Should we all face the fact non STEM subjects are inferior to STEM
Coming from someone who takes no STEM subjects I think it is obvious that subjects such as history or English lit are nowhere near as hard as any STEM subject
Scroll to see replies
Bla bla bla
No one gives a ****
Study what you want
No one gives a ****
Study what you want
Original post by intelligent con
Coming from someone who takes no STEM subjects I think it is obvious that subjects such as history or English lit are nowhere near as hard as any STEM subject
Statistically there is some basis for truth in this, but individually it depends on where your strengths lie. Both of my children who have tackled A levels so far have done better in Maths/Further Maths and Physics than they have in their non STEM subjects - History, Psychology, French, Class Civilisation.
I think what we really need to recognise is that while STEM subjects are unarguably more intellectually and conceptually challenging it truly depends on the person.
Clearly any muppet could learn a load of history but that's not what it takes to do well in history. Many people who are good at STEM subjects may struggle to do as well in this because they may not be good with essays or simply may not enjoy it and therefore find it more difficult.
On the other hand it's not a coincidence that the people we consider to be 'geniuses' such as stephen hawking, or obviously in fiction the big bang theory are all STEM based because who's ever heard of someone who's a genius at geography or history.
Not because the subjects are inferior more because they present less of a need for great intellectual ability.
Clearly any muppet could learn a load of history but that's not what it takes to do well in history. Many people who are good at STEM subjects may struggle to do as well in this because they may not be good with essays or simply may not enjoy it and therefore find it more difficult.
On the other hand it's not a coincidence that the people we consider to be 'geniuses' such as stephen hawking, or obviously in fiction the big bang theory are all STEM based because who's ever heard of someone who's a genius at geography or history.
Not because the subjects are inferior more because they present less of a need for great intellectual ability.
What do you mean, though?
Probably A-Level Maths is more difficult than A-Level History, but that reflects an A-Level, not a subject. Are you suggesting that a Mathematician has a harder time making a proof, than a historian has developing a theory of a particular period? These things are so different that a comparison isn't even possible.
It's just silly to compare them in this way.
Probably A-Level Maths is more difficult than A-Level History, but that reflects an A-Level, not a subject. Are you suggesting that a Mathematician has a harder time making a proof, than a historian has developing a theory of a particular period? These things are so different that a comparison isn't even possible.
It's just silly to compare them in this way.
Original post by intelligent con
Coming from someone who takes no STEM subjects I think it is obvious that subjects such as history or English lit are nowhere near as hard as any STEM subject
STEM subjects and foreign languages!
Jk, I think for an ' average student' STEM subjects can be harder as there are concrete facts you have to know and the concepts are quite abstract but if you're good at STEM subjects you'll find doing STEM subjects easier (or at least less work and less writing) than someone who's good at non STEM subjects doing non STEM subjects if you see what I mean.
Original post by em.d_4
I think what we really need to recognise is that while STEM subjects are unarguably more intellectually and conceptually challenging it truly depends on the person.
Clearly any muppet could learn a load of history but that's not what it takes to do well in history. Many people who are good at STEM subjects may struggle to do as well in this because they may not be good with essays or simply may not enjoy it and therefore find it more difficult.
On the other hand it's not a coincidence that the people we consider to be 'geniuses' such as stephen hawking, or obviously in fiction the big bang theory are all STEM based because who's ever heard of someone who's a genius at geography or history.
Not because the subjects are inferior more because they present less of a need for great intellectual ability.
Clearly any muppet could learn a load of history but that's not what it takes to do well in history. Many people who are good at STEM subjects may struggle to do as well in this because they may not be good with essays or simply may not enjoy it and therefore find it more difficult.
On the other hand it's not a coincidence that the people we consider to be 'geniuses' such as stephen hawking, or obviously in fiction the big bang theory are all STEM based because who's ever heard of someone who's a genius at geography or history.
Not because the subjects are inferior more because they present less of a need for great intellectual ability.
Karl Marx wasn't a scientist, and he is widely considered a genius. Descartes was more important as a Philosopher than as a Mathematician, and he is widely considered a genius. Who doesn't think that Shakespeare was a genius?
Besides, it's not true that how far a person is a genius is well-measured by what people think of them. People think Stephen Hawking is a genius because he knows things about theoretical physics, and that is widely considered a complicated and difficult field of inquiry. But Stephen Hawking also says some incredibly stupid things, and although this doesn't mean he isn't a 'genius' (whatever that is), it does mean that it is not as simple as, 'he is a genius'.
Natural science is an extraordinarily successful area of inquiry, but it's only another area of inquiry. The reason that we are more likely to consider STEM experts geniuses is because it is a successful area of inquiry, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the people who partake in it.
Original post by tomfailinghelp
Karl Marx wasn't a scientist, and he is widely considered a genius. Descartes was more important as a Philosopher than as a Mathematician, and he is widely considered a genius. Who doesn't think that Shakespeare was a genius?
Besides, it's not true that how far a person is a genius is well-measured by what people think of them. People think Stephen Hawking is a genius because he knows things about theoretical physics, and that is widely considered a complicated and difficult field of inquiry. But Stephen Hawking also says some incredibly stupid things, and although this doesn't mean he isn't a 'genius' (whatever that is), it does mean that it is not as simple as, 'he is a genius'.
Natural science is an extraordinarily successful area of inquiry, but it's only another area of inquiry. The reason that we are more likely to consider STEM experts geniuses is because it is a successful area of inquiry, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the people who partake in it.
Besides, it's not true that how far a person is a genius is well-measured by what people think of them. People think Stephen Hawking is a genius because he knows things about theoretical physics, and that is widely considered a complicated and difficult field of inquiry. But Stephen Hawking also says some incredibly stupid things, and although this doesn't mean he isn't a 'genius' (whatever that is), it does mean that it is not as simple as, 'he is a genius'.
Natural science is an extraordinarily successful area of inquiry, but it's only another area of inquiry. The reason that we are more likely to consider STEM experts geniuses is because it is a successful area of inquiry, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the people who partake in it.
Didn't realise Karl Marx was considered a genius...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Arieisit
Do you live in a cave? I'd say he was a horribly misled ideologue, but he is widely considered a genius.
I disagree.
Absolutely not.
Some people spectacularly missed the sole intention of the OP, which was to start an argument.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by intelligent con
Coming from someone who takes no STEM subjects I think it is obvious that subjects such as history or English lit are nowhere near as hard as any STEM subject
WITHOUT a shadow of a doubt!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities!
- Is it worth doing an arts/social science/humanities degree?
- True or false - non-STEM degrees are a waste of time?
- How can someone at Warwick look down on me?
- Which of these A-Level combinations would be the best to study a law degree?
- What should I take as a 4th A-level?
- Wondering what I should do after alevels.
- STEM is not the future !
- Unit 7 Btec Applied science
- alevel subjects for medicine
- STEM vs non-STEM salaries
- A-levels for Ivy League and such American schools
- A-level options
- Doing more A-Levels than required?!
- Ppe vs chemistry
- ..
- What is the point of university?
- Can I get into Liverpool?
- a level matsh with a 6
- Biology a level crisis
Latest
Trending
Last reply 21 hours ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]A-levels
10
Trending
Last reply 21 hours ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]A-levels
10
