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

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

Your thoughts on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqNya...ure=feedu_more and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DBt9...feature=feedu?

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

Sorry for bringing up an old thread

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

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.