They are both intelligent, but in different ways. This is a values question, not an intellegence one. A person can be a genius in science and not have a clue about asthetics, or music or literarture. The same can be true of the arts student, who can be a creative genius, but finds math difficult. These areas of study use different parts of the brain, and most people are stronger in some areas than others. It is a disservice to tell bright children that they can be anything they want to be-it would be better to tell them to find out what they are best at, and give them the resources to run with it. It is a mistake to value science over the arts, or vice versa- we need them both.
2006-11-05 00:55:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by atbremser 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dude, connect the army and confirm you get attached with the college money, then you definately can't basically take particularly some the fundamentals, english math all that stuff, mutually as interior the army you would be wanting time to settle on and money to pay for college once you get out. Air rigidity could be extra suitable however in case your searching for a extra Cush place to be. in case your in touch in the Hardcore stuff then check out the marines. all of them you could quite lots p.c.. what form of job you % and that they'll furnish some stable training which you additionally can use as journey on a resume once you get out.
2016-10-21 07:24:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, arts students are more fun to be with and are more social.
Art is about talent more than about IQ. But a lot of the artists also have high IQs.
2006-11-05 00:54:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mohammed R 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think they are both intellegent groups people, they just have different interests. That is my opinion.
2006-11-05 00:55:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Wicked L 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Each is good in it's own way.
2006-11-05 00:54:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by ardinie 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no indisputable evidence for neither one.
2006-11-05 00:50:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by Borat2® 4
·
0⤊
0⤋