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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    1.Humanities graduates can be nontechnical co-founders of a tech startup and there are unicorns with co-founders that fit this bill.

    So 2. your entire argument boils down to: it's either too competitive for non-STEM degree holders to get a good job (finance, teaching, professional services, law etc) or too risky (entrepreneurship)?

    Surely STEM graduates have to face immense competition if they are aiming for the best paying jobs in their field? I.e. STEM grads wanting to go into quant finance or "top tech" will face extreme competition for the job. My issue with this is the majority of STEM graduates will end up on non spectacular compensation working in mediocre companies..
    1. Technically, they can. But I am yet to see it in the UK. Plus, this people would depend on tech people to get the stuff implemented. Plus, the risk factor. Entrepreneurship (as in start-ups) is more of a lifestyle than a job that you leave at 5pm plus most start-ups fail. You don't want to spend your life working on projects that are likely to fail. Entrepreneurship (as in small business) is also risky. So if you are not a high-risk person, you probably won't go down this path.
    2. I don't consider teaching a good job. It might be emotionally rewarding (sometimes) but the working conditions are terrible. The sub-forum for teaching speaks for itself. Unless, you LOVE teaching and are willing to face the possibility of damaging your health and have low pay, it is also not a path to go down. And as I said earlier, trying to become a teacher in a non-STEM subject is way harder than becoming a STEM teacher due to competition (aside from one particular subject). STEM teacher applicants are the targets of some pretty heavy luring tactics to luring them into teaching (that's how low the competition is). They can pretty easily get in with a 2.2 in a STEM subject (any uni goes) and little experience. While a Humanities teacher will need a relevant degree, lots of relevant experience just to have a realistic chance to get in.
    Regarding finance and law, I believe you need to obtain additional degrees/certificates to get in. Those certificates have to be paid. Mostly in the four figures. Unless your parents are willing to pay, you will most likely have to work part-time to earn those certificates that you need. It will take a long time and it will be hard but I am guessing that those interested can make it in. That being said, I don't know about finance, but law is quite competitive to get in so not sure how easy it will be. That leaves professional services and I would be lying if I said that it isn't competitive (pwc springs to mind!). Out of the ones you mentioned, it is probably the most popular path (after teaching) for people doing Humanities. Again, it will be probably take several attempts to get in (due to high competition) especially if you don't come from a top university. Some of the companies seem to be asking for UCAS points.

    Summarise: paths are available to Humanities grads but they are very competitive compared to the ones available to STEM grads. It might be because the stuff you learn isn't directly applicable as it is often the case in STEM.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    1. Technically, they can. But I am yet to see it in the UK. Plus, this people would depend on tech people to get the stuff implemented. Plus, the risk factor. Entrepreneurship (as in start-ups) is more of a lifestyle than a job that you leave at 5pm plus most start-ups fail. You don't want to spend your life working on projects that are likely to fail. Entrepreneurship (as in small business) is also risky. So if you are not a high-risk person, you probably won't go down this path.
    2. I don't consider teaching a good job. It might be emotionally rewarding (sometimes) but the working conditions are terrible. The sub-forum for teaching speaks for itself. Unless, you LOVE teaching and are willing to face the possibility of damaging your health and have low pay, it is also not a path to go down. And as I said earlier, trying to become a teacher in a non-STEM subject is way harder than becoming a STEM teacher due to competition (aside from one particular subject). STEM teacher applicants are the targets of some pretty heavy luring tactics to luring them into teaching (that's how low the competition is). They can pretty easily get in with a 2.2 in a STEM subject (any uni goes) and little experience. While a Humanities teacher will need a relevant degree, lots of relevant experience just to have a realistic chance to get in.
    Regarding finance and law, I believe you need to obtain additional degrees/certificates to get in. Those certificates have to be paid. Mostly in the four figures. Unless your parents are willing to pay, you will most likely have to work part-time to earn those certificates that you need. It will take a long time and it will be hard but I am guessing that those interested can make it in. That being said, I don't know about finance, but law is quite competitive to get in so not sure how easy it will be. That leaves professional services and I would be lying if I said that it isn't competitive (pwc springs to mind!). Out of the ones you mentioned, it is probably the most popular path (after teaching) for people doing Humanities. Again, it will be probably take several attempts to get in (due to high competition) especially if you don't come from a top university. Some of the companies seem to be asking for UCAS points.

    Summarise: paths are available to Humanities grads but they are very competitive compared to the ones available to STEM grads. It might be because the stuff you learn isn't directly applicable as it is often the case in STEM.
    You don't need to pay for a qualification to get into finance (for law, if you get into the right firm, you don't either).

    Going back to your 'value' statement, you seem to have (or I have at least opened your eyes a bit) come to the conclusion that Humanities do have value in the job market, regardless of how competitive or not the process is and there are avenues where many humanities students find success in. I think people have a tendency of looking down on the humanities subjects because they can't open their eyes a bit to the possibilities available to humanities grads.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Source?
    Evolution is pretty much the source for this
    You believe in evolution right?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    You don't need to pay for a qualification to get into finance (for law, if you get into the right firm, you don't either).

    Going back to your 'value' statement, you seem to have (or I have at least opened your eyes a bit) come to the conclusion that Humanities do have value in the job market, regardless of how competitive or not the process is and there are avenues where many humanities students find success in. I think people have a tendency of looking down on the humanities subjects because they can't open their eyes a bit to the possibilities available to humanities grads.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't think I ever said that Humanities grads have no value. My point was that their value was lower than a STEM grad. By value I specifically mean demand (higher than supply) in the job market for their skills at a salary that is somewhere above minimum wage salary.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erebor)
    http://content.time.com/time/special...073703,00.html


    I guess they don't need to worry about paying back their huge student loans since they'll never be earning the minimum required anyway.
    Savage
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plasmaman)
    Evolution is pretty much the source for this
    You believe in evolution right?
    Lol how is evolution a source for your sexist generalisation?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erebor)
    http://content.time.com/time/special...073703,00.html



    I rarely hear girls say they chose a degree/career because of money, they all talk about their ''passion'' for it, like school has nothing to do with their future earnings. Many do it knowing full well that they won't even use that degree since they'll end working part-time or stay at home (even for Ivy league only 1/3 of female graduates work full time). I guess they don't need to worry about paying back their huge student loans since they'll never be earning the minimum required anyway. This is rarely the case with men, money plays a much bigger role. This is also why fewer and fewer men are going to university and doing well paid apprenticeships instead of some degree where the biggest challenge is not throwing up during the uni parties (women also choose the lowest paid apprenticeships, btw).
    To be fair, having the passion for something is more important than the money. Nobody wants to be stuck in a dead end job that they don't enjoy.

    The reason why women stay at home is to take care of the children, which is often encouraged by the men. You make it seem as if the women sit at home all day twiddling their thumbs. In addition, let us not forget the number of single parents who are forced to work part time because the fathers have legged it..

    Women don't choose the lowest paid apprenticeships. They choose an apprenticeship that they're interested in which just so happens to be low paid. There is a difference. Instead of bashing women for following their passion, don't you think that they should increase the pay for certain jobs (which happen to be female dominated) instead? I mean, it's not like you've said that women remain unemployed after uni. We work. Many will start off working full time yet are barely scraping the minimum required. Take nurses for an example. There needs to be some sort of intervention and attacking women is not the answer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    With the boom in Netflix and other video outlets I would have thought the demand for drama students will soon go through the roof. People are now watching TV on the train, in pubs, walking, its becoming 24 hours. To keep up with the demand and not show endless repeats there will be a boom in the demand for drama students, its a no brainer. The average pay of an actor is £40 an hour or about £70,000 a year. There are more female drama students than male. If it does not work out the teaching profession needs people who can act in front of a class - a drama degree is ideal base camp for someone wishing to enter the teaching profession.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Why have you equated "average engineer" with building a road or house? I don't think much, if any, engineering goes into houses and I've never heard of an engineer build a road.

    And Sheffield is certainly not the centre for engineering in the UK...
    roads: its called CIVIL engineering. houses: its called STRUCTURAL engineering. These two sectors in the UK account for most engineers (eg Cross Rail projects or the Shard that type of thing or northern housing estates).

    Obviously historically Sheffield was the centre of the UK steel industry and thus the centre of heavy engineering.
    From Wikipedia concerning sheffield steel:The steel industry now concentrates on more specialist steel-making and, despite appearances, currently produces more steel per year by value than at any other time in its history.[2] The industry is now less noticeable as it has become highly automated and employs far fewer staff than in the past. However a small number of skilled industrial automation engineers still thrive in it. Today the economy is worth over £7 billion a year.[3]

    I think you will find an engineering degree from sheffield is considered about the best you can get in the UK - Normally its graduates apply for the same posts as Cambridge engineering graduate - so if not the best, its on par with the best (from available evidence).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CHEETS)
    Gosh, when did I say that this is true and a fact for every human alive. It happens on average.
    The fact remains that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, hackers, children who write mobile apps, etc are male - whereas women are particularly prolific on social media sites. That's despite equal access to computers and the Internet; men are simply (on average) more likely to tinker with computers for the love of doing so, whereas women treat it more as a tool for getting work done and keeping up social connections (there's a study out there that confirms this).

    I like also the following example to highlight the inherent differences between men and women. Previously, boys made up the majority of video game players; however nowadays girls are fully 50% of the gaming market. However, the nature of the games they play is (on average) very different. In particular the most popular games for boys are all about competition and winning or losing - Call of Duty, League of Legends, DotA. For girls though, the most popular games are those associated with nurturing and caring - the Sims, FarmVille, Stardew Valley. This is not to say of course that there is no crossover in gender and some games that break the mould, but there are very clear divergences in what each gender likes on average.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawliettt)
    That's exactly why most sane people do degrees. Jheez. From your reply alone i can tell you're doing liberal arts or something
    ...

    You say that condescendingly, but employers like Liberal Arts and Sciences degrees. I've done enough research to know what I'm getting into.

    I'm going to get 41 in the IB; will do my utmost to get a first in my degree; will have the opportunity to fo an internship with a well-respected business as part of my degree... All the while thoroughly enjoying what I'm learning. Why does any of this mean I'm not going to get a high-earning job?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFoundWonderland)
    ...

    All the while thoroughly enjoying what I'm learning. Why does any of this mean I'm not going to get a high-earning job?
    You can do both. I'm simply saying money takes priority
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Women don't choose the lowest paid apprenticeships. They choose an apprenticeship that they're interested in which just so happens to be low paid. There is a difference. Instead of bashing women for following their passion, don't you think that they should increase the pay for certain jobs (which happen to be female dominated) instead? I mean, it's not like you've said that women remain unemployed after uni. We work. Many will start off working full time yet are barely scraping the minimum required. Take nurses for an example. There needs to be some sort of intervention and attacking women is not the answer.
    That's not how economics works. We live in a supply and demand economy. Essentially, the more supply and less demand there is for a product/service, the more valuable it is. The 'female dominated' jobs you're referring to are things like care-giving, teaching etc. These jobs are not that intellectually demanding; lots of people are capable of doing them, which means supply outstrips demand and so they aren't paid as well. Jobs in fields like science and technology are much more demanding and require much more training and knowledge. Therefore demand exceeds supply, and so they are paid more.

    The real question behind this is why do we see more women choose less demanding fields like teaching and care-giving, and why do we see more men choose fields like science and technology. Now I'm willing to bet your answer will be social conditioning, but there is quite a wealth of evidence to suggest that on a fundamental, intrinsic level, men and women have different preferences. Which isn't to say that one of these is better than, or superior than, the other. It just means we're different.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    The fact remains that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, hackers, children who write mobile apps, etc are male - whereas women are particularly prolific on social media sites. That's despite equal access to computers and the Internet; men are simply (on average) more likely to tinker with computers for the love of doing so, whereas women treat it more as a tool for getting work done and keeping up social connections (there's a study out there that confirms this).

    I like also the following example to highlight the inherent differences between men and women. Previously, boys made up the majority of video game players; however nowadays girls are fully 50% of the gaming market. However, the nature of the games they play is (on average) very different. In particular the most popular games for boys are all about competition and winning or losing - Call of Duty, League of Legends, DotA. For girls though, the most popular games are those associated with nurturing and caring - the Sims, FarmVille, Stardew Valley. This is not to say of course that there is no crossover in gender and some games that break the mould, but there are very clear divergences in what each gender likes on average.
    There is huge money to be made by women interested in arts and crafts and USING the internet.

    Take hand painted wall paper - it sells on line for about £100 a roll:
    http://www.timorousbeasties.com/projects

    You can put your clothing ideas on ASOS (the market place section is mainly used by female students to pay for their tuition fees).

    https://marketplace.asos.com/?CTARef=Global%20Nav

    Lots of cash putting your art on ETSY:
    https://www.etsy.com/uk/

    There is big money here as ASOS is already quoted in the BILLIONS.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    roads: its called CIVIL engineering. houses: its called STRUCTURAL engineering. These two sectors in the UK account for most engineers (eg Cross Rail projects or the Shard that type of thing or northern housing estates).
    I'm well aware of what structural engineering is having worked in it myself. I would be very surprised if much, if any, engineering goes into building a house, because houses are not complicated structures.

    Civil engineering is the design and construction of infrastructure and the natural environment; roads are only a small part of this, and engineers do not physically build roads.

    Obviously historically Sheffield was the centre of the UK steel industry and thus the centre of heavy engineering.
    From Wikipedia concerning sheffield steel:The steel industry now concentrates on more specialist steel-making and, despite appearances, currently produces more steel per year by value than at any other time in its history.[2] The industry is now less noticeable as it has become highly automated and employs far fewer staff than in the past. However a small number of skilled industrial automation engineers still thrive in it. Today the economy is worth over £7 billion a year.[3]
    I have no idea why you think that Sheffield would be the centre of UK engineering because of the steel industry. Much of the engineering in the steel industry probably isn't carried out onsite at the steel mill, and I have never heard of Sheffield being a particularly prominent location for engineers.

    I think you will find an engineering degree from sheffield is considered about the best you can get in the UK - Normally its graduates apply for the same posts as Cambridge engineering graduate - so if not the best, its on par with the best (from available evidence).
    Graduates from every university are competing against graduates from every other university for positions. I do not agree that Sheffield is considered markedly better (or worse) than other British universities; the statistics do not show this to be the case nor does my experience point to it either.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    That's not how economics works. We live in a supply and demand economy. Essentially, the more supply and less demand there is for a product/service, the more valuable it is. The 'female dominated' jobs you're referring to are things like care-giving, teaching etc. These jobs are not that intellectually demanding; lots of people are capable of doing them, which means supply outstrips demand and so they aren't paid as well. Jobs in fields like science and technology are much more demanding and require much more training and knowledge. Therefore demand exceeds supply, and so they are paid more.
    No, lots of people aren't capable of doing them. You need a high level of patience and a natural impulse to deliver care and meet the needs of different invidiuals. You need to be friendly, confident and have great communication skills. Job roles that demand such skills are not suitable for many people. Those with social or anxiety issues would not perform well.

    Don't you mean that high demand and low supply would increase value? Nurses are so sadly underpaid yet there is a huge demand for them. So much so that we are employing qualified nurses from all over the EU because the UK alone is seriously lacking.

    Whilst jobs in the science field are important, roles that happen to be female dominated are just as important.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CHEETS)
    Women are subconsciously 'nudged' towards low-paying, less time consuming, less intellectually challenging, 'feminine' welfare or caring type roles from an early age (playing hair and make-up, empty-headed youtube vloggers like Zoella, nurse or teacher barbies etc etc).

    Men are similarly subconsciously pushed towards wanting high-paying high-achieving careers like science, engineering, finance etc.

    Its just how our society functions at the moment. What it means is that there are plenty of people (both men and women, including myself) who find themselves stuck in a degree/ career path that is considered 'safe' and socially acceptable for their gender but they have no interest in.
    Good post. I feel sorry for all the guys pushed into boring subjects and boring jobs they can't really stand because they 'pay well'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    I'm well aware of what structural engineering is having worked in it myself..
    Then why waste my time and everyone times asking the question. No need to reply. Time is money and I want to make some
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Then why waste my time and everyone times asking the question. No need to reply. Time is money and I want to make some
    My initial query was as to why you had equated the average engineer with building roads and houses. I haven't asked you any other questions.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Good post. I feel sorry for all the guys pushed into boring subjects and boring jobs they can't really stand because they 'pay well'.
    We can't rely on a man to come along and look after us.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.