So today in French we got into quite a heated debate about how sciences are supposedly 'harder' to get E in than subjects like Geography or Art, and that they are more 'valuable'. I was vehemently opposed to this idea, but it seems a lot of people think that way. I can't speak for Geography since I don't take it, but I remember last year my art class was also exasperated in holiday workshops about how people thought art was easy to get E in while we suffered indoors during the beginning of summer, trying to complete our boards when the weather outside was perfect for beaching.
It's not easier or harder to get Es in one or the other. It depends on the person and what they are good at. It's just that usually people who suck at art know that they suck at art and choose not to take it, which is why we have such a high concentration of Es in the department, since everyone who takes it is actually good at it. But, in science, a lot of people take it just so they can do med or engineering etc, but they are not necessarily that strong at it (I'm sorry, I have to say it). It's easier to tell if you are good at art or music than science. From what I can evaluate, people who take sciences are the ones who are INTERESTED in them -- whether they are any good is another story. But, with art, it seems everyone who takes it is somewhat good at it. The statistics are skewed.
Another reason for the higher concentration of higher ended credits is that the standards in art are more compacted -- we have 2 standards -- 6 credits and 12 credits. This means as well as us not wanting to screw them up because they are worth so much and thus working hard at them, when we succeed we get 12 credits straight up. But in science, there is a random scattering of 2s and 3s, 4s and 5s. So if we drop one standard (silly mistakes etc, since these standards are also much smaller and so if you screw up one little thing, you're screwed), we lose those 2 or so points. It's not much, but it can give the illusion that it's harder because we're like "omg! this paper is only worth 4 credits! how come the art ones are 12 credits in one go?" In a way it's kind of protecting us -- so if we screw up we won't lose as many credits.
Also, let me break it down -- the sciences and the arts are different. I don't think we should compare them in terms of difficulty. Someone said today that in art all you have to do is put time in, whereas with physics (the science in question at the time) you have to understand the concept. From my experience, art requires a more philosophical and technical kind of understanding than physics, but it is understanding all the same. Not to mention one also has to put time into ANY subject, not just physics, to have a full understanding. As someone who takes both art and science subjects, I feel that I have grown as a result of both -- but in different ways.
Furthermore, the salaries or success at finding jobs after graduating uni of someone with a science degree vs someone with a fine arts degree shouldn't be relevant to how easy or hard it is. Statistically speaking, there are more people with science degrees than fine arts degrees. But it is true, science is more relevant to the modern world than art. There is more demand for scientists than artists. However... how does this relate to one being easier or harder than the other? I would bet that only a small percentage of those scientists could drop everything and become an artist if circumstances demanded it, as with artists becoming scientists. Neither is easier than the other, they are equipped with different skill sets.
Perspective is everything. I actually wondered how any of them could make the call that science > art when it seemed all of them took at least one science but none of them took art...
Well, this isn't just about science and arts. I also recently had a debate with someone about how mathematics is just as relevant to life as literature. Many people think that studying shakespeare is worthless because "we will never use this after we get a job", and many people think that higher level pure mathematics is worthless also because "we will never use this after we get a job" -- but I think the value of these, of ANYTHING, comes with how it changes the way we think. As someone said in my english scholarship class earlier this year, well-read people are usually more open minded -- they can empathise better for they have learnt from a variety of experiences that they may have not necessarily experienced themselves. Likewise, people who have studied mathematics know how to think about logical problems, and how to twist lateral thinking to solve a problem while still not breaking the rules of logic.
Everything is so rich, full of opportunity for learning. Shutting ourselves off from a whole field of study because we think it is 'irrelevant' or 'not as useful' is a damn shame in my opinion.
[EDIT] so I found out the reason this debate started was because people felt that subjects like art weren't exactly 'academic' enough to warrant being part of a scholar's badge. I think the reason people think this way is because of the misnomer 'scholar's badge' -- in my view it's not actually a badge for SCHOLARS per se(GPA of 80+ in 5-6 subjects), it's just a badge showing that you're good at the subjects you do take. The way I see it, if you feel under-recognised because you take all science and maths subjects which are supposedly 'harder' to get E in, then perhaps you should consider switching your subject choices over to humanities if you find them easier (and vice versa). However from my experience for some reason (possibly for practicality reasons, as I said before uni courses like med and engineering demand sciences), more people take sciences over humanities and then complain about them. Perhaps those who take humanities know that's what they want to do and that's what they're good at, and they are not doing it simply because they want to get into a particular course in uni...?
2 comments:
=D
I like your points, and I would like to add something that relates to your last/2nd-to-last paragraph:
I notice that when people are considering the 'value' of different subjects, they tend to only look at the practical side of things. Science is useful because it's all about improving how we live. Maths is only good because it helps you in your job/you can use it for physics, etc.
Then on the other hand you have these subjects which are considered "art" - visual art, music, dance etc... for these fields, it's all about expression and it's acceptable that they don't have any real-world relevance. Nobody complains "what's the point of painting this" but many people complain, "when am I ever going to use complex numbers".
Actually though, in their purest forms, all subjects require and will develop in you the open-mindedness and understanding that seems to be only associated with art. If you do science, you're learning to understand and question our world; if you do maths, it's the simple (or complex) beauty of the numbers and concepts. Languages tend to be left out of this kind of debate because they have an obvious purpose but it's the same with learning a second language too. I remember reading in *1984* something like, "in your heart you'd prefer to stick to Oldspeak with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning" and thinking, "but that's what makes it beautiful..."
And anyway, all subjects are interconnected. If you're making one of those crazy-complicated art sculptures you have to have at least an intuitive knowledge of physics. Dismissing one is like dimissing them all 'and let me tell you, that's no way to live'.
/like.
er, sorry i don't have any other deeper comments.
Post a Comment