Data shows science degrees worth more than humanities [Duh]

P

ptavv

Contributor
Veteran XX
Students Deserve Extra Credit for Hard Sciences, Say Curriculum Docs | Wired Science from Wired.com
Physics, chemistry and other science courses are far more difficult than the humanities -- so difficult, in fact, that students should be given extra credit for taking them.

So say experts from the Curriculum, Evaluation and Management Centre at Durham University. The findings seem self-evident to anyone -- i.e., a certain science journalist -- who's ever crammed for days just to scratch out a C-minus in trigonometry, but contradict the conclusions of Great Britain's national testing agency.

In February, the Qualifications and Curriculum authority announced that humanities-tracked students needed less study to ace their A-levels than those taking hard science courses. Nevertheless, the QCA recommended against leveling the academic playing field with a sliding achievement scale that assigns greater merit to scholastic science achievements.

By treating all exams as equally difficult, said CEM director Robert Coe, schools are short-changing themselves and their students.

"If universities and employers treat all grades as equivalent they will select the wrong applicants," said Coe in a press release. "A student with a grade C in Biology will generally be more able than one with a B in Sociology."

This in turn encourages students to take soft humanities rather than hard sciences, leaving the U.K. and its students poorly positioned in a science-fueled global economy -- a concern that could also apply to the United States.

But is a weighted grading system really the answer? I suspect that students will be less motivated by curricular incentives than a dose of reality: just show them what the average English major makes after graduation.
Click to expand...

Suck it history majors.
 
So what exactly is this thread about? How science classes are harder than humanities credits?


OFN
 
private school grade inflation is bullshit. i looked at the open courseware for MIT's organic chemistsry and michigan's exams were way fucking harder. i.e. MIT had multiple choice options and maybe 2 short answers / descriptions while UM tests are completely self-derivative and problem-based

from this single example i can conclude the mass cock'n'bull at hand
 
my organic chemistry tests were

here's a two carbon molecule

now make me this 12 carbon poly substituted poly chiral molecule

in five steps

it sucked and was very difficult
 
also, it takes 90+ credits for a science degree whereas a history/poly sci/phil degree is attainable after 30-40 creds.
 
History / Econ major.

Enjoy sucking on hard classes while I use my 4.0 gpa to get into a t14 law school.

:lol:
 
buize said:
also, it takes 90+ credits for a science degree whereas a history/poly sci/phil degree is attainable after 30-40 creds.
Click to expand...

:psyduck: Not quite as extreme as you make it, but there's certainly a difference (about 20 credit hours @ UT, though most of it's just additional math)
 
ptavv said:
my organic chemistry tests were

here's a two carbon molecule

now make me this 12 carbon poly substituted poly chiral molecule

in five steps

it sucked and was very difficult
Click to expand...

- RADICAL HALOGENATION
- ADD A NITRILE CONNECTED TO 8-9 CARBONS
- HYDROLYSIS OF NITRILE TO CARBOXYLIC ACID
- ORGANOMETALLICS TO REDUCE CARBONYL AND ADD THE REST OF YOUR ALKANE GROUP

BAM 4 STEPS WHAT NOW BITCH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top