All arts and social science students - lets fight back against this discrimination

Well i unlike you do not have 20 grand to blow on university education or have the time to waste three years of my life. Therefore i want a degree with the best earning potential.

I think the problem is the lack of folk doing engineering/sicence degrees, hence the perception that these types of degrees are more valuable. If there were a sudden increase in Engineering graduates, we'd have employers bemoaning the lack social sciences students.

Aditionally, many hold the view that degrees in Maths/Biology/Physics etc are significantly harder than a degree in Geography/History/Politics. This is not without basis IMO. I feel that I could put together a relatively sound History essay on topic X - not saying that I would get a top-grade, but I honestly do not think it would be completely unobtainable for me, even with my comp-sci background. If I were to try my luck for, say, a Physics assignment, I am certain that I would fail.

I didn't once suggest they should be studied over science subjects! I'm not arguing that arts subjects should be placed on a higher level than science subjects at all! I'm suggesting that both provide important skills, and so neither should be considered inferior. I think you've missed my point somewhat, which is that arts degrees are of equal worth to science degrees, and not lesser.

Do you do much science? An equivalent statement would be "Literature requires memorising grammar and spelling". It's true, but there is so much more to Literature than spelling and grammar, just like there is so much more to Maths or Science than simply memorising formulae. G.H. Hardy put it best: I am interested in mathematics only as a creative art.

Yes, and a lot, perhaps even most arts degrees have massive earning potential. Lawyers, politicians and civil servants for example, tend to study subject like Law, Politics and History. These occupations arguably command higher salaries than engineers, physics teachers and even doctors.

You have to be a very high level civil servant to get high salaries, you need to work your way up. my mum is a low level civil servant but one of her friends is the big boss as it were and has a 2:1 in some ****, think it may be ancient history.

And took her 10 yrs to work her way up to 60k salary, in 10yrs doctors can be earning 100k+

I'd say the opposite is true. One of the criticisms of the Norrington Table, which ranks Oxford colleges in order of achievement based on degree classification, is that it doesn't take into account the number of students who take science subjects versus those who take arts subjects - the colleges which have a higher proportion of science students generally get more firsts because it's easier to get a first in a science, so the colleges which have lots of arts students tend to come lower in the table.

The problem with you arts students is that you don't know anything . You might be great at analysing and interpreting some cartoon (history students), but we can cure diseases and build skyscrapers.

That's an interesting issue. I think that's not a particularly fair comparison because the difficulty with novices doing physics and science is that it has a high access barrier. By this I mean that the information you have to have in order to comprehend the subject matter is quite advanced. One might argue this means it is harder because it shows you need this and the ability to work stuff out within that framework, but the problem is that it isn't unique to science by any means. While you might be able to do a history essay, you'd struggle on a particularly jargon-laden philosophy paper, or a even better example, a language paper. In the latter, it has a high access barrier too - you need to be able to speak the language - but that's not lumped together with science subjects (when it is, it is usually done so for economic comparisons rather than subject similarity per se). For this reason I'm not inclined to say that your ability/inability to do a subject as a novice means much at all.

Sorry but for me that is utter tripe because their courses are not in any way harder than arts or social science courses. They are simply better at different things. Yes the world needs engineers and scientists but they also need journalists, teachers, businessmen and politicians, all of which do not need a science or engineering degree. What happened to the good old days when university was about academic fulfilment and learning, not about how you can best suit your future business employer.

The problem with you arts students is that you don't know anything . You might be great at analysing and interpreting some cartoon (history students), but we can cure diseases and build skyscrapers.

I struggle to see how arts grads will solve our energy crisis, global warming, cure diseases etc.

,

Please don't just call Geography a social science - it depends on which side of Geography you specialise in. There are physical, human and multidisciplinary geographers. The physical side of Geography is scientific in the traditional sense, whilst human geography is a social science.

Sorry for being pedantic there, but I do agree that there shouldn't be discrimination based on the subject. I think that we need to do more to encourage a larger number of people into engineering, mathematics and the sciences [whether they be biological, physical, earth or other], but I don't believe that it should take the form of discrimination against other subjects. 70% of graduate jobs don't require a specific degree - they simply require the broad range of skills that individuals who are educated to degree level have obtained. Geography, for example, usually doesn't lead to a geographically-related job, since it fosters a very wide general skillset that can be applied to most careers regardless of whether they're grounded in Geography or not.

Geography is scientific