Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.

Scroll to see replies

There is plenty of creativity in the world. Loads of people who never went to university made great strides in literature and the arts. Shakespeare never went to university, neither did the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen never went since women weren't allowed to go to university anyway when she was alive. Leonardo Di Vinci never went despite making great leaps in technology, medicine and the visual arts.

I never did English at university yet, I am able to write these sentences.

You did English at school though, so did those people you've mentioned. You were taught by people who graduated in secondary education.

There is plenty of creativity in the world right now because of non stem subjects. If people only graduated in stem, we wouldn't have it.

Reply 301

cherryred90s

Original post by Maker

My children will do what they want.

So then why are we not free to do what we want without being criticised and belittled by the stem police? What if your child wanted to study non stem and saw your comments on this thread? You think they'd feel comfortable talking to you about it?

Reply 302

JPO92

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)

The best things, I have come to understand, are a combination of disciplines.

Maths and art - Architecture
Technology and art - Design
Maths and History - A better blue print for the future - learning from our past mistakes.

The list I could create is huge. I think it is rather insular and dare I say conceited to believe that STEM subjects are superior.

We need fusion in our disciplines to create the most brilliant things humanity has to offer.

Reply 303

username738914

Original post by Maker

Have you tried to cure cancer with English Lit?

Does every bioscience related student try to cure cancer? Or should I say can every bioscience related student even attempt to do it? Probably not.

Reply 304

username738914

Original post by madmadmax321

+1, you know what you're talking about dude

Reply 305

Maker

Original post by cherryred90s

Why do you think studying stem would not make someone creative? Lots of creative people have studied stem like Arthur C Clarke and Arthur Conan Doyle.

Reply 306

Maker

Original post by Princepieman

Does every bioscience related student try to cure cancer? Or should I say can every bioscience related student even attempt to do it? Probably not.

Why don't you ask a cancer patient what they think is more important to them?

Reply 307

Maker

Original post by cherryred90s

My daughter has already told me she has no interest in science, I'm cool with that.

Reply 308

username853993

Original post by Princepieman

+1, you know what you're talking about dude

Theres so much more I could of said but it would of taken forever it read haha just really annoys me when people say non stem is awful and stem is the best, especially as there is so much variation within stem subjects themselves in terms f everything the op mentioned in relation to non stem

I have no interest in non stem (or really non science) fields but I can still appreciate why people choose to do them and the skill sets they develop, I never understand how some people like the op are so closed minded about the topic and especially when they jump to the argument no maths = your degree is easy because I am good at maths but I certainly could never do a essay based subject

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 309

Implication

When are you going to respond to the fact that superiority is necessarily subjective?

Original post by STEMisSuperior.

I've considered all criteria.

As I've repeatedly said, you haven't demonstrated that you've considered all criteria. Why should I believe you? The onus is on you.

You can't even name one that i havent considered.

How about the one I just mentioned in my last post: is STEM better at training students for research? How about whether STEM is better at preparing students for careers in journalism? Media? HR? Is STEM better at developing writing skills? Do STEM students enjoy greater life satisfaction? Do they find their degrees and/or careers more enjoyable and/or fulfilling?

Your point about my evidence, yeah you havent even looked at the,.

I don't know what you're referring to and I'm not sure what you're saying I haven't looked at.

And the last bit, i have already replied to perviously, silly argument really.

To my knowledge you haven't done so in our conversation. I don't intend to read through every single post you've ever made on the off chance that something you posted is relevant to what I'm talking to you about now!

Now im going to ignore you until you give me a criteria that i havent yet considered.

How irrational. That is only of the slightest relevance to my overarching argument. Either way, I've now done so.

I have been objective, since ive looked at ALL possible criteria.

That isn't what objective means. And no, you haven't. See above.

As i have considered ALL objectively measurably criteria, this is objective.

Do you actually know what 'objective' means? It doesn't mean that either.

You got an issue, the burden is on YOU to suggest any criteria that can be objectively measured and suggests non STEM is better.

That's not how logic works.

You sound like a butthurt non STEM person who is really making a massive fuss right now.

You'd be surprised. What's your STEM experience? And what's your non-STEM experience?

I suspect an impartial observer would disagree with you strongly about which of us seems the most butthurt.

I've repeated the same points again and again and you just ignore me repeatedly.

You have completely failed to engage with my primary point that superiority is subjective by definition. How you have the audacity to say I'm ignoring you repeatedly is beyond me, when I've responded to every single individual point you have made in our discussion and you've straight up ignored entire paragraphs of what I've posted.

Original post by STEMisSuperior.

Prove to me that i havent. My standpoint is i have so the burden is wholly on you to disprove that.

You make a claim, you demonstrate it. Otherwise I could make all sorts of ridiculous, unfalsifiable claims and demand that you disprove me. You wouldn't be able to (by the definition of an unfalsifiable claim), but that wouldn't make what I say any less dumb.

If you assert something, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is true.

Note that you will also need to provide stats that suggest non STEM is better in a certain aspect. (You cant, btw)

Why will I need to do that? As I've repeatedly stated (and you've repeatedly ignored), my entire point is that your premise is flawed. I'm not advocating the opposing view (that non-STEM is better); I'm telling you that the entire argument is ridiculous because superiority is not objective.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 310

cherryred90s

Original post by Maker

Why do you think studying stem would not make someone creative? Lots of creative people have studied stem like Arthur C Clarke and Arthur Conan Doyle.

Well, why do you think studying non stem means you cannot find the cure for cancer? Nothing is impossible

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 311

cherryred90s

Original post by Maker

My daughter has already told me she has no interest in science, I'm cool with that.

So why are you still being negative about non stem? :s-smilie:

Reply 312

username738914

Original post by Maker

Why don't you ask a cancer patient what they think is more important to them?

Yes, cancer patients can enact value judgements upon all academic disciplines in the world.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 313

Implication

Original post by Maker

Have you tried to cure cancer with English Lit?

have you tried to cure cancer with theoretical astrophysics?

Reply 314

Maker

Original post by cherryred90s

Well, why do you think studying non stem means you cannot find the cure for cancer? Nothing is impossible

Do you have any examples of non stem people working in cancer research?

Reply 315

Maker

Original post by Implication

have you tried to cure cancer with theoretical astrophysics?

I am sure there is a cross over between astrophysics and cancer. For example, both make use of particle physics, which is important to medical imaging and nuclear medicine like proton therapy.

Reply 316

Maker

Original post by cherryred90s

So why are you still being negative about non stem? :s-smilie:

For their own good. My daughter wants to do law, not work in a coffee bar.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 317

Trapz99

Original post by Maker

Do you have any examples of non stem people working in cancer research?

Why do you keep bringing up cancer research? Nothing makes cancer research more important than any other field. Of course, it's important but you're just using it to try and suggest that STEM students are somehow more important to society when 1) not everyone wants to cure cancer or improve lives 2) Non-stem is useful in a number of different ways: we need to understand how politics works, how the economy works, what laws have been made... these are all important. And guess what, there are people without STEM degrees who have self taught genetics and started biotech companies and there are people with non-STEM degrees who have become rich and donated to charities that are involved in cancer research.

Reply 318

Maker

Original post by Princepieman

Yes, cancer patients can enact value judgements upon all academic disciplines in the world.

Posted from TSR Mobile

They certainly can, patients and their relatives are active in raising money for cancer charities and advocating for more resources from government. Not many have asked for a poem or a novel about cancer.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 319

Implication

Original post by Maker

I am sure there is a cross over between astrophysics and cancer. For example, both make use of particle physics, which is important to medical imaging and nuclear medicine like proton therapy.

marginal, and there's probably some overlap with a bunch of non-STEM degrees anyway

besides, the whole premise is dumb af. what are we trying to say, that something is 'better' if it cures cancer and not if it doesn't? ridiculous. it's quite obvious that what is 'better' depends completely on what the purpose is. like, ipods are pretty ****ing awesome right? better than hammers aye? but if you want to put up your ikea flatpack, your ipod is not going to help you. hammers are better for that than ipods