Why STEM is objectively superior to non STEM degrees.

There is a lot of me people can't handle, I could not give a toss whether they can or not.

managing people and projects tends to be the more valued skill at higher level jobs in all fields though

You dont gain the managing people skill from stem degrees on the whole though, some people do but the majority do not.

I'm aware. That's why I said the data is skewed towards those with good jobs. It does show however, that if one gets a good job, the pay differences are pretty much negligible for either degree type. Which is the point I'm trying to make here.

that's not really an excuse for being rude and/or unpleasant to other people

Again, without knowing more about the data, its not possible to draw any conclusions. How do we know if they are average salaries, salaries divided by gender or location.

For example, most of the jobs done by the BA graduates could be in capital cities where big firms have their HQ and where salaries are higher and the BSc graduates are in factories or research labs outside capital cities where its cheaper and salaries are lower.

indeed, i'm sure individuals learn a bit here and there on their undergrad courses regardless of whether they're STEM or not. they're transferable skills that are picked up more from employment, experience and other 'extra-curricular' stuff.

to be honest, STEM vs. non-STEM probably is on the list of things some employers consider, with (i suspect) STEM being slightly favoured. but it's right at the bottom of that list, and most really don't give a **** about your degree except where you use it to demonstrate those key skills

You are confusing directness with rudeness.Where I come from you speak your mind.

I agree with you on that

Also off topic but I see you study mathematical physics, do you mind me asking how you found it? I am changing to theoretical physics (from physics) but bit concerned about the maths in second year, I am not bad at maths and hopefully getting firsts in both my 'maths 2 module' and linear algebra this semester but everyone else appears to do no work and still do great. Ill be doing groups, vector spaces, non linear differential equations, fluid dynamics and some geometry of surfaces and curves (other maths too but these are the modules that are meant to be harder)

Well, you have to think about something else... Is it his fault that so many people are over-sensitive nowadays? Also, should the world change just because those same over-sensitive people do not like it?

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

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




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.




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?




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




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!




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




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




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




That's not how logic works.




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.




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.




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.




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.

It's belittling because it's not the truth. Where is your objective data that proves that ALL non stem students will work in a coffee shop?

As a grown man, you should know better.

You couldnt even give one example of a criteria that i havent considered. Thank you got proving my point that ive considered all that is possible

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.

No one has said this, this is your own insecurities talking.

anecdotal fallacy, sure there's examples like this but in general that isnt the trend at all.

I gave seven. Please reread my post.



As I've stated I think five times now, superiority itself is subjective. Claiming something is 'objectively superior' to another is just nonsense.

You haven't given evidence babeeee.

I've seen your posts and you pretty much dodge every point. Sad you made a tsr account just to belittle Arts students. It's just pathetic.