Well that is fair, but science is how you study gender.
If someone says they have an environmental studies degree and they spent all of their education looking at John Muir paintings and don’t know anything about hydrology or environmental law or nuclear power, that’s not much of an environmental studies degree. That’s art history.
Which isn’t reflective of the quality of the paintings; it’s just a question of what constitutes a rigorous education.
I think the intended implication of "studies" curriculums is exactly that it's a form of evaluating John Muir paintings, not a science.
There are Environmental Science degrees and they require all the core requirements of any other STEM. Environmental Studies is basically reading a lot of environment writings and texts and shooting the shit about them.
I'm not sure what Gender Science would be...other than Biology with a specialization in sex differences. But Gender Studies lack of science is right there in the name. :P
I don’t think the word science and the word study are mutually exclusive at all.
Connotatively, “studies” has come to imply an apotheosis of the decline in standards affecting academia (speaking as someone who’s done an awful lot of college over the past couple of decades) but it doesn’t have to be.
Looking up the Environmental Studies major at a place where I was once a student (they’re big on this sort of thing, which is why it came to mind for me), they require some basic science and statistics courses but they have different tracks for people who are more interested in policy (perhaps wanting to go to law school), vs arts and humanities, vs science. I don’t know what you do with an Environmental Studies (arts and humanities) degree; the people I knew in that the Environmental Science field were all interested in water quality, species conservation, that sort of thing.
TBF....it's not "Gender Science".
Well that is fair, but science is how you study gender.
If someone says they have an environmental studies degree and they spent all of their education looking at John Muir paintings and don’t know anything about hydrology or environmental law or nuclear power, that’s not much of an environmental studies degree. That’s art history.
Which isn’t reflective of the quality of the paintings; it’s just a question of what constitutes a rigorous education.
I think the intended implication of "studies" curriculums is exactly that it's a form of evaluating John Muir paintings, not a science.
There are Environmental Science degrees and they require all the core requirements of any other STEM. Environmental Studies is basically reading a lot of environment writings and texts and shooting the shit about them.
I'm not sure what Gender Science would be...other than Biology with a specialization in sex differences. But Gender Studies lack of science is right there in the name. :P
I don’t think the word science and the word study are mutually exclusive at all.
Connotatively, “studies” has come to imply an apotheosis of the decline in standards affecting academia (speaking as someone who’s done an awful lot of college over the past couple of decades) but it doesn’t have to be.
Looking up the Environmental Studies major at a place where I was once a student (they’re big on this sort of thing, which is why it came to mind for me), they require some basic science and statistics courses but they have different tracks for people who are more interested in policy (perhaps wanting to go to law school), vs arts and humanities, vs science. I don’t know what you do with an Environmental Studies (arts and humanities) degree; the people I knew in that the Environmental Science field were all interested in water quality, species conservation, that sort of thing.