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

I don't agree it requires more thinking in the actual exam. It is true that for maths and science exams once you understand the content you can practice it and then go through the steps in the exams but not many people come up with their own ideas about the text when they are in a literature exam either.

It says clearly on your academic info that you took maths, physics, chemistry and economics? Please back your facts up with evidence.

Having got A* in both English Lit and all the Sciences/Maths I can say that from my perspective sciences require learning facts and then applying them skillfully, however, eng. lit. was just bulls***ting and required no revision/effort.

Balls.

You're using words like "analyse" and "structure"; words integral to the study of Science so you're talking absolute *******s. Some scientists are some of the best writers we have ever seen, yet they also have the added value of making us understand the universe. With all due respect, English Literature doesn't do this.

If you think studying science is about memorising information you're highly misguided, and quite frankly not doing much for your cause of suggesting people who study English Literature are automatically brighter than Scientists

To be a successful Scientist you need to be extremely creative, and in my opinion more creative than people who write novels...

Tell me something an expert in English Literature can do that a good Scientist can't?

It says clearly on your academic info that you took maths, physics, chemistry and economics? Please back your facts up with evidence.

Balls.

One point to raise: we aren't talking about experts, we're talking about A-level students and the requirements for them to do well in A-level exams.

Farcical notion. English is the nonpareil form of inanity. All one requires is a panoply of recondite lexis to disconcert perusers to manifest your catholic argot.

See, all you need to do is create poppycock from twaddle. English is simple and for the banality to examine. To write: now that is discordant, because to establish, is to concoct a difference.

Farcical notion. English is the nonpareil form of inanity. All one requires is a panoply of recondite lexis to disconcert perusers to manifest your catholic argot.

See, all you need to do is create poppycock from twaddle. English is simple and for the banality to examine. To write: now that is discordant, because to establish, is to concoct a difference.

Fair enough, I thought this was in general. In that case, science at school isn't the same. Non argument really in that case. Most subjects at school are about learning marking schemes/answers/basic concepts at worst, and involve very little independent thinking.

It's hard to compare the subjects, completely different and require different skills. It's why you'll rarely see someone doing something like English Lit, History, Chemistry, Maths! But I definitely think that Sciences are much harder, it's not just about memorising large pieces of information, there's alot of application too.

Not to be rude but this is what I, and many people I know think of English Lit. - you find a quote, and analyse it. By analysing, you spot the language device used and 'make up' as much as you want about how it is effective.
Subjects like Biology require more memory, Chemistry requires memory as well as some maths skills for the equations (e.g no. of moles), Physics, is pretty much maths with some (IMO) difficult theory (memory with skill), especially the extension unit at GCSE. Maths, is almost different, as there is very little memory involved (only through practising questions, that style of using a method develops). For maths, it's either correct or incorrect, not 'waffling' or a varied amount of interpretations like Lit.