Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by miss-forgetful)
    - STEM grads can do the job a non STEM grad does (perhaps with a little bit of training) Okay non-STEMS grads – pick a STEM job….engineer did you say? Okay, if you could just take a whole new degree, that would be great.
    Okay STEM grads – pick a non-STEM job….barrister did you say? Okay, if you could just take a whole new degree, that would be great.
    You don't need a whole new degree to become a barrister or a solicitor with a non-Law background lol

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the proposition 'x is better than x' will always be subjective?!
    You can't use 'objective' criteria whatsoever in an argument like this, the nature of what is better than something else is founded in personal experience of what a particular person values.

    Whilst you believe that 'objective' criteria such as how much money one earns and the type of job they secure is what makes STEM better than non-STEM, others with different criteria of what makes something better than something else will disagree. There is simply no way to argue that this claim is objective or that there is any way of producing a set of objective criteria.

    For someone so concerned with STEM, I would have thought that your logical reasoning faculties (which, by the way many non-STEM degrees help to develop, such as Philosophy) would have been much better than what you have demonstrated. Honestly, it's quite embarrassing to read.

    If you're going to reply to me saying that me stating there is no objective criteria would have implications that we can't compare anything, then that is false.
    All you can deduce from my statement if taken to be true is that you can't objectively compare 'x is better than x', which is true, due to the nature of the proposition. It does not then logically follow that you cannot compare anything.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by superanon1)
    Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the proposition 'x is better than x' will always be subjective?!
    You can't use 'objective' criteria whatsoever in an argument like this, the nature of what is better than something else is founded in personal experience of what a particular person values.

    Whilst you believe that 'objective' criteria such as how much money one earns and the type of job they secure is what makes STEM better than non-STEM, others with different criteria of what makes something better than something else will disagree. There is simply no way to argue that this claim is objective or that there is any way of producing a set of objective criteria.

    For someone so concerned with STEM, I would have thought that your logical reasoning faculties (which, by the way many non-STEM degrees help to develop, such as Philosophy) would have been much better than what you have demonstrated. Honestly, it's quite embarrassing to read.

    If you're going to reply to me saying that me stating there is no objective criteria would have implications that we can't compare anything, then that is false.
    All you can deduce from my statement if taken to be true is that you can't objectively compare 'x is better than x', which is true, due to the nature of the proposition. It does not then logically follow that you cannot compare anything.
    You've made a very generic point here. Plus a lot of what you have said doesnt make sense.

    ''Whilst you believe that 'objective' criteria such as how much money one earns and the type of job they secure is what makes STEM better than non-STEM, others with different criteria of what makes something better than something else will disagree. There is simply no way to argue that this claim is objective or that there is any way of producing a set of objective criteria.''

    do suggest criteria that can be objectively measured that i have missed out. I have considered objective criteria.

    My argument looks at statistics, the cold hard facts that i have already cited, yours is basically considering other, inherently subjective ideas.

    A little intuition will tell you that:

    Higher pay = Better

    Greater career prospects = Better

    And so on
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    You've made a very generic point here. Plus a lot of what you have said doesnt make sense.

    ''Whilst you believe that 'objective' criteria such as how much money one earns and the type of job they secure is what makes STEM better than non-STEM, others with different criteria of what makes something better than something else will disagree. There is simply no way to argue that this claim is objective or that there is any way of producing a set of objective criteria.''

    do suggest criteria that can be objectively measured that i have missed out. I have considered objective criteria.

    My argument looks at statistics, the cold hard facts that i have already cited, yours is basically considering other, inherently subjective ideas.

    A little intuition will tell you that:

    Higher pay = Better

    Greater career prospects = Better

    And so on
    greater career prospects is subjective and higher pay doesnt always mean better
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madmadmax321)
    greater career prospects is subjective and higher pay doesnt always mean better
    I've posted links that says otherwise.

    And if you look at my original post, i give a brief explanation too.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    You made an account for this? Get a life.
    Jealousy...?

    Couldn't agree more OP, some people just aren't apt for academia so they strive down the arts route
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    I've posted links that says otherwise.

    And if you look at my original post, i give a brief explanation too.
    Yes but what you dont seem to take into account is that sure engineering for example better career prospects than xxx in non stem by percentage but thats completely useless to some that doesnt want to be an engineer

    Also better pay = better is also subjective to a degree, say more maths people get into finance than xxx from non stem so earn 40k starting compared to say 20k but what you havent thought about is that finance people work 60-90+ hour weeks where as they other person earning 20k might work 9-5. People when they get older want to start having a family, get married etc meaning for most people time becomes as important and even more important than money therefore that extra 20k means alot less

    However I dont expect you to see this because you probably 14-17 and havent considered future things like that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OP, you are absolutely right in one limited sense. On average, students of STEM fields can expect to earn more money over their lifetimes than non-STEM graduates. I am however surprised that your obviously bright and logical mind tripped over one or two things when you raced to the conclusion of your argument (which doesn't follow necessarily from the premises).

    Firstly, you wrongly conflate 'better in some sense I find preferable' with 'objectively superior'. That's a dangerous claim for a scientist and I hope they beat that mentality out of you at University. Whilst you may believe that raw earnings is simply 'better', may I point out that the overwhelming number of people in positions of power in government have non-STEM degrees? For many years I have heard the lamentations of my (fellow) Engineers about 'non-technical' management having power over them, but it is a general fact across most industries. Marketers, designers, HR, these people are overwhelmingly non-STEM and they get to decide the direction of things, especially in my industry (tech). You say you want to go into finance? Good luck acquiring any creative satisfaction from moving money around. Many people for example accept the life of the artist (as an example), poor and thankless as it may be at times, because they attach some higher value to creating or performing. You want to enter finance, so you should probably understand the price you have to pay, like so many others, in your narrow and dogmatic pursuit of money: autonomy, creative satisfaction, free time, vastly increased risk of suicide, alienation from others due to a highly competitive work environment and likeability amongst the general populace to name a few.

    I should also point out that, particularly in the US, former STEM majors often relentlessly chase the 'struggling artist' and other non-STEMs from city to city, as STEM is generally unable to produce one of the most valuable things to human life: culture, which is itself more necessary than a hedge fund. So the next time you believe what you're doing is more valuable, look up the historical contexts of gentrification.


    Second, the term 'average' here is pretty important. Average earnings are higher for STEM grads over their lifetimes (although social scientists for example basically even it out once they hit around 30 and enter management roles). It is true that many people aren't able to turn what they know into a sufficiently valuable commodity, but the most public figures of note are either non-stem grads, or don't actively do stem work in the stuff that made them public figures of note. You may think that all those music students who became DJs who made it big, politics students who got into positions to influence policy, sociologists who write for big magazines don't do anything as cool as you do, but I promise you they earn a LOT more money.. A specific cohort of non-STEM grads tends to beat the absolute crap of STEM grads, both in terms of fame and fortune because culture is a very valuable commodity. Many people bank on being that exception, and they take that risk, most fail, but some succeed. Personally, I'd rather take that shot (and I did) and I've been successful. How? I got a non-STEM degree, taught myself computer programming and built my own portfolio of software, and now I am paid far more because I have skills that the STEM grads (who know far more in terms of real coding) don't. I can handle the design and most of the engineering by myself, managing both teams, I am trusted with client-facing deals, and I also have a sharp eye on a marketing strategy outline AS I am building the product. Breadth, in some cases, is just as valuable, if not more than depth when it comes to actually leading people.


    The third and final point is that you want to work in finance. Let me tell you, as somebody who studied Economics at University, that I don't think you have ANY claim to believing your chosen studies above and beyond the likes of 'sociology'. Economics is literally the psychology and sociology of human beings under conditions of scarcity. That is it. Economics is split into something like 11 different major schools all with widely varying conceptions of these factors, and they construct abstractions and models that produce extremely general predictions. Careful which school you find yourself believing in though, because if you actually have an ounce of intellectual curiosity about the subject you'll pursue your studies by looking at the entire spectrum, but you better pick the one the IB's want so you can get your fat paycheque right?

    I'll finish with a question. Do you want to go to University to learn new things, or to get a piece of paper to say that you can earn XYZ salary? Genuinely curious. (And just in case you say both, which is more important to you?)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truthbomber)
    I'll finish with a question. Do you want to go to University to learn new things, or to get a piece of paper to say that you can earn XYZ salary? Genuinely curious. (And just in case you say both, which is more important to you?)
    Well put, and thanks for amending my argument, i did it in haste at the time. What you're basically saying is that non STEM students offer a certain mindset in the job industry that employers value and that is true but still the majority of these jobs are filled with the so called 'sheeps', who are basically do the job with their STEM degree, have the necessary caliber, and are fully capable with a strong analytical side of things. Your point about culture i must say is very interesting indeed. I did mention that i consider economics as a STEM (Bsc program) because of its mathematical element.

    Honestly, it is a mixture, understanding 'why' maths works and 'how' it works is fascinating for me. That said, i do want the degree to essentially 'tick the box', join the finance soc, that kind of thing. I also signed up to the EY programme where you fasttrack and become an accountant because i'll be honest, a good paying job is important to me. But taking maths and f maths did spark my interest in it. I essentially picked maths and econ because it was an interesting degree program and it also gave me good career prospects.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    So much damn insecurity...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    Well put, and thanks for amending my argument, i did it in haste at the time. What you're basically saying is that non STEM students offer a certain mindset in the job industry that employers value and that is true but still the majority of these jobs are filled with the so called 'sheeps', who are basically do the job with their STEM degree, have the necessary caliber, and are fully capable with a strong analytical side of things. Your point about culture i must say is very interesting indeed. I did mention that i consider economics as a STEM (Bsc program) because of its mathematical element.

    Honestly, it is a mixture, understanding 'why' maths works and 'how' it works is fascinating for me. That said, i do want the degree to essentially 'tick the box', join the finance soc, that kind of thing. I also signed up to the EY programme where you fasttrack and become an accountant because i'll be honest, a good paying job is important to me. But taking maths and f maths did spark my interest in it. I essentially picked maths and econ because it was an interesting degree program and it also gave me good career prospects.
    Honestly the mathematical nature of economics doesn't come close to the stuff handled in Engineering, Mathematics and so on. Economics is almost entirely rooted around axioms, there is less granularity and process of scientific measurement. It's inferior to psychology in it's explanations for general human behaviour, lacking the depth to try and probe real human motivations around scarcity and instead generalising to fit specific models. I recommend Thinking fast and slow by Nobel-prize winning economist Daniel Kahnemen, who goes into great detail about the confirmation biases present in contemporary economics. Much of this 'maths' that you study are just self-reinforcing models there to justify a particular political or philosophical belief. I personally found the study of those things far more exhilarating as a result. What economics will teach you are tools, really simple ones infact, ones that you don't even need to understand the process by which they work, to work in finance. You don't need to know how these tools work because, on the whole, anybody can be taught the simple input/outputs needed to be an 'Ok' financial expert.

    W.R.T your understanding of people who do STEM degrees but do no STEM jobs (ergo having the advantage of being able to do technical and non-technical jobs), you are thinking of this too narrowly. As an employer, it befits you to have a diverse range of people in all roles. A marketing team with nobody technical on it becomes a nightmare. I've had to work with them in the past, and they become so detached from the product and it's capabilities it takes several meetings to talk them down. Likewise, pure Engineers have stereotypically been some of the most curmudgeonly people to work with, often adopting the attitude you have in this thread that what they do is the most valuable and they aren't getting respect commensurate with their perceived self-worth. Having somebody with a non-stem background either working with them (who is willing to understand technical stuff to a sufficient level) often means they can be integrated into a team better, making a better product. Because that is what hiring a person in a modern, high performing workplace is actually about, its about building a team. You don't just look at a candidate and go 'his skills are AMAZING they're hired', you go 'hmm this is a strong candidate, but their competencies have already been largely filled in the areas we need'. It is a bonus if you are as qualified as possible, but breadth and flexibility is also very important. I want a mix of people from a WIDE range of educational and experiential backgrounds. I don't want 5 identical STEM grads from the same cadre of Universities.
    In tech, most companies follow 'agile' techniques which means you need to be very light on your feet in terms of what you're doing. You need to be able to throw your pre conceived notions of things out the windows sometimes. In finance, I know a guy who got laid off from his wealth management job at an IB in Singapore, so he quickly swapped out into sell financial products. His greatest asset was never his considerable knowledge about financials, he himself will tell you his best skill is a charismatic personality and people skills (which comes in part due to being cultured, and he studied music for his bachelors). A fundamental lack of which you've expressed in this thread. Now you might reply 'oh but this is only a forum filled with random people', and my counter argument will be that, if you genuinely harbour this attitude of superiority, people will smell it and the odds are, particularly this early on, you'll get chewed up and spat out. To be an accountant you need to be good with numbers. To be an accountant who makes the big bucks and probably has a happier life? You gotta know how to deal with people who are very different to you. Fun fact: Simon Dolan, a big UK entrepeneur, dropped out of school and started his own accountancy firm. He didn't go to University or learn the ins and outs of technical stuff, he hired good people and worked with people. Doesn't work if you're a shitlord sitting on your intellectual throne of superiority.

    Finally, if you truly value the actual intellectual process of learning, demonstrate some empathy for people who choose to learn things different to you.

    EDIT : And also you are incredibly naive to believe that going to a top 20 University matters. In strictly academic subjects like the ones you and I took/are going to take, then yeah it does. But Universities like Salford for example produce the best Audio and Visual Engineers I've ever had the pleasure of working with. They don't teach you about Keynes, but they teach you how to design and engineer amazing speakers (just a personal example I've encountered). There are a plethora of reasons why people go to other Universities, some of them aren't good at academia. So what? If you look down your nose at them you're just an ass sitting in his intellectual ivory tower masturbating over preference curves.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Is this still going on?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    do suggest criteria that can be objectively measured that i have missed out. I have considered objective criteria.
    I'm becoming more and more confident that you either

    (a) don't know what objective means (really, google it! The fact that it's possible to quantify a few subjective measures of superiority doesn't make superiority objective);

    (b) don't (yet) have the capacity for logical thought that will be necessary in a mathematics-heavy degree (or at least you haven't (yet) learned to apply that capacity to real-life situations - which of course is what employers will want!);

    (c) are intentionally refusing to engage with the ideas of those who disagree with you.


    But you're still young (and I promise I don't mean to patronise).That last option is of course a bit **** (nobody likes or wants to work with a bigot), but the first two really aren't disasters. A little research will confirm the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, though sometimes this can be quite subtle and not immediately obvious. Similarly, as long as you aren't closed-minded, having more open discussions about issues such as these will develop the application of your deductive skills.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    You've made a very generic point here. Plus a lot of what you have said doesnt make sense.

    ''Whilst you believe that 'objective' criteria such as how much money one earns and the type of job they secure is what makes STEM better than non-STEM, others with different criteria of what makes something better than something else will disagree. There is simply no way to argue that this claim is objective or that there is any way of producing a set of objective criteria.''

    do suggest criteria that can be objectively measured that i have missed out. I have considered objective criteria.

    My argument looks at statistics, the cold hard facts that i have already cited, yours is basically considering other, inherently subjective ideas.

    A little intuition will tell you that:

    Higher pay = Better

    Greater career prospects = Better

    And so on

    Once again, you miss the point.
    I don't know how considering myself and others have literally spelt it out for you.
    Whilst statistical data might be objective in terms of measurement, the way a person VALUES that data is subjective, therefore making your statement 'STEM is objectively superior to non-STEM' FALSE.

    Graduate prospects are subjective depending on what you want to do. High pay doesn't necessarily make something superior for certain people.

    Please tell me how you came to the conclusion that what I'm saying doesn't make sense?

    I really hope you do pass your A-Levels, because judging by your current competency, logical understanding and reasoning skills, you've got a long way to go.

    You have a butthurt and close minded attitude, which to be honest if continues, would ironically affect your chances. Making friends at university, getting through interview processes and dealing with people on a daily basis in high pressured jobs all require social skills and soft skills, as well as an open and mature mind. You're obviously still young. Hopefully you will mature and look back on these posts with laughter and cringe at yourself.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    This account is simply a persona, i didnt belittle courses since i have substantiated my claims. Try again.
    Why did you make this thread?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Why did you make this thread?
    For a sensible discussion, but thats not how it turned out
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sacred Ground)
    I admire you holding your own against insecure art students


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You say arts students are insecure yet it's always stem students who make these stupid threads
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    You say arts students are insecure yet it's always stem students who make these stupid threads
    First time I've seen a thread like this
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STEMisSuperior.)
    How about you stop with your self righteous tone, you sound like a butthurt non STEM student. The facts are there, your argument is fundamentally flawed since you seem to think that things like better pay and career prospects doesnt make it better. You are wrong. Sure, people have preferences but in generic terms, you are better off with a STEM degree. Now go away, this is your insecurities talking, trying to belittle me when really youre coming across as an ignorant bigot. Pathetic.
    I wouldn't say my argument is flawed.

    I actually agree that STEM is better than non-STEM, but I say that because of what I value personally, I understand that it is a subjective notion and I know people who disagree and I don't claim my opinion is an objective one. That's where we differ.

    Also, regarding self righteous tones, I'd say that's a little rich considering you've created a whole 'persona' dedicated to publicising your 'self righteous' opinion that STEM subjects are better.

    I will go away now, because I have better things to do, but I really hope you do become more open minded. I admire your passion and you obviously can articulate well, but you need logical development and maturity and then you could have the ability to make great arguments. Right now your ignorance is getting the way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by superanon1)
    I wouldn't say my argument is flawed.

    I actually agree that STEM is better than non-STEM, but I say that because of what I value personally, I understand that it is a subjective notion and I know people who disagree and I don't claim my opinion is an objective one. That's where we differ.

    Also, regarding self righteous tones, I'd say that's a little rich considering you've created a whole 'persona' dedicated to publicising your 'self righteous' opinion that STEM subjects are better.

    I will go away now, because I have better things to do, but I really hope you do become more open minded. I admire your passion and you obviously can articulate well, but you need logical development and maturity and then you could have the ability to make great arguments. Right now your ignorance is getting the way.
    Yes pls do go away, you continue to make general statements and continue to ignore my posts with your flawed logic, even after i have shown how silly it is.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

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