5 ms·

Two points: it seems a little grotesque to be focusing on creating people trained in STEM solely for the purpose of keeping an "economic edge", as if they were

Two points: it seems a little grotesque to be focusing on creating people trained in STEM solely for the purpose of keeping an "economic edge", as if they were troops that we need to keep us safe, and university students are some kind of army we need to train, and secondly more and more ethical and cultural issues due to what STEM students go on to create have come to light recently, and training in critical thinking, philosophy and even art may help with that - though in a way that also seems wrong-headed: to encourage people to pick humanities subjects to help the people who picked STEM subjects not be unethical. It's Kafkaesque.

wbl 7y ago
The idea that US high schools provide a liberal arts education when colleges increasing find themselves unwilling or unable to is a fantasy. The STEM focus was born out of the inadequate secondary education. Those same inadequacies exist in liberal arts education.
Viliam1234 7y ago
Is there any evidence that training people in critical thinking at school actually improves their critical thinking? Also, the same question about ethics.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  Critical thinking, at least in my country, isn't taught widely at school. But my proposal wouldn't be to introduce a mandatory 'critical thinking' class, it would be to reform the education system to be built on critical thinking in every facet, whether it be in STEM, philosophy or otherwise. I too doubt the effectiveness of a class that explicitly teaches critical thinking, just as I doubt the effectiveness of ethics seminars at big companies.
- kiba 7y ago
  Do we actually have a class called "critical thinking"?
corodra 7y ago
I mean, you're not wrong. That's the whole point behind a specialized workforce. The whole point to modern society is individuals focus on something and do it, really, really well. We then suffer doing other stuff competently. Other than the occasional hobby gardener, how many tech engineers know how to maintain a vegetable garden? I've asked this to a few people before. They just imagine it's as simple as throwing seeds in the ground, making sure there's water and waiting. Growing food on a decent scale, like feeding just yourself, takes a lot more. Knowing how and when to fertilize soil. How much sunlight. How much water. Seasonal timing for maximum yield. Recognizing disease and ailments. And it goes on. But we're a society where not everyone has to farm. That's both good and bad. Same goes with building homes, bridges, maintaining a water supply, electricity, preserving food, curing disease, etc. But the drawback to that system, it's easier to wipe out a small population and start to handicap that society. Thus, you do have a "type of army" of structural engineers that build and help maintain bridges. If they're gone, there are problems. I do have one... discussion point(?) I'd like to bring up. I constantly see and hear that liberal arts and what not is supposed to teach critical thinking. How does it do so more than engineering? Engineering especially forces you not to just think of the immediate solution, but long term both in terms of wear/tear, environment factors, attack vectors and future proofing against obsolescence. Yet, I'm told, rather often by other people that a liberal arts major can do this better than an engineer. Look, I'm a sub-par engineer and programmer. I say this often and will never hide it. But I've yet to meet someone with a liberal arts or literary degree that can do analysis and solution strategies on complex, real world problems anywhere close to me. Sure, I get hung up on theoretical problems. Really badly too. But when it comes to the real world, I've never met a non-engineer who can step forward on a, again, real world problem.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  The whole ideology of capitalist society is that you're supposed to be able to pursue whatever goal you'd like, that you accept the consequences of that decision, and that there is no common good by which individuals should be directed, at least by force. Now I don't think that's the case, obviously, but that's the ideological line. Thus the creation of an "army" of structural engineers would involve some level of coercion to direct the wants and needs and mold ordinary members of society into the engineers of that society. The precondition for this is only being a member of society with sufficient funds (or ability to loan) to enter the education system. But the precondition being 'molded' this way is different from the army system in most Western countries in which there is no conscription. You never chose to be molded that way, you were simply born with access to the education system. By joining the army you chose to be molded that way. I concede that 'molding' happens all the time from every imaginable source, but it seems to me to run directly counter to at least the spirit of freedom to pursue one's own ends under such influence. The invisible hand is superseded by a government's education secretary. With regards to your point, the answer probably lies along the different types of reason. To put it crudely, if we were to ask whether a bomb made by a mad scientist is 'good', an engineer will first be directed to look at it in terms of destructive capacity, wear/tear, whether it can be used in the rain, and whether the production line is future-proof against enemies. The philosophy student, hopefully, will be directed to ask whether it was ethical for the mad scientist to create the bomb. The difference here turns on the meaning of the criterion (goodness), which is viewed from two different perspectives. Plenty of "liberal arts" degree holders really do engage in analysis of complex, real world problems. For instance, the debate around, say, pornography (a very contentious topic which can and does inform legislation), distributive justice, or taxation (in the more abstract sense) is usually held by philosophers and sociologists. These are extremely important and complex problems that are informed by empirical data, not unlike in engineering. It seems as though you expect the philosopher to come forward with a ready-made solution, and indeed many do, but the field operates differently, it operates through dialogue, not only learning from past work. Next, it is worth considering whether working on the real world problems "close to you" is more important than more abstract ones. Philosophy and sociology work at a slower pace than the already slow engineering. It takes years or decades for new engineering works to make their way to pervade society (not merely to influence a few companies in tight competition with another) and it likewise takes a long time for attitudes to change.
knolax 7y ago
> it seems a little grotesque to be focusing on creating people trained in STEM solely for the purpose of keeping an "economic edge", as if they were troops that we need to keep us safe But the reality of the situation is that economic "troops" are required to maintain our current standard of living. It seems to me even more grotesque to ignore the immediate needs of society because it feels wrong from some ivory tower philosophical perspective.
6thaccount2 7y ago
I think "grotesque" is a little extreme here. Economic edge is certainly an advantage that comes out of constantly producing new technologies which aid humanity. I can understand your concern though as many technologies come with environmental impacts...etc. Another way to view this in a more positive light is that we're also in the midst of a green revolution (wind, solar, energy storage... etc). The more people we have tackling these hard technical problems (transportation, renewable energy generation, fusion, finding an end to cancer, optimizing food production) the better. Of course, this can't come at the expense of our humanity, but providing additional focus on pivotal subjects like mathematics is vital to the human race.

wbl 7y ago

The idea that US high schools provide a liberal arts education when colleges increasing find themselves unwilling or unable to is a fantasy. The STEM focus was born out of the inadequate secondary education. Those same inadequacies exist in liberal arts education.

Viliam1234 7y ago

Is there any evidence that training people in critical thinking at school actually improves their critical thinking? Also, the same question about ethics.

claudiawerner 7y ago
Critical thinking, at least in my country, isn't taught widely at school. But my proposal wouldn't be to introduce a mandatory 'critical thinking' class, it would be to reform the education system to be built on critical thinking in every facet, whether it be in STEM, philosophy or otherwise. I too doubt the effectiveness of a class that explicitly teaches critical thinking, just as I doubt the effectiveness of ethics seminars at big companies.
kiba 7y ago
Do we actually have a class called "critical thinking"?

corodra 7y ago

I mean, you're not wrong. That's the whole point behind a specialized workforce. The whole point to modern society is individuals focus on something and do it, really, really well. We then suffer doing other stuff competently. Other than the occasional hobby gardener, how many tech engineers know how to maintain a vegetable garden? I've asked this to a few people before. They just imagine it's as simple as throwing seeds in the ground, making sure there's water and waiting. Growing food on a decent scale, like feeding just yourself, takes a lot more. Knowing how and when to fertilize soil. How much sunlight. How much water. Seasonal timing for maximum yield. Recognizing disease and ailments. And it goes on. But we're a society where not everyone has to farm. That's both good and bad. Same goes with building homes, bridges, maintaining a water supply, electricity, preserving food, curing disease, etc. But the drawback to that system, it's easier to wipe out a small population and start to handicap that society. Thus, you do have a "type of army" of structural engineers that build and help maintain bridges. If they're gone, there are problems. I do have one... discussion point(?) I'd like to bring up. I constantly see and hear that liberal arts and what not is supposed to teach critical thinking. How does it do so more than engineering? Engineering especially forces you not to just think of the immediate solution, but long term both in terms of wear/tear, environment factors, attack vectors and future proofing against obsolescence. Yet, I'm told, rather often by other people that a liberal arts major can do this better than an engineer. Look, I'm a sub-par engineer and programmer. I say this often and will never hide it. But I've yet to meet someone with a liberal arts or literary degree that can do analysis and solution strategies on complex, real world problems anywhere close to me. Sure, I get hung up on theoretical problems. Really badly too. But when it comes to the real world, I've never met a non-engineer who can step forward on a, again, real world problem.

claudiawerner 7y ago
The whole ideology of capitalist society is that you're supposed to be able to pursue whatever goal you'd like, that you accept the consequences of that decision, and that there is no common good by which individuals should be directed, at least by force. Now I don't think that's the case, obviously, but that's the ideological line. Thus the creation of an "army" of structural engineers would involve some level of coercion to direct the wants and needs and mold ordinary members of society into the engineers of that society. The precondition for this is only being a member of society with sufficient funds (or ability to loan) to enter the education system. But the precondition being 'molded' this way is different from the army system in most Western countries in which there is no conscription. You never chose to be molded that way, you were simply born with access to the education system. By joining the army you chose to be molded that way. I concede that 'molding' happens all the time from every imaginable source, but it seems to me to run directly counter to at least the spirit of freedom to pursue one's own ends under such influence. The invisible hand is superseded by a government's education secretary. With regards to your point, the answer probably lies along the different types of reason. To put it crudely, if we were to ask whether a bomb made by a mad scientist is 'good', an engineer will first be directed to look at it in terms of destructive capacity, wear/tear, whether it can be used in the rain, and whether the production line is future-proof against enemies. The philosophy student, hopefully, will be directed to ask whether it was ethical for the mad scientist to create the bomb. The difference here turns on the meaning of the criterion (goodness), which is viewed from two different perspectives. Plenty of "liberal arts" degree holders really do engage in analysis of complex, real world problems. For instance, the debate around, say, pornography (a very contentious topic which can and does inform legislation), distributive justice, or taxation (in the more abstract sense) is usually held by philosophers and sociologists. These are extremely important and complex problems that are informed by empirical data, not unlike in engineering. It seems as though you expect the philosopher to come forward with a ready-made solution, and indeed many do, but the field operates differently, it operates through dialogue, not only learning from past work. Next, it is worth considering whether working on the real world problems "close to you" is more important than more abstract ones. Philosophy and sociology work at a slower pace than the already slow engineering. It takes years or decades for new engineering works to make their way to pervade society (not merely to influence a few companies in tight competition with another) and it likewise takes a long time for attitudes to change.

knolax 7y ago

> it seems a little grotesque to be focusing on creating people trained in STEM solely for the purpose of keeping an "economic edge", as if they were troops that we need to keep us safe But the reality of the situation is that economic "troops" are required to maintain our current standard of living. It seems to me even more grotesque to ignore the immediate needs of society because it feels wrong from some ivory tower philosophical perspective.

6thaccount2 7y ago

I think "grotesque" is a little extreme here. Economic edge is certainly an advantage that comes out of constantly producing new technologies which aid humanity. I can understand your concern though as many technologies come with environmental impacts...etc. Another way to view this in a more positive light is that we're also in the midst of a green revolution (wind, solar, energy storage... etc). The more people we have tackling these hard technical problems (transportation, renewable energy generation, fusion, finding an end to cancer, optimizing food production) the better. Of course, this can't come at the expense of our humanity, but providing additional focus on pivotal subjects like mathematics is vital to the human race.