- #1
weld
- 21
- 0
How "deep" are different science fields?
Am I correct in assuming there's more depth to CS, physics and math than chemistry, life science and Earth science? What about economics, seems even if you become a top notch researcher in that field, the math seems real simple and shallow.
And then there's philosophy - is it even worth considering? Seems like a useless, dead field to me. The only still thriving is philosophy of language. But is linguistics even worth considering? Its kinda different in that it doesn't depend as much as on math as other fields, but geez, even Chomsky is highly regarded amongst linguists. =/ Besides it seems young and simple/uncomplicated/easy compared to other fields.
Furthermore, if one wants to become a scientist, how's the job market for research positions in NA? People here say all the time that physics is crowded, you won't get to become a pure mathematician, there's lots of low hanging fruit in CS, etc. Any truth to this or not?
And what about those other fields in terms of job prospects (Econ, linguistics, chem, genetics, Earth science, etc)? Good, bad, cutthroat competition, stressful, impossible to get a job, horror stories abound, etc? Basically if you got knowledge on this, any kind of knowledge, throw it out. I really need knowledge so I can solidify my opinion on lots of sciences. Also, I've heard that the medical science field is especially horrible to work in, with cutthroat competition and more plagiarism than nay other science field.
Then there's the following:
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb99/sw_jan-feb99_page1.htm
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb99/sw_jan-feb99_page2.htm
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415643
Does this mean immunology, neuroscience and the like are horrible fields where you must spend tons of time reading and citing other people's work like crazy? Personally I would rather be gaining new insight by my self and solving problems than reading tons of papers. I want to quickly start doing what I want to do and perform my job impressively and efficiently. From the looks of it, CS and math seems ideal, but there might be sides of the issue which I overlook. Any viewpoints on this? Anything else you can fill me in on, like how long it takes to be proficient enough to do research in different fields, how much co-op it requires and the chances of ending up mediocre?
Finally, I want to spend as much time researching as possible, I prefer to avoid teaching, bureaucracy and the like. How do I prepare my self the best to avoid trivial nonsense? Thanks for any help you may offer me.
Am I correct in assuming there's more depth to CS, physics and math than chemistry, life science and Earth science? What about economics, seems even if you become a top notch researcher in that field, the math seems real simple and shallow.
And then there's philosophy - is it even worth considering? Seems like a useless, dead field to me. The only still thriving is philosophy of language. But is linguistics even worth considering? Its kinda different in that it doesn't depend as much as on math as other fields, but geez, even Chomsky is highly regarded amongst linguists. =/ Besides it seems young and simple/uncomplicated/easy compared to other fields.
Furthermore, if one wants to become a scientist, how's the job market for research positions in NA? People here say all the time that physics is crowded, you won't get to become a pure mathematician, there's lots of low hanging fruit in CS, etc. Any truth to this or not?
And what about those other fields in terms of job prospects (Econ, linguistics, chem, genetics, Earth science, etc)? Good, bad, cutthroat competition, stressful, impossible to get a job, horror stories abound, etc? Basically if you got knowledge on this, any kind of knowledge, throw it out. I really need knowledge so I can solidify my opinion on lots of sciences. Also, I've heard that the medical science field is especially horrible to work in, with cutthroat competition and more plagiarism than nay other science field.
Then there's the following:
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb99/sw_jan-feb99_page1.htm
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb99/sw_jan-feb99_page2.htm
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415643
Does this mean immunology, neuroscience and the like are horrible fields where you must spend tons of time reading and citing other people's work like crazy? Personally I would rather be gaining new insight by my self and solving problems than reading tons of papers. I want to quickly start doing what I want to do and perform my job impressively and efficiently. From the looks of it, CS and math seems ideal, but there might be sides of the issue which I overlook. Any viewpoints on this? Anything else you can fill me in on, like how long it takes to be proficient enough to do research in different fields, how much co-op it requires and the chances of ending up mediocre?
Finally, I want to spend as much time researching as possible, I prefer to avoid teaching, bureaucracy and the like. How do I prepare my self the best to avoid trivial nonsense? Thanks for any help you may offer me.
Last edited by a moderator: