Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I should have loved biology too

nehalslearnings.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 206 posts

Re: I should have loved biology too

#81

Post by mrtesthah »

1auralynn wrote: post #39

The field of biology was created by people who love to classify/name things. This has resulted in what we have now: A subject where the prerequisite to understanding is the ability to read long passages of text littered with jargon and visualize what that might represent. Even if everyone's reading skills were where they should be, the second part is not a super common skillset. It's one of the reasons why I work in…

>Much of biology you don't have to actually remember what things are called in order to understand the processes

But even that's besides the point of the fact that all these things are nothing more than abstractions created by humans, and ultimately it's all one giant soup of interacting molecules.

Re: I should have loved biology too

#82

Post by toast0 »

TinyRick wrote: post #32
intrasight wrote: post #5

My fork in the road with hard tech hard science versus biology was in high school. It seemed that students that wanted to become doctors took AP biology and students that wanted to be engineers took physics and chemistry. I had wanted to be an engineer since I was 12 years old so I felt the decision was already made. But all studying neural networks in college in the 80s I realized that there was this tremendously ri…

I would love to do something like this but simply cannot afford it. I think it is good advice but going back to school for a degree one does not plan on utilizing is not as feasible today as it was in the 80's, largely due to the sizeable increase in tuition without reciprocal increases in wages.

Depending on where you live, and what you want to study, you might be able to take a couple courses at the community college in areas of interest without spending a lot of money.

Re: I should have loved biology too

#83

Post by lotsofpulp »

mandolingual wrote: post #60
lotsofpulp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm a classic INTJ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi... > Despite its popularity, the MBTI has been widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community.[1][3][2] The validity (statistical validity and test validity) of the MBTI as a psychometric instrument has been the subject of much criticism. > Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are methodologically weak or unscientific.[13…

Any survey (as opposed to horoscopes which aren't up to user choice) can be used to convey information about a person, even if that information is what they think about themselves. "I took a survey and I'm a Slytherin" conveys plenty, and no one feels the need to point out that that's unscientific.

I get that, but I wanted to elucidate since many people think Myers Briggs is based on data and is not a fiction.

Re: I should have loved biology too

#84

Post by MattGrommes »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #75
Suppafly wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would love to do something like this but simply cannot afford it. Work for a company that will pay for it.

I can't imagine why a company would pay an engineer to get a masters degree in biology

A lot of companies will pay for at least part of whatever college classes you take, without auditing whether or not it would be good for your specific job.

I encourage people to look into it, it's a benefit a lot of people have but don't use and it's leaving money on the table.

Re: I should have loved biology too

#85

Post by biomcgary »

TinyRick wrote: post #32
intrasight wrote: post #5

My fork in the road with hard tech hard science versus biology was in high school. It seemed that students that wanted to become doctors took AP biology and students that wanted to be engineers took physics and chemistry. I had wanted to be an engineer since I was 12 years old so I felt the decision was already made. But all studying neural networks in college in the 80s I realized that there was this tremendously ri…

I would love to do something like this but simply cannot afford it. I think it is good advice but going back to school for a degree one does not plan on utilizing is not as feasible today as it was in the 80's, largely due to the sizeable increase in tuition without reciprocal increases in wages.

I was paid to get a PhD in Biology, albeit just enough to live on. Most people in PhD programs are, either through being a TA (teacher's assistant) or RA (research assistant). The real financial cost is the opportunity cost of 5-6 years of your life.

Whether or not broad support for training scientists holds up during and after the current administration remains to be seen.

Re: I should have loved biology too

#86

Post by alnwlsn »

kleiba wrote: post #2

A while ago, I taught CS for a year in a local high school. I can very much relate to the notion of "astonishing facts were presented without astonishment": as a teacher, you don't have the freedom to teach whatever you want (of course), but you're very tightly bound to a curriculum that's developed by the state government. And for CS, this curriculum was so uninteresting and uninspiring (what a surprise: 13 year old…

I've loved the history of computers since I was young, although if I was forced to learn about it in school I know it would suck.

Re: I should have loved biology too

#87

Post by shortrounddev2 »

MattGrommes wrote: post #84
shortrounddev2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine why a company would pay an engineer to get a masters degree in biology

A lot of companies will pay for at least part of whatever college classes you take, without auditing whether or not it would be good for your specific job. I encourage people to look into it, it's a benefit a lot of people have but don't use and it's leaving money on the table.

Every company I ever worked for constrained it in many ways

1. Masters degree only, they won't pay for anyone to get a bachelor's or associates

2. Must maintain a B average or better

3. Cannot take any time off, it has to be entirely on nights and weekends

4. Reimbursement after the fact, so you're taking on the initial financial risk up front.

Re: I should have loved biology too

#88

Post by dominicq »

MattGrommes wrote: post #84
shortrounddev2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine why a company would pay an engineer to get a masters degree in biology

A lot of companies will pay for at least part of whatever college classes you take, without auditing whether or not it would be good for your specific job. I encourage people to look into it, it's a benefit a lot of people have but don't use and it's leaving money on the table.

Can you say more? What kind of company would so such a thing? Maybe I live in a bubble but that's so far outside of what I've seen that it just sounds fantastical.

Re: I should have loved biology too

#89

Post by [deleted] »

svat wrote: post #74
throwaway5752 wrote: post #12

I am sure the author is a fine person, but this is an incredibly self-entitled piece. A number of biologists managed to make it through these classes just fine, and are paid much less for pursuing their passion (and making the breakthroughs the author enjoys reading about while on vacation). A title like "I wish I had enough attention to get through the boring parts of high school biology, I now find pop biology inte…

The post is not about becoming a professional academic/researcher in biology, so it's not clear why your comments (this and the earlier deleted one) focus on competency, calling the author "not cut out for biology", etc. The post is simply about what you call enough attention to get through the boring parts of high school biology — should biology in school be only for those who have that ability? Even if being a prof…

[deleted]

Re: I should have loved biology too

#90

Post by tqi »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #24
kleiba wrote: post #2

A while ago, I taught CS for a year in a local high school. I can very much relate to the notion of "astonishing facts were presented without astonishment": as a teacher, you don't have the freedom to teach whatever you want (of course), but you're very tightly bound to a curriculum that's developed by the state government. And for CS, this curriculum was so uninteresting and uninspiring (what a surprise: 13 year old…

Those curiculums developed by sould-dead gremiums in consensus on the minimum knowledge you goto have are a blight on western civilization. Instead of giving students the ability to discover a topic, or built something they are interested in themselves and then give them a understanding and fascination with the discoverers who have gone before them. Instead they kill the subject.. I must confess, it gives my dry old…

Ok... what would you do differently? Keep in mind you have to educate millions of students across an enormous spectrum of abilities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and interests.
Post reply on HN