Are science degrees considered harder than humanities/arts degrees?

[LoniceraJaponica]

DD has been deiscussing with her boyfriend that the degree she wants to do (biomedical science) has a lot of contact hours (upwards of 21 hours a week dependig on where she goes).

He has been crowing that he will have about 9 or 10 hours a week (history). Obviously there is lab work to take into consideration for DD, and both degrees rely on a lot of self study. Is the BF deluded that he is going to have a much easier ride?

*Purpleleotard" I think Rutherford said "Physics is learning all other science is stamp collecting"

It's a brilliant sound bite .

I did ask DS ( History ) whether science degrees are harder. He said immediately - yes of course - I couldn't do it. But then some of his degree was original research not churning out stuff or being able to write an elegant essay with what he remembered from 6th form etc. So times going to proper archives etc & lots & lots of reading Anyway it matters not - people have aptitudes and inclinations and those will dictate what they find " easier".

Was this Mark Twain - or is that apocryphal - but similar I think - "find a job you enjoy and you will never work a day in your life. " Wish I had

but then some of his degree was original research
Basilik science degrees also have short research projects and independent reading. Scientists generally also have to write good prose, even physicists! The type of writing is different of course.
Humanities and STEM degrees should both be developing original as well as analytical thinking in addition to the usual subject specific craft skills.
Depends of course what is meant by harder.
Humanities at undergraduate level certainly takes more self discipline to get the most out of a degree. However IME students can fit in more 'partying' whilst on track for getting a reasonable 2:1.
As an aside, physicists and mathematicians have a tendency to point out that they can go to humanity lectures /tutorials and understand the content (excepting languages). Humanity students can't do the converse.

I wouldn't disagree Sendsummer & I don't think my son would either. But then he did once stand at the back of a philosophy lecture and hadn't the slightest clue what they were talking about, I believe it can get very mathematical . But then he "lost" maths during 6th form. Oh I do not doubt scientists have to be able to write clear good prose & do research . Just saying the likes of History isn't just a tutorial and a couple of seminars a week and then bashing out an elegant essay. To do it well does take a lot of hours and as you say self disciplined hours, and analysis. That said - it gives the student more leeway to organise their own time to suit themselves and to fit in other things. But contact hours don't = hours worked ( to do it well. )

To me, a physics degree would not just be harder , it would be well nigh impossible

I think partying is less necessary for scientists because lab work is very collaborative. If you've been chatting to your mates all the time while working then the need to go out with them in the evening is less than if you've been reading alone in your room all day.

I did a history degree centuries ago, my DS did a joint history degree a few years ago and now my DD (Year 13) is applying to study history and we've just done some open days. So I feel vaguely qualified to comment!

Lonerica, as you suspect, your daughter's BF is deluding himself if he thinks he's going to have nothing much to do. I hope he comes to understand that contact time is only a part of studying history and can find the self-discipline to do all the reading and - yes - original research required. Add to that the fact that there's actually rather a lot to learn for exams!

My university housemates were medical and engineering students who were at lectures or in the lab all day, whereas I had lots of non-contact time. However, I honestly think I worked as hard as they did.

DD is doing an engineering degree and lives with non-STEM students. The amount of work she does is far more than the others - both in terms of contact hours and non-contact hours.

hellsbells - then she just might end up with a better degree than they do

Basilisk - she will certainly end up with a different degree from them. DD wouldn't necessarily want to do their degree courses as it's not where her strengths lie. She enjoys living with them as they make life more fun and she can choose when to join in and when to work.

Good luck to her hellsbells I love my son dearly and he is very good at some things - so history and absorbing lots of information and making an argument with evidence - all of which is useful. However , love him as I do I would rather drive over a bridge your DD has designed , or have a medical procedure with equipment designed by her , or fly in a plane or go in a tunnel designed by her. ( I am showing my very great ignorance , probably of engineering here ) But I hope you see my point. Good luck to your DD . Actually Ds's friends were mostly humanities / languages , but at least one was physics. I don't think the students are a million miles apart when they become friends.

I did an arts degree and my boyfriend at the tine did science. He worked far longer hours than me. In the lab and at lectures all day long. I lay on the grass reaidng all day long, but that was actually the work we needed to do. There was almost no teaching because you needed so much reading time. If I hadn;t read so widely I'd have done less well in my exams.

Anyone who thinks they can do history on 10 hours a week is kidding themselves. 10 hours reading, 10 hours writing and then some lectures, seminars and tutorials - 25 hours minimum I think. Still a lot less than a science degree.

I think partying is less necessary for scientists because lab work is very collaborative

Come to think, I get the impression quite a bit of DDs 'socialising' is with other engineers, working on problems, especially coding project type of thing. But she enjoys hanging out with others too - just has to be disciplined about turning in at a sensible time if (as is usual) she's got a 9 o'clock lecture, even if others don't.

As an aside, physicists and mathematicians have a tendency to point out that they can go to humanity lectures /tutorials and understand the content (excepting languages).

I suspect there are some other disciplines where the content may be quite opaque even if ostensibly in English. A cynic might think this is deliberate in some cases.

I had 12 hours in 1st year, 6 in 2/3rd and 2-4 hours per week for my masters. There are no labs, it is assumed that the reading will take up many more hours but it rarely does because nobody bothers much.
And that was a top 10 uni.

Few of them will understand MFL translation classes. Or Dante’s Inferno. Each to his own and we need all these skills! Not just Stem as we are led to believe.

But then again the people on my course were very talented at their subjects so maybe it's different elsewhere.
DP did an MSci and my work may as well have been in Spanish for all he could understand it.
It's all about aptitude.

Each to his own and we need all these skills! Not just Stem as we are led to believe.

The reason STEM is pushed so much is because of the skills shortage. We (I work in pharms) really struggle to recruit people with any experience. Graduates with a year in industry are very desirable for us.

It's the opposite of something like drama where there are thousands of actors chasing a few desirable jobs. It's just supply and demand. Doesn't mean the skills in the more popular subjects aren't needed, just that more people have them.

BubblesBuddy in my post I did say understand the content (excepting languages). Unless of course a mathematician or physicist is also multilingual and there will be more than a few of those.

But then he did once stand at the back of a philosophy lecture and hadn't the slightest clue what they were talking about, I believe it can get very mathematical. Basilik whereas a mathematician or physicist would be better placed to tackle the logic side of philosophy.

Actually perhaps the hardest degrees are those combining maths or physics with philosophy.

Well exactly Sendsummer - hence PPE - pretty hard. I suppose my point was , easy to understand the words in a say History or English (i.e. non MFL) lecture & to be interested , how hard is it then to take that from the likes of listening to Melvyn Bragg" in our time" and turn it into ( with extra reading) into an academically respectable essay. I just don't know. Without having talented scientists taking e.g. the History Aptitude test and seeing how they do ( no revision required ) it's hard to tell.
In the last resort ( and I am simply chatting with this post , very hard to tell) I do , understand that there are a shortage of STEM skills. The problem is if a young person's talents lie in another direction can you make a round peg fit a square hole , I suspect not. & we also need analytical & methodical and academic people for other things - e.g. Law.
And indeed the stamina for having to do a very great amount of reading & learn it for future construction of argument ( not just repeating it. )

Anyway to all on here whose DCs are doing STEM subjects. DH many years ago did Maths at University & I think would have loved DS to take after him but sadly DS's Maths aptitude ran out before DH's did. ( DH did Maths degree before Adam was a lad)

So the consensus is that they aren't necessarily harder, but they are more time consuming.

I can see why some universities put undergrads doing similar degrees in halls together. If DD was in a flat with a load of party animals who never have to get up early and only go to a couple of lectures a week she would struggle.

I'm doing an a masters in education at a Scottish uni and on average here during a humanities you will do 4 topics in both first and 2nd year each with 2x 1hr lectures and 1x 1hr tutorial/workshop equalling around 12hrs contact time. Some subjects have a third lecture but I only know of 1 or 2 across the humanties.

I think part of the problem is we specialise way too early in the UK. In other countries, you could do arts and science subjects when you start at university and not decide on what your major subject will be till later, rather than deciding what narrow range of A-levels and then what degree to take.

I work in a techy role in IT and I have a degree in computer science, but I also have a degree in history, and I think on a day-to-day basis, I probably use the analytical skills from that more than the computer science techy skills, and I think the ability to work through lots of data from a variety of sources, and my writing skills, definitely makes me better at my job. It's having the skills from both sides that makes me better than many of my colleagues. (History was a lot of work, but it was far fewer contact hours, and it was a lot easier to be flexible about when I did it.)

DD did take a humanities A level along with her 2 science ones. She also had to do a research project, so hopefully, she won't lose those skills before she goes to university.

I did a Biology degree at a Russell Group uni and think the 'hard' aspect of a science degree is the sheer volume of content and theory you have to absorb and then regurgitate in a huge number of exams.

My finals were a 'big deal' and you could have triumphed or fallen on them alone, whereas I had friends on history degrees who had so much continuous assessment and so few exams they went into them more or less sure of what you were going to get.

There was also much more spread of results in a science degree. My scores in exams varied between -7-84%. I remember my sister bitching that it was so much easier for science and maths students as you could get 100% in an exam, which you couldn't in an arts or humanities degree. I pointed out her to get a score below 60% for anything, whereas even very strong students truely 'flunked' exams on my course.

Its also the case I went on to do a professional qualification that involved studying politics, economics, ethics, history and design. I was very capable of this but wonder how many arts and hunanities students could have hacked a STEM postgrad. Just sayin' 😬

"As an aside, physicists and mathematicians have a tendency to point out that they can go to humanity lectures /tutorials and understand the content (excepting languages). Humanity students can't do the converse"

Well, perhaps that does argue for the superior communication skills taught by humanities then?

Though I strongly doubt that a STEM student could just rock up to a seminar about kennings in Beowulf or stemmatic editing of a manuscript tradition or a structuralist reading of the Iliad and automatically understand what is going on. My experience from teaching STEM students on humanities modules is that they need quite a bit of training to get it.

Ime music students are generally the easiest to teach. But that's not because they automatically understand the subject: it's because they understand the concept of hard work

I also have a degree in history, and I think on a day-to-day basis, I probably use the analytical skills from that more than the computer science techy skills, and I think the ability to work through lots of data from a variety of sources,

I think there's a false dichotomy... STEM disciplines absolutely require analytical skills and being able to work through data from many sources. Some of this may not be so obvious at an undergraduate level because you need to have a lot of knowledge before you stand a chance of understanding many of those sources.

For many quantitative degrees, and here I would include some social science degrees, maths is like a language. You need it, not for its own sake, but to access the material.

This creates a problem as you need to always be one step ahead on the maths. Which can be very tough for those who are not natural mathematicians, and why second years of degrees can be much tougher than final years. (And why it is not aa particuarly good idea to slack off in your first year.)

But then there is a language, or at least critical framework (is that the right term) needed for humanities. Those that fail to master it effectively at an early stage will also struggle.