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

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

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]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

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

Just did a quick google search, here's a link.

-Mike

[ayeckley]

Originally Posted by ebarker

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]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Just did a quick google search, here's a link.

-Mike

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

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

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.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

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]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

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]

Originally Posted by BMartin 234

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]

Originally Posted by BMartin 234

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]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

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.

Originally Posted by eagle33199

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, 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 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.