The Student Room Group

Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by balanced
What about ancient history, which is much harder than chemistry or maths, both in how much you have to learn, and the abilities you have to acquire (brilliant essay writing, the ability to write 15 pages for your exam etc).
Also only private schools do ancient history, so the grades are ridiculously hard to get.


Is this A-level or GCSE? Or indeed degree level?
Original post by RayApparently
Is this A-level or GCSE? Or indeed degree level?


A level, at GCSE classical civilisation (which is quite easy at a level) is very easy.
Original post by balanced
A level, at GCSE classical civilisation (which is quite easy at a level) is very easy.


I thought Ancient History was the GCSE and ClasCiv was the A level?
Original post by RayApparently
I thought Ancient History was the GCSE and ClasCiv was the A level?


It's weird. For all I know, there is classical civilisation GCSE (there may be AH too)

At a-level OCR do : Classical civilisation
Ancient history
Classics

Classics is a mix of the two, which is what I do.
Class civ at a level is much easier than ancient history at a level.
Reply 464
Original post by pk789
Well thats just bull isn't it


Posted from TSR Mobile


My bad, I should have said 75%, sorry.
Original post by balanced
It's weird. For all I know, there is classical civilisation GCSE (there may be AH too)

At a-level OCR do : Classical civilisation
Ancient history
Classics

Classics is a mix of the two, which is what I do.
Class civ at a level is much easier than ancient history at a level.


Fair enough, I'd only heard of the ClassCiv A level and the Ancient History GCSE.
Its always these pasty faced/red headed goras that still seem to study that Art ****. Wont even touch soft **** like Pharmacy or Business fml
stem master race
In a quantative way, STEM subjects at degree level without a doubt has far greater utility. Some social sciences are essential to having a functional society, such as Economics/Law, so they more important than "softer" subjects. But equally, literary subjects are usually perceived as more enriching than STEM subjects, usually culturally (eg languages, literature, etc).

A modern society has both, but not in equal proportions. STEM wins when it comes to job opportunities for obvious reasons (higher utility == more demand because it's *needed* not just *wanted*). Non-STEM wins when it comes to feeling satisfied about the work they do.

But if you draw a graph, the happiness of a STEM graduate will most likely increase as they progress into a graduate job with more experience (from a lower starting point), whereas the happiness of a non-STEM graduate will most likely stay level or decrease as they progress further mid-career - mostly from the substantial differences in pay.

It's pretty hard to stay happy when the realities of how much it costs to have a comfortable life kicks in.

So, which one wins overall? It depends which priorities you deem more important in life. But STEM is *hard*, not everyone's capable of doing it, so it's not really a wonder why so many would defend a non-STEM careerpath.
(edited 7 years ago)
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)


Gr8 h8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8
Original post by balanced
A level, at GCSE classical civilisation (which is quite easy at a level) is very easy.


A-level Classics is easy af, I didn't do hardly any work and got a B in the AS
Original post by Rather_Cynical
In a quantative way, STEM subjects at degree level without a doubt has far greater utility. Some social sciences are essential to having a functional society, such as Economics/Law, so they more important than "softer" subjects. But equally, literary subjects are usually perceived as more enriching than STEM subjects, usually culturally (eg languages, literature, etc).

A modern society has both, but not in equal proportions. STEM wins when it comes to job opportunities for obvious reasons (higher utility == more demand because it's *needed* not just *wanted*). Non-STEM wins when it comes to feeling satisfied about the work they do.

But if you draw a graph, the happiness of a STEM graduate will most likely increase as they progress into a graduate job with more experience (from a lower starting point), whereas the happiness of a non-STEM graduate will most likely stay level or decrease as they progress further mid-career - mostly from the substantial differences in pay.

It's pretty hard to stay happy when the realities of how much it costs to have a comfortable life kicks in.So, which one wins overall? It depends which priorities you deem more important in life. But STEM is *hard*, not everyone's capable of doing it, so it's not really a wonder why so many would defend a non-STEM careerpath.


I think I agree with this :smile:
Original post by Rather_Cynical
In a quantative way, STEM subjects at degree level without a doubt has far greater utility. Some social sciences are essential to having a functional society, such as Economics/Law, so they more important than "softer" subjects. But equally, literary subjects are usually perceived as more enriching than STEM subjects, usually culturally (eg languages, literature, etc).


Surely that begs the question of how to define and value 'utility', no? Certainly arts degrees can be far more useful for some things than STEM etc. are.


A modern society has both, but not in equal proportions. STEM wins when it comes to job opportunities for obvious reasons (higher utility == more demand because it's *needed* not just *wanted*). Non-STEM wins when it comes to feeling satisfied about the work they do.

But if you draw a graph, the happiness of a STEM graduate will most likely increase as they progress into a graduate job with more experience (from a lower starting point), whereas the happiness of a non-STEM graduate will most likely stay level or decrease as they progress further mid-career - mostly from the substantial differences in pay.

It's pretty hard to stay happy when the realities of how much it costs to have a comfortable life kicks in.

So, which one wins overall? It depends which priorities you deem more important in life. But STEM is *hard*, not everyone's capable of doing it, so it's not really a wonder why so many would defend a non-STEM careerpath.


I'd conjecture that you're vastly overestimating the impact of STEM vs. non-STEM on career opportunities, particularly if we don't consider vocational courses. I've not yet come across a graduate level job that requires a STEM degree, and even for those employers that do express a slight preference for STEM candidates, it really does tend to be only a slight preference towards 'mathematical subjects' or something similarly vague. And they often test that by means of numerical tests anyway, which you are likely far better prepared for by a degree in, for example, a social science than physics, engineering or mathematics. The simple fact is that in the vast, vast majority of cases your experience and transferable skills are many, many times more valuable to employers than your degree subject. In many cases you could even be putting yourself at a disadvantage by studying STEM if it means you have reduced opportunity to otherwise develop yourself.

Is there really much in the way of evidence that

(a) STEM increases future happiness, or
(b) STEM increases future income, and
(c) increased income increases happiness?

Compared to most graduate-level salaries, a comfortable life is pretty cheap. Though of course that depends upon your conception of comfort...
Original post by Implication
Surely that begs the question of how to define and value 'utility', no? Certainly arts degrees can be far more useful for some things than STEM etc. are.




I'd conjecture that you're vastly overestimating the impact of STEM vs. non-STEM on career opportunities, particularly if we don't consider vocational courses. I've not yet come across a graduate level job that requires a STEM degree, and even for those employers that do express a slight preference for STEM candidates, it really does tend to be only a slight preference towards 'mathematical subjects' or something similarly vague. And they often test that by means of numerical tests anyway, which you are likely far better prepared for by a degree in, for example, a social science than physics, engineering or mathematics. The simple fact is that in the vast, vast majority of cases your experience and transferable skills are many, many times more valuable to employers than your degree subject. In many cases you could even be putting yourself at a disadvantage by studying STEM if it means you have reduced opportunity to otherwise develop yourself.

Is there really much in the way of evidence that

(a) STEM increases future happiness, or
(b) STEM increases future income, and
(c) increased income increases happiness?

Compared to most graduate-level salaries, a comfortable life is pretty cheap. Though of course that depends upon your conception of comfort...


This is all correct. It's a shame most people on this site don't have this level of enlightenment about the reality of the grad job market, they all drink the 'STEM = prosperity and Arts = useless' koolaid.

Now obviously, if one wanted to pursue a career in scientific research doing a STEM degree is a prerequisite but other than that the degree name/content doesn't bear as much weight as other factors (university brand, social skills, generalist transferable skills, experience).



Posted from TSR Mobile
It doesn't beg the question, that's a logical fallacy referring to circular logic - it raises the question.

Defining utility is an axiom in itself, and that's where we can have a discussion. In modern society, it can be argued that all high utility subjects share the same common theme - they lead to social positions that are essential for the functioning of society. An example might be applied physicists, in other words engineers, because every part of a first world citizen's life revolves around them performing their jobs correctly.

The dwelling I presume you reside in, needed people to calculate whether the structure will fall (especially taller buildings). The potable water that comes into your home, requires people highly skilled to decontaminate and filter and process and pressurize and deliver the water. The food you eat, as we're no longer an agrarian society, require modern machinery and industrial scale processing to sustain.

This could go on ad nauseum, but the point is STEM offers students a chance to develop the analytical skills required to go into these highly essential, sought after jobs. If economies fail, and anarchy begins, then these people will no longer be in a position to do their jobs properly and we both know what happens to social order then.

These are all examples of high utility.

The less needed, but equally valued, would be artistic works. The wealth of ancient empires lead people to paint, and sing, and enjoy life - that's great, but not essential.

The comments about vocational courses - I consider them a subset of STEM, through an develop-experience-with-on-the-job-training route rather than a highly analytical route. It does depend on the nature of the vocational course, some of those jobs (if menial) are only available because we haven't figured out a way to make a machine do it faster and more cheaply.

Personally, I can think of many graduate level jobs that (in effect) require STEM degrees. It's pretty difficult to work in Chemical Engineering without some graduate level background in chemistry, or Doctor without some graduate level background in medicine, or NASA scientist without some graduate level background in physics/engineering. A reputable lawyer without a law degree.

This could go on ad nauseum.

There's no one denying that experiences/transferable skills are perhaps more essential than the degree in itself, but the graduate level background is the starting point for the higher end knowledge labourer jobs.

The happiness topic is far beyond the realm of TSR, but I will comment this: economists/psychologists do study correlations between overall happiness in life between people who have high income and those that don't.

It increases until about £60,000.00/year (ie all the material goods necessary for a comfortable life with family), then plateaus and falls (the overall stresses and responsibilities of very high income persons, with exception of passive income)
Original post by Rather_Cynical
It doesn't beg the question, that's a logical fallacy referring to circular logic - it raises the question.

Defining utility is an axiom in itself, and that's where we can have a discussion. In modern society, it can be argued that all high utility subjects share the same common theme - they lead to social positions that are essential for the functioning of society. An example might be applied physicists, in other words engineers, because every part of a first world citizen's life revolves around them performing their jobs correctly.

The dwelling I presume you reside in, needed people to calculate whether the structure will fall (especially taller buildings). The potable water that comes into your home, requires people highly skilled to decontaminate and filter and process and pressurize and deliver the water. The food you eat, as we're no longer an agrarian society, require modern machinery and industrial scale processing to sustain.

This could go on ad nauseum, but the point is STEM offers students a chance to develop the analytical skills required to go into these highly essential, sought after jobs. If economies fail, and anarchy begins, then these people will no longer be in a position to do their jobs properly and we both know what happens to social order then.

These are all examples of high utility.

The less needed, but equally valued, would be artistic works. The wealth of ancient empires lead people to paint, and sing, and enjoy life - that's great, but not essential.

The comments about vocational courses - I consider them a subset of STEM, through an develop-experience-with-on-the-job-training route rather than a highly analytical route. It does depend on the nature of the vocational course, some of those jobs (if menial) are only available because we haven't figured out a way to make a machine do it faster and more cheaply.

Personally, I can think of many graduate level jobs that (in effect) require STEM degrees. It's pretty difficult to work in Chemical Engineering (vocational degree: Engineering), or Doctor (vocational degree: medicine), or NASA scientist without some graduate level background in physics/engineering (higher degree: PhD). A reputable lawyer without a law degree (you don't need a law degree, a one year conversion + standard criteria of LPC and training contract or BPTC and pupillage will suffice)


All of these examples don't represent the vast majority of grad level jobs.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Princepieman
All of these examples don't represent the vast majority of grad level jobs.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Then should we define them as graduate level jobs in the first place? If not "prerequisite to have specialist graduate degree", then it's more of a job that requires "highly qualified" candidates rather than "graduate" candidates.
Original post by Princepieman
All of these examples don't represent the vast majority of grad level jobs.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Not to mention, how are you defining STEM? If we're putting Business Management on the scales, is it more STEM or Arts? It's certainly more analytical as a subject, so it's closer to STEM on the spectrum (social science).
Original post by Rather_Cynical
Then should we define them as graduate level jobs in the first place? If not "prerequisite to have specialist graduate degree", then it's more of a job that requires "highly qualified" candidates rather than "graduate" candidates.


Case of semantics then. An accountant doesn't need an accounting degree but they do need 'a' degree in order to pass the sniff test for most traineeship schemes.

I think you're confusing pre-professional 'specialist' graduate careers (Medicine, engineering, dentistry, architecture etc) with generalist graduate careers. Both are valid paths.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Rather_Cynical
Not to mention, how are you defining STEM? If we're putting Business Management on the scales, is it more STEM or Arts? It's certainly more analytical as a subject, so it's closer to STEM on the spectrum (social science).


Business management is squarely social science/arts. I don't actually think the degree achieves anymore than an English, Economics or even Physics degree would.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest