Should we all face the fact non STEM subjects are inferior to STEM

Is it not tougher to have a range and good balance like maths, art, geography and chemistry as your 4 A levels?

Whatever people say most STEM students (including myself) would find English lit, art, history etc. to be much harder than STEM.

I was making a general statement, hence I said brains. Pay attention to detail.

What are you then? Humanities? Still, it cannot compare. Maybe they should teach you all how to pay more attention to detail. Or is it just you?

Posted from TSR Mobile

medical school rejects don't get an opinion in this thread.

You spelt brains wrong in your previous post, you need to pay attention to detail.

I haven't read through the entire thread and have read backwards (?) but I'd just like to respond to your comment on Karl Marx.

I personally think that he's an important figure in history, he has written perhaps the most comprehensive criticism of capitalism, moreover his works have inspired world-changing historical events, so he's certainly significant. Some people argue that 'Marxism' is not a dogma but a science, and I tend to agree with that but there is no way he's as significant as a guy like Darwin for example. Furthermore, I think the fact there is now an entire subject at A-level (sociology) practically dedicated to studying Marxism is ridiculous.

In response to the OP... I think this debate is fruitless. STEM subjects are obviously essential and languages aside, they are probably the most important fields for bettering the prosperity of humanity e.g. in the fields of medicine and agriculture and so on...

However, that is not to say that the humanities are automatically 'inferior'. For example, history is a subject which gets a lot of stick, but personally, I think a society that doesn't have a comprehensive understanding of history is a backward society. Indeed, some of the most important lessons for humanity are written in history.

Creativity is something which the sciences just don't provide in the same way as the humanities. Indeed, for those who advocate STEM subjects as superior to the humanities: this is the same sort of argument pushed by authoritarian governments who wish to stifle social progress as the humanities encourage people to question social constructs.

I'm not arguing that one or the other is superior, as it's just not the case, I'm simply defending the humanities against this relentless onslaught trying to belittle the field. I'll state it again, STEM subjects are essential! But if you seriously think about this, where would we be if nobody read literature, philosophy, or history? There would be no civil society and to be honest it sounds like Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World', in fact check out that book/movie!!!

Thus, if there is no civil society without the humanities, then surely what we deduce from this is that they are just as important as STEM subjects.

Big up.

This view that TSRian's hold really irritates me. I take 2 STEM subjects at A2, and ironically the one I'm struggling with most happens to be non-STEM atm. And no I don't think they're inferior, because STEM subjects cannot be applied everyday life in that they change your way of thinkingllike no STEM subjects. I sometimes feel silly when I think about how I have no intention of becoming a chemist yet here I am, learning about atomic structure and overlapping p orbitals, something I'm not likely to be able to apply to anything else in life. Ironically, my getting into Uni partially depends on how well I can recall the reactions of Benzene. STEM subjects are usually more difficult I agree but at the end of the day all you really need is a good memory and you're pretty much sorted. Take maths for example, learn and understand the equations to everything and you pretty much know it all, all you need to do is apply it. Biology is probably the most applicable STEM subject to real life requires understanding more than memory. Non- STEM aren't nearly as basic in that sense, they actually require a range of both STEM and non STEM skills.
I took Art at AS and that was by far the hardest year of my life in terms of workload and stress. So can we just stop with this superiority of STEM subjects and respect that different people are better at different things. Imo the only things that's 'superior' about STEM is employability and even that's debatable.
Posted from TSR Mobile

Great! Now you can spell and sing and save the world! Oh no wait, a computer can do that for us. What does that render you? USELESS!

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm very confused by this. You suggest that experts in the humanities can be geniuses, and obviously Karl Marx is a good candidate for that. So what's your complaint? You disagree with his philosophy? Well, I do too. Which is why I wouldn't say he's a genius. But isn't the question whether or not they can be geniuses, and not which are geniuses?

If you adopt the criterion of technological advancement as justifying genius then obviously Newton is going to be a genius and Karl Marx is not. Similarly, if you adopt the criterion of numbers of revolutions, Karl Marx will be a genius and Newton, not. What is your point? Isn't the question, 'what criterion establishes genius'?

Karl Marx has written important works which reveal a lot about economics and various social situations.

The thing that you non STEM a level students realise is that there IS creativity in STEM mainly in Engineering but in maths as well. <snip>

Nevertheless, the fact is that there is nothing as dreamy and poetic, nothing as radical, subversive, and psychedelic, as mathematics. It is every bit as mind blowing as cosmology or physics (mathematicians conceived of black holes long before astronomers actually found any), and allows more freedom of expression than poetry, art, or music (which depend heavily on properties of the physical universe). Mathematics is the purest of the arts, as well as the most misunderstood."

Good day to you all.

Yes they can be geniuses, in respect to their field. That is the pertinent information right there.

Numbers of revolution?

Newton revolutionised Mathematics, Physics, Engineering.

Shakespeare revolutionised language and poetry

Tolkien revolutionised high fantasy literature

Einstein revolutionised the understanding of large bodies (like planets)

What has Karl Marx revolutionised? Defining capitalism? Writing down what was before his eyes using jargon? Hardly a genius. And when this debate become about geniuses anyway?

Posted from TSR Mobile