[eavesdropper]

[quote=njtosd]I agree that everything should be viewed with a skeptical eye, and I agree that the website mentioned in the original post is a little heavy on hype. [/quote]

njtosd, the website wasn’t “a little heavy on hype”. It was nothing but hype. If you read through it, it made claims of “natural” cures for a large number of widely differing diseases and disorders. It misquoted legitimate research, used material quoted on similar sites as “research findings, and made wild claims of extraordinarily successful results from technologies that don’t exist.

Are you aware of the incredibly high number of sites out there just like this one? All being read by people who take it as gospel because the site owners put on a white coat, talk about a “natural” cure, and talk about “research findings” from “scientists” at institutions with immediately recognizable prestigious names.

[quote=njtosd]However, the journal citation that you are looking for is here:

Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C, et al. Sun Exposure and Mortality From Melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:195–99.

And furthermore, there is an interesting (although I know very little about this) summary in Science Daily entitled “Two Studies Find Evidence That Sunlight May Have Beneficial Influence On Cancer”

(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050205130639.htm)

The Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide, in “Benefits of Moderate Sun Exposure” admits the possibility of a relationship between low Vitamin D levels and cancer, and suggests that people may have gone a little too far in avoiding sunshine: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0604d.shtml%5B/quote%5D

There’s a lot of completely different stuff here. But if you actually read these papers, you find that virtually every one talks about “risk” and “incidence” of cancers. These are epidemiological studies, and the papers are authored by epidemiological researchers. They look at a certain number of people who have or have had some form (or various forms, but I won’t go into why that’s not a good idea…) of cancer, and then ask them all sorts of questions about their health, habits, diet, family history, work, education, etc. They do the same with a group of people who have never had cancer. Then they look at the common factors, and low levels of Vitamin D is one of them. Supposedly, many of these studies show very low or nonexistent levels, and these are the ones that the “natural cure” proponents are all over.

Epi studies are very tricky, and quite often, even though the papers are supposed to have been peer-reviewed, they have very serious flaws. or design issues. But even more important is the fact that INCIDENCE does not mean CAUSE. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is no scientific evidence on record of sunlight or Vitamin D megadoses curing cancer, and there’s been no causal link established between the development of any of the cancers she mentions and lack of sunlight and/or Vitamin D.

The Journal of the NCI reference you provided is from 2005. Six years have elapsed since then, during which time, some causal link should have been isolated, if it indeed exists. But there’s nothing on record.

I’m sorry: establishing increased incidence is not enough to go around the country claiming that hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer could have been prevented, or avoided, as many of these epidemiologists have done. That is wildly irresponsible.

[quote=njtosd]
The Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide, in “Benefits of Moderate Sun Exposure” admits the possibility of a relationship between low Vitamin D levels and cancer, and suggests that people may have gone a little too far in avoiding sunshine: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0604d.shtml

[/quote]

No offense, but……Gee, y’think?! And that’s precisely the problem with what these people are doing. It doesn’t take much for the news media to get all up in arms about medical “discoveries.” That’s how sunscreen got to be so popular and, ultimately, completely abused.

[quote=njtosd] And you’re right – there is no evidence that megadoses of Vitamin D cures cancer, but dismissing the possibility of a relationship out of hand (and you were pretty harsh) seems a little closed minded. I used to TA for a class at Michigan called “The Biology of Cancer;” the number of things that have gone from being accepted to disproved (and vice versa) over the years should make everyone a little careful about dismissing ideas that make some sense. [/quote]

njtosd, I didn’t dismiss the possibility out of hand. Not at all. But establishing a causal link means that a researcher has to be able to identify the mechanism of the link, if it exists. That HAS NOT happened. There was some preliminary identification of some D3 pathways as possibly complicit, several years back, but very little since then. What’s more is that there’s almost no one working on it.

When you really start to examine this in greater detail, you begin to recognize the same names coming up over and over on lists of researchers working on the Vit D issue. The list is strikingly short, and it is made up primarily of epidemiologists whose work is being disseminated not by respected medical journals, but by non-peer-reviewed nutrition site.

I do believe that most Americans probably lack sufficient Vit D in their diets, and a whole mess of other vitamins also. But that doesn’t mean that suddenly increasing Vit D intake by 1000% will instantly cure you of cancer, or totally prevent it from developing.

There’s a lot of ideas out there that appear to make sense. That doesn’t mean that we should try to force them to fit desired results. Wouldn’t that defeats the whole purpose of the scientific method, doesn’t it?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Aecetia][quote=svelte][quote=ocrenter]

Most of the things you mentioned are all positive, or at least part of normal living.
[/quote]

Well I don’t know about you but I don’t think getting old is a positive! lol

They are all businesses prepared to offer a service who are seeking people needing that service. I see no problem with that, even if it is for an event that people aren’t happy about.[/quote]

I keep getting advertising for cremation. I just keep wondering if they know something I do not![/quote]

Damn, Aecetia, that was funny!! And I needed a laugh.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Veritas] I am not so sure that NIH or any of the other government sites are any more honest than the quack sites. Some in the corporate medical profession seem to profit from keeping people sick rather than curing them. [/quote]

On what non-anecdotal evidence do you base these statements? And I’m not talking “honesty”. I’m talking scientific evidence.

Unfortunately, you’re not alone in your broad-based judgements. Statements identical to yours are being repeated by millions of Americans, including some of our esteemed presidential candidates. And I will probably regret asking this, but what in the world does the “corporate medical profession” and your allegation that they are keeping people sick have to do with the NIH? What IS the “corporate medical profession”?

[quote=Veritas]No need for you to attack me or come up with your pathetic two conclusions. You obviously have some kind of axe to grind and I do not. [/quote]

You’re right. I do have an axe to grind. But not with you.

If you had read the statement carefully, and endeavored to comprehend it, you would have realized that I (1) stated that I didn’t understand WHY you had posted it, (2) that, in the absence of any information to that effect in your post, I was left to determine whether it was (a) you were profiting from it, or (b) you had had an altruistic motive in doing so. Since I did not elaborate on Possibility #1, and addressed only Possibility #2, it would appear that I was NOT of the opinion that you had posted the information in the pursuit of personal profit. And despite what njtosd assumed in another post, I am well aware of your lengthy history as a Pigg’s poster, and took that as further evidence of your just wanting to share what you believed to be important and scientifically-accurate health information.

I didn’t attack you. However, I did attack the source of your information, and I don’t regret doing so. I admit to having major issues with people, such as the “researcher” in your source website (and, I suspect, owner of the site), who disseminate false or distorted health-related information in an effort to sell a product, or advance an agenda. I am particularly angered when they claim impressive-sounding credentials, and partner that with a claim that they promote only “natural” remedies and cures.

Over the years, I have spent countless hours (i.e., thousands) counseling patients, and also family members and friends, who have heard about the latest “miracle” cure from a friend or a magazine article or a “health website” that was actually a marketing site. And contrary to what you and others on this thread may believe, I never dismiss anything out of hand that I haven’t checked out thoroughly.

I don’t research things to prove that they’re not true. I wish that I did since that would take next to no time at all: one can always find “evidence” to support their opinion. To support a position, you have to approach the subject with a completely open mind. So what that means is that I spend a tremendous amount of time trying to establish the validity of the information someone has given me. Since I initially decided to respond to your original post, I have done several lengthy literature searches (and that’s not the same as a Google search), and I’ve read a few dozen scientific papers regarding the role of Vitamin D in preventing both a wide variety of cancers, and in preventing serious illnesses. I’ve also done exhaustive research on the authors of these papers and articles, in addition to reading a large number of articles in a variety of publications, some geared to laypersons, other to the medical/scientific community. I did this for the initial post, and I did it again following the more recent ones.

Just to establish a point you raised. Despite your statement to “Keep drinking that NCI and NIH Kool Ade”, that, in no way describes how I approach these issues. Despite my trust in the competence of the NIH, NCI, and CDC, and in the validity of the information they post on their sites, I wouldn’t automatically take their word for anything. I trust the information they disseminate because it is *always* accompanied by the references to scientific research studies/publications that they have cited, and I read THAT material AND cross-reference it, before accepting, or rejecting, the particular agency’s opinions. Because I go to those lengths to establish validity, I feel comfortable telling those who have consulted me that they should use these agencies to gather their own information when necessary.

In case you don’t remember, YOU started this thread with this statement: “Ironically, sun exposure may even be a natural cancer cure for a variety of cancers, INCLUDING the feared MELANOMA, according to findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.” That would be the very same National Cancer Institute (NCI) I referred you to in my post. If you feel more comfortable doing so, you can subscribe to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Cancer Cell, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Environmental & Molecular Mutagenesis, Cell & Molecular Biology, and many other journals to establish that you are directly accessing information from the scientists and researchers conducting these studies, rather than placing your trust in agencies that you believe lack scientific integrity. Subscriptions to the journals can be quite expensive (several hundreds of dollars yearly for each one), but virtually all of the reputable peer-reviewed journals post their contents in PubMed, which contains over 20 million biomedical lit citations. But keep in mind that it’s run by the NIH and National Library of Medicine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

[quote=Veritas]You probably think Roundup Ready 2 Yield® food is good for you because the government has approved of it, too.[/quote]

I know nothing about this subject, and honestly don’t have the time to delve into it right now. Since I don’t sense that you’re actually asking for a discussion of the pros and cons of Roundup Ready 2 Yield® food, I’ll simply make sure that I avoid it if I’m offered any.

However, if you have important information on its safety, or lack thereof, I wish you would share it. I mean that sincerely. I’m sorry that I didn’t adopt a “kinder, gentler” way of casting my doubt on the source of information in your original post, but I’m not always politically correct in these situations. I honestly was not attacking you, Veritas, and I apologize if it sounded that way.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=sunny88]My wife and I received a letter from a realtor recently stating that “divorce is an uncomfortable process, no matter what the reasons behind it…. Either way, I am here to help you both”. ……I’m even thinking of filing a complaint to the Department of Real Estate. What do you think?[/quote]

sunny, no question about it: the guy is not only cheap and sleazy, he’s obviously clueless, too.

You can file a complaint with the appropriate state government agency, but I’m willing to bet you’ll get someone who will tell you that Sleazoid acted appropriately and entirely within the law. While implying that you’re exhibiting spoiled middle class citizen behavioral traits by calling to complain.

I think that you’ll get a lot more satisfaction if you find public arenas in which to embarrass him. You won’t have to risk slander or libel: simply provide the details of this guy’s brilliant and innovative direct marketing ploy, like you did here, and the word will spread. Letters to local newspapers if they have “citizen bitchin'” columns. Real estate sites where you can enter comments on this guy’s listings. Perhaps a YouTube video.

However, the frustrated ACLU attorney deep inside me thinks that you might want to phone the guy first, and tell him that you didn’t appreciate what he did. He may be having a really tough time of it financially, like so many these days, desperately trying to come up with marketing ideas that will keep him in business, and the thought that it might be hurtful and offensive to potential clients didn’t occur to him. Cluelessness can be a situation-related temporary condition – it isn’t always a hard-wired character deficiency.

But if the guy does turn out to be the total dick that everyone’s predicting, go for the jugular, baby!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=sunny88]This falls into the category of “ambulance chasers”…[/quote]

sunny, how can you say that? I’ve seen the commercials. They really seem like nice people, and they’re going to protect me against that bastard whose car I totaled when he somehow got in front of my Land Cruiser. (Hello??! I was trying to text my girlfriends about the really cute t-shirt I got from Victoria’s Secret.)

And they’re going to work to get me what I deserve. They said so. Right on the same commercial.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Veritas]Worth reading. Not an endorsement either way.

“Is Sunshine a Natural Cancer Cure for Melanoma, Prostate Cancer, Lymph Cancer & non-Hodgkins Lymphoma?”

“Ironically, sun exposure may even be a natural cancer cure for a variety of cancers, INCLUDING the feared MELANOMA, according to findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.”
http://www.healthdiscoveries.net/natural-cancer-cure.html%5B/quote%5D

Veritas, this is NOT worth reading. I’m not sure what your purpose was in posting it; I’ll assume that it is one of two reasons:

(1) You stand to profit in some way from posting the URL for this site, and used the sensationalism of the title, and the implied NCI imprimatur to draw people in. If this is the case, I’ll assume that you’re not interested in discussing the validity of the information.

Or

(2) You accidentally came upon this website, and, believing that the site owner was of sterling repute, and the information was of sound scientific origin and significant importance, wanted to share. Kudos if this is the situation.

However,

At the risk of sounding harsh, the “information” is pure, unadulterated crap. The website is just another one of thousands that target vulnerable patients and their families, while posing as knowledgeable and highly ethical purveyors of scientific/medical information. In reality, most are cheap marketing sites for some product or the other. In this particular version, potential customers are advised to contact Connie Hargrave, MA, ECT, a “researcher” of dubious distinction for “recommendations” of products (and can anyone tell me the meaning of ECT as used by Ms. Hargrave?).

She claims to have posted medical research findings, but I checked the site over pretty good, and didn’t find a single journal article or conference abstract, or weblink, citation, or reference to supporting literature. The quote you included alluded to “findings published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute”, which would appear to be a good place for a link to said findings. Instead, there was a link to even more of Ms. Hargrave’s “research findings”. She engages in name-dropping of minor scientific figures, along with incomplete or distorted interpretations of their alleged research findings.

Yes, I took the time to research the information presented on the site. Let’s just say that much of what is presented is very seriously flawed, or outright false.

There’s nothing worth reading here; what’s more is that Ms. Hargrave and her like-minded counterparts on the internet have the potential to do great harm to patients and their families. There is no scientific evidence on record of sunlight or Vitamin D megadoses curing cancer, and there’s been no causal link established between the development of any of the cancers she mentions and lack of sunlight and/or Vitamin D.

If you are in need of accurate, up-to-date medical information, particularly on “cures”, I suggest starting with the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, particularly the National Cancer Institute, who have excellent resources for both the average patient/consumer and for medical/scientific professionals. And, no, they are not “hiding” or withholding miracle cures and treatments from the American public.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=kcal09]Did Miami Heat star Glen Rice and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have a fling back in the 1980s, when she was a budding sports reporter and he was a star at the University of Michigan?

The National Enquirer is reporting that Palin, a former high school basketball standout herself, hooked up with Rice in 1987 when he was in Anchorage, Alaska, for a basketball tournament.

At the time, Palin was unmarried, just out of college and working as a sports reporter at Anchorage TV station KTUU. Rice was a junior and a basketball star -– he went on to lead the University of Michigan to a 1989 NCAA championship.

Why does this even matter? Is this relevant at all? She was single at that time and nothing illegal happened?
I guess the liberals are trying to make her look like one of them?[/quote]

kcal, forgive my untimely response. Unfortunately, I have yet to discover a place in which Piggs posting takes precedence over work and school demands, so I missed the posting on its original date. That being said…..

Your sentiments, as expressed, are exactly right. So your purpose in originating a post on the subject is…..what??

I’m going to make a statement that is based on purely anecdotal evidence, primarily because I don’t have time to accrue the empirical variety. I’m going to posit that the majority of Piggs (if not Americans) are experiencing acute Palinfo fatigue (otherwise known as TMI palinae).

Based on this wild speculation, I’m going to wager that the latest Palinsignificance would have come and gone without a mention by any of the other Piggs. And perhaps they had demands on their time that rivaled mine, but I’m guessing that that the small number of responses to your post was due to lack of interest rather than lack of time.

[quote=kcal09]The National Enquirer is reporting that Palin, a former high school basketball standout herself, hooked up with Rice in 1987 when he was in Anchorage, Alaska, for a basketball tournament……Why does this even matter? Is this relevant at all? She was single at that time and nothing illegal happened? [/quote]

Is it relevant to what? Here’s a handy tip (and in light of the long election cycle ahead, write it down because you’ll have plenty of chances to refer back to it): In today’s media, the only question that publishers and editors ask regarding relevancy is this:

“Is this material relevant to our consumers?”

Translation: Will this material make our consumers read an article based on it? Will they email it to their friends and relatives? Will they refer to it in Facebook? Will they follow it on Twitter? Will they bookmark us? Will they use links on our story site to click thru to other sites carrying the story?

This is gossip, pure and simple. The National Enquirer is a gossip magazine. It does not, nor has it ever, claimed to publish up-to-the-minute national/international news, keen political analysis, or in-depth biograpical profiles. I’m curious to find out how you arrived at the conclusion that it is a “liberal” media outlet. Since the New York Times is unceasingly referred to as “liberal”, I’d be particularly interested in a side-by-side analysis of the two publications that explains their obviously liberal leanings.

As for “relevance”, and why this material was published? It’s because the media outlets** believe that it’s what consumers want. By the reaction on both sides, it would appear that their judgement was accurate in this case.

**BTW, keep in mind that the content of print, broadcast, and commercial online media is not made by the reporters/writers. It is made by publishers/owners and managing editors/news directors. Conservative media owners/publishers far outnumber those of liberal persuasion, and, over the past 25 years, have hired like-minded managing editors/news directors (or at least those who will follow the owner’s editorial policy). There isn’t a writer/reporter at any decent-sized media outlet who has the power to circumvent the upper management editorial policy and decisions on what is published/aired. While media editorial policy may have been more favorable to liberals prior to the mid-’80s, that is definitely not the case now.

[quote=kcal09]Did Miami Heat star Glen Rice and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have a fling back in the 1980s….Why does this even matter? [/quote]

I’m still waiting for YOUR answer on this question. After all, you originated the thread. Why the hell does it matter, and why was it necessary to bring it up on Piggs, when there were so many other outlets dealing with both the story, and the reporting of it?

The fact of the matter is that Ms. Palin has gotten a free ride from the press a lot more often than she’s received a pie in the face from them. If there is video evidence in existence in which she presents herself as an astute, educated, analytical, and well-read individual who is capable of discussing even moderately complex issues in a way that demonstrates these qualities, I haven’t seen it. She has not been blind-sided by trick questions in ANY interview I’ve seen; however, she HAS repeatedly been unable to answer questions that are far less difficult than those normally asked of candidates for national office because she not only lacks the knowledge, but refuses to accept the responsibility for educating herself.

On top of that, she refuses to make herself available for questioning by the press or the people whose votes she is seeking, communicating with them only by “twittering” Yet she is continually interjecting herself into the national discourse, into matters in which she has no business, and certainly no intellectual position.

Palin wants to exert her diva-like attitude on the press, she is gauche and clumsy in her attempts to garner their attention and column space/airtime, and she condemns others for actions she engages in with impunity, yet she and her faithful acolytes perpetuate the myth that she is unfairly treated by the media. Sorry, but that’s a dog that won’t hunt.

[quote=kcal09] Why does this even matter?……I guess the liberals are trying to make her look like one of them?[/quote]

Okay, so I just gotta ask: What exactly does this statement mean? What do liberals look like?

Should you actually come up with an answer for this one, could include something along the lines of supporting documentation or corroborative evidence with it? You know: something that distinguishes opinions from fact.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=eavesdropper][quote=jstoesz]Engineers can easily go into business and sales (assuming they have the personality for it)…business majors can not go into engineering. Enough said. [/quote]

Do you also believe that business majors cannot manage the academic demands of science majors?

While it is true (as I mentioned in my earlier post) that the “business admin” curriculum has been expanded AND dumbed down in many cases, the fact remains that there are some seriously rigorous courses of study in many schools. And I know many intelligent, accomplished scientists who would have been forced to withdraw from some of the classes I was required to take back in the ’70s.[/quote]

I am not disparaging B-schools, I am sure you and many of your peers are way smarter than the majority of engineers I meet. Some of them are quite painful, and could never ever go into business. But at Cal Poly at least, there was a huge difference in the difficulty of curriculum. Maybe not at your B-school. At Cal Poly, students only moved one direction, from the Engineering F train to the business school station. And they all loved the move! It was a long standing joke. I think in life too, you can always move in a less technical direction. If you start out an engineering wizard, you can easily move into the sales route, or business admin route (too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality). But try to go back?

That is why I think it is smart to start as an engineer and move elsewhere as you go. Check back with me in 15 years to see if that was a good move.[/quote]

Like you say (and I mentioned also), there can be huge disparities between programs in terms of difficulty. And I’ll go so far as to speculate that Cal Poly may have kept a business program onsite in order to retain students (and their money) who had flunked out of science/engineering curricula.

But I do think that you have a very limited idea of what people who seek an education and degree in Business Administration are prepared to do. I do believe that there are people out there who opt to major in Business Admin because they perceive (and may have been told) that it’s a “gimme” degree, and there’s no question that business majors in a good many schools are able to design a course of study for themselves that is distinctly unchallenging. However, there are some extremely competitive undergrad business programs out there, and I can guarantee that if you are majoring in actuarial science or statistics or certain areas of econ or finance, you are going to be required to complete some extraordinarily difficult requisite and elective courses, many of which are not offered in mainstream undergrad programs.

Your observation that “too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality” tells me that you have the idea that business majors, while not required to have much in the way of basic intelligence, must make up for this flaw by possessing a friendly, outgoing nature, which will be invaluable in either of the two career choices for which a B-school education prepares you: “running a business” or sales. It appears that you consider business admin as some sort of vocational training for engineering and science washouts, or those not gifted enough to even apply for admission. It might prove enlightening to visit a high-quality business admin program, and check out the courses of study that are available, and the requirements that students are expected to complete for their degrees. Try the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania http://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/advising/concentrations/overview.cfm
and be sure to read up on some of the actual course descriptions (http://fnce.wharton.upenn.edu/programs/undergrad_courses.cfm). Keep in mind that a good many of the students at Penn double-major: in business and engineering or science.

Of course, I realize that all students do not strive for this degree of academic excellence. But those business admin students who do are also subject to the freely-shared opinion that their lack of mathematics chops is the reason that they’re in b-school, instead of engineering or science programs. And personality, or lack thereof, is not what drives them there, either. In my day, the actuarial science student, or the economist, was the b-school equivalent of the “dour engineer” stereotype – and it was bullshit then, too. You know, they used to say that women didn’t have the brains or the “serious personality” needed to be an engineer or a scientist – and it wasn’t that long ago. What students do need is an impossible-to-ignore curiosity force pulling them toward a particular course of study or career. If that’s present, a student of reasonable competence and intelligence can get themselves through all of the assigned courses. But far too many choose a major for the wrong reason, or it’s chosen for them.

As for this theory, “I think in life too, you can always move in a less technical direction. If you start out an engineering wizard, you can easily move into the sales route, or business admin route (too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality). But try to go back?”: on what do you base that?

In reality, many of the limitations that people can’t move beyond are placed there by themselves. I chose a business major because I believed school “counselors” when they told me that I didn’t have the ability to fulfill the math demands of the science major to which I was overwhelmingly drawn. I had no prior compelling interest in business, and, although I did enjoy my academic experience, I never felt fulfilled in my subsequent business career. Many years later, I decided to go back to school to my first love, science. Was it difficult? Hell, yeah! Was it impossible? Not even close.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=eavesdropper][quote=jstoesz]Engineers can easily go into business and sales (assuming they have the personality for it)…business majors can not go into engineering. Enough said. [/quote]

Do you also believe that business majors cannot manage the academic demands of science majors?

While it is true (as I mentioned in my earlier post) that the “business admin” curriculum has been expanded AND dumbed down in many cases, the fact remains that there are some seriously rigorous courses of study in many schools. And I know many intelligent, accomplished scientists who would have been forced to withdraw from some of the classes I was required to take back in the ’70s.[/quote]

I am not disparaging B-schools, I am sure you and many of your peers are way smarter than the majority of engineers I meet. Some of them are quite painful, and could never ever go into business. But at Cal Poly at least, there was a huge difference in the difficulty of curriculum. Maybe not at your B-school. At Cal Poly, students only moved one direction, from the Engineering F train to the business school station. And they all loved the move! It was a long standing joke. I think in life too, you can always move in a less technical direction. If you start out an engineering wizard, you can easily move into the sales route, or business admin route (too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality). But try to go back?

That is why I think it is smart to start as an engineer and move elsewhere as you go. Check back with me in 15 years to see if that was a good move.[/quote]

Like you say (and I mentioned also), there can be huge disparities between programs in terms of difficulty. And I’ll go so far as to speculate that Cal Poly may have kept a business program onsite in order to retain students (and their money) who had flunked out of science/engineering curricula.

But I do think that you have a very limited idea of what people who seek an education and degree in Business Administration are prepared to do. I do believe that there are people out there who opt to major in Business Admin because they perceive (and may have been told) that it’s a “gimme” degree, and there’s no question that business majors in a good many schools are able to design a course of study for themselves that is distinctly unchallenging. However, there are some extremely competitive undergrad business programs out there, and I can guarantee that if you are majoring in actuarial science or statistics or certain areas of econ or finance, you are going to be required to complete some extraordinarily difficult requisite and elective courses, many of which are not offered in mainstream undergrad programs.

Your observation that “too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality” tells me that you have the idea that business majors, while not required to have much in the way of basic intelligence, must make up for this flaw by possessing a friendly, outgoing nature, which will be invaluable in either of the two career choices for which a B-school education prepares you: “running a business” or sales. It appears that you consider business admin as some sort of vocational training for engineering and science washouts, or those not gifted enough to even apply for admission. It might prove enlightening to visit a high-quality business admin program, and check out the courses of study that are available, and the requirements that students are expected to complete for their degrees. Try the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania http://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/advising/concentrations/overview.cfm
and be sure to read up on some of the actual course descriptions (http://fnce.wharton.upenn.edu/programs/undergrad_courses.cfm). Keep in mind that a good many of the students at Penn double-major: in business and engineering or science.

Of course, I realize that all students do not strive for this degree of academic excellence. But those business admin students who do are also subject to the freely-shared opinion that their lack of mathematics chops is the reason that they’re in b-school, instead of engineering or science programs. And personality, or lack thereof, is not what drives them there, either. In my day, the actuarial science student, or the economist, was the b-school equivalent of the “dour engineer” stereotype – and it was bullshit then, too. You know, they used to say that women didn’t have the brains or the “serious personality” needed to be an engineer or a scientist – and it wasn’t that long ago. What students do need is an impossible-to-ignore curiosity force pulling them toward a particular course of study or career. If that’s present, a student of reasonable competence and intelligence can get themselves through all of the assigned courses. But far too many choose a major for the wrong reason, or it’s chosen for them.

As for this theory, “I think in life too, you can always move in a less technical direction. If you start out an engineering wizard, you can easily move into the sales route, or business admin route (too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality). But try to go back?”: on what do you base that?

In reality, many of the limitations that people can’t move beyond are placed there by themselves. I chose a business major because I believed school “counselors” when they told me that I didn’t have the ability to fulfill the math demands of the science major to which I was overwhelmingly drawn. I had no prior compelling interest in business, and, although I did enjoy my academic experience, I never felt fulfilled in my subsequent business career. Many years later, I decided to go back to school to my first love, science. Was it difficult? Hell, yeah! Was it impossible? Not even close.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=eavesdropper][quote=jstoesz]Engineers can easily go into business and sales (assuming they have the personality for it)…business majors can not go into engineering. Enough said. [/quote]

Do you also believe that business majors cannot manage the academic demands of science majors?

While it is true (as I mentioned in my earlier post) that the “business admin” curriculum has been expanded AND dumbed down in many cases, the fact remains that there are some seriously rigorous courses of study in many schools. And I know many intelligent, accomplished scientists who would have been forced to withdraw from some of the classes I was required to take back in the ’70s.[/quote]

I am not disparaging B-schools, I am sure you and many of your peers are way smarter than the majority of engineers I meet. Some of them are quite painful, and could never ever go into business. But at Cal Poly at least, there was a huge difference in the difficulty of curriculum. Maybe not at your B-school. At Cal Poly, students only moved one direction, from the Engineering F train to the business school station. And they all loved the move! It was a long standing joke. I think in life too, you can always move in a less technical direction. If you start out an engineering wizard, you can easily move into the sales route, or business admin route (too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality). But try to go back?

That is why I think it is smart to start as an engineer and move elsewhere as you go. Check back with me in 15 years to see if that was a good move.[/quote]

Like you say (and I mentioned also), there can be huge disparities between programs in terms of difficulty. And I’ll go so far as to speculate that Cal Poly may have kept a business program onsite in order to retain students (and their money) who had flunked out of science/engineering curricula.

But I do think that you have a very limited idea of what people who seek an education and degree in Business Administration are prepared to do. I do believe that there are people out there who opt to major in Business Admin because they perceive (and may have been told) that it’s a “gimme” degree, and there’s no question that business majors in a good many schools are able to design a course of study for themselves that is distinctly unchallenging. However, there are some extremely competitive undergrad business programs out there, and I can guarantee that if you are majoring in actuarial science or statistics or certain areas of econ or finance, you are going to be required to complete some extraordinarily difficult requisite and elective courses, many of which are not offered in mainstream undergrad programs.

Your observation that “too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality” tells me that you have the idea that business majors, while not required to have much in the way of basic intelligence, must make up for this flaw by possessing a friendly, outgoing nature, which will be invaluable in either of the two career choices for which a B-school education prepares you: “running a business” or sales. It appears that you consider business admin as some sort of vocational training for engineering and science washouts, or those not gifted enough to even apply for admission. It might prove enlightening to visit a high-quality business admin program, and check out the courses of study that are available, and the requirements that students are expected to complete for their degrees. Try the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania http://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/advising/concentrations/overview.cfm
and be sure to read up on some of the actual course descriptions (http://fnce.wharton.upenn.edu/programs/undergrad_courses.cfm). Keep in mind that a good many of the students at Penn double-major: in business and engineering or science.

Of course, I realize that all students do not strive for this degree of academic excellence. But those business admin students who do are also subject to the freely-shared opinion that their lack of mathematics chops is the reason that they’re in b-school, instead of engineering or science programs. And personality, or lack thereof, is not what drives them there, either. In my day, the actuarial science student, or the economist, was the b-school equivalent of the “dour engineer” stereotype – and it was bullshit then, too. You know, they used to say that women didn’t have the brains or the “serious personality” needed to be an engineer or a scientist – and it wasn’t that long ago. What students do need is an impossible-to-ignore curiosity force pulling them toward a particular course of study or career. If that’s present, a student of reasonable competence and intelligence can get themselves through all of the assigned courses. But far too many choose a major for the wrong reason, or it’s chosen for them.

As for this theory, “I think in life too, you can always move in a less technical direction. If you start out an engineering wizard, you can easily move into the sales route, or business admin route (too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality). But try to go back?”: on what do you base that?

In reality, many of the limitations that people can’t move beyond are placed there by themselves. I chose a business major because I believed school “counselors” when they told me that I didn’t have the ability to fulfill the math demands of the science major to which I was overwhelmingly drawn. I had no prior compelling interest in business, and, although I did enjoy my academic experience, I never felt fulfilled in my subsequent business career. Many years later, I decided to go back to school to my first love, science. Was it difficult? Hell, yeah! Was it impossible? Not even close.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=eavesdropper][quote=jstoesz]Engineers can easily go into business and sales (assuming they have the personality for it)…business majors can not go into engineering. Enough said. [/quote]

Do you also believe that business majors cannot manage the academic demands of science majors?

While it is true (as I mentioned in my earlier post) that the “business admin” curriculum has been expanded AND dumbed down in many cases, the fact remains that there are some seriously rigorous courses of study in many schools. And I know many intelligent, accomplished scientists who would have been forced to withdraw from some of the classes I was required to take back in the ’70s.[/quote]

I am not disparaging B-schools, I am sure you and many of your peers are way smarter than the majority of engineers I meet. Some of them are quite painful, and could never ever go into business. But at Cal Poly at least, there was a huge difference in the difficulty of curriculum. Maybe not at your B-school. At Cal Poly, students only moved one direction, from the Engineering F train to the business school station. And they all loved the move! It was a long standing joke. I think in life too, you can always move in a less technical direction. If you start out an engineering wizard, you can easily move into the sales route, or business admin route (too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality). But try to go back?

That is why I think it is smart to start as an engineer and move elsewhere as you go. Check back with me in 15 years to see if that was a good move.[/quote]

Like you say (and I mentioned also), there can be huge disparities between programs in terms of difficulty. And I’ll go so far as to speculate that Cal Poly may have kept a business program onsite in order to retain students (and their money) who had flunked out of science/engineering curricula.

But I do think that you have a very limited idea of what people who seek an education and degree in Business Administration are prepared to do. I do believe that there are people out there who opt to major in Business Admin because they perceive (and may have been told) that it’s a “gimme” degree, and there’s no question that business majors in a good many schools are able to design a course of study for themselves that is distinctly unchallenging. However, there are some extremely competitive undergrad business programs out there, and I can guarantee that if you are majoring in actuarial science or statistics or certain areas of econ or finance, you are going to be required to complete some extraordinarily difficult requisite and elective courses, many of which are not offered in mainstream undergrad programs.

Your observation that “too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality” tells me that you have the idea that business majors, while not required to have much in the way of basic intelligence, must make up for this flaw by possessing a friendly, outgoing nature, which will be invaluable in either of the two career choices for which a B-school education prepares you: “running a business” or sales. It appears that you consider business admin as some sort of vocational training for engineering and science washouts, or those not gifted enough to even apply for admission. It might prove enlightening to visit a high-quality business admin program, and check out the courses of study that are available, and the requirements that students are expected to complete for their degrees. Try the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania http://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/advising/concentrations/overview.cfm
and be sure to read up on some of the actual course descriptions (http://fnce.wharton.upenn.edu/programs/undergrad_courses.cfm). Keep in mind that a good many of the students at Penn double-major: in business and engineering or science.

Of course, I realize that all students do not strive for this degree of academic excellence. But those business admin students who do are also subject to the freely-shared opinion that their lack of mathematics chops is the reason that they’re in b-school, instead of engineering or science programs. And personality, or lack thereof, is not what drives them there, either. In my day, the actuarial science student, or the economist, was the b-school equivalent of the “dour engineer” stereotype – and it was bullshit then, too. You know, they used to say that women didn’t have the brains or the “serious personality” needed to be an engineer or a scientist – and it wasn’t that long ago. What students do need is an impossible-to-ignore curiosity force pulling them toward a particular course of study or career. If that’s present, a student of reasonable competence and intelligence can get themselves through all of the assigned courses. But far too many choose a major for the wrong reason, or it’s chosen for them.

As for this theory, “I think in life too, you can always move in a less technical direction. If you start out an engineering wizard, you can easily move into the sales route, or business admin route (too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality). But try to go back?”: on what do you base that?

In reality, many of the limitations that people can’t move beyond are placed there by themselves. I chose a business major because I believed school “counselors” when they told me that I didn’t have the ability to fulfill the math demands of the science major to which I was overwhelmingly drawn. I had no prior compelling interest in business, and, although I did enjoy my academic experience, I never felt fulfilled in my subsequent business career. Many years later, I decided to go back to school to my first love, science. Was it difficult? Hell, yeah! Was it impossible? Not even close.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=eavesdropper][quote=jstoesz]Engineers can easily go into business and sales (assuming they have the personality for it)…business majors can not go into engineering. Enough said. [/quote]

Do you also believe that business majors cannot manage the academic demands of science majors?

While it is true (as I mentioned in my earlier post) that the “business admin” curriculum has been expanded AND dumbed down in many cases, the fact remains that there are some seriously rigorous courses of study in many schools. And I know many intelligent, accomplished scientists who would have been forced to withdraw from some of the classes I was required to take back in the ’70s.[/quote]

I am not disparaging B-schools, I am sure you and many of your peers are way smarter than the majority of engineers I meet. Some of them are quite painful, and could never ever go into business. But at Cal Poly at least, there was a huge difference in the difficulty of curriculum. Maybe not at your B-school. At Cal Poly, students only moved one direction, from the Engineering F train to the business school station. And they all loved the move! It was a long standing joke. I think in life too, you can always move in a less technical direction. If you start out an engineering wizard, you can easily move into the sales route, or business admin route (too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality). But try to go back?

That is why I think it is smart to start as an engineer and move elsewhere as you go. Check back with me in 15 years to see if that was a good move.[/quote]

Like you say (and I mentioned also), there can be huge disparities between programs in terms of difficulty. And I’ll go so far as to speculate that Cal Poly may have kept a business program onsite in order to retain students (and their money) who had flunked out of science/engineering curricula.

But I do think that you have a very limited idea of what people who seek an education and degree in Business Administration are prepared to do. I do believe that there are people out there who opt to major in Business Admin because they perceive (and may have been told) that it’s a “gimme” degree, and there’s no question that business majors in a good many schools are able to design a course of study for themselves that is distinctly unchallenging. However, there are some extremely competitive undergrad business programs out there, and I can guarantee that if you are majoring in actuarial science or statistics or certain areas of econ or finance, you are going to be required to complete some extraordinarily difficult requisite and elective courses, many of which are not offered in mainstream undergrad programs.

Your observation that “too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality” tells me that you have the idea that business majors, while not required to have much in the way of basic intelligence, must make up for this flaw by possessing a friendly, outgoing nature, which will be invaluable in either of the two career choices for which a B-school education prepares you: “running a business” or sales. It appears that you consider business admin as some sort of vocational training for engineering and science washouts, or those not gifted enough to even apply for admission. It might prove enlightening to visit a high-quality business admin program, and check out the courses of study that are available, and the requirements that students are expected to complete for their degrees. Try the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania http://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/advising/concentrations/overview.cfm
and be sure to read up on some of the actual course descriptions (http://fnce.wharton.upenn.edu/programs/undergrad_courses.cfm). Keep in mind that a good many of the students at Penn double-major: in business and engineering or science.

Of course, I realize that all students do not strive for this degree of academic excellence. But those business admin students who do are also subject to the freely-shared opinion that their lack of mathematics chops is the reason that they’re in b-school, instead of engineering or science programs. And personality, or lack thereof, is not what drives them there, either. In my day, the actuarial science student, or the economist, was the b-school equivalent of the “dour engineer” stereotype – and it was bullshit then, too. You know, they used to say that women didn’t have the brains or the “serious personality” needed to be an engineer or a scientist – and it wasn’t that long ago. What students do need is an impossible-to-ignore curiosity force pulling them toward a particular course of study or career. If that’s present, a student of reasonable competence and intelligence can get themselves through all of the assigned courses. But far too many choose a major for the wrong reason, or it’s chosen for them.

As for this theory, “I think in life too, you can always move in a less technical direction. If you start out an engineering wizard, you can easily move into the sales route, or business admin route (too many engineers are limited in this regard by their lack of personality). But try to go back?”: on what do you base that?

In reality, many of the limitations that people can’t move beyond are placed there by themselves. I chose a business major because I believed school “counselors” when they told me that I didn’t have the ability to fulfill the math demands of the science major to which I was overwhelmingly drawn. I had no prior compelling interest in business, and, although I did enjoy my academic experience, I never felt fulfilled in my subsequent business career. Many years later, I decided to go back to school to my first love, science. Was it difficult? Hell, yeah! Was it impossible? Not even close.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=pri_dk]
Pri: This is just hilarious. So, if I’m reading this correctly, only “qualified” candidates need apply to hold the levers of government and the media should only give airtime to those “serious” enough to merit it…..Pick up a book on US History and read up on the utterly bizarre cast of characters that have made up this country’s elected officials and then come back and talk about Christine O’Donnell. Was she bugshit crazy? Yup. Did she every right to run for office? Yup. Its America, Chico, and if you wore a uniform, that is EXACTLY what you were willing to die for.

I don’t condone the nonsense emanating from the Radical Right, anymore than I condone it from the Loony Left. It is what simultaneously makes this country great, while periodically debilitating us, too. Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

If the potential for disaster wasn’t so significant, it would have been funny to read the articles and reports on the above candidates, and observe the way in which the press/media presented them as qualified and high-functioning individuals. What is even more disgusting is the clearly favorable treatment afforded these ladies. Don’t believe it? Then someone needs to explain to me why Alvin Greene didn’t get the amount and the quality of MSM exposure that O’Donnell and Angle did. Instead, his candidacy was treated as a hilarious joke by the press, who focused on his lack of funds and backing, and his seeming inability to communicate, rather than on his platform, which, IMHO, was no more batshit than those of O’Donnell and Angle (hey, that is not an endorsement….of ANY of them).

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=pri_dk]
Pri: This is just hilarious. So, if I’m reading this correctly, only “qualified” candidates need apply to hold the levers of government and the media should only give airtime to those “serious” enough to merit it…..Pick up a book on US History and read up on the utterly bizarre cast of characters that have made up this country’s elected officials and then come back and talk about Christine O’Donnell. Was she bugshit crazy? Yup. Did she every right to run for office? Yup. Its America, Chico, and if you wore a uniform, that is EXACTLY what you were willing to die for.

I don’t condone the nonsense emanating from the Radical Right, anymore than I condone it from the Loony Left. It is what simultaneously makes this country great, while periodically debilitating us, too. Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

If the potential for disaster wasn’t so significant, it would have been funny to read the articles and reports on the above candidates, and observe the way in which the press/media presented them as qualified and high-functioning individuals. What is even more disgusting is the clearly favorable treatment afforded these ladies. Don’t believe it? Then someone needs to explain to me why Alvin Greene didn’t get the amount and the quality of MSM exposure that O’Donnell and Angle did. Instead, his candidacy was treated as a hilarious joke by the press, who focused on his lack of funds and backing, and his seeming inability to communicate, rather than on his platform, which, IMHO, was no more batshit than those of O’Donnell and Angle (hey, that is not an endorsement….of ANY of them).

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=pri_dk]
Pri: This is just hilarious. So, if I’m reading this correctly, only “qualified” candidates need apply to hold the levers of government and the media should only give airtime to those “serious” enough to merit it…..Pick up a book on US History and read up on the utterly bizarre cast of characters that have made up this country’s elected officials and then come back and talk about Christine O’Donnell. Was she bugshit crazy? Yup. Did she every right to run for office? Yup. Its America, Chico, and if you wore a uniform, that is EXACTLY what you were willing to die for.

I don’t condone the nonsense emanating from the Radical Right, anymore than I condone it from the Loony Left. It is what simultaneously makes this country great, while periodically debilitating us, too. Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

If the potential for disaster wasn’t so significant, it would have been funny to read the articles and reports on the above candidates, and observe the way in which the press/media presented them as qualified and high-functioning individuals. What is even more disgusting is the clearly favorable treatment afforded these ladies. Don’t believe it? Then someone needs to explain to me why Alvin Greene didn’t get the amount and the quality of MSM exposure that O’Donnell and Angle did. Instead, his candidacy was treated as a hilarious joke by the press, who focused on his lack of funds and backing, and his seeming inability to communicate, rather than on his platform, which, IMHO, was no more batshit than those of O’Donnell and Angle (hey, that is not an endorsement….of ANY of them).

[Author]

Posts