Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    But STEM students do get paid more. They do have greater career prospects. Tell me which of the criteria were subjective.
    The fact that you've chosen to base whether or not something is superior based upon how much its graduates earn or their career prospects is what is subjective. As I said, once you've picked a criterion - graduate earnings, for example - there are fairly objective ways to measure which comes out on top. But picking that criterion to define superiority in the first place was not remotely objective.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Art and music are actually hard as well because they require creativity which is very hard to learn. A person doing a STEM subject would find it difficult to do a creative subject, and vice versa.
    ********. Harmony, tempo etc...are objective and measurable. A bot could compose pieces equally as complex and nuanced as a human given the same inputs (musical influences), or with a thorough enough exposure to the genre. There was in fact such a test carried out, where a bot managed to trick classical musicians into thinking the pieces had been composed by the likes of Bach.

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/...s-controversy/

    Art is ********. There is geometry. And geometrical patterns can be randomly spewed by an alg, to create a beautiful 'work of art'. Such that if that work was created by an 'edgy' individual, pretentious 'nuanced' individuals would hail as coming from the Gods!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    Of course it does
    But you just said that any STEM degree outside of the top 20 universities on the league table doesn't count as a STEM degree??????
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    1) Money isn't everything.
    2) so? People are intelligent in different ways.
    3)So? Some people want to do a very specific career.
    4) Prove it.
    5) I highly doubt that. A computer will never be able to do emotion work.
    6) And if you don't want to go into a career like that?
    7) Doubt it. A physicist couldn't work as a counsellor working with anorexic teenagers.
    8) And a lot can't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    1)Irrelevant
    2)He's probably referring to facility with abstract concepts and simultaneously a strong grounding in logic.
    3) Irrelevant
    ...
    5) Wrong! What on Earth is emotion work?? Art and Music? Nope. Literature? Nope. There is no 'human essence'. Humans behaviour can be perfectly modeled given a computer with enough memory to store alot of data. I recommend listening to a few Marvin Minsky lectures, if not reading his works altogether.
    ...
    7) Probably not but what on earth is that supposed to prove? A psychiatrist probably can. It's a STEM subject regardless of what anyone may believe. Just a bit more specialized.

    Don't delude yourself, STEM subjects do require greater intellectual capacity in general.

    But where OP is wrong, is that STEM won't be spared from the AI revolution. Though STEM + ability to use computer technology effectively, will probably protect you from that revolution for a while longer.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    Will study Mathematics and Economics. At a level i do maths, F maths, Physics and Economics.
    So you're doing 75% STEM at A-level and plan to do 50% STEM at university. I thought you thought that STEM is superior. If you really believe that STEM is superior then why not study more STEM subjects?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrownedDeity)
    1)Irrelevant
    2)He's probably referring to facility with abstract concepts and simultaneously a strong grounding in logic.
    3) Irrelevant
    ...
    5) Wrong! What on Earth is emotion work?? Art and Music? Nope. Literature? Nope. There is no 'human essence'. Humans behaviour can be perfectly modeled given a computer with enough memory to store alot of data. I recommend listening to a few Marvin Minsky lectures, if not reading his works altogether.
    ...
    7) Probably not but what on earth is that supposed to prove? A psychiatrist probably can. It's a STEM subject regardless of what anyone may believe. Just a bit more specialized.

    Don't delude yourself, STEM subjects do require greater intellectual capacity in general.

    But where OP is wrong, is that STEM won't be spared from the AI revolution. Though STEM + ability to use computer technology effectively, will probably protect you from that revolution for a while longer.
    Emotional labour is the likes of teaching, nursing, counselling etc. It's not jobs that computers can do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    There are some non-STEM subjects that can sometimes be harder e.g. English Literature / History compared to Resistant Materials. They also vary from person to person and not everyone is naturally creative. However subjects like Photography, Travel & Tourism, World Development, in my opinion, aren't on par with Further Maths or Languages
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Emotional labour is the likes of teaching, nursing, counselling etc. It's not jobs that computers can do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Teaching is the same as inputting language in a computer in a high-level programming language, which is then interpreted into machine language.

    The teacher 's role is to interpret stuff like Algebra into a language that the student can understand.

    My point is that there is nothing distinct about this job so that it cannot be executed more efficiently by a computer. In my experience, I learnt more online and mroe efficiently than through a teacher.

    Why?

    If one guide doesn't explain something in a way I understand, I skip to another.

    Counselling can be done effectively by a psychologist and a psychiatrists depending on what requires counselling.

    Nursing isn't special, there is no 'freestyle'. No reason why a bot can't complete the task of a nurse.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    (Original post by DrownedDeity)
    Teaching is the same as inputting language in a computer in a high-level programming language, which is then interpreted into machine language.

    The teacher 's role is to interpret stuff like Algebra into a language that the student can understand.

    My point is that there is nothing distinct about this job so that it cannot be executed more efficiently by a computer. In my experience, I learnt more online and mroe efficiently than through a teacher.

    Why?

    If one guide doesn't explain something in a way I understand, I skip to another.

    Counselling can be done effectively by a psychologist and a psychiatrists depending on what requires counselling.

    Nursing isn't special, there is no 'freestyle'. No reason why a bot can't complete the task of a nurse.
    A bot can't provide the emotional support patients need
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Himtiaz)
    A bot can't provide the emotional support patients need
    It can if it's coded by someone with an understanding of psychology/neuroscience/relevant disciplines
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrownedDeity)
    Teaching is the same as inputting language in a computer in a high-level programming language, which is then interpreted into machine language.

    The teacher 's role is to interpret stuff like Algebra into a language that the student can understand.

    My point is that there is nothing distinct about this job so that it cannot be executed more efficiently by a computer. In my experience, I learnt more online and mroe efficiently than through a teacher.

    Why?

    If one guide doesn't explain something in a way I understand, I skip to another.

    Counselling can be done effectively by a psychologist and a psychiatrists depending on what requires counselling.

    Nursing isn't special, there is no 'freestyle'. No reason why a bot can't complete the task of a nurse.
    :facepalm: You have never worked in a school, have you? Or with kids at all. Or in the health and social care sector at all. I can tell.

    A bot could never, ever do those jobs. Teaching isn't just data input. Nursing isn't just washing and feeding people.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrownedDeity)
    It can if it's coded by someone with an understanding of psychology/neuroscience/relevant disciplines
    Its the human interaction that people want...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    '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.
    >tfw nobody acknowledges my epic points
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Depends, if you study History/Russian studies at Oxford/Harvard you will still have a better chance of getting an Investment Banking/Consulting job then someone who studies CS/Econ at Penn State.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawliettt)
    Wow. It's another troll account made yesterday. I'd bet money that you're all the same person




    Please tell me you're joking. Maths is literally the OPPOSITE of creativity. You're following steps to solve an answer. The subjects which largely depend on creativity are the humanities. Maybe computer science too.

    But jesus christ not Maths. You don't get English students googling answers to a question the night before. Or copying an answer from their friend. Everything has to be from their own work and they need to right frame of mind to create the the best work possible.

    If creativity is one of the criteria OP is using to say STEM subjects are better than that one is already disproven. It gets worse with people who are good at maths. Their exams get to a point where it's not their ability being tested. What gets tested is who can make the least silly mistakes in this paper. And if you want to be creative when you're doing accounting or other maths related courses then gl finding a job.

    Engineering is slightly different. The engineering branch with the most creativity is civil imo. But there's no valid way compare creativity in it to that in a humanitiy so calling one better is pointless.

    Nearly everything OP has said is subjective (without a single source. He keeps asking others to do it for him) yet he's probably used the word objective like 10 times in this thread. It's a bit painful to watch. Plus with the way hes acted you'd think he got into Imperial or Oxbridge but clearly he didn't lol.
    Assuming you're not a troll, this post just shows how little you know about maths (in particular) and (some parts of) science. Many proofs in maths require the upmost creativity, outside thinking and intelligence. To say there is no creativity in maths is so ridiculous, you just make yourself look stupid.
    I haven't said anything about STEM vs non STEM, all I have said is that you are just plain wrong.
    To solve Fermat's last theorem (look it up) you know how many zoots the guy who did it had to smoke to get the creativity to do something no one had done before.
    That's why maths is creative. For some unsolved problems you have to do things no one has ever done or thought about in the history of mankind. Not only this but it isn't subjective, you have to be creative but there are constraints - you actually have to be correct and it has to make sense - something that does not have to be done in English perhaps (you can write about anything in English even if it doesn't make sense just as long as it sounds good and people like it which is not the case in maths).
    You don't have to enjoy maths or science and may enjoy non STEM, but there is a point where you exhibit non-STEM traits and it makes you look rather silly.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'm neutral in this debate and do not favour STEM or non STEM. What do you actually learn doing a languages degree? What does the course contain?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Americanballa)
    Depends, if you study History/Russian studies at Oxford/Harvard you will still have a better chance of getting an Investment Banking/Consulting job then someone who studies CS/Econ at Penn State.
    It's not limited to Oxford/Harvard tho

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by DrownedDeity)
    Teaching is the same as inputting language in a computer in a high-level programming language, which is then interpreted into machine language.

    The teacher 's role is to interpret stuff like Algebra into a language that the student can understand.

    My point is that there is nothing distinct about this job so that it cannot be executed more efficiently by a computer. In my experience, I learnt more online and more efficiently than through a teacher.

    Why?

    If one guide doesn't explain something in a way I understand, I skip to another.
    You have proven just how flawed and fallible you are: by extrapolating your own learning style / level of ability / personality / motivation / cultural background / financial status / behavioural psychology / support network / arrogance / naivety, to the entire student population of the UK.

    Good luck living in your virtual world. I'm sure you will make plenty of identical virtual friends.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    Law is mostly memorising and learning things by heart but certain aspects like some game theory (prisoners dilemma etc) require skills that are more logical. So you definitely need to be intelligent to do Law and isnt on the same level as something like Sociology.
    Which subjects don't require memorising and learning things by heart?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by george_c00per)
    STEM students are undoubtedly the most insecure people, they have to make accounts simply to put forward their agenda for example.

    "Which is an insult to STEM students" -- oh boo hoo, do you want a blankey, and will me reading out the digits of pi make you feel better?

    "STEM grads are more intelligent since their degrees need more thinking ability." -- Right because a degree in Mandarin needs no thinking skill whatsoever? Of course not.

    Stop trying to make yourself feel more powerful. We'll all have the same size gravestones.
    Okay, I'm not at uni, but I do STEM subjects at A-levels, and, please don't group all of us into this category.

    (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)
    Actually, I admire humanities students for being able to write pages of essays, analysing complex situations such as society, environment etc. I don't think I'd have the capability nor the tenacity to organise my thoughts and put them down on paper in a clear, concise manner. It's a whole different ball game, trying to deal with living organisms, with awareness of emotions, rather than looking at them from a purely mechanical, scientific view.BOTH are difficult in their own ways, but neither is more difficult than the other. I see my friends struggle with Sociology and Economics. Would you say John Maynard Keynes has contributed any less to humanity than Einstein? I didn't think so.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.