The Student Room Group

Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Princepieman
It's a representative sample, and much the same attitude is seen at any comparable investment banks.

Economics is hardly applicable lol.. Ask any banker whether what you learn in economics actually makes a difference on the job (besides obvious exceptions: fixed income desks) and the answer you'll get is no. Everyone heading into any of the major finance firms will be given firm wide training to introduce them into the ideas they need to do well on the job, the rest of the learning is by doing - not by comparing the affects of Keynesian vs Classical economics looool.

Your response sounds like you're answering an exam. And as exams go, you're making some awfully inaccurate assumptions.

Posted from TSR Mobile


OP was talking about the acquisition of the job, in which STEM is prevailing. My argument was pointing out the prevalence may not be necessarily due to the quality of degree but rather the quantity of STEM applications. If you arguing against the usefulness of STEM in banking/finance, why are you disagreeing with this?

For the training I think this really depends on how much the firm is willing to invest with regards to training people from the ground up or assuming some previous knowledge?

Either way, I'm pretty sure you can't be having a job banking without knowing what Net Present Value or IRR is, or even basic accounting concepts of Return on shareholders fund etc...all of this is first year undergraduate stuff. Certainly, you would need to mention this in your interview to at least show you have some interest?

Personally I've only done 1 year of undergrad so I can't speak for training programmes or interviews but surely some knowledge of the subject will certainly ease the process? Operation of Excel, in particular in this age?

You have also claimed "with obvious exceptions" for the amount of Economics related knowledge needed. Those are big and bold assumptions too, and I don't see how they are less daring than mine.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
you've got a real attitude problem here mate, fix it up quick. you may have more knowledge than me but it wouldnt take long for anyone to familiarise themselves with this, just takes intuition and some googling.

so are you saying what im saying is wrong? Because if you claim to have as much knowledge as you claim you do then you would know that im not wrong. Or perhaps you arent as much of an expert as you think you are.


Oh crap, so you make a condescending comment about my age then you turn around and give me the 'you have an attitude problem' line? Wow, wonderful, next you'll tell me that I'm a delusional drama Queen named 'Alice'. Give up. Yeah, googling - not as if I've been networking with bankers for years, thanks for your input.

I'm saying show me the money. I don't care for wrong or right without any semblance of reasoning or data. All you've said thus far is 'STEM students have higher career prospects in finance', you haven't qualified that statement - which isn't even true.




Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 182
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
What? I used this criteria, to which you said why is this the only suitable criteria. If you have a problem with the criteria then you have to amend. I cannot see any other criteria that can be used to assess it. If you have problem with the criteria, the burden is solely on you to suggest otherwise. Why would i go against what i said?

But then I'm not the one claiming that either STEM or non-STEM subjects are objectively better than the other, nor did I claim that they are objectively equal. My assertion was not that there are necessarily better criteria out there, merely I was questioning why you would choose these criteria out of all possible criteria and why you think those criteria are objectively important. And quite frankly, if you couldn't think of any others, then that's a lack of imagination on your part.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.

Seriously? If you're going to meticulously question it then that isnt my problem.


If you can't respond with an adequate answer when people question your claims, it indicates that you haven't thought it through properly and that your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Princepieman
Oh crap, so you make a condescending comment about my age then you turn around and give me the 'you have an attitude problem' line? Wow, wonderful, next you'll tell me that I'm a delusional drama Queen named 'Alice'. Give up. Yeah, googling - not as if I've been networking with bankers for years, thanks for your input.

I'm saying show me the money. I don't care for wrong or right without any semblance of reasoning or data. All you've said thus far is 'STEM students have higher career prospects in finance', you haven't qualified that statement - which isn't even true.




Posted from TSR Mobile


Condescending? lool, you suggested i had years of experience in your own patronising comment. Keep using that tone of yours, great. Im sure you've been networking, thats great. Unlike you, im not going to take this opportunity to show off.

As you seem to say so often, google it., im not bothered right now.
Original post by Comus
But then I'm not the one claiming that either STEM or non-STEM subjects are objectively better than the other, nor that they are objectively equal. My assertion was not that there are necessarily better criteria out there, merely I was questioning why you would choose these criteria out of all possible criteria and why you think those criteria are objectively important. And quite frankly, if you couldn't think of any others, then that's a lack of imagination on your part.


Ive already said why i thought this criteria is good. If you think there's better ones, then tell me. It isnt difficult. Oh wait, you dont have any better ones.
Original post by lecafe88
OP was talking about the acquisition of the job, in which STEM is prevailing. My argument was pointing out the prevalence may not be necessarily due to the quality of degree but rather the quantity of STEM applications. If you arguing against the usefulness of STEM in banking/finance, why are you disagreeing with this?

For the training I think this really depends on how much the firm is willing to invest with regards to training people from the ground up or assuming some previous knowledge?

Either way, I'm pretty sure you can't be having a job banking without knowing what Net Present Value or IRR is, or even basic accounting concepts of Return on shareholders fund etc...all of this is first year undergraduate stuff. Certainly, you would need to mention this in your interview to at least show you have some interest?

Personally I've only done 1 year of undergrad so I can't speak for training programmes or interviews but surely some knowledge of the subject will certainly ease the process? Operation of Excel, in particular in this age?

You have also claimed "with obvious exceptions" for the amount of Economics related knowledge needed. Those are big and bold assumptions too, and I don't see how they are less daring than mine.


1. It's not an 'assumption' when it's directly from the horse's mouth of bankers I'm in contact with

2. Interview prep is done by everyone, it does not inherently favour one subject over another. How well you can grasp NPV or IRR isn't a distinction of whether you did Econ or not it's as a result of how fast you can process new information

3. Every major finance firm has a full time training scheme for 4-6 weeks prior to new starts hitting their desks. It's designed to introduce all new hires to the key concepts and skills needed to hit the ground running

4. I do agree with your over-representation of applications point, never said otherwise



Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
Condescending? lool, you suggested i had years of experience in your own patronising comment. Keep using that tone of yours, great. Im sure you've been networking, thats great. Unlike you, im not going to take this opportunity to show off.

As you seem to say so often, google it., im not bothered right now.


It was sarcasm lol... Did not mean to 'patronise' anyone. You on the other hand specified certain features from my profile, which is much more condescending than a sarcastic comment about you not backing up your claims.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by princepieman
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


F
U
C
K
I
N
G

D
E
S
T
R
O
Y
E
D


FUCKING DESTROYED.png


Rest in pieces, OP.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
you've got a real attitude problem here mate, fix it up quick. you may have more knowledge than me but it wouldnt take long for anyone to familiarise myself with this, just takes intuition and some googling.

so are you saying what im saying is wrong? Because if you claim to have as much knowledge as you claim you do then you would know that im not wrong. Or perhaps you arent as much of an expert as you think you are.


You've got a real attitude problem here mate, fix it up quick. You may have more knowledge than me but it wouldn't take long for anyone to familiarise themselves with this, it just takes intuition and some googling.

So are you saying what I'm saying is wrong? Because if you have as much knowledge as you claim you do then you would know that I'm not wrong. Or perhaps you aren't as much of an expert as you think you are.

May I suggest an English course instead?
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 189
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
Ive already said why i thought this criteria is good. If you think there's better ones, then tell me. It isnt difficult. Oh wait, you dont have any better ones.


You may have argued why you think the criteria you've chosen are good - but that doesn't mean that you've shown that the selection of criteria is objective. You can't claim that Y is objectively better than X by choosing subjectively which criteria you think to be important.

There's a whole host of criteria one could choose, from the reasonable to the ridiculous, it doesn't necessarily make them objective.
Original post by Princepieman
It was sarcasm lol... Did not mean to 'patronise' anyone. You on the other hand specified certain features from my profile, which is much more condescending than a sarcastic comment about you not backing up your claims.



Posted from TSR Mobile


fair enough, not exactly possible for me to see you were sarcastic over the internet.
Original post by JamesN88
You've got a real attitude problem here mate, fix it up quick. You may have more knowledge than me but it wouldn't take long for anyone to familiarise themselves with this, just takes intuition and some googling.

So are you saying what I'm saying is wrong? Because if you have as much knowledge as you claim you do then you would know that I'm not wrong. Or perhaps you aren't as much of an expert as you think you are.

May I suggest an English course instead?


Its the internet, no one cares.

Nah, my 2 A*s in my english GCSEs will do just fine.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Comus
You may have argued why you think the criteria you've chosen are good - but that doesn't mean that you've shown that the selection of criteria is objective. You can't claim that Y is objectively better than X by choosing subjectively which criteria you think to be important.

There's a whole host of criteria one could choose, from the reasonable to the ridiculous, it doesn't necessarily make them objective.


You still havent given ANY criteria that is better for me to use. Im happy to address them but you havent presented me with anything better.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
Its the internet, no one cares.

Nah, my 2 A*s in my english GCSEs will do just fine.


My point is that broadcasting your belief in your superiority via comments littered with grammatical errors isn't very convincing to say the least.
Original post by Princepieman
1. It's not an 'assumption' when it's directly from the horse's mouth of bankers I'm in contact with

2. Interview prep is done by everyone, it does not inherently favour one subject over another. How well you can grasp NPV or IRR isn't a distinction of whether you did Econ or not it's as a result of how fast you can process new information

3. Every major finance firm has a full time training scheme for 4-6 weeks prior to new starts hitting their desks. It's designed to introduce all new hires to the key concepts and skills needed to hit the ground running

4. I do agree with your over-representation of applications point, never said otherwise



Posted from TSR Mobile


If you are indeed taking this from the source of bankers, then fair game. If the playing field is indeed even after the training, then personality may then very well be the deciding factor of job performance (of course, not the only one), but this is a question for another day. I am still skeptical of whether your personal contacts and the article(s) are representative of the population's word, but I will find out myself in a few years time.
Reply 195
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
You still havent given ANY criteria that is better for me to use. Im happy to address them but you havent presented me with anything better.


By all means you can argue that X is better that Y because it better meets criterion Z and rely on objective data to demonstrate this: and such an argument might be very convincing. It shows that X is objectively better at meeting criterion Z but it does not show that X is objectively better than Y in a general sense. And your central claim was that "STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees" - in a general sense.

Again, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof, but I'll bite. If such things could be properly defined and measured then one might look at, say, empathy or life satisfaction. But I'm not going to assert that such criteria is somehow objectively chosen.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Mr Moon Man
Good god, that's such an idiotic thing to say


Wow. It's another troll account made yesterday. I'd bet money that you're all the same person


Original post by Ano9901whichone
This is a joke isn't it?


Please tell me you're joking. Maths is literally the OPPOSITE of creativity. You're following steps to solve an answer. The subjects which largely depend on creativity are the humanities. Maybe computer science too.

But jesus christ not Maths. You don't get English students googling answers to a question the night before. Or copying an answer from their friend. Everything has to be from their own work and they need to right frame of mind to create the the best work possible.

If creativity is one of the criteria OP is using to say STEM subjects are better than that one is already disproven. It gets worse with people who are good at maths. Their exams get to a point where it's not their ability being tested. What gets tested is who can make the least silly mistakes in this paper. And if you want to be creative when you're doing accounting or other maths related courses then gl finding a job.

Engineering is slightly different. The engineering branch with the most creativity is civil imo. But there's no valid way compare creativity in it to that in a humanitiy so calling one better is pointless.

Nearly everything OP has said is subjective (without a single source. He keeps asking others to do it for him) yet he's probably used the word objective like 10 times in this thread. It's a bit painful to watch. Plus with the way hes acted you'd think he got into Imperial or Oxbridge but clearly he didn't lol.
(edited 7 years ago)
As far as I know natural sciences graduates don't have a job prospect any better than any other degree.

Machines are expected to replace things like teaching last, and education is not a STEM subject; but they are expected to replace finance and accounting first, so I guess these STEM graduates who go into finance will end up being replaced much earlier than the sociologist or media studies graduates.
lol I can think of so many people who study non-stem subjects and get way better grades than me (I take stem subjects)


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 199
Original post by Lawliettt
Wow. It's another troll account made yesterday. I'd bet money that you're all the same person




Please tell me you're joking. Maths is literally the OPPOSITE of creativity. You're following steps to solve an answer. The subjects which largely depend on creativity are the humanities. Maybe computer science too.

But jesus christ not Maths. You don't get English students googling answers to a question the night before. Or copying an answer from their friend. Everything has to be from their own work and they need to right frame of mind to create the the best work possible.

If creativity is one of the criteria OP is using to say STEM subjects are better than that one is already disproven. It gets worse with people who are good at maths. Their exams get to a point where it's not their ability being tested. What gets tested is who can make the least silly mistakes in this paper. And if you want to be creative when you're doing accounting or other maths related courses then gl finding a job.

Engineering is slightly different. The engineering branch with the most creativity is civil imo. But there's no valid way compare creativity in it to that in a humanitiy so calling one better is pointless.

Nearly everything OP has said is subjective (without a single source. He keeps asking others to do it for him) yet he's probably used the word objective like 10 times in this thread. It's a bit painful to watch. Plus with the way hes acted you'd think he got into Imperial or Oxbridge but clearly he didn't lol.


Maths is actually a very creative subject. You just don't really see much of it if you're only exposed to gcse/ a level maths.

Quick Reply