下沙论坛

标题: 各位已毕业的学生，请说说自己现在的工作和专业有关吗？ [打印本页]

作者: 天大天才 时间: 2006-1-3 21:00
标题: 各位已毕业的学生，请说说自己现在的工作和专业有关吗？

我学高分子，目前搞机械设计,稍微打点擦边球你们呢？

作者: david1981 时间: 2006-1-6 10:45
没关系

作者: dreamer14 时间: 2006-1-8 09:46
本人学电子
现在做电脑硬件设计，还算有关系

作者: poyi 时间: 2006-1-8 11:49
无关

作者: ヤ①個魜简單 时间: 2006-1-9 10:33
还没找到

作者: david1981 时间: 2006-1-9 14:46
好

作者: 凝望 时间: 2006-1-10 00:07
还不知道，唉，已经脱离专业了。。

作者: 右╃左侧 时间: 2006-1-10 19:16
学的是护理，现在就干护士这行！

作者: ヤ①個魜简單 时间: 2006-1-10 19:44
护理很吃香

作者: 1234567asd 时间: 2006-1-12 19:12
好啊顶下厉害

作者: edifierazf 时间: 2006-1-14 17:21
有

作者: 陆建忠 时间: 2006-1-17 23:39
你自己觉得你有能力找不对口的工作也没关系，但现在用人单位还一般都是看你专业，md ，书上说的就像放屁一样。

作者: sunshine11 时间: 2006-1-23 16:21
差个边吧~~书上学到的大多是用不到的，还是看你个人表现了~~

作者: 街舞风雷 时间: 2006-1-26 15:02
学房产,做房产,不过想跳槽!

作者: 心平是真 时间: 2006-1-29 22:16
没.一滴滴都没有!!

作者: 村姑 时间: 2006-1-31 16:13
偶学英语，第一份工作是质量管理，后来跳槽，现是总经理助理．总经理是德国人，可是讲英语．

作者: 子羽 时间: 2006-2-3 02:21

我学工业设计,但即将要去一个电气公司做销售!八杆子打不着的联系!

作者: xlm7433 时间: 2006-2-6 17:23

我学机械设计

现在做笔记本结构筐体设计,还算老本行.

作者: racky2001 时间: 2006-2-7 17:52
一点关系都没有　！！诶　社工专业的，难找啊～～

作者: 柠天欣 时间: 2006-2-8 02:46
还不到时间呢

作者: spring306 时间: 2006-4-22 23:51
完全无关

作者: kele8boy 时间: 2006-4-23 14:43
学的是电子，做的是软件开发
目前工作需要的知识，都是另外学的，学校里学的一点都没用上
不过我喜欢软件开发，一个能展现自我，充分发挥自己价值的职业
我一定要在2年内当上系统分析师或者项目主管以上的职位

作者: 御风夜魔 时间: 2006-4-24 18:30
基本无关·～但还是要装的很懂的样子～～呵呵，胡弄一下

作者: 恋メ香 时间: 2006-4-24 22:10
学计算机~~现在软件开发

作者: vince520 时间: 2006-4-26 20:18
555555555555前途渺茫

作者: phtanus 时间: 2006-4-27 18:40
学机械电子，现在做品质管理，一半对一半吧

作者: zjl0821 时间: 2006-4-28 15:38
我国际贸易的但是做的是通讯晕死自己都接受不了

作者: 爱宝宝 时间: 2006-4-28 18:37
学会计,做财会..嘿嘿

作者: 一般不上网 时间: 2006-4-28 22:31
学自动化做电能表的技术支持

作者: 狂败浪人 时间: 2006-5-1 20:46
服装设计与工程专业做的是QC

作者: 景腿 时间: 2006-5-1 23:18
我们将有一天会明白，死永远不能够夺去我们的灵魂所获得的东西，因为她所获得的，和她自己是一体。

作者: 南面称孤 时间: 2006-5-2 12:22
我是做房地产的，

作者: lill 时间: 2006-5-2 15:34
学高分子材料，在搞ERP实施！算上上过计算机课还能拉上点关系！

作者: 熊猫 时间: 2006-5-3 01:59
学文化市场管理做的是IT

作者: 和平 时间: 2006-5-3 14:45
只要能够物有所用就可以了

作者: jeny001 时间: 2006-5-4 13:43
还没毕业，明年就可以在这里发言了，现在看看先～～～～

作者: ywwll 时间: 2006-5-6 00:29
我是计算机技术专业。。现在从事外贸行业。主管吧。。兼职网络和计算机。我的QQ81988887或者274348

作者: 失眠的猪 时间: 2006-5-7 15:39
学会计,做的差不多也是会计吧!今年6月毕业!!

作者: 长风落日 时间: 2006-5-7 19:22
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
78-MAY N.Y. St. B.J. 22
New York State Bar Journal
May, 2006

Department
Burden of Proof

*22 IS FRYE STILL GENERALLY ACCEPTED?

David Paul Horowitz [FNa1]

Copyright © 2006 by the New York State Bar Association; David Paul Horowitz

One of the first Burden of Proof columns [FN1] was an overview of expert witness practice in New York state courts, a topic worthy of greater attention in several respects. One of those areas is the topic of this column, and the next: challenges to the admissibility of expert testimony at trial based upon the technical or scientific basis of, and the methodology utilized by, the proffered expert. Litigating in this area requires understanding the development of, and tensions between, the Frye [FN2] (this column) and Daubert [FN3] (next column) standards, and their application by the courts of this state. The original column cautioned "[t]his is an evolving area, and practitioners are advised to pay close attention to new cases in this area, particularly any Appellate Division pronouncements." If I must say so myself, good advice -- then, now, and for the foreseeable future.
Frye and Daubert provide a framework for trial judges in deciding whether expert testimony is to be permitted and, if the expert is permitted to testify, whether to limit the scope of the expert's testimony. Frye's "general acceptance" test reigned in New York courts and in federal courts from 1923 to 1993. However, in 1993 the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert, holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 superceded Frye. Thereafter, in federal court, Frye was replaced with Daubert. The role of federal judges in determining whether a jury should hear a particular expert's testimony was re-cast, with the judge acting as "gatekeeper." General acceptance as a measure of reliability, while still a factor to be considered, was no longer the sole, or even key, test. More on Daubert next issue. For now, back to Frye.
In 1923 the District of Columbia Circuit decided Frye v. United States, reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony of the results of a "deception test," a.k.a. a lie detector test. The Circuit Court, quoting directly from the defendant's brief, explained when expert testimony is appropriate:
When the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence. [FN4]
Assuming expert testimony was appropriate, what was the role, and what standards governed the role, of the trial judge in vetting the basic soundness of the proposed testimony? The Frye court, in what has become known thereafter in the vernacular as the "Frye test," explained:
Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [FN5]
"General acceptance in the particular field" became the sine qua non for the reliability of expert testimony. New York state courts readily adopted Frye and, despite a lively debate in some of the lower courts, the New York Court of Appeals continues to follow Frye.
In determining whether expert testimony is appropriate, trial courts in New York must carefully exercise their discretion. In deciding when jurors would benefit from the testimony of an expert,
courts should be wary not to exclude such testimony merely because, to some degree, it invades the jury's province. As we have previously noted, "expert opinion testimony is used in partial substitution for the jury's otherwise exclusive province which is to draw 'conclusions from the facts.' It is a kind of authorized encroachment in that respect." [FN6]
In evaluating the reliability of expert testimony, Frye may be satisfied in three ways. Professor Richard Farrell, in Prince, Richardson, explains:
First, general acceptance may be so notorious that the court may take judicial notice of it.... Second, acceptance may be established by reference to "legal writings and judicial opinions." ... Third, if acceptance cannot be established by either judicial notice or the legal *23 literature, then the Trial Judge may conduct a hearing at which the proponent may establish admissibility by offering evidence of acceptance, including the expert's own testimony (citations omitted). [FN7]
Twice since the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert, the New York State Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that Frye remains the standard in New York, [FN8] quoting verbatim from the original opinion. [FN9]
A Frye challenge may arise at trial, in a hearing before trial as part of a motion in limine, or as part of a summary judgment motion. [FN10]
In a 2004 decision, Marsh v. Smyth, [FN11] the First Department examined the preclusion of two of plaintiff's experts in a medical malpractice action following a Frye hearing, on the grounds that their theories concerning the positioning of the arm of the injured party during surgery were not generally accepted in the medical field. Citing Frye, the First Department held this was error: "The experts' testimony, and the supporting medical literature, satisfied the Frye standard, and a jury should be permitted to hear the testimony." [FN12]
In Zito v. Zabarsky, [FN13] a Second Department decision citing Justice Saxe's concurring opinion in Marsh, that court, in reviewing a trial court's preclusion of plaintiff's medical experts in a medical malpractice action, reminded litigants that the "burden of proving general acceptance rests upon the party offering the disputed expert testimony." [FN14] Acknowledging that the alleged causal link between an excessive dose of Zocar and the onset of polymyositis was a novel one, warranting a Frye hearing, the Second Department held that the trial court had "erred in applying Frye too restrictively," [FN15] precluding the expert on the basis that no medical literature reported the alleged causal connection:
In that regard, I agree with the statement in the concurring opinion of Justice David B. Saxe of the Appellate Division, First Department, in [Marsh] that it is not necessary "that the underlying support for the theory of causation consist of cases or studies considering circumstances exactly parallel to those under consideration in the litigation. It is sufficient if a synthesis of various studies or cases reasonably permits the conclusion reached by the plaintiff's expert." As stated in Beck v Warner-Lambert Co. (NYLJ, Sept. 13, 2002, at 18, col 2), which also involved a novel scientific opinion concerning the causal relationship between the ingestion of a drug and the development of a disease, "general acceptance does not necessarily mean that a majority of the scientists involved subscribe to the conclusion. Rather it means that those espousing the theory or opinion have followed generally accepted scientific principles and methodology in evaluating clinical data to reach their conclusions." [FN16]
After carefully reviewing the proof that was put forward a trial, the Second Department concluded:
Moreover, the trial court, while purporting to credit the deductive reasoning of the plaintiff's experts, apparently believed that the Frye test could only be satisfied with medical texts, studies, or other literature which supported the plaintiff's theory of causation under circumstances virtually identical to those of the plaintiff. However, the Frye test is not that exacting.
The fact that there was no textual authority directly on point to support the experts' opinion is relevant only to the weight to be given the testimony, but does not preclude its admissibility.
A strict application of the Frye test may result in disenfranchising persons entitled to sue for the negligence of tortfeasors. With the plethora of new drugs entering the *24 market, the first users of a new drug who sustain injury because of the dangerous properties of the drug or inappropriate treatment protocols will be barred from obtaining redress if the test were restrictively applied. [FN17]
Finally, addressing the trial court's having conducted what it called a Frye/Daubert hearing, the Second Department stated, in a footnote, that "New York has not adopted the Daubert standard, but rather continues to adhere to the Frye test for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence." [FN18]
Frye's general acceptance test continues to be followed in the Third [FN19] and Fourth Departments. [FN20]
With Frye so firmly entrenched in New York state court practice vis-à-vis reliability and claims of novel scientific evidence, does Daubert have'a role to play in our state courts? Next issue's column will, I hope, shed some light on this question.

[FNa1]. DAVID PAUL HOROWITZ (dh 15@nyu.edu) practices as a plaintiff's personal injury litigator in New York City. Mr. Horowitz teaches New York Practice at New York Law School, is a member of the Office of Court Administration's CPLR Advisory Committee, and is a frequent lecturer and writer on the subject.

[FN1]. David Paul Horowitz, Burden of Proof, "Expert Witness Primer," N.Y. St. B.J. (Feb. 2005) p. 18.

[FN2]. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

[FN3]. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

[FN4]. Frye, 293 F. at 1015.

[FN5]. Id.

[FN6]. People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 157, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361 (2001) (quoting People v. Jones, 73 N.Y.2d 427, 430-31, 541 N.Y.S.2d 340 (1989) (internal citation omitted) (quoting People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 432, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1983))).

[FN7]. Prince, Richardson on Evidence, § 7-311 (11th ed. 2005).

[FN8]. People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97 (1994) (DNA profiling was properly admitted at trial under the Frye test); see People v. Wernick, 89 N.Y.2d 111, 651 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1996) (expert testimony was required to be based upon scientific principles sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance).

[FN9]. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417.

[FN10]. See, e.g., Heckstall v. Pincus, 19 A.D.3d 203, 797 N.Y.S.2d 445 (1st Dep't 2005).

[FN11]. 12 A.D.3d 307, 785 N.Y.S.2d 440 (1st Dep't 2004).

[FN12]. Id.

[FN13]. No. 2004-01148, 2006 WL205067 (2d Dep't Jan. 24, 2006).

[FN14]. Id.

[FN15]. Id.

[FN16]. Id.

[FN17]. Id.

[FN18]. Id.

[FN19]. People v. Cole, 24 A.D.3d 1021, 807 N.Y.S.2d 166 (3d Dep't 2005).

[FN20]. People v. Wooten, 283 A.D.2d 931, 725 N.Y.S.2d 767 (4th Dep't 2001).
END OF DOCUMENT

作者: 长风落日 时间: 2006-5-7 19:26
78-MAY N.Y. St. B.J. 22

New York State Bar Journal
May, 2006

Department
Burden of Proof

*22 IS FRYE STILL GENERALLY ACCEPTED?

David Paul Horowitz [FNa1]

Copyright © 2006 by the New York State Bar Association; David Paul Horowitz

One of the first Burden of Proof columns [FN1] was an overview of expert witness practice in New York state courts, a topic worthy of greater attention in several respects. One of those areas is the topic of this column, and the next: challenges to the admissibility of expert testimony at trial based upon the technical or scientific basis of, and the methodology utilized by, the proffered expert. Litigating in this area requires understanding the development of, and tensions between, the Frye [FN2] (this column) and Daubert [FN3] (next column) standards, and their application by the courts of this state. The original column cautioned "[t]his is an evolving area, and practitioners are advised to pay close attention to new cases in this area, particularly any Appellate Division pronouncements." If I must say so myself, good advice -- then, now, and for the foreseeable future.
Frye and Daubert provide a framework for trial judges in deciding whether expert testimony is to be permitted and, if the expert is permitted to testify, whether to limit the scope of the expert's testimony. Frye's "general acceptance" test reigned in New York courts and in federal courts from 1923 to 1993. However, in 1993 the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert, holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 superceded Frye. Thereafter, in federal court, Frye was replaced with Daubert. The role of federal judges in determining whether a jury should hear a particular expert's testimony was re-cast, with the judge acting as "gatekeeper." General acceptance as a measure of reliability, while still a factor to be considered, was no longer the sole, or even key, test. More on Daubert next issue. For now, back to Frye.
In 1923 the District of Columbia Circuit decided Frye v. United States, reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony of the results of a "deception test," a.k.a. a lie detector test. The Circuit Court, quoting directly from the defendant's brief, explained when expert testimony is appropriate:
When the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence. [FN4]
Assuming expert testimony was appropriate, what was the role, and what standards governed the role, of the trial judge in vetting the basic soundness of the proposed testimony? The Frye court, in what has become known thereafter in the vernacular as the "Frye test," explained:
Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [FN5]
"General acceptance in the particular field" became the sine qua non for the reliability of expert testimony. New York state courts readily adopted Frye and, despite a lively debate in some of the lower courts, the New York Court of Appeals continues to follow Frye.
In determining whether expert testimony is appropriate, trial courts in New York must carefully exercise their discretion. In deciding when jurors would benefit from the testimony of an expert,
courts should be wary not to exclude such testimony merely because, to some degree, it invades the jury's province. As we have previously noted, "expert opinion testimony is used in partial substitution for the jury's otherwise exclusive province which is to draw 'conclusions from the facts.' It is a kind of authorized encroachment in that respect." [FN6]
In evaluating the reliability of expert testimony, Frye may be satisfied in three ways. Professor Richard Farrell, in Prince, Richardson, explains:
First, general acceptance may be so notorious that the court may take judicial notice of it.... Second, acceptance may be established by reference to "legal writings and judicial opinions." ... Third, if acceptance cannot be established by either judicial notice or the legal *23 literature, then the Trial Judge may conduct a hearing at which the proponent may establish admissibility by offering evidence of acceptance, including the expert's own testimony (citations omitted). [FN7]
Twice since the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert, the New York State Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that Frye remains the standard in New York, [FN8] quoting verbatim from the original opinion. [FN9]
A Frye challenge may arise at trial, in a hearing before trial as part of a motion in limine, or as part of a summary judgment motion. [FN10]
In a 2004 decision, Marsh v. Smyth, [FN11] the First Department examined the preclusion of two of plaintiff's experts in a medical malpractice action following a Frye hearing, on the grounds that their theories concerning the positioning of the arm of the injured party during surgery were not generally accepted in the medical field. Citing Frye, the First Department held this was error: "The experts' testimony, and the supporting medical literature, satisfied the Frye standard, and a jury should be permitted to hear the testimony." [FN12]
In Zito v. Zabarsky, [FN13] a Second Department decision citing Justice Saxe's concurring opinion in Marsh, that court, in reviewing a trial court's preclusion of plaintiff's medical experts in a medical malpractice action, reminded litigants that the "burden of proving general acceptance rests upon the party offering the disputed expert testimony." [FN14] Acknowledging that the alleged causal link between an excessive dose of Zocar and the

作者: wujun19838 时间: 2006-7-6 14:13

无关

作者: 800880900 时间: 2006-7-6 16:39

路过看看

作者: kele8boy 时间: 2006-7-21 00:49
学的跟做的不一样，感觉大学算是白上了

作者: lijie1029 时间: 2006-7-22 14:19

还没有呢

作者: 胖子福音 时间: 2006-7-25 10:48
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: EVA丹丹 时间: 2006-7-26 16:20

在边缘徘徊着！～

作者: 刘丽 时间: 2006-7-31 13:38
当然

作者: 魔术师 时间: 2006-8-2 14:04
正行有专业无关．．副业跟专业有关．．．

作者: 寒邪 时间: 2006-8-10 22:50
无关无关

毫无关系

作者: shenyin_1122 时间: 2006-8-12 10:55
无关的

作者: 风中落叶 时间: 2006-8-13 04:09

学计算机

干医药这行

作者: wanghui008 时间: 2006-8-13 16:54
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: 回忆回不去 时间: 2006-8-14 16:20
哎，大多是专业不对路啊

作者: 不许再涨 时间: 2006-8-15 17:01
工作没兴趣，这么混着再说吧，大家有没有什么发财的机会啊，

作者: 寒邪 时间: 2006-8-16 10:04

强..

作者: 舟山海鲜 时间: 2006-8-18 18:27
我的非常对口，先做两三年再说（今年刚毕业），学点技术吧！

作者: 寒邪 时间: 2006-8-18 19:55

能对口的同学算是幸福的～～加油加油哦

作者: 正华国际 时间: 2006-8-19 07:46

同学们请拼命工作吧，以回报生我们养我们的父母，这是我们作为儿女的责任和使命！

我公司现招收营销、经济专业人才，有意者请与本人联系。

QQ：327130222

EMAIL：kaiyuer@vip.sina.com

TEL:13573857786

网址：www.zzvy.com.cn

作者: 枫叶0577 时间: 2006-8-20 22:54
学监狱管理,做警察,应该有关系

作者: maomao1982 时间: 2006-8-21 09:15

本人学的是计算机

作者: 南星宝宝 时间: 2006-8-24 13:25
ddddddddddddddddddddddddd

作者: 一脸美人痣 时间: 2006-9-7 23:19
完全的无关

作者: fgm 时间: 2006-9-8 12:40

本公司招收业务员~有兴趣的可以密我,QQ269296799 杭州爱来客科技有限公司

作者: fgm 时间: 2006-9-8 12:44
这年头,学习和工作搭不了太多边~~

作者: 中国魂 时间: 2006-9-12 17:42

看来很多多无关的

明年不知道自己会怎么样,学计算机的

作者: wxyd 时间: 2006-9-13 09:34

人力资源－综合管理还算有关系

作者: linchu 时间: 2006-9-15 18:20
本人搞机械的,现在做QC,这个行业对刚毕业的很有好处,见识比较多,一个月也有个4K,不过不适合长期做.

作者: hjepe 时间: 2006-9-16 22:41
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: 昔日故人 时间: 2006-9-17 09:48

与专业无关

作者: htfyw 时间: 2006-9-18 10:43

我是学国际贸易的,现在在一家网站工作,没有做国际贸易的工作,感觉和专业没有多大的联系.

作者: hzvsbt 时间: 2006-9-18 15:42
工作首先是为了生存，跳槽是为了更好的生存，我学广告的，现在做市场，市场是个大海，广告也就一小溪

作者: jack_fz 时间: 2006-9-20 10:15

算是有关系吧,学的是软件,做的是杂活!

作者: zxk1000 时间: 2006-9-20 13:28
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: tiamo2003 时间: 2006-9-22 15:25

偶学建筑环境与设备工程

现在在设计院做水暖设计刚好学以至用！

作者: lala221 时间: 2006-9-22 19:53
老实说，一点关系没有

作者: sky洋 时间: 2006-9-23 11:45

作者: 过客1983 时间: 2006-9-25 15:31

很多人希望能够对口,,,

可是往往很难够如愿以偿...

作者: eoero123 时间: 2006-9-26 10:37
虽说有关，但我所做的却毫不相干诶．．．

作者: hongkongy 时间: 2006-9-26 15:20
现在有关说不定以后还有关，不能一辈子干一个行业

作者: 汉博 时间: 2006-9-26 15:34
现在工作和自己专业相关的其实很少，非科班出生在面对工作的时候可能出现一些情况是很重要的，但一个人的特质也是很重要的

作者: Xml_explorer 时间: 2006-9-29 16:02

计算机 WEB开发

作者: 一盏清茗 时间: 2006-10-5 19:35

工作难找啊！

作者: 风中落叶 时间: 2006-10-5 21:13

工作跟专业

一个南极

一个北极

作者: wadpj 时间: 2006-10-14 03:23
有

作者: zhouzhou6 时间: 2006-10-14 23:25

hao~

作者: Q7 时间: 2006-10-15 14:45
我现在工作的和专业还是很吻合的,就不知道以后发展怎么样了....哎````

作者: 小鸡快跑 时间: 2006-10-16 12:38
无聊发呆ing

作者: sld_1984 时间: 2006-10-27 22:35

明年毕业,先看看先

作者: 夏天依然 时间: 2006-11-1 17:04

国贸专业外贸服装跟单累人！

作者: cindy2300520 时间: 2006-11-4 11:42
顶~~

作者: A115 时间: 2006-11-8 21:48

对口的不能再对口！

作者: 沙滩上晒干鱼 时间: 2006-11-8 21:56
有那么一点

作者: fu5052169 时间: 2006-11-9 12:22
不知道啦，现在还没开始找工作呢

作者: zcysc 时间: 2006-11-9 14:51

我还是稍微有点关系的，我学财务管理，做税务方面的工作。

作者: zhejiangshaoxin 时间: 2006-11-11 17:37
提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: 9日 时间: 2006-11-12 09:38

书上的东西完全没学到

和LZ一样机械设计专业的

不知道该做什么了

思考中

作者: comply 时间: 2006-11-13 20:51
hao

作者: 梧二 时间: 2006-12-30 20:19
我是与专业无关的，主要是财务专业会与工作有些相关，其它的都是一样，都是从新开始

作者: 蟋蟀小屋 时间: 2006-12-31 14:27
哈哈我的工作和专业也粘不到边阿！

作者: 超帅 时间: 2007-1-3 04:33

我学的是信息与计算科学。。。

那时候数学分析是挂了一年又一年。。现在。。。有毛用哦。没看到有啥用

我第一个工作是股票做会员。然后是做理财。。现在是做黄金。。。。有那么一点点联系，我怎么说也是学过西方经济学的。不过好象是补考过的

欢迎光临下沙论坛 (http://bbs.xiasha.cn/)