Is there too much focus on STEM? (Liberal Arts strikes back)

[Ian Curtis]

Today on CNN, there is an editorial from the president of Wesleyan on how focusing on STEM may be a bad thing. It is certainly interesting to see how others might view the mission that many here feel so passionately about. It's a very interesting read. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/21/roth.liberal.education/index.html?hpt=T2)

But in our own land we are running away from the promise of liberal education. We are frightened by economic competition, and many seem to have lost confidence in our ability to draw from the resources of a broadly based education. Instead, they hope that technical training or professional expertise on their own will somehow invigorate our culture and society.

Many seem to think that by narrowing our focus to just science and engineering, we will become more competitive. This is a serious mistake.

I don't think STEM awareness is a threat to liberal arts, and I think the fact that they might view it as such is a little silly. On the other hand, the fact that some of them view it as a threat seems like a major indicator that there is some sort of culture shift going on here... :cool:

[BrendanB]

I don't think that is the case. I was at UNH's graduation yesterday and the largest group graduating was the Liberal Arts students who took up a lot space when they stood up and the college of Engineering was about half their size.

[ebarker]

Today on CNN, there is an editorial from the president of Wesleyan on how focusing on STEM may be a bad thing.

He didn't say focusing on STEM is a bad thing. He said there is a danger of STEM displacing other areas of endeavor.

In the most recent times there has been a tendency of college students to not take courses "in their field".

Once upon a time a "liberal education" required things like language, history, music, literature, philosophy / religion, including various sciences, such as "natural philosophy" now known as physics.

In today's world of hurrying to finish a degree in four years and declare ourselves "educated" there isn't enough time to learn the things one should.

Engineers cannot communicate, and "liberal arts" majors are inadequately trained to understand the physical universe, which has political policy implications.

Liberal arts majors learning more STEM concepts along with STEM majors learning more 'liberal arts' is a good idea.

Woodie Flowers has talked to some of these concepts in his lectures to other audiences and university lectures. I will have to go back and review the video but during this year's kickoff he had a video played that lasted maybe three minutes. It had video insertions of various mentors.

During this video he touched on a LOT of topics that are subtle and complex but was a very short explanation of becoming educated, "liberally educated !!", understanding the universe, putting all this together. It almost reminded me of trying to create a 10 minute video where you told the history of the world.

Being a liberal arts major is a different thing indeed than being liberally educated.

[pfreivald]

Indeed, it is often frustrating (to me) to see scientists and engineers act like they're also experts on the (equally difficult) subjects of philosophy and religion, in spite of the fact that in doing so they oft betray a child's grasp of the subject(s).

[Johnny_5]

I strongly disagree with the thought that there is too much focus on STEM. There are still high schools that won't even give 2 cents about STEM, for example our high school only focuses on choir and our not so good sports teams. Our entire school district is ignoring a program that could possible benefit the district more than any other sports teams. We also have a huge FFA program that seems to be trying to squish out FRC. Our principle sent out an email to staff with the closing ANF, America needs farmers.

I'll bet my last dollar that his closing never says ANE

[Michael Corsetto]

Ed has definitely hit the nail on the head.

As a Mechanical Engineering major at UC Davis, I have 184 required units to graduate. This includes 6 General Education classes, 1 Communication class, 2 Writing classes, and the rest are set Mechanical Engineering classes.

Now, take English for example. There are 60 required units for an english major. UC Davis requires 180 to graduate, but that means 120 units can be whatever you want! There are General Ed requirements as well, but those are the same categorical 6 classes engineering students have to take. English and other similar majors take far more filler and PE classes than any engineer could. I've never taken a 1/2 unit PE class in my 4 years at UC Davis.

There is a reason Engineers have the most valuable degree. We're trained specifically for the jobs we're hired for! We aren't well rounded in philosophy and history and english and whatever because it takes 4 years just to teach the advanced concepts that we need to know to be reasonably effective engineers.

Businesses are efficient when they hire people from various disciplines to work together. Robotics teams work best when they have a programming group, a mechanical group, a marketing group, that can work together.

Not everyone needs to know everything.

Let's keep making Liberal Arts majors nervous about STEM education ;)

-Mike

[MagiChau]

I think the purpose of the focus on STEM in the first place is a realization that it has been left aside forlorn. FIRST is an attempt to fix that by making thousands of people recognize it through teams and competitions.

The focus on STEM to be me is to restore the balance and not eliminate the Liberal Arts. There are always consequences when you are prioritizing something over another however.

[gblake]

... There are 60 required units for an english major. UC Davis requires 180 to graduate, but that means 120 units can be whatever you want! ... it takes 4 years just to teach the advanced concepts that we need to know to be reasonably effective engineers.
...

Taking these thoughts in a slightly different direction:

It would be interesting to spend a little time investigating whether it takes more than 60 credits of focused study to become an effective English bachelor's degree graduate. Perhaps the STEM "crisis" is accompanied by a similarly important weakening of the value of a typical liberal arts education?

It's as plain as the nose on your face that the vast majority of college graduates (engineers included) don't know enough about English grammar and vocabulary to use both properly. Perhaps we (North America) need to ratchet up the challenges a liberal arts student must master? and thereby raise the value of a liberal arts bachelor's degree?

Blake

[mathking]

There is sometimes confusion when people discuss liberal arts majors and liberal arts schools (like Wesleyan). Liberal arts schools actually produce the bulk of our scientists in America. Meaning most of the undergrad science majors who go on to get a PhD in science. (This is probably in part due to the focus of education in liberal arts schools and in larger part due to the absence of graduate students to help professors with research. Meaning undergraduate science majors at liberal arts schools get a lot more lab time and research opportunities than their counterparts at large universities.) While a liberal arts major at a big university is generally a multi-disciplinary major with lots of general coursework in a variety of fields, at a liberal arts school students have majors in various academic disciplines. I have a liberal arts degree in mathematics. It was a math major with as much or mathematics as any math major. It got me into graduate school in mathematics.

I think the thrust of his article is simply a cautionary note against thinking that throwing all of our free educational resources at STEM education in an era of declining educational resources.

[StevenB]

Ian, thanks for brining up this article!

While I don't fully agree with Mr. Roth's fundamental premise, a couple paragraphs in the middle of his article match my thoughts exactly:
Many seem to think that by narrowing our focus to just science and engineering, we will become more competitive. This is a serious mistake.

Our leaders in government, industry and academia should realize that they don't have to make a choice between the sciences and the rest of the liberal arts. Indeed, the sciences are a vital part of the liberal arts.

I just graduated with a bachelor's degree in computer engineering from a private college that many (including some of the faculty) would consider a liberal arts college. I was also a participant in the Honors program, which replaced the core general education curriculum with a separate set of more intense an in-depth courses, which heavily emphasized English, history, philosophy, and so forth. The one part that wasn't replaced? Math. The honors students still had to take plain old college algebra - except that the majority of us already had credit for it based on our SAT/ACT scores.

Partly in jest and partly serious, I brought up the question during an open forum, "Given that honors engineers have to take six writing and history intensive courses, wouldn't it be appropriate for honors English and history majors to take calculus? [1]"

The response was predictable: "Do you want us to die?"

And that, I believe, is the problem. Math is no longer something any educated person should know; it's a subject that only nerds and "smart people" need to learn. Everyone else avoids it like the plague, to the point that people across the country make jokes about not being good at math. That needs to change.

I've done enough preaching to the choir. Let's carry on changing the culture.


[1] After hearing Arthur Benjamin (http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_educat ion.html), I think maybe the other majors should be required to take statistics instead.

[ebarker]

Partly in jest and partly serious, I brought up the question during an open forum, "Given that honors engineers have to take six writing and history intensive courses, wouldn't it be appropriate for honors English and history majors to take calculus? [1]"


I think it is a more serious question than jest. The non-STEM majors need to take more science and math courses. It would be be helpful to take 12 of those 60 hours and become a little more broadly educated.

And conversely, it would be helpful for the STEM majors to learn how to write.

.

[XaulZan11]

There is a reason Engineers have the most valuable degree. We're trained specifically for the jobs we're hired for! We aren't well rounded in philosophy and history and english and whatever because it takes 4 years just to teach the advanced concepts that we need to know to be reasonably effective engineers.


Could you provide a reference that shows Engineers have the most valuable degree? One disadvantage is engineering degrees is that you are trained for the job you are hired for, but your job may not be a job 20 years from now nor will you want to be doing the same job your entire life. I don't know the exact statistic but the average person changes careers like 5 times in their life. I'm a fan of liberal arts education that includes a strong math and science basis. I would rather learn how to think like an engineer, writer, psychologist, biologist than learn how to do a specific job that may not be around in 20 years.

[EricH]

One disadvantage is engineering degrees is that you are trained for the job you are hired for, but your job may not be a job 20 years from now nor will you want to be doing the same job your entire life.
You are trained to be an engineer. Your application of that engineering knowledge and training will change, yes. But that basic fundamental knowledge doesn't change. You just emphasize different parts of it. This is especially true for the broad-spectrum engineering degrees--a mechanical engineer could do the same things as an aeronautical engineer with only a little bit of extra studying or practice in what needs doing. In short, a focus on the aeronautical side of things.

[Chris Hibner]

Could you provide a reference that shows Engineers have the most valuable degree? One disadvantage is engineering degrees is that you are trained for the job you are hired for, but your job may not be a job 20 years from now nor will you want to be doing the same job your entire life. I don't know the exact statistic but the average person changes careers like 5 times in their life. I'm a fan of liberal arts education that includes a strong math and science basis. I would rather learn how to think like an engineer, writer, psychologist, biologist than learn how to do a specific job that may not be around in 20 years.

I have two degrees in mechanical engineering and I write software for a living. Granted, it's software that controls mechanical systems, but the point is that you don't have to be pigeon-holed.

Five years after graduating, very few engineers do exactly what they studied in college. Most companies find the value in an engineering degree to be more about the problem solving. Most engineers get hired into a job that is so specialized that what they learned in college is just the background material to what they're going to learn on the job about the product they'll be helping to design.

I've now been through enough turmoil through the recession to know that it's more about having a problem solving process and mindset than it is about the mechanics of solving fluid dynamics problems (or substitute whatever engineering class you want). JVN's paper about applying an engineering process to problem solving is really what people look for in engineers. An engineering degree teaches you (hopefully) to have the ability to solve complex problems. The actual problem that you'll be solving doesn't matter as much as most outsiders think.

[Ian Curtis]

Could you provide a reference that shows Engineers have the most valuable degree? One disadvantage is engineering degrees is that you are trained for the job you are hired for, but your job may not be a job 20 years from now nor will you want to be doing the same job your entire life. I don't know the exact statistic but the average person changes careers like 5 times in their life. I'm a fan of liberal arts education that includes a strong math and science basis. I would rather learn how to think like an engineer, writer, psychologist, biologist than learn how to do a specific job that may not be around in 20 years.

The most important thing you learn in an engineering education is that you don't actually know very much at all. What an engineering degree gives you is a broad base you can draw upon doing whatever you end up doing. Engineers in the workforce now went to school with slide rules... and numerical methods play an enormous role in engineering today.

As an example, one of my friends was under consideration for a job at NERF (NERF guns) and Sikorsky (helicopters) at the same time. Most of my friends have the same degree, but work in a variety of different fields (although they are decidedly airplane-centric).

Partly in jest and partly serious, I brought up the question during an open forum, "Given that honors engineers have to take six writing and history intensive courses, wouldn't it be appropriate for honors English and history majors to take calculus? [1]"

The response was predictable: "Do you want us to die?"

I graduated (high school) from a charter school, and Calculus was a graduation requirement. You quickly find that students who excel in the language arts typically excel in math as well, even if they aren't willing to admit it.

[XaulZan11]

Most companies find the value in an engineering degree to be more about the problem solving... An engineering degree teaches you (hopefully) to have the ability to solve complex problems. The actual problem that you'll be solving doesn't matter as much as most outsiders think.

As someone who is just about done with his liberal arts education, one of the things that people say is good about liberal arts is how it teaches you how to think and how to solve many problems, not just the ones you learned in class. Just think its interesting how similar both approaches seem to be in that respect.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

The class I feel was most important for me during college was Technical Writing. It is also one I regularly recommend to students. It matters not how much knowledge you have in a particular area, if you can't communicate, no one will benefit from your ideas. Right up there were some classes that have opened my eyes in other areas. Business Management, marketing, metal shop & safety, and American Lit.
Of the engineering hardships facing this country in the coming years, getting our manufacturing ability back and fixing infrastructure seem to be the most daunting.

[Michael Corsetto]

Could you provide a reference that shows Engineers have the most valuable degree?

Just did a quick google search, here's a link. (http://collegetimes.us/10-most-valuable-college-majors/)

-Mike

[ayeckley]

And conversely, it would be helpful for the STEM majors to learn how to write..

I don't know about most folks here, but that's the sort of thing that I learned in grade school, right around the 4th grade. Is this not typical anymore within the U.S.?

[Darren Collins]

This divide between the humanities and sciences and the debate concerning their relationship and relative importance has been around for a long time. However, the discussion is no less important today. “The Two Cultures” Lecture given by Charles Percy Snow detailed this divide and the importance of addressing it.

One quote that is listed on the two cultures Wikipedia page seems applicable to the discussion.

“A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?”


Personally, I agree that everyone doesn’t need to know everything. That being said, I think it would be beneficial for scientists and engineers to have greater exposure to the humanities. Some of the best engineers in our past have been deeply inspired by the arts. On the flip side, it is critical that the general public who are not scientists and engineers have more than a superficial understanding of the scientific method. Additionally, it would be desirable that everyone have an elementary grasp of fundamental physical and natural laws. Unfortunately, this is not the case in our society and it is a problem.

[XaulZan11]

Just did a quick google search, here's a link. (http://collegetimes.us/10-most-valuable-college-majors/)

-Mike

Thanks for the link. Not sure if average starting salary is the best way to determine 'most valuable' degree, though.

[Ian Curtis]

Thanks for the link. Not sure if average starting salary is the best way to determine 'most valuable' degree, though.

What (measurable) metric do you think would do a better job? Someone somewhere has probably tabulated it... engineers love numbers, especially ones that make them look good. :D

[pfreivald]

What (measurable) metric do you think would do a better job?

Without having first established a metric and a rubric, plus a common understanding for what "most valuable" means, this part of the conversation is doomed to wallow in nominalist drivel.

I'm just sayin'.

[whackedwatchdog]

I'd like to weigh in on this as well. When I was in high school (I graduated from there in 2010, and am currently at Georgia Tech working my way through a Bachelors in Computer Science), we offered a full run of "Liberal Arts" classes, drama, philosophy, art, band and chorus. This in addition to three languages (A fourth was added, and removed two years later). We obviously had the necessary English courses, histories, and social sciences which are core classes in the state of Georgia. All of those could be taken for 4 years (we had the same class all year, so effectively, you were taking these courses the entire time you were in high school) On the STEM side, we had a 4 year math program, and then a 2 year web-design program, 2-year "programming" column (Which has finally been bumped up to 3), and perhaps one or two other courses which ran for one or two semesters. It seemed to me that it was significantly easier to get into liberal arts with the abundance of classes, and resources available than the STEM fields, but that's just me.

[Phyrxes]

When I was a senior in college (1999-2000) at a "small liberal arts college" and working on my senior project my advisor asked me if I had ever taken a course in technical writing. My response was no, even though it was in the catalog it was rarely offered since there were so few students that would sign up for it any given term.

Most B.S. students, myself included, simply took the required English courses and never looked back at that department.

As a high school teacher now, I make it a point to show my students the different writing expectations and work with them to see the differences between a paper for Science and one for English.

[Ben Martin]

Without having first established a metric and a rubric, plus a common understanding for what "most valuable" means, this part of the conversation is doomed to wallow in nominalist drivel.

I'm just sayin'.

One metric that could be looked at is job satisfaction: http://www.time.com/time/2007/america_numbers/job.html

It definitely shouldn't be the only factor for choosing a career, but at least for me, I would call happiness in one's career "valuable." I know that I looked at this list before choosing a college major.

[Chris Hibner]

One metric that could be looked at is job satisfaction: http://www.time.com/time/2007/america_numbers/job.html

It definitely shouldn't be the only factor for choosing a career, but at least for me, I would call happiness in one's career "valuable." I know that I looked at this list before choosing a college major.


I don't know what criteria they used to measure job satisfaction, but I lost all faith in the results after doing a little poking around.

I checked on "Airline Pilot" and saw that it was near the very top of the list. Having been one, having sat in crew rooms with many fellow pilots, and having jumpseated on countless flights, I can honestly say that I've never met a group of people that hates their job more. I was a second-career pilot (fairly common in that industry) and every time I jumpseated and rode up front the crew would always ask, "what did you do before becoming a pilot?". After I said I was an engineer, the next statement was always along the lines of, "you quit that to put up this?" I would also commonly hear, "every time it comes up I try to talk my kids out of going into this profession." You don't hear too many people trying to convince other NOT to go into their profession.

With all that being said, I know many pilots that love it and wouldn't consider doing anything else.

Anyway, I guess the results of any such survey are highly dependent upon which people you talk to, as well as the mood they're in on that particular day.

[Jon Stratis]

One metric that could be looked at is job satisfaction: http://www.time.com/time/2007/america_numbers/job.html

It definitely shouldn't be the only factor for choosing a career, but at least for me, I would call happiness in one's career "valuable." I know that I looked at this list before choosing a college major.

I'm not sure anyone can adequately draw any conclusions from job satisfaction surveys like that one. I could go into the Clergy... but I wouldn't be happy doing it. Theological discussions, while interesting, simply aren't something I'm passionate about. I'd be bored, wondering what I'm doing there, and wanting to get out to do something I find interesting.

If you want high job satisfaction, do what you love, what your passionate about. I found, at an early age (5th grade), that I loved computers, and even more important, that I was good at and passionate about programming them. Throughout my upbringing, I also found that I loved helping people, volunteering and making a difference in their lives. Thus my current job - a software engineer working in the Medical device field. I come in every day excited about the challenges and the work I'm doing, and go home every day knowing that what I'm doing makes a difference in people's lives. Computer programmers only have a 30% job satisfaction rating, according to that survey... but when I look around at all the programmers here, I'd say it's more like 90%.

It doesn't matter what most people in your profession say about their jobs or career. If you love what you're doing, that's all that matters.

[Alan Anderson]

I don't know what criteria they used to measure job satisfaction,...

They probably did it the way most such surveys do: by asking the workers to rate their job satisfaction.

I checked on "Airline Pilot" and saw that it was near the very top of the list. Having been one, having sat in crew rooms with many fellow pilots, and having jumpseated on countless flights, I can honestly say that I've never met a group of people that hates their job more.

As a rule, pilots love flying, and they like doing it well. What they don't like so much is the other things that come with the job. High on the list of what they hate is a culture that wants to put making money at a higher priority than having safe (and legal) operations.

The love of flying and the satisfaction of doing the actual job is far stronger than the dislike of working in a stressful employment situation. That's why airline pilots are high on the "job satisfaction" list.

Computer programmers only have a 30% job satisfaction rating, according to that survey...

It's not as common to find programmers who get real joy out of what they do, so the typical management's lack of understanding of good processes tends to skew the results more strongly to the negative side.

[Andrew Schuetze]

I am posting prior to reading the article and all of the posts here in the thread. I am going to fall into the group that beleives this is not a verses situation. In fact, the more novel approach is to apply for STEM funding as a STEAM program. (A=Arts) The creative and inventive processes are similar across disciplines but have different end products. I am not gaining much traction for a summer professional development institute on STEAM which is an integration of both STEM and the Arts. I don't yet have enough resources to adequately develop and promote this project but I see value in starting to promote it. I am hoping to run a week long institute for middle and high school teachers using the 3D game design engine developed by Microsoft Research (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx), Kodu (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/kodu/). The programming side is a GUI with parallel processes available plus set tool set for creating the 3D environment in which the "game" is situated. While not focused on electrical and mechanical systems, energy disipation effects, gravity are key to designing some games and computational thinking (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/)is a critical element to understanding how to design engaging games.

So STEM emphasis is not bad, does not need to diminish liberal arts, and in some situations they are indeed integrated or interdisciplinary in nature.

[Bob Steele]

I have never understood why it is ok for a politician/leader etc. to admit that they are not good at math... they are not a "math" person... etc etc.

Yet if that same person said they were no good at English... or they weren't literate... that they would be thought of as inadequate and not allowed to be in office or in a position of authority.

Why is math illiteracy something that is allowed ??? I am not talking about the calculus here... just algebra....

It seems that whenever the liberal arts community gets wind of something that will increase the technical expertise of the nation or raise the bar on the use of mathematics in society....they feel threatened....

A well-rounded education should work both ways... if you look at the graduation requirements at most liberal arts colleges... science and mathematics (in particular) are at most reduced to just 1 or 2 courses... and many of those courses (for liberal majors) are NOT the difficult courses... they are designed to be passed relatively easily.

There are many liberal arts majors out there that ARE well rounded..but I would hazard a guess to say that most technical majors that graduate are better writers and communicators than the liberal arts majors are mathematicians or scientists...

Well rounded should work both ways...
Any graduate should be able to do college algebra and use it in a practical way... they should also be able to recognize statistical concepts and be able to look at data in a realistic and skeptical way.

Without these abilities the citizen population can't make informed and reasonable decisions...

[artdutra04]

Unequivocally No.

If there was too much of a focus on STEM, there would be an oversupply of scientists, engineers, and technicians in the economy.

In the United States, we all know the opposite to be true.

I've also witnessed many times those who lament the multitude of Americans who don't know the difference between Monet and Manet, but then get hostile when you ask them a basic question about math or science.

But even more important than this, is the need to eradicate the anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, anti-thinking undercurrents in society. When those who are highly educated and experts in a field are viewed negatively as elitists, there is a major problem. When people believe the that all opinions are equal (for example, when a pundit believes they are just as knowledgeable about a subject as an actual expert (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncey9ShigUs)), there is a major problem. When people willingly disregard facts, logic, and rational thinking because they "believe" something different, there is a serious problem. When people dislike President Obama because he uses "big words" and "speaks above an 8th grade level (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/obama.speech.analysis/?hpt=C1)", there is a serious problem.

There is nothing intrinsically elitist about someone who is more knowledgeable than you are in a specific field. I will never claim that because I played golf a few times I'm as equally qualified as Tiger Woods to talk about it. I will never claim that because I wrote a few school papers on the American Revolution that I'm as equally qualified as historian David McCullough to discuss it. I will never claim that because I took a marco-economics course that I'm as equally qualified as Economics Noble Prize winner Paul Krugman to determine what's best for the economy.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I have never understood why it is ok for a politician/leader etc. to admit that they are not good at math... they are not a "math" person... etc etc.

Yet if that same person said they were no good at English... or they weren't literate... that they would be thought of as inadequate and not allowed to be in office or in a position of authority.

Why is math illiteracy something that is allowed ??? I am not talking about the calculus here... just algebra....


Amen brother... Why is it that every politician almost brags about how they don't understand science. Why is it that only 5 of our representatives were engineers? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress#Occupa tional_background) Why is it that when we get politicians speaking at an event they talk about how they couldn't ever do what we are doing? Why is that always greeted with laughter? That isn't funny, that is sad.


But even more important than this, is the need to eradicate the anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, anti-thinking undercurrents in society. When those who are highly educated and experts in a field are viewed negatively as elitists, there is a major problem. When people believe the that all opinions are equal (for example, when a pundit believes they are just as knowledgeable about a subject as an actual expert (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncey9ShigUs)), there is a major problem. When people willingly disregard facts, logic, and rational thinking because they "believe" something different, there is a serious problem. When people dislike President Obama because he uses "big words" and "speaks above an 8th grade level (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/obama.speech.analysis/?hpt=C1)", there is a serious problem.

I've never understood the trend in American politics to have our representatives as just an average Joe. No, screw that, I want experts making decisions. I don't want a man who ran multiple businesses into the ground making key economic decisions... I want a freaking expert.

[JesseK]

Here's a very recent article (just the first paragraph, actually) (http://singularityhub.com/2011/05/17/eight-out-of-chinas-top-nine-government-officials-are-scientists/) about how 8 out of China's 9 top government officials were at one point in STEM-type fields originally. I could post some snarky comment about how you don't need to be XYZ to understand that's a good idea, but I won't. Such comments wouldn't go far anyways, given the rhetoric machines that pump out endless tripe concerning inane social details that prey upon an uneducated voter's every whim.

If we get at higher understanding of math in the common American, then maybe we can change the culture enough so people stop acting upon their impulses by deficit spending in their day-to-day lives. Eventually that will propagate up to the country's leadership. It doesn't matter where you stand on social matters; we need better "numbers people" in charge so we avoid the economic situation we're in. If you don't think the U.S. is in an 'economic situation' or you think it will *poof* go away, you cannot be more mistaken.

The rest of STEM education, to me, is simply a way of creating better general problem-solvers (which seems to be the general consensus in this thread). Sure, we need liberal arts for specialist majors -- but we're running dry on those specialists to begin with.

[RoboMom]

An interesting article titled "How to Fix the STEM deficit"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-to-fix-the-stem-deficit/2011/05/18/AFN0El6G_blog.html

"The Presidential Award program has slots for 106 teachers, so there should be 21 more awardees: A fifth of the annual awards went unclaimed because not enough science and math teachers at the elementary level made the cut."

[ebarker]

The definition of STEAM as given to be by people in the field has A = Animation.

[techtiger1]

While I am all for the focus of STEM programs. The world needs everyone to keep going along. I am an urban planning major, my degree is considered a liberal arts degree. However, on a daily basis I am required to work with engineering and architectural drawings to complete dimensional analysis of them. In addition to looking at things such as corrosion of infrastructure (roads, bridges ,etc) and setup when maintenance should take place. My experience with STEM makes me better understand these issues then most of my classmates. Another point I want to make here is how many majors where calculus is required is it actually used in the field besides engineering. Yes, calculus is useful in figuring out many things for different applications but name me another real world job other then engineering where it has to be used. The reality is there aren't too many. Finally, calculus courses are generally taught by math professors or students who know the math but have no idea how it actually applies to things. This is why taking calculus with a engineering teacher is important, which most college math departments fail to do if you are not an engineering major. Just my two cents speaking from reality inside and outside of academia.

[Chris Hibner]

I keep forgetting to make an on-topic post about this subject.

My answer to the topic is a HUGE NO - there is NOT too much emphasis on STEM today. The problem is that there has been way too little emphasis in the past.

When I was in high school, the graduation requirements were 2 math classes (didn't matter what level), 2 science classes (didn't matter what level), but 4 English classes, plus a literature elective. Don't get me wrong - the English classes were great and I wish more people would pay better attention in those classes, but why did the requirements include 4.5 years of English, and only 2 of math and science?

I don't think the current emphasis on STEM education overemphasises STEM at all - I think it's just finally bringing it up to level that it should have been all along.

[RMiller]

An interesting article titled "How to Fix the STEM deficit"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-to-fix-the-stem-deficit/2011/05/18/AFN0El6G_blog.html

"The Presidential Award program has slots for 106 teachers, so there should be 21 more awardees: A fifth of the annual awards went unclaimed because not enough science and math teachers at the elementary level made the cut."

What I find worst about the article is some of the comments. Obviously, the few commenters (6) do not constitute a significant sample size nor is it necessarily unbiased (or truthful) sample set, but for the three of them, one is a science teacher, one went from being an engineer to unable to be hired as a teacher, back to engineering, and the third went from being an engineer to teaching for a short time, to laid off and looking for a job outside of teaching.
I don't have significant contact with people in this area to know if these are quite isolated and rare or if it is a common problem, but it would be quite disheartening if it is common.

[Andrew Zeller]

When I was in high school, the graduation requirements were 2 math classes (didn't matter what level), 2 science classes (didn't matter what level), but 4 English classes, plus a literature elective. Don't get me wrong - the English classes were great and I wish more people would pay better attention in those classes, but why did the requirements include 4.5 years of English, and only 2 of math and science?


The requirements at a public school (at least mine in Wisconsin) are still like that. It is required to take 4 years of literature and history, but only 2 years of math and science. Obviously those who care about college take 4 years of everything, but I still don't understand why history and literature are required while math and science are not.

Definitely not enough emphasis on STEM.

[EthanMiller]

Ditto in NY. The only things keeping me from graduating are a single History and English credit, though I've taken the highest level classes offered in each. Heck, pre-calc isn't even required.

Liberal arts has it's place. So does STEM. If anything, there can't be too much push for either - only too little push for one.

[mathking]

I don't think Dr. Roth was arguing against STEM. He was arguing against focusing overly narrowly on STEM. This quote in particular struck me (from the article):


We should think of education as a kind of intellectual cross-training that leads to many more things than at any one moment you could possibly know would be useful. The most powerful education generates further curiosity, new needs, experiences to meet those needs, more curiosity and so on.

Education isn't just an object that you use to get started in a career; education is a catalytic resource that continues to energize and shape your life. Education enhances your ability to develop new skills and capacities for connectivity that allow you to solve problems and seize opportunities.


Wesleyan is a liberal arts school. That doesn't mean it's students all study art, English and history. Wesleyan produces a large number of scientists. I went to Oberlin and a staggering percentage of the members of my class now have science PhDs. I had a math degree, with 44 semester hours in math, 16 semester hours in English, 24 in history, 6 in economics, 6 in government, 12 in physics, 6 in chem, 6 in bio, 4 in geology, 6 in music, 3 in art, 2 in dance, 11 in physical education. And I was not an atypical student.

Roth also points out that one of the most significant trends in scientific study today is the move toward interdisciplinary problem solving. Roth was not trying to get people not to study STEM fields, he was arguing against trying to push resources only into studying STEM fields.

Ask people who hire engineers and programmers what skills they are looking for (which is something I do frequently in order to help my students plan for the future) and the first few things they mention will typically be communication skill, teamwork, problem solving ability and then a few specific technical skills for a particular position. They want the degree and/or experience in the technical field, make no mistake. But that is not enough. And it's really not enough when you are looking to get a promotion.

[Ian Curtis]

Ask people who hire engineers and programmers what skills they are looking for (which is something I do frequently in order to help my students plan for the future) and the first few things they mention will typically be communication skill, teamwork, problem solving ability and then a few specific technical skills for a particular position. They want the degree and/or experience in the technical field, make no mistake. But that is not enough. And it's really not enough when you are looking to get a promotion.

I don't think they get these qualities from the classes you take though. I've been through the hiring grind, and so have most of my friends. Outside of your GPA, employers don't particularly care about the classes you take (I was asked for my class list six months after I was hired). They care a great deal about your extracurricular activities, which is where you demonstrate that you can actually apply what you've learned in the classroom and in life to new situations. I was definitely hired because of my extracurricular experiences, and I think I got a lot more out of the time I spent in them than I could have out of a similar amount of class time.

That's not to say some classes aren't worth it. There are specific humanities classes I'm taking beyond what is required because word on the street is that they are time well spent.

Since ABET requires it, all engineers take design classes involving teamwork. I think these are really a sham though, since ultimately most classes include some sort of individual contribution factor. In any sort of real design competition, your team is scored on how well your team performs, and it's up to the team to figure out all the stuff along the way.

[EricH]

Going back to the writing aspect for a minute, as I wasn't on last night:

Writing is important. Where I'm interning, there are 4 divisions. Two of them that I know about have their own technical writer(s). And at least in my division, the technical writer likes to get engineer input before publishing a given document. Think for a minute what would happen if there wasn't a technical writer doing the manuals, or if the technical writer didn't have a good grasp of proper technical writing.

What I see in that is that the manuals are close to unreadable by your average mechanic/technician. They're inaccurate at best, not understandable at worst. That's why the good technical writer is there. And those that don't know all that much about the system get drafted into seeing if someone who had the system in front of them could understand the instructions... Just to make sure that if whoever has to deal with the instructions can read, they should be able to fix the problem.

At SDSM&T, every student has to take 2 technical communication courses. That's right, two. Writing assignments in those two courses include emails, resumes, presentations, reports, and memos. Having the basics mastered isn't enough to prepare fully for the real world--some specialized applications are necessary.

Off the writing soapbox and on to some other topics:

At least when I graduated high school, the minimum requirement in CA for math was Algebra 1. I don't remember the science requirement; it might be a certain X classes or something like that.

@Ian on teamwork--Yeah, there is an individual contribution factor included at my school. It's in the form of an evaluation: "Should ____________ get the same grade as the rest of the team? Why/why not?" Or, in some classes, there is a "firing" option for a team member who isn't pulling their weight. They then get to do the project on their own for less credit than it was originally worth. In my Mechatronics class, lab groups/teams (your group of 3 was your group for the lab, and team for the projects) were supposed to come up with a team contract with expected team behavior.

On the original topic: No. Not yet, at any rate. When STE(A)M is being emphasized as much as SpLEd* then it's probably time to slow down the STEM push. But until then, STEM needs to be promoted, to the school administrators and the students, the parents and the community. But that has yet to happen fully.

*Sports and (Lack of) Education--the latter portion referring to the 2 portions of the 3 R's that aren't covered under STEM, which also seem to be neglected or overwritten by text-ese and sloppy grammar and that sort of thing.

[Nikhil Bajaj]

I'm not sure I get where all the dissent with Michael Roth's statements is coming from. He isn't saying people should get degrees in the humanities, he's saying exactly what you've all mostly been saying in this thread:

"Our leaders in government, industry and academia should realize that they don't have to make a choice between the sciences and the rest of the liberal arts. Indeed, the sciences are a vital part of the liberal arts.

The key to our success in the future will be an integrative education that doesn't isolate the sciences from other parts of the curriculum, and that doesn't shield the so-called creative and interpretive fields from a vigorous understanding of the problems addressed by scientists." - From the Editorial

He's advocating well-rounded education of individuals who are passionate about many things. I think he's absolutely right. Great advancements in science and technology and culture (especially in the future) have been, and will be, largely interdisciplinary. Sometimes they span between fields of science and engineering, but they also span human elements. No one can say that a beautiful car is not a great piece of engineering, sure, but similarly, no one can take the art, aesthetics, logic of design, and communication of an idea out of the form of the car either.

I minored in Political Science, and majored in Mechanical Engineering. I had the option of taking more "technical" electives and could have filled those spots with other things that might be more "pragmatic" or "practical" but the fact is that such subjects are places where everyone should look for inspiration. If you are an engineer or scientist and you're only inspired by other engineers and scientists, then something is wrong.

FIRST is For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, and not "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology at the Expense of Other Subjects."

In some sense, I think our community is too reactionary about these things. Our job is to bring this stuff back into balance, and make sure that the engineering and technology prowess and passion is there where we need it to be. But it is by no means the only thing we need.

I strongly suggest, even if you are going to school for engineering and you know you're going to be an engineer forever, take some liberal arts classes that force you to think and write and analyze in a way that you don't get to in engineering classes. Do an English class, creative writing, history of the Roman Empire, whatever. Find something outside of engineering and expand your horizons.

I guarantee it will help to make your whole college experience more enjoyable if it is not all engineering and technology stuff all the time. And you will be the better for it, because you'll be able to think like many engineers don't. And when you have to solve an open ended problem like most engineering problems, the more perspective you have, the better.

I think that's the crux of the argument for more well-rounded education. The more different perspectives you can see, the better.

[pfreivald]

Oh, and a wee touch of background on myself:

B.S. Physics
Minors: English Literature, Linguistics, American Sign Language

So, yeah, I don't see a conflict between STEM and Liberal Arts curricula, and think that everyone could use more of whichever one they have less of -- and if it's a tie, they could use more of both!

[IanW]

I think EricH hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that STEM needs to be emphasized as much as "SpLEd". I believe that an over-emphasis on sports and, quite frankly, other non-productive roles in society is the real problem in the United States.
Throughout my life, I have seen athletes, celebrities, actors, models, and other similar professions held as a sort of "goal" for children and teenagers. While this wouldn't be a problem, kids begin to think these professions are realistic careers paths. In fact, they are not.

No, you cannot necessarily grow up to be whatever you want.

Now before someone berates me for ruining childhood innocence, I am merely saying at some point people need to be informed that these professions are limited to an extremely small segment of the population. In fact, they usually require a level of natural skill to be successful. Viewing professional athletics, acting, celebrity, or modeling as a career choice is just not realistic for the vast majority of the population.

Also, I would like to state that while some of these professions, such as athletics and acting, are great hobbies and even great skill sets to posses, they just aren't realistic career paths. Also, don't think that I am saying that they have nothing to contribute to society. Again, it is not that they have nothing to contribute, but that so few are able to contribute in these ways.

This leads me to why I think science, engineering, mathematics, medicine, and even subjects such as law, economics, and political science are awesome: anyone can "go pro." In these fields, unlike the previously addressed ones, hard work and determination can help you achieve success. In these fields, very few are turned down because "they just aren't good enough." In these fields, people are much more likely to earn a decent living.

My apologies for any parts of this that may be unclear - I am fairly passionate about these views, and yet find myself unable to articulate them eloquently.
Later, I may weigh in on the STEM and Liberal Arts debate, but this post is long enough as is.

TL;DR: Careers in sports and entertainment are unrealistic, and teenagers must be made aware of this fact.

[gblake]

I'm not sure I get where all the dissent with Michael Roth's statements is coming from. He isn't saying people should get degrees in the humanities, he's saying exactly what you've all mostly been saying in this thread:
...

Close, but no cigar. Folks in this thread are generally saying that we need to drastically alter the ratio of STEM degrees to other types of degrees. While Roth says a lot of nice things about S&T being a part of a good Liberal Arts education/institution, he never pushes the "I believe" button when it comes to North America needing far more STEM graduates than it has been creating lately.

It's sort of like saying that vegetables are very nutritious, and that every meal should include some; and then only actually eating half as many servings as you should, because you prefer to fill up on Twinkies.


No one can say that a beautiful car is not a great piece of engineering, sure, but similarly, no one can take the art, aesthetics, logic of design, and communication of an idea out of the form of the car either.
...
Yes, but one can certainly say that it would be useful to train more people to do the STEM end of creating a car, and say that it is unlikely to be a bad thing if we train fewer people (not too few, just fewer) to do the art & aesthetics end of it.

Roth wrote all the right preliminary things to win a STEM advocate over to his side, but the STEM advocate is correct when they ask him to complete the train of thought, and actually advocate producing more thoroughly-trained STEM practitioners than are being graduated now.

Roth is right to point out that the dichotomy isn't between Engineering and Science/Math. However, he is misleading when he doesn't home in on the correct dichotomy and then advocate improving the imbalance that exists there. By correcting the frequent misuse of the term "Liberal Arts" he does what magicians do, he misdirects us.

Pretty cleaver. I would expect nothing less from a well-educated person in his position. I would also expect a well-educated audience to ask him to ride the train of thought that he seems to board, but doesn't, to the end of the line.

Blake

[Nikhil Bajaj]

This is in a lot of ways a difficult topic to discuss, because the definition of "liberal arts" and what exactly a "broad, liberal education" means has been mangled beyond belief in modern usage. So that's something to be careful about.

Blake, I agree with many of your points, especially that we should challenge him to take his line of reasoning further into correcting the dichotomy of not having nearly enough STEM graduates. I absolutely agree with you there.

But in his editorial, he never explicitly says anything that would prevent or be against increasing the number of STEM graduates. In my reading of it, he's simply advocating that no matter what degree one get, one should have a broader, more well-rounded curriculum than one does now in most schools, and that his concern is that when we focus people directly just on science and technical aspects, we lose a lot of perspective that we might have had.

This editorial work, as written, is incomplete, but I don't think he's saying this just for the sake of the survival of his line of work (at least not entirely), or being deliberately misleading. If anything, he should be criticized for not suggesting solutions that preserve his line of thinking along with serving the interests of our country and scientific/industrial progress (though he does cite examples of how the "liberal arts" can help with that).

I'll close with what I think personally, so I can at least be clear about that. I do think that engineers and scientists should take courses outside of those areas, in order to broaden their perspectives. I also think that as mentors in FIRST we have an obligation to not just convince people to go into STEM fields, but also to impart a sense of responsibility to society. And I think that a broader education than I was able to get at Purdue through that rigorous, high-ranked engineering curriculum would really help more people understand that responsibility, as well as some of the "softer" sides of engineering. Now, do I believe that everyone should have a "Liberal Arts" education in the old-timey sense of Marianus Cappella? No, definitely not. That's definitely going too far, as specialization is a necessity in the modern age. But I do think most college engineering curriculums are in need of significant overhaul, and that including more arts/social sciences might help.

[ajd]

With great power comes great responsibility. Those people and institutions who know how to build a robot that can do the jobs of five people, to develop software that can collect information about people, to build explosives that can be used to destroy cities, have a greater need to understand the people and societies that can be impacted by those actions. China has many engineers and scientists in leadership, which is often heralded as a strength of that country, and it is a strength - but we must also consider projects like the Three Gorges Dam, or their internet censorship campaigns, and wonder whether their leadership is missing something.... Everything requires a balance.

[JamesBrown]

As an example, one of my friends was under consideration for a job at NERF (NERF guns) and Sikorsky (helicopters) at the same time. Most of my friends have the same degree, but work in a variety of different fields (although they are decidedly airplane-centric).

I did a co-op at Hasbro (the company that owns NERF), I got job offers from John Deere (Software Engineering for Farm Equipment), iDOC (Project Management for a start-up company that writes apps for the medical field), and AREVA (Electrical Design for robots that work in Nuclear Power plants).

A good engineering degree qualifies you for a range of positions.

[mwtidd]

I did a co-op at Hasbro (the company that owns NERF), I got job offers from John Deere (Software Engineering for Farm Equipment), iDOC (Project Management for a start-up company that writes apps for the medical field), and AREVA (Electrical Design for robots that work in Nuclear Power plants).

A good engineering degree qualifies you for a range of positions.

I found the same thing, but I also found that engineering with an entrepreneurship background gave me a key competitive advantage when interviewing with certain types of companies. In my case the engineering side of my education was just as important as my entrepreneurial side. Also I would say that an MBA has the same effect as a good engineering degree, that you can essentially take that and work in almost any field, it may give you even more flexibility than an engineering degree would.

I have always said that I think FIRST should emphasize the social and business aspects for FIRST a bit more, because for these future changes and innovations to occur, those who can sell and articulate the ideas are going to be just as important as those who came up with them. This PR, Marketing, Sales, and the list goes on. We need these people in FIRST as they are the ones who in many cases keep our program afloat. Also often they are on the engineering teams, but I think FIRST and innovation gains a distinct advantage when the strengths of STEM and nonSTEM are combined.

And as I'm sure that many of you know, selling a $10,000 annual budget can be quite a feat in this economy.

[gblake]

...cleaver...Arrrrrrgggghhhhh - I can't believe that I posted cleaver :ahh: when I meant to use clever, in an message about producing well-educated college graduates. - And it took me so long to spot it that I can no longer it the message - How on Earth did that happen?

I suppose it is proof that we need at least a few ;) BA in English graduates willing and competent to proofread what the STEM techies write.

Blake

[mathking]

Arrrrrrgggghhhhh - I can't believe that I posted cleaver :ahh: when I meant to use clever, in an message about producing well-educated college graduates. - How on Earth did that happen?

I suppose it is proof that we need at least a few ;) BA in English graduates willing and competent to proofread what the STEM techies write.

Blake

Blake, maybe all we need is a good BA English/BA Computer Science double major to write really good proofreading software that will figure out you didn't mean to chop meat in your sentence. :) While he/she is at it, perhaps an improved version of the word completion software on my phone?

[davidthefat]

Your thoughts on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqNyaVSEsFI&feature=feedu_more and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DBt9mVdgnI&feature=feedu?

I have not watched it yet, but it came up on my subscription feed

Sorry for bringing up an old thread

[Tristan Lall]

Your thoughts on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqNyaVSEsFI&feature=feedu_more and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DBt9mVdgnI&feature=feedu?With regard to the second video: while he's right about the blind spot that technology-oriented people often have with respect to human factors (and the human condition in general), taking his suggestion at face value would be a very bad idea.

His contention—that technology professionals should go out and get a PhD in the humanities—is a terrible idea for the overwhelming majority. I can only hope that his audience was not composed of an ordinary cross-section of technology professionals, because if that were so, he would have completely missed the mark with his lecture. (I think he was probably speaking to a group of AI researchers like himself.)

He acknowledges the obvious practical problems with going out to get a PhD in a subject in which you're effectively a dilettante, but that's not even the worst of it. The path he's laying out is right for only a very select few people: if you want to work in a discipline where a historical and philosophical basis for cognition is deeply relevant, then this might be for you. But a PhD implies specialization—you don't get a PhD merely by being interested in philosophy and well-read. You get it because you're interested in advancing the state of the art in that discipline, and because you have the inclination to conduct research to accomplish this. That doesn't just mean reading a bit of Wittgenstein and Popper because they have relevant opinions on logic and scientific thought—anyone can do that, and be better for it—it means being able to dissect and analyze every little detail of their theories, to criticize them in terms of centuries of philosophical opinion, and then to come up with new theories in the same vein.

That degree of specialization is simply worthless to an ordinary technology professional. If you're interested in working in technology, a familiarity with philosophy—like from a good high school or undergraduate introductory course—will serve you well, because it will inform you of other perspectives, and heighten your sense of critical thinking. Similarly, so will knowledge of history and policy and social science. But don't for a second think that you should aspire to the humanities PhD as a necessary step along the way. Take the introductory courses, and see if you even enjoy the discipline, before giving any serious consideration to his advice.