Since leaving uni I feel like I've rather forgotten my old love for science. So when I recently re-discovered a book I had read whilst applying to study science at university, Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins, I found myself transported back to the 17 year old me who was so inspired by science and the challenge of its study.
Forget every preconception you have about Dawkins and his attitudes to religion. Whatever your religious beliefs, it is true that his heavy-handedness regarding his position on the absolute truth of science might make his character, and consequently any of his publications, unappealing to some. But if you have read any of his books (and you really should), you will know just how intensely passionate he is about science. It is a popular notion that scientific truths are far less wondrous than their religious or supernatural counterparts, and it is this belief that Dawkins aims to discredit in Unweaving The Rainbow. It is not a book that shoves atheism down your throat, but a handbook for those who think that there is no mystery to appreciate behind the wonder of science. Dawkins distinguishes features of our universe that demonstrate this wonder, delineating the mystique behind scientific triumphs such as evolutionary time, light and DNA fingerprinting. He carefully offers analogies and thorough examples in order to deepen the reader's understanding, with enjoyable wit and astounding intellect, which even extends to a peppering of poetic quotation that would make even the artsiest science-phobe feel at ease.
The opening lines of the book, which Dawkins has long earmarked to be read at his funeral, offer a taste of the scientific wonder that he presents to the reader:
Such an outlook is probably quite a radical one for most of us, and this same feeling is replicated throughout the book, as Dawkins unweaves the technicalities of the wonders of this world that can only be fully appreciated through a scientific examination.
Science versus The Arts
For some reason, it seems to be an unhappy trend for science to be viewed by the general public as scary and inaccessible, not to mention boring. The average person will know at least a little bit about literature, geography, history, and other 'arts' subjects, but the components of science, as numerous as they are, always seem to be lumped together, with outsiders knowing very little about sub divisions of science, and barely caring. This leads me to the purpose of this post, which is not, as it might have seemed up until now, to review a favourite popular science book of mine (although I definitely recommend you read it, whatever your background!), but to use it as a springboard to write a little about my degree.
"What is Human Sciences?"
Explaining my degree has been a formidable task ever since I applied for it. There is no easy way to explain it, since it is comprised of such vastly different topics; pretty much all of the modules I took as part of my degree were completely different. I can't even categorise it by saying that it is the study of humans from all different angles, because a small proportion of my modules were to do with animals! Bit of a nightmare (especially when incorrect assumptions regarding its content lead me places I don't expect, see previous blog post).
The responses I have met with over the years have consistently been ones of confusion.
"I do/did Human Sciences."
"*Pause. Look blank*
"Is that Human Biology?"
No it is not Human Biology, if it was Human Biology it would be called Human Biology.
"So you're training to be a doctor?"
No, little sister, I am not doing medicine. And please stop going around telling everyone I am, since I've been home for Christmas I've had two family friends come up to me in Tesco and congratulate me.
"Is that about sex and stuff?"
Yes, my degree is entirely about sex. Not. [Actually parts of it was to be fair. Interesting stuff ;)]
"Is that even a real degree?"
Of course it's a real degree! Oxford offer it!
The actual answer is not a simple one.
For anyone who might actually be interested(!), here's a link to the UCL website where you can read some information about the degree. As is noted, there is incredible scope for flexibility and almost complete freedom in what you can choose to study. Your first year is a compulsory mix of what you might call the more hardcore sciences (Anatomy, Biochemistry, Genetics and Physiology), alongside social science modules (Geography, Anthropology and Psychology), as well as Statistics - an important lesson for any student of science. The aim is to provide you with a basic grounding in the social, medical, behavioural and biological study of humans so that you are well able to choose which direction you wish to pursue your studies according to your interests.
In second and third years you are able to choose literally any module you want from the whole university, which amounts to over 50 options across numerous departments. The range available reflects what I've already mentioned - that is, a mix of the life and behavioural/social sciences - but some options that you might not expect include Philosophy, History (of Art/Medicine/Science), Business, Archaeology, Economics and Earth Sciences to name a few. The only stipulation in choosing modules is that you must choose courses from at least three departments, so as to ensure that the degree is inter-disciplinary. This is also reflected in the research project (that dreaded 'dissertation') of your third year, which must be focused on two or three different disciplines, at least one social and one biological. Mine was an exploration of the study of how human altruism has evolved, from the perspectives of evolutionary biology, economics and neuroscience; but other examples of Human Sciences dissertations include topics such as: obesity, pain, cholera, and human mating preferences. This gives you some idea of just how drastically different the Human Sciences degree can be for each student.
What do employers think about Human Sciences?
So hopefully now you know a little more about what is involved in the Human Sciences degree! I believe it is a degree only offered by about five or six universities in England, and the course structure and content differs vastly between these unis too. So I recognise that I cannot expect a lot of people to be completely familiar with it. As I touched on before, I find it a shame that the vast subdivisions within science are generally less well understood than arts subjects. Everyone has a pretty clear impression of what an English degree involves; but how employers view my degree is a concern of mine. Does it spark their interest or even make me stand out as a candidate with a unique background? Or does the lack of clarity regarding its content leave them unsure about my suitability to a role? What with marketing employers seemingly tending to favour arts degrees such as English owing to their heavy focus on writing, I fear that employers will be misled by the degree name and type (Human Sciences BSc) and will discount me as lacking in this skill.
Do I regret studying Human Sciences?
Despite these concerns, rereading Unweaving The Rainbow following the completion of my degree has been a pleasant reminder of how, no matter how frustrating my job hunt gets, I have no regrets about my choice of degree course. Often I have found myself getting frustrated when my degree is overlooked (or maybe worse, looked at too intently - again see previous blog post). But the thrill of academic study, in particular the unique and varied course of study I undertook, is something that I would have always regretted not aiming for.
Doing an academic degree allowed me to satisfy my appetite for learning for its own sake, and also take some quite cool classes (looking at human bones in archaeology, tutorials about the evolution of homosexuality, free trips to London Zoo) which I probably won't have the chance to do again. It also meant I was motivated to obtain as much knowledge and experience in my chosen field as possible in order to compete with marketing students, a challenge that I have really enjoyed. I want to, and will hopefully, work in marketing for the rest of my life, and so far I have not met with too much of a challenge having to 'learn on the job'. So, really, I am very glad to have spent my three years at uni as a 'Humsci' :)
The opening lines of the book, which Dawkins has long earmarked to be read at his funeral, offer a taste of the scientific wonder that he presents to the reader:
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?"
Such an outlook is probably quite a radical one for most of us, and this same feeling is replicated throughout the book, as Dawkins unweaves the technicalities of the wonders of this world that can only be fully appreciated through a scientific examination.
Science versus The Arts
For some reason, it seems to be an unhappy trend for science to be viewed by the general public as scary and inaccessible, not to mention boring. The average person will know at least a little bit about literature, geography, history, and other 'arts' subjects, but the components of science, as numerous as they are, always seem to be lumped together, with outsiders knowing very little about sub divisions of science, and barely caring. This leads me to the purpose of this post, which is not, as it might have seemed up until now, to review a favourite popular science book of mine (although I definitely recommend you read it, whatever your background!), but to use it as a springboard to write a little about my degree.
"What is Human Sciences?"
Explaining my degree has been a formidable task ever since I applied for it. There is no easy way to explain it, since it is comprised of such vastly different topics; pretty much all of the modules I took as part of my degree were completely different. I can't even categorise it by saying that it is the study of humans from all different angles, because a small proportion of my modules were to do with animals! Bit of a nightmare (especially when incorrect assumptions regarding its content lead me places I don't expect, see previous blog post).
The responses I have met with over the years have consistently been ones of confusion.
"I do/did Human Sciences."
"*Pause. Look blank*
"Is that Human Biology?"
No it is not Human Biology, if it was Human Biology it would be called Human Biology.
"So you're training to be a doctor?"
No, little sister, I am not doing medicine. And please stop going around telling everyone I am, since I've been home for Christmas I've had two family friends come up to me in Tesco and congratulate me.
"Is that about sex and stuff?"
Yes, my degree is entirely about sex. Not. [Actually parts of it was to be fair. Interesting stuff ;)]
"Is that even a real degree?"
Of course it's a real degree! Oxford offer it!
The actual answer is not a simple one.
For anyone who might actually be interested(!), here's a link to the UCL website where you can read some information about the degree. As is noted, there is incredible scope for flexibility and almost complete freedom in what you can choose to study. Your first year is a compulsory mix of what you might call the more hardcore sciences (Anatomy, Biochemistry, Genetics and Physiology), alongside social science modules (Geography, Anthropology and Psychology), as well as Statistics - an important lesson for any student of science. The aim is to provide you with a basic grounding in the social, medical, behavioural and biological study of humans so that you are well able to choose which direction you wish to pursue your studies according to your interests.
In second and third years you are able to choose literally any module you want from the whole university, which amounts to over 50 options across numerous departments. The range available reflects what I've already mentioned - that is, a mix of the life and behavioural/social sciences - but some options that you might not expect include Philosophy, History (of Art/Medicine/Science), Business, Archaeology, Economics and Earth Sciences to name a few. The only stipulation in choosing modules is that you must choose courses from at least three departments, so as to ensure that the degree is inter-disciplinary. This is also reflected in the research project (that dreaded 'dissertation') of your third year, which must be focused on two or three different disciplines, at least one social and one biological. Mine was an exploration of the study of how human altruism has evolved, from the perspectives of evolutionary biology, economics and neuroscience; but other examples of Human Sciences dissertations include topics such as: obesity, pain, cholera, and human mating preferences. This gives you some idea of just how drastically different the Human Sciences degree can be for each student.
What do employers think about Human Sciences?
So hopefully now you know a little more about what is involved in the Human Sciences degree! I believe it is a degree only offered by about five or six universities in England, and the course structure and content differs vastly between these unis too. So I recognise that I cannot expect a lot of people to be completely familiar with it. As I touched on before, I find it a shame that the vast subdivisions within science are generally less well understood than arts subjects. Everyone has a pretty clear impression of what an English degree involves; but how employers view my degree is a concern of mine. Does it spark their interest or even make me stand out as a candidate with a unique background? Or does the lack of clarity regarding its content leave them unsure about my suitability to a role? What with marketing employers seemingly tending to favour arts degrees such as English owing to their heavy focus on writing, I fear that employers will be misled by the degree name and type (Human Sciences BSc) and will discount me as lacking in this skill.
Do I regret studying Human Sciences?
Despite these concerns, rereading Unweaving The Rainbow following the completion of my degree has been a pleasant reminder of how, no matter how frustrating my job hunt gets, I have no regrets about my choice of degree course. Often I have found myself getting frustrated when my degree is overlooked (or maybe worse, looked at too intently - again see previous blog post). But the thrill of academic study, in particular the unique and varied course of study I undertook, is something that I would have always regretted not aiming for.
Doing an academic degree allowed me to satisfy my appetite for learning for its own sake, and also take some quite cool classes (looking at human bones in archaeology, tutorials about the evolution of homosexuality, free trips to London Zoo) which I probably won't have the chance to do again. It also meant I was motivated to obtain as much knowledge and experience in my chosen field as possible in order to compete with marketing students, a challenge that I have really enjoyed. I want to, and will hopefully, work in marketing for the rest of my life, and so far I have not met with too much of a challenge having to 'learn on the job'. So, really, I am very glad to have spent my three years at uni as a 'Humsci' :)
No comments:
Post a Comment