Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma (Post 8271395)

that's because making 100k+ in any job IS "rare".

to make 100k+ you either have to an exceptional position in some company or you run a business.

or... you take the time you have off to learn to invest. Which is how most 100k+ people are in the 100k+ range.

100k+ from the markets, is given out like candy.

If you work a job that pays 100k+, and you have some time for yourself. You're set up to be a millionaire. You just have to take that time to learn a new side skill and invest it.

There a lot of sub 100k job people making well over 100k.

Originally Posted by NKC ONE (Post 8271453)

we're talking 6 figures a month right?

I know i'm new here and might look like a troll but I joined to add my 2 cents into these discussions.

Originally Posted by Energy (Post 8271041)

I'm failing to see how what I said is evidence of a lack of critical learning?

Please "aware me" and explain.

Originally Posted by Sid Vicious (Post 8272771)

much of the information that is taught in class is based around academic research right? in addition your tuition funds academic research right?

assuming you developed your critical thinking skills, youll start to recognize that almost 75% of the information is purely bs or bogus, based on either
- poor research methods
- small sample sizes etc
- low reproducibility
- correlation but no causation
- plain ole bad science
- statistical modelling that is inappropriate for the subject matter

like i said before, most of the information relies on studies with low validity. for example, many marketing textbooks still contain maszlow's hierarchy of needs, which has been debunked years ago

Originally Posted by Sid Vicious (Post 8272771)

much of the information that is taught in class is based around academic research right? in addition your tuition funds academic research right?

assuming you developed your critical thinking skills, youll start to recognize that almost 75% of the information is purely bs or bogus, based on either
- poor research methods
- small sample sizes etc
- low reproducibility
- correlation but no causation
- plain ole bad science
- statistical modelling that is inappropriate for the subject matter

like i said before, most of the information relies on studies with low validity. for example, many marketing textbooks still contain maszlow's hierarchy of needs, which has been debunked years ago

Originally Posted by bing (Post 8273142)

My cousin used his econ degree (hons) from UBC to get a dream internship at the Bank of Canada and into Stanford Law (their ranked #2 with Harvard) and my other cousin with a BA in poli sci from an Ivy league university (she left to do her MBA now) worked as a financial analyst on wall street (hey, isn't that your field?) with one of the prestigious big banks. No, she didn't even apply the recruiters (JP Morgan, etc) came to find her in third year university on the recommendation of her professors with a 50k signing bonus and almost 200k/yr salary. My aunt is also a non-profit exec with a MA in psychology.

Originally Posted by Energy (Post 8272861)

Where do you get that 75% of the information is purely bogus or BS? I would be careful about making a claim like that.

You give one example of a concept that is the result of faulty research methods but that doesn't mean everything else is wrong. Maszlow's hierarchy of needs was the result of studies done on the top 1% of the population and thus not applicable to the general population. That doesn't mean it is not useful, the results are still applicable when dealing with people similar to those in the study.

And yes, my professor pointed that out and the errors in conducting that study allowed us to learn what not to do and to be critical about the results of academic research and the processes involved.

You're assuming that just because something is in a textbook that that is the end all be all. Well university is more then just readings. You take the readings, the prof should help clarify it or explain points of difficulty (like Maszlow's hierarchy), and you learn collaboratively with fellow students.

By the way, all the factors that you mention:

Are exactly what they teach us NOT to do if we want VALID results when conducting an empirical study.

You seem to have something against social science results because they are not exact.

You haven't addressed the grocery store example I gave in my post that you labelled as evidence of "a lack of critical learning".

Lets talk about a different concept that is the result of social science research taken from the behaviour of people. Basic supply and demand from Econ 101. Everyone knows that this is but it is also not correct all of the time because a multitude of factors can affect it. Does that make the general principle wrong for a lack of "validity" as you define it? People have been applying this in their lives and in business for a long time. I'm confident that studies in this area meet those requirements you listed above as well.

Do you still truly believe that social science results that are useful, can be reliably tested and replicated and applicable to real life ??

A pseudoscience is something presented as science but often does not have evidence backing it up or cannot be reliably replicated. Those fields of study you mentioned are definitely not pseudoscience like fortune-telling or crap like that.

Also, as a student, you have a duty to be an active learner and not just sit back and read textbooks and take everything at face value. If something doesn't seem right or you don't agree with a concept, go talk to your professor or your classmates. University is what you make out of it and I'm sorry if you still see things the way you described it in your first post.

Originally Posted by bing (Post 8273142)

At least for someone like me from the social sciences, were forced to read a combination of textbooks and academic research. I think you just made a great point of why people should go to university as part of the process of learning is to be able to look at a piece of research and criticize it with exactly the kinds of points you listed. We might read a lot of stuff in university but you'll probably forget a lot of it but the skills in analyzing is something you get to keep. Finally, if you want to put it that way, Max Weber pointed out that science itself doesn't have much validity when it keeps changing.

I really don't think university is overrated but I do think some people would be better going into the trades or vocational training. But again, I don't know your situation and how well you did in school. If you were just mediocre and didn't get that dream job that you had built yourself to expect, I can understand why you're pissed. Like I said, crappy student in the sciences won't be using their degree in their field either. I do know that if you were a top student, a liberal arts degree is fantastic. My cousin used his econ degree (hons) from UBC to get a dream internship at the Bank of Canada and into Stanford Law (their ranked #2 with Harvard) and my other cousin with a BA in poli sci from an Ivy league university (she left to do her MBA now) worked as a financial analyst on wall street (hey, isn't that your field?) with one of the prestigious big banks. No, she didn't even apply the recruiters (JP Morgan, etc) came to find her in third year university on the recommendation of her professors with a 50k signing bonus and almost 200k/yr salary. My aunt is also a non-profit exec with a MA in psychology.

Originally Posted by Sid Vicious (Post 8273297)

i was using mazlow's hierarchy as a common example. and the thing is...it is not useful at all simply because it's not true. it has nothing to do with who they did the study on, but simply because we're not simpletons who follow a hierarchical, triangular pattern of thought

and it's not even about the readings...lol you just don't get it. inevitably, it will fail because it attempts to simplify complex human thoughts and cognitive processes.

although not all bodies of knowledge in that category are pseudoscientific, a large part of it is, just click any random article on here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...ional_theories



and you're assuming that i even do the readings

Originally Posted by Energy (Post 8272861)

Where do you get that 75% of the information is purely bogus or BS? I would be careful about making a claim like that.
obvious hyperbole

You give one example of a concept that is the result of faulty research methods but that doesn't mean everything else is wrong. Maszlow's hierarchy of needs was the result of studies done on the top 1% of the population and thus not applicable to the general population. That doesn't mean it is not useful, the results are still applicable when dealing with people similar to those in the study.

And yes, my professor pointed that out and the errors in conducting that study allowed us to learn what not to do and to be critical about the results of academic research and the processes involved.

You're assuming that just because something is in a textbook that that is the end all be all. Well university is more then just readings. You take the readings, the prof should help clarify it or explain points of difficulty (like Maszlow's hierarchy), and you learn collaboratively with fellow students.

By the way, all the factors that you mention:

Are exactly what they teach us NOT to do if we want VALID results when conducting an empirical study.

You seem to have something against social science results because they are not exact.

You haven't addressed the grocery store example I gave in my post that you labelled as evidence of "a lack of critical learning
did they account for a grocery store layout control group? did they control for variables such as shopping hours, macroeconomic conditions etc. nothing like that was mentioned in your post which would affected the outcome of that study

Lets talk about a different concept that is the result of social science research taken from the behaviour of people. Basic supply and demand from Econ 101. Everyone knows that this is but it is also not correct all of the time because a multitude of factors can affect it. Does that make the general principle wrong for a lack of "validity" as you define it? People have been applying this in their lives and in business for a long time. I'm confident that studies in this area meet those requirements you listed above as well.

here's a good article describing the main problems with a discipline such as economics
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/in...bust?&Itemid=3
i never said social sciences were completely useless or whatever (although some aspects are), it's just not a science. its similar to disciplines such as history, english, sociology where its merits are mostly observational + inferential information. the actual hypothesis making and testing merits of social sciences are debatable

Do you still truly believe that social science results that are useful, can be reliably tested and replicated and applicable to real life ??
this isn't a question that makes sense

A pseudoscience is something presented as science but often does not have evidence backing it up or cannot be reliably replicated. Those fields of study you mentioned are definitely not pseudoscience like fortune-telling or crap like that.

Also, as a student, you have a duty to be an active learner and not just sit back and read textbooks and take everything at face value. If something doesn't seem right or you don't agree with a concept, go talk to your professor or your classmates. University is what you make out of it and I'm sorry if you still see things the way you described it in your first post.