"In fact, for most engineering jobs a master's degree is required."
I think that's the OP's point. Is the degree merely required to have the job, or are the things you could only know if you have a masters in Engineering actually the skills required for the tasks performed on the job?
What I replied to was the statement that "Masters and Doctorate programs have nothing to do with the real world of non-academic jobs", which in my world is just plain wrong.
And the reality is that you don't get to use what you learned in college in entry level jobs anyway
A lot of the work done in high energy physics is done by graduate students and post-docs, so yes, entry-level jobs require you do use what you learned in college and they are exciting.
building an OS from scratch, international monetary policies, building a skyscraper. But then you end up fixing typos on web pages, fetching coffee, updating Sarbanes-Oxley paperwork, etc.
For the rest of them you have point, but only a small one.
You know, Masters and Doctorate programs have nothing to do with the "real world" of non-academic jobs. There IS a lot that you don't learn in college, but you are expected to learn it on the job.
This may be true in the U.S. but its not true everywhere else. In many European countries, like my own home Sweden, a master's degree in engineering is not at all uncommon. In fact, for most engineering jobs a master's degree is required.
That doesn't mean it prepares you for the job.
You know, the original post stated that Masters and Doctorate programs have nothing to do with the "real world" of non-academic jobs, which in my world is plain wrong.
Niklask: The Swedish high engineering degree was (until recently) "civilingenjor". CivilingenjÃr is not as extensive as an international master's.
I wouldn't claim that a semester is "extensive". Furthermore, quite a few graduates with a lot more academic credits than what is required.
And my professor and colleagues at my home institution wouldn't agree with you. To them the newly instituted "real" master's program for European nationals isn't much different than the "civilingenjor" (which traditionally have been equated with a master's)
I hardly know anyone who graduated before they began to work.
You must come from a different time or place, because I know nobody who in practice wasn't ready to graduate.
An employer may ask for the moon and the stars but in the end he or she will end up with what the job market can deliver.
Of course, the job market might soon be able to deliver the moon and the stars at low prices.
You know, Masters and Doctorate programs have nothing to do with the "real world" of non-academic jobs. There IS a lot that you don't learn in college, but you are expected to learn it on the job.
This may be true in the U.S. but its not true everywhere else. In many European countries, like my own home Sweden, a master's degree in engineering is not at all uncommon. In fact, for most engineering jobs a master's degree is required.
Thanks for the info. One thing that confuses me about that is assuming everything is moving away from the origin of the universe, wouldn't all galaxies always move away from each other.
On large scales yes that is correct...
I recall reading that in some many billions of years, another galaxy will collide with ours. Wouldn't these 2 outcomes be mutually exclusive? Genuinely curious about this.
...but not on local scales, where the gravitational effects are larger. The Mily Way is gravitationally bound in the Local Group (see Wikipedia).
No speculation
Then why doesn't it agree with their own reasoning?
the band didn't tour and amassed fortunes on record sales.
Nobody is denying that. They were a great rock band.
They had the luxury of not touring when screaming teenagers became annoying.
So the screaming teenagers (and others) were not annoying when they played at Shae stadium? which btw, was the first ever concert in a stadium.
A handful of songs may not have been possible live (Revolution #9 or something)
Now you're just being ignorant. Revolution #9 was released on The White Album, which is much later after they stopped touring. I suggest you take a look at the live recording of "Nowhere man" for example. It sounds nothing like on the studio album. Or "Tomorrow never knows". Please enlighten us how they would have done all the loops etc without modern synthesizers?
but their music was performed live by their contemporaries in the late 1960's.
Some it was yes, but hardly ever those studio tracks that were difficult to play live in a four-piece band.
They could have done it if they enjoyed playing in front of large crowds or needed the extra money.
On the contrary, much of their post-Revolver music was not made for that. You know, they did love playing for large crowds, but got fed up with not being able to hear themselves while playing and thus not being able to improve. Money had little to do with this. Sorry mate.
Want to add a note though. Using The Beatles as an example today is sort of pointless, because we do have all the modern technology available.
I think the Beatles didn't tour after Revolver because they didn't have to, they were able to make a fortune on record sales. That may have been a short-lived era in popular music, but it shouldn't mean the end of creative music.
If you don't really know why they stopped touring, why not say so instead of speculating?
The Beatles got fed up with not hearing themselves play and people coming see them more than listen to them play. And at that time, they didn't have the technology available today to perform many of their later songs. That's why they stopped touring.
Btw. When they played Shae they had one 100 watt amplifier that was made specially for that concert.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
