People who get A* in Eng Lit are smarter than the people who do the same in Science?

Original post by Alevelsareboring

Who else agrees? I was having this argument with a couple people; me and my friend do writing subjects and are predicted A/A*'s and the people who we were debating with are Science/Maths students predicted the same.

I think subjects like Maths and Science especially are synoptic, it's more to do with being able to remember things like atoms and molecules than raw talent. Maths is a lil different because you have to be smart to understand mathematical concepts etc, but overall i think it's synoptic. I think if your mind can absorb loads of knowledge easily then you will excel at both subjects.

English Literature on the other hand takes raw talent, English students who do well have the ability to interpret a piece of Literature in numerous ways, which takes skill. It's not just knowing what the makes an atom or what x + y is which can be learned through intense revision. It's more to do with raw talent, English Students writing is stylized, cohesive and structured, it takes skill to be able to structure a piece of writing and analyse texts etc.

I dunno, that's just what i think, i'm not saying it's right so don't go all crazy on me, i just want opinions.

HEY, don't you think i should get a medal or some shiz for creating such a LEGEN...wait for it...DARY, thread? I mean i brought so many of you TSR users together, one of you be a dear and start a petition for me :smile:

O yeah, i still stand by my statement and stop commenting on the title, we're all susceptible to typos.

Your simply wrong, have you done AQA AS and A2 physics??? You could learn the whole book and not even get a C. In the sciences you have to apply your knowledge not just memorise stuff.
Finally i say one last thing, how many people do you see with a PhD in English or English related stuff! Hardly any because it is the most simplest subject that you can do, we have made all the advances that we are able to!

Reply 381

Brand New Eyes

2

Original post by SJS101

Oh you do love making arguments don't? Going to University to study History or Law are we? :wink:

And what i was stating is look at the top paid jobs...

DENTISTRY
MEDICINE
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
BANKING

.... ALL REQUIRE SCIENCES!

Banking doesn't require science. Maths if you're an analyst maybe.

Reply 382

ReeceJ

1

Of course you will say English literature is harder because you're better at that than science. I'm predicted A/A* in both and I'd I think science is a lot harder because in English literature you can get the interpretation wrong but still get full marks whereas in science you need to know how to work out the correct answer. You can't memorise how to balance an unseen equation or ANY of the calculations.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 383

Danf159

2

For the sciences, if you don't study, you fail badly.

For the arts(referring to english lit here), you can write some bs and still get marks, possibly enough to pass.

But I have to agree, getting an A* at a subjective subject like english is much harder than for a science, but it does NOT make you smarter than another.

(I'm taking both sciences and arts so I think I can comment. Essays will be the death of me)

Reply 384

Kenocide

11

Original post by SJS101

Oh you do love making arguments don't? Going to University to study History or Law are we? :wink:

And what i was stating is look at the top paid jobs...

DENTISTRY
MEDICINE
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
BANKING

.... ALL REQUIRE SCIENCES!

It's not so much a love of being argumentative, it's more a passion for not allowing idiots to make outrageously subjective generalisations which purport to be facts but are actually based on only one skewed individual viewpoint, which are then likely to be seen and believed by a gullible portion of this forum who may assume you know what you're talking about.

Dentristry, medicine, engineering - yes they do all require sciences and they are well paying occupations.

However:
- Banking does not require sciences at all. It may or may not be beneficial, but I'm pretty sure you can get into banking without a sciences degree - law, economics?
- The actual quote from your post was "better job (also better paid)". Given how everybody is different and values different things, you can't just say Dentistry, Medicine and Engineering are the best jobs because guess what, not everyone ranks jobs solely in order of how well they pay! If person 'x' enjoys working with children, to them working in a nursery might be a 'better job' than working as an engineer.
- Even if jobs were solely ranked on how well they paid, you seem to have missed out a few other very well paid jobs: Civil servant, lawyer, entrepreneur. Quite frankly, someone who hasn't touched the sciences since GCSE could enter any one of these professions, reach the top, and earn just as much as any of your dentists/doctors/engineers and then some.

Reply 385

F1's Finest

21

Original post by Kenocide

It's not so much a love of being argumentative, it's more a passion for not allowing idiots to make outrageously subjective generalisations which purport to be facts but are actually based on only one skewed individual viewpoint, which are then likely to be seen and believed by a gullible portion of this forum who may assume you know what you're talking about.

Dentristry, medicine, engineering - yes they do all require sciences and they are well paying occupations.

However:
- Banking does not require sciences at all. It may or may not be beneficial, but I'm pretty sure you can get into banking without a sciences degree - law, economics?
- The actual quote from your post was "better job (also better paid)". Given how everybody is different and values different things, you can't just say Dentistry, Medicine and Engineering are the best jobs because guess what, not everyone ranks jobs solely in order of how well they pay! If person 'x' enjoys working with children, to them working in a nursery might be a 'better job' than working as an engineer.
- Even if jobs were solely ranked on how well they paid, you seem to have missed out a few other very well paid jobs: Civil servant, lawyer, entrepreneur. Quite frankly, someone who hasn't touched the sciences since GCSE could enter any one of these professions, reach the top, and earn just as much as any of your dentists/doctors/engineers and then some.

By saying 'better job', he most likely was referring to the jobs that pay good money, along with having brilliant career prospects.

Reply 386

Kenocide

11

Original post by James A

By saying 'better job', he most likely was referring to the jobs that pay good money, along with having brilliant career prospects.

Perhaps.

But if that is the case, he should have said that rather than "better jobs (also better paid)", which language doesn't seem to support your view. And, as you can see in my post if you actually read it, even if he did simply mean the best paying jobs, it was still wrong because he just completely neglected a whole host of other jobs with just as good pay/prospects and better!

Reply 387

F1's Finest

21

Original post by Kenocide

Perhaps.

But if that is the case, he should have said that rather than "better jobs (also better paid)", which language doesn't seem to support your view. And, as you can see in my post if you actually read it, even if he did simply mean the best paying jobs, it was still wrong because he just completely neglected a whole host of other jobs with just as good pay/prospects and better!

name me some..... (apart from being a CEO or a chairman earning a six figure salary), those are the 'rare' jobs anyway.

I'm looking for a list of plentiful jobs, which jobs in medicine, dentistry fulfil for instance.

Reply 388

Kenocide

11

Original post by James A

name me some..... (apart from being a CEO or a chairman earning a six figure salary), those are the 'rare' jobs anyway.

I'm looking for a list of plentiful jobs, which jobs in medicine, dentistry fulfil for instance.

I already gave examples in my previous post which you obviously haven't read.

Senior civil service/politics, City lawyer, entrepreneur, niche consultant, banking.

Reply 389

Azwozzle

Original post by SJS101

Oh you do love making arguments don't? Going to University to study History or Law are we? :wink:

And what i was stating is look at the top paid jobs...

DENTISTRY
MEDICINE
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
BANKING

.... ALL REQUIRE SCIENCES!

Actually, there are a lot of people going into banking who have done English degrees nowadays because in general, they are better at communicating, giving presentations etc. which those who are only good at maths are often lacking. Also, I know a few barristers and they live in mansions...

Reply 390

F1's Finest

21

Original post by Kenocide

I already gave examples in my previous post which you obviously haven't read.

Senior civil service/politics, City lawyer, entrepreneur, niche consultant, banking.

I didn't read all of your argument because you didn't cut to the chase.

Reply 391

Azwozzle

I did both Maths and English Lit AS - I found Maths much easier because of less content (if you know how to answer a question, you can answer any question of the sort in the exam) and because it was just generally about using logic to answer it. English Lit is more unpredictable just because it entirely depends on the marker and the questions could be on anything to do with the texts, where in Maths, there were only set modules. I would say that they are equally as difficult, but obviously, for someone who is skilled in a particular subject, that will seem easier.

But my A2 Lit exam is much harder than any Maths exam I have sat: Closed book, Hamlet/The Revengers Tragedy and The Wife of Bath/Unseen Poetry.

Reply 392

Bobifier

13

Original post by MAD Phil

You can't decide on which subjects are easier on the basis of A-Level pass-rates, because what decides your grade in different subjects is totally different.

In Maths, there are right and wrong answers, and which is which is decided in a completely objective and democratic way - it isn't a matter of any person or organisation being able to decide it by fiat. It occasionally happens that an exam board gets a question wrong - even the exalted STEP papers once asked candidates to prove something that was false, (FMB 1993 Q13). When that happens, a student may discover it, and they and their teachers can argue the case with the exam board, who should then alter the markscheme accordingly. (Unfortunately, since they were privatized, commercial pressures increasingly mean that the exam boards brazen it out and refuse to admit their mistakes - yet another example of privatization damaging the country.)

If Maths ever became democratic I think a lot of professionals in the field would find themselves distinctly unhappy with the new way of doing things.

Reply 393

pop101

10

Original post by TurboCretin

Okay, but we're talking about A-level here.

Well, for A-levels, Maths/FM are considered to be the hardest. Moreover, the job opportunities with a Maths degree is endless. This clearly shows that the skills required in Maths can be applicable in almost any job. On the other hand, the best job with an English Lit. degree is a journalist/a career in the media/a successful writer. The jobs available with the degree is very narrow compared to the jobs available with a Maths degree. Furthermore, if we really have to base this idea of 'who is smarter' look at the people in our world with the highest IQ's: Physicists, Mathematicians, Philosophers, Chess players. Some would say IQ's are meaningless but the sciences require more thinking = 'smarter people.'

Reply 394

SJS101

2

Original post by James A

I didn't read all of your argument because you didn't cut to the chase.

LMAO

so respect you mate (Y)

Reply 395

violetta12

Original post by PhysicsGirl

Hi

Well, if all goes to plan and I meet my offer, I'm off to Cambridge in October to study Natural Sciences (Physical) for three/four years. After that, it's hopefully a career in physics; probably something either energy or communications related (although ESA would be amazing! I've always wanted to plan the first manned Mars missions. But that's probably not going to happen, I'd have to be incredibly lucky to be able to be involved in something like that :smile:

)

wow..hope ur able to do that one day!!i love physics but the problem is that its just one of the things i adore..so i really cant decide where i wanna end up.

Reply 396

TurboCretin

20

Original post by pop101

Well, for A-levels, Maths/FM are considered to be the hardest.

No evidence, no credence.

Original post by pop101

Moreover, the job opportunities with a Maths degree is endless. This clearly shows that the skills required in Maths can be applicable in almost any job. On the other hand, the best job with an English Lit. degree is a journalist/a career in the media/a successful writer. The jobs available with the degree is very narrow compared to the jobs available with a Maths degree. Furthermore, if we really have to base this idea of 'who is smarter' look at the people in our world with the highest IQ's: Physicists, Mathematicians, Philosophers, Chess players. Some would say IQ's are meaningless but the sciences require more thinking = 'smarter people.'

Okay, but we're talking about A-levels here.

Reply 397

MovieMoments

11

Original post by Sagacious

What about this?

To get on a English A-Level course you require a C at GCSE.

To get on a Further Maths A-Level course you require an A/A* at GCSE.

I wonder why that is? Solve that one, oh wait, only us scientists can solve things. You stick to analysis and all the other useful things.

Although, I admit it's subjective. I would most likely fail English Lit/Lang/History A-Levels because I suck at structuring and stuff. That doesn't mean the actual A-Level is harder though.

Just look at the entry requirements...

Erm, I'm not actually arguing the OP's point here, but the requirements to get on various courses at A level depend entirely upon the school. I.e. my friend's school said that to get onto any course they need and A* and must at least have 7 A*s to continue at the school regardless. Granted, that was strange but the point still stands.

But yeah, the difficulty of an individual A level much depends on the person, so I absolutely agree with you there.

Reply 398

jokosor

16

Original post by PhysicsGirl

Why? The world is a much broader place, my good fellow, than the narrow categories that people pressure other people to fit into :smile:

Returning to your argument, I accept that you believe that the sciences are 'harder', whatever that implies. That's your personal opinion, and you're entitled to it :smile:

However, you've again claimed that the field you "aim to reach has no space for such". Why? I'm assuming you've chosen a scientific career direction, and I would entirely disagree that science has no place for English Literature. When I made my initial point on this thread, I argued that the two subjects were far more similar than people believe and they are by no means mutually exclusive subjects. For an example, good, successful peer review is done using an almost identical skill set to those you'd learn by being a great English Literature student.
I'm not claiming that you have to study both. But by dismissing English Literature, you're widening the cultural gap in society between the people who are proud to be unscientific or innumerate (how many times have you heard someone say 'Oh, that's maths. I can't do maths' and then completely ignore you) and the people who are extremely condescending and patronising towards the humanities ('Oh, you do English Literature? That's not a 'real' subject, is it?).

Well it feels great knowing that you are doing something exclusive :colone:

haha no I'm kidding.

If I could find a well paid job or degree that integrates Greek Literature and Sciences then I wouldn't blink twice before taking it however such doesn't exist or am I wrong? Anyway yes you are correct, I am after a scientific degree though I am not sure which one yet. You see I'm a med reject, it was 50/50 between medicine and finance so I have no regrets, however I doubt finance has any room for Arts in general.

Reply 399

AtomSmasher

8

Original post by PhysicsGirl

Hi

Well, if all goes to plan and I meet my offer, I'm off to Cambridge in October to study Natural Sciences (Physical) for three/four years. After that, it's hopefully a career in physics; probably something either energy or communications related (although ESA would be amazing! I've always wanted to plan the first manned Mars missions. But that's probably not going to happen, I'd have to be incredibly lucky to be able to be involved in something like that :smile:

)

We share ambitions I see... And, by the looks of it, an appreciation of subjects outside of science. :tongue:

Working in the space industry would be incredible. I think the future could be in private companies though, considering the depressing view our governments have towards space exploration. The one annoying little problem is that science isn't always very lucrative - you may be sacrificing a high salary job elsewhere, unless you are very lucky with research or something. I'm not obsessed with being rich but money does make things easier. And I know you probably get this from half the people you mention it to, but do you have any advice on applying to Cambridge?

People who get A* in Eng Lit are smarter than the people who do the same in Science?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you