Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
You made the claim that there is something wrong with the criteria.
I merely questioned your choice of criteria and asked you to demonstrate that those criteria were objectively chosen - I then pointed out that your attempts to demonstrate this were flawed. It's not the same thing as claiming that your criteria are flawed.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
What exactly did I claim?
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
Why would i suggest better criteria? I said mine was as good as possible
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
STEM is useful because demand for these jobs are growing. The government actually encourage ppl to take up STEM degrees.
STEM is useful because demand for these jobs are growing. The government actually encourage ppl to take up STEM degrees.
Interesting that you frame usefullness as being 'how well it suits the current needs of a market economy under the current mode of production'. Were I in your position I might have referred to increased life expectancy, advances in technology and agriculture, and abstract knowledge for which we later find applications for, as a result of the sciences and their applications. But outside the human experiance, it does not follow that those things are somehow 'objectively better' than not having them.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
STEM degrees are paid more. You know why? Supply is low hence showing it is more useful. 80% of jobs dont need a specific degree but an employer has a preference for STEM
The sciences and their applications are useful I do not deny that (though measuring 'usefulness' in a way that is comparable in this instance has problems) - but, as I touched on earlier in this post, why frame usefullness only in terms of commercial uses?
Moreover, it doesn't follow that something is useful merely because there's a relatively low supply. If there was a massive increase in the number of science graduates, would STEM subjects somehow decrease in their usefulness? Equally, something could be in very low supply and yet have few potential uses at all.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
A higher salary means better value for money for the degree, higher standard of living. Everything else i have answered.
A higher salary means better value for money for the degree, higher standard of living. Everything else i have answered.
This is dependent on the balance of power between employee and employer. If there was a large increase in the number of STEM graduates - assuming that they did not suddenly become heavily unionised - this would shift the balance of power further in favour of the employers, no? And so the likely outcome would be a decrease in average salary and a corresponding drop in standard of living relative to everyone else.
On a side note, I have noticed a sort of "quasi-utilitarian" undertone to your posts. I can see why utilitarianism is an attractive philosophy but 'maximises the general utility' is not the same as 'objectively better'.
Original post by Implication
Well definitions are of course arbitrary, but that isn't what I meant. 'Higher in quality' is itself subjective.Well,(a) how can you demonstrate that you have considered all possible criteria that can be quantified objectively?(b) many of these things cannot be quantified objectively. Specifying how to quantify them is not an objective practice.(c) doing this is not equivalent to showing that STEM is objectively superior.
PRSOM
(edited 7 years ago)
Lmao have you seen what some STEM students are like with essay subjects? My brother is a maths whiz but he can't write an essay to save his life.
Original post by Implication
(a) how can you demonstrate that you have considered all possible criteria that can be quantified objectively?
(b) many of these things cannot be quantified objectively. Specifying how to quantify them is not an objective practice.
(a) how can you demonstrate that you have considered all possible criteria that can be quantified objectively?
(b) many of these things cannot be quantified objectively. Specifying how to quantify them is not an objective practice.
(a) How am i to do that? The burden is on you to suggest an objective criteria.
(b) Read all my posts, i provide links for all of it.
Original post by MrsSheldonCooper
Lmao have you seen what some STEM students are like with essay subjects? My brother is a maths whiz but he can't write an essay to save his life.
lol yh i guess, STEM students do lack a certain writing caliber. But that's not applicable to everyone!
However, your brother now faces a large variety of careers with excellent prospects and often high paying jobs
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
(a) How am i to do that? The burden is on you to suggest an objective criteria.
Well you probably can't - that's my point
You claimed that you had:Original post by STEMisSuperior.
My point is i've considered all possible criteria that can possibly be objectively quantified
The burden is not on me to suggest a criteria, since my position is that suggesting a criteria is a necessarily subjective process and so cannot demonstrate that STEM is objectively superior. If you make the claim, the burden is on you to evidence it!
(b) Read all my posts, i provide links for all of it.
At best, your posts/links demonstrate that STEM performs better on a subjectively selected bunch of criteria that have been subjectively quantified.
For example, I might want to argue that non-STEM is objectively superior to STEM because it makes students better at research. I might cite a study (this is hypothetical btw - I have no idea if such a study exists) that gives graduates from STEM and non-STEM subjects a test that aims to measure their research abilities, and show that non-STEM students significantly outperform STEM students across the board.
But I'd have two problems:
(a) the criterion I have chosen ('better at research') does not demonstrate 'objective superiority' and I could have chosen any of infinitely many other criteria had I liked
(b) the measure I've used to quantify 'better at research' - the test results - may not really reflect research ability and I can't infer causation from this correlation anyway. Besides, choosing to quantify this way was entirely subjective.
How can I reasonably claim to have demonstrated that non-STEM is superior? I can't. If I'm very careful with my experimental setup, I might be justified in saying that non-STEM is better at producing graduates for research, but that's just one measure. And that's my point: when somebody says 'x is superior', the first question to ask back is 'superior for what?' The statement simply doesn't make sense without this information.
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
lol yh i guess, STEM students do lack a certain writing caliber. But that's not applicable to everyone!
So are non-STEM students superior in some sense?
However, your brother now faces a large variety of careers with excellent prospects and often high paying jobs
As do most non-STEM graduates. In fact, if you are correct and STEM really is significantly 'harder', someone who wants better prospects would probably be better off avoiding STEM, doing an 'easy' degree and focusing on the employability skills that graduate hiring teams actually care about. Your degree title and classification is way down their list of priorities - at every stage of recruitment they're gonna be far more interested in your performance on their tests, assessment centres, interviews etc. than in whether you studied Classics or Physics. They're employing you to do a job, not perform calculations in theoretical atrophysics!
Original post by Implication
Well you probably can't - that's my point You claimed that you had:
The burden is not on me to suggest a criteria, since my position is that suggesting a criteria is a necessarily subjective process and so cannot demonstrate that STEM is objectively superior. If you make the claim, the burden is on you to evidence it!
At best, your posts/links demonstrate that STEM performs better on a subjectively selected bunch of criteria that have been subjectively quantified.
For example, I might want to argue that non-STEM is objectively superior to STEM because it makes students better at research. I might cite a study (this is hypothetical btw - I have no idea if such a study exists) that gives graduates from STEM and non-STEM subjects a test that aims to measure their research abilities, and show that non-STEM students significantly outperform STEM students across the board.
But I'd have two problems:
(a) the criterion I have chosen ('better at research'
does not demonstrate 'objective superiority' and I could have chosen any of infinitely many other criteria had I liked
(b) the measure I've used to quantify 'better at research' - the test results - may not really reflect research ability and I can't infer causation from this correlation anyway. Besides, choosing to quantify this way was entirely subjective.
How can I reasonably claim to have demonstrated that non-STEM is superior? I can't. If I'm very careful with my experimental setup, I might be justified in saying that non-STEM is better at producing graduates for research, but that's just one measure. And that's my point: when somebody says 'x is superior', the first question to ask back is 'superior for what?' The statement simply doesn't make sense without this information.
So are non-STEM students superior in some sense?
As do most non-STEM graduates. In fact, if you are correct and STEM really is significantly 'harder', someone who wants better prospects would probably be better off avoiding STEM, doing an 'easy' degree and focusing on the employability skills that graduate hiring teams actually care about. Your degree title and classification is way down their list of priorities - at every stage of recruitment they're gonna be far more interested in your performance on their tests, assessment centres, interviews etc. than in whether you studied Classics or Physics. They're employing you to do a job, not perform calculations in theoretical atrophysics!
You claimed that you had:The burden is not on me to suggest a criteria, since my position is that suggesting a criteria is a necessarily subjective process and so cannot demonstrate that STEM is objectively superior. If you make the claim, the burden is on you to evidence it!
At best, your posts/links demonstrate that STEM performs better on a subjectively selected bunch of criteria that have been subjectively quantified.
For example, I might want to argue that non-STEM is objectively superior to STEM because it makes students better at research. I might cite a study (this is hypothetical btw - I have no idea if such a study exists) that gives graduates from STEM and non-STEM subjects a test that aims to measure their research abilities, and show that non-STEM students significantly outperform STEM students across the board.
But I'd have two problems:
(a) the criterion I have chosen ('better at research'
does not demonstrate 'objective superiority' and I could have chosen any of infinitely many other criteria had I liked(b) the measure I've used to quantify 'better at research' - the test results - may not really reflect research ability and I can't infer causation from this correlation anyway. Besides, choosing to quantify this way was entirely subjective.
How can I reasonably claim to have demonstrated that non-STEM is superior? I can't. If I'm very careful with my experimental setup, I might be justified in saying that non-STEM is better at producing graduates for research, but that's just one measure. And that's my point: when somebody says 'x is superior', the first question to ask back is 'superior for what?' The statement simply doesn't make sense without this information.
So are non-STEM students superior in some sense?
As do most non-STEM graduates. In fact, if you are correct and STEM really is significantly 'harder', someone who wants better prospects would probably be better off avoiding STEM, doing an 'easy' degree and focusing on the employability skills that graduate hiring teams actually care about. Your degree title and classification is way down their list of priorities - at every stage of recruitment they're gonna be far more interested in your performance on their tests, assessment centres, interviews etc. than in whether you studied Classics or Physics. They're employing you to do a job, not perform calculations in theoretical atrophysics!
I've considered all criteria. You can't even name one that i havent considered. Your point about my evidence, yeah you havent even looked at the,. And the last bit, i have already replied to perviously, silly argument really.
Now im going to ignore you until you give me a criteria that i havent yet considered. I have been objective, since ive looked at ALL possible criteria. As i have considered ALL objectively measurably criteria, this is objective. You got an issue, the burden is on YOU to suggest any criteria that can be objectively measured and suggests non STEM is better.
You sound like a butthurt non STEM person who is really making a massive fuss right now. I've repeated the same points again and again and you just ignore me repeatedly.
Original post by Implication
(a) how can you demonstrate that you have considered all possible criteria that can be quantified objectively?
(a) how can you demonstrate that you have considered all possible criteria that can be quantified objectively?
Prove to me that i havent. My standpoint is i have so the burden is wholly on you to disprove that.
Note that you will also need to provide stats that suggest non STEM is better in a certain aspect. (You cant, btw)
QED
/thread
/thread
Original post by MrsSheldonCooper
Lmao have you seen what some STEM students are like with essay subjects? My brother is a maths whiz but he can't write an essay to save his life.
Why is that important?
Original post by Maker
Why is that important?
Why is STEM important to someone who has no interest in it?
Original post by cherryred90s
Why is STEM important to someone who has no interest in it?
It pays for your life style. If there were no STEM in the world, you would not be writing on this website in the first place and would still be digging in the ground for food and dying at 30.
Original post by Maker
It pays for your life style. If there were no STEM in the world, you would not be writing on this website in the first place and would still be digging in the ground for food and dying at 30.
A STEM degree doesn't necessarily lead to insane income levels or wealth.
It does however (where there is innovation, which in itself is rare as most STEM research doesn't lead anywhere) create new platforms, technologies, biochemical structures etc. Of course, STEM as a discipline is important but studying it does not necessarily lead to riches or innovation; that part is entirely down to the individual, luck and the right situation.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Princepieman
A STEM degree doesn't necessarily lead to insane income levels or wealth.
It does however (where there is innovation, which in itself is rare as most STEM research doesn't lead anywhere) create new platforms, technologies, biochemical structures etc. Of course, STEM as a discipline is important but studying it does not necessarily lead to riches or innovation; that part is entirely down to the individual, luck and the right situation.
Posted from TSR Mobile
It does however (where there is innovation, which in itself is rare as most STEM research doesn't lead anywhere) create new platforms, technologies, biochemical structures etc. Of course, STEM as a discipline is important but studying it does not necessarily lead to riches or innovation; that part is entirely down to the individual, luck and the right situation.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Have you tried to cure cancer with English Lit?
Non-STEM courses are always associated by those who believe STEM is better by the fact that all non-STEM courses are considered easy like Media Studies. Lots of non-STEM courses, like History and Law, produce the most intelligent and (in the case of Law) often very high earners.
Original post by Maker
It pays for your life style. If there were no STEM in the world, you would not be writing on this website in the first place and would still be digging in the ground for food and dying at 30.
Both are equally important. Without non stem, how would you be able to formulate these sentences you're typing right now? there would be no creativity in the world, there would be no music, no art. Most importantly, there would be a lack of communication. We would be alive yes, but would life be worth living?
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
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)
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)
While I dont think stem and non stem are equal I just think they are different
1. This is true but only really because of the engineers and comp sci people, science and maths dont always have high salaries
2. stem get better grades not because they are smarter but because it is easier to identify the top students because there are only right and wrong answers where as essay based subjects are objective
3. Prospects are better on the whole for stem, cant really argue with that
4. How do you define intelligence though? Essay based subjects develop a lot of analysis skills which are very useless, hence why a fair few history majors etc go into finance
5. Again depends on the job, stem can be replaced in certain areas too
6. Again not true, plenty of humanities (though less than stem) go into finance, you will find in fact that a fair few hedge fund managers have non stem degrees
7. Can be said both ways
8. Somewhat true but it cant be learnt in anywhere near as much depth
A lot of your points are subjective and while the 2 areas are not equal they are just different and not necessarily worse than each other, yes pay tends to be lower for non stem but this can sometimes be related to choosing a lower paying more enjoyable career
There is also a lot of variation in prospects and difficulty of degree within stem itself (example engineering have better career prospects money wise than people doing physics degrees, but having seen what chemical engineers study I can say that the content I cover is much harder than a chemical engineering students year on year, for the first 2 years anyway havent seen past that yet)
Original post by Maker
Have you tried to cure cancer with English Lit?
Has it ever occurred to you that some people may have a genuine interest in something like English lit? There's no reason why one cannot succeed with that degree. Not everyone can be engineers/doctors. We need a variety of everything.
What would you say if your child wanted to study English at uni?
Original post by STEMisSuperior.
Common sense.
Also it isnt difficult to quantify difficulty, you look at things like drop out rates.
Also it isnt difficult to quantify difficulty, you look at things like drop out rates.
This isn't objective at all if you're reliant on drop out rates...
Original post by cherryred90s
Both are equally important. Without non stem, how would you be able to formulate these sentences you're typing right now? there would be no creativity in the world, there would be no music, no art. Most importantly, there would be a lack of communication. We would be alive yes, but would life be worth living?
There is plenty of creativity in the world. Loads of people who never went to university made great strides in literature and the arts. Shakespeare never went to university, neither did the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen never went since women weren't allowed to go to university anyway when she was alive. Leonardo Di Vinci never went despite making great leaps in technology, medicine and the visual arts.
I never did English at university yet, I am able to write these sentences.
Original post by cherryred90s
Has it ever occurred to you that some people may have a genuine interest in something like English lit? There's no reason why one cannot succeed with that degree. Not everyone can be engineers/doctors. We need a variety of everything.
What would you say if your child wanted to study English at uni?
What would you say if your child wanted to study English at uni?
My children will do what they want.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is it worth doing an arts/social science/humanities degree?
- STEM vs non-STEM salaries
- True or false - non-STEM degrees are a waste of time?
- What should I take as a 4th A-level?
- ..
- STEM Paid Internships this summer (i’m 18, haven’t started uni)
- Economics vs Computer science vs Math degree
- Is Politics and Economics at LSE considered a quantitative degree
- Ppe vs chemistry
- Can I get into Liverpool?
- Wondering what I should do after alevels.
- Mid Universities
- Is
- University Tuition Fees and Employment Prospects
- Is anyone doing Global Humanitarian Studies at UCL?
- Pharmacology Vs Biochemistry
- English literature degree?
- a level choices
- Is a Politics and Economics degree quantitative enough to become an actuary
- MSc Data Science
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
can you get accepted into a uni after being rejectedLast reply 1 minute ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Social work degree apprenticeship?Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University of Sheffield Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 2 minutes ago
LSE Economics L100 2024 EntryLast reply 2 minutes ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
28
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official: University of Nottingham A108 2024 Entry Applicant threadLast reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 2 minutes ago
LSE anthropology and law 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official LSE Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 13 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2850
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 4 weeks ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levelsTrending
Last reply 1 week ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 4 weeks ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levels
