Are Science degrees valued the same as Humanities; I think not

i'm just about to finish a masters degree in a natural science and there's has been a negligible amount of this in any of my science classes. in fact there was far more of this in half a term of my psychology a-level than in my entire science 'career'!

Where the **** are you lol?

I went to a ex-poly (boo, hiss etc) doing a biological degree and we spent a good section of the final year ripping scientific papers to shreds, having to explain why we think their conclusions could be flawed, even if they're correct how could the findings be made more concrete, did they make points in their discussion which their data doesn't really point to, do they or anyone involved in their paper have any sort of bias or were any sources of funding impact what they'd "find" from their results etc.

Hell we did it first and second year to a degree. I mean how else do you quote a lot of scientific papers in assignments otherwise? A lot of it is playing them against each other, Stubbs et al finds X happens, but Bartel et al founds X is not significant, Stubbs methodolgy is questionable due to Y, **** sample size, using Z as a measure instead of Q etc etc.

You must be taught to question to a pretty significant degree I'd have thought...albeit I've not done a Masters, but with it being a glorified dissertation, again since you're likely researching something new, you'd be using a lot of current stuff in the lit review and saying what areas they missed, what you're contributing, maybe what you think is an improved methodology etc.

Where the **** are you lol?

I went to a ex-poly (boo, hiss etc) doing a biological degree and we spent a good section of the final year ripping scientific papers to shreds, having to explain why we think their conclusions could be flawed, even if they're correct how could the findings be made more concrete, did they make points in their discussion which their data doesn't really point to, do they or anyone involved in their paper have any sort of bias or were any sources of funding impact what they'd "find" from their results etc.

Hell we did it first and second year to a degree. I mean how else do you quote a lot of scientific papers in assignments otherwise? A lot of it is playing them against each other, Stubbs et al finds X happens, but Bartel et al founds X is not significant, Stubbs methodolgy is questionable due to Y, **** sample size, using Z as a measure instead of Q etc etc.

You must be taught to question to a pretty significant degree I'd have thought...albeit I've not done a Masters, but with it being a glorified dissertation, again since you're likely researching something new, you'd be using a lot of current stuff in the lit review and saying what areas they missed, what you're contributing, maybe what you think is an improved methodology etc.

Science students are not taught to question, but rather accept what is told to them. Whereas it is the opposite for English and History students.


Posted from TSR Mobile