Should Someone pursure career based on skill or happiness

[VoloD]

Hello Everyone

I am not 100 % sure if this belongs in career thread, so please feel free to tell me if this needs to be moved.
I am currently happy with the career path I have chosen, I am still pursuing my MS in Electrical Engineering. However, lately I have been curious about something. I understand that humanities and fine arts get the heavy hand of disdain from most people due to them considered "impractical". I have felt some of this discrimination in sciences, myself via unwillingly having Physics BS. My real point is, if someone is truly skilled or talented to have a higher GPA is the humanities (or fields like Journalism,Communications, Fine Arts ) does that mean they should pursue it. Even if fields like Comp Sci, Engineering, Technology are considered more difficult, should one pursue these things for their market while struggling instead of doing something else they may enjoy. I can go into more detail if needed, but basically if someone could potentially have a 3.5+ History versus a 2.5 or lower in Engineering, should skill determine their career decision or their heart.

 

[Dale]

Generally people enjoy things that they are skilled at, so I am not sure that the distinction makes a lot of sense. That said, any given person typically has multiple skills and multiple passions. Some of those will be more marketable than others, so it is worthwhile to think about the different options available and how to make the best individual tradeoff between the various skills and attitudes that you have.

 

[CalcNerd]

Using GPA to measure skill is NOT an accurate measuring stick. A world class institution (such as MIT) sometimes doesn't even provide a GPA, because 70% of their students would be 2.0 students vs Harvard may have a lot of soft science graduates with a 3.5 GPA. Can you determine who is the more skilled?

 

[atyy]

Using GPA to measure skill is NOT an accurate measuring stick. A world class institution (such as MIT) sometimes doesn't even provide a GPA, because 70% of their students would be 2.0 students vs Harvard may have a lot of soft science graduates with a 3.5 GPA. Can you determine who is the more skilled?

Do you have any evidence for this?

 

[SteamKing]

Hello Everyone

I am not 100 % sure if this belongs in career thread, so please feel free to tell me if this needs to be moved.
I am currently happy with the career path I have chosen, I am still pursuing my MS in Electrical Engineering. However, lately I have been curious about something. I understand that humanities and fine arts get the heavy hand of disdain from most people due to them considered "impractical". I have felt some of this discrimination in sciences, myself via unwillingly having Physics BS. My real point is, if someone is truly skilled or talented to have a higher GPA is the humanities (or fields like Journalism,Communications, Fine Arts ) does that mean they should pursue it. Even if fields like Comp Sci, Engineering, Technology are considered more difficult, should one pursue these things for their market while struggling instead of doing something else they may enjoy. I can go into more detail if needed, but basically if someone could potentially have a 3.5+ History versus a 2.5 or lower in Engineering, should skill determine their career decision or their heart.

Having a high GPA in a subject does not necessarily mean that you can make a viable living in this field. There are all sorts of graduates in the Humanities who got high marks in school who are living in their parents' basement, struggling to pay off student loans. The STEM fields are more difficult, because they require the mastery of more complex material in order to obtain a degree in one of these fields, hence the demand and the remuneration for these graduates outstrip those for people who study the humanities.

 

[russ_watters]

Agreed. The higher GPA in humanities vs STEM doesn't have anything to do with skill/talent; STEM is just harder. Based on that, unless one had a practical path for a humanities degree (teaching, advertising, treading water until law school), I wouldn't consider it a good idea unless exceptionally talented - ie, in a way not measurable by GPA.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I find it interesting how there seems to be this consensus that STEM is harder than the humanities, because during my university days, I've often struggled in the senior level humanities course I had taken than my math/stats/CS courses at any level (I was required to take 3 humanities/social science courses as part of my "breadth requirements", of which one had to beyond the introductory level).

And as an aside, I graduated from the University of Toronto, which in Canada has a reputation for being among the more intense and rigorous academic curricula in all areas (both STEM and non-STEM).

 

[SteamKing]

I find it interesting how there seems to be this consensus that STEM is harder than the humanities, because during my university days, I've often struggled in the senior level humanities course I had taken than my math/stats/CS courses at any level (I was required to take 3 humanities/social science courses as part of my "breadth requirements", of which one had to beyond the introductory level).

And as an aside, I graduated from the University of Toronto, which in Canada has a reputation for being among the more intense and rigorous academic curricula in all areas (both STEM and non-STEM).

STEM, IMO, is considered harder due to the variety of different subject material and skills which one must exhibit in order to be successful. The amount of math and science information one must master is daunting.

However, that being said, it is not always clear cut that someone who does well in studying the humanities would necessarily not do well in studying the STEM field and vice versa; I'm sure there are plenty of talented people who would be successful no matter what the field in STEM or the humanities.

 

[CalcNerd]

Do you have any evidence for this?

Evidence? Mine is anecdotal, but can be easily verified as to grading policies. MIT doesn't issue a GPA for freshman or sophomore course work, simply a pass/fail mark. Harvard (or Yale) do provide GPA information, and their student body would NOT accept low grades to be issued to them (for all sorts of reasons, mostly political, but they are also a selective school of top notch students in general). I am not saying Harvard cooks the books, they have high standards. I am saying comparing the two schools based upon their two measuring systems will be like measuring apples to oranges. Another measuring device is needed.

The original poster seemed to believe having a Higher GPA equated to being better in one subject that having a lower GPA in another subject. That may work at a lower education level, but do you feel it holds for the example I provided above?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Evidence? Mine is anecdotal, but can be easily verified as to grading policies. MIT doesn't issue a GPA for freshman or sophomore course work, simply a pass/fail mark.

It would have been a good idea for you to have done exactly this verification yourself. See http://wiki.mitadmissions.org/Freshman_Pass_No_Record

 

[symbolipoint]

It would have been a good idea for you to have done exactly this verification yourself. See http://wiki.mitadmissions.org/Freshman_Pass_No_Record

That is a very interesting system. That may work well for MIT because the students are highly motivated. Methods like that are used at a few other types of institutions, but at many of these, the students are typically disinterested in what they study.

 

[analogdesign]

I find it interesting how there seems to be this consensus that STEM is harder than the humanities, because during my university days, I've often struggled in the senior level humanities course I had taken than my math/stats/CS courses at any level (I was required to take 3 humanities/social science courses as part of my "breadth requirements", of which one had to beyond the introductory level).

.

In my experience, for the vast majority of STEM students humanities or general education courses are a lot easier for them. I certainly did much, much less work to get an A in music or history than I did in an engineering or physics class.

Also, I did have friends who were humanities majors who didn't do a hell of a lot of homework and almost never were on campus at night. Some of them get better GPAs than I did even though I worked night and day. Also, I had friends who did practically no work and while they didn't have stellar grades, that kind of work ethic would have gotten them flunked out of the college of engineering.

 

[VoloD]

I appreciate the comments. My general consensus so far is that even if is harder/longer to achieve an applicable STEM education, most students are better off in the long term with their STEM backgrounds versus those who have humanities/fine art backgrounds (even if they have much higher GPA ).

For those of you who are commenting, I am not saying GPA dictates success. I am asking is it better to be a superstar in humanities/fine arts / business degrees versus being a mediocre student in engineering/sciences.

I know there can be contention between certain fields like accounting or architecture, but I am genuinely concerned. Ill even add to the fact that even though I am re-pursuing engineering, I have an affinity for history, but I never pursued it because I felt it would not lead to a career I was comfortable with.

 

[analogdesign]

If you're truly a superstar, maybe, but a 3.5 in History is not a star. A mediocre STEM student might have better overall career prospects that a star History major... UNLESS the plan is for the History student to go to get an MBA or a JD.

 

[VoloD]

Ok then, maybe I should alter my superstar GPA example. I was considering what an awesome GPA would be in engineering. So i will increase it to (3.8+) in humanities/arts versus (roughly 2.5+) for engineers/science. Does that make this a little easier to understand my point.

 

[analogdesign]

I think doing something you're good at is important, but the real test is do you love it. I'm an engineer but I was actually stronger in humanities in high school. I scored higher on the verbal section of the SAT than I did on the math. I chose STEM because I love it, not because I suck at humanities.

 

[symbolipoint]

For those of you who are commenting, I am not saying GPA dictates success. I am asking is it better to be a superstar in humanities/fine arts / business degrees versus being a mediocre student in engineering/sciences.

Superstar, as in being very successful. Yes. Some such graduates are that. Try to meet some of them and ask each if he or she studied much of any Mathematics, Computer Science, or any physical sciences. I'm not saying they did one way or the other; I'm just saying, ask some!

 

[VoloD]

Superstar, as in being very successful. Yes. Some such graduates are that. Try to meet some of them and ask each if he or she studied much of any Mathematics, Computer Science, or any physical sciences. I'm not saying they did one way or the other; I'm just saying, ask some!

By superstar.. I was not talking about people who already have great careers. All I meant was that these are people who have A+ GPA in their majors. Replace superstar with "someone who has a high GPA" .

 

[symbolipoint]

By superstar.. I was not talking about people who already have great careers. All I meant was that these are people who have A+ GPA in their majors. Replace superstar with "someone who has a high GPA" .

That would make the gpa=4 physical science student more likely to be a superstar than the gpa=4 humanities student. MORE LIKELY, but not absolutely assured.

 

[StatGuy2000]

In my experience, for the vast majority of STEM students humanities or general education courses are a lot easier for them. I certainly did much, much less work to get an A in music or history than I did in an engineering or physics class.

Also, I did have friends who were humanities majors who didn't do a hell of a lot of homework and almost never were on campus at night. Some of them get better GPAs than I did even though I worked night and day. Also, I had friends who did practically no work and while they didn't have stellar grades, that kind of work ethic would have gotten them flunked out of the college of engineering.

It depends on the nature of the humanities majors and where they study. From my perspective, only the introductory or first year humanities courses tended to be easy, in the sense that one can plow through the material without putting too much work at all and get decent grades. I find that this ceased with the senior humanities course I took, which relied on heavy reading, and lengthy term papers that ate up a considerable period of time (which, given my course schedule, meant I struggled with them). But again, this really depends on who is teaching the humanities courses, the nature of the courses, and where the courses are being taught.

For the record, I pursued a math/stats degree, and I ended up getting taking a senior history class and I only ended up getting a B despite putting a lot of work; by contrast, I pretty much ended up with straight A's in my math & stats courses (which I put a tremendous amount of work to pull off).

 

[analogdesign]

It depends on the nature of the humanities majors and where they study... But again, this really depends on who is teaching the humanities courses, the nature of the courses, and where the courses are being taught.

For the record, I pursued a math/stats degree, and I ended up getting taking a senior history class and I only ended up getting a B despite putting a lot of work; by contrast, I pretty much ended up with straight A's in my math & stats courses (which I put a tremendous amount of work to pull off).

You make a very good point. I only attended one undergraduate school (a University of California campus) so while my experience was accurate at that time and place, I shouldn't have generalized. You're Canadian and you said schools in your country have more of a reputation for rigor and that could certainly be true. In California the rigor of courses are highly variable... it depends almost entirely on the whims of the professor.

Now that I think of it, I shouldn't have really said that Humanities courses are easier. However, I think it is pretty universal (having talked about this subject with a lot of people) that while excelling in either STEM or Humanities is difficult and requires a lot of work, it is much easier to skate by with a mediocre GPA in humanities than in STEM. About half the freshman engineering class at my college ended up washing out and transferring to humanities. People who started in humanities didn't see the same thing happen with their peers.

One other point I'd like to bring up is grading on a curve. STEM courses are more likely to be filled with extremely driven individuals... not just physics, math, and engineering students but extremely bright and hard-working pre-med students and the like. Driven, hard-working students exist in the humanities as well, of course, but their density seems lower. So, the difference in "difficulty" between humanities and STEM could just be a difference in competition rather than anything innate in the subject matter.

 

[StatGuy2000]

You make a very good point. I only attended one undergraduate school (a University of California campus) so while my experience was accurate at that time and place, I shouldn't have generalized. You're Canadian and you said schools in your country have more of a reputation for rigor and that could certainly be true. In California the rigor of courses are highly variable... it depends almost entirely on the whims of the professor.

Now that I think of it, I shouldn't have really said that Humanities courses are easier. However, I think it is pretty universal (having talked about this subject with a lot of people) that while excelling in either STEM or Humanities is difficult and requires a lot of work, it is much easier to skate by with a mediocre GPA in humanities than in STEM. About half the freshman engineering class at my college ended up washing out and transferring to humanities. People who started in humanities didn't see the same thing happen with their peers.

One other point I'd like to bring up is grading on a curve. STEM courses are more likely to be filled with extremely driven individuals... not just physics, math, and engineering students but extremely bright and hard-working pre-med students and the like. Driven, hard-working students exist in the humanities as well, of course, but their density seems lower. So, the difference in "difficulty" between humanities and STEM could just be a difference in competition rather than anything innate in the subject matter.

You make good points as well. I should add that reputation for rigor in the humanities applies to my alma mater, but I don't want to make the claim that this is universal across Canadian universities. Even within my school, the rigor of courses (particularly in the humanities) are highly variable.

I don't disagree that it is much easier to skate by with a mediocre GPA in humanities in STEM. And it is interesting that you point out about the freshman engineering class washing out and transferring to humanities. I wonder if the reason that this doesn't happen as often in the humanities is that those who fall in the bottom rank in terms of GPA for humanities often end up not completing their degrees (I thought I read somewhere that there is a significant percentage of college/university students who do not end up finishing their degree at all).

I also agree that STEM courses are more likely to be filled with extremely driven individuals (including the pre-med students you refer to). There is probably a cohort of students of driven students (particularly pre-law students) who can be found in the humanities, but the density would seem to be lower (not to mention that pre-law students can also come from the STEM fields and the social sciences, not just the humanities).

 

[VoloD]

These new responses are giving me better insight. I understand that to be happy you need to major in what, despite the challenges that you may have. Although to be fair, this is gauged by ones ability to perform well in classes. One of my primary reasons for this thread was that sometimes I wonder what life would have been like if I did something that possibly would be easier to learn such as history and english or another numeric majors like accounting, finance, information systems, technology or possibly even chosen a more manageable engineering (industrial,civil,etc).

This is due to fact that I earned my physics bachelors degree under circumstances in which I was struggling and did not know the best course to take. I feel that I am in a much better situation now in life, but my undergrad was regretful.

 

[VoloD]

I assume that if someone did a major in which they are performing very well with their grades (3.5 +), it may lead to better job prospects for them, despite the fact that it may be more saturated than engineering/science .

 

[RaulTheUCSCSlug]

Hello Everyone

I am not 100 % sure if this belongs in career thread, so please feel free to tell me if this needs to be moved.
I am currently happy with the career path I have chosen, I am still pursuing my MS in Electrical Engineering. However, lately I have been curious about something. I understand that humanities and fine arts get the heavy hand of disdain from most people due to them considered "impractical". I have felt some of this discrimination in sciences, myself via unwillingly having Physics BS. My real point is, if someone is truly skilled or talented to have a higher GPA is the humanities (or fields like Journalism,Communications, Fine Arts ) does that mean they should pursue it. Even if fields like Comp Sci, Engineering, Technology are considered more difficult, should one pursue these things for their market while struggling instead of doing something else they may enjoy. I can go into more detail if needed, but basically if someone could potentially have a 3.5+ History versus a 2.5 or lower in Engineering, should skill determine their career decision or their heart.

Generally, GPA from college really only counts for your first job. But some people in the humanities are very good at what they do, and I have seen some people try to get into the sciences and be truly miserable. Here at UCSC, we have a Computer Science: Game Design B.S. where the focus is on the computer science rather then the art of making video games. I have met people that have gone from Computer Science: Game Design (CSGD) to Art degrees because they were not happy with all the computer science classes they had to take.

I think college is a time where you truly need to find yourself. I mean, money is certainly important, and keeps me wanting to continue a STEM degree (Physics/Math double major) but it certainly isn't the only reason why I am in it. I guess people just have to ask... "Does my happiness matter, or does money matter?" And if one matters more then the other... well why? What does one have to prove? One defines their own success by their own terms. Anyways, that's my input as a current college student.

 

[RaulTheUCSCSlug]

This is due to fact that I earned my physics bachelors degree under circumstances in which I was struggling and did not know the best course to take. I feel that I am in a much better situation now in life, but my undergrad was regretful.

I ask myself a lot, "Is physics really what I want to do?" and honestly, sometimes believe that I trick myself into thinking that I want to do Research and Development just because that is what I have been saying since High School. But, although I am not very good at it. I believe that I am passionate about physics, I want to use it to help people. I build circuits, and wonder of super conductors, and sometimes think of how life would be as an EE major, or another engineering major.

But one thing is for sure... I would hate to be a humanities major, because I can not stand some of the literary readings that I would have to do. The writing of essay after essay, reading text after text, of what to me seems like jargon, does not sound appealing to me. So for now I stick with Math and Physics, since I know it makes me happier then non-STEM majors. Not for the money, I don't even know if there is money out there for me, you know??

 

[brainbaby]

Hello Everyone

I am not 100 % sure if this belongs in career thread, so please feel free to tell me if this needs to be moved.
I am currently happy with the career path I have chosen, I am still pursuing my MS in Electrical Engineering. However, lately I have been curious about something. I understand that humanities and fine arts get the heavy hand of disdain from most people due to them considered "impractical". I have felt some of this discrimination in sciences, myself via unwillingly having Physics BS. My real point is, if someone is truly skilled or talented to have a higher GPA is the humanities (or fields like Journalism,Communications, Fine Arts ) does that mean they should pursue it. Even if fields like Comp Sci, Engineering, Technology are considered more difficult, should one pursue these things for their market while struggling instead of doing something else they may enjoy. I can go into more detail if needed, but basically if someone could potentially have a 3.5+ History versus a 2.5 or lower in Engineering, should skill determine their career decision or their heart.

The greatest teacher in the world is not someone residing in a prestigious college or university..but its only our passion residing in us..we will be really happy when we pursue our passion...(i am talking about passion not hobby)..every thing human(s) do is for their happiness whether earning money ..building house..loving someone ..etc..So the ultimate common goal is to remain happy...Now what prevent us from being happy?..and the answer to this question is 'society'..the only problem is in a thing that we value ourself as the society force us to ..there are two type of professions ..high earned .eg like engineering or medical etc and low earned eg painting (artist) sorry if some have any..society value high earned professions...and according to maslow's theory one also needs appreciation to be happy...and if you are not in a high earning profession then society won't value you..which would result you to be unhappy...so there are two type of happiness...one which you get from society in form of appreciation ..and one which you get from within yourself when you pursue your passion...so it depends on you what you choose..

 

[yoron]

Impressed by your question, but there is no easy answer to it. I liked what the guy wrote just after your question though. That you need to weight your passion relative those other talents you have. In the end you're born, and then you die. While living you will do a lot of mistakes, but so it is for most of us. Maybe it is better to go for your dreams, even if it leave you a little poorer. I really wish I knew there :) But I still value my dreams.
=

Let's put it differently, what is bravery? To do what you feel is right, or to adapt? That includes getting low grades in something you really feel for, people advising you to choose something more fitting to your talents? Is passion bravery?

 

[Niflheim]

Impressed by your question, but there is no easy answer to it. I liked what the guy wrote just after your question though. That you need to weight your passion relative those other talents you have. In the end you're born, and then you die. While living you will do a lot of mistakes, but so it is for most of us. Maybe it is better to go for your dreams, even if it leave you a little poorer. I really wish I knew there :) But I still value my dreams.
=

Let's put it differently, what is bravery? To do what you feel is right, or to adapt? That includes getting low grades in something you really feel for, people advising you to choose something more fitting to your talents? Is passion bravery?

Something to add on to this, along with the fact that you will eventually die your life is incredibly small and short. A very smart man told me that individual lives are like regular fires on Earth compared to the Sun, and you can either be a little ember, clinging on to life and always playing it safe, only caring about living and running away from risks, or you can be an explosion. IMO it's better to live fast and die young having accomplished a lot and having a good life than to play it safe with your career and whatnot and living a long time in misery.

 

[axmls]

it's better to live fast and die young having accomplished a lot and having a good life than to play it safe with your career and whatnot and living a long time in misery.

There's certainly a middle ground here.

 

[yoron]

Thanks Niflheim, but I doubt we all can burn in that way, it depends on what you mean by it naturally? Making your life a statement, or just going your own way? I was more thinking of the pursuit of happiness in general. :) Somewhat selfish that one I admit, but from a personal point of view incredibly important.

 

[Niflheim]

Thanks Niflheim, but I doubt we all can burn in that way, it depends on what you mean by it naturally? Making your life a statement, or just going your own way? I was more thinking of the pursuit of happiness in general. :) Somewhat selfish that one I admit, but from a personal point of view incredibly important.

Don't take what I said the wrong way, I was emphasizing that one should take risks and do what you want, and not play it safe your whole life.

 

[jmeps]

To all, first and foremost, no matter what you choose as a major, if you do not have an affinity for said work your GPA will always be lacking. Humanities harder? Not by any stretch of the imagination. STEM likewise. What you personally love is where you will spend the time and effort. The rest is noise, and when you finally get to a job, do you think that you will stay at one that you do not like regardless of the money? Bottom line, decide what you do not want to do, that makes finding what you like to do easier.

 

[Crichigo]

Generally people enjoy things that they are skilled at, so I am not sure that the distinction makes a lot of sense. That said, any given person typically has multiple skills and multiple passions. Some of those will be more marketable than others, so it is worthwhile to think about the different options available and how to make the best individual tradeoff between the various skills and attitudes that you have.

You are wrong when you say that people have multiple passions. I think that people have multiple interests and the one that they most but really most enjoy is their passion. Sorry for being so anoying.

 

[RaulTheUCSCSlug]

Lets get some Admin to respond to this, I would love to hear their input.