.png)
I always wondered if this was just a blind spot to me because I have always excelled in maths and science. I continued to study both until I was 18 and I always felt that it was harder to be good at literature and history than maths and physics.
For example, in my country, far more students get the highest grade in maths and physics. The course involves learning and understanding concepts which you can then apply to a somewhat limited range of problems. There is definitely room for creativity in the questions, and the difficulty comes from forming a strategy to solve problems with multiple steps under time pressure.
However, an English literature exam at 18 would require you to have read around 10-15 books and plays on the topic, and quote, analyse and make connections between them for a given theme that you only see at the start of the exam. That means you need to not only understand the material but also understand the context and how it all fits together. You need to be able to articulate your ideas to a high standard and give creative insights to be able to get the top grades.
I see politicians with years of experience answering questions or debating who can barely articulate their ideas under pressure. So I don't get why we regard English and history as the light, fluffy subjects to study when they tend to kick everybody's butt.
Great Topic. Arts & humnaities use different types of 'intelligence' than STEM. On face value, and to a basic point, STEM is much 'easier' to learn and 'get right' because 1+1 will always =2. It's often technical, and very straight forward.
Art/Humanities requires a different kind of creative thinking, synthesis of information, and, at times, intellectualism. (However, the best scientists and inventors understand the value of this kind of creative thinking, and often can be found utilising both and 'sitting on the cusp' of arts and science... eg Da Vinci, Einstein etc... if you listen to how they talked about science, it almost sounds like art).
STEM is great for the 'bricks' of technological advances, but without Arts/humanities we are screwed because all that we create is out of touch and does not ultimately serve humanity in the whole sense.
Humanities is not 'harder' than STEM, it is different, and you also can't really lump it all into one category because it is a very VAST and varied sphere.
If it's difficult for people, it's because it is not a skill many people are developing these days because "ALL HAIL SCIENCE".
Trying to solve human problems/issues with maths/science is like trying to give a dehydrated cow a shoe and hoping it will recover, because you are using one of the best shoes in the world and it's evidence based and proven.
Humanities, (real) critical thinking, independent thought, creative thought (there are different kinds), lateral thinking, imagination, heart, ethics, morals, spirituality even, etc, these are all thouroughly devalued skills (and they are SKILLS), in this era. You can see it in how education is funded/defunded, and you could even argue that throughout history, as fascist regimes crept up their hold of power, they first gutted the arts and humanities in education. This can definitely be seen in some developed nations over the past decade.
Also, I will add, than humanities is often NOT black and white. And being able to navigate those realities is another skill ain and of itself, which I see a lot of people losing.
I have some ideas about why this is happening, but that goes beyond the scope of this post, and comment. My 2c worth...
Basic rule of male supremacy: whatever is profitable, popular or en vogue, men will pretend to be “naturally superior” at.
When computer programming was newer, women were seen as good at it. When it became profitable, MBA and engineering bros pretended to be nAturAllY superior.
In Western nations where individualism is valued, we see men as more independent and individualistic.
In Eastern/Asian cultures where being interdependent and social is valued, men are seen as being the more connected and social ones.
If STEM is seen as good, men will pretend to be better at it. The same would be true if humanities becomes favored.
See how the male supremacy works? “Heads“ women lose. “Tails“ men win.
I'm sure we're all different. I've had to take a lot of psychology, philosophy, social studies, political science, and English classes. For me, they were fluff. I always made sure to take no more than two science classes at a time during each semester so as not to overwhelm myself, but the other classes were no bother. The only thing that was somewhat of a struggle was a social studies class where I had a very biased instructor. He "welcomed disagreement", but not really. In order to ace his class I had to tell him exactly what he wanted to hear at all times. I am very opinionated, so it was hard. On my very last essay, I already had such high marks that I could have still gotten an A even if I got a C on that assignment. I decided to finally let loose and state my real opinions on an issue. He gave me a C, wrote some nasty remarks on my paper, and gave me an A- in the class, which was bogus. The math didn't add up one bit. He was just pissed.
Humanities are easy because you don’t have to know facts, you can make arguments based from feelings and impressions you gathered from the material.
Humanities are hard because facts won’t save you, you have to be able to make arguments based from feelings and impressions you gathered from the material.
It’s all about your type of intelligence. I did an undergrad science course fairly recently to prove to myself I could pass and in some ways it was easier than what I actually read when I was at uni (in many ways harder). The experiment proved to me that all courses are challenging in their own way and the truly smart people study the topics that fit what they actually enjoy.
Yours, a social scientist who cant help but keep testing theories 😉
Politics is a whole other ball game though...
I think it depends on your strengths as an individual. As for it being easier to get better grades in STEM, in my experience that is because being correct is easy to prove- the calculation is right, the code works etc, as opposed to humanities where the marking is more subjective and often based on if the teacher likes it.
I think different types people have different intellectual strengths. I did ok in stem but like humanities more. How would I do in humanities? Who knows?!
I did my bachelor's in computer science and a PhD in philosophy - personally, I found computer science harder, but I think that's just because I had a natural aptitude for philosophy. When marking undergrads I was truly shocked at how poorly some STEM majors (especially engineers for some reason) argue and write.