Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that the sciences are taken more seriously than the arts?

83 replies

toptramp · 12/10/2011 21:50

I did love science at school. Well Chemistry and Biology but my maths was shite so decided to drop Chemistry at a-level and took Biology a language and English. I now have a degree in the arts but I think I would be taken more seriously and earn more if I had stuck with Chemistry a-level and got a science degree instead. I do love Biology but I love my degree subject so much taht I'm glad I did it.

I guess scientists and related professions do a great service to humanity(generally but not always) so they should be rewarded. But the world would be a poorer place without the arts.

OP posts:
EllaDee · 12/10/2011 23:12

But then, we'd probably still be living in caves wondering how to develop science if we'd never learned to use language and write down stories ... and plenty of 'science' is just as decorative and impractical as an embroidered tent (like that thing on QI recently about a guy whose long-term research was into, wait for it ... which testicle tends to hang lowest ...).

TrenteSix · 12/10/2011 23:13

Science is indeed very creative - and linguistics is a science.

helpmabob · 12/10/2011 23:13

Detailed analysis of historical events hardly make the world a little nicer, more paint a depressing picture of cyclical horrors. To break that cycle we must understand the background, causes, psychology of society and more. Fine Art, literature all help to fill in historical detail. I suggest you indulge in some of these nicey nice arts to give yourself a more balanced view of this world. And I don't believe that many of the past's atrocities would have changed without the help the Arts gave to illuminating such issues. Honestly what an incredibly blinkered viewpoint.

EllaDee · 12/10/2011 23:13

Oops, big cross-post: that was to trente's post about the embroidered tents.

TrenteSix · 12/10/2011 23:18

No that's a fair point about understanding past atrocities. Literature is a hugely valuable tool for understanding other lives and art was (and is) used as a teaching tool. I wouldn't knock history as a study neither (is it an art?).

My viewpoint is simply that if you weight it all up, it's fair enough that science gets eg more funding: it does more of the work of improving the world, albeit incrementally.

cat64 · 12/10/2011 23:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

cat64 · 12/10/2011 23:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

helpmabob · 12/10/2011 23:20

That is gracious of you trentesix and I do take your point about funding. I was merely arguing that they are both respectable and important disciplines.

MillyR · 12/10/2011 23:21

Yes, but how would we would be living without the legal system, or a democratic political system, which are not within the natural sciences?

helpmabob · 12/10/2011 23:22

yes Cat64 but I do believe the two are interlinked and that the Arts has inspired much of the imagination needed to further science. But also that the world needs both to improve and prosper

EllaDee · 12/10/2011 23:24

Hmm.

I think one problem is, there is a tendency to believe science is all about practical stuff that changes lives. It isn't, though. Plenty of science is just as pie-in-the-sky as the artist fartiest arts. With lots of research I think you simply can't know what will turn out to be important or practical in teh long run. So we can't easily distinguish between 'proper, important science that will Change The World' (albeit incrementally as mentioned) and 'fascinating but useless/fascinating but very briefly of very limited use science'. Therefore, IMO the dividing line between Sciences and Arts is a bit arbitrary.

MrBloomsNursery · 12/10/2011 23:28

Well, there's no money in the Biological Sciences, unless you're a pharmacist or doctor...or dentist or optimetrist....all the other scientists are working 24 hours a day on a shitty wage - I don't think they're taken that seriously, unless they invent a cure or something. I suppose physicists are taken a bit more seriously though.

helpmabob · 12/10/2011 23:30

There's not really any money for anything at the moment Sad. My brother is a geneticist and he frequently complains of the lack of funding. He left the UK to work in the states as there is slightly and I mean slightly more funding there.

MrsStephenFry · 12/10/2011 23:57

Your argument sounds rather confused. What exactly are you talking about, and what do you mean by arts anyway?
You seem to be saying that science qualifications are seen as harder to obtain than arts ones. To which the answer must be a resounding well, duh!

EllaDee · 12/10/2011 23:59

Oh, surely only idiots think that, mrsstephen? Smile

kakapo · 13/10/2011 00:43

why do you think that mrsstephen? i ask as a science graduate.

itchywitch · 13/10/2011 01:10

I think perhaps the impact of arts is being underestimated here. Politics, history, gender studies and philosophy inform our governments? policies and as a result, impact our whole society. How we do things isn?t just because, it?s due to centuries of political thought and research.

spiderslegs · 13/10/2011 01:24

We rode in sorrow, with strong hounds three
& infinity is lemniscate x three

Scrodinger
Are you there?
I see
a cat
Less real then me.

KatAndKit · 13/10/2011 05:38

The art subjects are totally worthwhile to study, I have a degree in Languages and mostly studied medieval literature.

However, science and technology is obviously the way to make more money. This doesn't mean it is "valued" more, it is just a simple economic fact. No multinational companies can make billions from poetry, but they can from Chemistry.

ScaredBear · 13/10/2011 08:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Peachy · 13/10/2011 08:44

Trente good question

To be honest I THINK what has happened is that our uni does not offer MSc options but has linked forces with a charity covering SN plus has a big education intake- so it's fallen under the MA label.

Does how up a few inconsistencies though. As I sit staring at pages of protocols and research articles on Athens thinking- hmm.

Peachy · 13/10/2011 08:48

I do think the funding is obvious if not necessarily morally right.

DH can make someone a fortune potentially designing new complex console things in his field, all electronic wizardry and marketability.

I on the other hand can maximise the potential of someone with a disability and formulate relevant policies for their needs. He makes, I spend.

We have a capitalist society.

cory · 13/10/2011 08:50

Arts aren't just about making pretty pictures: graduates in history and Modern Languages often end up in high powered jobs and/or politics.

Plenty of jobs depend on the ability to digest large quantities of written material, analysing underlying causes of events and verbalising this to others- in other words, the kind of skills you get from a good history degree. It's not just about gaining some kind of deeper personal enlightenment: many jobs these days are about communicating and handling words on a very practical level. And ML students are highly employable.

I think it is a pity that the sciences are not valued more highly in this country- we need both- but I can understand why the Arts are valued.

Bonsoir · 13/10/2011 08:54

In modern society everyone who wants to be anyone needs a firm grasp of the sciences and the humanities.

Peachy · 13/10/2011 08:55

Chap next door has a PHd in an arts subject.

Specialises in Islamic terrorism, gives talks around the UK, advises people etc.

Rather useful to us all. Alongside his no doubt science based colleagues who work to develop counter terrorism techniques.

Mix of both is what we need.

Swipe left for the next trending thread