There are smart people in the UK, Europe, etc who get top grades in their finals and yet decide to pursue Physics, Math, etc instead of Medicine, Law, etc for their undergraduate degrees. Some aspire to do research in the future.
Yes, I understand that being a doctor or lawyer is stressful, but why don't these smart people go for "easy" jobs instead? Being a physiotherapist, nutritionist or actuary is not that stressful. Working for the government is nice as it's difficult to be fired from your job. This is certainly the case compared to something such as a researcher where no results = no funding = no income.
Really, all jobs are boring in their own ways. Even if they are interesting at the start, they become dull over time. Why not just pick something which leads to a stable income and learn to love that job?
Simply put, because they love to learn and discover, and it's thrilling to go into uncharted territory.
And we should all be happy that they want to do this. It's because of the curious minds like those that we get new technologies, algorithms, maths, which shapes the modern world.
>Yes, I understand that being a doctor or lawyer is stressful, but why don't these smart people go for "easy" jobs instead? Being a physiotherapist, nutritionist or actuary is not that stressful.
While I myself have not major in medicine would it not be wiser to go in as a Doctor while you are still young and then become a Nutritionist once you have retired and/or gotten too old to practice it regularly?
Why not burger-flipping? It's about as useful. Working in Law is literally benefitting from people being assholes to each other.
At least in medicine there's a *potential* for progress, instead of fixing a neverending tide of broken bodies. A chance to invent a new drug or new treatment. As a lawyer you will never leave anything lasting behind.
You can either spend 70% of life doing what you hate to have money for spending the remaining 30% of life doing what you like.
Or you can spend 100% of your life doing what you like.
>Most UK actuarial employers will be looking for trainees with a good degree (2:1 or above)
>Employers favour candidates with degrees in a numerate subject such as mathematics, statistics, economics, engineering, chemistry, physics or actuarial science.
Did you go into STEM without having an aptitude/interest for it? Is this the only way you can cope with your quarter life crisis?
>Most people hate their jobs over time. All jobs are stressful and your passion will be sapped away over time.
Not that anon but that has more to do with changes in the industry/field/company one works in rather than the job in on itself.
That's why it's a common occurrence for people to leave to make their own business or do freelance. Often doing exactly the same thing they before with more financial/creative control.
This is going to be /sci/'s own "every day until you like it" isn't it
I swear to god you "why isn't everyone working to be a millionaire!?" people are just as bad, if not worse than /pol/ and their "if you're over 25 and not having kids you're a degenerate" meme. Fuck off, you can get vindication for your stupid opinion on places a lot better than an anonymous Taiwanese zoetrope forum.
First, because they don't now about academic life and problems to get funded or the immense competition to get a good job.
Secondly, because some fall for the STEM=good job meme and think that they are so smart that the degree will be no problem.
Thirdly, because most 'top grade' students have this strange idealistic world view that science (as pure as possible) will explain everything and is worth more than keeping the civilization running.
Some care for discovery or just enjoy working with abstract ideas more than dealing with people. But you don't know whether you like it until some years into your degree, so most people are in for a disappointment.
Procuring a college degree is like signing a contract. There's also no real win-case-scenario unless a person happens to be cool with all of the stipulations of the contract. SELL YOUR SOUL.
great point op, reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.
what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).
You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.