<p>Do you think that a lot of professors in a lot of math/science fields have enough knowledge for say, majors in math, physics, chemistry, applied math, biology, and several social science fields as well? Or do a lot of professors seem ignorant in other fields?</p>
<p>Given that a major in chemistry often requires little more than physical chemistry, physics little more than basic quantum mechanics and electromagnetism, and math a superficial knowledge of real analysis, it seems that a lot of professors already know enough for majors in such fields [at least in a state university]. Some of the applied math professors are especially knowledgeable about different fields (Bose-Einstein condensates, Schrody eqn, molecular genetics, population genetics, p-chem all at the same time). On the other hand, it’s conceivable that some other professors are narrow-minded about other fields.</p>
<p>No they don’t. Your <em>stereotypical</em> pure math professor (and student!) looks down upon every other subject, especially upon applied math, bio, and social sciences. </p>
<p>Certainly I know a lot of physics and math majors and they’d be completely unequipped to finish a major in biology, sociology, chemistry, etc. (obviously if they took all the courses then maybe, but their knowledge is very minimal for the most part–it’s just very different material). </p>
<p>Most profs don’t even know more than a general bit about topics in their subject that aren’t what they actually research. The whole point of going through academia and getting your PhD and doing research is that you’re going to end up knowing a LOT about one very small slice of your field.</p>
<p>Thanks for the insight about the pure math professor. Haha (one only needs to read G.H. Hardy’s “A Mathematician’s Apology”). But I’m wondering about applied math profs, and especially, a lot of adjunct profs.</p>
<p>Well…</p>
<p>In my field, geology, you are required to integrate skills learned in the other allied math/sciences in order to complete notable research. I believe this is fairly unique and is the only way to truly know how the Earth has evolved and will evolve. </p>
<p>For example, geologists can choose to go down a number of paths regarding specialties ranging from paleo to petrology to geophysics. Those that specialize in say, paleo, need to know enough to hold their own with not only geologists but also biologist and ecologists. On the other hand, those who specialize in say, geophysics, should be able to hold their own with those in geology, math, and physics (to a lesser extent computer science). </p>
<p>I specialize in geochemistry and will be expected to hold my own with geologists and also specialized chemists. I’m required to choose a minor here at UW for my PhD and the choice was between materials science and chemistry. I chose chemistry so I can know the basic fundamentals I didn’t necessarily receive in undergrad in order to relate it to not only geology but any materials science I may run across in my future endeavors. </p>
<p>Geologists don’t really look down upon other scientists, we obviously love to convert people, but we appreciate what others bring to the table and most good intro professors will try to get this point across in their lectures.</p>
<p>Haha. I wonder how the social scientists think of each other. Psychology used to be looked down upon, but it’s now the first of the research fields to embrace the findings of biology, which shall then topple the dominant paradigms of all other social science fields.</p>