Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.

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.

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

'STEM qualifications alone are not enough - many employers find that applicants lack general workplace experience (42%) and are weak in employability skills (39%).'

'About a fifth of graduate-level jobs need applicants to have studied a specific discipline at university, but in recruiting for other roles employers prefer graduates holding STEM degrees (favoured by 50% of employers).' - The thing to take from this is that for jobs where the degree you took doesn't even matter, 50% prefer STEM graduates, and 50% do not. Seems pretty even to me. I want to stress that this is for jobs without a specific degree requirement, i.e. not chemical engineering or whatever. This is for regular, ordinary jobs, and the preference split between STEM graduates and non-STEM graduates is exactly equal.

'The highest median graduate starting salaries are paid for legal roles (£24,000) and engineering and science roles (£23,000).' - The highest paid median graduate job salary is not in a STEM role.

'Employability skills are the most important factor taken into account when businesses recruit graduates - four in five employers (81%) value these skills above other factors such as degree subject (70%) and class (46%).' - Only TSR gets so antsy about degree subject, employers care more about your actual workplace skills.

'Among those firms that need employees with STEM skills and knowledge, two in five (42%) currently have difficulties recruiting staff.' - When you consider this in accordance with the fact that 42% of STEM employees lack general workplace experience, and 39% are weak in employability skills, this would suggest that there is not actually a shortage of STEM workers; the reason why employers are finding it difficult to recruit is because STEM graduates lack employability skills.

Please retort accordingly.

Though I will commend you on actually using numbers. I said that OP didn't understand what 'objective' meant, and I stand by that because he was just throwing statements around without proof and calling them facts. So thank you for contributing something actually meaningful.

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.

Depends, if you study History/Russian studies at Oxford/Harvard you will still have a better chance of getting an Investment Banking/Consulting job then someone who studies CS/Econ at Penn State.

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 more efficiently than through a teacher.

Why?

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

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.

STEM students are undoubtedly the most insecure people, they have to make accounts simply to put forward their agenda for example.

"Which is an insult to STEM students" -- oh boo hoo, do you want a blankey, and will me reading out the digits of pi make you feel better?

"STEM grads are more intelligent since their degrees need more thinking ability." -- Right because a degree in Mandarin needs no thinking skill whatsoever? Of course not.

Stop trying to make yourself feel more powerful. We'll all have the same size gravestones.

This forum has been quick to dismiss people who claim that STEM and non-STEM subjects are on the same level. Well let me break it to people who study non-STEM subjects; STEM is superior in every aspect.
Here's why:
- STEM grads earn way more money than non STEM grads(ST and LT)
- STEM students have better grades than non STEM students (on average)
- STEM grads have greater career prospects than non STEM grads
- STEM grads are more intelligent since their degrees need more thinking ability.
- In the future, STEM grads will be more in demand since computers and AI can easily replace the jobs of a non STEM grad.
- Careers such as high finance actually have a preference of STEM (and econ/finance) over other non STEM grads. Why? Because STEM grads have a more respectable degree.
- STEM grads can do the job a non STEM grad does (perhaps with a little bit of training)
- Many non STEM degrees such as languages can be done by STEM students so long as they choose the appropriate modules at uni.

Lets be honest, the people who say "STEM and non STEM degrees are equal!" are those who do non STEM degrees or A levels and are very insecure. This has now led to STEM students and non STEM students degrees look equal, which is an insult to STEM students. A maths grad and english grad are not equal, sorry.

(Economics/Finance are also basically STEM since they have a lot of maths in their degrees)

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.

I've considered all aspects possible that can be objectively measured. Your argument in essence is generic.

The simple fact is that you have not shown STEM to be objectively superior. The very concept of superiority is necessarily subjective.

In this case superiority means higher in quality

I have objectiively proved that, using all aspects possible that can be objectively measured.

Which is also subjective.

These are different statements. Proving something objectively is not the same as subjectively choosing criteria to quantify that thing (and biasing your analysis from the get go by specifically choosing criteria that can only be measured objectively), and then objectively proving the statement according to those subjective criteria.

It's not limited to Oxford/Harvard tho

Posted from TSR Mobile

Find then Oxford/Cambridge/UCL/LSE/Imperial/Durham/Warwick and Harvard to UVA in America! Happy now?

Indeed

Posted from TSR Mobile

Nope, that's the definition of superior which is applicable to this situation I have also proven its higher in quality, objectively.

My point is i've considered all possible criteria that can possibly be objectively quantified, which i have done so. I have not picked and chosen the criteria. I've repeated this several times already, you always seem to ignore it.