Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 220

tanyapotter

someone needs to make this guy sit through dead poets society

Reply 221

Vikingninja

Original post by STEMisSuperior.

This forum has been quick to dismiss people who claim that STEM and non-STEM subjects are on the same level. Well let me break it to people who study non-STEM subjects; STEM is superior in every aspect.
Here's why:
- STEM grads earn way more money than non STEM grads(ST and LT)
- STEM students have better grades than non STEM students (on average)
- STEM grads have greater career prospects than non STEM grads
- STEM grads are more intelligent since their degrees need more thinking ability.
- In the future, STEM grads will be more in demand since computers and AI can easily replace the jobs of a non STEM grad.
- Careers such as high finance actually have a preference of STEM (and econ/finance) over other non STEM grads. Why? Because STEM grads have a more respectable degree.
- STEM grads can do the job a non STEM grad does (perhaps with a little bit of training)
- Many non STEM degrees such as languages can be done by STEM students so long as they choose the appropriate modules at uni.

Lets be honest, the people who say "STEM and non STEM degrees are equal!" are those who do non STEM degrees or A levels and are very insecure. This has now led to STEM students and non STEM students degrees look equal, which is an insult to STEM students. A maths grad and english grad are not equal, sorry.

(Economics/Finance are also basically STEM since they have a lot of maths in their degrees)

Unless they bother to get into a decent career... which is the same for everyone.
In STEM related subjects.
Meh slightly agree with this
And non-STEM students have better abilities elsewhere.
So will a lot of STEM related careers.
And other careers prefer certain non-STEM subjects.
Same the other way around in some cases. Also my technical modules in civil engineering will most definitely help me in becoming a translator for those in large companies.

Reply 222

username1857597

Original post by Abstract_Prism

You also couldn't get through on 'minimal reading'. You've made that up. You have experience in Humanities degrees, do you? Speaking from experience? Didn't think so.

I do actually. My first degree was Business Management in my home country, now I am doing CS in the UK (currently second semester first year). That is why I mentioned business/marketing in particular - I do have a direct experience with it.

I can distinctly remember acing my Human Resources exam by doing minimal reading (got the equivalent of a first). So I do have experience of both worlds. You seem to be very eager on this argument of "you have not done it so you do not know what you are taking about)". That is fine... as long as you apply the same logic to yourself as well.

No need to attack me though. Don't think I am typing this stuff with negative feelings/intent. I am just having a nice debate.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 223

Abstract_Prism

Original post by BizzStrut

http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/1514978/cbi_education_and_skills_survey_2012.pdf

In the UK, 80% of employers don’t have specific subject requirements for their graduate roles, according to CBI/Pearson Education and Skills Survey 2012 (above). But the subject you choose does make a difference to them. 72% say that they are on the lookout for graduates from certain subjects (compared with 46% who say degree class is one of the most important criteria). Fully 50% of employers say that they are looking for graduates from Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) degrees. 17% want students with Business degrees. Only 2% want linguists, 2% social scientists, and 1% arts students.

Objectively, that suggests that quantitative STEM subjects give you far more career flexibility and hiring prospects than other courses.

Please retort accordingly.

'STEM qualifications alone are not enough - many employers find that applicants lack general workplace experience (42%) and are weak in employability skills (39%).'

'About a fifth of graduate-level jobs need applicants to have studied a specific discipline at university, but in recruiting for other roles employers prefer graduates holding STEM degrees (favoured by 50% of employers).' - The thing to take from this is that for jobs where the degree you took doesn't even matter, 50% prefer STEM graduates, and 50% do not. Seems pretty even to me. I want to stress that this is for jobs without a specific degree requirement, i.e. not chemical engineering or whatever. This is for regular, ordinary jobs, and the preference split between STEM graduates and non-STEM graduates is exactly equal.

'The highest median graduate starting salaries are paid for legal roles (£24,000) and engineering and science roles (£23,000).' - The highest paid median graduate job salary is not in a STEM role.

'Employability skills are the most important factor taken into account when businesses recruit graduates - four in five employers (81%) value these skills above other factors such as degree subject (70%) and class (46%).' - Only TSR gets so antsy about degree subject, employers care more about your actual workplace skills.

'Among those firms that need employees with STEM skills and knowledge, two in five (42%) currently have difficulties recruiting staff.' - When you consider this in accordance with the fact that 42% of STEM employees lack general workplace experience, and 39% are weak in employability skills, this would suggest that there is not actually a shortage of STEM workers; the reason why employers are finding it difficult to recruit is because STEM graduates lack employability skills.

Please retort accordingly.

Though I will commend you on actually using numbers. I said that OP didn't understand what 'objective' meant, and I stand by that because he was just throwing statements around without proof and calling them facts. So thank you for contributing something actually meaningful.

Reply 224

Abstract_Prism

Original post by Broscientist

I do actually.

Oh shït.

ABORT, ABORT!

Reply 225

STEMisSuperior.

Original post by Comus

I hate to be 'that guy' but...

You will notice that I qualified my suggestion with the assumption that such things could be properly defined and measured, your use of 'intelligence' as a criteria suffers from similar problems.

What is use? What is usefulness? How does one adequately compre different uses? How does one give weight to each use? Why is usefullness desirable?

Okay then, why is a high salary objectively desirable? Why is intelligence objectively desireable? Why is a career objectively desireable?

You made the claim that there is something wrong with the criteria. What exactly did I claim? I said these criteria were suitable, You got an issue, you prove to me why it isnt. Stop dragging this. you say i claimed something yet YOU are questioning the criteria. Why would i suggest better criteria? I said mine was as good as possible

STEM is useful because demand for these jobs are growing. The government actually encourage ppl to take up STEM degrees. STEM degrees are paid more. You know why? Supply is low hence showing it is more useful. 80% of jobs dont need a specific degree but an employer has a preference for STEM

A higher salary means better value for money for the degree, higher standard of living. Everything else i have answered.

Interesting, you are yet to suggest a better alternative criteria.

Reply 226

STEMisSuperior.

Original post by Daniel9998

I see, so if I studied Maths at Manchester for example, it wouldn't count as a STEM degree ????? huh?

Of course it does

Reply 227

STEMisSuperior.

Original post by Abstract_Prism

Though I will commend you on actually using numbers. I said that OP didn't understand what 'objective' meant, and I stand by that because he was just throwing statements around without proof and calling them facts. So thank you for contributing something actually meaningful.

Perhaps look at all my posts, you would see i provided links where necessary.

Reply 228

STEMisSuperior.

Original post by Implication

'STEM is objectively superior to non-STEM according to these subjective criteria i invented'

try again :holmes:

Look at all my posts as well as posts from other users. Links have been given to objectively justify my points.

try again.

Reply 229

Tsrsarahhhh

What a boring world we would live in if everybody did stem, no artists, no writers etc. Also OP do you expect people who don't have an interest/ aptitude for STEM to not bother getting a degree, not bother actually doing something they enjoy. :colonhash:

Reply 230

username937760

Original post by Lawliettt

Learning maths = little creativity (and difficulty if you're being relative)
Applying maths = slightly more

Longer version:

I don't know where the everyone on TSR got the idea that a normal Comp sci course is insanely maths intensive but it's not true (unless you're specifically applying for computational mathematics).The area in comp sci that requires creativity is programming.

The areas in physics that require creativity are theory, dissertations and using maths we know to understand new real world concepts.

None of these things are present in pure maths. And I'm talking about university level. You're literally taught maths by doing tedious yet similar questions over and over again. Of course the questions get harder and new concepts are brought in. But how you approach the subject stays the same. By being repetitive. Unlike with humanities where hardly any of their course has objective answers.

Mathematics also has one of the highest pass rates in the UK. I recall reading a stat the other day saying roughly 84% of maths graduates get at least a 2:1. And I know at A level it has one of the highest proportion of A*s per candidate. Of course this doesn't factor in people who drop out. But what it demonstrates is those who are hardworking enough to finish the course and do enough questions will do well. The humanities do significantly worse (I think it was around 65%? I'll try and find the link) since it's harder to do well in them.

Mate you're embarrassing yourself. From the sounds of it you haven't done a decent pure maths course at university standard in your life.

Reply 231

STEMisSuperior.

Original post by Tsrsarahhhh

Ofc not. Im not saying its not worth getting a non STEM degree. Preference should be the sole decision making factor here. That said, the point i wanted to make was that STEM degrees are of greater caliber than of non STEM degrees. For example, a world if everyone did non STEM would not work at all.

Reply 232

Lawliettt

Original post by Broscientist

This has nothing to do with the difficulty of a subject and everything to do with the OBJECTIVE nature of the subject.

You're missing my point. Humanities being subjective is what makes them more difficult than maths which is objective. Something reflected upon in course pass rates

Reply 233

Mr Moon Man

Original post by Lawliettt

You're missing my point. Humanities being subjective is what makes them more difficult than maths which is objective. Something reflected upon in course pass rates

You're actually deluded

Reply 234

Lawliettt

Original post by DJMayes

Mate you're embarrassing yourself. From the sounds of it you haven't done a decent pure maths course at university standard in your life.

Clearly you're the one that haven't lol. I can tell you're in sixth form just from that. Pure maths has very little creativity. That's not me insulting the subject, it's just how it is. Humanities on the other hand thrives in creativity.

It's only when you apply maths that you get to be creative (e.g in physics or engineering). But studying only maths/accounting? Nope.

Don't know why so many people are getting butthurt over this

Original post by Mr Moon Man

You're actually deluded

I love it when people who genuinely don't know what they're talking about reply to me lol. Judging from the fact that you haven't made a single point all thread, I'll just assume you're a troll account and stop replying to you