User discusses the value of STEM majors: "the world is on our shoulders and we know that. You're welcome. I think what i really boils down to is that liberal arts majors know their degree is vastly inferior and refuses to let their ego concede defeat." (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
74 ups - 32 downs = 42 votes
167 comments submitted at 21:16:55 on Jun 9, 2014 by StrictScrutiny
My theory is that on reddit, the more virulently a purported STEMmer slags off liberal arts majors, the bigger failure they are in STEM fields.
Yeah, seriously. I've seen something like this in real life. Back in undergrad, there was this group of engingeering majors who would love to shit on us bio/chem people in the uni facebook page because "they only chose this because they're bad at maths, if they were good at maths, they'd choose a real STEM discipline, like physics or engineering". And the guy who did the most shit talking about that? Failed a compulsory maths paper 3 times, and so had to change his programme. He shut the fuck up about that real quick.
Chem has lots of math, especially stats. And then when you get to Pchem more math ensues. Anyone who shits on chem for a lack of math is a fucking idiot.
Yes, yes they are. I saw the shit my chem friends did in their final year and thought "Thank Carl Sagan I'm dissecting this shark!".
Yes, chemistry beyond introductory classes is basically math that explodes, and requires X-rays and really high gauss magnetic fields.
There's this weird tendency of arrogant shitheads to wind up in engineering. They exist in every discipline, but somehow engineering gets more of them. That and religious fundamentalists, and the intersection between shitheads and fundies is pretty big.
Edit: xrants sound cool but aren't used in physical chemistry
There were a lot of arrogant shit heads in my college's chem department. But I definitely had respect for that major, even when they'd shit on my geology and computer science. Although they quit shitting on it once they wanted help with crystallography in inorganic chemistry.
I dated a Chem major when he was in the thick of Organic Chemistry. He was incredibly brilliant as it was, but that sequence really tested him.
Bio is a lot of statistics at this point to...Computational, Agronomy, etc.
The bio program at my uni has a requirement that all majors must take:
The people who say bio is for those who lack math skills have obviously never been in a serious bio program. Hell, I took Statistics and 3D calculus as bio electives--yes, some universities consider those as electives for bio majors because of how important these subjects can be in the biological fields.
That's awesome. And sounds pretty rigorous. Just wondering, why doesn't your university consider stats a central requirement for bio majors? If there's only one choice of maths paper a bio student should do, I thought it would be a stats paper.
I'm not quite sure. They should have it as a central requirement, and I actually intend to argue that point to faculty after I finish my degree this month.
That's my feeling too - I don't understand the hard-on for calc a lot of Unis have, it's not that useful (beyond derivatives and integrals) in biology, statistics are far, far more applicable because you have to be able to understand your results conceptually here, and whatever program you're using to do the heavy lifting of the actual computations can't do that for you.
Agreed. When I saw the papers listed I thought to myself "I've never had to apply calculus beyond end of high school stuff to whatever biology work I've been doing. Am I doing biology wrong?".
Wait, what - Statistics as an elective for bio? That strikes me as the only one you guys would really need.
Well you'd be surprised how useful calculus can be, and I'm glad that is required... but yesn the statistics anomaly was the main gripe I had with the program and is why I took the initiative to fill that gap :)
I think they assume if needed that the class can be taken in grad programs.
Make him take the MCAT, that shit drains your soul.
The MCAT is really not that hard. People just make it too hard on themselves and overstudy low yield information. I took it a few years after college without having taken physics since high school and I did fine.
I think most premeds are their own worst enemies.
It's funny seeing STEM majors shitting on other STEM majors.
>It's funny seeing STEM majors shitting on other STEM majors.
Not really. As much as liberal arts majors/people who aren't in university on reddit seem to believe that STEM is some kind of big bad unified nemesis, I've always found it hilarious that people even consider STEM to be a thing: as a Math/CS student, I find there's generally more both serious dislike and playful poking fun between the Math and Engineering faculties (and between each of them and science majors) than there is between any of those fields and arts. One or two idiots on reddit can make it seem like a thing, but in reality the impression the average Math student I meet has of the liberal arts is mostly that they took some humanities/liberal arts electives and enjoyed them but aren't really into the subjects moreso than that, whereas there can be actual bad blood between Math and Engineering.
It's really hilarious to read all the arts majors here freaking out about "STEM" and badmouthing it at least as much, if not more, than what they think technical majors think about them.
edit: Oh god, the counter-jerk in this thread is a serious goldmine. Go /r/subredditdramadrama!
I guess the majors where a lot of your exams are essays and drawings are looked down upon. :(
I guess their superior programs haven't taught them that it takes people of all disciplines to make the world run, STEM or not. Like, way to go guys, you must be proud of yourselves for choosing a major with more math than people who are studying biology. I guess you're superior to all of those lame, almost-soft-science medical researchers too.
I don't know why some people can't seem to comprehend that people would rather pursue their own interests instead of studying engineering/computer science because it's "hard". I'd rather shovel horse shit for a living than tinker with code eight hours a day.
sometimes it would be because they never what it was like to really enjoy some books and admire authors because they never got the impressions or impact from reading that the english majors did. or they didn't find drawing exhilarating and paintings beautiful like many art majors. really it could be like big inferential gaps. there are some who never had passions for anything that fell remotely in the liberal arts net. maybe they liked sports and video games but that was playing and recreation. but, being pretty smart, in college they went for what was hard or what had prestige. i think its really not imagining how much genuine interest there can be for other things, and not believing it could exist. so the other people would be doing what's easy and they would be superior for being able to handle the hard classes. it really is narrow thinking but i feel like there's a lot of those that have some narrow interests and stick to those interests not expanding them or caring to and then there's others that would be interested in * everything * if given the opportunity. the narrow interested STEM majors would not really understand the mindset of the other type. its very different attitudes towards the world.
Maths, Maths, Maths, Maths, and finally Maths!
Yes friend, Maths! :)
[deleted]
I don't think you understand the comment to which you're replying.
You are right, wrong comment haha.
somebody once described angry stemers as computer janitors. i like to think of the angriest of them that way.
computer janitor shits on all of sociology because he is too narrow minded to understand the value of sociology.
So would the ideal retort would be "shut up and just fix my email"?
More like "I didn't show up to the Genius Bar to BS about college degrees..."
I feel like The Geek Squad would be even more demeaning.
I was going to mention that too. It's not like these types will be much more upwardly mobile after graduation than working at a Radio Shack or cell phone kiosk at the mall.
>he is too narrow minded to understand the value of sociology.
Yeah! I have value! Really, I don't think STEMlords understand the value of sociology because it would require them to understand the value of other people and social interaction.
DAE STEM majors are a bunch of socially inept nerds???
Reading Latour trying to decide whether or not "Ramses II died of tuberculosis" is meaningful statement because tuberculosis hasn't been discovered at the time will sure make you "understand the value of other people".
I love the implication that studying sociology correlates to some kind of social competence.
A better comparison would be studying theater/film, since most people know an actor they like or watch movies for enjoyment and they'd feel the world was a worse place without those movies. But film or stage acting doesn't partially contain social constructionist ideologies that validate the reasons why you can yell at people over the internet, so it's less exciting to defend.
Hah. Tumblrites have your retarded critical theory shit down, and they are often 14.
Most STEM majors have to take multiple humanities courses. The most humanities majors have to do is some B.S. stats or "Intro to Computer Business Science" class.
The fact that the most common majors have the highest graduation rates means that they are simply not as difficult and less prestigious.
Sociology isn't only interpretive. If you aren't clear on the distinction between positivist/interpretivist approaches you really can't speak against its utility. Sociology is also a research method outside of theory.
Sociology is why we know that rehabilitation-based approaches to incarcaration produces lower recidivism rates, for example.
Sociology's credibility is severely and a lot of times justifiably hurt by anti-positivists. Same for psychology. As long as the "Zizeks" and "Baudrillards" are around getting most of the praise and selling the most books, that will be the case, which is unfortunate.
Are you really trying to claim the humanities are easy because they have high graduation rates while using Baudrillard as an example?
Have you tried reading him? He's not exactly pop philosophy.
No, that would be /u/garybuseysawakening's argument.
Being purposefully obscure, however, doesn't bring you any legitimacy, and being hard to understand (if there is anything meaningful to understand) doesn't mean it's hard to pass in the exams.
I was following johndoe42's comment, who was pointing out that there are actual, empirically-based, serious sociologists out there, doing honest work, but the credibility of sociology is hurt with so many "2deep4me" Baudrillards of life working in the discipline.
Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean their positions lack value. I made it through Simulacrum And Simulations with my tiny humanities brain.
I don't understand why a couple writers you don't agree with who don't represent the mainstream form of sociology undermines the whole field though. That's sorta like if I pointed to climate change deniers as proof that science lacks credibility.
They are pseudo- and anti-scientific, they lack method, they lack clarity and willingness to make themselves clear. And they are proud of it. Baudrillard in particular talks about non-euclidean geometry, gravitational fields, infinity, while understanding nothing of them and using them to make his theories more credible. First you suggest the author is very hard, then say your "tiny brain" got it, so why don't you? Don't fool yourself.
Also, you're greatly undermining the influence and presence of anti-positivism in sociology and the humanities, comparing it to a couple of climate change deniers, while ironically being apologetic of them. But no need to antagonize and feel like the "persecuted" humanities student by "STEMlords". I'm from the humanities myself.
Justifiably? How is that the case when the only source of the issue is the ignorance of the public. Do you reject medical science because Dr. Oz gets praise and book sales for hawking homeopathy and fad products?
The difference is their presence in the academia is tolerated and encouraged. Homeopathy isn't. The "praise" is within it, not outside of it by laymen.
The other day on my way home from work I was listening to an NPR report by a cultural anthropologist from MIT. She was explaining about the research she's done about why Candy Crush is so habit forming, and it was fascinating. It also has a lot of significant applications for treating gambling addiction.
Here's the report if you're interested. But my point is that great synergy exists between the STEM and humanity fields, and most people recognize that a well-rounded intellect is at least conversant with many disciplines.
...Wow, you're actually being serious, and of fucking course you post in TiA, MR, and SRSS.
>Most STEM majors have to take multiple humanities courses.
They don't have to do anything nearly comprehensive, you can get by taking intro classes trust me, I know, I was a le STEM major for 2 years before I decided I didn't want to be miserable and surrounded by self-absorbed shitheads.
>B.S. stats or "Intro to Computer Business Science" class.
Good fucking luck getting a job as a sociology major with out a solid stats background, also my soc major requires some hefty research classes.
>simply not as difficult
Ok, sure, if its so easy then prove you have a meaningful grasp on social theory besides "men are oppressed, feminism is evil, STEM is the only thing that matters."
> less prestigious.
So? Does that make it unimportant? Do you really think we understand everything there is to understand about human social interaction and the history there of? If so then you really need to reevaluate your placement in a scientific field.
i work in finance with a sociology degree. before that i worked in state politics. it's not that hard to find a decent job with even a middling state school degree as long as you completed the requisite internships and worked the connections over to find a position.
Seriously, sociology majors with stats literally know how to track population-wide behavior. How the fuck is that anything less than 100% useful for society?
You know what's often more important than quantitative skills? being a personable individual who can get along with your coworkers
> They don't have to do anything nearly comprehensive, you can get by taking intro classes trust me, I know, I was a le STEM major for 2 years before I decided I didn't want to be miserable and surrounded by self-absorbed shitheads.
Yeah, not like those countless sociology majors who believe that all of human nature can be boiled down to some bullshit conflict-theory derived paradigm. No, it's the dudes whose field begins and ends with the precept of proving themselves wrong.
>Ok, sure, if its so easy then prove you have a meaningful grasp on social theory besides "men are oppressed, feminism is evil, STEM is the only thing that matters."
Prove you're not a shithead. There are tons of 'social theories' out there, but I assume you're referring to critical theory and the modern-day framework known as intersectionality, which is hilariously:
"The more of a not straight white heterosexual man you are, the more oppressed and repressed you are by society."
>So? Does that make it unimportant? Do you really think we understand everything there is to understand about human social interaction and the history there of? If so then you really need to reevaluate your placement in a scientific field.
I'm saying most sociology departments are degree mills where someone of average intelligence, or even below average intelligence given graduation rates, can attain a degree. It's really that simple.
...so what literature have you published regarding socioeconomic? Name one paper and we can all take you seriously.
I knew a guy in high school who frequently boasted about going into engineering. He failed (even after a grading curve) out of a 100-level pre-req course which required very little physics. He came home bitching about all degrees being useless, and then the truth came out.
Lol someone at my college did this. Failed intro to engineering design, Chem 1 his first semester, and then Calc 2 and Physics 1 his second semester.
When he first came to college he was like "Yeah my parents wanted me to go into the military but now I'm in college and they hate me." After he told us he was dropping out he said "Yeah my parents always wanted me to go to college but I've only ever wanted to work with my hands, I don't belong here."
What is with this false dichotomy of STEM vs liberal arts that every self-professed Reddit ubermensch seems to spout?
There are degrees that don't fall neatly into one of those two categories, such as Law and Medicine, that they seem to conveniently forget
Graduated with bcommerce, going for mba. My faculty is never mentioned. It ranges from artsy marketing to hard ass finance, but all of us get good paying jobs.
Is this a reddit-only thing, or was I immune to it in college?
Because there was always the "hardee har, your degree is worthless" jokesters who thought they were super funny, but there was never this weird sports team-like antagonism between BA and BS students.
I'm guessing that people that take school seriously don't hang around people who use a constructed facade of clan-like superiority to cover up the fact that they're failing all their classes.
It was something of an issue at my school; there were a lot of snarky jokes directed at the psych, engineering management and other "easy" majors on campus. Probably helped by the disproportionate number of engineering students we had.
I dug through his history a bit while I was still mad at him (by now I kind of feel bad for him), and found a thread in /r/EngineeringPorn where he is actually talking shit about people with other types of Engineering Degrees. He is trying really really rhard to validate his degree and my theory is that he got mad when he realized he wasn't the instant success he thought he would be.
Good news for mouse. I get to mock both, since I am also an abject failure at both. Finally get to make that achievement kid meme!
This is incredibly accurate. I work in academic science, and maybe it's just that UW is that kind of place - but all the grad students and PhDs in my circle are usually really into the arts in some way too. The physics department has a lot of burners for whatever reason (including a couple acroyoga hippies), and bio is filled with painters and musicians. It wouldn't cross their minds to look down on the liberal arts, because they're curious people who don't pigeon hole themselves.
I think that it takes a good deal of creativity to do good research, which is probably who so many people are artistically inclined at the graduate + level.
genuinely interested people are more interested in pursuing their discipline than in degrading others, it applies both ways