Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.

You made an account for this? Get a life.

Do you really think your trivial use of anecdotal evidence proves anything?

How long will it take for people to put 2 and 2 together to finally realize that anecdotal is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS.

Do you really think your trivial use of anecdotal evidence proves anything?

How long will it take for people to put 2 and 2 together to finally realize that anecdotal is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS.

Not really. Anecdotal evidence can be an indication of edge cases to prove others wrong. It is absolutely true that a History grad starting an entry level i-banking/high finance job will be earning more than a grad engineer starting at an entry level (non oil and gas) engineering job.

Really does depend on the job. With 80% of these grad jobs not specifying a degree subject and the preference of STEM to non-STEM being 50:50 for hiring managers of said jobs - source is earlier in this thread, one can come to a conclusion that there is no significant premium (in earnings or chances of landing jobs) in getting a STEM degree in and of itself for most grad jobs.

I love how people automatically assume that Humanities degrees = Checkouts at ASDA or Barista at Starbucks, FYI, look through the grad destination surveys for stem subjects and you'll find a decent amount of them in low-skill jobs too.

I agree with what the other guy said about Engineering being the only real STEM course that leads to a defined, above average career which requires the degree to even think about applying.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Lmao my other brother did Neuroscience at university. My sister's graduating with a degree in Languages. She's being paid more in her first job than he did.

So whatever you are saying is just either generalisations or total BS.

Can be handy when writing official reports, etc

My example pretty much shows that STEM grads don't always earn more than Arts grads.

You seem to be butthurt over that which shows a lot of you tbh.

This is one of the reasons why non stem graduates get paid less than their stem counterparts. They take a sample of 2 and extrapolate to the entire population. Anyone who knows about how evidence and statistics work know this is invalid and misleading. A sample of 2 is far too small to draw meaningful conclusions from.

This is one of the reasons why non stem graduates get paid less than their stem counterparts. They take a sample of 2 and extrapolate to the entire population. Anyone who knows about how evidence and statistics work know this is invalid and misleading. A sample of 2 is far too small to draw meaningful conclusions from.

This is one of the reasons why non stem graduates get paid less than their stem counterparts. They take a sample of 2 and extrapolate to the entire population. Anyone who knows about how evidence and statistics work know this is invalid and misleading. A sample of 2 is far too small to draw meaningful conclusions from.

Anecdotal evidence is not representative of the whole sample we are discussing (humanities). Nobody is disputing that an/a arts/humanities grad may have a higher starting salary. But is this the case on average?

Edge cases indicate that there may be a possibility of it happening, not the likelihood. In the end, we deal with what is most representative for the sample we are discussing, not with Joshua's aunt, who is earning 50k pounds from home.

And I have not even touched on the biggest issues of anecdotal evidence - validity and biased selectivity.
And where did I say that this was impossible for arts/humanities grads? What I wrote above is relevant to you as well. Or are your relatives representative of all arts/humanities graduates?

I love it when people get personal.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”― Socrates

What did you study at uni and what do you do now other than belittle non stem students in your spare time?

http://www.emolument.com/career_advice/sciences_vs_humanities_students_salaries_who_earns_more

Granted the above is skewed by the type of users this site attracts (usually high tech, high finance, consulting, accounting, engineering etc type professionals), but it gives you an idea that for high paying jobs - the results are not what you are preaching.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Why is telling the truth belittling, if you can't handle the truth, go elsewhere.

The salaries are interesting, they seem very high even after 15 years. Where do the numbers come from?

People who can do those are 10 a penny, people who can do maths gets the money.

thats not the reason stem get jobs, they get them because of actually useful skills like coding, designing solutions to engineering problems (doesnt really use any maths), finance employ from both stem and non stem so dont use those careers either.

The site does say 'crowd-sourced pay data'. But as I mentioned, the data is skewed towards a demographic with good jobs.

Posted from TSR Mobile

i suspect you're not being entirely honest and know as well as we do that it's not your 'telling the truth' that people 'can't handle'

I rather doubt the figures because average salaries in Britain is around £30,000 pa and the figures in the link is over £100,000 pa. I think very few people earn over £100,000 pa even after 15 years experience so I think wherever the figures are from, they are not representative of UK salaries and the B A vs B Sc is not resolved..