And, in general, do they ever get to find one related to what they studied?Originally Posted by Annamariah
And, in general, do they ever get to find one related to what they studied?
Some of them do, but many of them don't, I guess it's not far from the truth to say even that most of them don't. That's exactly why I was hesitant about going to university at all (I considered going to some "ammattikorkeakoulu" instead, they are schools that prepare their students for some profession), but then I found out about translation department and thought I'd give it a try(And I'm very happy that I did.)
Little Lotte thought of everything and nothing. Her hair was golden as the sun's rays and her soul as clear and blue as her eyes.
Gaston Leroux - The Phantom of the Opera
How sad it must be to have studied something and not being able to make a living out of it. You were lucky to find something you like and can live bySome of them do, but many of them don't, I guess it's not far from the truth to say even that most of them don't. That's exactly why I was hesitant about going to university at all (I considered going to some "ammattikorkeakoulu" instead, they are schools that prepare their students for some profession), but then I found out about translation department and thought I'd give it a try
I know
It's not as if those who study something like art history didn't know they'll probably never find a job related to their studies - most of them realise that when they apply to university. I guess there's always plenty of people who just want to study for the sake of studying something they're interested in and don't think that much about how to make their living for the rest of their lives. After all there are many professions that don't require any particular education, but which you might get if you've got a master's degree from the university.
Little Lotte thought of everything and nothing. Her hair was golden as the sun's rays and her soul as clear and blue as her eyes.
Gaston Leroux - The Phantom of the Opera
Yes, that happens. Many people study something just for the love of it, which is much better than loving nothing at all and, therefore, doing nothing at all purposeful with their livesI know
It's not as if those who study something like art history didn't know they'll probably never find a job related to their studies - most of them realise that when they apply to university. I guess there's always plenty of people who just want to study for the sake of studying something they're interested in and don't think that much about how to make their living for the rest of their lives. After all there are many professions that don't require any particular education, but which you might get if you've got a master's degree from the university.
That's right. It's not like I'd recommend studying something you don't even like just because it will help you to a profession which will earn you a lot of money. I would't have the motivation needed to pass my studies should that be the case - which is the reason I didn't go to Helsinki University of Technology to become a Master of Science when I had the chance to. (Half of my family was extremely disappointed when I made the decision, but I guess they've accepted the fact that I'll be a much better translator than I would have been if I became and engineerYes, that happens. Many people study something just for the love of it, which is much better than loving nothing at all and, therefore, doing nothing at all purposeful with their lives)
Little Lotte thought of everything and nothing. Her hair was golden as the sun's rays and her soul as clear and blue as her eyes.
Gaston Leroux - The Phantom of the Opera
Oh yes, engineering is for engineering-minded people, not for usThat's right. It's not like I'd recommend studying something you don't even like just because it will help you to a profession which will earn you a lot of money. I would't have the motivation needed to pass my studies should that be the case - which is the reason I didn't go to Helsinki University of Technology to become a Master of Science when I had the chance to. (Half of my family was extremely disappointed when I made the decision, but I guess they've accepted the fact that I'll be a much better translator than I would have been if I became and engineer
It's like medicine, I can watch all those seas of blood on TV, but I couldn't be a surgeon at all. I would faint right there, after vomiting a bit and then the poor patient would be as good as dead
Haha, that's exactly why I never even considered becoming a doctor even though my mother would have been very happy to see me in medical schoolOh yes, engineering is for engineering-minded people, not for us
It's like medicine, I can watch all those seas of blood on TV, but I couldn't be a surgeon at all. I would faint right there, after vomiting a bit and then the poor patient would be as good as dead
Little Lotte thought of everything and nothing. Her hair was golden as the sun's rays and her soul as clear and blue as her eyes.
Gaston Leroux - The Phantom of the Opera
Sure, we'd better stick to our language studies and the like, so no one will have to be put at riskHaha, that's exactly why I never even considered becoming a doctor even though my mother would have been very happy to see me in medical school...... though it's been proved that words can either heal.... or wound
I'm baffled by these anti-arts sentiments, given that this is a literature forum. Where I go to school, the study of literature is classified as an arts program.
In other news, my Queen Elizabeth II scholarship finally got credited to my ROSI account.
Last edited by AmericanEagle; 09-19-2009 at 08:10 PM.
The world is waiting for you - Phil Keoghan
Oh. I apologize if my ribbing caused you to think I had any anti-art sentiments.
Last edited by papayahed; 09-19-2009 at 10:01 PM.
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
Meh, science people just seem to hate arts students because arts students actually study something that is interesting. That's generally the problem - it's a sort of grudge, held, assuming the sciences student doesn't become a doctor, because the future incomes of both areas of studies ultimately end up the same in the end. So, in truth, while the science student, especially the engineers, need to be geeky, and study tedious formulas, diagrams and whatnot, the student of arts can approach things which they actually care about, assuming they are people actually interested in what they learn.
I can't see myself sitting around talking to people about molecular biology or whatever, or chemical laws, but I can see myself discussing (as this board is proof of) art, poetry, or better yet - discussing things in other languages. When it comes down to it, sciences seem kind of boring.
No worries
I think the problem is that people don't seem to realize that arts and sciences aren't mutually exclusive. Although I am an arts student, I did take a variety of courses when I was in high school, which included Grade 12 math, science, and humanities courses, and I did enjoy them all.
Last edited by AmericanEagle; 09-20-2009 at 12:50 AM.
The world is waiting for you - Phil Keoghan
I love the humanities and I definitely have a higher aptitude for them than anything else, but I've always been interested in pretty much anything. When I was declaring majors last year, I was about a hair's breadth away from being an aerospace engineer, naval architect, or oceanographer.
I love the way that scientists and engineers attack problems and find solutions (plus learning how the world works on a physical/chemical/biological level), but at the same time, I like the analysis skills required by the study of history. I don't think that the sciences and humanities have to oppose one another, and both are a vital part of a good education. A person should have a working knowledge of almost everything (particularly writers).
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, it's not.
I'm a living proof that there are exceptions to this general rule. I've always admired and respected artists and their arts, even being sort of a computer geek, if I can be called that way just because I've been studying about computers.
Science students can also be actually interested in what they learn. Their formulas may look tedious to an artist, but not to many of those involved in formula-based sciences. You see, the same as painters find beauty in what they paint, a mathematician may find beauty in resolving a theorem (though most of them, I admit, don't perceive the concept of "beauty" the same as an artist does, because their field of action is more "objective", and thus they don't express themselves the same as an artist would).
Now, when formulas become really tedious even for science students, I've seen an interesting approach implemented by several science teachers of today. There was this lady unable to remember a complex formula at the end of an exam, so she said "I can't remember it" and then her teacher replied "Young lady, I have no use for you remembering formulas by heart. What I really need to evaluate is how you use the formula once you see it, so if you can't remember how it goes, just look up the formula in your book and after that, just use it". And that's what she did. It was a type of exam with open books, as though they were told "solve the problem no matter what tools you use, even your class notebooks, everything counts".
I call this an artistic approach to science, and maybe this teacher was in some way a sort of artist himself. Just my thought.
Sciences are generally boring when students are taught in a theoretical way, without a view of the possible applications. For example, if physics teachers considered the use of a trebuchet to explain the principles of levers, that would be real fun, because you would be hurling stones at a target and at the same time you would be understanding how levers work. Science can be taught by playing games, when people want to teach and learn in a non-boring way.
This is but a piece of great truth
Has anyone ever seen a fractal? One of these computer-generated pictures? I believe that if you use a formula to create a picture, you are creating a form of artistic expression through a science, and I think it's perfectly valid. Many fractals look really artistic, even beautiful, though being generated by a mathematical formula. I think sciences can create art and arts can create sciences, the latter of which I comment below.
Nicely put. Actually, many sciences (if not all of them) are direct descendants of some form of art. For example, the first engineers were not scientists at all, they were artists. Now someone may well wonder who they were. Very simple: artillery craftsmen, makers of bows, catapults, trebuchets and every other ancient weapon. These people first devised their creations in an artistic way, by trial and error. There was no mathematics at those ancient times, no physics, no known gravity laws, just trial and error. What's more artistic than building a machine without following any specific method or pattern, but just pure instinct? Of course, after that there came the first modern engineers figuring out formulas from what they found in the operation of catapults and the like siege engines, and hence giving more accuracy to future devices and even applying the newly discovered principles to applications different from war, like those cranes we see today at the docks, lifting extra-heavy loads.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
