Human and physical geographers have a rivalry of a unique and unparalleled nature. In no other field are there two degrees that share a name, yet are so vastly different. Both degree courses may be called ‘geography’ but the couple of letters at the start of the name of the degree programme define what your degree is about. Geography is a one-of-a-kind discipline that is split into BAs and BScs, and the content varies hugely between the two sides of geography. But which is better? Human geography. Obviously.

Firstly, human geography content is far more interesting than physical geography to any non-geographer. Who really cares about catchment hydrology and geomorphology? Physical geographers only study the really boring stuff like rocks, rivers and soil, is there anything worse? Human geography on the other hand is relevant to everyone. A human geography lecture is interesting and appealing. Population trends, politics and globalisation; these things actually matter. Are different types of soil ever going to actually affect you? No. In contrast, the 12.5% increase in the price of marmite as a result of Brexit? This shit is important.

The two sides of geography differ in terms of the style and number of lectures, as well as just the content. Physical geographers desperately cling to the meagre claim that it’s a science, whereas human geographers have learnt to embrace that their course is a social science. Whilst their BSc neighbours wake up at the crack of dawn for a 9-5 day spent doing lab work, the human geographer’s day may consist of a couple of lectures and perhaps a seminar on urban sociology or international politics. Physical geographers spend more time in uni than BA students, but to what end? We all come out of it with a geography degree.

Field trips are a huge aspect of geography, they’re the primary thing many people associate with the subject. When it comes to field trips human geography really comes into its own; and it’s not just the more glamorous destinations such as New York City or Singapore. A typical physical geography field trip involves wellies, waterproof coats and a general feeling of misery. Standing in a river somewhere in Wales, feeling like you’re minutes away from catching hypothermia, measuring river velocity, rock size and other equally enthralling things. Compare this to the standard human geography field trip: no rivers and definitely no wellies. A human geography field trip will probably focus on national identity or something similar, which will involve asking a few people some questions, and then spending the rest of the day in a pub watching the football. I know which trip I’d pick.

Human geographers are a far more interesting people than physical geographers – who love catchment hydrology and soil, can anybody sound duller? Imagine Howard from Channel 4’s “Fresh Meat” – that’s your typical physical geographer. In contrast their BSc counterparts, your typical BA geographer has a fascination with cities, and, well just cities really. A human geographer will be able to discuss current events easily, most things on the news constitute human geography, sort of, and therefore we count our daily browse of BBC News as ‘wider reading’. Physical geographers appear to have little knowledge of the Syria crisis, it’s like they live under a rock – ironic really.

Human geography is easily the better of the two. Our course is more worthwhile, our field trips are more exciting, and we never colour over the lines.