Jump to content
JohnP

Undergraduate Programs: mine is harder than yours: The Great Debate

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, exocytosis646 said:

ahaha no need to that... i dont consider myself an overlord either just cause im in a harder degree- everyone has their own skills and such....what i find easy- you may find hard, and vice versa

My biochem courses are ten times harder than all the arts courses imo- so not saying your degree is worse- just that in my personal opinion (and according to the stereotype of arts students) arts is rly easy to get good grades is.

All my friends in upper yr sciences are struggling to get 3.5 gpas in sciences, but have had all 4.0s/A+ in the Artsdegrees they've taken as electives

Since you got a 170 without trying on the LSAT. Can you spot the flaws in your argument logic here? 

Edited by legallybrunette3
Changed flaw to plural because there are so many options
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, legallybrunette3 said:

Since you got a 170 without trying on the LSAT. Can you spot the flaw in your argument logic here? 

I didnt get a 170 on the lsat. 

I did on a practice diagnostic, and 169 actually..Which is a good score, but not the best anyways, so this isnt even impressive. 

And what flaw in my logic? I said science students have to go through tougher schedules/semester, and the fact that i did well on the lsat diagnostic (as a 17 yr) - a test that most pre-law students (who are arts majors have to go through) makes sense I did super well

 

Edited by exocytosis646

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, exocytosis646 said:

I didnt get a 170 on the lsat

I did on a practice diagnostic..

And what flaw in my logic? I said science students have to go through tougher schedules/semester, and the fact that i did well on the lsat diagnostic (as a 17 yr) - a test that most pre-law students (who are arts majors have to go through) makes sense I did super well

 

A PT is still a PT on the LSAT.... 

 

what flaw? Hmmm might be a good time to review LR before taking the real thing

 

Edited by legallybrunette3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, exocytosis646 said:

I didnt get a 170 on the lsat

I did on a practice diagnostic..

And what flaw in my logic? I said science students have to go through tougher schedules/semester, and the fact that i did well on the lsat diagnostic (as a 17 yr) - a test that most pre-law students (who are arts majors have to go through) makes sense I did super well

 

You're suggesting that because upper year science students do well in first year arts classes that all arts classes are easier than science classes. Newsflash, the opposite is true as well! Memorizing a bunch of flash cards 3x a year is a hell of a lot easier than writing a 20 page term paper on dialogue theory! As is being able to submit a lab report in non-broken English in comparison to answering nebulous written response questions with no reference material in an exam setting.

Edited by MountainMon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, legallybrunette3 said:

You don’t take “Artsdegrees” as electives

haha my bad- i wrote fast.... but i meant arts courses as electives.

Like the degree arts student have to take is literally composed of courses science students use as GPA boosters

Sorry if im offending you, this is just my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, legallybrunette3 said:

I said you got a 170. I didn’t say on the LSAT.... 

 

what flaw? Hmmm might be a good time to review LR before taking the real thing

heheh i loved that portion on the lsat surprisingly

 

1 minute ago, MountainMon said:

 

You're suggesting that because upper year science students do well in first year arts classes that all arts classes are easier than science classes. Newsflash, the opposite is true as well! Memorizing a bunch of flash cards 3x a year is a hell of a lot easier than writing a 20 page term paper on constitutional dialogue theory! 

I agree that for some people science may be easier... i just gave the example of me and my friends in upper years. There were a couple essay writing courses that ik upper yr arts major thought were hard, but my friends in 3rd yr took them and got A+

For us, an arts degree overall is way easier

And im just saying there is a reason why the stereotype of an art degree being easy asf exists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't compare an elective to a required course. That's another flaw. 

Your sample size is also unrepresentative. It includes anecdotal evidence from friends of yours, and things you've heard from other student. You also may have skills conducive to succeeding in STEM courses and don't practice music or art, so yes they'll all seem easier.

 

These are all flaws that were present in your argument, that you would find in a typical logical reasoning question on the LSAT. Good luck with it! 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, exocytosis646 said:

heheh i loved that portion on the lsat surprisingly

 

I agree that for some people science may be easier... i just gave the example of me and my friends in upper years. There were a couple essay writing courses that ik upper yr arts major thought were hard, but my friends in 3rd yr took them and got A+

For us, an arts degree overall is way easier

And im just saying there is a reason why the stereotype of an art degree being easy asf exists

One thing I think you have failed to consider is that you may be falsely equating the difficulty to pass the course vs the difficulty to do well. In the humanities courses that made up most of my degree, it may have been easy to skim a few readings, get some participation marks, BS an essay or exam and end up with a 70-75. In STEM I assume if you did the same you would fare much worse.

However, the grading between STEM and humanities is vastly different. I once as a naive first year student emailed a TA after receiving an 85 on an essay. I wondered how I could improve since all the comments were positive yet I only got an 85. My TA sent me back a reply explaining that 80-85 is generally the max grade in humanities courses with maybe one 90 at the most. He also said that 90-100 is only for extraordinary work that would be published in an academic publication in our field. On the other hand, getting 100% on a STEM test or course is entirely feasible and I would argue much more easy. Arts degrees are easy to pass but not to excel in. Especially that 80 vs 85 divide can be really hard to cross for some courses. I might be wrong but I think that there are extremely few if any students in my program that have achieved a 4.0. Its just way too easy to slip under 85 with one 80 that you got on one response or essay. Even some of my friends who are much more passionate about the field and better writers than me still bounce between an 80-85 depending on the professor/class just like me. Maybe this trend is unique to my department at UofT but it seems pretty consistent with other ones. 

Those are just my thoughts, I don't think either is more difficult. It's a matter of aptitude and what one is inclined to succeed at based on their background. I also think you need to be careful of comparing electives to 4th year humanity courses that require many prerequisites and backgrounds in different philosophical and academic areas.

-futurebirdlawyer

Edited by futurebirdlawyer
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a philosophy major whose friends are finishing up their STEM degrees, I've noticed that while a STEM degree might be seen as more difficult (as a function of engaging with complex math and science), it's actually more feasible to excel in STEM courses than in arts courses. Grades above 90% (at least at U of T) are exceedingly rare in arts courses when compared to science and math courses (save for a few 'bird' courses or specialized arts courses that are taught by practitioners). This does not mean that the arts are harder per se, but it does mean that if your metric of difficulty tracks the final received grade, you can conceivably reach the opposite conclusion that arts courses are of greater difficulty than their STEM 'equivalents'.

Relatedly, the nature of these two subjects are (in my opinion) not worthy of comparison. In STEM, there is a given correct answer (most of the time), and you are often assessed according to your ability to reach these definite (and necessary) answers. There are no such answers in the arts. Your success becomes a function of your ability to make creative, insightful points and back them with compelling evidence such that your instructor is not only convinced of your argument, but is so convinced that they give you a high grade. There are many factors (distinct to the arts) that stand in the way of this. Beyond your basic skill of writing, the instructor might have an ideological disagreement, a personal bias, a subjective experience that refutes your claims etc. So when viewed in this way, assessment of one's performance in the arts is far more 'nebulous' when compared to the sciences. Again, this shouldn't be confused with inherent difficulty, but is a complicating factor to consider when trying to compare the two (without making a bald 'STEM is harder' statement). 

I do concede (based on my observations) that the workload of STEM degrees is much higher that arts degrees, and I don't question the challenge that the content presents for most students. But when I consider some core philosophy or political theory courses (think Horkheimer, Heidegger, Hegel etc.), I can't admit that the arts present fewer challenges even for students who are considered to be good readers and writers. 

This is a bit of a rant, but the point is that neither STEM nor humanities courses can meaningfully be said to be more difficult than the other. Often in the university setting, perceived and actual difficultly can depend on the instructor, the course content and most importantly, your own talents and abilities. I've simply pointed to some factors that ought to be considered before making the statement that STEM is unquestionably and obviously more difficult than the sciences.

 

ETA: realized that  @futurebirdlawyer made similar points, so my post might be redundant...kinda read the first few posts, got heated, and skipped to the end to make a comment lol

Edited by undertheletter
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, exocytosis646 said:

well they arent wrong.

A stem degree is way harder than a fine arts degree. There is a reason why arts majors get shit on so hard lmaoo.

I have a few arts courses as electives, and they are easy asf compared to my science courses

Homie really replied to a year and a half old thread just to say this

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No he didn't. I spliced his comments in another (now locked) thread to this one because it was a derail.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, undertheletter said:

As a philosophy major whose friends are finishing up their STEM degrees, I've noticed that while a STEM degree might be seen as more difficult (as a function of engaging with complex math and science), it's actually more feasible to excel in STEM courses than in arts courses. Grades above 90% (at least at U of T) are exceedingly rare in arts courses when compared to science and math courses (save for a few 'bird' courses or specialized arts courses that are taught by practitioners). This does not mean that the arts are harder per se, but it does mean that if your metric of difficulty tracks the final received grade, you can conceivably reach the opposite conclusion that arts courses are of greater difficulty than their STEM 'equivalents'.

Relatedly, the nature of these two subjects are (in my opinion) not worthy of comparison. In STEM, there is a given correct answer (most of the time), and you are often assessed according to your ability to reach these definite (and necessary) answers. There are no such answers in the arts. Your success becomes a function of your ability to make creative, insightful points and back them with compelling evidence such that your instructor is not only convinced of your argument, but is so convinced that they give you a high grade. There are many factors (distinct to the arts) that stand in the way of this. Beyond your basic skill of writing, the instructor might have an ideological disagreement, a personal bias, a subjective experience that refutes your claims etc. So when viewed in this way, assessment of one's performance in the arts is far more 'nebulous' when compared to the sciences. Again, this shouldn't be confused with inherent difficulty, but is a complicating factor to consider when trying to compare the two (without making a bald 'STEM is harder' statement). 

I do concede (based on my observations) that the workload of STEM degrees is much higher that arts degrees, and I don't question the challenge that the content presents for most students. But when I consider some core philosophy or political theory courses (think Horkheimer, Heidegger, Hegel etc.), I can't admit that the arts present fewer challenges even for students who are considered to be good readers and writers. 

This is a bit of a rant, but the point is that neither STEM nor humanities courses can meaningfully be said to be more difficult than the other. Often in the university setting, perceived and actual difficultly can depend on the instructor, the course content and most importantly, your own talents and abilities. I've simply pointed to some factors that ought to be considered before making the statement that STEM is unquestionably and obviously more difficult than the sciences.

 

ETA: realized that  @futurebirdlawyer made similar points, so my post might be redundant...kinda read the first few posts, got heated, and skipped to the end to make a comment lol

100% agree with your points and glad to have a similar perspective! I think the ideological disagreement point is really important. A lot of what I found was necessary to succeed in humanities is finding the specific ideological framework that your TA/Prof/Department agrees with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love how this is a subject that no actual law student or lawyer could possibly give a solitary fuck about.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Gotta love how this is a subject that no actual law student or lawyer could possibly give a solitary fuck about.

Agreed. Surely the 11 pages of conversation preceding this one only involved peasant LS applicants and undergraduates.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are posters conflating fine arts with arts courses?

 Fine Arts courses are very different than "Arts" courses. Social science courses are different than humanities courses, which are different than the "light" sciences, which are different than "hard sciences" which are different than law school, which is really the only relevant schooling as Canadian schools don't really give AF (the expression is "AF" not "asf").  

Second, most fine arts courses are not available to non fine arts students so it's very doubtful that a STEM student has taken fine arts courses.

Third, fine arts courses at the undergrad level are basically near-professional studies. As in, my photography thesis was essentially gallery ready at the end, with high level critiques and was nearly a full-time job. But, at the end of the day, I circle back to the point of "Canadian law schools don't give AF about your degree", with the exception of some civil schools, and U of T to a certain extent.

Fourth, the poster is the same kid who was struggling to understand Ryerson's guidelines. 

Any future person that wants to troll with a "muh degree is special" should be catapulted. 

catapult homer simpson GIF

  • Like 11
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MountainMon said:

Agreed. Surely the 11 pages of conversation preceding this one only involved peasant LS applicants and undergraduates.

Right, I should have used slightly more qualified language. This topic is so incredibly uninteresting and irrelevant that I didn't bother to look at previous pages, but I'm unsurprised to see (to your credit) that @epeeist and @BlockedQuebecois posted. I should have written that only the most pedantic and anal law students or lawyers could be bothered with this bullshit.

Oh, and believe it or not it's possible to consider 0Ls who feel the need to debate this stuff to be ridiculous and irritating, without having any sense of superiority over non-lawyers/law students generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, artsydork said:

Why are posters conflating fine arts with arts courses?

 Fine Arts courses are very different than "Arts" courses. Social science courses are different than humanities courses, which are different than the "light" sciences, which are different than "hard sciences" which are different than law school, which is really the only relevant schooling as Canadian schools don't really give AF (the expression is "AF" not "asf").  

Second, most fine arts courses are not available to non fine arts students so it's very doubtful that a STEM student has taken fine arts courses.

Third, fine arts courses at the undergrad level are basically near-professional studies. As in, my photography thesis was essentially gallery ready at the end, with high level critiques and was nearly a full-time job. But, at the end of the day, I circle back to the point of "Canadian law schools don't give AF about your degree", with the exception of some civil schools, and U of T to a certain extent.

Fourth, the poster is the same kid who was struggling to understand Ryerson's guidelines. 

Any future person that wants to troll with a "muh degree is special" should be catapulted. 

catapult homer simpson GIF

Can we at least hold ourselves to a higher standard and use a trebuchet. 

cars fail GIF by Cheezburger

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, undertheletter said:

As a philosophy major

You wanna talk theory if we are at the same school? I am worried im going to miss getting my philosophical fix after my PHIL-degree is done 🤓

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • I feel like unless you're on the board for, like, a far-right white supremacist party or something really out there like the Rhinoceros Party, I doubt they'd hold it against you. If it's one of the big four (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green), I really don't think they'd care. If you're still unsure or not comfortable, though, you can always leave out the party name. Just as a heads up, though, when you submit your OLSAS sketch you also need to submit the names of people who can verify your involvement in the role. They only contact these people if they suspect something's fishy with what you've said, but if on the off chance they do reach out (and it really isn't that often, one of mine said that they've been listed as a verifier for tons of law school applicants and schools have never once called), they'll be able to find out the party name then, so it may not even matter.
    • I can't see a problem mentioning it in law school applications. However, I can't seeing it being more of an advantage than any other EC or community participation during undergrad. As for job interviews, it's unlikely to be of much benefit and, in some circumstances, may be a detriment.
    • Yes, I received an ITC email today (not specifying the firm for anonymity, but feel free to PM me if you're curious!)   My friend heard from Harris yesterday.
    • This forum drips with Ontario chauvinism and consistently gives UVic too little credit and Oz too much credit.
    • Accepted this morning! 😄 CGPA: 3.46 LSAT: 160 Still waiting to hear back from Carleton about my admission to the MA/JD dual degree program.  Probably will accept, but not 100% sure yet. Good luck to everybody else!

×
×
  • Create New...