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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Is it not tougher to have a range and good balance like maths, art, geography and chemistry as your 4 A levels?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flather)
    Is it not tougher to have a range and good balance like maths, art, geography and chemistry as your 4 A levels?
    I think so im doing maths history chemistry and biology and think having history makes it harder since theres no way it can relate to any other subject I take

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think botany is a very worthwhile pursuit. I'm guessing you're not referring to that ... however.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Whatever people say most STEM students (including myself) would find English lit, art, history etc. to be much harder than STEM.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock_Set)
    Whatever people say most STEM students (including myself) would find English lit, art, history etc. to be much harder than STEM.
    Those subjects are easy and dont require much intuition and I'm an engineer.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    STEM > non-STEM
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I believe there's a misconception of STEM students and workers. Some lazily believe that all STEM people suck at communication, writing, expressing themselves etc.

    In fact many STEM subjects require creativity, collaborative work, excellent communication skills (presentations etc.)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This view that TSRian's hold really irritates me. I take 2 STEM subjects at A2, and ironically the one I'm struggling with most happens to be non-STEM atm. And no I don't think they're inferior, because STEM subjects cannot be applied everyday life in that they change your way of thinking like most non STEM subjects. I sometimes feel silly when I think about how I have no intention of becoming a chemist yet here I am, learning about atomic structure and overlapping p orbitals, something I'm not likely to be able to apply to anything else in life. Ironically, my getting into Uni partially depends on how well I can recall the reactions of Benzene. STEM subjects are usually more difficult I agree but at the end of the day all you really need is a good memory and you're pretty much sorted. Take maths for example, learn and understand the equations to everything and you pretty much know it all, all you need to do is apply it. Biology is probably the most applicable STEM subject to real life requires understanding more than memory. Non- STEM aren't nearly as basic in that sense, they actually require a range of both STEM and non STEM skills.
    I took Art at AS and that was by far the hardest year of my life in terms of workload and stress. So can we just stop with this superiority of STEM subjects and respect that different people are better at different things? Imo the only things that's 'superior' about STEM is employability and even that's debatable.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Clearly STEM is just better. I know this is a joke thread but it wouldn't be being made if this wasn't pretty much true.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Universities prefer STEM subjects over non-STEM subjects. Some unis even post a list of 'hard' and 'soft' subjects, its worthwhile noting the 'soft' subjects are quite far away STEM as can be.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    I was making a general statement, hence I said brains. Pay attention to detail.

    What are you then? Humanities? Still, it cannot compare. Maybe they should teach you all how to pay more attention to detail. Or is it just you?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You spelt brains wrong in your previous post, you need to pay attention to detail.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad King)
    medical school rejects don't get an opinion in this thread.
    still havent been rejected by all 4 yet this year

    plus applying to engineering as well m8
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You spelt brains wrong in your previous post, you need to pay attention to detail.
    Great! Now you can spell and sing and save the world! Oh no wait, a computer can do that for us. What does that render you? USELESS!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blondelocks)
    I haven't read through the entire thread and have read backwards (?) but I'd just like to respond to your comment on Karl Marx.

    I personally think that he's an important figure in history, he has written perhaps the most comprehensive criticism of capitalism, moreover his works have inspired world-changing historical events, so he's certainly significant. Some people argue that 'Marxism' is not a dogma but a science, and I tend to agree with that but there is no way he's as significant as a guy like Darwin for example. Furthermore, I think the fact there is now an entire subject at A-level (sociology) practically dedicated to studying Marxism is ridiculous.

    In response to the OP... I think this debate is fruitless. STEM subjects are obviously essential and languages aside, they are probably the most important fields for bettering the prosperity of humanity e.g. in the fields of medicine and agriculture and so on...

    However, that is not to say that the humanities are automatically 'inferior'. For example, history is a subject which gets a lot of stick, but personally, I think a society that doesn't have a comprehensive understanding of history is a backward society. Indeed, some of the most important lessons for humanity are written in history.

    Creativity is something which the sciences just don't provide in the same way as the humanities. Indeed, for those who advocate STEM subjects as superior to the humanities: this is the same sort of argument pushed by authoritarian governments who wish to stifle social progress as the humanities encourage people to question social constructs.

    I'm not arguing that one or the other is superior, as it's just not the case, I'm simply defending the humanities against this relentless onslaught trying to belittle the field. I'll state it again, STEM subjects are essential! But if you seriously think about this, where would we be if nobody read literature, philosophy, or history? There would be no civil society and to be honest it sounds like Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World', in fact check out that book/movie!!!

    Thus, if there is no civil society without the humanities, then surely what we deduce from this is that they are just as important as STEM subjects.

    Big up.
    The thing that you non STEM a level students don't realise is that there IS creativity in STEM mainly in Engineering but in maths as well. I know that may be hard to grasp since you probably have little understanding of them. Point is, creativity is everywhere and it does not need the humanities or social sciences to exist. A rapport system where STEM is superior and others lesser is the best system.

    As for Karl Marx, if you think anything he's done is scientific, don't mention him again, it's clearly NOT STEM!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBlueBiro)
    This view that TSRian's hold really irritates me. I take 2 STEM subjects at A2, and ironically the one I'm struggling with most happens to be non-STEM atm. And no I don't think they're inferior, because STEM subjects cannot be applied everyday life in that they change your way of thinkingllike no STEM subjects. I sometimes feel silly when I think about how I have no intention of becoming a chemist yet here I am, learning about atomic structure and overlapping p orbitals, something I'm not likely to be able to apply to anything else in life. Ironically, my getting into Uni partially depends on how well I can recall the reactions of Benzene. STEM subjects are usually more difficult I agree but at the end of the day all you really need is a good memory and you're pretty much sorted. Take maths for example, learn and understand the equations to everything and you pretty much know it all, all you need to do is apply it. Biology is probably the most applicable STEM subject to real life requires understanding more than memory. Non- STEM aren't nearly as basic in that sense, they actually require a range of both STEM and non STEM skills.
    I took Art at AS and that was by far the hardest year of my life in terms of workload and stress. So can we just stop with this superiority of STEM subjects and respect that different people are better at different things. Imo the only things that's 'superior' about STEM is employability and even that's debatable.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Stop right there. A level anything is a joke. Brb, go to uni first, otherwise, be silent.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    Great! Now you can spell and sing and save the world! Oh no wait, a computer can do that for us. What does that render you? USELESS!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Someone don't like having their mistake on the WWW pointed out to them, ha ha ha.

    Seriously, its funny with a BIG F.



    I'll have to find some other errors of yours, you obviously take it so seriously its great.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    I'm very confused by this. You suggest that experts in the humanities can be geniuses, and obviously Karl Marx is a good candidate for that. So what's your complaint? You disagree with his philosophy? Well, I do too. Which is why I wouldn't say he's a genius. But isn't the question whether or not they can be geniuses, and not which are geniuses?

    If you adopt the criterion of technological advancement as justifying genius then obviously Newton is going to be a genius and Karl Marx is not. Similarly, if you adopt the criterion of numbers of revolutions, Karl Marx will be a genius and Newton, not. What is your point? Isn't the question, 'what criterion establishes genius'?

    Karl Marx has written important works which reveal a lot about economics and various social situations.
    Yes they can be geniuses, in respect to their field. That is the pertinent information right there.

    Numbers of revolution?

    Newton revolutionised Mathematics, Physics, Engineering.

    Shakespeare revolutionised language and poetry

    Tolkien revolutionised high fantasy literature

    Einstein revolutionised the understanding of large bodies (like planets)

    What has Karl Marx revolutionised? Defining capitalism? Writing down what was before his eyes using jargon? Hardly a genius. And when this debate become about geniuses anyway?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    The thing that you non STEM a level students realise is that there IS creativity in STEM mainly in Engineering but in maths as well. <snip>
    Not replying to anything in particular, just one point caught my eye. I heavily agree with this point, that STEM subjects are creative in nature. I can't describe this viewpoint eloquently enough myself, and thusly, I leave here a passage from Lockharts' Lament:

    "The first thing to understand is that mathematics is an art. The difference between math and the other arts, such as music and painting, is that our culture does not recognize it as such.

    Everyone understands that poets, painters, and musicians create works of art, and are expressing themselves in word, image, and sound. In fact, our society is rather generous when it comes to creative expression; architects, chefs, and even television directors are considered to be working artists. So why not mathematicians?

    Part of the problem is that nobody has the faintest idea what it is that mathematicians do. The common perception seems to be that mathematicians are somehow connected with science— perhaps they help the scientists with their formulas, or feed big numbers into computers for some reason or other. There is no question that if the world had to be divided into the “poetic dreamers” and the “rational thinkers” most people would place mathematicians in the latter category.

    Nevertheless, the fact is that there is nothing as dreamy and poetic, nothing as radical, subversive, and psychedelic, as mathematics. It is every bit as mind blowing as cosmology or physics (mathematicians conceived of black holes long before astronomers actually found any), and allows more freedom of expression than poetry, art, or music (which depend heavily on properties of the physical universe). Mathematics is the purest of the arts, as well as the most misunderstood."

    Good day to you all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Nevertheless, the fact is that there is nothing as dreamy and poetic, nothing as radical, subversive, and psychedelic, as mathematics. It is every bit as mind blowing as cosmology or physics (mathematicians conceived of black holes long before astronomers actually found any), and allows more freedom of expression than poetry, art, or music (which depend heavily on properties of the physical universe). Mathematics is the purest of the arts, as well as the most misunderstood."

    Good day to you all.
    That's quite possibly the most outlandish thing I've read on TSR thus far.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    Yes they can be geniuses, in respect to their field. That is the pertinent information right there.

    Numbers of revolution?

    Newton revolutionised Mathematics, Physics, Engineering.

    Shakespeare revolutionised language and poetry

    Tolkien revolutionised high fantasy literature

    Einstein revolutionised the understanding of large bodies (like planets)

    What has Karl Marx revolutionised? Defining capitalism? Writing down what was before his eyes using jargon? Hardly a genius. And when this debate become about geniuses anyway?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not even sure who you're arguing with now. Plainly, I meant Karl Marx as a suggestion of a non-STEM expert who can be considered a genius. The particular person isn't important, you can replace him with anyone in the humanities who has been successful.

    I do not personally care much for Karl Marx. Many people think he was a genius. He was, as such, good example of someone outside STEM who was important. He was just one example, Shakespeare would have made my point as well.

    The debate became about geniuses when the original guy I was responding too asserted that people who are considered 'geniuses' are always STEM experts.

    If you want to go and preach about how Marx wasn't a good Philosopher, and Marxism is misled or whatever, fine. I do not care. I already believe that. When did this debate become about whether Marx was actually a genius or not, as opposed to whether it's at least possible that he could be considered one?
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
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.