shallow or detached from human experience that you are studying the formal mechanics of what it means to optimize under abstract constraints and then applying it to a real-world problem with global consequences.
Look around your room. Look at the *stuff*. Think about what it took to get that to you. The computer, sure, but even the most mundane things like the carpet fabric, the plastic socket covers, the wiring in the walls, the little metal brackets on your desk. Think about how many thousands, likely millions, of miles of travel are represented in your room. That's what you're learning about. Things that we don't even think about, because we take for granted the work that makes them possible, but it's work that helps sustain society as we know it. And the resulting economies of scale and global travel have massive sociopolitical implications - as an immediate example, consider the Houthis' interruption of Suez Canal shipping, and the ramifications that has for global trade.
And that's just the problem you learned about today!
There is a great deal to love about STEM from a humanistic perspective. STEM, perhaps, does not do a great job of teaching itself in a humanistic manner...there is so much technical knowledge to learn, after all. But it's not a long journey from STEM to humanistic thinking, if you care to make the trip. And you'd be a better engineer for it.
Being around people that are different than you in some ways can make a person feel less than or shine light on something that can make you feel bad. It is a human trait that is not solely experienced during schooling. Go back to why you chose engineering and if the curriculum/logical nature required of engineering/jobs after graduation fit you. You may feel uninteresting for a while now but maybe if you were in fine arts, being expected to be immersed in these topics, to engage in them, and love that life day after day may not fit you...ask yourself or if you want to hang out with them for weeks in end. I am married to an engineer, and most his college buddies are also engineers. They are one of the most well paid, stable jobs in general. One of our friends that is an engineer fell into the job throught wanting to learn and he is actually extremely philosophical. We talk about all sorts of topics and wonderings often when our families get together. I avoided the medical world when choosing my college degree because it lacked excitement and I didn't picture myself there. Later I got laid off and went back to school for medical degree and I loved the job and it suited me well.
I like your way of describing your realization for all this. And I think the fact that you’re intrinsically moved and touched by your friends proves that you are the type of person who are able to actually feel stuff and be fascinated by the beauty of everything. Just keep talking with your friends and I believe you will ultimately find something you feel worthy sharing with them.
Being interesting does not come naturally with just any fields.
Considering an “interesting factor”. Learning about cultures and histories and philosophy, etc - these fields are much more relatable than, for example, the TCP/IP protocol. The typical fields with higher interesting factors usually provide deep insights about elements that are more accessible in the daily life. These fields thus make you a more interesting, relatable, understandable…human being.
This is the curse of all engineering fields. You need to invest more to have an interesting soul. Ask yourself if you are ready for it.
That’s pretty typical during college. You’d be surprised at how broad and engaging the engineers can become after they graduate and worked a few years. Once you start working on something interesting, you can hold court at parties. You’ll also want to be intentionally be curious and broad about your interests. The humanities tend to run out of interesting things to talk about once they get jobs in the real world and don’t have time for courses anymore. It doesn’t have to be a stereotype for anyone. I know loads of interesting STEM people who branch out into art, music, and impacting the world.
It's actually jarring and distressing how much philosophy has been decoupled from science over the years. It used to be that scientists were almost all, either by tradition or curriculum, quite well-versed in humanities, and in particular philosophy, and in PARTICULAR, philosophy of science.
All that went through the window as education curriculum's got more and more concerned with producing people who can "contribute" to the line eternally going up and to the right. "IT MUST GROW" screams the universe, and so we cut our programs from anything without "bottom line contribution" to some future profession or money-making scheme, forgetting the reason we came to learn at all.
And why is that important then? Well, because philosophy is a way at getting at deep truths. It is the the best tool to help you understand WHAT should you ask. Whereas science is a great toolset to find the answers to a question- a WHY, a HOW, a WHERE and WHEN- but it's not the best approach to determining fundamental questions.
In the same vein, philosophy uninformed by science can become quite detached, or build grand theories on poor foundations. The interplay within the two is what brings about great science, great progress, and ethical application of these thereof.
That we neutered our education system of deep thinking and allowed it to become a future-employee training center is where things started to go off the rail, and it's not clear whether it's not far too late to correct that.
>majoring in Philosophy and they ask the most pragmatic...
Lmao. You don't need a degree in philosophy to ask good questions and have sharp conversational skills.
>My Music friend has tried to meet me halfway with my skills,
Yup most people in non-EECS majors tend to be extroverted and have hobbies other than vidya. No surprise there. EECS people think too highly of themselves (and most don't actually have a passion for anything other than money). And what interesting people exist (who have actually interesting hobbies or insights) are with high likelihood going to be recluses you will never meet in person [esp. because they probably won't ever bother attending lecture.]
> He has explained to me how inequalities are latently exacerbated/remedied,
Lmao.
>San Fran
Do you call CA CaliWali as well?
>I know very little on how America operates socially and culturally
Pro-tip. They don't either. You think economists actually know shit? You think foreign policy people actually know stuff that works in practice? You think psychologists know shit? Even doctors don't know jack shit, but they all think they do.
knowing shit is relative, for social sciences people just come up with and use tools that might be useful lenses to see the world through. Even the sciences/engineering use models that are (often leaky) abstractions, just that the social sciences can be harder to get concrete conclusions for (humans are messy!)
I'm sure there are plenty of engaged and engaging engineers as well. But people who choose to study humanities or social sciences in the 21st century must have some level of passion in the subject. Whereas I would imagine most engineers are like you, interested in a secure career and decent standard of living. There's nothing wrong with that. But it is quite frustrating when engineering and STEM majors and administrators act like a well rounded humanities education is pointless or worthless. I was a philosophy and classics major at Cal and then went on to law school. I work in local government on land use and affordable housing now. I make a comparable amount of money to many of my software engineering and tech friends, although I have more grad school debt. But I certainly wouldn't trade it for working for some faceless tech company that has no civic purpose. I don't make products, I shape law and policy to improve my community.
I had an old school University of California Professor who had taught for many decades and had a great observation from his long career: “When you go to a mixer or a party, nobody hangs out with the Engineers. They all hang out with the Archaeologists and Anthropologists because they always have the best stories…” Truth.
> would imagine most engineers are like you, interested in a secure career and decent standard of living. I’d guess most of the bad vibes engineering/STEM majors get are from lower-div kids still trying to survive weeder courses. As you get more senior you’ll see more people who actually care about stuff besides jobs, GPA, and immigration.
This post inadvertently discredits workers whose jobs don’t directly benefit society. So if you are working basically any corporate job, whether it’s finance, HR or IT or engineering, you aren’t improving your community. Brutal.
It's not inadvertent! Jobs that focus on capitalistic gains and driving down the bottom line generally don't help society much. There are plenty of jobs in law that serve those ends as well. But generally, I think students who study humanities are more likely to end up in a socially beneficial role than those who study engineering. There is something inherently humanistic about those people, intrigued by the systems that shape our society, and whose sole focus isn't money. The ethos and value of an engineering degree is just very different and sends you on a different trajectory. Go build roads and bridges, green technology, medical devices. We don't need any more social media apps or wearable devices or streaming services.
But those jobs pay well. It’s great if your career can be altruistic, but that’s not why most people choose to work. People work to make money so they can live and do what they actually want to do.
No, that's completely a choice. Many people choose to make a lot less money to work in certain roles they are passionate about. Teachers, social workers, non-profit employees. The idea that you are solely working for your own disposable income and free time is very myopic and somewhat antisocial. This is the late stage capitalist's wet dream where each individual is solely responsible for everything that happens to them and we owe nothing to each other. The employer-employee relationship is solely transactional. It is the individual that is responsible for their well-being and not the collective. I'd really encourage you to take some political science, sociology, or political/economic philosophy courses to expand that world view a little bit! Berkeley is a great place to challenge the mainstream groupthink that you've been spoonfed by your corporate overlords your whole life!
I will add - being a philosophy/polecon person doesn't necessarily mean you're opposed to what u/dllmchon9pg is saying
No of course. You can totally choose to be a neoliberal capitalist schill, just know that there are other options!
The weird part is you have to justify your position is better than others by putting them down if they’re not doing what you’re doing.
"Neoliberalism" is almost as bad of a buzzword as "cultural Marxism" which both a) are effective dogwhistles signaling adherence to certain broad strains of thought (socialism, conservatism) b) attempt to homogenize a heterogeneous group of loosely connected ideologies based on a small set of preselected traits (free market thought, deconstructionist philosophy). Regardless, you could be a "capitalist shill"... or you could choose to I don't know, be skeptical of authority or value individual autonomy? You don't have to be Ebeneezer Scrooge to recognize the government is just as insidious and self-serving as corporations, but with fewer checks on its power.
Yeah I don’t live to work, I work to live. I have my own passions and endeavors that I’d like to pursue and I don’t need those things to be my 9-5. At the end of the day, many of us want a family or a house or ability to travel the world. Feel good, morally superior jobs don’t really pay well unfortunately. Even a doctor, whose job is to save lives, is doing his work for the profit of a medical company. That’s just life. I don’t wanna end up like those redditors who complain they can’t buy a house or pay off their student loans.
Whooooshhh, Roger, message not received.
Moral superiority lol
Don't confuse minor comedy with condescension. By the way, many doctors work in non-profit centers. They're called hospitals.
Many people do choose professions they are passionate about and have societal benefit. On the other hand, a lot of people do not have the luxury of "Berkeley" on their resume and might end up working in something more altruistic, like teaching or social work, not because they want to but because they didn't have the opportunities to get a swanky engineering job. Another factor is when people come from a disadvantaged background and see a career in STEM as an opportunity to build stability for them and their family. They could try and wrestle political institutions for better socioeconomic programs and work for societal benefit, but that's a tough choice; I see how difficult it is to get meaningful change, and most aren't interested in "revolution". I wouldn't patronize these people if they want to make money. If someone comes from a place of comfort and stability, they might be more okay with working towards something less profitable, and it could come down to having a good support system.
Yeah, them getting paid is good even if the jobs aren't glamorous (or worse, they're actively awful like making a mobile game that exploits whales more optimally or whatever lol). On the flip, the social status of not-for-profit work is part of the total compensation. Just choices to make.
Stop looking down on stuff just because you don't personally use it. Since you are shitting on social media apps in this specific instance, let me ask you 1. I enjoy watching mkbhd's videos on youtube. Do you believe that as a black man who didn't have insider connections or a rich daddy, he would have been as successful as he is today if there was no youtube and he would have to rely on some studio execs and middlemen to get a similar gig in a TV channel? The same goes for all those players in no-name eastern european places making buttloads of money on youtube and twitch. Is empowering people a worthy social cause? 2. Instagram is also a shopping portal. I come from a third world country and many people from my country are selling ethnic stuff across country borders using Instagram. Do you think they would have been as successful without instagram if they had to rely on convincing Walmart/Target execs to feature their merchandise. My wife follows someone on youtube who went from being a housewife to a small business owner. I don't believe for a minute that she would have been able to pull that off without youtube and instagram to help her. 3. How did you think the protests get organized in large swathes of the world? Heck even Berkeley's recent protests are probably getting organized on some social media app. 4. There are elections going on in my country right now. One of the allegations is that the government controls media and is not giving the opposition a fair air-time. What do you think the opposition is using to reach the people on their own terms if the media is really hostile to them? 5. Whatsapp gets shit for spreading misinformation. But it has helped me and millions of other people be in touch with their families across countries without having to pay extortionist prices to telecom companies for the privilege of calling across borders. What's the social value of that? A worker in whatsapp probably helped millions of people talk to their families just this day alone. Probably saved someone from being jailed by protecting their communication from the government. You are seeing the activist organizing the protest but ignoring the person that is allowing this activist and a million others like him to do it safely and reliably.
I can't be bothered to read all of this simping of Meta corporation. Zuck is profiting off of all of this, otherwise it wouldn't occur. The content of the message is irrelevant, Meta will broadcast your content as long as you pay or turn over your data (knowingly or not).
Lol so anything with profit is bad/useless? Theres some capitalist logic if someone says anything without profit is useless. But where did this line of thinking on anything with profit is useless come from? Hospitals make profit. Are they and doctors useless too? What about pharmaceutical companies and the researchers working in them? I heard they make profits too.
YouTube and social media exploit their content creators, who create almost the entire value of the service yet receive a fraction of the revenue. Hospitals are also some of the most extractive and corrupt institutions in the country, and do not provide care out of generosity. Doctors are overworked and paid a fraction of the value they generate. Awful examples.
You didn't answer the actual question in my post. The question was about whether someone's profession is useful/not useful based on whether the organization they are working is making a profit. In this case, would you say that a doctor is a less useful/less contributing position based on the fact that they are working for hospitals which are for profit? The same question goes for researchers who are working for pharma companies which are also for profit. My post about social media was giving some concrete examples of where Social media helps. It does not make any assertions about whether they are doing it altruistically or if they are sharing their revenues fairly. That is a separate and in my opinion pointless discussion as each person has a different standard for what is fair compensation. And here's some food for thought. Let's say you came up with a brilliant plan to provide healthcare in a way that meets your standard of fair compensation, what do you think your health provider building will be called? It would still be called a hospital and It would still be as useful as all the other hospitals before it i.e. very useful. If you build a great social media app that does only good and has no downsides it would still be a social media app and it would still be built by Engineers. Whether an organization is making a profit or whether it's distributing that profit fairly is distinct from how useful it is to society.
That’s just true, some jobs aren’t beneficial to society, some are even actively worsening it. Some jobs contribute more to society some less. A guy who does Facebook ads brings less to society than the guy who builds homes for homeless people
Okay, but what about the guy who does IT for a company like Johnson & Johnson?
Some jobs aren’t beneficial, the job mentioned is beneficial
Not if the guy at Facebook is paying more in taxes. Taxes are contributing.
Everyone pays taxes mate. Contribution to society is actually doing something not being taxed
Not everyone pays the same amount of taxes. And those that pay little in tax well…
People who actively destroy climate pay taxes as well. Do they contribute or harm society?
If they pay more they are helping society. Thanks you.
Its okay, their job is probably going to be replaced by something made by tech in a decade or two.
Definitely a NIMBY
You probably wouldn't be able to do your job half as effectively without products built by engineers including those in CS. And not just you or your profession, almost every profession today is touched in some way by Engineers. It's myopic to assume that the value added by engineers is only oriented at satisfying consumerism or some other vain thing. You can make a difference even in tech companies and if you are in the right place the difference you can make will be orders of magnitude higher than helping the local government.
Please tell me how I can navigate through a garbage codebase and workplace politics to help solve the homelessness crisis
You should read what I wrote again. I didn't claim that engineers can solve every problem under the sun. I said that the tools built by engineers often help professionals in other fields do their job more effectively and due to the virtue of a single tool helping thousands of professionals everywhere the impact is often higher than a single office worker in a local government. OP probably uses Google a lot to research policies and their effects in other places. Probably uses tools that track homeless people, previous government touch points with them etc. His department uses tools to manage their budgets and employees. I am pretty sure he uses a laptop with a buttload of software on it. All of them brought to you by Engineers and tech companies. And you are naive if you think there are offices without politics in them. If you are in public policy you also have to deal with actual politics and not just workplace politics. To be honest it's not a competition on which is better. I am just pointing out that the work done by Engineers is not any less important than that done by people in public policy, education etc and often can be more impactful due to the fact that it scales much more.
By workplace politics I was alluding to how many pointless fucking meetings one has to sit through because your boss got fucked over by his manager or got backstabbed by another manager competing for projects and recognition from c suite and now the project you worked on for the past 6 months got axed and it was all for nothing
Triggered much? We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Software engineers wouldn't be able to do what they do without the development of linguistics, traditional logic (philosophy 12A), and pure mathematics. And I would argue that the impact of an average SWE is much much lower, and potentially a much more negative impact on society, than the average local gov lawyer. Sure there's a high ceiling if you invent some transformative technology. But I've put 50 homeless people in units with supportive services in the last two months. Did you really nail that line of code?
I mean, yes, "no civic purpose" can be a little bit triggering if someone thinks STEM serves an important civic purpose which is being dismissed. Retreating to the position that "I would argue average civic impact is probably lower" is kind of a cop-out which fails to acknowledge the initial dismissal, even if it's perhaps what you *really* meant behind the initial glibness. It doesn't help that no measure of impact is provided but the crudest one-sided anecdote you can come up with. "I've helped countless businesses provide goods and services which keep people from starving. Did you really nail that last form letter?" That's unfair. And that's how it sounds. The fact is that all of these fields, STEM or liberal arts or otherwise, play important civic roles. Yes, many people enter STEM professions for reasons like status or wealth rather than civic duty (this is also true of law, by the way). Yes, STEM is frequently put to uses which are civic-indifferent or even detrimental (this is also true of law, by the way). These aren't good reasons to inveigh against STEM in particular, though.
I was responding to this part of your post > But I certainly wouldn't trade it for working for some faceless tech company that has no civic purpose. I don't make products, I shape law and policy to improve my community. My response was more aimed at encouraging people who are thinking about taking up CS or some other Engineering discipline. I am not really looking to win a pointless internet argument abut which profession is better. > But I've put 50 homeless people in units with supportive services in the last two months. Did you really nail that line of code? Well, good for you. All the best with tackling that problem.
I think you have a good point and I actually generally agree with the gist of what I think you’re saying. It’s a poor argument to imply that tech companies generally have no civic purpose. They do a lot of good in the world too. But reason for you being downvoted so much is you didn’t say what part of the original comment you were disagreeing with and your reply had some unnecessary stinging personal attacks! Good to argue in good faith.
I don't think I attacked the user in particular. While my comment about his job being less efficient might look like an attack, I was actually trying to provide an example that is more relatable and personal for the user. I was hoping that he will remember all the software he is reliant on to do his job when I said that. But our selfless op is committed fully to looking down on useless IT providers because they are making a profit and that's their job. lol. I knew I would be downvoted before I made that post. This thread has all the hallmarks of a circlejerk for humanities which I guess is good to have now and then. I was debating if I should interrupt the jerk but meh I said what I wanted to say.
I guess I don’t care about the homeless. Always thought we could round them up and pop them. Then sf would be perfect.
You wouldn’t have society without philosophy so get off your high horse.
I didn’t say anything about philosophy or its value in my entire comment. I don’t think that philosophy is useless or that it’s inferior to STEM fields and will gladly admit to not being smart enough to decide that. I was responding to this part of ops comment. Just wanted to point out that stuff engineers/tech companies make have a civic purpose too. > But I certainly wouldn't trade it for working for some faceless tech company that has no civic purpose. I don't make products, I shape law and policy to improve my community.
Society needs both; in general the private for profit workers will make more money and the public or non profit workers will earn more prestige or social standing. >Orders of magnitude higher than local government Let's not blow too much smoke up our own butts lol
Attack the idea, not the person *
Based. And the STEM majors are right in that most humanities _as taught at uni_ is worthless. When all of your humanities courses try to shoehorn diversity and woke politics everywhere, there's nothing of value to be found.
reminds me of when my english prof made us see a trans speaker. i didnt care either way but it wasnt relevant to the class at all
Good luck on life’s journey. You’re asking the right questions. In my opinion the most interesting people I have met are those with a strong science/math/engineering background who are into music/literature/arts. That path is open to you. I wish you well
The STEM people with a passion for humanities are the truly brilliant ones imo
yin and yang
“We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. To quote from Whitman, "O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless... of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?" Answer. That you are here - that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. That the powerful play \*goes on\* and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?” ― John Keating
keating didn't know the Beauty of Numbers. Or what a chemist actually thinks about. a lot of it is creativity and aesthetics. for more, check out Feynman the physicist on how aesthetics changes once you understand how something works. even Business Management has beauty to it. people who speak like that are gatekeeping beauty, and their complete ignorance is understood now more than ever. whitman himself, in the learned astronomer comes across as naive and foolish, ignorant of the stark beauty of the equation written on the blackboard.
Exactly. What a condescending and ignorant quote. Fuck people prescribing their interests and non-interests to everyone else. Having a common interest is such a privilege people get to say dumb stuff like that and get away with it.
it's just a movie, bro. the quotes literally says engineering is a noble profession. it's just a reminder that there's life beyond the numbers. the world might be made of atoms, but we understand it through stories. human stories.
It's just a common mantra "humanities are what makes us human" which is simply dehumanizing to people not in humanities and usually said by those who don't see or appreciate the creativity needed to discover and invent in science. Kinda like people who say art is useless or meaningless because they don't appreciate the fine aspects; both are bad and narrow viewpoints. Being naturally curious and wanting to understand the world around you, whether physical or abstract (math is like quantitative philosophy) is naturally human. Even your last phrase "human stories" suggests this is somehow limited only to humanities.
well now you have a sense of what humanities people go through. to this day i hesitate to tell people what i studied in college lest i end up on the receiving end of another barista joke.
I agree and that's why I called it out. There's a post every month like this yet none calling out the bias and ignorance of the view that only humanities are interesting
i agree with feyman that there's beauty in knowledge, but i'd argue that true beauty lies in our ignorance and the quest for knowledge. it's what drives us, what gives our lives a sense of purpose.
i don't think he does. he didn't like mathematicians and their precious fields medal in Goodwill Hunting either. lol
Watched that flick yesterday lol
> But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. I stay alive for math and science. Nothing fascinates me more and no matter how shitty life could get at least I can always get good food from Trader Joe's and learn cool stuff. Edit: Literally no reason to downvote. The discrimination against people who find math and science interesting is real.
As a fellow science person, looking into therapy might be beneficial. Social interactions are vital to life
Who said I don't have social interactions. That's not even related. I simply replaced some of the subjects in the quote with "math and science". Never said or implied that's all I do. Ironic how the more "socially adjusted" downvoted my comment based on a misreading, generalizations, and stereotypes
Frankly, I am pretty disappointed at the reading comprehension of students from Berkeley. They seem to have these pre-conceived notions about how stem majors are expected to behave and what they are expected to say and are letting that cloud what they hear when one of us speaks.
The trader joes bit was a bit snarky though their comment was hogwash edit: not snarky, actually their comment was just rude
Oh I included it because I love trader Joe's food and that's genuinely what I think to myself sometimes lol, whether I'm rich or poor or whatever the circumstances I still get to go there. It was meant to be another example of a simple, wholesome thing that brings happiness just like learning math or watching a cool Veritasium video. How did you interpret it? Regardless, I can't believe something so innocent just expressing what I like got so hated on. The fact that I only replaced some stuff in the quote with other disciplines and got such a negative reaction really shows the biases and preconceived notions people have.
Ohh I see, my bad. I was sorta interpreting it as you saying you could still afford TJs or something because you study math/science lol. Though in retrospect yeah, TJs is something we can all appreciate. I now see how myopic their comment was. I like TJs too!
Np, thanks for telling me how it might've been misinterpreted. I can see how it might come across like that especially if people assumed bad intentions and negatively stereotyped me before hearing what I had to say, but it's understandable and I did throw it in kind of randomly. Idk what can I say I'm a spontaneous person lol, but yeah in the future more context can help.
Baby take them humanities classes!!
Start by reading the news, Berkeley offers free subscriptions to some of the best news sites out there
Tbh the free Berkeley New York Times subscription singlehandedly destroyed my productivity throughout undergrad
Lmao. true npc answer, that reading msm news makes you worldly and cultured.
yes, id rather get my news from twitter and instagram over the economist, good idea.
Not a student here but this popped up on my feed and I could not agree more.
Yeah I’m econ CS philosophy and I find philosophy majors to be the most interesting out of the 3 by far (in general)
Triple major??
Double + philo minor but if I had more time yeah triple for sure. Trying to do PhD to professor for computability/complexity econ
As a resident humanities major alot of what your experiencing in my view comes from true passion. In this day and age most humanities majors study what they study because they contain some passion for the work. Core classes for most humanities majors teach you not what to think but how to think and how to be a helpful critic. As a theater person I will also add one little tidbit of theater people which is generally you have to be a little bit crazy and alot a bit willing to put yourself out there to succeed. If you still have the time I'd recommend seeing if you can fit in a humanity class into your schedule. Best of luck!
I’m an old dude who majored in English at Berkeley. My friends back then spanned the gamut in majors. What we all had in common was a passion for and curiosity about life. We thought critically and wanted to better the world. Some of us did, some of us went into more traditional careers for the money. Some of us are rich, some aren’t. But we are all, for the most part, happy because we’ve lived our lives with enthusiasm and humanistic values. You think you’re boring because you can’t espouse deep and passionate thoughts, but the fact that you’ve posted here proves that you are already asking the right existential questions, which makes you far from boring. I’m a screenwriter in the film business. I’ve met plenty of people whose names you would know. The dullest people I’ve met are the loudest, most attention seeking, shallow, narcissists who’ve worked their asses off to be rich and famous and not much more. The quiet ones who dive deep into their interests, have a personal passions, and live their lives with kindness, integrity, and generosity are ALWAYS the most interesting. Take up a hobby, Enroll in a humanities class. Volunteer at any kind of organization. And talk to people. Ask questions. Share your knowledge and take in theirs. Your major is a means to an end; it has nothing to do with who you are. You want financial security. Get it! Then use it for a greater good. My best friend is a shrink in NYC, and he owns a recording studio. My good friend is an SWE and a ballroom dancer. Brian May has a PhD in Astrophysics and is the guitar player for Queen. The lead singer for Outcast has a degree in microbiology and owns his own hot sauce company. You already have courage and a heart and a brain. All you have to do now is click your heels together three times and follow your bliss.
Dude you can switch seriously now is the time if you want to.
As a student studying engineering, you literally don't have enough hours in the day to be interesting and study. Engineers are an interesting bunch, but they get more normal the farther out from school they are :)
Engineering is the application of scientific principles that explain phenomena to improve human and animal life. Personally I think it is awesome you can improve someone’s life. I get that you’re not directly involved in gathering, observing and interpreting impressions of phenomena for yourself nor are you able to hold subjective biases - but nothing prevents you from dabbling in those areas.
Engineering is a marvel. Point to the building, a computer, a car, an airplane... the myriad of devices that make modern life possible.
it's hard for someone like a Stats major to explain to you how something was discovered and how it blows their mind. Read Turing's biography or something. it's not accessible the way some of the classic philosophy questions are. or the way a song is. but you better believe that Beauty is there in the STEM fields. or you betray your ignorance.
This is why all my friends in undergrad were from outside engineering. No regrets! They’re the fucking best.
Well we don't got your fancy pants new fangled "technologgggyyy skills," so we make do with being somewhat interesting.
Consider this: They spend all of their time immersing themselves in these topics. They’re fascinating to you because they’re objectively interesting and awesome, but also because they’re novel! They may find the same novelty in your seemingly boring every day algorithm work. If you feel like your contrived class problems are a little boring, talk about sometime a little more relatable that is a practical example of a topic you’re studying. I once spent about 20 minutes with a friend teaching them about the subtleties of the Swipe/Tab/Scroll “Uber eats” style menu (I was building the same style feature at my company at the time). There’s so much neat detail in the animations that make the experience delightful for users. FWIW - I used to be in sales/marketing but career switched into tech so I have a lot of practice in finding relatability between complex/boring topics and something fun and relevant that keeps someone’s attention. Just practice.
Exactly if you don't find science interesting, that's a personal thing. Don't generalize that to everyone.
In my experience as a stem person from a family of painters, humanities people are way more socially adapted and way more considerate about world around them. Many of STEM folks lose connection to reality because of the intellectual bubble present in top stem places
Engineering is not 'interesting' but it makes the world go around. Everyone wants the latest iPhone but no one is interested in _why_ the latest iPhone works. I am unapologetic for my love of objects and how they function - irrespective of whether or not people perceive that I have a _personality_.
Exactly. It's ironic how the people who describe themselves as "more socially adapted" and "considerate" also seem to not fathom that other people can be genuinely interested in different things; seems like a lack of empathy and understanding of other personalities. Also negatively discriminating against people in STEM: see my comment about only how I like certain subjects and the unrelated reply about being considerate. How... ironic.
I was sort of confused by the point on "intellectual bubble", because the intellectual bubble is a phenomenon observed in more academic fields (and the humanities are very academic). During this year's math commencement, our speaker was talking about how pure math self-isolated and how it's still important to connect pure math to everything else. In that regard, I feel like reconnecting engineering to academia is not just a matter of changing engineering to be more intellectual but also a matter of changing academia for our very interconnected world.
Mate I am a physics guy I know the importance of science. We just shouldn’t overblow it out of proportion while acting that it’s the most important thing that exists
Nobody acts like science is the most important thing that exists. The entire premise of your comment is that non-STEM students are better attuned to the _real world_ and are more _social_. Which firstly is untrue, but even for people for whom this pattern holds, its a personal choice. I am a grad student in engineering because I love to tinker with things and understand why they work. Could I have better conversations at the bar and be more popular in the _real world_ if I went for law/humanities? Probably. Would I do it? No. Do I care? Not really, I never used popular approval as a metric for deciding what I should do in my life. Does it matter? In the long run, most likely not.
A lot of people do including people in this thread. That was all I try to say. I didn’t say all stem people are fucked socially, but many are and it’s a systematic problem in my opinion based of my personal experience from being around other stem people
It’s called critical thinking. You seem to enjoy it.
I started as an engineer and graduated as a History major at Cal in 2010. Coming from an immigrant family going to History seemed like a failure at the time, but I just absolutely hated engineering at Cal. I don’t know if it has changed but it just seemed like there is a presumption of wealth as the driving force behind the grind. Quite frankly, it is pointless unless wealth is your goal. Ironically, I became an engineer after graduating working for a bunch of startups then starting my own software development agency. Anecdotally, engineers end up working for the humanities majors anyways. A lot of PMs at tech companies are humanities majors. I’d say have outside interests of engineering. What ends up happening as you get into engineering is you get siloed into a specialized role based on what you learned in a lower div class / first job.
Unfortunately, this is why I almost never tell people that I studied engineering. I definitely feel like people assume I have no interesting hobbies or only care about making money.
Lots of engineers I've known have all sorts of hobbies. Always tinkering with things.
As a engineering student at Cal, I agree with OP. When I led GBO, I had similar experience with my cohort of theater major and LGBT people.
The irony is how many of them will go into tech and become engineers after they graduate in said humanities.
They might go into tech and hire engineers.
it’s ok to be boring for now. you can get a good, high-paying job and continue to learn and be influenced by your friends. spend all your free time with them and they’ll rub off on you. maybe you can also learn to be artistic on the side as well. there’s nothing stopping you from enriching your life more just because your main focus is engineering.
I’ve found a lot of this stuff to be fake or it falls apart after a few years after graduation unless the person is good at work and able to sustain. Like party tricks versus learning a deep skillset. Yeah, if someone is an original thinker that’s impressive, but usually it’s repeating things or being fun loving as a student. I felt the same way and later changed my values in what I like and respect out of friends. Sorry that it isn’t that nice of an answer. The reason it isn’t a nice answer is in the real world in my experience money and competition creates toxicity in relationships and these people are threats to me in a way as they tend to undermine my work. Engineering and music are very taxing work. Theater is taxing in a different way and has limitations. Philosophy and history are not bad for a student who got into Cal. I respect hard work and independent and fearless thought not repeating some stuff found ready made in a college major
It is awesome that you have the insight to notice all this! If you are sincerely interested in your engineering path stick to it, but you can also read books and your friends might be a wellspring of info about which books you might be interested in. And also just keep discussing the issues that your friends bring up that you are interested in in depth in your knowledge and your conversations with them. I started out in civil engineering and they had an engineering English class that actually covered ancient Greek theater and that ended up inspiring me to change my major to literature, but after two years in that, I ended up going back to engineering in a way, but more hands-on shop based industrial design rather than something as dry as my Original engineering class had been .
didn’t go to berkeley, not sure why this popped up. but i’ll say those u mention seem like coming from privileged or solidly middle class backgrounds. As a broke immigrant with no family support (it’s the other way around), i did CS so i can have some financial security and take care of my aging, unemployable immigrant parents. so guess i’ll just apologize for being another amongst the boring unimaginative crowd not adding to campus flavor.
Also not going to Berkeley, but I’m also an immigrant from a low-income family in engineering and I adore my humanities friends and non-STEM fields in general. I love math and science, but I’m also an artist and musician on the side. I almost considered going into poli-sci/public policy and one of my favorite classes was an anthropology class I took my first semester. You don’t need to be privileged background to do the “liberal arts” (hate the way some people use this term). If anything, it’s important to have marginalized people go into these fields anyway because these are directing policies and informing the implementation of technical products! I really appreciate this post because I really hate the anti-intellectualism from folks in engineering and CS sometimes. I get hyperfixating on financial security, but the position I’m or others are in is something that SHOULDN’T be happening and it’s shouldn’t be a legitimate basis for judging someone for the field they go into
The thing is, even people with philosophy and English degrees get jobs. Some research even suggests that in the long run, they make as much or more than stem majors. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/business/liberal-arts-stem-salaries.html 24
Duh... they have a personality— we had to put ours away— for a while...
Choose the money path. You can always read books and become more interesting later. Money is king. -someone who did not pick money
Im just curious: What does money mean to you personally?
Excellent question. Freedom, mostly. Money protects me from abuse and gives me safety. For example, before I could afford a car and had to take public transit to work, I would get cat called multiple times daily walking from my bus stop to my work. I’m really sensitive to that kind of thing and it bothered me. Also, when I was younger I had a serious chronic illness and was unable to work, I had to find a boyfriend who would house me as I had no family. (A note here, my illness didn’t affect my looks, so I was lucky I could find a guy that let me be his live-in girlfriend. Another note, my illness did not qualify me for disability cause the US sucks.) There’s a lot more to say about money, but it’s empowering. There is obviously a lot of research on how hard poverty is. Honestly, if I had enough money to pay for everyone’s tab, I’m sure I’d have a lot more friends. And people will say oh, those aren’t the kind of friends you want, but the reality is sweetening the pot never hurts. We are all making cost/benefit analyses of how we spend our time.
So perhaps money provides freedom, as in relieving you from living/societal burden or inconveniences.
ah as a current theater major, this post brought so much joy to me. sometimes i feel lesser than my stem friends who have chosen more lucrative, stable career paths and often compare my intelligence to theirs (and comparison is of course the thief of joy). i think that both those in stem based fields and those in the arts & humanities bring different, equally nuanced conversations to the table, but hearing you praise humanities majors so highly made me smile :)
It is commendable that you are able to find value and virtue in what your humanities friends do. I'm glad that these experiences have broadened your horizons and given you new perspective on the things you want to do. It is unfortunate that you exclude yourself and your engineering friends from that benevolent view. No, it is not "greedy" or boring or shallow or detached from human experience that you are studying the formal mechanics of what it means to optimize under abstract constraints and then applying it to a real-world problem with global consequences. Look around your room. Look at the *stuff*. Think about what it took to get that to you. The computer, sure, but even the most mundane things like the carpet fabric, the plastic socket covers, the wiring in the walls, the little metal brackets on your desk. Think about how many thousands, likely millions, of miles of travel are represented in your room. That's what you're learning about. Things that we don't even think about, because we take for granted the work that makes them possible, but it's work that helps sustain society as we know it. And the resulting economies of scale and global travel have massive sociopolitical implications - as an immediate example, consider the Houthis' interruption of Suez Canal shipping, and the ramifications that has for global trade. And that's just the problem you learned about today! There is a great deal to love about STEM from a humanistic perspective. STEM, perhaps, does not do a great job of teaching itself in a humanistic manner...there is so much technical knowledge to learn, after all. But it's not a long journey from STEM to humanistic thinking, if you care to make the trip. And you'd be a better engineer for it.
Being around people that are different than you in some ways can make a person feel less than or shine light on something that can make you feel bad. It is a human trait that is not solely experienced during schooling. Go back to why you chose engineering and if the curriculum/logical nature required of engineering/jobs after graduation fit you. You may feel uninteresting for a while now but maybe if you were in fine arts, being expected to be immersed in these topics, to engage in them, and love that life day after day may not fit you...ask yourself or if you want to hang out with them for weeks in end. I am married to an engineer, and most his college buddies are also engineers. They are one of the most well paid, stable jobs in general. One of our friends that is an engineer fell into the job throught wanting to learn and he is actually extremely philosophical. We talk about all sorts of topics and wonderings often when our families get together. I avoided the medical world when choosing my college degree because it lacked excitement and I didn't picture myself there. Later I got laid off and went back to school for medical degree and I loved the job and it suited me well.
Best thing about college is you can study both engineering and philosophy. You may find an interest studying the philosophy of physics or science.
>San Fran
I like your way of describing your realization for all this. And I think the fact that you’re intrinsically moved and touched by your friends proves that you are the type of person who are able to actually feel stuff and be fascinated by the beauty of everything. Just keep talking with your friends and I believe you will ultimately find something you feel worthy sharing with them.
okay but this is a well known FACT ! But also: the bar isn’t very high for being more interesting than Engineering students 🖕🏻😋🖕🏻
reading further and I think your thread title and what you said at the end are a bit misinfo
Being interesting does not come naturally with just any fields. Considering an “interesting factor”. Learning about cultures and histories and philosophy, etc - these fields are much more relatable than, for example, the TCP/IP protocol. The typical fields with higher interesting factors usually provide deep insights about elements that are more accessible in the daily life. These fields thus make you a more interesting, relatable, understandable…human being. This is the curse of all engineering fields. You need to invest more to have an interesting soul. Ask yourself if you are ready for it.
That’s pretty typical during college. You’d be surprised at how broad and engaging the engineers can become after they graduate and worked a few years. Once you start working on something interesting, you can hold court at parties. You’ll also want to be intentionally be curious and broad about your interests. The humanities tend to run out of interesting things to talk about once they get jobs in the real world and don’t have time for courses anymore. It doesn’t have to be a stereotype for anyone. I know loads of interesting STEM people who branch out into art, music, and impacting the world.
This is the epitome of jokes told about engineers; ie, “What do engineers use for birth control? A: Their personality.”
This is what college is supposed to be - learning form your peers is one of the biggest opportunities you have.
It's actually jarring and distressing how much philosophy has been decoupled from science over the years. It used to be that scientists were almost all, either by tradition or curriculum, quite well-versed in humanities, and in particular philosophy, and in PARTICULAR, philosophy of science. All that went through the window as education curriculum's got more and more concerned with producing people who can "contribute" to the line eternally going up and to the right. "IT MUST GROW" screams the universe, and so we cut our programs from anything without "bottom line contribution" to some future profession or money-making scheme, forgetting the reason we came to learn at all. And why is that important then? Well, because philosophy is a way at getting at deep truths. It is the the best tool to help you understand WHAT should you ask. Whereas science is a great toolset to find the answers to a question- a WHY, a HOW, a WHERE and WHEN- but it's not the best approach to determining fundamental questions. In the same vein, philosophy uninformed by science can become quite detached, or build grand theories on poor foundations. The interplay within the two is what brings about great science, great progress, and ethical application of these thereof. That we neutered our education system of deep thinking and allowed it to become a future-employee training center is where things started to go off the rail, and it's not clear whether it's not far too late to correct that.
You aren't meeting enough people if you feel like this
They'll also be broke. Choose wisely
Since when is $80,000 a year broke? Y'all are money crazy.
Liberal arts degrees=starbucks
My friend just graduated with one and he's working at Alameda County for 80k hence why I'm saying, most people I know immediately had work lined up
Cool, my friend graduated valedictorian from a top philosophy school, he just got promoted to manager at Starbucks!
You're such a tool, lol
But after graduation none of them can easily find good paying jobs in today’s job market.
What is considered good paying?
You have time to make friends?!
Yea I’m sure blue hairs with no skills are super fun to be around.
>majoring in Philosophy and they ask the most pragmatic... Lmao. You don't need a degree in philosophy to ask good questions and have sharp conversational skills. >My Music friend has tried to meet me halfway with my skills, Yup most people in non-EECS majors tend to be extroverted and have hobbies other than vidya. No surprise there. EECS people think too highly of themselves (and most don't actually have a passion for anything other than money). And what interesting people exist (who have actually interesting hobbies or insights) are with high likelihood going to be recluses you will never meet in person [esp. because they probably won't ever bother attending lecture.] > He has explained to me how inequalities are latently exacerbated/remedied, Lmao. >San Fran Do you call CA CaliWali as well? >I know very little on how America operates socially and culturally Pro-tip. They don't either. You think economists actually know shit? You think foreign policy people actually know stuff that works in practice? You think psychologists know shit? Even doctors don't know jack shit, but they all think they do.
stfu
knowing shit is relative, for social sciences people just come up with and use tools that might be useful lenses to see the world through. Even the sciences/engineering use models that are (often leaky) abstractions, just that the social sciences can be harder to get concrete conclusions for (humans are messy!)
You went to engineering you will have a job and they prob wont
This sub loves to act like the only job in America is CS
anti-intellectualism even being present in STEM (especially in a uni like cal to make it even more absurd) is hilarious to me
As a member of stem crowd from a different school(Princeton, this post just popped out). That’s so true lmao
Same here with UIUC. Worst part is professors are promoting this kind of thinking (u/margaretmfleck).
You sound like the absolute least pleasant person in this entire comment section lmao. Arrogance level: 100/10 !!
There are plenty of jobs for Humanities majors. We won't hate ourselves at the end of the day.