C/O Tony Sebastian, Unsplash
While we may perceive ourselves as worlds away, we’re much closer than we think
Let’s set this story during Welcome Week of 2019. Surrounded by other 2023s, I ventured into the thick swarm of students on the field outside Burke Science Building. Before I could take a breath, I was asked a question that all of us had heard countless times during that week.
“What program are you in? Like, are you a science kid or an English kid?”
I’d answer with “science kid” and move on with my life. No big deal, right? Well, not exactly. As I went through two more years of university, I discovered there was a greater divide in the sciences and humanities than I had first realized. Science kids were the kind that would rather solve complex chemistry problems than go near an essay. Humanities kids could write 20-page essays but god forbid they took a physics class.
As far from the truth as these generalizations may be, they do exist and they do persist. The general public’s perception of students who pursue science and students who pursue the humanities are closer to these reductive statements than we may think.
This issue has been discussed at length, not only by students like us, but also by renowned professors across the world. In 2018, the University of King’s College in Halifax held a roundtable discussion on this exact topic. These scholars, particularly Evelyn Fox Keller, talked about the territorial criticism they felt as an expert in history, physics and biology. The roundtable came to the conclusion that the sciences and humanities are often presented with the same problems, such as climate change, but rarely work together to solve them.
Not only does this divide affect worldly problems, but it also affects us all on a smaller scale of interests and extracurricular activities. Why are only science students expected to take on research positions? This rush to get involved in research activities is a constant discussion in the echo chamber of undergraduate science students, often with no mention of research efforts in the social sciences and humanities.
With such a binary in expected extracurriculars, this frame of thinking has also found its way into job interviews. Mahnoor Malik, a third-year health sciences student, reflected on her experience of this phenomenon.
“I was in an interview, hoping to get a position writing for this website I’m really fond of. The interview was going great, but they did comment on how my writing experience was largely scientific. I understand where they were coming from, but it was also shocking to see how my scientific writing experience wasn’t valued as much as other writing experiences were,” explained Malik.
This experience isn’t unique to one individual. The separation between these two fields has led to a lack of understanding of each other from both sides. By allowing this distance to exist, we inevitably divide ourselves into different social and professional groups.
We allow these preconceived notions to affect our judgement of each other. From a STEM perspective especially, we’re all somewhat guilty of assuming that non-STEM programs have fewer career opportunities. However, graduates of social sciences programs not only have similar employment rates to STEM graduates, but are also valued by employers for their critical thinking, emotional intelligence and ethical reasoning.
On a personal level, I have had a passion for writing for as long as I can remember. However, I assumed that once I chose my path of health sciences, writing could be nothing more than a hobby. My label was now to be science and science alone.
Imagine my surprise when I joined the Silhouette and found just as many science kids as humanities kids as arts kids on our staff. In a short couple of months, this team has opened my eyes to the fact that these insurmountable obstacles that we created are largely imaginative.
As students, we need to take it upon ourselves to throw this arbitrary barrier to the wind. By doing so, we gain the chance to learn more about ourselves, each other, and the plethora of opportunities available to not just X or Y students, but to all of us.
The announcement of an acclaimed MSU president-elect should raise questions as to why no one is running for MSU positions
Graphic By Nigel Mathias/Contributor
By: Belinda Tam, Contributor
On Jan. 26, 2021, it was announced that Denver Della-Vedova was acclaimed for the position of McMaster Students Union president for the 2021-2022 academic year.
Taking into account both world events and student’s everyday lives, this news may not be on the top of everyone’s mind at the moment. Knowing that this semester is a continuation of a time where the majority of classes are being conducted online — besides a small subset of students being on campus — there’s no doubt that students have been pouring more time into their studies.
Since an acclamation hasn’t occurred within at least 40 years, it's important to discuss the barriers in running an election. There are multiple rules in place for running candidates, which can pose as a potential financial barrier if you get fined.
Depending on the position the person is running for, guidelines and rules can vary. Violation of election rules may cause you to be fined unless you go through an appeal process. Furthermore, there is the issue of having financial accessibility if a candidate racks up lots of fines, which in turn may stop them from wanting to run.
With that said, there is actually a lot of work to be done when running for one of these positions. In previous presidential elections, candidates often take time off from class, especially for the campaigning period in order to inform the general student population about their mission and what they are hoping to do when elected.
When taking time off from class and possibly even work, not only does the student have to put in extra time and effort to catch up but this time off may also impact evaluations at work as well as testing in courses. Based on the amount of time required to dedicate yourself to running, this may also eliminate more candidates from applying.
In addition, the candidate also often makes a campaign team and has to coordinate the more minor details such as making sure someone was always present at their campaign table.
With that being said, having a team does alleviate the workload but much work is to be done at the beginning of this process when it comes to planning your campaign, as well as managing the team.
This is a lot to handle in conjunction with coursework and personal life. With this level of commitment and time invested, candidates seem to be willing to do whatever it takes to get the position.
Another important note is that you may have a better chance of winning the election if you are more involved and connected with people in the MSU.
Previous presidents such as Ikram Farah, Josh Marando and Giancarlo Da-Ré were all heavily involved in the MSU, which may have had a role in them winning since they had connections to others in the MSU.
As a result, they are more likely to know people who are in positions of power, so it’s easier for them to reach out and build their platform. While opinions may vary, having connections could mean that you have a better chance at winning.
However, we might be missing out on those in the student population who want to run — and might actually be good at the job for that matter — but won’t win because they don’t have those connections.
If this indeed is the case, this means that there is a bias in the system. Those who choose to run by themselves are at a greater disadvantage compared to those who have connections with the predecessors in the role they are campaigning for.
With Della-Vedova’s acclamation of such an important role within the MSU, it is important to reflect on why this issue may have arisen in the first place. If elections aren’t accessible for anyone to run, we may see more acclamations in the future.