Switch it up, y0
I've decided that I want to go into economics. When trying to get into college and thinking about what I wanted to do with my life, I came to the conclusion that politics and science needed some form of unification. My personal statement was centered on that very topic.
Our country’s founders were men of intellect, men who delighted in the pursuit of knowledge and strove to understand the world around them. Some were scientists, others philosophers; but all were bound together by a common innovative genius. When I look at our political world today, however, I see not brave pioneers but instead stuffy pundits. There is a growing disparity between scientists and politicians: where once they were one and the same, now they are of entirely different breeds. We have not had a president truly interested in scientific progress since the nineteenth century. Science has progressed rapidly, but the scientific community’s interactions with the world have degenerated into a crude exploitation of technology by the masses. It seems that the public’s only use for science is to provide medicines, weapons, and safeguards. Surely we of the scientific community yearn for more than just applications; the driving force of our predecessors was a need to know, to understand, to create, not simply to provide for a demanding public.
Due to this apparent division of science and politics, our culture has been ripped from its foundation in logic. Global warming is on the rise, nuclear proliferation fills the air with tension, and yet the world merely dabbles in scientific solutions. The people who make decisions regarding the resolution of global, national, and local issues have little grasp of scientific concepts and methods. Here lies the root of the problem.
When politicians were versed in science, they made universally applicable laws which were based on the rules of human nature, rather than narrow and exceptional circumstances. Law now, however, is centered on special cases. In physics, we search for a grand theory of unification. In law and politics, we divide into factions and search for ways to push through legislation that only applies to or benefits a small group. Logic is rarely part of public policy; our nation has turned away from reasonable goals. When science and politics were wedded through intellect, as they were in the days of the Founders, the goals of reason were the same as the goals of society.
I intend to deal in politics, but to be an effective lawmaker, lobbyist, or citizen, I feel that a scientific background is essential. I love science, math, and knowledge with all of my being, but I fear that the vitality of these fields within our nation is threatened. In a better world, I would be able to indulge in a purely scientific career. However, the faults of our society scream their calls to action too loudly to be ignored. I want to refine and add to my scientific repertoire so that I can succeed in furthering the cause of reason. I am determined to use a scientific background to introduce new policies and technologies that will change the world.
I feel like the field of economics is the embodiment of that union I dreamed of. It addresses social and political issues from an analytical standpoint, based somewhat in mathematics. I feel like economics is what I went to college for, I just didn't know it yet. The pay fot most economists ain't to shabby either... which doesn't hurt the case for life as an economist. Economists also have a variety of fields open to them. They can get political jobs, wall-street jobs, thinktank jobs, university jobs (obviously), business sector jobs... a degree/masters/PhD in economics does not lock me into a specific career, wheras a degree in Physics is kinda hard to directly apply to, say, a non-research government job.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure about this, and I'd better be, because next sem, I can either take economics or physics -- not both. Scheduling doesn't permit.
Also, economics is the reason I love Atlas Shrugged. The principals in Atlas Shrugged are the reason GM is going under. They cannot adapt their product, and they expect someone else to pull them out of a fall. In their "1.99 gas for a year!" ploy, they're expecting to bribe consumers with cheap gas, not recognizing that consumers aren't that stupid, that they know that gas prices won't be any better for their gas guzzling GM car when their year of cheap gas is up -- that gas prices may, in fact, be worse. Instead of adapting, they're expressly trying not to adapt. Who does that? And they think trying not to adapt will save their business that is failing because they aren't adapting? Their advisors should be sacked, and not in the fired way -- in the tossed in the river inside a sack filled with rocks way.
Done now, I swear.
ETA: So I was only done with the profession ramble.
For the last... I dunno, month and a half? I've been having the most godawful cough, which I attributed to allergies. And my mother finally made me go to the doctor about a week ago. She upped my allergy meds, assuming that I'd be better in a week. I went back to see her today. I'm not better.
She gave me some antibiotics, said if I weren't durastically better by Sunday, I have to go in for a chest x-ray. I don't want to be sick, and I really don't want to be really sick. I want to keep going to class and to work. I want to be able to go down and see Ian the minute he gets back, and not be in some room with one of those creepy-ass machines. But I also want to be able to have a conversation without bursting into fits of coughing, to take a deep breath without having my lungs sound like a rusted organ.
Now I'm done.
Our country’s founders were men of intellect, men who delighted in the pursuit of knowledge and strove to understand the world around them. Some were scientists, others philosophers; but all were bound together by a common innovative genius. When I look at our political world today, however, I see not brave pioneers but instead stuffy pundits. There is a growing disparity between scientists and politicians: where once they were one and the same, now they are of entirely different breeds. We have not had a president truly interested in scientific progress since the nineteenth century. Science has progressed rapidly, but the scientific community’s interactions with the world have degenerated into a crude exploitation of technology by the masses. It seems that the public’s only use for science is to provide medicines, weapons, and safeguards. Surely we of the scientific community yearn for more than just applications; the driving force of our predecessors was a need to know, to understand, to create, not simply to provide for a demanding public.
Due to this apparent division of science and politics, our culture has been ripped from its foundation in logic. Global warming is on the rise, nuclear proliferation fills the air with tension, and yet the world merely dabbles in scientific solutions. The people who make decisions regarding the resolution of global, national, and local issues have little grasp of scientific concepts and methods. Here lies the root of the problem.
When politicians were versed in science, they made universally applicable laws which were based on the rules of human nature, rather than narrow and exceptional circumstances. Law now, however, is centered on special cases. In physics, we search for a grand theory of unification. In law and politics, we divide into factions and search for ways to push through legislation that only applies to or benefits a small group. Logic is rarely part of public policy; our nation has turned away from reasonable goals. When science and politics were wedded through intellect, as they were in the days of the Founders, the goals of reason were the same as the goals of society.
I intend to deal in politics, but to be an effective lawmaker, lobbyist, or citizen, I feel that a scientific background is essential. I love science, math, and knowledge with all of my being, but I fear that the vitality of these fields within our nation is threatened. In a better world, I would be able to indulge in a purely scientific career. However, the faults of our society scream their calls to action too loudly to be ignored. I want to refine and add to my scientific repertoire so that I can succeed in furthering the cause of reason. I am determined to use a scientific background to introduce new policies and technologies that will change the world.
I feel like the field of economics is the embodiment of that union I dreamed of. It addresses social and political issues from an analytical standpoint, based somewhat in mathematics. I feel like economics is what I went to college for, I just didn't know it yet. The pay fot most economists ain't to shabby either... which doesn't hurt the case for life as an economist. Economists also have a variety of fields open to them. They can get political jobs, wall-street jobs, thinktank jobs, university jobs (obviously), business sector jobs... a degree/masters/PhD in economics does not lock me into a specific career, wheras a degree in Physics is kinda hard to directly apply to, say, a non-research government job.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure about this, and I'd better be, because next sem, I can either take economics or physics -- not both. Scheduling doesn't permit.
Also, economics is the reason I love Atlas Shrugged. The principals in Atlas Shrugged are the reason GM is going under. They cannot adapt their product, and they expect someone else to pull them out of a fall. In their "1.99 gas for a year!" ploy, they're expecting to bribe consumers with cheap gas, not recognizing that consumers aren't that stupid, that they know that gas prices won't be any better for their gas guzzling GM car when their year of cheap gas is up -- that gas prices may, in fact, be worse. Instead of adapting, they're expressly trying not to adapt. Who does that? And they think trying not to adapt will save their business that is failing because they aren't adapting? Their advisors should be sacked, and not in the fired way -- in the tossed in the river inside a sack filled with rocks way.
Done now, I swear.
ETA: So I was only done with the profession ramble.
For the last... I dunno, month and a half? I've been having the most godawful cough, which I attributed to allergies. And my mother finally made me go to the doctor about a week ago. She upped my allergy meds, assuming that I'd be better in a week. I went back to see her today. I'm not better.
She gave me some antibiotics, said if I weren't durastically better by Sunday, I have to go in for a chest x-ray. I don't want to be sick, and I really don't want to be really sick. I want to keep going to class and to work. I want to be able to go down and see Ian the minute he gets back, and not be in some room with one of those creepy-ass machines. But I also want to be able to have a conversation without bursting into fits of coughing, to take a deep breath without having my lungs sound like a rusted organ.
Now I'm done.