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.

Originally Posted by "'Why Liberal Arts Matter' by Micheal S. Roth

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...

[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]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

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

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

... 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:

Originally Posted by Michael S. Roth

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, I think maybe the other majors should be required to take statistics instead.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by StevenB

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.

.

[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

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]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

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]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

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.