Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now

Should we all face the fact non STEM subjects are inferior to STEM Watch

    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WishingChaff)
    I have taught engineers mathematics at university, and I find it incredibly worrying that many of the students attitudes are to simply learn the methods in order to pass the exam, rather than understand the material.
    That's likely due to a difference in how we approach maths from actual mathematicians. We use maths as a tool, and learning the methods suffices for our purpose. We're not mathematicians, so obviously our understanding of the actual maths will pale in comparison.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I entirely agree to this. However, where I think the confusion lies is when we call courses Mathematics (e.g. A-level) and not by what they actual consist of. It is not called "Mathematical Tools". This can also happen at degree level. I completely agree that an engineering/mathematics department can teach a course on the applications of pure math (and need not delve into the theory). This can then be called something like Engineering Mathematics. But, when students are taught a course in Differential Equations/Calculus, they should be expected to understand the theory regardless of their intentions in which to apply this mathematics.

    My concern with the previous poster was more about the difficulty of the subject rather than how it is taught. I cannot see how an argument consisting of "I can't do this subject, so the subject must change" helps anyone. It simply deludes students into their ability to tackle the subject and disillusions other students into what the subject actually consists of.

    (Original post by Smack)
    That's likely due to a difference in how we approach maths from actual mathematicians. We use maths as a tool, and learning the methods suffices for our purpose. We're not mathematicians, so obviously our understanding of the actual maths will pale in comparison.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WishingChaff)
    I entirely agree to this. However, where I think the confusion lies is when we call courses Mathematics (e.g. A-level) and not by what they actual consist of. It is not called "Mathematical Tools". This can also happen at degree level. I completely agree that an engineering/mathematics department can teach a course on the applications of pure math (and need not delve into the theory). This can then be called something like Engineering Mathematics. But, when students are taught a course in Differential Equations/Calculus, they should be expected to understand the theory regardless of their intentions in which to apply this mathematics.

    My concern with the previous poster was more about the difficulty of the subject rather than how it is taught. I cannot see how an argument consisting of "I can't do this subject, so the subject must change" helps anyone. It simply deludes students into their ability to tackle the subject and disillusions other students into what the subject actually consists of.
    I never said I couldn't do it, I said it was harder, 3x in fact. I still aced the course but what I was saying is I found the theory largely unnecessary for us as engineers, though the course was called engineering maths. And I was also saying that for the mental capabilities of most a level students, the theory behind nearly all topics (worse yet proofs) would greatly overwhelming. And since the only people who need such deep understanding are maths degree prospective students, I see it fit to reserve the vast theory (and proofs) for there, in the mathematics degree.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WishingChaff)
    I entirely agree to this. However, where I think the confusion lies is when we call courses Mathematics (e.g. A-level) and not by what they actual consist of. It is not called "Mathematical Tools". This can also happen at degree level. I completely agree that an engineering/mathematics department can teach a course on the applications of pure math (and need not delve into the theory). This can then be called something like Engineering Mathematics. But, when students are taught a course in Differential Equations/Calculus, they should be expected to understand the theory regardless of their intentions in which to apply this mathematics.

    My concern with the previous poster was more about the difficulty of the subject rather than how it is taught. I cannot see how an argument consisting of "I can't do this subject, so the subject must change" helps anyone. It simply deludes students into their ability to tackle the subject and disillusions other students into what the subject actually consists of.
    I agree with much of this. I think a lot of what we call "maths" is incorrectly labelled. At my university, the maths modules I took were simply called "maths" (rather than maths for engineers, or engineering maths, as it may be at some universities), when in fact it was the use of maths to solve certain problems. I can understand this might be frustrating for genuine mathematicians.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intelligent con)
    Coming from someone who takes no STEM subjects I think it is obvious that subjects such as history or English lit are nowhere near as hard as any STEM subject
    I am studying Spanish alongside my other A-Levels and it's much easier. Science is much more useful than any other area of study, it's the study of objective reality based on empirical evidence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Economics and History A-Level are as challenging as STEM subjects.

    But it depends on the student, I know someone who got 11A*'s at GCSE and does History, Geography, Biology and Chemistry AS and struggles with History the most!

    I'd say History is the second most important A-level subject to Maths
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In what way superior? Is the IQ that you need to study the subject the only valid measure of superiority? Or is it the amount of money you can earn with it?

    What about some humanistic values?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by constantino_chr)
    economics and history a-level are as challenging as stem subjects.

    but it depends on the student, i know someone who got 11a*'s at gcse and does history, geography, biology and chemistry as and struggles with history the most!

    I'd say history is the second most important a-level subject to maths
    hahahahahahaha
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intelligent con)
    hahahahahahaha
    And how exactly are they not? Judging by how juvenile your response was I doubt you could get an A in either
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by constantino_chr)
    And how exactly are they not? Judging by how juvenile your response was I doubt you could get an A in either
    Got A's in all my history essays so far. What a joke of a subject
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Are all STEM supremacists this passive aggressive? 😄


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by constantino_chr)
    Are all STEM supremacists this passive aggressive?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No they're just better than you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smash Bandicoot)
    No they're just better than you.
    In what sense exactly? I'm great☺️


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by constantino_chr)
    In what sense exactly? I'm great☺️


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I jest. They're academic elitists who believe that anything which is not immediately applicable to practical life is a redundant thought.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smash Bandicoot)
    I jest. They're academic elitists who believe that anything which is not immediately applicable to practical life is a redundant thought.
    Well put😉👍


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    STEM master race
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smash Bandicoot)
    I jest. They're academic elitists who believe that anything which is not immediately applicable to practical life is a redundant thought.
    Not really. Physics faces this criticism from the lay public all the time. They will ask what is even the point of spending all that money on CERN?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Not really. Physics faces this criticism from the lay public all the time. They will ask what is even the point of spending all that money on CERN?
    The kind of person who thinks through it this much isn't really the kind to believe in the STEM Master Race

    I don't hate STEM students I hate STEM students who think doing STEM makes them better than everyone else, just like I hate anyone who thinks what they do, say, think or feel makes them better than everyone else. Therefore, I don't hate you; you're my friend
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smash Bandicoot)
    The kind of person who thinks through it this much isn't really the kind to believe in the STEM Master Race

    I don't hate STEM students I hate STEM students who think doing STEM makes them better than everyone else, just like I hate anyone who thinks what they do, say, think or feel makes them better than everyone else. Therefore, I don't hate you; you're my friend
    Ye I know. Was just pointing out humanities don't have a monopoly on dedicating time and resources on something that is not immediate applicable. Pure maths and pure physics have plenty of that.


    I wish that I had the ability to speed read through a load of books and right an essay on it like a good history graduate. I'm so god dam slow at reading

    Probably one of the reasons I gravitated towards a maths heavy subject, if you can do it maths is so much more time efficient for lazy/bone idle people
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by constantino_chr)
    Economics and History A-Level are as challenging as STEM subjects.

    But it depends on the student, I know someone who got 11A*'s at GCSE and does History, Geography, Biology and Chemistry AS and struggles with History the most!

    I'd say History is the second most important A-level subject to Maths
    History second to maths?????? Explain your logic behind this statement please!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
Help with your A-levels

All the essentials

The adventure begins mug

Student life: what to expect

What it's really like going to uni

Rosette

Essay expert

Learn to write like a pro with our ultimate essay guide.

Uni match

Uni match

Our tool will help you find the perfect course for you

Study planner

Create a study plan

Get your head around what you need to do and when with the study planner tool.

Study planner

Resources by subject

Everything from mind maps to class notes.

Hands typing

Degrees without fees

Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

A student doing homework

Study tips from A* students

Students who got top grades in their A-levels share their secrets

Study help links and info

Can you help? Study help unanswered threadsRules and posting guidelines

Sponsored content:

HEAR

HEAR

Find out how a Higher Education Achievement Report can help you prove your achievements.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.