Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.

They let you? well done on that

The criteria is career prospects, intelligence and required thinking ability, maximum capability, salary and overall usefulness. What other criteria can you think of in a practical sense that wouldnt subjectify this topic?

I reply to your posts and showed you why you're wrong. You then choose to make unsupported claims (where have i contradicted myself?, I did always say law required logic and reasoning)

I have concluded you're just butthurt.

I see. Can you justify ascribing value to those criteria in way that isn't subjective?

I see. Can you justify ascribing value to those criteria in way that isn't subjective?

i have. You have contradicted yourself at leat 3 times (just from your replies to me, not generally).

I have, nonetheless, gotten my answer, which is that an immature person is trying to validate his choices and endorse his self-imagined superiority.

Where did you show me I'm wrong? I asked you two questions and you evaded both.

You said Law is mostly 'regurgitating' with some logic and reasoning, and so it is still far inferior to STEM subjects. But it's not about law, it's about all other subjects - what makes you think literary interpretation does not require logic and reasoning?

Exactly - you don't because you've never done the subjects per at a high level.

As such, the claims are not unsupported and, as such, I knee-jerk reactions are expected.

Because there are plenty of facts that support what i have said.

Ok now you're just putting words in my mouth. Read all my posts where i spoke about law, you will find i said otherwise.

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.

Let's suppose that it is objectively true that STEM graduates have better "career prospects, [higher] intelligence and required thinking ability, maximum capability, salary and overall usefulness", why should it follow that these criteria are objectively important?

Notice the comparative there. Let alone the fact that you're talking about Sociology as if you've experienced the subject at a higher level.

Done.

You are so incredibly insecure OP. I'm not even bothering addressing most of your points as the logic behind them is BS to start with.

Why is it that some STEM students on TSR are by FAR the ones with the greatest chip on their shoulders and severe superiority complexes? My god, there are CEOs with History degrees with greater earning potential than most STEM students will have in their lives.

Learn to be more respectful and not boast about nonsense like this.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, skills more logical than that of other non stem degrees. Your point?

Can you suggest criteria that is better?

And im talking about criteria that you can objectify to a fair extent

Ok, never mind. Apparently you can't even understand a simple sentence. So much for superiority. Lol.

You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is lies on you. Scentific method 101.

Salary is measureable, the others are contentious at best - and you've still not shown why those things are objectively important.

In terms of intelligence - You can look at grades.
In terms of career prospects - You can look at employability + criteria for jobs

Earlier i posted links, you are obliged to go back and check them out.

Oh, the irony! Is this your go to sentence when you realise you're wrong?