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

FIRST General Forum
#38

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.

#39

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.

#40

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.

#41

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.

#42

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.

#43

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.

#44

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.

SpLEd
[spoiler]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. [/spoiler]

#45

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.

#46

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!

#47

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.

#48

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

#49

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.

#50

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.

#51

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.

#52

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.

#53

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 :wink: BA in English graduates willing and competent to proofread what the STEM techies write.

Blake

#54

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. :slight_smile: While he/she is at it, perhaps an improved version of the word completion software on my phone?

#55

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

#56

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.

#57