Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Most valuable degrees for the next decade? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by esrever)
    Data Science. It may be hyped a bit too much right now and it may fall in popularity in the next few years. But definitely one of the most valuable degree.
    Something like 20Bn IoT devices are expected to be online by 2020, that's a lot of data to analyse. Popularity may decline in the next few decades, maybe (just because who knows what might happen, maybe AI will 'automate' that role to a large degree. But in a few years? It will probably increase fairly rapidly.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I am currently in college.
    It's not going to be degrees, it's going to be masters and Phds, degrees are becoming a dime a dozen.

    One thing that is constantly pushed in any module that is forward thinking, is data science, mining data, data analytics.
    This is a combination of computer science, mathematics and statistics. Because almost everything is turning to online, there are tremendous amounts of data collected every second. This data can be used in marketing, advertising, quality control, consumer habits, design.. basically all elements of business because the most important thing in business is to turn a profit, and to turn a profit you must sell something of value. What is of value is decided by the consumers so their thoughts are vital.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Yes I can. Let's look at Facebook for example. A wonderful way for people to share their lives in a social manner. Fantastic!! Well done Mark. Or a platform for bullying, hate crime, radicalisation and paedophilia. And what are Facebook doing about it? Well not a whole lot. After all, they are only the platform.
    Facebook is a tool, and like any effective tool, it's equally effective at good and bad utilisation. You can't lay the blame for unethical uses of a tool at the feet of the creator otherwise anyone who has ever created anything ever is ethically dubious when measured to that standard. I suppose you hold the originators of language in equally poor regard seeing as the spoken word can be used to transmit dangerous ideas and information?

    Then we have Elon Musk going full steam ahead for self driving cars because the world will such a better place with self driving cars. Not only will accidents be completely eliminated but people will be able to get to their destination stress free. Fantastic - bring it on... except worldwide, hundreds of millions of people will be made redundant whilst large multi-nationals make even more money.
    Like you said yourself, the introduction of self-driving cars will both save lives, increase traffic efficiency, be better for the environment, and remove the need for people to fulfil a monotonous task which is more suited for automation.

    It is a potential disaster in waiting for the masses of low skilled workers who will see automation be able to do their jobs, but this isn't the first time society has been through such revolution. Agriculture and industrial advances have at other times in history reduced dependence on human labour. Automation will be no different. Elon Musk is also one of the pioneers who is equally pushing for universal basic income to ensure that people being displaced by automation aren't left high and dry.

    And Bill Gates - well yes, he is probably a nice guy, but in the 90s there was a time when Microsoft appeared to be taking over the world with shoddy releases of Windows 95. To this end, what does it say about your company when a James Bond villain is modelled around you and your company's dominance? (Tomorrow Never Dies)
    Microsoft's business practices in the 90's were questionable, they abused their monopoly position. I won't excuse that.

    But Bill Gates as a modern day philanthropist is more than making amends for that part of his history.

    And as for Jeff Bezos. Yep - I get it, Amazon is amazing. At any time of the day I can order almost any product in my pyjamas and it will arrive a few hours later. Superb. Except my local town centre has been decimated. Those once well frequented and lovely book shops have all gone and contrary to popular belief, I now have less choice on some products that I did before. But hey - that is progress and should be allowed to continue unchecked.
    The town centre destroyed nomadic cultures, and the supermarket is destroying the town centre. Internet shopping is a natural evolution of that. There's no sense crying over the inevitable march of progress. Progress has been an inevitable part of our culture since before our species were even actually human. I'm still dumbfounded how caught out and surprised people can be that it takes place today.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    Facebook is a tool, and like any effective tool, it's equally effective at good and bad utilisation. You can't lay the blame for unethical uses of a tool at the feet of the creator otherwise anyone who has ever created anything ever is ethically dubious when measured to that standard.
    You absolutely can. If we are talking about ethics then it is ethical to think about all the uses of the tools you create before you unleash them on the world. But even so, Facebook has millions and millions of dollars at its disposal. It could quite easily eliminate much of the hate speech on its site but it chooses not to. The irony is that if you and I were to talk into Facebook HQ screaming and shouting hate, at best we would be asked to leave and at worst we would be forcibly removed. Yet Facebook deem that sort of behaviour on their site as acceptable. That is their ethical choice and one I disagree with.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Counter-terrorism/International security, international relations? Something along those lines.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    You absolutely can. If we are talking about ethics then it is ethical to think about all the uses of the tools you create before you unleash them on the world. But even so, Facebook has millions and millions of dollars at its disposal. It could quite easily eliminate much of the hate speech on its site but it chooses not to. The irony is that if you and I were to talk into Facebook HQ screaming and shouting hate, at best we would be asked to leave and at worst we would be forcibly removed. Yet Facebook deem that sort of behaviour on their site as acceptable. That is their ethical choice and one I disagree with.
    Well then the creator of every tool ever created is culpable for the misdeeds done with it by your standards. There is literally nothing created that you can't find an immoral use for, and logically it stands to reason that the more effective a tool is at fulfilling its primary purpose, the more devastating it can be when it's utility is turned towards destructive goals.

    So Mark Zuckerberg as the founder of Facebook, a communication tool is only as ethically culpable for its uses as every other inventor ever is for every tool which has both good and bad uses. Under that standard of measuring a person's ethics, only those who create nothing could be considered innocent.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    Well then the creator of every tool ever created is culpable for the misdeeds done with it by your standards. There is literally nothing created that you can't find an immoral use for, and logically it stands to reason that the more effective a tool is at fulfilling its primary purpose, the more devastating it can be when it's utility is turned towards destructive goals.

    So Mark Zuckerberg as the founder of Facebook, a communication tool is only as ethically culpable for its uses as every other inventor ever is for every tool which has both good and bad uses. Under that standard of measuring a person's ethics, only those who create nothing could be considered innocent.
    Dude - you are arguing with yourself here. The response which you have chosen to argue with was about the ethics. A poster cited the creators of the likes of Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and Tesla and suggested that they were ethical on the basis of their philanthropy. My point is that their companies do not take a particularly ethical stance. At no point did I enlighten you or anyone to my own ethical point of view. I merely pointed out some of the ethical arguments that are levied against the likes of Facebook. So feel free to keep arguing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Dude - you are arguing with yourself here. The response which you have chosen to argue with was about the ethics. A poster cited the creators of the likes of Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and Tesla and suggested that they were ethical on the basis of their philanthropy. My point is that their companies do not take a particularly ethical stance. At no point did I enlighten you or anyone to my own ethical point of view. I merely pointed out some of the ethical arguments that are levied against the likes of Facebook. So feel free to keep arguing.
    No, I'm still contesting your statements.

    Your original statement that Silicon Valley doesn't give a stuff about ethics, the big player's philanthropic work would be the most obvious way to contradict that.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    No, I'm still contesting your statements.

    Your original statement that Silicon Valley doesn't give a stuff about ethics, the big player's philanthropic work would be the most obvious way to contradict that.
    You are quite right. On the one hand we have Mark Zuckerberb trying to make the world a better place through his charitable foundation. And on the other hand you have Facebook harbouring paedophiles, terrorists and extremists. How does that square? I find it interesting that they have finally been cajoled into action off the back of the US election and #fakenews gate.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    And on the other hand you have Facebook harbouring paedophiles, terrorists and extremists. How does that square?
    It's inevitable that if you make a tool that is better at doing something than it's precursors then bad people will use it. You're conflating unethical acts by people using a tool, with the person who created the tool not having been ethical.

    You can at most argue Zuckerberg was short sighted in not implementing better safeguarding in his creation, but there is a difference between naivety in how a creation could be used and the person who created it not giving a stuff about ethics.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    BSc Web Science
    BA/Sc Product design (fast prototyping)
    BEng Energy Engineering (batteries specialism)
    BA Social Media Management
    BA Brand Management
    BA Talent Management
    BA Negotiating
    BSc Marketing Psychology
    BA Organisation Development
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    What isn't a stem subject after nearly all the subjects have been added
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    It's inevitable that if you make a tool that is better at doing something than it's precursors then bad people will use it. You're conflating unethical acts by people using a tool, with the person who created the tool not having been ethical.
    But it isn't a tool. It is a business model and a very good one at that. But to say that it is out there and is down to those who use it to use it nicely is simply naive. Facebook have the power to censor or to set house rules as other forums such as this do. But the generally choose not to. It has been interesting to see that as the result of some larger advertisers pulling away from Facebook as a result of the fake news scandal, Facebook has finally started to take the content people post a little more seriously. I also think that legislators have a role to play. Snowdon for example is a big advocate for giving the police access to Facebook. It is after all, more ideal to have the law makers legislate and police something like Facebook than Zuckerburgs own philosophy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    But it isn't a tool. It is a business model and a very good one at that. But to say that it is out there and is down to those who use it to use it nicely is simply naive. Facebook have the power to censor or to set house rules as other forums such as this do. But the generally choose not to. It has been interesting to see that as the result of some larger advertisers pulling away from Facebook as a result of the fake news scandal, Facebook has finally started to take the content people post a little more seriously. I also think that legislators have a role to play. Snowdon for example is a big advocate for giving the police access to Facebook. It is after all, more ideal to have the law makers legislate and police something like Facebook than Zuckerburgs own philosophy.
    Facebook does have certain things that are censored (try posting nude pictures), they do enforce community guidelines (I accidentally got a friend banned by reporting 3 pictures he tagged me in as harassment just hoping they would be deleted but instead the account was frozen), but for the most part we are left to post what we want because the only people who should really encounter it are those who elect to view our content.

    Facebook, unlike this site, isn't a public forum. People reading my shared content have elected to do so and can at any time unfollow me. There is inherently not the same level of moderation required by that as there is a public forum.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    And as for Jeff Bezos. Yep - I get it, Amazon is amazing. At any time of the day I can order almost any product in my pyjamas and it will arrive a few hours later. Superb. Except my local town centre has been decimated. Those once well frequented and lovely book shops have all gone and contrary to popular belief, I now have less choice on some products that I did before. But hey - that is progress and should be allowed to continue unchecked.
    [QUOTE=ByEeek;72864054]
    You forget to mention how does Amazon treat his employees. Wages are not good and people are pushed to the edge. Also the management doesn't even know how badly they pay their people. They build large parkings next to their warehouses, when American directors visited their centers in Poland, one of them asked why the parking is empty. He did not realise that their eployees can't afford even 10yo+ car.

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    IBM said that the world would only require 4 computers and they should all be built by IBM. I can't help feeling that as Amazon start to take on our food retailers, they feel we only need one shop for everything - and it will be called Amazon - which will be using self driving trucks developed by Elon Musk with software written by Bill Gates and marketed by Mark Zuckerberg. Great - our whole lives run by four men who weren't even elected. Very ethical.

    It is of course a perfect scenario in eyes of their money-motivated people from expansion department, but it's not going to happen.

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    A little bit of thought about the ethics of what was being created could have made something just as good but without so much of the bad.
    You see, the problem is that people with strong ethics may have the same ideas and never do anything to make them come into reality, because of their ethics, but there will always be someone more less wise, or more selfish who will have the same idea and make it come true.



    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    Elon Musk is also one of the pioneers who is equally pushing for universal basic income to ensure that people being displaced by automation aren't left high and dry.
    I bet it won't help and actually people will just have to compete with machines on who is cheaper. And if it will, it won't solve a problem. I know what would I do, If I had a basic incompe, but lots of people will feel lost and uselless. Lots will become vulnerable to alcoholism. We will need some sort of society-teachers/animators who will help people to find something productive to do with their time.

    Another big problem that we should have in mind, is that there is simply too many people. If you took money of 10 richest people shared it between all people around the world, each would get about 85 dollars. And even if that's not the case millions will suffer due to degradation of natural environment, caused not only by climate changes, but mainly by overpopulation - many regions of Africa are already unable to feed their human population, and providing them with food, better agriculture, and better wells only make the problem bigger because they don't have knowledge, means or will to control their births.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BTAnonymous)
    All engineering disciplines.

    Massive deficit of engineers especially in the UK
    This reply is for everyone.

    I understand the need for engineering places but what about its half brother?
    Architecture?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oneiropólos)
    This reply is for everyone.

    I understand the need for engineering places but what about its half brother?
    Architecture?
    (Original post by Oneiropólos)
    This reply is for everyone.

    I understand the need for engineering places but what about its half brother?
    Architecture?
    Erm, there's a huge difference between engineering and architecture. you cannot relate the two.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    PPE of course!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    BSc Web Science
    BA/Sc Product design (fast prototyping)
    BEng Energy Engineering (batteries specialism)
    BA Social Media Management
    BA Brand Management
    BA Talent Management
    BA Negotiating
    BSc Marketing Psychology
    BA Organisation Development
    Everything below Energy Engineering is called common sense.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broscientist)
    Everything below Energy Engineering is called common sense.
    And a high demand marketable skillset.

    If negotiation, OD and market insight is common sense then you have a vastly different definition of "common" to me
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.