[s]
the Empress wrote on 23:07, 27th Oct 2004:
If you study a science, and don't like it, what's the point of putting yourself through 4 years of hell? To get yourself a job in an area you hate, making your life miserable forever?
I do not see the relevance of this point as it would apply to all people regardless of their faculty.
In "defending" arts subjects there is no need to make it look like all or most science people hate their subject just because it is hard and there is no obligation to work solely in your own field with a science degree. Maths for example is one of the versatile degrees to have when it comes to choosing your field or work.
And again no one said a science degree would be more relevant than an arts degree, just that over a wider range of "general" jobs a science degree does look more impressive. Both degree holders show that from having a degree they possess the right skills in terms of all that has been discussed (analytical thinking, presentation etc etc) but in addition has the intelligence and stamina to have achieved a science degree which usually is a lot more demanding, physically and mentally. Whether or not this is the case because generally it is seen to be true it is often the case that it is seen to be the truth (especially if your employer has a science degree obv!). Now while applying for the job of journalist an arts graduate will get the job, applying for a managerial position is a whole different thing (ps social sciences don' count as arts subjects in more employers eyes so no shouting of "management, economics"

).
However no discussion on over all what faculty is better to have graduated from will ever work as there is no "over all" job, people get over defensive and before you know where you are science students are bashing arts students with books while arts students scream that they work just as hard as those with 3 hour labs 5 days a week.
Wait til you graduate, get a job and form your own opinion whatever it may be!