Why do people do arts subjects when FAME and STEM subjects get paid much more?

There is so much mathematics in it that this is just plainly false. Not that that is necessarily how it should be, but as it stands it is far closer to a STEM subject than those two you mention.

Also, I think people overrate the importance of a degree in becoming X. In some areas, yes you do need them and yes they do correlate directly to what you want to become. Yet doing a degree in business studies won't make you an entrepreneur, and doing a degree in fashion design or acting won't make you a designer or actor, respectively. In the end they are a means of studying a subject, no more, no less.



I agree on this point. I don't see why these courses should be subsidised.

I'm guessing FAME is Finance, Accounting, Management and Economics?

Do a high level graduate course in any social science whether that be politics, sociology, and it'll have a high quantitative component. Economics is a social science, not a stem, this is actually fact and impossible to dispute. The whole point of "social science" is the application of scientific methods and theories to society, that's what economics is.

Physical geography is STEM. You can't just pick and choose and claim a well paid non stem degree is stem and average stem one isn't stem to fit a certain narrative.

Aside from Engineering, Medicine and Comp Sci most stem degrees are relatively pointless and no better than non-stem degrees when it comes to grad jobs.

Do a high level graduate course in any social science whether that be politics, sociology, and it'll have a high quantitative component. Economics is a social science, not a stem, this is actually fact and impossible to dispute. The whole point of "social science" is the application of scientific methods and theories to society, that's what economics is.

Physical geography is STEM. You can't just pick and choose and claim a well paid non stem degree is stem and average stem one isn't stem to fit a certain narrative.

Aside from Engineering, Medicine and Comp Sci most stem degrees are relatively pointless and no better than non-stem degrees when it comes to grad jobs.

FAME degrees are all relatively pointless anyway. You can do a 1-year masters in finance, management, accounting without prior background etc and most individual working for top end financial institutions will not have business management degrees they'll more than likely have a traditional degree, whether that be humanities or a science from a well-regarded target uni.

The employment record of comp sci graduates is so bad that the government ordered two reviews into it.

I took a look at LSE's courses since it should be fairly representative. Of the three subjects, only Economics requires an A level in maths (as is typical at most universities) and only it has integrated mathematics into its main principles courses, plus courses in quantitative economics/econometrics, i.e. half the first year modules. Sociology has an "exploring numbers" type course and I didn't notice one for Politics. I don't see how they're comparable. There are even many prominent economists who think there is far too much maths in it without it making any useful contribution to the field's advancement but is instead regressing (no pun intended) it. Sure, a lot of social sciences have some element of statistics, because you need to understand it to grasp things such as surveys, which they use to conduct research, but not much more than this.

I don't dispute that Economics is a social science, but the amount of maths in it is higher than some traditional STEM degrees, and that correlates to why its graduates can command such high salaries. This is because, despite it perhaps having a dubious relationship to the field's theoretical advancement, skills such as short-term demand forecasting, spreadsheet modelling etc. are highly useful to businesses and well remunerated. Hence why these skills are taught on Business Studies and Management courses as well, but even they don't compare to the level of mathematics on an econ course.




They may have finance degrees, though. Have you taken a look at the requirements for entry level graduate jobs in finance? More reputable unis won't let you do an MSc in Finance or Accountancy without some background in the field and certainly in the former's case, not without a strong quantitative background. That many in these sectors do not have these specific degrees is more a reflection of the fact that they were far less common decades ago than they are now. So it is unsurprising that most people in these industries probably don't have these degrees. Looking at their recent graduate workforce would be more instructive.

I took a look at LSE's courses since it should be fairly representative. Of the three subjects, only Economics requires an A level in maths (as is typical at most universities) and only it has integrated mathematics into its main principles courses, plus courses in quantitative economics/econometrics, i.e. half the first year modules. Sociology has an "exploring numbers" type course and I didn't notice one for Politics. I don't see how they're comparable. There are even many prominent economists who think there is far too much maths in it without it making any useful contribution to the field's advancement but is instead regressing (no pun intended) it. Sure, a lot of social sciences have some element of statistics, because you need to understand it to grasp things such as surveys, which they use to conduct research, but not much more than this.

I don't dispute that Economics is a social science, but the amount of maths in it is higher than some traditional STEM degrees, and that correlates to why its graduates can command such high salaries. This is because, despite it perhaps having a dubious relationship to the field's theoretical advancement, skills such as short-term demand forecasting, spreadsheet modelling etc. are highly useful to businesses and well remunerated. Hence why these skills are taught on Business Studies and Management courses as well, but even they don't compare to the level of mathematics on an econ course.




They may have finance degrees, though. Have you taken a look at the requirements for entry level graduate jobs in finance? More reputable unis won't let you do an MSc in Finance or Accountancy without some background in the field and certainly in the former's case, not without a strong quantitative background. That many in these sectors do not have these specific degrees is more a reflection of the fact that they were far less common decades ago than they are now. So it is unsurprising that most people in these industries probably don't have these degrees. Looking at their recent graduate workforce would be more instructive.

I took a look at LSE's courses since it should be fairly representative. Of the three subjects, only Economics requires an A level in maths (as is typical at most universities) and only it has integrated mathematics into its main principles courses, plus courses in quantitative economics/econometrics, i.e. half the first year modules. Sociology has an "exploring numbers" type course and I didn't notice one for Politics. I don't see how they're comparable. There are even many prominent economists who think there is far too much maths in it without it making any useful contribution to the field's advancement but is instead regressing (no pun intended) it. Sure, a lot of social sciences have some element of statistics, because you need to understand it to grasp things such as surveys, which they use to conduct research, but not much more than this.

I don't dispute that Economics is a social science, but the amount of maths in it is higher than some traditional STEM degrees, and that correlates to why its graduates can command such high salaries. This is because, despite it perhaps having a dubious relationship to the field's theoretical advancement, skills such as short-term demand forecasting, spreadsheet modelling etc. are highly useful to businesses and well remunerated. Hence why these skills are taught on Business Studies and Management courses as well, but even they don't compare to the level of mathematics on an econ course.




They may have finance degrees, though. Have you taken a look at the requirements for entry level graduate jobs in finance? More reputable unis won't let you do an MSc in Finance or Accountancy without some background in the field and certainly in the former's case, not without a strong quantitative background. That many in these sectors do not have these specific degrees is more a reflection of the fact that they were far less common decades ago than they are now. So it is unsurprising that most people in these industries probably don't have these degrees. Looking at their recent graduate workforce would be more instructive.

They may do so at a PG level but then there's also a shift in economics at that point. I definitely agree that Economics is a social science and therefore should differ in its approach to Physics, beyond some facility with Statistics to conduct historical research, a point many economists seem oblivious to, but it's starting to come into question. I think if the primary reason for an econ grad earning so much is their modelling skills, it's misleading to not treat Econ as a STEM subject in that light.

Regarding Oxbridge, I am pretty sure they used to require it, but they're outliers. Cambridge's approach is interesting but it is still effectively mandating work experience in the field. Can't say why it doesn't want an undergrad finance background. It's fairly typical of most Finance MScs (Imperial, LSE etc) though to require at the least a quantitative background. I'd be tempted by Oxbridge if it weren't for the exorbitant fees of these programmes.

I was thinking finance as a sector, as a whole, not just IB (where it's primarily quants who need a huge deal of mathematical ability.) I don't dispute that you can follow the trajectory you are, but the OP was just commenting on the earning potential of respective graduates, I think.

Good luck with your degree. I have a similar background, in Philosophy but also did Economics during the course. It's hugely useful in teaching you how to think logically/structure arguments.

Thanks, I'm actually doing Philosophy and Politics to be precise. Though if I can't get into IB my back up is a conversion masters in Comp Sci, so the previous statistics worry me slightly in that regard .

cause there is beauty in art and creativity and fun and inspiration in STEM its just rules methods and research - are people not allowed to dream? i have a mix of music computer science electronics and drama