In terms of intelligence, STEM majors will always be higher on the ladder than everyone else. That's just how it is. I cringe whenever I read about someone who majors in geography, history, literature, etc. Personally, I want to have an education that challenges me and makes me think about how to solve complex problems, otherwise I'd get bored pretty quickly.
I'd also like to point out that it's depressing to see that even theoretical physics students just drink and fucc all the time and have very immature opinions on politics, human life and philosophy. It's like calculus is all they're good at.
I feel like I'm the only actual autistic robot on the campus.
TFW a PhD guy sees pedos on the news and goes on an emotional tantrum where is no longer able to think rationally.
Surpassing this sad state is not autism, it's just superiority.
lately im feeling that people just choose math or physics because they're boring losers who have nothing interesting about themselves
(yes this post is partly about you joseph, if you're reading this. fuck you btw youre an idiot)
also its funny that people think a smarter person would choose to stusy physics or math, when they are basically dooming themselves to a life of poverty.
if they were smart they'd be engineers or computer programmers or lawyers or doctors.
he's just being a pretentious faggot dude. Trying to act smart because like I said, he is uninteresting.
>>182103>work in a profession that interests me
>>182103>work in a profession that interests me
There are tons of grads who are either unemployed or work in McJobs for exactly the reason you're stating. Around 95% of these cases involve a liberal arts degree. You don't go to college to study something you enjoy. You go there to learn about how to escape poverty. Unless you're already rich, then carry on.
everyone ITT needs to realize that the term normal and normalfag also applies to educated people. Introverts and “wizards” will always be the minority in every setting, it’s just a fact of life.
To answer OP, I did reasonably well in school and do think I’m smarter than the average person.>>182103
There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just like the other have said though, there’s no job for history majors. Now if you went back to school and earned a high degree and stayed in academia, then you could make some money using a history degree. But that requires more education and for you to basically stay within the academic realm which can be suffering. Also you’d have to learn to write, a lot. Your job would be writing.
If you have a good idea about how to get that kind of job then it's fine.
I come from a long lineage of non-commercial uneducated Southern European farmers who have accomplished nothing but provide enough food for themselves at the end of the harvest. Am I retarded for thinking I have a chance at success with such poor slave genetics?
More often than not, success in education and academia is merely an indication that you have the kind of personality that can follow rules and muster up sterile motivation to memorize and regurgitate arbitrary information. You obviously can't be a complete retard, but education mostly rewards obedience. Even in my university days, the problems and exams were formulaic and one only needed to go through enough of them, memorize the general pattern and also go to every class as the professor often chunks out bits of information that aren't available anywhere else, perhaps as a way to reward the most obedient students.
In my experience, the people that got the best grades were often very average, but had a knack for studying, doing all the homework and trying to please the teacher. I often excelled in certain subjects like math and computer science without much effort and needing only to follow along on the lesson, but had a nasty aversion to subjects like history, where examination always boiled down to orally presenting a story, remembering dates and numbers like the amount of people who died in battle. I wasn't lazy or stupid, but simply found it difficult to justify my interest and effort in such a subject, at least not beyond having a high grade which failed to drive me towards doing the work.
One can safely conclude that intelligence does not equal education, but certainly some base amount is required. Having a degree is often just an indicator that you were willing to do the work required and your employer can be somewhat sure that you will do what he needs as well.
>>182122>the problems and exams were formulaic and one only needed to go through enough of them, memorize the general pattern
So you are saying that what you studied in college was not abstract?
There was no attempt to teach students a higher, deeper understanding of the subject matter. All my classes followed a general pattern of theory and practice, which were taught by different people, a professor and his assistants respectively. The theoretical classes were simply presenting what was already in the textbook and practice was generally going over all the types of problems one would encounter on an exam. If you were brilliant, you could come to that deep understanding using your own resources and approach, but everyone else simply had to memorize and repeat hoping down the line that the deeper gestalt would somehow materialize if all the smaller pieces were present. It often took me years to understand the deeper implication of something I learned to calculate using an algorithm. I could tell you the definition, list out some theorems, apply it correctly to a problem, but there was always a sense that something was missing. In general, I've felt like my schooling was largely a waste of time, an exercise in bureaucracy, getting enough required "points" to get to the next stage and get a piece of paper.
Well I learned math in college. Some of what I learned is applicable in understanding abstract reasoning. What did you study in college?
Computer science, but I ended up dropping out in my third year because I found a job. Like I said, I think education and academia requires a certain kind of personality. I always find it easier to learn when subject matter is directly applicable to some kind of problem I'm trying to solve, rather than purely something needed to pass an exam. I haven't regretted my decision to abandon higher education and I've found actual employment to be an infinitely more rewarding experience.
Things are actually looking up I'd say. I've specialised in a field that has a shortage of teachers here where I live, so I was already told that there's a good chance that I'm getting employed. I'm also a reservist transating stuff for my countries army during the summer breaks, so I'm not keeping all my eggs in one basket.
This is the problem with current education (though it may have always been like this I don’t know). The bar has been continually raised (or rather lowered?) so that now college is considered the minimum you need for a “good job”. And so college is just high school now. They are just degree mills, they exist to give out pieces of paper, not advance a field or generate knowledge. I still maintain that in graduate studies this is not the case, and it is much harder to get by with just turning in formulaic answers, but undergraduate studies are just high school for another 4 years.
Dead average or a bit below average intelligence. I have learning and emotional disabilities. My self awareness is high enough to see the farce but I all I can do is screech and mope.
Actually think it's worse being high IQ and neurotic, you'll always call out your own copes so few of them will actually work. Be low IQ and you can readily delude yourself into a more comfortable state of mind.
>>182092>I meet a professor of literature on /lit/
No you didn't
Definitively below average. I have a really hard time solving problems and im also the kind of person who's completely lacking on wits. (Also, im too much of a coward to rely on myself so i allways look up to others)
Im very good at bullshitting tho
In general, i absolutely hate the piece of garbage that i am and im glad one day im going to die. Soon, hopefully
This is the cold hard truth that I learned as I went through a STEM education. A degree is effectively a certificate of complacency.
Having taught a couple of courses, both at the undergraduate and graduate level, I could reliably notice that while succubi outperform men, this was entirely due to complacency. Men were consistently more stubborn, choosing to figure out things for themselves, or try things in a different way. And unfortunately, the grading systems don't look positively at such things.