People who get A* in Eng Lit are smarter than the people who do the same in Science?

Jokosor,

You sound very bitter about not being able to excel at Humanities subjects'. Would you like me to tutor you?

Listen !! Literature ppl !!! Do this for me then

The question I circled. Part a. I am actually really stuck on this


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Dude you need to chill. Humanities subjects have given me one of the many skills to evaluate a person. And you seem quite insecure about your education, why are you so angry?

I find your choice of subjects very interesting-what do you plan to do later on?

This is just the same for science. I don't see the point in advancing a society which has no lust for life, no creativity nor art or beauty. A society solely scientific would be exactly this, so your argument works both ways. We can become as technologically advanced as we like, but ultimately on our deathbeds we will value the joys we've indulged in through life, such as literature and philosophy.

We come back to the same argument. Art and Science are two equally important halves of society.

I hate this thread.

Medicine wouldn't be what it is without talented scientists, in all areas, making discoveries which essentially have saved thousands and thousands of lives. It's not just medicine though, every equation in maths, and element in science has been founded by a scientist who is probably incredibly talented and worked exceptionally hard. You shouldn't underestimate scientists, imo they've done just as much as doctors.

Hi Well, if all goes to plan and I meet my offer, I'm off to Cambridge in October to study Natural Sciences (Physical) for three/four years. After that, it's hopefully a career in physics; probably something either energy or communications related (although ESA would be amazing! I've always wanted to plan the first manned Mars missions. But that's probably not going to happen, I'd have to be incredibly lucky to be able to be involved in something like that )

XXX

Doctors would be utterly useless without scientists working behind the scenes discovering diseases, cures, and the complex interactions within the human anatomy. Some doctors are researching scientists as well, of course, but you did not specify.

Wrong.

You are talking about arts, however the discussion is focused around ENGLISH LITERATURE. Like I said, English Literature by itself cannot validate itself against any of the sciences. It will always need support from areas like Art, Philosophy and History. Do you have any points that can refute these statements? I say no.

Literature itself is a luxury. Sciences instead are not and they are fundamental for the progress of society, history proves me right. But what has english literature done for humanity? Neglibile stuff when compared to sciences

Who else agrees? I was having this argument with a couple people; me and my friend do writing subjects and are predicted A/A*'s and the people who we were debating with are Science/Maths students predicted the same.

I think subjects like Maths and Science especially are synoptic, it's more to do with being able to remember things like atoms and molecules than raw talent. Maths is a lil different because you have to be smart to understand mathematical concepts etc, but overall i think it's synoptic. I think if your mind can absorb loads of knowledge easily then you will excel at both subjects.

English Literature on the other hand takes raw talent, English students who do well have the ability to interpret a piece of Literature in numerous ways, which takes skill. It's not just knowing what the makes an atom or what x + y is which can be learned through intense revision. It's more to do with raw talent, English Students writing is stylized, cohesive and structured, it takes skill to be able to structure a piece of writing and analyse texts etc.

I dunno, that's just what i think, i'm not saying it's right so don't go all crazy on me, i just want opinions.

HEY, don't you think i should get a medal or some shiz for creating such a LEGEN...wait for it...DARY, thread? I mean i brought so many of you TSR users together, one of you be a dear and start a petition for me

O yeah, i still stand by my statement and stop commenting on the title, we're all susceptible to typos.

OP is not talking about maths in general, he is talking about A level. A level maths is very different to STEP and while STEP is very hard you can get a good grade in A level maths by doing a few past papers since the same questions pretty much always come up - it pretty much is simple addition.

I do maths and science A levels and I found it much harder to get an A* in english literature GCSE than maths and further maths A level (although I think chemistry A level is harder because there's so much to memorise).

No one answered my question .....


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I'm going to leave this thread now. Not because you have won some sort of desperate victory, but because I find there is little point in arguing. Being such a mature student, I'm sure you can agree. Finally, trying to prove a point over the internet is pointless. Time is of the essence and so is your blood pressure.

Alas; parting is such sweet sorrow.

I find it interesting that this thread has morphed from being about "intelligence" to the validity of English Literature as a subject, against the validity of science as a subject. Whilst I am firmly against the title of the thread, I also find myself slightly depressed by the number of people insisting that English Literature is not respected, valued or worthwhile when compared with sciences. For me, studying English Literature is about studying how ideas have been expressed for centuries, examining how authors, poets, playwrights and speakers have chosen to communicate and what has influenced them, creating a rich and vast map of past, present and future cultures, feelings, ideologies and identities. As a subject, it is challenging, fascinating and emotive, presenting opportunities to debate issues spanning all areas of society and how people represent or are influenced by the world around them. It is arrogant to deem it a "luxury"; who can say that they are so perfect that they would not benefit from being better able to understand, evaluate and discuss the opinions of others, even if they don't agree with them?

I think it's a great shame that the government are putting such a heavy slant on science and technology within the National Curriculum. Pure and simply, this slant is based on money. It is science and technology that will boost the UK's economy in the long term. It's fantastic to see so many people passionately defending the value of the sciences, of course they are stimulating subjects and of course they benefit society - we all want to see a cure for cancer. Yet I am baffled by the view that somehow the sciences are superior to the arts as they lead to jobs. This is exactly the sort of thinking that drives the government's scientific policy and exactly the sort of thinking we should try to evade. Every human being has their interests, and the basis that such interests "don't lead to jobs" as a way of criticising these people is obscene. The government should be spending just as much money on the arts as the sciences for the benefit of these people - arts can be comforting, self-affirming, eye-opening and furthermore fun. The money should always come second to the person and it is the suppressing of artistic movements that, I believe, drives people to create threads such as this - the arts deserve their place!