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

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajj08)
    They also give you less useful information.
    I think a law degree will give you far more useful, relevant information than the abstract ******** you learn in maths.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slumpy)
    Particularly maths?
    I assume you're not familiar with university maths?
    Maths has, for me, the same amount of lectures as science students here, with none of the practical. Most of the time in my degree is supposed to be done outside of lectures I believe.
    I'm doing Maths at university too - we get more lectures than people from most other subjects. The work we get out of lectures mainly seems to be producing actual solutions to questions to hand in, rather than teaching ourselves Maths itself. And we have lots of lectures because we need to be taught the concepts. Whereas say someone doing Medicine might need to memorise the names of all the bones in the body. That's the kind of thing you'd do on your own, there's no point in having a lecture on it.



    I do maths out of interest, rather than purpose.
    However, the information in a pure maths course whilst maybe less useful in each specific case, sets the basis for what much of technology is based on.
    I do maths out of interest too. But my point was simply that we can't always say the knowledge gained from science subjects is more useful than from humanities (which is why I gave the example of a language). I think for me personally, learning a language may be more useful than learning how to erm... prove that the harmonic mean of a set of numbers is never greater than the geometric mean. That might not be true for someone else though. Different things are useful for different people, depending on what you want to do. I was just saying that the information in Humanities isn't always less useful.

    Like for a Maths student who wants to go into investment banking or something, learning a language would be much more useful than learning about vectors. But that might not be true for a maths student who wants to go into some kind of engineering.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I'm doing Maths at university too - we get more lectures than people from most other subjects. The work we get out of lectures mainly seems to be producing actual solutions to questions to hand in, rather than teaching ourselves Maths itself. And we have lots of lectures because we need to be taught the concepts. Whereas say someone doing Medicine might need to memorise the names of all the bones in the body. That's the kind of thing you'd do on your own, there's no point in having a lecture on it.
    Ah, then it would appear you're being taught in a different way to me. We get only 12 hours of lectures a week, but they're fast paced, and we're expected to spend almost as much time outside going over them, making sure we understand, filling out gaps in proofs etc.
    The work outside of lectures is mainly example sheets, but thats how a subject like maths is taught. But it certainly requires far far more original thought than school maths, and in fact, school humanities(I cannot speak for university level, as I haven't done that).


    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I do maths out of interest too. But my point was simply that we can't always say the knowledge gained from science subjects is more useful than from humanities (which is why I gave the example of a language). I think for me personally, learning a language may be more useful than learning how to erm... prove that the harmonic mean of a set of numbers is never greater than the geometric mean. That might not be true for someone else though. Different things are useful for different people, depending on what you want to do. I was just saying that the information in Humanities isn't always less useful.
    My point was that although for each specific person the knowledge may be less useful, overall I would rate the usefulness of maths and science above humanities.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slumpy)
    My point was that although for each specific person the knowledge may be less useful, overall I would rate the usefulness of maths and science above humanities.
    I think you're right about that if you're talking about society as a whole. Because if it weren't for the knowledge of Science and Maths, I wouldn't have a computer to post on TSR at the moment. I guess it varies for individual people though...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I must say I feel like throwing up having read this thread.

    No one has the same ways of thinking, talents, dedication, and interests. Also "proving" that one subject is harder than another is completely impossible because in the case of both the sciences and humanities I doubt you will find anyone who has mastered both and all the disciplines within both, which would be necessary given the inter-relatedness of the subjects.

    In terms of workload I would say the sciences usually come up trumps, which if all other things were equal would mean the sciences by default would be 'harder' in a sense, but unfortunately there are a million other variables which cannot be held equal in this kind of debate.

    Most of the people that argue here are probably guilty of a very human thing to do, which is be subject to so much stress, revelation, and exposure to their subject that they naturally think that no one is doing as much work as them, and certainly not as worthwhile. This is a pretty bad weakness in my opinion that leads to a lot of snobbery, which has been painfully evident in this thread.

    Finally, on a more personal, less objective note, I hope that the 'usefulness' of a subject does not factor into the question. I do believe the sciences are more practical, but I study the humanities because I simply find them more interesting. The study of humanity in abstract terms doesn't yield very much in terms of usability, but I honestly couldn't care less. I intend to enjoy my life rather than spend it desperately trying to make as much money as I possibly can and boasting about it.

    Just my thoughts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most people who take Humanities have no idea what higher level Science is like. They assume that science students only memorise information and concepts because that is what they did at GCSE or A Level. Fair enough, they probably attended a poor school that did not teach science well.

    Constructing essays are quite simple for most people, and humanities subjects are marked with a huge amount of subjectiveness. Basically unloading a whole load of "reasons" into an argument is enough to pass a test, which can be memorized. The questions asked are open ended and anything one says can be seen as an opinion and thus marked correct. Answers are basically found in a textbook, all you have to do is know some of them and you have a good chance of passing.
    Science is different. Sure, we memorize a lot of information, but chances are 95% of that material will be tested, we also write essays, do practicals, maths, and problem solving - how else is technology supposed to progress if all scientists ever do is relearn old information? Jesus!
    I dare say that science students can be just as imaginative if not more so than those who study Psychology or Business. Believe it or not, even in science there are several ways of finding out one objective truth, and logical thinking skills are an asset that is shared across many subjects.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    That's only really the case at GCSE level - after that, it's up to you to derive your own formula
    And AS-level, at least.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    That's true, although some people think Maths isn't a subject you should have to revise too much for. It's supposed to be more about understanding things than knowing things. At university level, even if you have memorised the formulae, it's no use because you can't use them unless you've proved them. And inventing a proof comes from your own creativity.
    Point taken. I was just pointing that out in relation to the whole 'number of hours' argument just in the first post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hest)
    Most people who take Humanities have no idea what higher level Science is like. They assume that science students only memorise information and concepts because that is what they did at GCSE or A Level. Fair enough, they probably attended a poor school that did not teach science well.

    Constructing essays are quite simple for most people, and humanities subjects are marked with a huge amount of subjectiveness. Basically unloading a whole load of "reasons" into an argument is enough to pass a test, which can be memorized. The questions asked are open ended and anything one says can be seen as an opinion and thus marked correct. Answers are basically found in a textbook, all you have to do is know some of them and you have a good chance of passing.
    Science is different. Sure, we memorize a lot of information, but chances are 95% of that material will be tested, we also write essays, do practicals, maths, and problem solving - how else is technology supposed to progress if all scientists ever do is relearn old information? Jesus!
    I dare say that science students can be just as imaginative if not more so than those who study Psychology or Business. Believe it or not, even in science there are several ways of finding out one objective truth, and logical thinking skills are an asset that is shared across many subjects.
    If you objectively test the hypothesis that humanities are easier than sciences/maths, and produce quantitative evidence showing that it is (edit: or reference it), then I will give weight to that... until then, I maintain, as I said in my first post that we cannot say that one is easier or harder than another.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    and you've extrapolated all of this from one person's reaction to your friend's no. of contact hours?

    average no. of formal contact hours per week =/= "harder".
    Of course this isnt the only incident I'm basing my whole opinion on, that would make me foolish. I'm fairly sure surveys have been done that Science subjects do many more lecture hours than humaties (altho I restate my point that it is hard to categorize many subjects into these 2 broad and overlapping designations)

    And if I'm being honest imho English Lit '=/=' useful and certainly =/= relevant.:p: Dont have any idea how hard it is. Quite if you cant read I guess...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vykeera)
    If you objectively test the hypothesis that humanities are easier than sciences/maths, and produce quantitative evidence showing that it is (edit: or reference it), then I will give weight to that... until then, I maintain, as I said in my first post that we cannot say that one is easier or harder than another.
    Well to be honest I'm surprised by this view given your Humanties slant. :p:
    Surely you should go look for the answer in a 100 year old book or consult a ancient philosopher or ask a french person in french :p:

    I am being flippant. Please ignore me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    Of course this isnt the only incident I'm basing my whole opinion on, that would make me foolish. I'm fairly sure surveys have been done that Science subjects do many more lecture hours than humaties (altho I restate my point that it is hard to categorize many subjects into these 2 broad and overlapping designations)

    And if I'm being honest imho English Lit '=/=' useful and certainly =/= relevant.:p: Dont have any idea how hard it is. Quite if you cant read I guess...
    "surveys"? anyway, yes, science subjects generally do have far more contact hours than humanities. that doesn't mean they work more, or their degree is 'harder'.

    I didn't ask you for your opinion on English Lit, but since you felt the need to address it anyway, useful to whom and relevant to what? Literature has always been a rather large feature of my life, personally, as I'm sure it has to many other people. I don't think those experiences are worthless.

    As for how 'hard' it is, I have no idea how to quantify degree hardness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    Well to be honest I'm surprised by this view given your Humanties slant. :p:
    Surely you should go look for the answer in a 100 year old book or consult a ancient philosopher or ask a french person in french :p:

    I am being flippant. Please ignore me.

    Haha, no worries... but I appreciate that what I used to write in my Medieval History/English/Archaeology/Psychology essays might have been wrong, and that's the fascination of them. Did Richard III kill the Princes in the Tower? And does that make him less of a monarch for doing so? (I would argue yes and no respectively, but does that make me right?) Also, when there is objective evidence (e.g. concentrated numbers of people being burnt at the stake, x in this county and y in another) for History/Archaeology/Psychology I would always use them as an example.
    More importantly to your point, while I might argue my interpretation of history, I would not state it as forcefully as the OP did his opinion that humanities are easier than sciences.

    Also, I think that to criticise another subject(s) you should use the tools of your subject(s), not of the ones you're putting down. Weakens your argument else... :p:
    To defend your subject, you should also use the tools of the opposing subjects... it shows you can master both. :p: Yet, I'm merely saying you can't say one is easier, so I don't need to go rummaging for evidence.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajj08)
    For me it is clear sciences and maths require more understanding and require more work than for humanities courses. Most people I know who do humanities/social sciences/ 'don't even go there subjects' have much more free time than I do studying physics. They also give you less useful information. For example, how is the information gained in history actually useful, although you may learn certain useful skills. Furthermore, I study Spanish in my spare time - I can't imagine and humanities students being able to learn any maths in their spare time ( and have never come across any humanities students delving into the the world of science). Sciences are also more profitable.

    Science students can normally manage to do humanities. Humanities students can't do sciences.
    Since when did your choice of subjects have any relation to the amount of free time you have? Volunteering, caring for my elderly, semi-bedridden, dementing grandpa, young enterprise etc. means that truly spare time has become a rarity.
    Take geography for instance. The human side of it is instrumental in town planning etc., whilst the physical side is incredibly important in stopping our coastlines eroding, preventing flooding, predicting natural disasters and managing the environment. Psychology has given us counselling, cognitive behaviour therapy and more. Without psychology there would be far more mental illness around. And politics makes the world go round. Without politics we would be in a state of anarchy, with murder, fraud and rape legal, no roads, no way to make life better.
    Meet Helena. Your geography, psychology, politics and physics AS wonderchild :rolleyes: :p: My friend is doing chemistry, physics, drama and music. Shocking, I know :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Pointless arguement.

    My flatmates, however, all do a hell of a lot less work than me, and they are studying arts subjects. It would be pointless to generalise, or claim to know how much most arts students study though.

    ... Basically, it doesn't really matter lol!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    As for how 'hard' it is, I have no idea how to quantify degree hardness.
    Me neither. This thread is a bit pointless really. A better one would be a proposition of methods to analyse and quantify degree hardness.

    Sorry for ****ging off EngLit. Each to their own is, of course, the view I should be taking.

    (Original post by Vykeera)
    Also, I think that to criticise another subject(s) you should use the tools of your subject(s), not of the ones you're putting down. Weakens your argument else... :p:
    To defend your subject, you should also use the tools of the opposing subjects... it shows you can master both. :p: Yet, I'm merely saying you can't say one is easier, so I don't need to go rummaging for evidence.
    Use all the tools :p: All the time

    So tired. Test tomorrow.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajj08)
    For me it is clear sciences and maths require more understanding and require more work than for humanities courses. Most people I know who do humanities/social sciences/ 'don't even go there subjects' have much more free time than I do studying physics. They also give you less useful information. For example, how is the information gained in history actually useful, although you may learn certain useful skills. Furthermore, I study Spanish in my spare time - I can't imagine and humanities students being able to learn any maths in their spare time ( and have never come across any humanities students delving into the the world of science). Sciences are also more profitable.

    Science students can normally manage to do humanities. Humanities students can't do sciences.
    fail
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I would say that Arts students are given more oppotunity at uni to doss around and scrape by. Given the wasters I know (and I know a lot, hell I probably am one ) , most of them are able to maintain that lifestyle (not doing a lot, a lot of the time) at uni are doing Arts / Humanties related subjects
    From my experience I hasten to add. Again.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    One interesting point, and nothing to do with difficulty but rather the nature of the subject & how exams are marked... Maths is a "pass" or "fail" subject, ie people don't generally do "ok" like they would with most arts subjects. I am right in assuming that universities standardise scores depending on how well the pupils perform in that year? Maths students are more likely to do well, since otherwise they wouldn't be doing the subject (they would of failed already, probably at A level), but with some arts subjects (maybe not over subscribed ones that require AAA), the group would have more "ok" people in it, than maths has "bad" people, if you get what I mean... Since its easier to sail along and do "ok" (and you will get in with "ok" grades) Thus making it harder to score high on maths & science papers. Also with university maths you can't sail a long either, and you will likely fail before year 3 if you try to anyway... However, as the above poster pointed out, arts students can often sail by and do "ok", bringing the entire average down in later years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajj08)
    Science students can normally manage to do humanities. Humanities students can't do sciences.
    That's a pretty faulty statement. Anybody can do anything it's just a matter of application and effort. The general consensus of the humanities students i know could do science if they wanted to, the reason they don't is because they do not find it as interesting as history or whatever.

    I do four 'science' subjects myself and if i'm honest i wish i did do one or two humanities subjects just because they seem interesting.

    If anything i think it is harder to do a humanities subject due to the wealth of stuff you must learn for exams. EDIT namely history, politics and law.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    Me neither. This thread is a bit pointless really. A better one would be a proposition of methods to analyse and quantify degree hardness.

    Sorry for ****ging off EngLit. Each to their own is, of course, the view I should be taking.
    I'm quite surprised that you don't know how to work out which degrees are harder than others, since you've been making pretty profound assertions about which ones are harder and easier up until now.

    I don't know why someone would make such an assertion, and then admit they have no idea what they're basing it on, or how they're judging their comparisons. did your opinion that my degree is useless and irrelevant come from this same void of logic?

    well, nevermind, this is very pointless, like you say. although, I don't think a thread to work out which subject areas are harder than others would be much more point'ful'.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • 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.