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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    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.
    I've considered all aspects possible that can be objectively measured. Your argument in essence is generic.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    I've considered all aspects possible that can be objectively measured. Your argument in essence is generic.
    The simple fact is that you have not shown STEM to be objectively superior. The very concept of superiority is necessarily subjective.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    The simple fact is that you have not shown STEM to be objectively superior. The very concept of superiority is necessarily subjective.
    In this case superiority means higher in quality

    I have objectiively proved that, using all aspects possible that can be objectively measured.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    In this case superiority means higher in quality
    Which is also subjective.

    I have objectiively proved that, using all aspects possible that can be objectively measured.
    These are different statements. Proving something objectively is not the same as subjectively choosing criteria to quantify that thing (and biasing your analysis from the get go by specifically choosing criteria that can only be measured objectively), and then objectively proving the statement according to those subjective criteria.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Which is also subjective.
    Nope, that's the definition of superior which is applicable to this situation I have also proven its higher in quality, objectively.

    (Original post by Implication)
    These are different statements. Proving something objectively is not the same as subjectively choosing criteria to quantify that thing (and biasing your analysis from the get go by specifically choosing criteria that can only be measured objectively), and then objectively proving the statement according to those subjective criteria.
    My point is i've considered all possible criteria that can possibly be objectively quantified, which i have done so. I have not picked and chosen the criteria. I've repeated this several times already, you always seem to ignore it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    It's not limited to Oxford/Harvard tho

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Find then Oxford/Cambridge/UCL/LSE/Imperial/Durham/Warwick and Harvard to UVA in America! Happy now?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Americanballa)
    Find then Oxford/Cambridge/UCL/LSE/Imperial/Durham/Warwick and Harvard to UVA in America! Happy now?
    Indeed

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Indeed

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Glad to accommodate you
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    Nope, that's the definition of superior which is applicable to this situation I have also proven its higher in quality, objectively.
    Well definitions are of course arbitrary, but that isn't what I meant. 'Higher in quality' is itself subjective.


    My point is i've considered all possible criteria that can possibly be objectively quantified, which i have done so. I have not picked and chosen the criteria. I've repeated this several times already, you always seem to ignore it.
    Well,

    (a) how can you demonstrate that you have considered all possible criteria that can be quantified objectively?
    (b) many of these things cannot be quantified objectively. Specifying how to quantify them is not an objective practice.
    (c) doing this is not equivalent to showing that STEM is objectively superior.



    I may run out of time and/or eventually get bored of the conversation, but if you like I can go through your original post point by point and explain why it's so unconvincing and does not evidence your conclusion. The reason I haven't done this so far (apart from not particularly wanting to) is that it shouldn't be necessary: the statement alone 'STEM is objectively superior' is self-contradictory. Objective superiority is an oxymoron.

    Somewhat ironically, proof by contradicition is a very useful tool in some parts of STEM. If your conclusion is a contradiction (which it is), there must also be something wrong with your reasoning. In this case I've chosen not to engage with the bulk of your reasoning precisely because your conclusion contradicts itself. It cannot be correct.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    They also lead to more boring career paths usually.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    You made the claim that there is something wrong with the criteria.
    I merely questioned your choice of criteria and asked you to demonstrate that those criteria were objectively chosen - I then pointed out that your attempts to demonstrate this were flawed. It's not the same thing as claiming that your criteria are flawed.

    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    What exactly did I claim?
    Well the thread title is "Why STEM is objectively better than Non-STEM degrees" and in the opening post you state that "STEM is superior in every aspect". Therefore it seems highly likely that your cetnral claim is that 'STEM degrees are objectively superior in every single possible aspect'.

    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    Why would i suggest better criteria? I said mine was as good as possible
    Except you haven't been able to demonstrate this sufficiently.

    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    STEM is useful because demand for these jobs are growing. The government actually encourage ppl to take up STEM degrees.
    Interesting that you frame usefullness as being 'how well it suits the current needs of a market economy under the current mode of production'. Were I in your position I might have referred to increased life expectancy, advances in technology and agriculture, and abstract knowledge for which we later find applications for, as a result of the sciences and their applications. But outside the human experiance, it does not follow that those things are somehow 'objectively better' than not having them.

    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    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
    The sciences and their applications are useful I do not deny that (though measuring 'usefulness' in a way that is comparable in this instance has problems) - but, as I touched on earlier in this post, why frame usefullness only in terms of commercial uses?

    Moreover, it doesn't follow that something is useful merely because there's a relatively low supply. If there was a massive increase in the number of science graduates, would STEM subjects somehow decrease in their usefulness? Equally, something could be in very low supply and yet have few potential uses at all.

    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    A higher salary means better value for money for the degree, higher standard of living. Everything else i have answered.
    This is dependent on the balance of power between employee and employer. If there was a large increase in the number of STEM graduates - assuming that they did not suddenly become heavily unionised - this would shift the balance of power further in favour of the employers, no? And so the likely outcome would be a decrease in average salary and a corresponding drop in standard of living relative to everyone else.

    On a side note, I have noticed a sort of "quasi-utilitarian" undertone to your posts. I can see why utilitarianism is an attractive philosophy but 'maximises the general utility' is not the same as 'objectively better'.
    (Original post by Implication)
    Well definitions are of course arbitrary, but that isn't what I meant. 'Higher in quality' is itself subjective.Well,(a) how can you demonstrate that you have considered all possible criteria that can be quantified objectively?(b) many of these things cannot be quantified objectively. Specifying how to quantify them is not an objective practice.(c) doing this is not equivalent to showing that STEM is objectively superior.
    PRSOM
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Lmao have you seen what some STEM students are like with essay subjects? My brother is a maths whiz but he can't write an essay to save his life.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)


    (a) how can you demonstrate that you have considered all possible criteria that can be quantified objectively?
    (b) many of these things cannot be quantified objectively. Specifying how to quantify them is not an objective practice.
    (a) How am i to do that? The burden is on you to suggest an objective criteria.
    (b) Read all my posts, i provide links for all of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsSheldonCooper)
    Lmao have you seen what some STEM students are like with essay subjects? My brother is a maths whiz but he can't write an essay to save his life.
    lol yh i guess, STEM students do lack a certain writing caliber. But that's not applicable to everyone!

    However, your brother now faces a large variety of careers with excellent prospects and often high paying jobs
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    (a) How am i to do that? The burden is on you to suggest an objective criteria.
    Well you probably can't - that's my point You claimed that you had:

    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    My point is i've considered all possible criteria that can possibly be objectively quantified
    The burden is not on me to suggest a criteria, since my position is that suggesting a criteria is a necessarily subjective process and so cannot demonstrate that STEM is objectively superior. If you make the claim, the burden is on you to evidence it!


    (b) Read all my posts, i provide links for all of it.
    At best, your posts/links demonstrate that STEM performs better on a subjectively selected bunch of criteria that have been subjectively quantified.

    For example, I might want to argue that non-STEM is objectively superior to STEM because it makes students better at research. I might cite a study (this is hypothetical btw - I have no idea if such a study exists) that gives graduates from STEM and non-STEM subjects a test that aims to measure their research abilities, and show that non-STEM students significantly outperform STEM students across the board.

    But I'd have two problems:

    (a) the criterion I have chosen ('better at research') does not demonstrate 'objective superiority' and I could have chosen any of infinitely many other criteria had I liked
    (b) the measure I've used to quantify 'better at research' - the test results - may not really reflect research ability and I can't infer causation from this correlation anyway. Besides, choosing to quantify this way was entirely subjective.

    How can I reasonably claim to have demonstrated that non-STEM is superior? I can't. If I'm very careful with my experimental setup, I might be justified in saying that non-STEM is better at producing graduates for research, but that's just one measure. And that's my point: when somebody says 'x is superior', the first question to ask back is 'superior for what?' The statement simply doesn't make sense without this information.


    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    lol yh i guess, STEM students do lack a certain writing caliber. But that's not applicable to everyone!
    So are non-STEM students superior in some sense? :holmes:


    However, your brother now faces a large variety of careers with excellent prospects and often high paying jobs
    As do most non-STEM graduates. In fact, if you are correct and STEM really is significantly 'harder', someone who wants better prospects would probably be better off avoiding STEM, doing an 'easy' degree and focusing on the employability skills that graduate hiring teams actually care about. Your degree title and classification is way down their list of priorities - at every stage of recruitment they're gonna be far more interested in your performance on their tests, assessment centres, interviews etc. than in whether you studied Classics or Physics. They're employing you to do a job, not perform calculations in theoretical atrophysics!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Well you probably can't - that's my point You claimed that you had:



    The burden is not on me to suggest a criteria, since my position is that suggesting a criteria is a necessarily subjective process and so cannot demonstrate that STEM is objectively superior. If you make the claim, the burden is on you to evidence it!




    At best, your posts/links demonstrate that STEM performs better on a subjectively selected bunch of criteria that have been subjectively quantified.

    For example, I might want to argue that non-STEM is objectively superior to STEM because it makes students better at research. I might cite a study (this is hypothetical btw - I have no idea if such a study exists) that gives graduates from STEM and non-STEM subjects a test that aims to measure their research abilities, and show that non-STEM students significantly outperform STEM students across the board.

    But I'd have two problems:

    (a) the criterion I have chosen ('better at research' does not demonstrate 'objective superiority' and I could have chosen any of infinitely many other criteria had I liked
    (b) the measure I've used to quantify 'better at research' - the test results - may not really reflect research ability and I can't infer causation from this correlation anyway. Besides, choosing to quantify this way was entirely subjective.

    How can I reasonably claim to have demonstrated that non-STEM is superior? I can't. If I'm very careful with my experimental setup, I might be justified in saying that non-STEM is better at producing graduates for research, but that's just one measure. And that's my point: when somebody says 'x is superior', the first question to ask back is 'superior for what?' The statement simply doesn't make sense without this information.




    So are non-STEM students superior in some sense? :holmes:




    As do most non-STEM graduates. In fact, if you are correct and STEM really is significantly 'harder', someone who wants better prospects would probably be better off avoiding STEM, doing an 'easy' degree and focusing on the employability skills that graduate hiring teams actually care about. Your degree title and classification is way down their list of priorities - at every stage of recruitment they're gonna be far more interested in your performance on their tests, assessment centres, interviews etc. than in whether you studied Classics or Physics. They're employing you to do a job, not perform calculations in theoretical atrophysics!
    I've considered all criteria. You can't even name one that i havent considered. Your point about my evidence, yeah you havent even looked at the,. And the last bit, i have already replied to perviously, silly argument really.

    Now im going to ignore you until you give me a criteria that i havent yet considered. I have been objective, since ive looked at ALL possible criteria. As i have considered ALL objectively measurably criteria, this is objective. You got an issue, the burden is on YOU to suggest any criteria that can be objectively measured and suggests non STEM is better.

    You sound like a butthurt non STEM person who is really making a massive fuss right now. I've repeated the same points again and again and you just ignore me repeatedly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    (a) how can you demonstrate that you have considered all possible criteria that can be quantified objectively?
    Prove to me that i havent. My standpoint is i have so the burden is wholly on you to disprove that.

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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    QED

    /thread
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsSheldonCooper)
    Lmao have you seen what some STEM students are like with essay subjects? My brother is a maths whiz but he can't write an essay to save his life.
    Why is that important?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Why is that important?
    Why is STEM important to someone who has no interest in it?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.