Why are there so many more arts and social science than natural science people here?

[CubismCubed]

I'm kind of new to the site but have noticed that there are many more social science than physical science people here. If you look at the subforums for different fields of study you'll see many more posts in those about the arts, humanities, and social sciences than natural sciences. Are art or social science people more likely to post on message boards? More likely to stress about grad apps? better at trolling? Are natural science people more likely to lurk?

Any thoughts?

[guest56436]

Maybe there is an alternative out there. For example, economics has a different forum for grad applications, that's why there are like zero people in that field on here.

[Carly Rae Jepsen]

I haven't noticed actually. Biologists have a nice subforum to talk about their apps, meanwhile only 3 members are applying to French this cycle. It all depends.

[Jay.B]

Haha. Good to note. I actually thought that the forum was highly mixed. Well, judging form the different threads that i have read. The forum seems to have mixed fields but maybe one genre tends to ask more questions than the others 

All in all...the forum is brilliant! (well, for me)

[TakeruK]

Physics also has their own website and related fields often go there. I think Math does too.

However, at least in Canada, there are way more social science and humanities grad students than there are natural sciences and engineering students. The main funding agencies for Canadian grad students publish the number of applicants and grants awarded each year. The two relevant ones to this discuss are SSHRC: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and NSERC: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. For the most recent competition cycle:

NSERC: 1500 applications (Source)

SSHRC: 4100 applications (Source)

In previous years, I noticed that the ratio of SSHRC to NSERC in Canada is around 3:1 and this is in keeping with that. If we imagine North America to be just "Canada, scaled up", then I would expect to see a lot more social sciences and humanities students than natural science/engineering students.

Of course, these numbers come with caveats, such as maybe NSERC-eligible people don't apply as often. But most schools in Canada require applicants to apply to external awards in order to be eligible for internal awards.

[ClassicsCandidate]

I suppose the subforum may differ as well; I noticed that the Classics subforum is almost non-existent and not many people post in there. 

[juilletmercredi]

@TakeruK I thought that might be the explanation, too. But according to our national survey - the Survey of Earned Doctorates, conducted by the National Science Foundation - in 2016, people in the life sciences, physical sciences, mathematics and computer sciences, and engineering made up 58% of earned doctorates in the U.S. The numbers in 2011 were pretty similar. Psychology and the social sciences only made up about 17% of the total (in the United States under the auspices of the NSF, they are considered STEM degrees, but the Survey of Earned Doctorates does break them out) and humanities and arts only made up about 10% of the total. (The other degrees are in education and other professional fields, like business and nursing).

[TakeruK]

I tried to find similar data from Canada. Apparently we have not done a Survey of Earned Doctorates since the mid-2000s! In one report, it turns out that just over 70% of earned doctorates are in Science and Engineering. The report compares the fraction from the US's survey at the same time period and it was 68% or so. One caveat was that this survey had approximately a 50% response rate but still, I guess either the demographics have really changed in the 10+ years since the last survey, or that using grant applications isn't a good method after all (suggesting that many NSERC-eligible applicants aren't applying?).

[samman1994]

Well I'd say the biggest reason is there are probably more people in those fields than the natural sciences. In my undergrad, all of Chemistry, Biochemistry, physics, math, computer science, and yes even biology and engineering, was still dwarfed in comparison to psychology graduates. Combined, even all of the fields above including psychology, were still dwarfed in comparison to the social sciences. 

Now these are undergrad numbers, but as juillet stated prior, the numbers for grad school regarding stem fields and social sciences is reversed. However, I'd argue that the people here don't represent the number of people that are graduating with those degrees, but those that are simply interested in pursuing those degrees. Based off of undergrad stats, one could say there are simply a larger number of social science majors, or people interested in social sciences, but based on grad schools stats one could argue more stem field majors successfully get their degrees or successfully pursue their degree compared to social sciences. That still means this site would have a larger number of social science people (or people interested in the subject), and based off juilets stats, that just means they may be less successful at pursuing it (Note: I am not stating why they are less successful, just indicating one way to interpert the stats).

One final factor, that I think is as equally important, is the discussion of these topics. I have seen a variety of discussions on these forums regarding religious, historical, or even ethic/moral topics. In contrast, there aren't many discussions on here regarding the topic of natural sciences. The fact of the matter is it's just far easier to have a simple discussion between historians on this forum board regarding some type of simple historical topic, but far more difficult to discuss why Einsteins physics is superior to say Newtonian physics or something similar. Whereas a simple grad school question can go on for maybe 3 or 4 posts, a discussion regarding a certain topic can go on for pages and pages of posts. 

[ltr317]

"some type of simple historical topic"

There are no simple historical topics.  All history is complex, multifaceted, and messy.  The difference is that the typical question in the History subforum is specific, so if someone is  asking about a certain period, theme, or perspective in say, Latin American or African history, I'm not going to answer because my specialty is 19th century United States history.  Same reason why I don't answer if the question concerns graduate history programs outside my field of interest. 

 

[khigh]

48 minutes ago, ltr317 said:

"some type of simple historical topic"

There are no simple historical topics.  All history is complex, multifaceted, and messy.  The difference is that the typical question in the History subforum is specific, so if someone is  asking about a certain period, theme, or perspective in say, Latin American or African history, I'm not going to answer because my specialty is 19th century United States history.  Same reason why I don't answer if the question concerns graduate history programs outside my field of interest. 

 

This is what I was about to say.  I would have little problems answering questions about 17th Century Dutch topics/modern Netherlands/Dutch politics/language and law, but I couldn't discuss much about the Civil War or the 7 Years War from the perspective of an American (I'm American, but a Europeanist).  Let's talk Dutch ships in the Mediterranean during the 80 Years War, but let's not talk about Southeast Asian art (unless it's Dutch East Indies). The only topic outside my field of interest I'm even remotely okay at is 19th Century BASEBALL. That's it. Not tennis, not football, not cricket. Just baseball. 

 

1 hour ago, samman1994 said:

One final factor, that I think is as equally important, is the discussion of these topics. I have seen a variety of discussions on these forums regarding religious, historical, or even ethic/moral topics. In contrast, there aren't many discussions on here regarding the topic of natural sciences. The fact of the matter is it's just far easier to have a simple discussion between historians on this forum board regarding some type of simple historical topic, but far more difficult to discuss why Einsteins physics is superior to say Newtonian physics or something similar. Whereas a simple grad school question can go on for maybe 3 or 4 posts, a discussion regarding a certain topic can go on for pages and pages of posts. 

Historians don't have simple discussions.  I would think you would find our discussions to be complex and, at times, heated. There is more theory than you would probably think and I've seen discussions over theory or even qualitative vs quantitative research to get very deep. We are passionate people and without the "simple discussions" of historians, we wouldn't have a lot of the science people study today.  It was the historian that revived the Greek and Roman ways of thinking.  We can also go on and on about, say, how phenomenological research is superior/inferior to ontological or why Braudel's studies are/are not a superior way to view the Mediterranean. Nothing in discussing the past is simple or easy. 

[samman1994]

I don't know why you think I'm undermining history or implying it can't be complex, simply that you can have simple conversations around history but not about sciences. The fact of the matter is, a lot more people know basic history (or at least i'd hope), then basic chemistry, math, or physics. I have seen and read several posts regarding history and religion that were about simple basic concepts that anyone could discuss (so not all of them are regarding majoring in some specific historical timeline/place). 

Fact of the matter is, I could discuss the civil war with a historian. Will it be in detail regarding the specific battles or generals? No, but I can discuss simple history regarding why the civil war may have been fought, or the philosophy of each side. I'd find (and hope to find) many that could also discuss these same topics without majoring in history. However, I'd find it difficult indeed to discuss even the simplest topics of Chemistry and Physics.

Personally, I attribute this to the basic education system in America (i should've mentioned all of this that I'm discussing is regarding America). You are required throughout K-12 to take a variety of history classes almost every other year, however you don't cover Chemistry until your junior year, and most people never even take physics. Note that the main difference I am implying in these topics is their ability to be simplified. I find a topic such as History, a topic that can be very very specific and complex, but can also be made very simple and base. I do not see that happening as much to say something like Chemistry. People have the general knowledge of History (at least again, I hope), there was a civil war south slaves north free, world war 1, world war 2, nazis bad, etc. (these are all things that can at the very least serve as a basis for a discussion) However I'd argue most people don't even have the simplest knowledge of Chemistry. What is Chemistry? About... Chemicals? Whats an acid, whats a base, what even is hydrogen or helium? Personally, I cannot speak the same about Physics and engineering (especially electrical), or even computer science (since I am not in these fields), but I can imagine they are all the same.

[TakeruK]

18 minutes ago, samman1994 said:

I don't know why you think I'm undermining history or implying it can't be complex, simply that you can have simple conversations around history but not about sciences.

I think this is incorrect and the way you brought it up did sound like you were trying to undermine history. Combined with what you write here later, although you may not intend it to be so, it does come across as you thinking the sciences are superior and that it's harder to have an intelligent conversation in science than it is in history. But this is really not true.

19 minutes ago, samman1994 said:

No, but I can discuss simple history regarding why the civil war may have been fought, or the philosophy of each side. I'd find (and hope to find) many that could also discuss these same topics without majoring in history. However, I'd find it difficult indeed to discuss even the simplest topics of Chemistry and Physics.

Maybe *you* think it's hard to discuss the most simple topics of Physics or Chemistry because of "expert blindness". Since you already know so much about these fields, it's hard to think about it from an non-expert's point of view.

I also think you are inconsistent in what you define as "simple" aspects of each field. Your history example is just rote memorization. You say you cannot think of an equivalent in chemistry or physics, but you're stating things learned in high school history class, and there are plenty of equivalents in high school science classes. I would say the equivalent to your description of your discussion of the civil war would be a discussion about the phases of matter. The people that know about the civil war at the level you describe would also know that the basic phases are solid, liquid and gas and that water comes in all three forms. I'm just saying that someone stating these three phases of matter is about the same in-depth of a discussion that you describe as one with the historian. That is to say, it's certainly possible to bring up simple physics and chemistry facts so I don't think it's fair to say that everyone knows the basics of history but no one knows the basics of chemistry. Sure, a non-major would not be able to discuss all of the details of a phase transition, or they might not know all the thermodynamical equations or how to read a phase diagram and you might not feel that this isn't a deep discussion or that your conversation partner doesn't have a true understanding of the material. But the historian in your example may feel the same way as you and your discussion on the civil war.

 

[khigh]

28 minutes ago, samman1994 said:

I don't know why you think I'm undermining history or implying it can't be complex, simply that you can have simple conversations around history but not about sciences. The fact of the matter is, a lot more people know basic history (or at least i'd hope), then basic chemistry, math, or physics. I have seen and read several posts regarding history and religion that were about simple basic concepts that anyone could discuss (so not all of them are regarding majoring in some specific historical timeline/place). 

Fact of the matter is, I could discuss the civil war with a historian. Will it be in detail regarding the specific battles or generals? No, but I can discuss simple history regarding why the civil war may have been fought, or the philosophy of each side. I'd find (and hope to find) many that could also discuss these same topics without majoring in history. However, I'd find it difficult indeed to discuss even the simplest topics of Chemistry and Physics.

Personally, I attribute this to the basic education system in America (i should've mentioned all of this that I'm discussing is regarding America). You are required throughout K-12 to take a variety of history classes almost every other year, however you don't cover Chemistry until your junior year, and most people never even take physics. Note that the main difference I am implying in these topics is their ability to be simplified. I find a topic such as History, a topic that can be very very specific and complex, but can also be made very simple and base. I do not see that happening as much to say something like Chemistry. People have the general knowledge of History (at least again, I hope), there was a civil war south slaves north free, world war 1, world war 2, nazis bad, etc. (these are all things that can at the very least serve as a basis for a discussion) However I'd argue most people don't even have the simplest knowledge of Chemistry. What is Chemistry? About... Chemicals? Whats an acid, whats a base, what even is hydrogen or helium? Personally, I cannot speak the same about Physics and engineering (especially electrical), or even computer science (since I am not in these fields), but I can imagine they are all the same.

Historians cannot even decide how or why the Civil War started...WWI, WWII are even more nuanced.  Heck, I wrote a paper recently about the humanity of the Nazi party, specifically focusing on Goebbels because, well, historians cannot agree (and will never and should not) that good and bad even exist. It's even more difficult to see "good and bad" when you discuss events further back in history because presentism is a huge issue. Most people THINK they have a general idea of history, but historians quickly learn that everything you were taught is wrong. South slaves/North free is even incorrect because it is an absolute statement.  Nothing in history is absolute.

[CubismCubed]

On 12/24/2017 at 5:05 PM, Almaqah Thwn said:

That's an absolute statement. 

So is that

[deleteaccount]

Yeah, there are so many psychology applicants on here. Much more than I was expecting. And as a CS applicant, I expected more of us since it's a booming major. However, I suppose the majority go into industry.

[lemma]

On 24/12/2017 at 9:35 AM, samman1994 said:

 The fact of the matter is it's just far easier to have a simple discussion between historians on this forum board regarding some type of simple historical topic, but far more difficult to discuss why Einsteins physics is superior to say Newtonian physics or something similar. 

This is a far simpler topic that anyone who has taken physics 101 can discuss. PhD level history, on the other hand... I couldn't keep up.

I don't think it has anything to do with the subject matter, but more because there are forums for other disciplines. Physics GRE is quite active, as are other subject specific fields. My guess is physics, economics, finance and some other areas don't have critical mass here. 

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by lemma

[khigh]

9 hours ago, lemma said:

This is a far simpler topic that anyone who has taken physics 101 can discuss. PhD level history, on the other hand... I couldn't keep up.

I don't think it has anything to do with the subject matter, but more because there are forums for other disciplines. Physics GRE is quite active, as are other subject specific fields. My guess is physics, economics, finance and some other areas don't have critical mass here. 

 

I have a 900 page book sitting here about the causes of the Anglo-Dutch Wars. After 900 pages, you know what you learn about the causes? “We can’t agree”