3 ms·

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,

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.
- 6thaccount2 7y ago
  While I can't speak for other commenters, I wonder if we aren't speaking past each other a bit. I don't think anyone should be coerced into a field of study and I'm not sure if the "army" quote from the other poster should be taken literally. I read it as you should make sure society has enough in that basket to maximize welfare for all, but I could be interpreting them poorly. When I hear arguments for STEM, what I and many others generally mean is that the pie-chart for things studied in school (Math, Language, Literature, History, Geography, PE, Sociology, Science, Art, Religion, Music...etc) should be tweaked a bit to where the Math, Science, and Technology subsections are bigger. If that means reducing the rest of the courses by some small percentage in order to do so, then so be it. Note that I'm not talking about eliminating anything entirely. Regardless of chosen profession, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be better off by being more scientifically and mathematically literate. At this point you might ask if the same couldn't be said for other subjects like music and I would disagree. Although all learning and knowledge should generally be considered a blessing, scientific reasoning is a force multiplier. Think of all the ignorance regarding vaccines, climate science...etc.
  - corodra 7y ago
    Yes, that's why I put it in quotes. There should be an appropriate sized pool of specialty-whatever to be effective in a society. But also plus some. Just so you don't have an accidental brain drain. But output is important too. Even though there's lots of hate for commercialized farmer. It now takes less farmers to make X amount of food for a larger amount of non-farmers. But, we can also argue quality and environmental impact of said practices due to such wide scale farming practices. I think this might have been the early definition of STEM or I'm just an idiot. But I thought it was Sci, Tech, Engineering and Medical. Math just seems redundant to me in that. Because those 4 career fields are for the most part, all well paying and technical. So... yea, I guess... But also, I'm not for the end of art class or anything like that. I actually think music and art need to have a better focus of doing rather than just the history to students. Good for the soul, if you will. Something I've been working on myself recently. Well, you know the saying that anything technologically advanced enough to someone just seems like it's magic? To me, that's exactly why people need to at least dip their feet into all STEM. And I think you said it best. Things like philosophy, the humanities and so forth, are a force multiplier. However, no matter how large the number is multiplied against 0, you still get 0. I think STEM is your base score and the rest are force multipliers. My opinion.
6thaccount2 7y ago
Engineer here with an anecdotal story. My sibling has a doctorate in liberal arts (teaches at a university and publishes papers) and reads quite a bit and has said similar things on how this aids in critical thinking. They're great in some discussions, but all technology is essentially magic and math is complete gobblegook to this individual. This isn't to say they aren't smart and don't add value to society, but the things this person and many of their colleagues lack (basic numerical literacy) is important and a big part of what separates us from far more primitive cultures over centuries. I understand specialization and how it is vital, but a vast window of the universe is closed off to them.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  Basic numerical literacy is important for everyone, but it is no exaggeration to say that moral, political and philosophical (and that includes the philosophy of science) development also separates us from far more primitive creatures over centuries. To me it makes equally as much sense to say that all that development is closed off to engineers (and I say this as someone finishing up an engineering degree myself).
  - 6thaccount2 7y ago
    First of all, congrats on finishing up your degree! As a counterpoint to the above, I believe most highschool students can read the publications of many professors in the liberal arts and understand what they're saying (Ex: literary criticism) although it helps to have some background knowledge of the period in question. How many highschool students or even liberal arts professors can read and comprehend practically anything that someone in the engineering department published? My point is that it takes a lot more effort to get a working knowledge of something like physics. Although not everyone can and should be able to read a quantum mechanics textbook, I think the average adult should know about things like entropy. If you don't agree with STEM, at least change the course requirements so that the technically inclined can get more math and science courses under their belt. Your country may already do that, but it isn't super common in the US (public or private schools). My parents forced me to go to Catholic school growing up (public schools were terrible in my area) and this resulted in mandatory 1-hour of daily religion class for 13 years that I could have used for something else I would've preferred (math, science, engineering, programming, philosophy). Regardless of one's views, I question the sheer breadth of the US system over depth.

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.

6thaccount2 7y ago
While I can't speak for other commenters, I wonder if we aren't speaking past each other a bit. I don't think anyone should be coerced into a field of study and I'm not sure if the "army" quote from the other poster should be taken literally. I read it as you should make sure society has enough in that basket to maximize welfare for all, but I could be interpreting them poorly. When I hear arguments for STEM, what I and many others generally mean is that the pie-chart for things studied in school (Math, Language, Literature, History, Geography, PE, Sociology, Science, Art, Religion, Music...etc) should be tweaked a bit to where the Math, Science, and Technology subsections are bigger. If that means reducing the rest of the courses by some small percentage in order to do so, then so be it. Note that I'm not talking about eliminating anything entirely. Regardless of chosen profession, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be better off by being more scientifically and mathematically literate. At this point you might ask if the same couldn't be said for other subjects like music and I would disagree. Although all learning and knowledge should generally be considered a blessing, scientific reasoning is a force multiplier. Think of all the ignorance regarding vaccines, climate science...etc.
- corodra 7y ago
  Yes, that's why I put it in quotes. There should be an appropriate sized pool of specialty-whatever to be effective in a society. But also plus some. Just so you don't have an accidental brain drain. But output is important too. Even though there's lots of hate for commercialized farmer. It now takes less farmers to make X amount of food for a larger amount of non-farmers. But, we can also argue quality and environmental impact of said practices due to such wide scale farming practices. I think this might have been the early definition of STEM or I'm just an idiot. But I thought it was Sci, Tech, Engineering and Medical. Math just seems redundant to me in that. Because those 4 career fields are for the most part, all well paying and technical. So... yea, I guess... But also, I'm not for the end of art class or anything like that. I actually think music and art need to have a better focus of doing rather than just the history to students. Good for the soul, if you will. Something I've been working on myself recently. Well, you know the saying that anything technologically advanced enough to someone just seems like it's magic? To me, that's exactly why people need to at least dip their feet into all STEM. And I think you said it best. Things like philosophy, the humanities and so forth, are a force multiplier. However, no matter how large the number is multiplied against 0, you still get 0. I think STEM is your base score and the rest are force multipliers. My opinion.

6thaccount2 7y ago

Engineer here with an anecdotal story. My sibling has a doctorate in liberal arts (teaches at a university and publishes papers) and reads quite a bit and has said similar things on how this aids in critical thinking. They're great in some discussions, but all technology is essentially magic and math is complete gobblegook to this individual. This isn't to say they aren't smart and don't add value to society, but the things this person and many of their colleagues lack (basic numerical literacy) is important and a big part of what separates us from far more primitive cultures over centuries. I understand specialization and how it is vital, but a vast window of the universe is closed off to them.

claudiawerner 7y ago
Basic numerical literacy is important for everyone, but it is no exaggeration to say that moral, political and philosophical (and that includes the philosophy of science) development also separates us from far more primitive creatures over centuries. To me it makes equally as much sense to say that all that development is closed off to engineers (and I say this as someone finishing up an engineering degree myself).
- 6thaccount2 7y ago
  First of all, congrats on finishing up your degree! As a counterpoint to the above, I believe most highschool students can read the publications of many professors in the liberal arts and understand what they're saying (Ex: literary criticism) although it helps to have some background knowledge of the period in question. How many highschool students or even liberal arts professors can read and comprehend practically anything that someone in the engineering department published? My point is that it takes a lot more effort to get a working knowledge of something like physics. Although not everyone can and should be able to read a quantum mechanics textbook, I think the average adult should know about things like entropy. If you don't agree with STEM, at least change the course requirements so that the technically inclined can get more math and science courses under their belt. Your country may already do that, but it isn't super common in the US (public or private schools). My parents forced me to go to Catholic school growing up (public schools were terrible in my area) and this resulted in mandatory 1-hour of daily religion class for 13 years that I could have used for something else I would've preferred (math, science, engineering, programming, philosophy). Regardless of one's views, I question the sheer breadth of the US system over depth.