I am grateful to Prospect for enlightening me. (And by the way, this is written ‘tongue in cheek’ so don’t flame me with angry comments. It’s Friday morning, and I’ve wound down already!) Apparently there is a big difference between maths undergraduates, and those studying philosophy. I always suspected that was the case, but it is good to have it confirmed.
When I was an undergraduate (”in the olden days, before the war”) I studied philosophy for part of my degree. I also had a few friends who were studying maths. Looking back, they always appeared to be working harder, seemed far more stressed and ‘up-tight’, and all ended up with worse degrees.
On the surface, you wouldn’t necessarily think there would be a difference between the undergraduates choosing the respective subjects. After all, parts of philosophy can be concerned with mathematics and logic, and the philosophy of science is a subject in its own right that might attract both types of people. However, a little deeper probing could generate an interesting hypothesis.
Whereas maths students are concerned with law, and logical outcomes of using those laws, philosophy students are concerned with using logic to look behind the laws. Broadly speaking (and I accept it is a gross generalization) maths students are likely to want to understand what is: philosophy students are likely to want to do this, but also question what is. Maths students will probably examine the line in detail and then ‘toe it’. Philosophy students will almost certainly question the right of the line to exist in the first place and will probably be the last people on earth to ‘toe it’.
According to Cambridge student paper Varsity (as reported in Prospect), fewer philosophy students are virgins (just 9 per cent) than those reading any other subject. Perhaps not surprisingly, mathematics (41 per cent) and computer science (38 per cent) boast the most unpopped cherries.
My friends who work as counsellors in Universities tell me that most students seeking counselling are studying Arts subjects, and that mathematicians and physicists are the students least likely to seek help in this way. I would love to know the precise figures for philosophy students. They may be too busy enjoying their existential angst to be bothered with getting out of it. However, the data on the scientists could support the hypthesis that they are less comfortable with the mess of looking beyond the confines of the known order. Sex could be very frightening for some of them!
Of course, I am not able to seriously explain the unpopped cherry data reported by Varsity. The Prospect writer did amusingly consider that the differences may be linked to income. Given the data on the earning potential of maths and computer science graduates compared to philosophy graduates, it may be that the philosophy graduates know that relative poverty is about to engulf them and are determined to try to keep winter at bay by making hay while the sun shines. The difference could also be due to the fact that studying Kant and Hegel is so mind-numbingly boring and difficult that the philosophy students need something to distract them when not in seminars (at least mathematicians have sudoku and computer buffs, solitaire).
Personally, I prefer a more philosophical explanation. The alleged greater sexual activity of philosophy undergraduates compared to their peers is best explained by their desire to find existential meaning in a godless universe. They are following Sartre and Camus and paraphrasing Descartes: “I f**k, therefore I am!”
Or perhaps mathematicians are just more honest than philosophers?
haha how interesting. I am a Maths graduate. It is true that I exhibit some of the typical traits - I would never seek help for a problem because I would be convinced I could solve it myself and I would never want to make it appear that I have failed in any way.
As for sex - well, being a Maths graduate I could of course produce a nice little bar graph to compare the average number of sexual conquests I have had per year and compare those with yours if you like. But being a mathematics graduate I am a little shy about divulging such details.
Great post for a Friday!
Reluctant Blogger
Thanks for even mentioning your graph. I appreciate it must have been difficult for you
(I wonder if yours is bigger than mine?)
Thanks for an interesting post. As for the graphs, please keep them under wraps.
The graph idea set me thinking. I wonder what the graphs of bloggers would be like. For some who set up fantasy identities they might create a world for themselves where their graphs could appear quite large.
Interesting blog this.
I love the wit of the last paragraph. How naughty of you thinkingman to think of that.
That’s the second time lately that I have seen sudoku referred to as if it is a “mathematical” pastime. It isn’t. It would work just as well if you replaced the numbers 1 to 9 with the letters A to I. In fact, there are super-sudoku puzzles with extra large grids that use both numbers and letters to extend to range of characters and others where the numbers are replaced by letters that form a word or sentence when the puzzle is completed correctly.
A well-known radio chat host the other day dismissively remarked that “To do sudoku, all you need is a calculator”, thereby showing that he has never attempted a sudoku in his life. The remark is nonsense. To do sudoku you need a logical mind, a grasp of the rules and a certain amount of patience. The totally innumerate could do sudoku and find it fun.
I would suggest that there is a difference between those who study a subject and those who complete their studies successfully. As with any subject, not all of those who enroll for philosophy (or maths or classical Chinese) manage to complete the course or obtain a degree. The course may be provide them with the valuable information that the subject is not for them. This being so, it is unlikely that all or even most students of a particular subject shared certain character traits.
In my experience, the influences that cause Tom to study philosophy and Dick to study History are subtle and difficult to disentangle. I ended up taking Spanish because I failed my other subjects at the end of the first year, for example. When I became a polytechnic lecturer, I discovered that a large percentage of students who take maths at A Level do so because it requires little writing and they are semi-literate. It has nothing to do with a aptitude for the subject.
Few people get a chance to study philosophy at school and this subject therefore presents a novel and fresh face when the student arrives at university. Perhaps you do need a certain boldness to take an entirely new subject, but that would also be true of any beginners’ course of which there are many.
One could also say that in any subject, there are two sorts of student. Firstly, there are those who learn the subject by rote and, secondly, those who are ready to look further and “push the envelope”, to coin a phrase. There must be plenty of mathematicians in the second group or the subject would stagnate and not develop - something contrary to observation. I don’t see any reason to think that one subject attracts and develops innovative thinkers more than another.
onethoughtfulwoman
Naughty? Moi?
SilverTiger
The key phrase in the above posting was this is written ‘tongue in cheek’ .
That said, I do find it interesting that, broadly speaking, there may be some truth in the jokes about certain personality types being attracted to certain professions. At a macro level, I suspect that a large number of one personality type might become accountants, and that would be vastly different from the personality type that a large number of actors might have, for example.
Regardless of my musings, there is data from university counselling departments (I have never seen it published, but have heard reports of figures from at least two different universities) where the Arts - Science divide is very clear for the number of undergraduates using the counselling services. Whatever you think about university counselling departments, the usage divide appears to be there. One broad explanation for some might be to do with personality.