Does society frown upon guys who don't do STEM?

Society, no.

A handful of children/'young adults' aged between about 14 and 24 (typically mid-to-low achievers trying to make their subject seem better in the absence of being able to excel within their own cohort), yes.

On balance it really isn't worth worrying about.

Society, no.

A handful of children/'young adults' aged between about 14 and 24 (typically mid-to-low achievers trying to make their subject seem better in the absence of being able to excel within their own cohort), yes.

On balance it really isn't worth worrying about.

I'm doing it for my parents. Frankly I don't even wan to work. I'd rather claim benefits.

I don't think it's my intellectual proficiency which that reflects as much as my mental stability, haha.

Your last sentence though suggests the very crux of this thread, Arts degrees=soft degrees

Definitely. There is a clear perceived hierarchy between the subjects, with fields like Mathematics at the top and the practical Arts at the bottom. Ken Robinson suggests in his excellent TED speech that this hierarchy mainly exists because the subjects we perceive as the most respected are those that were regarded as the most important during the industrial revolution when the education system was created. It's because the education system in this country is essentially a professorship machine, and people who want a more vocational or creative profession are stigmatised.

This is extremely unfair in my opinion, and I think this issue has been perpetuated largely because those in power generally lack the intellectual ability to understand the value of the arts and humanities. A lot of people who are excellent at STEM subjects look down at the more creative fields because they're not as 'academically rigorous', when in actual fact those people wouldn't have a hope of succeeding in those fields because they lack the creativity. If anything, the arts have never been as important as they have now because what we need in our society is a boost in creativity to solve the greatest problems. Some of the most inspiring new technological developments have actually come from the collaboration between scientists and artists, which a lot of people are ignorant of.

I think you need to check your facts. " those in power" have all done arts/humanities subject. I haven't yet heard of a single MP with a Science degree, but I know for sure that they are extremely rare.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Within the humanities, you've also got an hierarchy. Most MPs have degrees in traditionally respected humanities like Politics, Philosophy or Economics. You don't see very many MPs (or at least high ranking MPs) with degrees in subjects like Geography, and definitely not MPs with backgrounds in subjects like Dance, Drama or Music, which we definitely should.

Also, "power" isn't constrained to MPs.

No it is. I don't see scientists running the world so stop complaining.

Posted from TSR Mobile

No I think non stem isn't as rigorous and tough as stem. Which is why stem has a lot of contact hours.

Degrees like media studies and music are Micky mouse

Have you done non-STEM at a higher level before?

Music is definitely not a Mickey Mouse subject. It uses some similar and other dissimilar skills to STEM subjects.

What do you mean by 'rigorous'? That's a very STEM-specific attribute. It's not really fair to call a subject like music less challenging because it's not rigorous because such a description is simply not applicable to it.

Why would I do a non stem at higher level if I'm arguing against it??

Yes music is Mickey Mouse, even sociology is better .

It's fair and in my opinion music isn't rigorous.
Rigorous is very tough, very demanding, rigid and very challenging.

This is my opinion, not a fact.

Try telling my sister that music is a Mickey Mouse subject..... From what she has told me, Music is really, really hard. (And she got an A at AS level!)

Of course she'll say it's hard... She's studying it and she wants to big herself up and make her course look prestigious.

Another way of looking at this smugness about Arts is: come on mate, write me a song that will be in the UK Top 40 this summer by…next week?

Different talents, no better or worse

Uk top 40...a song doesn't remain in the top 40 forever

Science remains unless new discovery comes about.

Science> music

A song isn't forever…a scientific theory isn't forever...
Strong logic

Both valid. Don't see why we have to insist on one being better or worse. Listen to yourself, 'my degree is better than yours'-doesn't it sound childish? I'm not trying to attack you but you insist on dissing Arts and Humanities.

Science> everything else

And of course some degrees are better than others, don't be so naive Riku.