The Student Room Group

Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by DJMayes
Preach bro.


Further, how would you characterise the creativity of mathematics?
Original post by lolatmaths
Hows maths at cambridge? Is it true only 20% get a 2:1 (dont mean to sound like a dick)?


Enjoyable. Hard but rewarding. I think that's false - from what I remember I think it's something like 30% 1st, 40% 2:1, 30% 2:2 and 10% 3rd. 2:1 is certainly the most common grade.

Not sure how you sound like a dick here.

Original post by BizzStrut
Further, how would you characterise the creativity of mathematics?


I think it's very creative. Of the many questions I've done since I've got here there are few I would characterise as tedious and many which require quite a bit of mental gymnastics and some original thought you don't get taught in the lectures. Certainly I don't view my degree as an algorithm. Moreover I have the experience of seeing 10 people come up with 10 completely different solutions to the same problem, each with their own unique flavour and drawing on some area of maths.

Maths has plenty of room for creativity once you get past the "differentiate this formula" that most students here have not been exposed to more than.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
Look at all my posts as well as posts from other users. Links have been given to objectively justify my points.

try again.


I don't particularly want to read all of your posts in this thread! I contend that we can tell your point is vacuous a priori: whether or not something is superior is subjective by definition. You can pick all the criteria that you like and cherry pick the evidence to make STEM come out on top, but that doesn't make the criteria you've selected to quantify 'superiority' any less subjective.


If you'd studied something that required a little more critical thought (a humanity, perhaps?) you might have realised your folly before posting :wink:
Original post by Implication
I don't particularly want to read all of your posts in this thread!


Ignorance is bliss.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
Ignorance is bliss.


i guess you would know

ohhhhhhhhhh #rekt #STEMstudentowned #gotswag #getonmylevelson


But seriously your point really is entirely vacuous. Once you pick a quantifiable scale of 'betterness', there certainly are ways to identify what is objectively better than what according to that scale. But you still haven't shown that any thing is objectively better because choosing that scale to define 'betterness' was completely subjective!
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Implication
i guess you would know

ohhhhhhhhhh #rekt #STEMstudentowned #gotswag #getonmylevelson


But seriously your point really is entirely vacuous. Once you pick a quantifiable scale of 'betterness', there certainly are ways to identify what is objectively better than what according to that scale. But you still haven't shown that any thing is objectively better because choosing that scale to define 'betterness' was completely subjective!


As i said, ive posted links on this thread.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
As i said, ive posted links on this thread.


Links can't magically make the subjective objective, no matter how many you post.
Original post by Implication
Links can't magically make the subjective objective, no matter how many you post.


But STEM students do get paid more. They do have greater career prospects. Tell me which of the criteria were subjective.
You're still here??
This is still ongoing omg
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
But STEM students do get paid more. They do have greater career prospects. Tell me which of the criteria were subjective.


The fact that you've chosen to base whether or not something is superior based upon how much its graduates earn or their career prospects is what is subjective. As I said, once you've picked a criterion - graduate earnings, for example - there are fairly objective ways to measure which comes out on top. But picking that criterion to define superiority in the first place was not remotely objective.
Original post by Trapz99
Art and music are actually hard as well because they require creativity which is very hard to learn. A person doing a STEM subject would find it difficult to do a creative subject, and vice versa.


********. Harmony, tempo etc...are objective and measurable. A bot could compose pieces equally as complex and nuanced as a human given the same inputs (musical influences), or with a thorough enough exposure to the genre. There was in fact such a test carried out, where a bot managed to trick classical musicians into thinking the pieces had been composed by the likes of Bach.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/09/virtual-composer-makes-beautiful-musicand-stirs-controversy/

Art is ********. There is geometry. And geometrical patterns can be randomly spewed by an alg, to create a beautiful 'work of art'. Such that if that work was created by an 'edgy' individual, pretentious 'nuanced' individuals would hail as coming from the Gods!
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
Of course it does


But you just said that any STEM degree outside of the top 20 universities on the league table doesn't count as a STEM degree??????
Original post by Katty3
1) Money isn't everything.
2) so? People are intelligent in different ways.
3)So? Some people want to do a very specific career.
4) Prove it.
5) I highly doubt that. A computer will never be able to do emotion work.
6) And if you don't want to go into a career like that?
7) Doubt it. A physicist couldn't work as a counsellor working with anorexic teenagers.
8) And a lot can't.

Posted from TSR Mobile


1)Irrelevant
2)He's probably referring to facility with abstract concepts and simultaneously a strong grounding in logic.
3) Irrelevant
...
5) Wrong! What on Earth is emotion work?? Art and Music? Nope. Literature? Nope. There is no 'human essence'. Humans behaviour can be perfectly modeled given a computer with enough memory to store alot of data. I recommend listening to a few Marvin Minsky lectures, if not reading his works altogether.
...
7) Probably not but what on earth is that supposed to prove? A psychiatrist probably can. It's a STEM subject regardless of what anyone may believe. Just a bit more specialized.

Don't delude yourself, STEM subjects do require greater intellectual capacity in general.

But where OP is wrong, is that STEM won't be spared from the AI revolution. Though STEM + ability to use computer technology effectively, will probably protect you from that revolution for a while longer.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
Will study Mathematics and Economics. At a level i do maths, F maths, Physics and Economics.


So you're doing 75% STEM at A-level and plan to do 50% STEM at university. I thought you thought that STEM is superior. If you really believe that STEM is superior then why not study more STEM subjects?
Original post by DrownedDeity
1)Irrelevant
2)He's probably referring to facility with abstract concepts and simultaneously a strong grounding in logic.
3) Irrelevant
...
5) Wrong! What on Earth is emotion work?? Art and Music? Nope. Literature? Nope. There is no 'human essence'. Humans behaviour can be perfectly modeled given a computer with enough memory to store alot of data. I recommend listening to a few Marvin Minsky lectures, if not reading his works altogether.
...
7) Probably not but what on earth is that supposed to prove? A psychiatrist probably can. It's a STEM subject regardless of what anyone may believe. Just a bit more specialized.

Don't delude yourself, STEM subjects do require greater intellectual capacity in general.

But where OP is wrong, is that STEM won't be spared from the AI revolution. Though STEM + ability to use computer technology effectively, will probably protect you from that revolution for a while longer.


Emotional labour is the likes of teaching, nursing, counselling etc. It's not jobs that computers can do.

Posted from TSR Mobile
There are some non-STEM subjects that can sometimes be harder e.g. English Literature / History compared to Resistant Materials. They also vary from person to person and not everyone is naturally creative. However subjects like Photography, Travel & Tourism, World Development, in my opinion, aren't on par with Further Maths or Languages
Original post by Katty3
Emotional labour is the likes of teaching, nursing, counselling etc. It's not jobs that computers can do.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Teaching is the same as inputting language in a computer in a high-level programming language, which is then interpreted into machine language.

The teacher 's role is to interpret stuff like Algebra into a language that the student can understand.

My point is that there is nothing distinct about this job so that it cannot be executed more efficiently by a computer. In my experience, I learnt more online and mroe efficiently than through a teacher.

Why?

If one guide doesn't explain something in a way I understand, I skip to another.

Counselling can be done effectively by a psychologist and a psychiatrists depending on what requires counselling.

Nursing isn't special, there is no 'freestyle'. No reason why a bot can't complete the task of a nurse.

Spoiler

A bot can't provide the emotional support patients need
Original post by Himtiaz
A bot can't provide the emotional support patients need


It can if it's coded by someone with an understanding of psychology/neuroscience/relevant disciplines

Quick Reply

Latest