[SiempreViernes]

> but how do you deal with the fact that university, in practice, is not "for the joy of learning"?

I think this strongly depends on the subject you study, most people in mechanical engineering will have a very different attitude to people studying world literature or astrophysics.

[badpun]

In my country studies are free, which means humanities (like "world literature") are full of young people who had no idea what to do with themselves, so they chose a major in something vaguely interesting and not very demanding, mostly so that they get to extend their youth by a couple of years (as parents will often support them while they get their degree, which means not having to work).

[retired]

I’m guessing Nordics?

[badpun]

Poland.

[mishellaneous]

good to know, thanks. it does make sense.

there's still the professors though. the courses may not necessarily be different from their point of view.

also, what do you make of physics grads going to work on finance? doesn't strike as very "scholarly" of them, at first.

[olsondv]

Physics is applying math to Model phenomena. Finance is already numbers so it’s a good fit. If you are insinuating the money corrupts it, they’re paid for the skills they developed. Are medical doctors less noble because they make massive salaries?

[mishellaneous]

we were explicitly talking about people who went to university "for the joy of learning", instead of, as was cited as one of the examples, to prepare themselves for a good career, and how the latter can detract from the experience of the former.

physics students were cited as examples of people who went to university "for the joy of learning". i mentioned the existence of a path from a physics education to a very well-paying career which is moreover not generally considered intellectually stimulating, which suggests (though certainly not proves) the existence of (some -- though certainly not necessarily all) physics students who are not really there "for the joy of learning" -- which again, was one of the concerns i originally cited.

if you are or know a physics grad who studied physics "for the joy of learning" and then worked on finance and you think i'm not correct (say, because finance is actually intellectually stimulating, or that you were really into learning when in school but now are more focused on your career (i actually know a bunch of people for whom this is one is true, now that i think of it), or...), then by all means feel free to share your story, as this is literally what my question was about.

certainly questions can be raised about "corruption" and "nobility", as you did, but i did not intend to do that.

[kelipso]

> Are medical doctors less noble because they make massive salaries?

Aren’t they? Would you say a doctor who works for no money is more noble? I would.

[SiempreViernes]

Here's an article where a physics grad himself is calling being a quant as "the dark side", it's from last year but the expression is much older.

https://www.colorado.edu/physics/2025/09/22/quantum-physics-...

At the end of the day part of what makes (theoretical) physics "scholarly" is the poor job prospects outside of academia, but there simply aren't enough positions for everyone graduating with a masters and they have to find some job eventually. Being a quant certainly beats becoming weapon designers.