/math/ why waste your time on physics and computer science when

Many life sciences are actually pretty interesting, but the educations themselves are relaxed and their students ends up brainlets.

File: IMG_0023.png (220KB, 750x1334px)

220KB, 750x1334px

>>9105019
When you get to the acedemic level it's much different.
A BS in math is the best degree you can have to go into post graduate studies in theoretical life sciences. Check out pick related, ecology is naturally comfy for maths.

>>9105007
>life science
>theoretical science
pick one

>>9105117
>what is bioinformatics
>what is biosemiotics
>what is mathematical and theoretical biology
>I've never studied ecology and numerous other fields in the life sciences in enough detail to understand the integral part theoretical science plays.
Here are two examples
http://www.academia.edu/7799896/Spatial_variance_and_spatial_skewness_leading_indicators_of_regime_shifts_in_spatial_ecological_systems

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140234

>>9105150
Solid articles, but /sci/ is full of try-hard undergrads who think everything that isn't physics or math is shit. Don't waste your time.

>>9105007
>waste your time on physics
Learning how the world works is not a waste of time; I'll elaborate in a moment.
>computer science
Like it or not, computers are everywhere, and we need people to program them efficiently. To do so, those people need to be staying in math and logic.
>frontiers of theoretical science
That's debatable; theoretical science is vast.
>more interesting
Interest is relative. Different people have different interests.
>applicable to, well life
More directly applicable? Sure. But the laws of physics dictate the laws of nature, and it is impossible to understand how life "works" without also knowing physics.