Human Sciences

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:

"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' :)

The virtues of being rejected

 So, I got rejected from the DAS Accelerate graduate scheme.

Had to get that out of the way first!

The programme is an excellent opportunity for graduates to gain a fully comprehensive introduction to and training in the industry of marketing communications, through joining one of four streams (Brand, Corporate, Healthcare and CRM), and carrying out placements in a number of agencies that are part of the Omnicom Group, one of the largest in the world. I was absolutely gutted that my application form was rejected. Especially since last year I reached the stage following the application form, which is an Open Day consisting of an introduction to the scheme through presentations, networking with Omnicom employees and previous grads, as well as an interview. 

The fact I got through last year and not this year is something I have been quite puzzled about. This year I applied with an equally strong, if not stronger, brand essay; and not only that but I had three more experiences in marketing under my belt, including one carried out in one of their own agencies. I guess there’s no hard and fast rule as to what gets you through, but having worked on my application for many months prior to the deadline with a much better knowledge of the industry and the actual job I was applying to, it made being rejected with no feedback all the more difficult to bear. But anyway, onwards and upwards I guess.

A little story about my science degree 

I have decided to recount my experience of last year’s Open Day because it is one of the most tangible examples I have of my degree impacting on my application in an unfavourable way.

This bear is sad because he has
graduated, but it turns out his degree
isn't doing him much good

 Sitting down for my interview, my interviewer introduced herself as an employee at a PR agency in the Healthcare section. She looked at me encouragingly, expecting me to take an avid interest in this and seemingly hoping that we might bond over our shared career interests. I was puzzled. I myself knew that my degree did not involve the study of any hardcore science subjects that might form the appropriate foundation for a career in healthcare communications. But I had not considered that the recruiters might have looked at my BSc degree and made the assumption that I was suited to and/or interested in this particular stream. 

 I cannot explain to you how quickly her potential fondness for me melted when I impulsively exclaimed “Oh! No, I know I do Human Sciences, but it’s not really about hardcore science and health all that much. I’m much more interested in the Brand stream”, nor can I explain the figurative drop in temperature that followed this proclamation. 

 

ERROR. 

That would have been us in my
interview.

Although this was the truth, I hadn’t considered that my degree might have caused the scheme organisers to believe they were creating a match made in heaven by assigning this particular lady to interview me. Consequently, the shock at finding myself being interviewed by someone who was expecting me to share an interest in what they do for a living meant that I lost all tact, and pretty much extinguished any hope of us ever bonding. Had I been prepared for such an occurrence, I would have definitely dedicated some time to discussing our (supposedly) mutual interest, before gently steering her towards my preference for the brand stream. 

On the day it was made clear that the healthcare stream was the hardest stream to recruit for. I’ve often wondered whether the reason I was let through last was because they saw my degree and let me through because they were short on applicants suited to or interested in the healthcare stream. This year I stipulated in my cover letter that I was interested in the brand stream, and as I’m sure it’s probably the most popular, perhaps this is why I was not put through. Though of course, you can never say for sure. 

What did I learn?

I do not mean to entirely blame DAS for my lack of success last year; I know that I was nowhere near good enough then, and of course it was my fault that my disinterest in healthcare had the impact it did on my interview. By sharing the story I wanted to highlight what I took away from the experience, which I hope might also be of some help to you. Leaving the interview, I felt that sinking feeling when you know things haven't gone well. I also couldn't help feeling frustrated that I had been pigeonholed into healthcare. I knew then that I had to use my work experience to move away from my degree and show my interests and capabilities in my preferred areas. 

It also emphasised to me how important it is that you look at yourself objectively, see yourself as the recruiter will see you, and use the perspective of how others see you to strengthen your application by making your interests and goals transparent. In my cover letter to DAS, I had dedicated a paragraph to talking about my degree. Reading this back now it is easier to see why the recruiters might have been persuaded of my desire to apply my BSc degree to my career. Whilst my original intention of including this paragraph - to demonstrate how my degree had benefited me - was a correct approach, I had emphasised the wrong aspects of it, such as content. Had I read it back objectively, I might have realised that this approach might mislead the recruiters into assuming a passion for science and healthcare. Then I might have been better able to write from a more relevant angle, such as how the inter-disciplinary nature of the degree makes me suited to the placement style of the scheme. And although I didn't get through this year, I can look back over my application with a certainty that I made my interests clear, and would have avoided any crossed wires at interview!