131
You vs the guy she tells you not to worry about
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
131 points (99.2% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14333 readers
790 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I guess what i meant to ask was: Doesn't saying "masters in mathematics" imply a bachelors? If both are listed like OP does that imply multiple areas of study
mostly, yes. people tend to focus their masters on some area that their bachelors was about. a bachelors (~120 credit hours classroom instruction) is about giving the student a familiarity with many aspects of a broad topic. the masters is about giving a student familiarity with how to conduct specialized research on a narrower area within a broad topic. theres a lot less classroom instruction in a masters (~30 credit hours) program and more time pursuing specialized research. a BS in math says i know a lot about math. an MS in math says i conducted specialized research in a math area.
a prospective masters student is not required to not get an MS in the same area their BS was in. its just uncommon because its difficult, since a student has to apply for a masters program. you could, for argument's sake, have a BS in math and then decide to get an MA in art history.
the people running the graduate level art history program would approve you assuming you met the requirements of the program, but you would likely have to take some bachelor's level classes (as a "post baccalaureate" student) that students with a BA in art history would have taken before you could officially enter the program, as well as maybe an entrance exam of some kind to show basic proficiency in language, etc.
and they would definitely want to interview you and ask about your interest, what you want to research in art history and how you might be able to leverage your knowledge and training in math (if possible).
this theoretical person would be "multi-disciplinary" and a bit if an oddball in the masters art history program, but if they satisfied the requirements for the MA program and were a good student with a plan for what they specifically wanted to research and found an art history faculty member who would act as their advisor, it could happen and likely make everyone else in the department curious as hell, intellectually, about what their specific research topic was. and likely, they might want you to find a math faculty to be on their committee (with the art people) when they defend their masters research (typically a long oral exam in front of a panel aka the committee) assuming it includes some math stuff.
my bachelors was in an individualized inter-/multi-/transdisciplinary field, so i was all over the place on campus across 3 colleges and several departments, so i learned how to have hot takes in a wide variety of disciplines. i had wanted to keep some of that straddling-two-fields vibe with my MS, but ultimately it was too much of a hassle to wrangle in a tight window (i was also working full time).
its more common in PhDs, where a committee is larger and you get 5 years to put it all together instead of 2 like an MS.
so i just picked a narrow area i was most interested in, and did that.
i went to a dissertation defence of a multi-disciplinary PhD and it was amazing to watch the absolute inability of some of the faculty committee to grapple intellectually with very basic shit outside their area of expertise, while others were absolutely thrilled to learn new things and found the project very engaging.
truly, academia is a land of contrasts.
Nsh you can get a master's in anything as long as they accept you into the program.
Like the jump from mathematics to Western Philosophy is abit weird, but I would guess that he was probably a missiles guy (calculating trajectories, timing tables, etc.) in the military but he might just have a knack for languages (as many people who are good at mathematics often are) so they set him up to put him through the doctorate in Western Philosophy, specifically for this kind of job.
Or he is just had an interest in it and this is where he ended up with it. Idk really. Point is, you don't need to get a master's in the same thing you got your bachelor's in, but it is extremely difficult to be accepted into a master's program that wasn't your bachelor's, and usually nigh on impossible to get accepted into a doctorate program for something you don't have a bachelor's or master's in, so this person is probably extremely smart and well read.
Do you think so?
I'm friends with a well regarded mathematician who is deeply into philosophy. There's huge overlap with set theory and logic etc. I found studying philosophy to synergise with my STEM degree really well. It's a shame more people don't study it because you can be a complete humanities denying hypernerd and still find a niche if you enjoy thinking and argumentation (curtis yarvin I'm looking past you at peter singer etc)
Could easily be a different explained by differences in historically dominant schools of philosophical focus in different regions, or any other number of things, but I would think a lot of theoretical mathematicians are effectively operating in a space right adjacent to or overlapping philosophy and metaphysics.
I can absolutely agree with that if you are staying well away from continental philosophy. Otherwise, your strict logical theory really stops at Kant (unless you consider Smith, Marx or Engles philosophers, which, perhaps). But really, fuck Bertrand Russel and all his bullshit.
I sometimes forget that logic and set theory is technically part of the philosophical canon visavis the Greeks, even though it was literally the part of my philosophy minor I did the best in. But yes, I suppose that is a natural path.
Idk though, I always had a teacher who would watch the PhD students try to use a new lemma they created on a philosophical problem, just sigh, roll his eyes, and go "This is logic problem, not philosophy."
Edit: I also agree that STEM and the humanities go hand in hand. Engineering students in particular could use alot more exposure to actual philosophy, would probably stop them from being impressed by mid-wits like Lex Friedman.
uh yeah, very much so. and the fields of philosophy, math, physics, computer science continued to be deeply intertwined well into the 20th century. so I consider Godel and Church to be philosophers too. possibly Einstein, since most of the great debate in physics at the time were fundamentally philosophical debates. it's really infortunate that this strict separation and hyperspecializstion has become the norm nowadays. probably why physics hasn't produced any major discoveries / paradigm shifts in a century.
I learned about Z-F set theory and the logical foundations of mathematics in a philosophy class while I was pursuing a math degree, found it super helpful for later topics in math like advanced logic. the prof was one of the last members of the old guard, straddling the STEM-humanities divide. he had studied under one of the great polymath (interdisciplinary?) figures of the 20th century, and was himself an expert in a handful of fields that to me seemed unrelated. I would go on to be a huge nerd in many of these fields and learn the importance of breadth of knowledge.
even worse than engineers who think learning to read is below them is all the scientists who don't know the first thing about the philosophy of science.
It does imply it. But typically, you'd still list both on a resume with your university affiliation for each
By and large yes, but most programs need you to have taken a certain course load. So someone physics or comp sci with a minor in math could probably tack on one or two courses and meet the requirements.
I don't know how easy other majors would be, but I'd imagine an industrious econ major or math heavy engineering major could as well.