'Mickey Mouse' subjects/degrees and 'top-up fees'

Mathematics A-level students are what you might describe as a 'self-selecting sample'; they're amongst the most intelligent A-level students, and would have GCSE grades considerably higher, on average, than those of the average Media Studies student; I'd say that the two groups of students represented the top and the bottom ends of A-level students, respectively, in terms of academic prowess. Were you to take the I.Q.s of the two groups, I assure you that the formerly-mentioned group would score significantly higher than the latterly-mentioned group. Mathematics is one of those subjects, ability at which correlates the most with intelligence, out of all subjects; to be good at that, on average, is to be more intelligent than to be good at any other subject. I've known some stupid people achieve average grades in English, Art and languages, but stupid people never succeed in Maths; it's just unheard of. Ability at Maths tends to correlate the most with ability at all subjects.

What does the average intelligence of the students in each subject have to do with anything?

If maths students are on average so vastly intelligent then why do they have a considerably lower pass rate than Media Studies and vice-versa?

This may display Media students to be on average less intelligent than Maths student's but does not show Media Studies in itself to be an 'easier' subject.

Humanities and sciences are completely different disciplines and in my experience most of those people who are adept at science (ad usually the ones who scoff at the 'easier' humanities) lack the ability to succeed in essay based subjects anyway. Funnily enough it is rare to encounter a humanities students attacking the sciences.

What is it with people's inabilit to respect different areas of study than their own?

Yes, a minority of scientists go on to produce world enhancing inventions, but what percentage of A-Level and degree-level science students actually achieve that?

Media and Social sciences are far more pertinent to the modern world and workplace than complex mathematics. Why can't people respect these subjects? It's utter snobbery and nothing more.

Maybe the last part tells us all something?

If maths students are on average so vastly intelligent then why do they have a considerably lower pass rate than Media Studies

That wasn't my point. Statistically I'm sure science degrees are more likely to land you a job. But the skills aquired from sciences don't equip you any more for life and employment than humanities (unless you're going to be a scientist or something obviously). It is the 'mickey mouse' subjects like media, sociology and psychology that most likely equip you with the most relevant and useful skills for employment and life in general (if you actually think about it practically rather than regurgitating ideas that have been automatically drummed into you by the education system).

Science degrees are more likely to land you a job, but the skills acquired from them don't equip you any more for employment than humanities? Contradictory stuff...

Are you telling me the person who has spent 3 years studying science or maths is more qualified than someone who has studied a humanity - particularly if that humanity was in an area like sociology or media which is more relevant to day to day life than complex scientific theory?

You told me that Science subjects were more likely to land graduates jobs; hence, surely the graduates of the said subjects are seen as the most qualified?