Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.

Got offered for just Maths but then i opted to do some Economics. Idk, may revert back to pure maths at uni

Hilarious. I would mock a non STEM student but i have no idea what you lot do that requires a brain.

wow that's a pretty respectable degree! But at which university? That's what's important.

What's your opinion on Law?

Warwick, got an offer from UCL but i turned that down. but yeah, university is definitely more important

Warwick, got an offer from UCL but i turned that down. but yeah, university is definitely more important

Well done! I heard warwick and UCL are great unis full of intelligent people studying all sorts of subjects, both STEM and non-STEM. I'm looking to do maths and/with economics as well at UCL or LSE or maybe Warwick.

Outside of high-end Law and Finance/IB(and TSR) it's not the be all and end all. Even then it'll only get you an interview.

Law is mostly memorising and learning things by heart but certain aspects like some game theory (prisoners dilemma etc) require skills that are more logical. So you definitely need to be intelligent to do Law and isnt on the same level as something like Sociology.

Any really, completeuniguide etc etc

Or more generally you can say russell group but not all of them are good

But saying that I don't really see the point in something like a pure Maths degree either, Engineering, science etc sure.

I actually heard getting a job from a pure science degree (physics, biology, chemistry) can be very difficult. Many go into research, teaching or take a second degree.

Law isn't mostly memorising. If you memorise a list of cases and statutes and then you go and just write those in the exam without applying them to the facts, you will fail. It's a lot of analysis, application, knowing context and policy/politics stuff around it too.

If you think the whole point of your degree is to get a good job then I mostly agree with you about STEM actually. But typically the kind of people who take English etc aren't aiming for a top job, they 'love their subject'. Funny how a lot of English, History etc grads end up doing a Law conversion anyway when they realise the only real job for them with those subjects is to be a teacher. But saying that I don't really see the point in something like a pure Maths degree either, Engineering, science etc sure. There's a guy at my work with a masters in Maths from Cambridge and he gets paid less than me with a 2.1 in Law from an average Russell Group uni.

Im yet to see anyone disproving my original statement.

But they all say different things. For example, one international ranking places Manchester as 7th best in the UK. Another places it 25th. Do you take an average or do you pick and choose what to ignore?

Using rankings alone is silly

I take it you ignored my rebuttal on the first page of this thread.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I agree with you on the whole. However a pure maths degree, science etc can be used by ppl to see the aptitude and intelligence of someone, a non STEM degree cant in the same sense.

I don't think 'all' non STEM degrees fit with that statement though. I wouldn't consider someone with a pure physics degree any more intelligent than someone who has learnt Chinese to a fluent level from scratch. Also, in my experience few people are good at both science/maths subjects and languages - most of my friends did physics and medicine, and none of them were any good at languages or anything involving essays. Languages are equally as valuable as science IMO.

Also when you see people who have done a STEM at a **** uni with a **** grade I don't think they're intelligent either over people who have done a non STEM at a good uni. Most of the time people who have done humanities at Oxbridge and top unis could've done science if they wanted to, but chosen not to - that doesn't make them stupid. My sister for example got A*s in all sciences as well as all humanities, she also took maths and a science to AS and got straight As in all her subjects. She's definitely intelligent enough to have done STEM if she wanted to, but she chose to do languages. That doesn't make her less intelligent than someone who muddled through STEM with Bs and Cs.

I was talking very generally, i.e. in general, STEM grads are objectively superior. Really? Languages are equally valuable as sciences? Cant say i didnt laugh at that.

And yeah, someone from a lower uni cannot be compared to that of a higher uni, already said that here on this thread.