In Canada we call it STEAM now. Because where the hell do you think design comes from?

I find fault in the reasoning, it's probably the bussiness majors that profited the most from any band ever by pocketing half of whatever money they made.

A thousand apologies for bringing Chat GPT into this assignment, but, well, I couldn't help myself.

In this essay I will explore how the artificial divide between Arts and STEM disciplines has been perpetuated, the consequences of this separation, and the immense potential that lies in their collaboration. Using the example of Queen—a band whose members’ diverse academic backgrounds fueled their creative genius—I will argue that the intersection of artistic imagination and scientific rigor is not only possible, but essential for innovation and progress. Furthermore, I will examine the role that societal structures, particularly those influenced by business interests, have played in maintaining this divide, and how overcoming it could empower individuals and communities alike.

First, let us consider the origins of this divide. Historically, the “Two Cultures” debate, popularized by C.P. Snow in the mid-20th century, framed the arts and sciences as fundamentally incompatible. This narrative has been reinforced by educational systems that require students to choose between creative and analytical paths early in their academic careers. As a result, students often internalize the belief that they must be either “artistic” or “scientific,” rarely both. This false dichotomy not only limits personal growth but also stifles the kind of interdisciplinary thinking that leads to groundbreaking achievements.

Queen’s story challenges this narrative. Brian May’s background in astrophysics, Roger Taylor’s training in dentistry, Freddie Mercury’s art school experience, and John Deacon’s expertise in electronics all contributed to the band’s unique sound and stage presence. Their music is a testament to the power of combining technical skill with artistic vision—an approach that has resonated with millions and stood the test of time.

But why does this divide persist? Here, I return to the business major, a metaphor for the systems and structures that benefit from keeping Arts and STEM apart. In a world where creativity and technical knowledge are siloed, those who control the means of production and distribution—often with business backgrounds—can more easily exploit both groups. By fostering competition rather than collaboration, they ensure that neither side realizes its full potential, maintaining the status quo and their own position of power.

The consequences of this separation are profound. When artists and scientists work in isolation, society misses out on innovations that require both creative insight and technical expertise. From medical breakthroughs inspired by artistic anatomy studies to technological advances driven by aesthetic design, history is full of examples where collaboration has led to extraordinary results.

In conclusion, the supposed rift between Arts and STEM is not a natural divide, but a constructed barrier that serves the interests of a select few. By recognizing our shared potential and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, we can unlock new possibilities and create a more vibrant, innovative, and equitable society. Just as Queen’s members combined their diverse talents to create music that transcends genres, so too can we bridge the gap between art and science to achieve greatness together.

I've been waiting 12 years for this fuggin essay

So, how can society overcome the rift?

I fully agree. But once those who should be business majors enter a field everything about it gets worse.

Splash in finance and you get Offspring

I went to a London university. Most the departments were essentially as diverse as the population, but business undergrads were 80% black British, and everyone knows they hate queen. Is this the conspiracy we've been warned about?

(This is very clearly a joke I hope and I have utter respect for everyone.)

Throw marketing and HR majors in there with business majors as the triumvirate of just literally evil and useless people, and I'm on board.

I say this as a person with an Econ degree, and another Poli Sci degree, that I got simultaneously.

We are not all evil, in fact most of us fucking despise business majors, as business is what you switch your Econ major to if you're too stupid to actually understand advanced math, modelling, statistical analysis, as well as actual long term business strategy, and usually at least some coding proficiency in something like R or at least Python libs geared toward data crunching.

But somehow these idiot assholes end up being our bosses and we usually end up being their subordinate data analysts of some kind, basically because they master the arcane power of corpospeak, aka, professional gaslighting.

Likewise, accountants, actuaries?

Those are actual real degrees, you have to memorize an utterly astounding amount of essentially arbitrary laws and regulations, and if you go full actuary, some of the most complex statistics on earth, in some cases literally more complex and mind bending than what many theoretical physicists have to learn.

Anyway, most data oriented nerds are at least mildly autistic and realize they are generally not so good with people skills, nor the visually artistic kind of creativity... but we are generally self-aware of this, and realize that other people with other kinds of intelligences are needed if we want our data and analysis to actually be listened to.

Finally: HR and Marketing majors are all narcissistic sociopaths who are also too stupid to complete their psychology degrees, which they really only ever pursued to become more skilled sociopaths.

... Uh there, oops, I may have just written at least part of OP's essay.

EDIT: Ok, apparently this may be worth clarifying due to the presence of some ChatGPT diarrhea in this thread, but uh, the above words were all produced spontaneously by an all natural, organic, genuine human being, in an astoundingly more energy efficient and non exploitative manner, that didn't require to violate the privacy, consent, and also basically IP rights of every human that has ever existed.