Jim Webster writes

as I grow older I realise that I should have stuck to the arts side, i could
happily and blathered my way through with no real effort.
Science tends to be hard work and on a strict cost benefit analysis you will
note that you often get a similar sort of job with a arts/humanities degree
as you do with a science

You are correct.

What's more the kids have spotted this, hence the significant reductions
in science/maths applications and the rise of media studies.

Of course I and my kids are crippled with dyslexia, which makes science
very attractive. However (and fortunately) these days horrendous
spelling is not heavily marked down as it was in my day.

Basically a science undergraduate can expect something approaching (and
exceeding) 20 lectures a week, plus several hours of practicals.

An arts undergraduate can expect some 5 hrs of lectures (which are
pretty optional), "reading weeks" (=weeks holiday) and a generally much
easier time.

So the difficulty difference between arts/science is now pretty immense.
If you want a worker, take on a science graduate.

My daughter, with A levels good enough to read maths almost anywhere and
sciences anywhere in the UK, has switched to economics. She isn't daft.

My son, fool that he is, is doing mathematical physics: say no more.
[Eh? Oh, he is in the scrape through - good time, division.]
[Still does many times the work of his arts friends, though.]

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.