Bèta than you

Until last year, I was an unhappy resident of the Humanities: Philosophy, Politics & Economics. However, sucker for the sunk cost fallacy no more, I decided it was time to emigrate. I now stand here as a newly naturalised citizen of Data Science.

I’ll admit, this migration has required adjustment. To accelerate my assimilation, I’ve taken to adopting the practices of my new culture: I’ve traded Foucault for functions, Drift for Science Park, and showers for “one more day can’t hurt, right?” (That was a joke, Mom). But the biggest culture shock I’m still adjusting to: the academic pretty privilege of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics, also known in the Netherlands by the Dutch name bèta).

In case you missed it, “pretty privilege” refers to the social advantages people receive for possessing conventional beauty standards. A similar halo effect surrounds STEM degrees — an inherent stamp of superiority I believe can be attributed to two assumptions: that bèta disciplines are both more useful and more intellectually demanding than their Humanities counterparts.

When I tell people what I study now, gone are the days of having to debate the validity of my degree or field with well-meaning relatives asking if it’s not too late to become a doctor. It’s true that the day someone needs an emergency 6,000-word normative framework on a plane will likely never come (and if it does, pray that it’s not me writing it). However, this “humani-phobia” holds up a mirror to how narrow our definition of utility has become. 

Somewhere between Adam Smith and Addison Rae, we seem to have decided that money is everything; utility must be measurable, tangible and of course, monetisable. If you start to view your degree primarily as an investment, disciplines that translate neatly into tangible metrics and juicy salaries naturally come out on top. Applied to the Dutch context, where pragmatism and individualism are intertwined with a rich engineering history, it’s hardly surprising that STEM’s pretty privilege thrives.

As for the challenging side, I speculate that the humanities get an unfavourable reputation due to their subjective nature. Challenging itself is a subjective concept — is it challenging in the context of getting grades or comprehension? For grades, my experience is that it’s easier to pass in the Humanities. If you truly understand a concept, it’s not a guarantee that you’ll get high marks — argumentation, originality, and whether or not your teacher has enjoyed their morning coffee all play a part. Conversely, the rigidity of bèta means that passing has a higher barrier to entry, but high marks are within reach. But then again, I think my newly acquired citizenship would be revoked if I claimed my experience alone as a representative sample. 

Likewise, this topic is haunted by ghosts of sexism, as disciplines that are “feminised” — such as the humanities — often become associated with being softer or easier. When a field becomes female-dominated, society tends to downgrade its prestige.

This pretty privilege has culminated in a Humanities crisis, which is definitely not helped by certain universities getting trigger-happy with budget cuts to specific departments. *cough*

None of this is to say STEM doesn’t deserve respect. It absolutely does. But better than Humanities? Respect is not the same as inherent superiority. As democracy flirts with technocracy, I think we should exercise caution in putting the disciplines that can technologically optimise the world on a pedestal at the expense of the disciplines that question who actually benefits from this. 

Marisca Westerhof is the winner of the 2026 Campus Columnist Competition. She has been selected among almost 50 candidates to write a column on DUB's English page every three weeks in 2026.