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

That's great but you're looking at a small part of the bigger picture; you can't just invent pharmaceuticals and hope willy nilly that they'll cure a diseased population. What about everything else that's involved in that process; the legal, political and economic side of it?

Similarly, you can't just put up a sky scraper anywhere - do it in my back garden and I'll give you a personal lesson in the need for lawyers. What about the planning that goes into developing towns and cities and the bureaucracy that's involved in putting up buildings?

Tbh Deeds I take your point, I was on about more hardcore arts subjects rather than law/politics etc.

Yeah, I agree with you really, I just posted that to try and wind up some of the arts students on here

Afterall all the raising of the tuition fee arguments going on today, there has been a remarkable number of people commenting that Arts subjects and social sciences are worthless degrees and those studying them should pay more in fees than sciences.

I am sticking up for all top arts and social science grads. I.e. those doing decent traditional subjects like history, english, politics, classics, philosophy, Geography, Law, e.t.c

What annoys me is that at most top universities all the above corses have AAA-AAB minimum entry requirements (with students often having over 450 UCAS points) and have 10-15+ applicants for every place. Therefore, these students are generally the universities most qualified and best in their peer group. However, frequently engineering and science courses have CCC-ABB offers and can notr fill their places, with many people get in through clearing. Yet for some reason these are considered better academically.

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.

P.S, yes believe it or not people have been slagging off general artsy degrees and saying those studying them should pay more because they benefit the tax payer less, not just media and performance studies students.

Rant over

There is objectively "more point" in degrees which are compulsory prerequisites to certain occupations; something which few arts subjects are. There will always be more merit in mathematics than in photography and rightly so.

If you want to go to university to study media, go ahead, but don't fool yourself into the belief that it's as important as a chemistry degree and, likewise, don't fool yourself into thinking it opens up doors or gives you skills that can't/won't be achieved by many, many people who have never "formally studied" video production or whatever else.

Fact is, a med student with the right interest and flair could make it big in film production and without much of a real disadvantage against someone who studied it at university. Conversely, no amount of passion or independent study could see a film major become a doctor.

Several great works were written by doctors as well - Conan Doyle is perhaps the most famous doctor-author.

The point of an arts degree isn't just the content of what you learn, but the skills of analytical reasoning and creativity and so on that it it teaches you, which are very important to employers. Many science graduates go on to pursue careers which are completely irrelevant to what they studied at university; does that mean it was a waste of their time studying it?

You mean like History and English?

this country needs more scientists etc, not half the country full of 'kids' with degrees in english, history or humanities - what can you seriously do with one of those degrees? it doesnt even compete in the same league as the sciences. thats why they are deemed 'soft' subjects - its all words, no real thinking involved.

Afterall all the raising of the tuition fee arguments going on today, there has been a remarkable number of people commenting that Arts subjects and social sciences are worthless degrees and those studying them should pay more in fees than sciences.

I am sticking up for all top arts and social science grads. I.e. those doing decent traditional subjects like history, english, politics, classics, philosophy, Geography, Law, e.t.c

What annoys me is that at most top universities all the above corses have AAA-AAB minimum entry requirements (with students often having over 450 UCAS points) and have 10-15+ applicants for every place. Therefore, these students are generally the universities most qualified and best in their peer group. However, frequently engineering and science courses have CCC-ABB offers and can notr fill their places, with many people get in through clearing. Yet for some reason these are considered better academically.

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.

P.S, yes believe it or not people have been slagging off general artsy degrees and saying those studying them should pay more because they benefit the tax payer less, not just media and performance studies students.

Rant over

That, my friend, is snobbery of the highest order. And jaw-droppingly ingorant snobbery at that. No real thinking involved? I think you'll find an arts student is likely to do just as much thinking as a science student, if not more, not because science degrees are easy by any measure, but because you apply a set of pre-devised rules to any given situation to come up with a conclusion or prediction that can then be proved right or wrong. An arts student has no rules to follow and has to think for themselves to form original ideas that make sense of the world around. For someone who claims to do so much "thinking", your perception is entirely jaded.

That's actually a very good point (re Access barriers). However, would you not concede that, for the most part, social science subjects tend to have a lower access barrier than their scientific counterparts?

snobbery.. perhaps.

my main point was why the sciences arent asking for high grades. i think this is because not enough people are choosing to study them, hence lowering the standard might entice some 'undecided' people.

whereas theres lots of competition for the mor epopluar courses such as media studies, pysch, and basically most of what i call 'soft' subjects.

whilst one of dicken's books might be a good read, or michael angleo's paintings might be nice to look at, the fact is that neither did anything which 'improved' out living standards/understanding of the world etc etc.

einstein, planck, fermi, avogadro - these men are not half as popular as shakespear or whoever, yet shaped our world how it is today.

you seriously cannot think art is as important as science.

Um, you do know Dickens wrote heavily about the poor social conditions for the lower classes in the Victorian era, thus drawing popular attention to them, right?

And yes, they absolutely improved our living standards. Aesthetic appreciation and entertainment is a huge part of what makes most people's lives worth living (and I bet it does yours too, unless you're a robot).

But without our scientists we would still be living by candle light, still be dying of 'minor' illnesses, and certainly not debating on the internet.

I do not totally dismiss the arts, I simply am able to see that they dont, never have and never will, compare with simple science.

But without our scientists we would still be living by candle light, still be dying of 'minor' illnesses, and certainly not debating on the internet.

I do not totally dismiss the arts, I simply am able to see that they dont, never have and never will, compare with simple science.