NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I am a History student which means that my vocation comes under the category of 'Arts' along with many other subjects. Now I am going to be biased in favour of my subject and sciences students are going to be biased in favour of theirs. That's fine and only to be expected- we are all human after all.

But what I am sick to the back teeth of is the snobbish attitudes of the sciences students towards students of the arts. They accuse our subjects of being "mickey mouse subjects" - in other words, jokes. They make jokes such as:

What does the arts graduate say to the sciences graduate?
"You want fries with that?"

Well I would personally question whether indeed arts subjects are any less valuable than sciences. I have found frequently with students who study subjects such as chemistry, maths, biology and physics is they have a profound lack of imagination and their education only seems to indoctrinate this lack of creativity. The teaching of the sciences (I have a friend who does boichemistry and I have seen his notes before anyone accuses me of having no idea whatsoever) enforces cold, almost unthinking obediance to facts and formulae and so therefore does not encourage students to think beyond the already established lines of what has been set down. This is precisely the opposite to arts subjects which is always consitently challengig students to critise the established views and opinions and create their own, perhaps better interpretations and standards. This is why so many sciences students do not go into research - it requires too much lateral thinking, a skill they often lack. Indeed very few scientists actually possess the cretivity to make them world changers - the very best scientists (men like Einstein) do not abide by systematic rules and procedures but they create their own, new rules.

Another problem with science lectures is that the professors and academics essentially spoon feed all the information to their students whereas arts students have to look up their information themselves and do some real soul searching in order to devise their own opinions. The science subjects include none of that creativity.

Finally arts students are often required to look into a subject that is billion times more complex than any mathematical formulae in existence or any chemical equation: they have to examine the workings of the human mind which is a subject so complex that no answer has yet been provided despite the many works attempting to do so.

And thats my two pence.

Science students? Arrogant ones??? But... they are nerds. :confused:
Just give them a wedgie.

<insert witty retort here>

Yes. I am actually that unimaginitive. Must be my science based education.

<insert witty retort here>

Yes. I am actually that unimaginitive. Must be my science based education.
*wedgies*

narf!

*wedgies*

narf!
*gets annoyed*

*invents wedgie proof underpants*

Ah ha, who has the upper hand now!

Also, that was my first ever wedgie (even if it was an e-wedgie). Must be an American thing.

But what I am sick to the back teeth of is the snobbish attitudes of the sciences students towards students of the arts.


I don't know about other 'Arts' students, but Art Students, and artists in general, are the biggest bunch of snobs in the universe.

I don't know about other 'Arts' students, but Art Students, and artists in general, are the biggest bunch of snobs in the universe.
yup going to have to agree with you there.

*grabs hold of a science students nipple*

PURPLE NURPLE!!

Lucky for me medicine doesn't comply to such silly divisions as "arts" and "science". A lot from column A, and a lot from column B is just dandy!

Just as a pointer, without innovation from scientists there would be no lecture notes to spoon feed the students with, as you so eloquently put it. Science never has been - nor will it ever be - a static subject. The reason for the first couple of years of learning the knowledge is that you need a platform from which to begin your innovations. After BSc, it becomes a lot different. You can't call almost all scientists unimaginitive because in order to conceive of entirely new concepts - and create a tangible format for the theory to remain - a certain level of imagination is required.

See, at my school, us science faculty representatives have an alliance with the humanities faculty representative. We have the motto "You don't let philosophy come between friends" to which the humanities representatives say "You dont' let calculus come between friends"

It's the engineers that are pricks about it...

And if anything, as a physics student, I look down more on the environmental science kids than anything... they get speeches at the beginning of classes along the lines of "I really want you to all get A's, and it is possible" whereas we get speeches like "This course may be bad for your cumulative average"

And also, I'm working towards a minor in philosophy... and let me just say this, if I spend one day on a philosophy paper, I get an A. If I spend an entire week working on one of my many physics assignments, usually I'm lucky to pass. One or two essays per class per term is a joke. If I had that workload, I'd be a straight A student.

Edit 2: Wait, we get spoon fed? What the hell school do you attend? My GR class last semester, my prof sucked ass, we (students) had to work together and figure it out on our own. In philosophy classes, they prof goes over the text that is being studied in detail and as long as you regurgitate what they said in your own words, you're set.

And I'm sorry, but for a kid bitching about others being snobby and acting like they are above him, you're doing an awful lot of that yourself.

Most of that rant is complete rubbish.

Being a science graduate myself here are a few reasons why: Science students have a LOT more lectures and generally work abour twice as hard as art students for thier degrees. I lived with quite a few arts students. I always had 9.00 lectures to get up for and was on campus all day. It was a strange day if most of them got up before midday, and they all graduated with decent results.

Also the bare minimum is presented in lectures, you have to do a LOT of reading around in order to do well, no spoon feeding happens becaus if it did, lectures would be 10 hours a day due to the amount of subject matter.

Science degrees are a lot more useful as well. Check emplyment statistics for graduates, Most science graduates find decent jobs to do with their degrees. What can you do with History? Phd...anything else? Science subject have many applications in industry because our society is built on technology, made my science grauates.

Most of that rant is complete rubbish.

Being a science graduate myself here are a few reasons why: Science students have a LOT more lectures and generally work abour twice as hard as art students for thier degrees. I lived with quite a few arts students. I always had 9.00 lectures to get up for and was on campus all day. It was a strange day if most of them got up before midday, and they all graduated with decent results.

Also the bare minimum is presented in lectures, you have to do a LOT of reading around in order to do well, no spoon feeding happens becaus if it did, lectures would be 10 hours a day due to the amount of subject matter.

Science degrees are a lot more useful as well. Check emplyment statistics for graduates, Most science graduates find decent jobs to do with their degrees. What can you do with History? Phd...anything else? Science subject have many applications in industry because our society is built on technology, made my science grauates.

Quite a few politicans (in my country anyway) have been historians - Winston Churchill being one glorious example. Knowlege of the past is a far more effective tool for governing than knowledge about chemistry. And just because arts students dont have to sit in the lecture being spoon fed our knowledge 24/7 doesn't mean we don't do any work - we actually spend most of our free time in research.

Aw, are the poor sciences students getting annoyed because they are being criticised? Boo hoo. Mind you, so many potential students are now in agreement with my point of view that several universities in my country are shutting down their science departments because no one is interested in their subject any more. And I can't say I blame them.

I plan on entering politics, so what does the science student say to the political student? "Can I have more funding?"

I plan on entering politics, so what does the science student say to the political student? "Can I have more funding?"

Lol, yes the scientists are tied to the government. Most of them never go into research with their degrees (that lack of imagination strikes again) and so instead go and work with big industries where they spend the rest of their lives mixing cough medicine.

The only scientists who have my respect are:
1) theoretical physicists
2) human biology researchers

All the others end up at Pepsi trying to make coke taste better. Either that or they go into arms technology and work out how to blow people up.

All the others end up at Pepsi trying to make coke taste better.
They didn't do a very good job, remember New Coke?

Aw, are the poor sciences students getting annoyed because they are being criticised? Boo hoo. Mind you, so many potential students are now in agreement with my point of view that several universities in my country are shutting down their science departments because no one is interested in their subject any more. And I can't say I blame them.
Really?

Look, man, how's this, I'll learn one of your classes in oh, give me a month... and let's see how you fare with my quanutm class in the same amount of time.
I've never ever heard of schools cutting back their science programmes, I don't know where you live or what you've been smoking to come up with that shit, but it simply doesn't happen. Aside from being rather essential to future progress...

Whatever, you've proven that you're pretty much a dick with an inferiority complex most likely. It's one thing to say "hey, why are these kids so mean to me" and quite another to say "these pathetic worms are jerks and they make fun of me" I really pity you if this is the kind of approach you take, if you are unable to build yourself up without tearing others down. It's pathetic, really.

They didn't do a very good job, remember New Coke?

No. But dont fret - most of the good science graduates go into arms production to work out even more ways to kill more people in more gruesome ways.

What about social sciences students? :D

Really?

Look, man, how's this, I'll learn one of your classes in oh, give me a month... and let's see how you fare with my quanutm class in the same amount of time.
I've never ever heard of schools cutting back their science programmes, I don't know where you live or what you've been smoking to come up with that shit, but it simply doesn't happen. Aside from being rather essential to future progress...

Whatever, you've proven that you're pretty much a dick with an inferiority complex most likely. It's one thing to say "hey, why are these kids so mean to me" and quite another to say "these pathetic worms are jerks and they make fun of me" I really pity you if this is the kind of approach you take, if you are unable to build yourself up without tearing others down. It's pathetic, really.

"A dick with an inferiotity complex" - really, child, keep your language clean. I do try to be remotely pleasant in the way I present my language but obviously such limits do not apply to those mortal gods, the science under graduate.

Doesn't happen? In Britain, several of the smaller universities are not running chemistry, physics or maths courses anymore. Fact. They aren't receiving the funding and very few students are going into them. At Birmingham Univeristy (my University, one of the top ten in the country), a History under graduate needs two As and a B at A Level. Sciences students only need a B and two Cs because they are so desperate to get undergraduates they will accept any old dross.

Engineering and business are the real money makers at a university. After that we come across the physical sciences, and then behavioral sciences. Behavioral sciences is lucky because it has economics as a driving force. The other parts of SBS (social and behavioral sciences) are fairly reliant on that. Political science has some punch, because it feeds specialists into the government.

But, let's face it, the humanities are hurting. History is probably the strongest of the humanities, and it isn't all that well off. I go into University Hall here on campus, and the classics department shares a floor with half of african-american studies. The philsophy department does the same one floor below.

Why is this? It's the result of a revolution in education that happened at the beginning of last century. Traditionally people received a "classical education" where everyone who went to college learned latin and the like, but as time went on, the "liberal arts education" came into being, and now we are starting to see a change to another form, loosely termed the "diversity education." And the humanities are just having a tough time making themselves feel relevant in the new environments.

Engineering and business are the real money makers at a university. After that we come across the physical sciences, and then behavioral sciences. Behavioral sciences is lucky because it has economics as a driving force. The other parts of SBS (social and behavioral sciences) are fairly reliant on that. Political science has some punch, because it feeds specialists into the government.

But, let's face it, the humanities are hurting. History is probably the strongest of the humanities, and it isn't all that well off. I go into University Hall here on campus, and the classics department shares a floor with half of african-american studies. The philsophy department does the same one floor below.

Why is this? It's the result of a revolution in education that happened at the beginning of last century. Traditionally people received a "classical education" where everyone who went to college learned latin and the like, but as time went on, the "liberal arts education" came into being, and now we are starting to see a change to another form, loosely termed the "diversity education." And the humanities are just having a tough time making themselves feel relevant in the new environments.

History is always relevant. It made our modern society and it continues to make our future society. History in the right hands prevents the same mistakes being made.

What about social sciences students? :D

[unprintable epitaph!!!] 'Social Sciences' are NOT sciences... Science requires Repeatable Results. Social Science requires Skill at Bull-shitting.

There aren't a lot of career paths for 'Arts' grads, either-generally it's a degree useful for getting into a franchise-management position (showing that you survived four plus years in college and have the sheepskin...), rather than a burger-flipper.
Past that, there's only Civil Service, or Education-as-a-career.

Poly-Sci grads usually end up practicing how to schmooze their way to the top.

"A dick with an inferiotity complex" - really, child, keep your language clean. I do try to be remotely pleasant in the way I present my language but obviously such limits do not apply to those mortal gods, the science under graduate.
Lol.

:rolleyes: You've already proven to me that you aren't even going to change your mind on the subject, and you're going about your tirade in a very immature manner, so really, why bother expressing myself eloquently... and if you're going to act like a prick, expect to be called on it.

Doesn't happen? In Britain, several of the smaller universities are not running chemistry, physics or maths courses anymore. Fact. They aren't receiving the funding and very few students are going into them.
Funny how it's the reverse over here. The humanities faculty is poorly funded and the science faculty has excellent facilities. Hell, if you want to go to graduate school, as a science grad student, you get paid, as a humanities student, you go for free but aren't going to cover living expenses as a student.

At Birmingham Univeristy (my University, one of the top ten in the country), a History under graduate needs two As and a B at A Level. Sciences students only need a B and two Cs because they are so desperate to get undergraduates they will accept any old dross.
At my school, the entrance requirements for the faculty of science are much higher than those for humanities. If I recall, the range was basically and 82% for science and a 64% for humanities leaving highschool. It gets reversed after that because the science classes are a hell of a lot harder than the humanities ones.

What can you do with History? Phd...anything else? Science subject have many applications in industry because our society is built on technology, made my science grauates.

Apparently history is supposed to be a good basis on which to go into law. Not on the subject, but on the skills it teaches you. An example in terms of law would be the skill to argue your point convincingly no matter how little evidence you have for it.

Of course I don't know a huge amount about it as I don't go to university for about another 6 months.

Apparently history is supposed to be a good basis on which to go into law. Not on the subject, but on the skills it teaches you. An example in terms of law would be the skill to argue your point convincingly no matter how little evidence you have for it.

Of course I don't know a huge amount about it as I don't go to university for about another 6 months.
Philosophy is also supposed to be good for law school.

Really anything that involves text analysis.

meh.

take classes(or read, or whatever) in the subjects you enjoy learning about.

who gives a damn what anyone else does.

different subjects are more difficult for different people

education and diversity are a good thing. period.

meh.

take classes(or read, or whatever) in the subjects you enjoy learning about.

who gives a damn what anyone else does.

different subjects are more difficult for different people

education and diversity are a good thing. period.
This is true.

The thread starter was however, being a hypocrite, asking others to stop bashing him and looking down on him as he looks down and bashes those same people he claims were bashing him. This kid is rather immature.

People are invariably arrogant in thinking that whatever they are studying is the most important thing to study, and you're all proving that true.

1) I have background in both science and art. I'm capable of either, I chose the latter, via an English major, because it was more fitting to my nature, and because I get to have more control over my work than the sciences guys do.

2) Both groups have their snobs. Because the sciences tend to involve much more money, on average (Art is a hit or miss thing. You can be a starving artist, or the woman who wrote Harry Potter), there's plenty of people who like to shove it in our faces. Some also see art as a lazier method, that produces things of less innate value. Arts students, on the other hand, tend to be 'culture snobs'. Like they're aristocracy or something. I even had an English teacher who felt that understanding heavy literature made you "better" than everyone else. Both sides have idiots all over the place.

3) Their importance is massively subjective, and entirely based on what you personal feel is important, and what you find enjoyable.

Personally, I'm fully capable of a scientific career. I find college biology and chemistry to be both enjoyable and relatively easy (I also tend to Ace them without much studying). But, I have no interest in being under the thumb of an employer, especially since so many companies are corrupt. I also like to have my name on what I make. I don't want to work for oil, drug, weapon, or medical companies, because they're all dripping with corruption and BS. My art is very hard to corrupt. I've also tried a bit of business courses, and quickly learned that business absolutely DISGUSTS me. Want to feel ill? Take a marketing course. It's all about tricking people in to thinking they need your crap. I just don't feel that I want to sell myself in to such a career.

Frankly, I've yet to find a discipline that wasn't full of idiots with ego problems and complexes.

Art students are asses, Science students are asses, Business students are asses, Medical students are asses.

No big whup.

This sounds like a bad rehash of debates between my best friend (MS ChemE) and myself (MS Ed). We finally ended up at this conclusion, while his college course work was harder than mine (with math I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot poll and O-Chem being a device used by the university to satisfy professors with a sadism fettish); in the end it all comes down to this:

With a ChemE degree, he gets to spend time in a lab where things react to logic, laws, and go bang in well known and expected ways.

With an Education degree, I get to spend time in a classroom where students act illogically, break the rules, and tend to go 'bang' in unknown and unexpected ways.

His education was harder, my job is harder, he gets paid more, but I (will) have tenure. Such is life. ;)

Ehem, I am currently a Physics major, math major, comp sci major and minor in dance. I love the arts and respect people who go into the arts and actually know something other than art.

If it weren't for science art wouldn't exist on the level it does today, and alot of science people don't lack imagination, but in order for us to use it we usually have to learn the basics which is usually a good 10 years of schooling.

Art and science not going together is not anyones fault really, there seperated because of the current way of thinking, not because of the current generation of students. its the current mentality of those teaching the subjects that art and science shouldn't go together, its a societal issue. As for those science students be asses to the art students, we get teh same stuff from you guys about us being to analytical and critical and being walking textbooks.

[unprintable epitaph!!!] 'Social Sciences' are NOT sciences... Science requires Repeatable Results. Social Science requires Skill at Bull-shitting.

There aren't a lot of career paths for 'Arts' grads, either-generally it's a degree useful for getting into a franchise-management position (showing that you survived four plus years in college and have the sheepskin...), rather than a burger-flipper.
Past that, there's only Civil Service, or Education-as-a-career.

Poly-Sci grads usually end up practicing how to schmooze their way to the top.
*tsk, tsk*

Social sciences are not bullshitting, it's trying to apply the scientific method as best as possible to the behaviors of people, organizations and societies. But because there are so many factors involved in the actions of people, above and beyond the actions of molecules and elements and the like, we cannot truly measure said stuff anywhere near as precisely as sciences and engineering students can.

Beyond that, look at economics, where they use large volumes of data to do their best to create predictions. They don't just pull their numbers out of their asses, they look for patterns. And while the patterns are not always identical, they are similar.

Social sciences deserve the sciences part, but because of other factors, there is a need for a specifier, which admits that it isn't nearly as solid as the natural sciences.

I'm a Medicine/Arts student, so I get the best of both worlds. I just make fun of commerce students. ;)

Besides which, Med is at least half an art. We do sociology, psychology and clinical work, which is all abou Dr/patient interactions and very... NOT scientific.

I HATE it when people go "Why the hell do you want to do Arts? What's that going to do for you?" Well um... How about broadening my horizons? How about me actually being interested in Gender Studies and History/Politics/Indigenous Issues. And the Arts people I've met are just great. We can have deep discussions, much moreso than with Med students...

I dunno, Med students are nice enough, but I can never have a discussion about politics and current affairs with them... And they're all too rich, it annoys me a bit... :(

No. But dont fret - most of the good science graduates go into arms production to work out even more ways to kill more people in more gruesome ways.
Here I was, thinking that perhaps this would be one topic that "New British Glory" couldn't troll. I see I was wrong. As someone who is capable of seeing the various shades of grey that make subtle distinctions possible, I've never understood people like you for whom everything has to be either/or, black or white.

New British Glory, if you don't find a way to make your arguments without trolling, you are going to find yourself on the outside of the forums looking in. Consider this an informal warning. The next one will be formal.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

I'm going through the same dilemma some of you seem to have gone through. Next year I start college and deciding on a major is a particularly hard challenge for me. Officially im "undeclared science" right now, but i also love economics and international studies. The problem is that i think it might be asking too much of myself to have a chem or biochem and international studies dual-major, mainly because of the science.

Anyone who thinks that science students lack imagination or artistic talent should take a visit to my school. Some of the smartest kids math/science wise (the 1580 SAT types) are also the best artists in the school. I wouldnt say I'm as talented as they are, but i think i do fairly well in both art and science. Its incredibly silly to think that science students cant be good at/understand art :).

Anyway, did anyone go through the same situation as I did with opposite passions? If so, would you have any advice on what to do? I think I'll probably end up with a science degree and a social science minor, and will probably go on to grad school for the science. Ugh.. i dont know!

Bah! Ever thought about us weirdoes who like both? It's literally like being torn in half.
I took Maths, Chemistry, English and History As-es. I wouldn't be boxed. And now I've chosen Law I've chosen a fairly analytical Arts based.
Actually, that's the common theme in my subjects: analysis. There's nothing cold-hearted about it, in Arts based ones you analyse texts and sources, critics, authors and witnesses. In Science based subjects you analyse data, colours and smells.
Anyone who devotes themselves to a subject at the expense of all others is a blinkered snob.
Mikey-mouse subjects are ones that are of a lower standard - that shouldn't be. If psychology or business studies were tougher courses they wouldn't be looked down on, but all you have to do is compare Business Studies with Economics.

Hey, I'm a physics major with a philosophy minor. I'm currently considering a second degree in either philosophy or psychology after I'm done this one... The drive here is basically curiosity... I wouldn't mind aquiring a lot of information on a variety of topics, if I could, I would end up with 30 bachelors or something.

*salutes Rand*

That's what I love about being an English major with an intent to write and edit.

If you don't have outside information, your work is going to suck. So I can use all of the courses I've taken over the years, and all the stuff I've looked in to on my own, and make use of it.

Hey, I'm a physics major with a philosophy minor. I'm currently considering a second degree in either philosophy or psychology after I'm done this one... The drive here is basically curiosity... I wouldn't mind aquiring a lot of information on a variety of topics, if I could, I would end up with 30 bachelors or something.


Agreed.

Were I to have a thousand years to study, and a thousand years to make use of it, I would.

Alas, life's too short to do everything we want to do.

Stupid life.

You know, the relative difficulty of science and arts degrees is going to be a lot different depending on the institution. Those of you who are serious art students are more likely to have gone to a serious art school where the curriculum is very intensive for the arts, while less so for sciences, and vice versa for science students. Furthermore, there will be more arts students at universities with better (and harder) arts programs, and more sciences students at universities with better (and harder) sciences programs, thus both of you are seeing the other at there worst, since the smaller number of arts students at your science oriented school are going to be lazier than the art students at art school, where the science students are going to be lazier.

'Social Sciences' are NOT sciences... Science requires Repeatable Results. Social Science requires Skill at Bull-shitting.

Ha. That would explain my current A to A+ in Social Studies/History.

I'm a music performance major. One of the best bassoon players I've played with is double majoring in calculus and physics. I was originally considering chemistry, then I got into music and decided it was more fun. Still, I'm glad I took chemistry, because I had fun and learned some cool things.

I don't really know where I was going with that, but I guess my point is that people with different majors don't need to fight each other over it.

Lol, yes the scientists are tied to the government. Most of them never go into research with their degrees (that lack of imagination strikes again) and so instead go and work with big industries where they spend the rest of their lives mixing cough medicine.

The only scientists who have my respect are:
1) theoretical physicists
2) human biology researchers

All the others end up at Pepsi trying to make coke taste better. Either that or they go into arms technology and work out how to blow people up.

No respect for the software engineers who are the whole reason you have that nice computer? They are students of the sciences too!

Nothing for astrophysics? Hell, you don't need satelites - what good has that ever done you :rolleyes: ?

No reaction in favor of the guys who make your cars safer and faster, or the ones working on more ecologically friendly cars?

Zero respect for the guy who creates the automatons that in turn build many of the products you use for cheaper and more precisely than with manual labor, who betters your life as a consumer?

And no respect for the guy who is making better safety gear for firefighters and police officers, nothing for the guy who designs more safe equipment in case of emergencies?

I could go on and on.

The only students of the Arts I respect are:
A) Historians
B) Insert something that I didn;t realize fit under the category of arts

If you play instruments or make artwork, I have nothing against you, and I respect that, but it doesn't seem like something that you would take a university class for - study under people, sure, but a college course in painting seems like it will jsut set you up to be a mediocre, run of the mill artist - developing your own style and making a real masterpeice is an individual thing, perhaps aided by a mentor, but not a project where you and the rest of the class study and imitate other works. In some music, I suppose classes make some more sense, but not in physical medium, and not if you are using your own modern music as opposed to classical movements taken from great composers. I respect what you do, but I don't see value in studying that through a university course.

I have always had the impression that there are many more pointless arts degrees than there are pointless science degrees. It seems to me that people with science degrees are almost garunteed a job in the marketplace, arts students however may find it difficult to use a degree in political science in the workplace, or English lit. The only reason I can think of to study English lit is to become a teacher/lecturer/historian or to write your own novel.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of useful arts subjects like psychology, education, accounting or law. It just seems to me (a luddite) that all scientific degrees can be directly applied to the workplace. Is this right science students?

I suppose it is possible if you had a degree in something like theoretical numbers that you may find some difficulty in using it in your employment

I have always had the impression that there are many more pointless arts degrees than there are pointless science degrees. It seems to me that people with science degrees are almost garunteed a job in the marketplace, arts students however may find it difficult to use a degree in political science in the workplace, or English lit. The only reason I can think of to study English lit is to become a tacher/lecturer/historian or to write your own novel.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of useful arts subjects like psychology, education, accounting or law. It just seems to me (a luddite) that all scientific degrees can be directly applied to the workplace. Is this right science students?
Well, I would put psychology as a science, along with accounting (since math and science are grouped); law to me fits in a grey area since it is more analytical, yet is still not really science. Education is soemthing I missed, though. As for political science - that is a merging of many things. Some psychology, some public speaking - it has traits of both.

I have always had the impression that there are many more pointless arts degrees than there are pointless science degrees. It seems to me that people with science degrees are almost garunteed a job in the marketplace, arts students however may find it difficult to use a degree in political science in the workplace, or English lit. The only reason I can think of to study English lit is to become a tacher/lecturer/historian or to write your own novel.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of useful arts subjects like psychology, education, accounting or law. It just seems to me (a luddite) that all scientific degrees can be directly applied to the workplace. Is this right science students?
This assumes that only degrees that are applicable to the marketplace have value, sometimes just the study of something is its own reward. :) Any case, I have been told by my liberal arts friends that it's the skills learned during their course of study that has proven to be the most valuable in job hunting. For English lit this includes the ability to read and analize texts and report as to what in it makes it a classic and causes people to remember it.

Of course then again, my degrees are in Education so I also have a job as long as I'm breathing (And in Las Vegas, even if I'm not). ;)

But what I am sick to the back teeth of is the snobbish attitudes of the sciences students towards students of the arts. They accuse our subjects of being "mickey mouse subjects" - in other words, jokes. They make jokes such as:

What does the arts graduate say to the sciences graduate?
"You want fries with that?"
I'm in a science degree. I write creatively and debate philosophy for fun. I think perhaps you're operating under the misapprehension that all people are drones, devoid of choice or personality. I could have chosen science or arts, though arts came easier to me. I chose science, for a variety of reasons, the main one being that science was a field that gave me the opportunity to push myself in a direction separate to that of my siblings.

Maybe people are picking on your subject choice because they're to polite to criticise your personality. I actually found that joke pretty funny.

On the usefulness of the arts:

Do keep in mind that every book you read is based on the language kept up to a certain point by English majors and such.

It is true that, right now, they suck at TRAINING people for the arts... but that's because academics are idiots at least half the time, who keep forgetting that most of the great artists in history are the ones who broke their silly littles rules.

I think that there is nothing wrong with that joke, as long as it was meant in jest. I mean, I'm sure you could easily nail the more science-inclined with plenty of jokes, and we could respond in turn - as long as it is not intended serously, I don't see the harm.

I'm in a science degree. I write creatively and debate philosophy for fun. I think perhaps you're operating under the misapprehension that all people are drones, devoid of choice or personality. I could have chosen science or arts, though arts came easier to me. I chose science, for a variety of reasons, the main one being that science was a field that gave me the opportunity to push myself in a direction separate to that of my siblings.

I agree. I love the arts and sciences. I was considering creative arts for a while, or international relations before I setled on medicine. The reason I chose med was because it is both an art and a science. (Although among some med students there seems to be resistance to the arts typ subjects we get taught...) I'd always enjoyed arts more in school, my favourite subjects were Modern History, Extension English units and Visual Arts. I tended to get better marks in science though...

People should have to take at least a couple of subjects outside their area, because I notice a lot of tunnel vision, particularly in non-arts faculty students. But that's just my idea... Mine and the University of New South Wales'. :p

-snip-

Meh. I was in love with Science back when I was in Public school, and I wasn't a snob... Oh well.

Every field has their snobs, plain and simple. The only person that REALLY gave me a hard time about being in the social sciences was an ex-boyfriend. He was/is (I don't know what happened to him) a comp engineering major and always bragged about how much harder his classes were and how I would end up working fast food the rest of my life. When it came right down to it, he couldn't hack it in his comp classes, math classes, science classes, or gen ed social science classes. Hell, the guy got a 'D' in an acting class. He got angry whenever I got A's and B's in EVERYTHING and then just started ripping me down as a person; so I dumped his sorry @$$,

I think it just comes down to how well-rounded a person is... if you can appriciate something, whether you're good at it or not, chances are you're not going to be a jerk about other fields. However, if you only know one thing and can do one thing (and are forced to take general education classes in another field) you can become defensive and seem like a snob.

Yeah, I get laughed at in the face when I explain to a science student that i'm an arts student...I'm used to disparaging comments from adults and fellow students alike such as "Ha. And where is that going to lead you?" If they get some sort of feeling of superiority over me because i'm a lowly useless arts student or whatever, well, good for them. I used to do a lot of science subjects at school more than capably...and yeah, the arrogance from some people who were doing more advanced maths classes (etc...) than me I found really offputting. "Why are you wasting time with physics if you're not smart enough to do specialist maths?" (The toughest maths class my school had to offer, which, amusingly, most of them failed. Maybe I was smart enough not to bother with it :p)

Yeah, I get laughed at in the face when I explain to a science student that i'm an arts student. If they get some sort of feeling of superiority over me from working out formulas and such all day, well, good for them. I used to do a lot of science subjects at school more than capably...and yeah, the arrogance from some people who were doing more advanced maths classes (etc...) than me I found really offputting. "Why are you wasting time with physics if you're not smart enough to do specialist maths?" (The toughest maths class my school had to offer, which, amusingly, most of them failed. Maybe I was smart enough not to bother with it :p)

My god... The kids in the Gifted & Talented class back at Derry Elementary did that to everyone who wasn't in their class. And, you know what? That one class had the worst grade average in the entire school.

This assumes that only degrees that are applicable to the marketplace have value, sometimes just the study of something is its own reward.

I value degrees that are applicable in the job market more than those that are not.

Yeah, I get laughed at in the face when I explain to a science student that i'm an arts student...I'm used to disparaging comments from adults and fellow students alike such as "Ha. And where is that going to lead you?" If they get some sort of feeling of superiority over me because i'm a lowly useless arts student or whatever, well, good for them. I used to do a lot of science subjects at school more than capably...and yeah, the arrogance from some people who were doing more advanced maths classes (etc...) than me I found really offputting. "Why are you wasting time with physics if you're not smart enough to do specialist maths?" (The toughest maths class my school had to offer, which, amusingly, most of them failed. Maybe I was smart enough not to bother with it :p)

Urgh, I HATE people like that. They make me feel guilty for being a science student...

I've also noticed the arrogant mathsers... They tended to disparage English at school. "Why would you do Extension 2 English/History? It's such a waste of time." Extension 2 being the highest level offered in school. That said, my best mate is a maths student, but then she's not up her own arse...

My god... The kids in the Gifted & Talented class back at Derry Elementary did that to everyone who wasn't in their class. And, you know what? That one class had the worst grade average in the entire school.

LOL, just desserts.

LOL, just desserts.

Wanna hear something even better? I was the only kid in the entire school to make all A's. I got a gold medal and a certificate for it.

Oh yeah, and two kids from the Gifted & Talented class made almost all F's. I went to that class for about a week, and I don't see how the fuck they could possibly do so poorly. Every day, we only had to do two pages of work (not even front and back!), fiddle around with science experiments, do some things on the computers, and watch a movie.

My god... The kids in the Gifted & Talented class back at Derry Elementary did that to everyone who wasn't in their class. And, you know what? That one class had the worst grade average in the entire school.

I lost a lot of longtime friendships, people i'd been friends with for some 6 years, because I was sick of their attitudes. I still talk to them occasionally, but i'm really distant now. They still give me crap for being an arts student, even when I mentioned I was thinking of transferring to an arts/science double degree. I got the elitist attitude again, because they're mostly engineering students of some form and a mere science degree is far below them, apparently. It never ends.

Though I take comfort in the fact that I managed to get better marks than them in Physics....when I actually did my work, that is. :p Of course, their excuse is that I wasn't doing chemistry or the harder maths, so I had more time to devote to it and of course i'd be better at it than them. (despite the fact that the harder maths subject was basically a requirement for the physics class, and I managed fine without) My workload in other subjects didn't matter of course, lowly humanities subjects that they were. I don't usually say this, but....nerds.

Ah well.

I lost a lot of longtime friendships, people i'd been friends with for some 6 years, because I was sick of their attitudes. I still talk to them occasionally, but i'm really distant now. They still give me crap for being an arts student, even when I mentioned I was thinking of transferring to an arts/science double degree. I got the elitist attitude again, because they're mostly engineering students of some form and a mere science degree is far below them, apparently. It never ends.

Bastards. I'd do something unforgettable to them, that's for sure!

Though I take comfort in the fact that I managed to get better marks than them in Physics....when I actually did my work, that is. :p Of course, their excuse is that I wasn't doing chemistry or the harder maths, so I had more time to devote to it and of course i'd be better at it than them. (despite the fact that the harder maths subject was basically a requirement for the physics class, and I managed fine without) My workload in other subjects didn't matter of course, lowly humanities subjects that they were. I don't usually say this, but....nerds.

Ah well.

They're just hopeless assgrabbers. Don't worry about 'em... Or, you could go to their homes and smear crap on their walls.

Urgh, I HATE people like that. They make me feel guilty for being a science student...

I've also noticed the arrogant mathsers... They tended to disparage English at school. "Why would you do Extension 2 English/History? It's such a waste of time." Extension 2 being the highest level offered in school. That said, my best mate is a maths student, but then she's not up her own arse...

Well, i'm glad that i'm not the only one who had to put up with it then. :)

And there's no need to feel guilty. I'm sure that there are a handful of science/engineering/etc. students that aren't arrogant and have heads too big for their shoulders, but I don't know any personally.

Bastards. I'd do something unforgettable to them, that's for sure!

They're just hopeless assgrabbers. Don't worry about 'em... Or, you could go to their homes and smear crap on their walls.

Heh, no, i'd prefer to stay on reasonably civil terms, it's easier, if not quite so fun. :p

Bastards. I'd do something unforgettable to them, that's for sure!



They're just hopeless assgrabbers. Don't worry about 'em... Or, you could go to their homes and smear crap on their walls.

He could present them with an exploding toad and a sari made with condoms...

And there's no need to feel guilty. I'm sure that there are a handful of science/engineering/etc. students that aren't arrogant and have heads too big for their shoulders, but I don't know any personally.

*cough cough*

*waits*

He could present them with an exploding toad and a sari made with condoms...

But, importing the exploding toads from Germany would cost a buttload of money!

And, that last one is just gross... Even moreso than smearing crap on their walls.

*cough cough*

*waits*

*hands Preebles two giant signal flags*

That should get his attention!

Wanna hear something even better? I was the only kid in the entire school to make all A's. I got a gold medal and a certificate for it.

Oh yeah, and two kids from the Gifted & Talented class made almost all F's. I went to that class for about a week, and I don't see how the fuck they could possibly do so poorly. Every day, we only had to do two pages of work (not even front and back!), fiddle around with science experiments, do some things on the computers, and watch a movie.

is an "A" in an easy class as valuable as a "C" in a much more difficult class? unless you're only going by faceless values, no.
Consider the Chess example: someone plays chess, now which is going to be more qualitative-beating a six-year old who's new to the game, or holding your own against a Grand Master (but still losing in the end)?

Is taking Math 55 (Junior-high level general math) and acing it as valuable as barely passing advanced Calculus? Your GPA only matters for the time you're in school, what you take carries more weight out in the world than whether you passed it easily.

*cough cough*

*waits*

Heh. I just may be in the city this week sometime :p

is an "A" in an easy class as valuable as a "C" in a much more difficult class? unless you're only going by faceless values, no.
Consider the Chess example: someone plays chess, now which is going to be more qualitative-beating a six-year old who's new to the game, or holding your own against a Grand Master (but still losing in the end)?

Is taking Math 55 (Junior-high level general math) and acing it as valuable as barely passing advanced Calculus? Your GPA only matters for the time you're in school, what you take carries more weight out in the world than whether you passed it easily.

Every class had the same work, except for Gifted & Talented and the Catch-Up classes. Oddly enough, G&T was by far the easiest work I've ever done.

Heh. I just may be in the city this week sometime :p
We can have a red and black bloc at the rally on Thursday! You wear black and I'll wear red. :p

Students in the sciences may spend more time studying for difficult tests, but arts students spend more time writing extensive research papers/reports/dissertations. Ultimately, its the same thing. Both have to work hard.

Having been both a sciences and an arts student so far (switched majors from geological engineering to psychology/education), I really have to say 'Who cares?'. I mean, honestly. Don't any of you have homework to do? Go focus on that, quit bitching about who has it harder. Geez.

Dont worry engineering students make fun of both.

*Looks up from writing 1st of 2 dissertations whilst also doing a 50hr per week job*

Same stupid argument again... :rolleyes: :p :D

Both has their snobs because both like to think their intellectually better than the other.

Yeah. I'm your God. All you alphas bow before my brilliance.
:rolleyes:

I'm not sure where all you people come from but at my 6th form, History, Geography and Religious studies are under the hummanities sector, not arts.

As for snoberry, I do get a lot of that from people because of the fact that I study Sociology, but it is a valid subject as much as any other.

I dont think though anyone can sucsessfluly argue that the sciences encourges imagination and creative thought processes.

I dont think though anyone can sucsessfluly argue that the sciences encourges imagination and creative thought processes.
Solving problems isn't creative?

In University education, they count as Arts subjects. They would be BA or MA degrees.

I often make jokes about Arts students, but they are just that. Jokes. If you can't take them as a joke, perhaps you should be studying a nice unimaginative subject like engineering or a science. I wouldn't exactly class most of my course mates as rigid thinkers with no imagination, who can't think laterally. I write songs, my mates girlfriend, an automotive engineering student, paints.

Don't generalise us as snobs, even if some are. Arts students are important to a countries culture, whilst Science students are more likely to provide practical useful solutions to problems.


McLeod,

An MEng student.

Here I was, thinking that perhaps this would be one topic that "New British Glory" couldn't troll. I see I was wrong. As someone who is capable of seeing the various shades of grey that make subtle distinctions possible, I've never understood people like you for whom everything has to be either/or, black or white.

New British Glory, if you don't find a way to make your arguments without trolling, you are going to find yourself on the outside of the forums looking in. Consider this an informal warning. The next one will be formal.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Are you picking on me because I troll or are you picking o me because you disagree withmy views? Having seen some of the threads that you mods actually allow (i.e. Jesusaves threads), I am inclined to think it is the latter.

I do not see the world in black and white - that is, to be frank, a gross generalistation which you have made without even knowing me. And you will note that the vast majority of my threads do not involve trolling - or perhaps those are the threads that you agree with?

I think its a perfectly valid thing to critise sciences students who use their knowledge to design weapons technology, technology which will eventually be used to kill people. It is my opinion that those who make the gun are almost as responsible as the man who pulls the trigger. They make the weapon in the knowledge that it will be used to deprive people of life but yet they continue in ignorance.

Of course you, like everyone else, has the right to disagree with my opinions - indeed the purpose of these forums are for full and frank discussion. However the other people who disagree with me don't take their disagreement to the point where they rely on crude (and to be frank ineffective) threats to ban me.

Solving problems isn't creative?

You do it in the same way every time though, the sciences have one solution for one problem. All it requires is for you to have enough understanding to be aware of that case, where as the humanities require you to argue and to have and develop an opinion

You do it in the same way every time though, the sciences have one solution for one problem.
Bullshit. There are several paths to several solutions. It isn't high school science.

*All NBG posts run through BS filter*

*Output=0*


Methinks you've suffered at the hands of a prank created by engineering students? People with a sense of humour, who add something constructive to society. All the best science students don't go into weapons production. I, for one, have no intention of designing anything for the sole use of the military. Ever.

Stop making sweeping generalisations about sciences students because some don't think your subject conntributes to society. Lets be honest, it doesn't. Arts subjects, with the exception of cultural implications, are subjects that will be used for the betterment of those students. Engineers and other, lesser, science students will, 95% of the time, make some useful contribution to society, and the world. Not a book on the role of women in farmhouse cleaning in the 1400s. A bridge to cut down on traffic or increase trade. A new engine with lower emissions to help the environment. A radical new power source that would provide cheap, clean energy to all the Art galleries full of "Modern Art" and other piles of rubbish bags covered in Araldite.

You do it in the same way every time though, the sciences have one solution for one problem. All it requires is for you to have enough understanding to be aware of that case, where as the humanities require you to argue and to have and develop an opinion

Spoken like a true Arts student. And WE are the snobbish ones?

I would just like to point out that a whole lot of Arts (stupid term anyways) students (like me, Eurpoean Studies and German B.A.) go on to become teachers...who are very useful to society too.

I would just like to point out that a whole lot of Arts (stupid term anyways) students (like me, Eurpoean Studies and German B.A.) go on to become teachers...who are very useful to society too.

Granted, I sort of forgot about teachers. Ah well, easily done.

Methinks you've suffered at the hands of a prank created by engineering students? People with a sense of humour, who add something constructive to society. All the best science students don't go into weapons production. I, for one, have no intention of designing anything for the sole use of the military. Ever.

Stop making sweeping generalisations about sciences students because some don't think your subject conntributes to society. Lets be honest, it doesn't. Arts subjects, with the exception of cultural implications, are subjects that will be used for the betterment of those students. Engineers and other, lesser, science students will, 95% of the time, make some useful contribution to society, and the world. Not a book on the role of women in farmhouse cleaning in the 1400s. A bridge to cut down on traffic or increase trade. A new engine with lower emissions to help the environment. A radical new power source that would provide cheap, clean energy to all the Art galleries full of "Modern Art" and other piles of rubbish bags covered in Araldite.

How many scientists actually go into research? Very few, I think, because it probably doesn't pay as well as work. About 2 scientists out of 10,000 will invent a new power source: the rest will go and work for chemical companies and beer breweries.

I personally would rather live in a world without TV than in a worldwithout literature.

I would just like to point out that a whole lot of Arts (stupid term anyways) students (like me, Eurpoean Studies and German B.A.) go on to become teachers...who are very useful to society too.

Eugh, don't remind me of my future career prospects please :p

Bullshit. There are several paths to several solutions. It isn't high school science.

Yes but they all follow the same principles. Scientific debates ultimately come down to a testable conclusion, making any kind of debate ending conclusively. However in history there is far more analysis required and more understanding because it is far far harder to come to a certian conclusion.

Yes. That's right. 9,998 students will become chemists or brewers. Because there are so many chemists and brewers in the world, and no automotive, civil, aerospace, electrical, genetic, and other engineers. What-so-ever. Good work batman.

Spoken like a true Arts student. And WE are the snobbish ones?

Can you disprove my point? I am not saying science is invalid but I dont think there is any case for claiming its better than humanities.

Eugh, don't remind me of my future career prospects please :p

Hey, thats my future job you're insulting! :p :D


Granted, I sort of forgot about teachers. Ah well, easily done.

and you! Cretin! :p :D

Can you disprove my point? I am not saying science is invalid but I dont think there is any case for claiming its better than humanities.

So there is only ever one solution to an engineering problem?

Give me a problem, and I shall return with at least twenty different solutions. That's what an engineer does. It's what we get paid to do. Not follow a set pattern.

The only scientists who have my respect are:
1) theoretical physicists
2) human biology researchers

.

The actual advances in science and technology are made by medical researchers that combine disciplines like physics and biology. Most of the science disciplines are not "pure". They are dirty! Filthy! I should know, I am one of those...........

So there is only ever one solution to an engineering problem?

Give me a problem, and I shall return with at least twenty different solutions. That's what an engineer does. It's what we get paid to do. Not follow a set pattern.

You simply follow pre-ordanied rules and formulae to devise your solutions whereas historians and the such have to design their own rules as they go along.

The actual advances in science and technology are made by medical researchers that combine disciplines like physics and biology. Most of the science disciplines are not "pure". They are dirty! Filthy! I should know, I am one of those...........

Judging by your name it would suggest that you are dirty and filthy, yes... :p

Hey, thats my future job you're insulting! :p :D

Hey, there's nothing wrong with it, but I personally can't see myself looking after a bunch of kids all day...I wouldn't really be suited to it.

So there is only ever one solution to an engineering problem?

Give me a problem, and I shall return with at least twenty different solutions. That's what an engineer does. It's what we get paid to do. Not follow a set pattern.

Thats applied science, not the sciences itself, but in terms of enginering you will eventually come up with a design which can be proven to be the most supiror.

And in all cases, the principales are essentially the same in every case.

"A dick with an inferiotity complex" - really, child, keep your language clean. I do try to be remotely pleasant in the way I present my language but obviously such limits do not apply to those mortal gods, the science under graduate.

Doesn't happen? In Britain, several of the smaller universities are not running chemistry, physics or maths courses anymore. Fact. They aren't receiving the funding and very few students are going into them. At Birmingham Univeristy (my University, one of the top ten in the country), a History under graduate needs two As and a B at A Level. Sciences students only need a B and two Cs because they are so desperate to get undergraduates they will accept any old dross.
that only means Britain sucks. if anyone is interested in science or math, come to the USA, because the National Institutes of Health, and other government/private organizations give billions and billions every year to science programs at American universities, which double as the world's top research laboratories for everything from pure math to cancer research to whatever.

You simply follow pre-ordanied rules and formulae to devise your solutions whereas historians and the such have to design their own rules as they go along.

Which is half the damn problem...grrrrr, damn dissertation....

Hey, there's nothing wrong with it, but I personally can't see myself looking after a bunch of kids all day...I wouldn't really be suited to it.

Kanabia's First Lesson

"Today Kids we are going to see what the difference is between Mr. J. Daniels and Mr. J Walker...."

Thats applied science, not the sciences itself, but in terms of enginering you will eventually come up with a design which can be proven to be the most supiror.

And in all cases, the principales are essentially the same in every case.

Yes, a plane needs wings. Shocking. We should let an Arts student come up with a plane without wings. That's what engineers have been doing wrong, and why we don't have planes capable of super- and near hyper-sonic flight.


(PS. First person to mention a lifting body design gets a slap. Yes, I know it doesn't have wings)

Quite a few politicans (in my country anyway) have been historians - Winston Churchill being one glorious example. Knowlege of the past is a far more effective tool for governing than knowledge about chemistry. And just because arts students dont have to sit in the lecture being spoon fed our knowledge 24/7 doesn't mean we don't do any work - we actually spend most of our free time in research.
THere's far more to the world than "governing"... the chemistry major and the mechanical engineering major will design the drugs you take or artifical knee for when you grow old and have heart attacks and break your leg.

Aw, are the poor sciences students getting annoyed because they are being criticised? Boo hoo. Mind you, so many potential students are now in agreement with my point of view that several universities in my country are shutting down their science departments because no one is interested in their subject any more. And I can't say I blame them.
I don't know what you 're saying about the shutdowns is true, but if british universities are in fact closing down shop on the sciences, is that something to be proud of? it is a godamn shame for Britain, arguably the most scientific innovative nation in the past 200 years, to fall so far into the gutter to such shit standards, and for the British people to simply turn their backs on these important intellectual fields.

Btw, this is the worst thread ever.

Yes, a plane needs wings. Shocking. We should let an Arts student come up with a plane without wings. That's what engineers have been doing wrong, and why we don't have planes capable of super- and near hyper-sonic flight.


(PS. First person to mention a lifting body design gets a slap. Yes, I know it doesn't have wings)

Missed the point entirely

My point was that science is rigid in its thought processes due to its nature where as history demands flexablity and the ablity to create, develop and sustain a point of view. The kind of thought processes required for that are far more flowing and complex in many cases than the sciences. For the simple reason that the scinces go down a logical progrssion path. Scientific evidence in itself cannot be reintupretd. A series of pieces of evidence however can be interpreted to point towards something else. But that is not science, but intrepretation of science.

Doesn't happen? In Britain, several of the smaller universities are not running chemistry, physics or maths courses anymore. Fact. They aren't receiving the funding and very few students are going into them. At Birmingham Univeristy (my University, one of the top ten in the country), a History under graduate needs two As and a B at A Level. Sciences students only need a B and two Cs because they are so desperate to get undergraduates they will accept any old dross.

Yeah, but Humanities, Arts and Linguistics are getting shut down at other unis (Bristol for example), your point being?

Unis stick to what they teach best and let the other courses slide. Its simple business.

Kanabia's First Lesson

"Today Kids we are going to see what the difference is between Mr. J. Daniels and Mr. J Walker...."

LMAO! :D

Okay, maybe I *do* want to be a teacher... :p

This is why so many sciences students do not go into research - it requires too much lateral thinking, a skill they often lack. Indeed very few scientists actually possess the cretivity to make them world changers - the very best scientists (men like Einstein) do not abide by systematic rules and procedures but they create their own, new rules.
How many "Arts majors" were world changers anyways? Churchill was influential not because he was a historian, but because he was a fabulously wealthy white man. Besides he made mistakes too, like sending boys over to die in Gallipoli. Few people, either "artists" or "scientists" are going to singlehandedly change the world... most will change society in small increments, and there is nothing wrong with that. A historian whose research is very specific and narrow will help human understanding just a little bit, but that's important in itself. A mathematician who discovers one new formula over his entire life won't be as great as Einstein but still you have to recognize that the work is important. There are very few people, whether artistically or scientifically inclined, who can even come lose to the intellectual impact that Einstein had.

Give me a problem, and I shall return with at least twenty different solutions. That's what an engineer does. It's what we get paid to do. Not follow a set pattern.

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/barometer.asp

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/barometer.asp

Lol. thats pretty funny. I haven't heard that before.

Oh, for God's sake. It's one thing to be upset about science students having a go at arts students for having few contact hours, but to extend that to stating that the reduction in science courses being offered (in the UK) is a good thing is, well, really fucking stupid.

Snobbery? Bollocks, the situation is entirely the reverse. Try having a conversation with another student and then reveal that you study science; it's remarkable how many will disregard you.

Why are the entry grades falling for science courses? Because the number of science applicants is dwindling. Why are science applications falling? Because science is not valued in our society AND it's being taught poorly. Science teaching in the UK is shocking - the curricula are narrowly focused on the drier aspects of the subjects and the language of science itself is hugely disengaging. Scientists lack lateral thinking? No, science courses discourage lateral thinking, usually to the detriment of all concerned.

I agree with you on one point - an alarming number of science students go into the arms industry. Likewise business. Alarmingly few go on to carry out useful, peaceful and non-profit-motivated science work. Many science departments, starved of funding, have sold themselves to the private sector, endangering their objectivity.

We need our physicists and our historians equally.

*fumes*

As a math(s)/anthropology major, I can tell you that both subjects require a tremendous amount of imagination. Someone posted earlier that to get the imagination in science fields you have to go to school for like 10 years. I think that's just rubbish! People are born with imagination, but sometimes they just don't know how to use it to their benefit.

I've run into the same problems that the original poster mentioned in the division between the arts & humanities vs. the maths and sciences and I think it's just silly. One good example that comes to mind is the whole debate over the Aryan invasion/migration/out of India problem. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that lots of different experts in one field are coming up with differing theories because they don't know enough about another field to realize it contradicts everything they've proposed. Mark my words, the debate won't be over until someone with expertise in several fields works on it. And that's just one example! We don't need this whole "either/or" thing...we need more of a "both/and" approach to education.

Well I am a History student which means that my vocation comes under the category of 'Arts' along with many other subjects. Now I am going to be biased in favour of my subject and sciences students are going to be biased in favour of theirs. That's fine and only to be expected- we are all human after all.
blah blah paranoid ranting blah blah

And thats my two pence.

No historian ever invented or discovered anything useful to anyone beyond "other historians". Probably.

Furthermore, the joke about the fries isn't anything to do with the intrinsic or moral worth of arts subjects, but more to do with the fact that a history degree doesn't really make you very employable. As it happens, the most employable degrees in the uk are dentistry, medicine, law, chinese and education. Or they were when I was at uni 10 years ago.

No historian ever invented or discovered anything useful to anyone beyond "other historians". Probably.

Furthermore, the joke about the fries isn't anything to do with the intrinsic or moral worth of arts subjects, but more to do with the fact that a history degree doesn't really make you very employable. As it happens, the most employable degrees in the uk are dentistry, medicine, law, chinese and education. Or they were when I was at uni 10 years ago.

I didn't go into higher education to get employed and people who go into a subject for the sake of the materialistic desires will probably end up regretting it. But thats true for every subject.

No historian ever invented or discovered anything useful to anyone beyond "other historians". Probably.

Furthermore, the joke about the fries isn't anything to do with the intrinsic or moral worth of arts subjects, but more to do with the fact that a history degree doesn't really make you very employable. As it happens, the most employable degrees in the uk are dentistry, medicine, law, chinese and education. Or they were when I was at uni 10 years ago.
Aha! Another ranting opportunity!

I'm so sick of the emphasis on employability. Whatever happened to university being a place to learn, broaden your horizons and take steps towards independence? Everything now is about economics. No wonder so many people are taking business studies. *spit*

I feel better now.

I didn't go into higher education to get employed and people who go into a subject for the sake of the materialistic desires will probably end up regretting it. But thats true for every subject.

In which case you won't mind people making jokes about your employability or lack thereof. except you do mind that, apparently.

And I reckon a large percentage of UK peoples at least study what they reckon will be most lucrative out of the range of courses they feel they are suited to, and regret it not a whit. perhaps you meant "exclusively for the sake of materialistic desires".

As an aside, why say "money" when "the sake of materialistic desires" gets the same message across i more than 5 times the syllables?

Btw, this is the worst thread ever.

Ah if I had a penny for every time I heard that - all that means is that you disagree with me fundamentally.

Aha! Another ranting opportunity!

I'm so sick of the emphasis on employability. Whatever happened to university being a place to learn, broaden your horizons and take steps towards independence? Everything now is about economics. No wonder so many people are taking business studies. *spit*

I feel better now.

the joke is about employability. it's a joke. and i think it's all very well for 10% of the population to spend 3 years gazing at their navels at the public expense in order to become "broader people". But when it is 50% of the population, and they come out knowing nothing more than they did when they went in, do we really need so many publicly fiunded braod horizoned call centre phone answering people?

and business studies isn't that employable. employable courses are ones where you learn how to *do* something *useful*.

As an aside, why say "money" when "the sake of materialistic desires" gets the same message across i more than 5 times the syllables?
because earning money is not the same as aquisition of material goods

and i agree with New British Glory's point on this. some people believe that money and material goods bring happiness, they are the ones who will study a subject they believe will enable them to fulfill this. sadly these people are not thinking beneath the surface, and may well end up regretting it as NBG said. that is, of course, unless they happen to fulfill their greed and desire for materialistic 'things'

In which case you won't mind people making jokes about your employability or lack thereof. except you do mind that, apparently.

And I reckon a large percentage of UK peoples at least study what they reckon will be most lucrative out of the range of courses they feel they are suited to, and regret it not a whit. perhaps you meant "exclusively for the sake of materialistic desires".

As an aside, why say "money" when "the sake of materialistic desires" gets the same message across i more than 5 times the syllables?

The reason I take offence to those jokes is because they are intrisically insulting the intelligence of arts students. The reference to employability is an aside.

Why not refer to materialistic desires? It covers a wider spectrum - for example actors might go into acting for fame rather than any love of acting.

i think it's all very well for 10% of the population to spend 3 years gazing at their navels at the public expense in order to become "broader people". But when it is 50% of the population, and they come out knowing nothing more than they did when they went in, do we really need so many publicly fiunded braod horizoned call centre phone answering people?

And theres the reason I felt annoyed enough to write this damn thread in the first place. Well done.

The reason I take offence to those jokes is because they are intrisically insulting the intelligence of arts students. The reference to employability is an aside.

no they aren't and no it isn't. Let's examine the joke. The opinions I am about to express are those of the joke rather than my own:

The punchline "do you want fries with that" indicates that the theoretical arts graduate is working in a fast food seller, for instance MacDonalds. We assume that the reason for this is that the arts graduate is unable to find any other work.

Why is the arts graduate unable to find alternative employment? Is it:

a) Because his qualification, for instance a history degree, does not give him any advantages in the job market over someone with no degree, nor does it give him any transferrable skills which might enable him to find employment outside of the fast food world.

b) Because history graduates are thick.

I think a) but If you want to think b) it won't be out of character with your general paranoia.

Why not refer to materialistic desires? It covers a wider spectrum - for example actors might go into acting for fame rather than any love of acting.

Fame isn't material. So a desire for fame isn't a materialistic desire.

And theres the reason I felt annoyed enough to write this damn thread in the first place. Well done.

so do we? do we need a lot of telephone answerers with broad horizons? are you thrilled to pay taxes to fund the milkman's cultural studies degree?

so do we? do we need a lot of telephone answerers with broad horizons? are you thrilled to pay taxes to fund the milkman's cultural studies degree?

Most people with degrees like cultural studies actually end up going into middle management and office work rather than being milkmen. As someone has already stated, history often provides the launch pad for a career in law, politics and the civil service.

You do it in the same way every time though, the sciences have one solution for one problem. All it requires is for you to have enough understanding to be aware of that case, where as the humanities require you to argue and to have and develop an opinion
Yeah right ... there are hundreds of ways of approaching any question any solution (some better then others but you dont know that before you start)
If you are truly doing new work there is a whole world of possibilities and a whole world of solutions out there (ask any comp sci major) there are tradoffs and correctness and a million other things to factor

Creativity in thinking of how to go about solving a problem is how NEW things get found all the time

the joke is about employability. it's a joke.
Didn't see the joke. Wasn't referring to it.

Most people with degrees like cultural studies actually end up going into middle management and office work rather than being milkmen.

you have no evidence for that, and so what? please rephrase my question substituting for "milkman" the job that you think is the one the majority of cultural students end up doing.

As someone has already stated, history often provides the launch pad for a career in law, politics and the civil service. and it often doesn't. and people with careers in law, politics or the civil service often don't have history degrees. so what's your actual point?

you have no evidence for that, and so what? please rephrase my question substituting for "milkman" the job that you think is the one the majority of cultural students end up doing.

and it often doesn't. and people with careers in law, politics or the civil service often don't have history degrees. so what's your actual point?

I could well ask that of you. Do you have a point or are you on here simply rambling in circles with the hope of either provoking me into flaming or tying me in knots? I fear it is the latter.

I could well ask that of you. Do you have a point or are you on here simply rambling in circles with the hope of either provoking me into flaming or tying me in knots? I fear it is the latter.

I think your original post is bogus, and your subsequent posts are bogus, and I'm amusing myself demonstrating their bogosity.

If I have a point it is this: Don't be such a weed. Somebody makes a lame joke and you get all arsy about it. No need, it's a lame joke with a reasonable degree of truth in it. I like the one that used to be in all the toilets in the Social Studies block in my university. Above the toilet roll dispenser in every cubicle was written "Social Studies degrees. Please take one".

And I have another point. Employability is important to an extent. Society, ie everyone, pays for higher education. Society should have at least a reasonable chance of getting its money back. And then we could reduce fees and have grants again.

And I have another point. Employability is important to an extent. Society, ie everyone, pays for higher education. Society should have at least a reasonable chance of getting its money back. And then we could reduce fees and have grants again.
Fair point. My point - poorly made, it seems - is that the emphasis has swung too far towards the economic perspective. Incidentally, I don't happen to advocate 50% university attendance either. Just seems like another expensive and unnecessary Labour target.

NB: Oh, that joke. How did I miss that first time around?

Fair point. My point - poorly made, it seems - is that the emphasis has swung too far towards the economic perspective. Incidentally, I don't happen to advocate 50% university attendance either. Just seems like another expensive and unnecessary Labour target.

NB: Oh, that joke. How did I miss that first time around?

I would agree with you.

As to the thread title ... I would like to respond with "Art students: I am tired of your belief that no one else is creative (also with snobbish attitudes)"

As to the thread title ... I would like to respond with "Art students: I am tired of your belief that no one else is creative (also with snobbish attitudes)"

Thats fair enough - I never claimed I wasnt a snob, just accused other people of snobbery.

Anyone who can come up with something like string theory is pretty creative.

And for a subject where some guy in a wheelchair can be a professor, and come up with incredible math and theory in his head - that's got to be creative as well.

Pure thought at work.

I would just like to point out that a whole lot of Arts (stupid term anyways) students (like me, Eurpoean Studies and German B.A.) go on to become teachers...who are very useful to society too.
I'm a physics major and comtemplating a career in teaching as well. There is actually a huge demand for math and physics teachers now... so if I go along that career path, then I'm guaranteed a job more or less.

How many scientists actually go into research? Very few, I think, because it probably doesn't pay as well as work. About 2 scientists out of 10,000 will invent a new power source: the rest will go and work for chemical companies and beer breweries.

I personally would rather live in a world without TV than in a worldwithout literature.
Uh... I don't know a single scientist who isn't doing research. My father is researching a cure for osteoperosis, for years he worked with companies that were researching cures for cancer, he has 5 patnents for inventions...
My profs are all active in research (well, except the ones who are semi-retired and teaching one class a week) actually, the only science graduates I can think of who aren't doing research are doctors, vetrinarians et c.

You simply follow pre-ordanied rules and formulae to devise your solutions whereas historians and the such have to design their own rules as they go along.
What the hell problems do historians have to solve? It happened, it's done, it may repeat itself, but it's over and done with, it's history. Unless you're saying looking back into what really happened, then you're using the same damn skills as any science student tryign to figure out what the hell happened in an experiment.

I do more creative writing in the sources of error portion of my lab write ups then I do in an average essay.

Missed the point entirely

My point was that science is rigid in its thought processes due to its nature where as history demands flexablity and the ablity to create, develop and sustain a point of view. The kind of thought processes required for that are far more flowing and complex in many cases than the sciences. For the simple reason that the scinces go down a logical progrssion path. Scientific evidence in itself cannot be reintupretd. A series of pieces of evidence however can be interpreted to point towards something else. But that is not science, but intrepretation of science.
No, you missed the point. The point is that the act of connecting the dots, formulating a hypotehesis to explain a phenomenon is a very creative process. You have to think out a variety of solutions, as bizzarre as you like... but then you have to test these hypotheses. This is the part that you are focusing on, the testing of the hypotehesis... although figuring out how to test a hypothesis is creative in itself as is figuring out how to run the experiment... these things don't just figure themselves out hence the trial and error process in science. Actually, with the exception of collecting and analyzing data, science is a damn creative thing, hell, how else do you think people came up with lasers that use beer, vodka, potatos et c? No, it's not just out of boredom and love of alcohol... hmm...

No, you missed the point. The point is that the act of connecting the dots, formulating a hypotehesis to explain a phenomenon is a very creative process. You have to think out a variety of solutions, as bizzarre as you like... but then you have to test these hypotheses. This is the part that you are focusing on, the testing of the hypotehesis... although figuring out how to test a hypothesis is creative in itself as is figuring out how to run the experiment... these things don't just figure themselves out hence the trial and error process in science. Actually, with the exception of collecting and analyzing data, science is a damn creative thing, hell, how else do you think people came up with lasers that use beer, vodka, potatos et c? No, it's not just out of boredom and love of alcohol... hmm...


As someone who studied English Literature and Law, I can tell you (having taken nearly all my electives as various forms of chemistry class, including organic and p-chem) that scientists have far more imagination on average than most non-science people - and they don't have the rigidity of thought that plagues them as a stereotype - they have a rigidity of proof and a rigidity of process - but their whole effort is predicated on the idea that mankind can discover anything - and in the end, manipulate or control anything - that takes an incredible leap of faith and an incredible confidence in one's own imagination.

There's a man with Lou Gehrig's disease, crushed into a wheelchair, who has been studying the nature of the universe - and he may be getting it right, since there's a process of review and criticism. To even attempt that task takes an incredible imagination.

However in history there is far more analysis required and more understanding because it is far far harder to come to a certian conclusion.
Because there is no conclusion except for public opinion.

Uh... I don't know a single scientist who isn't doing research. My father is researching a cure for osteoperosis, for years he worked with companies that were researching cures for cancer, he has 5 patnents for inventions...
My profs are all active in research (well, except the ones who are semi-retired and teaching one class a week) actually, the only science graduates I can think of who aren't doing research are doctors, vetrinarians et c.

Professors are rearchers - they are academics and they dont just spend their time educating students.

As someone who studied English Literature and Law, I can tell you (having taken nearly all my electives as various forms of chemistry class, including organic and p-chem) that scientists have far more imagination on average than most non-science people - and they don't have the rigidity of thought that plagues them as a stereotype - they have a rigidity of proof and a rigidity of process - but their whole effort is predicated on the idea that mankind can discover anything - and in the end, manipulate or control anything - that takes an incredible leap of faith and an incredible confidence in one's own imagination.

There's a man with Lou Gehrig's disease, crushed into a wheelchair, who has been studying the nature of the universe - and he may be getting it right, since there's a process of review and criticism. To even attempt that task takes an incredible imagination.

You are referring to Stephen Hawkings I believe and I did not say that all scientists had a lack of imagination - the very best (like Einstein or Hawkings) do. However your average science student doesnt. I know quite a few and none of them every read beyond the words - to them the facts are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Professors are rearchers - they are academics and they dont just spend their time educating students.
I know that. I was pointing out science graduates who are doing research. Did you fail to read my post at all? Where are those text analysis skills you should be building?

I know that. I was pointing out science graduates who are doing research. Did you fail to read my post at all? Where are those text analysis skills you should be building?

You attempted to disprove my point by pointing out three examples of researchers. Sorry but I don't think three personal examples can speak for the entire demographic we are supposedly observing.

Now my degree is not in Science or History, but I can tell you this much. If I was ever in trouble, I would 100 times more want a Scientist on my side than a History major. That's the truth. I doubt most people can deny that!

You attempted to disprove my point by pointing out three examples of researchers. Sorry but I don't think three personal examples can speak for the entire demographic we are supposedly observing.

You really should wait until people graduate before you make assumptions about them.

When people are in school, they're not in the same mode they'll be in when they take a real job.

Besides, anything theory that you can repeatedly verify by experiment or math proof is a fact until disproven later. So you go with the facts.

We're inventing and discovering things at an ever increasing rate - so fast now that I don't believe we're all aware of what's being invented anymore. There's no way all of those science students could be so closed-minded and have that rate of invention and discovery.

Now my degree is not in Science or History, but I can tell you this much. If I was ever in trouble, I would 100 times more want a Scientist on my side than a History major. That's the truth. I doubt most people can deny that!
I'd say it depends what kind of trouble, and who the history and science majors were...

Seriously, people are being waaaaay too generous with the stereotyping in this thread.

You are referring to Stephen Hawkings I believe and I did not say that all scientists had a lack of imagination - the very best (like Einstein or Hawkings) do. However your average science student doesnt. I know quite a few and none of them every read beyond the words - to them the facts are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Again, I'd suggest that the way in which science is taught is the issue here, rather than the students themselves.

Mind you, I'm incredibly bitter about my experience of studying for a science degree, so it's worth taking my comments with healthy scepticism.

I'd say it depends what kind of trouble, and who the history and science majors were...

Seriously, people are being waaaaay too generous with the stereotyping in this thread.


There is nothing in History that a normal average joe can't go find out for themselves, it is history after all. You can't say the same about science.

There is nothing in History that a normal average joe can't go find out for themselves, it is history after all. You can't say the same about science.
:rolleyes: You learn very high level skills in a history course, like evaluating information and analysing it. These things are definitely more than lay knowledge, particularly as "the average joe" doesn't seem to know much history at all. I find it more difficult to produce a distinction level essay than a distinction level exam (say, multi choice or short answer), because you can get away with blurting out facts in the exam, but not in the essay.

PS: My boyfriend is a history major, and I'd rather have him helping me out in a tight situation than anyone else.

Edit: And this mysterious "average joe" could just as easily go out, buy a stack of textbooks and journals and learn science.

You attempted to disprove my point by pointing out three examples of researchers. Sorry but I don't think three personal examples can speak for the entire demographic we are supposedly observing.

I haven't read through much of this thread yet, but have you provided any statistics or examples to back up your own argument?

There is nothing in History that a normal average joe can't go find out for themselves, it is history after all. You can't say the same about science.
Interpretation, dearie. Finding the truth is somewhat tricky, to say the least.

You are referring to Stephen Hawkings I believe and I did not say that all scientists had a lack of imagination - the very best (like Einstein or Hawkings) do. However your average science student doesnt. I know quite a few and none of them every read beyond the words - to them the facts are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You obviously don't know many science students or are trying to prove a point.

Hey, if you want me to "prove" that history majors end up in shitty jobs... my taxi driver the other night was a history major.

I'm an enviro sci major and creative writing minor. *gasp!* science and art?? People can argue about what major or field of study is the hardest or most worthwhile, but they'll never reach a conclusion. Damn straight science majors have to work their asses off, but creative writing isn't the easiest either. It's just a different kind of work, using a different part of the brain. And I admit I didn't read through all the pages of this thread, but has anyone mentioned studying architecture? I know quite a few people in that major and they've all gone crazy from pulling hundreds of all-nighters just to get their projects done in time. That's one field you have to really be dedicated too, just because the work consumes so much of your time. Final point: science, art, business, history....whatever! They all require some sort of hard work and you won't get anywhere in any field if you just do a half-ass job.

You attempted to disprove my point by pointing out three examples of researchers. Sorry but I don't think three personal examples can speak for the entire demographic we are supposedly observing.
Yeah, and your personal examples mean anything at all?

Give me a fucking break, your double standards are just tiresome.

And I admit I didn't read through all the pages of this thread, but has anyone mentioned studying architecture? I know quite a few people in that major and they've all gone crazy from pulling hundreds of all-nighters just to get their projects done in time. That's one field you have to really be dedicated too, just because the work consumes so much of your time.
I didn't mention it, but I have a friend doing arch, and he pulls all-nighters at uni. Crazy. I'm never there later than like 5. :p I'm another science/arts person by the way, yay! Judging by this thread, I must hate myself...

I've noticed a few people say that "the arts relay on science." I'm coming into this debate a little late but I would just like to note that the sciences, as we have them today, are a result of the arts. It was enlightenment philosophers that blazed the cultural and rational path for science to grow upon. Without those philosophers we might be still be doing it up old school with *shudders* Aristotelian science.

I find it interesting that for the most part, the only one who is seriously attacking either side is the creator of the thread who appears to think that all science students are scum, everyone else is pretty much like "oh yeah, i'm double majoring in an art and a science" or "I'm majoring in one and minoring in another." or "It takes different skills/I have friends in the other subject area that are great" et c.

I'm in the Humanities, but soon I’m entering a pre-med. I have the up most respect for the sciences, particularly theoretical physics. It’s all knowledge, its all mind expanding, its all good.

I find it interesting that for the most part, the only one who is seriously attacking either side is the creator of the thread who appears to think that all science students are scum, everyone else is pretty much like "oh yeah, i'm double majoring in an art and a science" or "I'm majoring in one and minoring in another." or "It takes different skills/I have friends in the other subject area that are great" et c.

IIRC, I said I was non-science (although I've taken science courses), and I generalized that scientists are more creative.

IIRC, I said I was non-science (although I've taken science courses), and I generalized that scientists are more creative.
True.

But you get my point, there's really only one person who's being a huge jerk about this whole thing and the rest is more or less a lovefest.

Everyone makes jokes about other groups - most often in jest. Here at GA Tech, we make the french fry joke about UGA grads. Does that mean we seriously think that their degrees are useless? Of course not! It's simply a joke.

On the other hand, arts students tend to joke that science students are all calculators and pencils, with no hope of a social life.

Meanwhile, just to add to the "I am both" crowd, my undergrad major was in engineering, but some of my favorite classes were actually in theology. I also tend to do very well at literary writing (which means I get marked off on technical writing sometimes, but technical writing is so boring LOL)

You are referring to Stephen Hawkings I believe and I did not say that all scientists had a lack of imagination - the very best (like Einstein or Hawkings) do. However your average science student doesnt. I know quite a few and none of them every read beyond the words - to them the facts are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You either don't know many scientists, or the sciences are in a truly sad state wherever you live. The brightest people in ANY discipline will be imaginative, and contrary to popular opinion, science has very little to do with plugging into formulas - that's only what they do in the first year courses designed to satisfy distribution requirements. My own experience has been that your average physics student is more imaginative than your average arts/humanities student, mostly because while there plenty of bright and imaginative humanities students, it's very hard to continue as a physics student if you aren't reasonably intelligent and imaginative so the bottom end of the distribution gets chopped off for physicists.

I certainly believe that the arts are as important as the sciences, but the standards set in arts and humanities courses are, with the occasional exception, abysmally low. I am a grad student in physics at good university, and all the way through college I easily got top grades in humanities courses and found my science courses much more challenging. I don't think the arts and humanities are fundamentally easier than the sciences, it's just that the standards are set too low.

Ohh, and as fo the whole 'facts are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth' thing: no reasonably intelligent scientist believes anything like that. We have theories, which we try to make match observation in a productive way. Most intelligent scientists realize that even our best theories are just good approximations to reality.

I find it interesting that for the most part, the only one who is seriously attacking either side is the creator of the thread who appears to think that all science students are scum, everyone else is pretty much like "oh yeah, i'm double majoring in an art and a science" or "I'm majoring in one and minoring in another." or "It takes different skills/I have friends in the other subject area that are great" et c.

No sorry Dakini thats just you imagining things. I have actually been quite fair to most sciences students throughout this thread - I simply accuse them of lacking imagination.

True.

But you get my point, there's really only one person who's being a huge jerk about this whole thing and the rest is more or less a lovefest.

Once again Dakini, I have been entirely civil to everyone on this thread. Unlike you who persists in relying on crude words to put across your points. Low vocabularly levels no doubt.

Unlike you who persists in relying on crude words to put across your points. Low vocabularly levels no doubt.

That's civil????

I've noticed a few people say that "the arts relay on science." I'm coming into this debate a little late but I would just like to note that the sciences, as we have them today, are a result of the arts. It was enlightenment philosophers that blazed the cultural and rational path for science to grow upon. Without those philosophers we might be still be doing it up old school with *shudders* Aristotelian science.

Some the best scientists are artists - note da Vinci and (as you state) the Greek philosophers.

No sorry Dakini thats just you imagining things. I have actually been quite fair to most sciences students throughout this thread - I simply accuse them of lacking imagination.
No, you really haven't been fair at all. You started off this thread attacking people and you are still attacking people, for what? For choosing to be in a different programme. You are spewing grosse generalizations and stereotypes and hell, you haven't even come up with a different negative point for half this thread and you're saying that we aren't creative, you can't even think of a new insult.
Yeah, there have been one or two science students who popped in to say "you're an idiot" and left, but for the most part, it is a lovefest among people who have diverse interests and have actually taken classes in both science and humanities.

That's civil????

By the standards of these forums, yes. I don't swear.

By the standards of these forums, yes. I don't swear.

You don't have to swear to flame. Think about it.

You don't have to swear to flame. Think about it.

I dont think accusing someone of having sub par vocabulary levels is flaming particularly.

Once again Dakini, I have been entirely civil to everyone on this thread. Unlike you who persists in relying on crude words to put across your points. Low vocabularly levels no doubt.
You weren't even civil in the first post.

And considering that I've probably used a greater variety of words in my postings here (just because I don't have to use enormous words where they are unnecessary and awkward doesn't mean I don't have a large vocabulary) nor does saying "fuck" here and there mean I don't have a large vocabulary, hell, if anything, peppering my speach with such expelatives makes it colourful more than "crude" esepcially since I have yet to come out with "yeah, well, you're mother's a fucking whore" or other such direct insults and tend to use my curse words in a casual manner, such as "fuck, yeah that was great."

No, you really haven't been fair at all. You started off this thread attacking people and you are still attacking people, for what? For choosing to be in a different programme. You are spewing grosse generalizations and stereotypes and hell, you haven't even come up with a different negative point for half this thread and you're saying that we aren't creative, you can't even think of a new insult.
Yeah, there have been one or two science students who popped in to say "you're an idiot" and left, but for the most part, it is a lovefest among people who have diverse interests and have actually taken classes in both science and humanities.

Read through the thread, carefully, I think you will find some people have actually agreed with my points.

We as a society have historians, because the studying of history tell us a lot about humanity. This is not unusable crap, but one of the better ways to see what it truly means to be human and thus also where we are going. A historian knows that the values of modern man, is only one of many value systems. He knows that humanity have a choice, and thus his most important lesson to humanity is that we should not let ourselves be limited by the present. By the way, this is also the reason why historians sometimes comes about as annoying to none-historians.
Similar things can be said about other subject matters of the humanities (what we call it in Denmark), philosophy, anthropology and the study of languages all have their important place in civilized society. On top of this you have art, including books, films, paintings, music, etc. They sure doesn’t clothe a society, but they do give million of lives a certain degree of colour, beauty and meaning.

Law, social science, economy, etc. is all about managing society, while science is about understand nature (valuable in itself) and applying this knowledge in the field of production. Together they are without a doubt the oil that lubricates the machinery of modern western society. Their usefulness to government and business is therefore clear from the beginning, since government and business are the two major components in the already mentioned machinery.
But then again, what is a society with only managers and production? What is humanity without art, history, philosophy, etc.? The answer is simple, we would all be nothing but cows living a boring and meaningless existence.

Science, art, humanities, etc., they all have their place in a proper society. The humanities (along with religion and theoretical science/nature philosophy) allow us to understand life, and thus they give life meaning. The arts then portray, convey and beatify this meaning. The managerial functions glue everything together, hopefully doing it in a way that is appropriate to the already mentioned meaning (one of the problems in modern society, is in my humble view that this highly ethical aspect have been taken out of the managerial function). Finally the production function, is the engine that makes the rest possible by feeding and clothing society.

Ah if I had a penny for every time I heard that - all that means is that you disagree with me fundamentally.
Uhhh.... right. Why don't you address and try to refute any of my points?

This thread is awful because you're just trolling and flaming, you've raised interesting points that you could've built into a constructive discussion but instead you imply that scientists are mass murderers and you dismiss all science majors as idiots..

By the standards of these forums, yes. I don't swear.
Swearing does not mean that one lacks civility towards other posters, tell me, have I been swearing at you or casually?

Have I said "fuck you buddy" or have I been saying "hell, this thread sucks"? Which is it?

Some the best scientists are artists - note da Vinci and (as you state) the Greek philosophers.
Da Vinci is by no means considered among "some of the best scientists". There is no doubt he was an artistic and intuitive genius far smarter than any of us can hope to be, but his contribution to science is minimal.

Read through the thread, carefully, I think you will find some people have actually agreed with my points.
Yes, you make a point here or there. They are interspersed with the flaming and stereotypes that make up the grand majority of your posts.

Read through the thread, carefully, I think you will find some people have actually agreed with my points.
They are few and far between most people can see the generalizations and realize that as with most generalizations it usually does not hold water

I also find it ironic that you push the fact that science students are not creative when you use one of their biggest tools in working on history (the scientific method) really are you so much different?

Cant you see the creativity it takes to come out of no where with a new idea that no one has contemplated before? Of figuring out a way to solve that problem or prove that idea? There is creative beauty in all sorts of disciplines music … painting … math (surprisingly creative and beautiful if you see some graph theory results) physics you name it even comp sci has some incredibly creative methods of achieving a result

I am starting to pity you for your blindness

Swearing does not mean that one lacks civility towards other posters, tell me, have I been swearing at you or casually?

Have I said "fuck you buddy" or have I been saying "hell, this thread sucks"? Which is it?

"A dick with an inferiotity complex"

Hmmmm. And that was your first post on here as well. It appears I am not the only one who can be accused of double standards.

Wow..... You guys have like minature wars inside your schools between subjects..... In my school they have wars about who has the better car :)

No sorry Dakini thats just you imagining things. I have actually been quite fair to most sciences students throughout this thread - I simply accuse them of lacking imagination.
Where do you get the idea that science students lack imagination from anyway? I hope that after dismissing other people's annecdotal evidence you've got some sort of more solid evidence yourself :D.

Otherwise, it really seems like you're just blowing hot air.

Blah blah generalisations blah blah

I have been long enough on these boards to realise that the word 'generalisations' is used by people to make them look as if they have something substantial to make their criticisms with.

Its a general argument - of course there are going to be generalisations here and there because everyone is different and it is impossible to account for all their opinions.

"A dick with an inferiotity complex"

Hmmmm. And that was your first post on here as well. It appears I am not the only one who can be accused of double standards.
For one thing, "dick" is not a swear word.

For another, that was in direct response to your initial post. I was mildly peeved upon reading that. If you'll notice, that came in the later edits, after I had read your initial post in its entirety. At first I was quite jovial and even pointed out that at my school, humanities and science students get along fine... then in the edits, I was ticked off.

Where do you get the idea that science students lack imagination from anyway? I hope that after dismissing other people's annecdotal evidence you've got some sort of more solid evidence yourself :D.

Otherwise, it really seems like you're just blowing hot air.

Ah I simply said lack of imagination is a trait which science education tends to give life too. I have noted exceptions.

Actually I dont mean to offend anybody but it is kinda true what he said..... Most kids that are really good in math or science have really bad imagination, I mean they might be wizards in those subjects, but tell them to draw something up orginal or write you a story, itll take them hours. Me It takes me minutes, I mean a really bad drawing cause I cant draw, and I cant really write. But it will be original

You attempted to disprove my point by pointing out three examples of researchers. Sorry but I don't think three personal examples can speak for the entire demographic we are supposedly observing.
so do you have any statistics proving that all science majors can only regurgitate numbers? until you do, go back to your corner, contemplate your lofty ideals about "governing", worship your hero Churchill, and advocate shutting down all the world's laboratories since all the arts going on in your sharp mind are a billion times more complex than what those idiot science majors are doing when they look around for cures for disease and such.

I have been long enough on these boards to realise that the word 'generalisations' is used by people to make them look as if they have something substantial to make their criticisms with.

Its a general argument - of course there are going to be generalisations here and there because everyone is different and it is impossible to account for all their opinions.
Hahahahahaha.

Right, so now when people call you on what you are doing you critique their use of the word that describes it.

For one thing, "dick" is not a swear word.

For another, that was in direct response to your initial post. I was mildly peeved upon reading that. If you'll notice, that came in the later edits, after I had read your initial post in its entirety. At first I was quite jovial and even pointed out that at my school, humanities and science students get along fine... then in the edits, I was ticked off.

And? My friend is a sciences student (biochemistry). It was his pompous attitude that persauded me to write this thread in the first place.

And where I come from, dick is a swear word unless your name happens to be Richard. Which mine isnt.

so do you have any statistics proving that all science majors can only regurgitate numbers? until you do, go back to your corner, contemplate your lofty ideals about "governing", worship your hero Churchill, and advocate shutting down all the world's laboratories since all the arts going on in your sharp mind are a billion times more complex than what those idiot science majors are doing when they look around for cures for disease and such.

I dont advocate they were being closed down - I merely stated that they were being.

I don't know about other 'Arts' students, but Art Students, and artists in general, are the biggest bunch of snobs in the universe.


Just because I have more Talent and Creativuty in my pinky finger than most people do in their entire being doesn't mean I'm better than man most people.

It means I'm better than you AND dirt poor.

Actually, going to an Art College damn near ruined Art for me, because of all that snobbishness. Next time an "Art Student" gets all snobby on you, just hoof them between the legs, really hard. Take a polaroid every time you do this. Soon you'll have enough pictures to mount a show at one of the snooty galleries Art Students complain are part of "The Old Boy Network"

If the person in question went to University to study Fine Art, just shoot them. It'll put us all out of their misery. I don't care how much one can talk and write about Art. In Art the only thing that matters is what you DO.

As for Science, its made it much more easy for me to create my sculptures and make my music. My sculptures are in cast bronze, and the wax I use is petroleum based (thank you chemistry) and the mould I build around the wax was invented by engineers and scientist from the aeronautic industry. The understanding of thermodynamics and hydrodynamics of molten bronze, however complex, are alas, the product of thousands of years of develpment, trial and error. Each sculpture is so unique that no formula will help me.

Science creates many wonderful things. So what if a Chemist is unimaginative and lacking in vision. Thats not his job anyway. Thats why people like me exist: we take what Science has given us and make something entirely new out it.

I couldn't make my music without my computer and my rack of synths, my precious MIDI Controllers, my software....and my talent.

So shut the fuck up and stick to what you're good at. The world is a constant, never ending chain of interactions: scientific, sociological and artistic. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I have been long enough on these boards to realise that the word 'generalisations' is used by people to make them look as if they have something substantial to make their criticisms with.

Its a general argument - of course there are going to be generalisations here and there because everyone is different and it is impossible to account for all their opinions.
I think the point here is that you're treating a large and diverse body of people as if they're similar. It is ridiculous to claim that as a general matter science students lack imagination. That sort of claim is about on par with saying that humanities students are stupid.

Which, I note, is probably exactly the sort of claim that annoys you so much.

Actually I dont mean to offend anybody but it is kinda true what he said..... Most kids that are really good in math or science have really bad imagination, I mean they might be wizards in those subjects, but tell them to draw something up orginal or write you a story, itll take them hours. Me It takes me minutes, I mean a really bad drawing cause I cant draw, and I cant really write. But it will be original
Yeah?

So I take it you don't want to listen to the physics kids who have formed a band? Or the fact that every physics student in my year plays at least one instrument, draws, paints takes creative writing classes. You pretty much have to in order to prevent insanity, but these are creative and imaginative prusuits.

Hell, Einstein himself once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge, for knowledge is limited and imagination is boundless." (I think I got the last half of the quote wrong, but the gist is right)

I dont advocate they be closed down - I merely stated that they were being.
And you stated it approvingly...

"Aw, are the poor sciences students getting annoyed because they are being criticised? Boo hoo. Mind you, so many potential students are now in agreement with my point of view that several universities in my country are shutting down their science departments because no one is interested in their subject any more. And I can't say I blame them."

The grand conclusion we can draw from this thread is that arts and sciences are both great subjects of equal importance to civilization, but New British Glory is a dumbass. You can't argue rationally with this guy.

Yeah?

So I take it you don't want to listen to the physics kids who have formed a band? Or the fact that every physics student in my year plays at least one instrument, draws, paints takes creative writing classes. You pretty much have to in order to prevent insanity, but these are creative and imaginative prusuits.

Hell, Einstein himself once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge, for knowledge is limited and imagination is boundless." (I think I got the last half of the quote wrong, but the gist is right)

Anybody can form a band, anybody can spend years practicing with an instrument and become good. It dosent mean its original.. Unless writing their own songs, their just copying music thats been done before, So i really wount count that as original or imaginative

And? My friend is a sciences student (biochemistry). It was his pompous attitude that persauded me to write this thread in the first place.

And where I come from, dick is a swear word unless your name happens to be Richard. Which mine isnt.
And? You start a thread filled with hatred and flaming and you don't expect anyone else to get peeved? The fact is that you are acting like you have an inferiority complex, while the dick part may have been unnecessary, I'm sure jerk would have done the job nicely. It appears to me that you are overcompensating for your feelings of inadequacy and that you are attempting to bully us to make yourself feel better. Were you the kid in elementary school who used to wail on the other kids so you would feel good and happy with yourself?

And you stated it approvingly...

"Aw, are the poor sciences students getting annoyed because they are being criticised? Boo hoo. Mind you, so many potential students are now in agreement with my point of view that several universities in my country are shutting down their science departments because no one is interested in their subject any more. And I can't say I blame them."

The grand conclusion we can draw from this thread is that arts and sciences are both great subjects of equal importance to civilization, but New British Glory is a dumbass. You can't argue rationally with this guy.

No where in that comment do I agree with the closure of science facilities - I merely state they are being closed because students take my point of view (i.e. the science are dull).

I also agree with the general sentiment of this thread, advocated in your last paragraph. Please note I stated in my very first post:

"Well I would personally question whether indeed arts subjects are any less valuable than sciences."

It is quite obvious that sciences are of equal value to the arts - the point I have been driving it is that the arts shouldn't be treated lower than the sciences just because of lower employability rates.

Anybody can form a band, anybody can spend years practicing with an instrument and become good. It dosent mean its original.. Unless writing their own songs, their just copying music thats been done before, So i really wount count that as original or imaginative
They do write their own music.

Hell, want to see my sketch book?

So yeah, how about you take your admittedly crappy stick figures and leave us science students to our creative ventures and you can shove it.

They do write their own music.

Hell, want to see my sketch book?

So yeah, how about you take your admittedly crappy stick figures and leave us science students to our creative ventures and you can shove it.

Ah so aren't just rude to me. I feel somehow gratified. You are simply rude to anyone who doesn't share your point of view.

Actually I dont mean to offend anybody but it is kinda true what he said..... Most kids that are really good in math or science have really bad imagination, I mean they might be wizards in those subjects, but tell them to draw something up orginal or write you a story, itll take them hours. Me It takes me minutes, I mean a really bad drawing cause I cant draw, and I cant really write. But it will be original
There's different kinds of creativity and originality. Drawing and writing are great, but I bet the math kids can solve an engineering dilemma that no one has ever seen before a lot faster than you can. Everyone has different interests and talents, and these all need to be recognized and respected.

Ah so aren't just rude to me. I feel somehow gratified. You are simply rude to anyone who doesn't share your point of view.
Hmm... did you perhaps see the rudeness of the other poster?

I am civil to people who are civil to me. You haven't been civil to anyone on this thread, you don't deserve to be treated respectfully.

They do write their own music.

Hell, want to see my sketch book?

So yeah, how about you take your admittedly crappy stick figures and leave us science students to our creative ventures and you can shove it.

Turn to insults? Sad fuck... Just shows you cant be in an argument. But please take that crappy ass band and stick it up your ass, cause unless their being played all over the world right now theres no real reason to care about them..... But yeah go back to your room and study science, maybe youll waste 30 years of your life trying to cure a disease and win an award or something, while I actually LIVE those 30 years :)

Anybody can form a band, anybody can spend years practicing with an instrument and become good. It dosent mean its original.. Unless writing their own songs, their just copying music thats been done before, So i really wount count that as original or imaginative
Just because you don't produce original works of art doesn't mean you're not imaginative. Imagination has everything to do with what's happening in your head, and whether you choose not to express that in some outward way or not is pretty much irrelevant to the question.

Conversely, someone who draws or writes songs can still be thoroughly unimaginative. The good people at Hallmark, and the song writers for Britney Spears provide solid evidence of that.

Yes well what a thread it has been. Strong debate from both sides of the fence and a fair amount of sitting in the middle. But let me be quite clear on what this was topic was about before I leave it to simmer on without me.

1. I NEVER STATED THAT SCIENCE WAS OF LESS VALUE THAN THE ARTS

2. I NEVER STATED THAT ALL SCIENCTISTS LACK IMAGINATION - MERELY THAT THE WAY IN WHICH SCIENCE IS TAUGHT PREDISPOSES ITS PUILS TO SUCH A TRAIT

3. I SIMPLY WANTED TO PROVE THAT THE ARTS WERE OF EQUAL VALUE TO SCIENCES

4. I DO NOT ADVOCATE THE CLOSURE OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS AS THEY ARE NECESSARY TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

5. I HAVE NOT DISMISSED THE NEED FOR SCIENCE IN THE MODERN SOCIETY - IT IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE BUT OF NO MORE IMPORTANCE THAN THE ARTS.

Those are the points which have been lost in this tirade of posts.

Are you picking on me because I troll or are you picking o me because you disagree withmy views? Having seen some of the threads that you mods actually allow (i.e. Jesusaves threads), I am inclined to think it is the latter. Jesussaves was deleted for trolling. Not the best example you could have used.
I do not see the world in black and white - that is, to be frank, a gross generalistation which you have made without even knowing me. And you will note that the vast majority of my threads do not involve trolling - or perhaps those are the threads that you agree with?You views are irrelevant to moderation rulings. The language you use to express those views, and the way in which you use generalizations to present those views, is what consitutes trolling.
I think its a perfectly valid thing to critise sciences students who use their knowledge to design weapons technology, technology which will eventually be used to kill people. It is my opinion that those who make the gun are almost as responsible as the man who pulls the trigger. They make the weapon in the knowledge that it will be used to deprive people of life but yet they continue in ignorance. Claiming that being a science student leads to weapon design is an extremely wide generalization of an extremely small subset of science students. That's where you get into trouble. Posting inflammatory statements to provoke a negative response is considered trolling. It doesn't make any difference whether they are honestly-held positions or not, only that they are inflammatory.
Of course you, like everyone else, has the right to disagree with my opinions - indeed the purpose of these forums are for full and frank discussion. However the other people who disagree with me don't take their disagreement to the point where they rely on crude (and to be frank ineffective) threats to ban me.When I sign a post as with my Moderator signature, it's not an opinion or a threat. It's a ruling, whether you consider it valid or not. Like all the mods, I make every effort to be as impartial as possible. Mod rulings make no distinction between left, right, up or down; only whether they are considered rule-breaking according to the Terms of Service and accumlated precedent.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Actually the funniest, most rediculous major out there in my opinion is "communications".

My buddy is majoring in tht subject, and he was telling me that he has to make 3 speeches the entire quarter and write a 5 page paper for all 18 credit hours he is taking. He goes to school for 2 hours a day, with some fridays off.

What was his last speech subject, you may ask? Dodgeball.

Now if that ain't a cake degree, I don't know what is!

Jesussaves was deleted for trolling. Not the best example you could have used

Jesussaves was a puppet nation invented by someone to discredit Christianity

Turn to insults? Sad fuck... Just shows you cant be in an argument. But please take that crappy ass band and stick it up your ass, cause unless their being played all over the world right now theres no real reason to care about them..... But yeah go back to your room and study science, maybe youll waste 30 years of your life trying to cure a disease and win an award or something, while I actually LIVE those 30 years :)
lol.

Wow. Not only do you insult all independant artists, who are often more creative than the mainstream crap which does get played everywhere, I mean you are bashing the innovators that the popular artists take their inspiration from here, but you consider furthering human knowledge a waste of time.

How's this, my father has been in scientific research since his late 20s, he has fathered 4 children (and done a damn good job raising us too) is active in church groups, has a large number of friends et c. So what do you know, it is possible to live a life and do research at the same time. Who would have thought?

Obviously not you, where was this magnificient creativity of yours when you made this post? Or your common sense for that matter.

By the standards of these forums, yes. I don't swear.
Swearing is mostly irrelevant. That is only one small factor in the "standards of these forums".

Since quite a few posters have swtched from rational discourse to flaming, iLock pending moderator review.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Just so we have a common set of definitions here:Forbidden Actions
Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc.)though it does to watch what you post IC as well unless the other posters know you're not serious.

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example).
1) Aw, are the poor sciences students getting annoyed because they are being criticised? Boo hoo.
2) obviously such limits do not apply to those mortal gods, the science under graduate.
3) Once again Dakini, I have been entirely civil to everyone on this thread. Unlike you who persists in relying on crude words to put across your points. Low vocabularly levels no doubt.
4) Ah so aren't just rude to me. I feel somehow gratified. You are simply rude to anyone who doesn't share your point of view.
New British Glory, you are trolling (1), flamebaiting (1,2) and flaming (3,4)
1) Whatever, you've proven that you're pretty much a dick with an inferiority complex most likely.
2) if you're going to act like a prick, expect to be called on it.
3) there's really only one person who's being a huge jerk about this whole thing
It appears to me that you are overcompensating for your feelings of inadequacy and that you are attempting to bully us to make yourself feel better. Were you the kid in elementary school who used to wail on the other kids so you would feel good and happy with yourself?
4) You haven't been civil to anyone on this thread, you don't deserve to be treated respectfully. Dakini, you are flaming (1,2,3) and flamebaiting (4)
Turn to insults? Sad fuck... Just shows you cant be in an argument. But please take that crappy ass band and stick it up your ass, cause unless their being played all over the world right now theres no real Rakenshi, you are flaming
Or, you could go to their homes and smear crap on their walls.Potaria, I'm not quite sure where this falls, but you've been warned about it before. It's not funny, and you need to stop posting crap like this.
New British Glory: I dont think accusing someone of having sub par vocabulary levels is flaming particularly.
Dakini: For one thing, "dick" is not a swear word.
You're both wrong. In the context of the thread, it was most assuredly flaming, and "dick" is pretty much always considered a swear word except when used as a nickname for Richard (or an archaic term for detective, which was clearly not the case here)

Stop the flaming NOW. All of you.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Dakini, you are flaming (1,2,3) and flamebaiting (4)
I know. I already made a public apology thread.

Since those I have wronged might actually look here...

I apologize for being an ass and from now on I will leave the computer when in a heated debate and people are insulting me and come back when I am calmer/don't care anymore.

So, the thread's not locked anymore? 'Cause I wanted to ask both sides about something.

My Dad once told me that the bonds of profession can be even stronger than the bonds of race, religion, or culture. The idea was that if you had a room of 100 people (mixed gender), with 50 whites and 50 blacks, but 10 of the whites were doctors and 10 of the blacks were doctors, the doctors would not see 2 groups, they'd see three. 40 whites, 40 blacks, and 20 doctors. (or artists or teachers or electricians or carpenters or any other organized or skilled labor). EDIT: (well hopefully, doctors wouldn't see the race thing as a meaningful division, but you get the idea).

What do you guys think of that? When your field of study or profession is attacked, do you feel more urge to defend it than if your race or nationality is attacked? I always thought it would be interesting if the all soldiers of the world refused to attack one another out of professional courtesy. Silly, but interesting.

Huzzah, I get to make the hundreds of points I had picked up on...if I can remember them all:

Honda's own advert says it's 'The Power of Dreams.' Inventors are the most imaginative people around.

Novelists - come from every walk of life.

If you think UK science is bad, look at American. Seriously I despaired, I looked at the syllabus for AP Chemistry, and found I'd studied all of it in GCSE and As Chemistry and it was all physical chemistry. Of course studying thermodynamics lacks imagination.

We had a joke in my chemistry class, my dad had a theory that everything is a branch of chemistry: German is the language of chemistry, English is how you write it, maths in the calculations and physics, physics in the energetics, biology is just a section of living or once living chemistry, history is the use of technology through the ages, music is physics and aesthetics, which is psycology, which is brain chemistry etc etc etc. Now any teacher is going to say their subject is most important but I prefer to see it as a great web of interconnections. Most people only do well in parts of the web and therefore people need to work together to make sure there are no breaks.

Heh...my dad. Brilliant at maths, hated it, wanted to do something like museum curator. Saw the careers councillor, who said because he was good at science he had to do science - got given Food Technology. Swopped with his best friend and ended up doing Chemistry with Applied Zoology, with the idea of going into forensics. Took up a teaching post to earn some money, thought it wasn't half-bad and stuck with it. Ended up teaching Chemist in Jersey, the mainland, Q'tar, and the Seychelles, where he also taught Bio. Taught physics too for a while. Taught Billy Connolly's kids, Brian S...the guy from Rocky Horror Show, Anthony Hopkins' daughter etc. And guess what? His main hobbies at his current school is running the 6th form quiz, Youth Parliament, Debating teams, Staff (joke) awards, Photography club, mostly side by side with his 'partner in crime' the Head of English. He's the one they ask to film and edit events. He even tries to write novels. The irony is he doesn't get along with the Head of Music, Drama and PE - for the simple reason that they get to take kids out of his classes for all day-rehearsals/matches. And they get all the praise...he sends at least one girl to Medicine each year...of actresses we had Prunella Scales (Yes, Fawlty Towers), Susannah Corbett (Pascoe's annoying wife) and Emily Gilchrist who went to RADA (Zoe, in the operetta of that name as seen on C4). Make what you will of that.

I think most writing is actually scientific or social study of a person, series of events or an idea. Like a scientific theory, writers then sees what happens if they do this or that, just putting it in a world situation. And of course there's sci-fi but that's different.
Basically only professors remain blinkered snobs. Every kid can mess around with paints, the question is, how many are given the opportunity to continue to do so without being shunted to one side, told they're not good enough or their forte is in another direction. What about kids being told they're not smart cos numbers come slow to them? Governments talk about removing maths from the compulsary GCSE list. I heard a woman moaning the other day because science is compulsary in some form, overloading her darling daughter. As long as people think this way people will remain smallminded. If you can't do basic maths you're going to be in trouble. If you don't know history mistakes are repeated and culture lost. If you can't write a cv, talk to people, have basic literaray skills you're going to have employment problems. Of course people have to make decisions on what they ant to do with their life, but it doesn't mean the other sides of their personality suddenly don't exist.

Lol...logged out...

Ha. That would explain my current A to A+ in Social Studies/History.
History is a humanities subject, social sciences include economics, poli sci, sociology and the like.

I have been long enough on these boards to realise that the word 'generalisations' is used by people to make them look as if they have something substantial to make their criticisms with.

Its a general argument - of course there are going to be generalisations here and there because everyone is different and it is impossible to account for all their opinions.
But you can at least try … at least into smaller groups then about a third of the people that graduate with a degree.

(and way to not respond ad-hominem very well disguised by the way)
Also a true mark of maturity replacing a though out post with blah

Jesussaves was a puppet nation invented by someone to discredit Christianity
Ehh more out of a sense of humor (some may say bad taste , maybe so) then out of an actual attempt to discredit ... he was way too over the top for anyone to REALLY take seriously

Let us not mention the freakishly unstable women who populated the music and drama departments...

I didn't go into higher education to get employed and people who go into a subject for the sake of the materialistic desires will probably end up regretting it. But thats true for every subject.


You know, it would be vastly cheaper to just buy a stack of textbooks and video documentaries, and travel to sites of historical interest, than to go into higher education. The only advantage of studying the subject at university, is that you get a qualification at the end, and the only use for a qualification is to put it on your Curriculum Vitae.

Well I'm both, I guess, a Sciences and an Arts student, I do History and Physics. And I think both 'Arts' and 'Siences' have their merits. But I myself wouldn't class History as an Art, although I guess it's technically classified as one, but I guess I don't really classify my subjects. I'd classify History as 'History' and Physics as 'Physics'.

Well I am a History student which means that my vocation comes under the category of 'Arts' along with many other subjects. Now I am going to be biased in favour of my subject and sciences students are going to be biased in favour of theirs. That's fine and only to be expected- we are all human after all.

But what I am sick to the back teeth of is the snobbish attitudes of the sciences students towards students of the arts. They accuse our subjects of being "mickey mouse subjects" - in other words, jokes. They make jokes such as:

What does the arts graduate say to the sciences graduate?
"You want fries with that?"

it is a simple reality that a person with an "arts" degree is going to be less generally employable than the average person with a hard sciences degree. a biochem major is going to be more employable than a history major. if you can't laugh at the foibles of your chosen field, that's really a bummer for you.


Well I would personally question whether indeed arts subjects are any less valuable than sciences. I have found frequently with students who study subjects such as chemistry, maths, biology and physics is they have a profound lack of imagination and their education only seems to indoctrinate this lack of creativity.

then you are talking to a weird subgroup within the sciences. i have been in the sciences for going on a decade, and i have found the vast majority of science students to be well above average in creativity, imagination, versitility of reasoning, and original problem solving.


The teaching of the sciences (I have a friend who does boichemistry and I have seen his notes before anyone accuses me of having no idea whatsoever) enforces cold, almost unthinking obediance to facts and formulae and so therefore does not encourage students to think beyond the already established lines of what has been set down.

totally and completely untrue. the teaching of sciences requires an understanding of some very complex information, a foundation of solid principles, terms, and facts from which to build a more complete understanding of the world. while this introductory process can be dry and stale at times, it is only from this grounding that the true creativity, innovation, and beauty of scientific originality can emerge.

if your friend is being subjected to bad teaching that that's really too bad, and i know most students (of any subject) can look back on some dull and sterile classes in their past, but you shouldn't take that isolated experience as an indicator of the field as a whole.

a good science class will require a lot of "solid" indoctrination into terminology and established knowledge, but will expect students to use that information to analyze and evaluate novel projects. a good class will give students the tools they need, and then encourage them to use those tools to attack current issues, problems, and theories in the field.


This is precisely the opposite to arts subjects which is always consitently challengig students to critise the established views and opinions and create their own, perhaps better interpretations and standards.

modern science is founded on the challenging of theories (both established and novel), and requires endless originality, unique perspectives, and fresh interpretations. any science class or program that fails to teach and encourage these aspects of science will not be successful, and will not produce strong scientists.


This is why so many sciences students do not go into research - it requires too much lateral thinking, a skill they often lack.

interesting theory. how do you plan to support your claim? and how do you explain the current "overpopulation" of research scientists, in which there are more new scientists seeking research posts than there are reseach posts available? and how do you explain the fact that increased education in sciences and mathematics is correlated with higher scores on lateral reasoning sections of standardized tests?


Indeed very few scientists actually possess the cretivity to make them world changers - the very best scientists (men like Einstein) do not abide by systematic rules and procedures but they create their own, new rules.
raw creativity and world-changing genius do not always go together. just look at modern art.


Another problem with science lectures is that the professors and academics essentially spoon feed all the information to their students whereas arts students have to look up their information themselves and do some real soul searching in order to devise their own opinions.

lol. if you think that a sciences education "spoon feeds" the student, you clearly have never tried it.


The science subjects include none of that creativity.

again, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

personally, i don't find most art students to be expecially creative. or, at least, i don't find their brand of creativity to be anything worthwhile. they are all novel and unique in exactly the same ways as their classmates, and most of their work has little scope and little application for anyone other than themselves. a few brilliant students may rise above mere mimicry and repetition of established themes, but the majority will end up composing work that essentially replicates what past masters have already done. at least in the sciences such replication serves a practical purpose (by accumulating further support or refutation for particular theories or models), so unoriginal scientists can still be said to contribute something of value.

all the soul searching by an art student may help them understand themselves more, but precious few of them ever have anything insightful to contribute to humanity as a whole. they also seem to believe that anything "original" that they produce automatically has merit, while a scientist must combine creativity with practical application and value within her/his field.

only the most brilliant of artists will leave a lasting impression on the world, just as only the most brilliant of scientists will be remembered and remarked on. to say that science students are less creative or talented simply because greatness doesn't come to us all is a narrow view indeed. by the same token one could claim that all arts students are stupid and lazy because only a precious few of them ever produce work that will end up in slide shows viewed by other art students 100 years in the future.

Finally arts students are often required to look into a subject that is billion times more complex than any mathematical formulae in existence or any chemical equation: they have to examine the workings of the human mind which is a subject so complex that no answer has yet been provided despite the many works attempting to do so.

i can't do justice to the number of problems with this paragraph.

first, you claim that art is more complex than science, yet you have no experience in science to which you can compare your art experience. you seem to just want this to be the case, so you state that it is. that doesn't fly.

second, if you think science isn't exploring the human mind, or if you think science doesn't have anything valuable to tell you about your mind, then i really and honestly feel sorry for you.

i have studied the human mind through three different fields, across the spectrum of art-science; i hold degrees in psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience, and have minor concentrations in music and history. i have found that each field provides its own insights, and each has benefits the other lacks. i don't need to claim that philosophy is worthless to find value in neuroscience, and i don't need to reassure myself that musicians are stupid or stunted just so that i can feel proud of being a bench scientist.

science has answered many questions about the human mind, questions which art cannot and will not ever address. hell, art can't even identify the organ in which human consciousness resides, let alone identify critical factors in the performance and regulation of that consciousness! art is speculation, art is embellishment, art is editorialization, but art is not, of itself, a solid source for objective fact. art most certainly has value, both practical and aesthetic, but it also has limitations.

And thats my two pence.
your post is a great example of why i, as a sciences grad student, often "feel superior" to arts students. i "feel superior", ironically, because i know i am above behavior like yours. i feel superior because i have a superior understanding of both your field and mine, stemming from a more rigorous effort to explore all possible avenues of research. once you've acquired a degree in my field, your opinion will start to matter...i've got two "arts" degrees, so i think i'm a tad more qualified to speculate about arts education than you are to speculate about sciences. i feel superior because i can grasp the similarities between art and science, which you apparently cannot, and i can find the beauty in science along with the practical use of art. i feel superior because i am confident enough in my field to not need to insult or devalue other fields. (of course, that doesn't stop me from insulting some PEOPLE within other fields...;))

No where in that comment do I agree with the closure of science facilities - I merely state they are being closed because students take my point of view (i.e. the science are dull).
That's only because they aren't interested in it. To each his own.

Science isn't going to be fun or even necessary for everyone, in fact it is probably truly rewarding for a much smaller minority of people than those who enjoy art and music. But that doesn't mean you can't be creative while doing science, even at the basic levels. Although it seems like all you're doing is memorizing numbers and charts, math and science requires a lot of critical thinking, most of the time strange and imaginative thinking, but once you make a connections between two seemingly random unrelated things, it is as satisfying as writing or painting. It's like the historian reading and assimilating hundreds of pages before getting the "eureka" moment of insight. Lot's of busywork but there is a reward at the end. Sure, doing math problems seem redundant because people have already done millions of identical math problems before you, but if you finish a particularly challenging math problem, you'd gain a lot of insight from all the effort and analysis you put in.

I think the current system of teaching science is as good as it gets. there's not much room for formless artistic self-introspection in science but there's other forms of creativity. There's nothing much for anyone to do if you have a problem with that. As i've said, science is not for everyone. just like art or writing is not for everyone. Personally i can't play music for the life of me. I do enjoy science, though i'm not particularly good at it.


I also agree with the general sentiment of this thread, advocated in your last paragraph. Please note I stated in my very first post:

"Well I would personally question whether indeed arts subjects are any less valuable than sciences."

It is quite obvious that sciences are of equal value to the arts - the point I have been driving it is that the arts shouldn't be treated lower than the sciences just because of lower employability rates.
I think we can all agree with that, after we've calmed down from the hysterics in this thread. In your first post there's definitely no need to say art is a billion times more complex than science. Art and science are both great things, and petty minded snobbishness about artists' employability is as ridiculous as artists who say scientists are nothing more than lifeless automatons who rot for 30 years in labs.