4 ms·

Speaking as someone who went pretty heavily into STEM (I have a PhD in math and work as a mathematical physicist) I absolutely hate this view. I have not seen

Speaking as someone who went pretty heavily into STEM (I have a PhD in math and work as a mathematical physicist) I absolutely hate this view. I have not seen any evidence that on average STEM is harder in a meaningful sense than non-STEM subjects. A huge amount of non-stem stuff is really difficult, if you tried to push me as an undergrad through a philosophy or history or literature degree or whatever I'd probably fail. Viewing non-stem stubjects as a lesser course for "those who could not complete STEM degrees" is simultaneously idiotic and elitist, which is pretty impressive. I also completely disagree with the naive assumption that non-vocational degrees are "useless degrees", there is a big difference between something being "useless" and you, personally, not understanding the use.

scroot 5y ago
There is a richness to life that has nothing whatsoever to do with money. To the technocratic mind that would confuse this fact, what is "useful" can only ever be presented in the terms of the economics profession. Under such guidelines it is quite "useless" to, say, spend a decade studying Akkadian. But our understanding of the past would be so much poorer without people willing to engage with Assyriology. I'd like to see STEM-maximalists argue that one engineering field or another is somehow more difficult than ANE studies.
- eigenket 5y ago
  Similarly a lot of stuff that falls under the STEM umbrella is completely useless. I have spent months and years of my life working on difficult math problems a bunch of which will probably never have any real-world application.
- taneq 5y ago
  Well yeah, it's nice to be independently wealthy and spend your life studying whatever takes your fancy, and if you can afford to do so then good on you.
  - scroot 5y ago
    I think the point is that everyone should have such an opportunity without having to be independently wealthy in the first place.
    - taneq 5y ago
      I think we agree on the fact that it's nice to have nice things, and it'd be nice of the government paid for more nice things?
      - bngybmgrglflps 5y ago
        A government can only acquire revenue by siphoning productivity ("nice things"). The organization and its agents bear no consequence for mistakes in the allocation. It has no means to compare value or incentive to do so. The system evolves according to the "iron law of bureaucracy" as a perfect rent-seeking apparatus. It's nice to imagine everyone having enough, or maybe that everyone is "equal." But you can't save anyone from their choices. That's not nice. It's prison. If you know how to optimize human life for a given group of agreeable people, go for it. For the rest of us, no means no.
taneq 5y ago
Congrats on getting a job as a mathematical physicist! Among my cohort (which includes a few maths/physics double degrees) that makes you something of a unicorn. If you take a moment to revisit my post, you'll notice I never mentioned difficulty. I'm well aware that some non-STEM degrees are incredibly complex and I make no claim to any ability in those areas for myself. I also never made any value judgement about courses being "greater" or "lesser". That's a subjective call and ymmv. I absolutely don't discount all non-STEM degrees as being 'useless' and there's plenty of insight and wisdom to be had from people with a deep understanding of history, or comparative culture, or any number of fields. And yet I still feel it's a grave disservice to tell the average high school student that they should go to university for the sake of it, even if that means specializing in glazing techniques in 14th century French pottery or whatever other navel-gazing pursuit, while your insane U.S. tuition fees are extracted from them.
- eigenket 5y ago
  Well I don't have a permanent job, I'm an adjunct, and not based in the US so maybe I experience a slightly different job market to your cohort. I was mainly focusing on the line "targeting those who could not complete STEM degrees", which seems to heavily imply that the non-stem options are a lesser choice for those for whom stem is too difficult.
lodi 5y ago
> I have not seen any evidence that on average STEM is harder in a meaningful sense than non-STEM subjects. 1) STEM admissions require vastly higher GPA's, SAT/GRE scores, and admit a smaller fraction of applicants. https://www.admissionreport.com/university-of-cambridge https://www.admissionreport.com/university-of-cambridge (10% of 1330 applicants accepted for Computer Science, 60% of 57 applicants accepted for BA Classics) 2) STEM graduates earn more. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?TABID=2&Lang=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=1325190&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=110935&PRID=10&PTYPE=109445&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2017&THEME=123&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt... (72k/85k median/mean for STEM in Canada, 56k/69k for non-STEM) 3) Most STEM undergrad programs require students to take roughly half of their credits in non-STEM subjects, which they pass just fine, but non-STEM students are not required to learn about chemistry, electrical circuits, etc. 4) Math and compsci departments split (read: simplify) intro courses like "Statistics" into separate courses for STEM vs non-STEM students, for obvious reasons. I've never seen gender studies simplified for STEM students. > if you tried to push me as an undergrad through a philosophy or history or literature degree or whatever I'd probably fail. Ridiculous. I'm calling out your false modesty. If you obviously had enough intelligence and work ethic to get a PhD (any doctorate, but especially math), and then gainfully work as a physicist, you obviously could have passed any other 4-year undergrad program in any field. Undergrad is a low bar to clear. --- One more note on this topic: when comparing fields/careers like this, I don't find it useful to look at how difficult things are for the top performers. Everything is super competitive at the very top level. Is it harder to be a Fields medalist or a Formula 1 driver? I don't know; there's literally only a handful of genius/superhuman people at that level. But looking at the median level, ask people if they would rather take a math test or a driving test and the results will be predictable.
GhostVII 5y ago
At least in my university, the failure rate for STEM programs is much higher than non-STEM, despite having a higher entrance average requirement. So that is some evidence for those programs being more difficult.

scroot 5y ago

There is a richness to life that has nothing whatsoever to do with money. To the technocratic mind that would confuse this fact, what is "useful" can only ever be presented in the terms of the economics profession. Under such guidelines it is quite "useless" to, say, spend a decade studying Akkadian. But our understanding of the past would be so much poorer without people willing to engage with Assyriology. I'd like to see STEM-maximalists argue that one engineering field or another is somehow more difficult than ANE studies.

eigenket 5y ago
Similarly a lot of stuff that falls under the STEM umbrella is completely useless. I have spent months and years of my life working on difficult math problems a bunch of which will probably never have any real-world application.
taneq 5y ago
Well yeah, it's nice to be independently wealthy and spend your life studying whatever takes your fancy, and if you can afford to do so then good on you.
- scroot 5y ago
  I think the point is that everyone should have such an opportunity without having to be independently wealthy in the first place.
  - taneq 5y ago
    I think we agree on the fact that it's nice to have nice things, and it'd be nice of the government paid for more nice things?
    - bngybmgrglflps 5y ago
      A government can only acquire revenue by siphoning productivity ("nice things"). The organization and its agents bear no consequence for mistakes in the allocation. It has no means to compare value or incentive to do so. The system evolves according to the "iron law of bureaucracy" as a perfect rent-seeking apparatus. It's nice to imagine everyone having enough, or maybe that everyone is "equal." But you can't save anyone from their choices. That's not nice. It's prison. If you know how to optimize human life for a given group of agreeable people, go for it. For the rest of us, no means no.

taneq 5y ago

Congrats on getting a job as a mathematical physicist! Among my cohort (which includes a few maths/physics double degrees) that makes you something of a unicorn. If you take a moment to revisit my post, you'll notice I never mentioned difficulty. I'm well aware that some non-STEM degrees are incredibly complex and I make no claim to any ability in those areas for myself. I also never made any value judgement about courses being "greater" or "lesser". That's a subjective call and ymmv. I absolutely don't discount all non-STEM degrees as being 'useless' and there's plenty of insight and wisdom to be had from people with a deep understanding of history, or comparative culture, or any number of fields. And yet I still feel it's a grave disservice to tell the average high school student that they should go to university for the sake of it, even if that means specializing in glazing techniques in 14th century French pottery or whatever other navel-gazing pursuit, while your insane U.S. tuition fees are extracted from them.

eigenket 5y ago
Well I don't have a permanent job, I'm an adjunct, and not based in the US so maybe I experience a slightly different job market to your cohort. I was mainly focusing on the line "targeting those who could not complete STEM degrees", which seems to heavily imply that the non-stem options are a lesser choice for those for whom stem is too difficult.

lodi 5y ago

> I have not seen any evidence that on average STEM is harder in a meaningful sense than non-STEM subjects. 1) STEM admissions require vastly higher GPA's, SAT/GRE scores, and admit a smaller fraction of applicants. https://www.admissionreport.com/university-of-cambridge https://www.admissionreport.com/university-of-cambridge (10% of 1330 applicants accepted for Computer Science, 60% of 57 applicants accepted for BA Classics) 2) STEM graduates earn more. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?TABID=2&Lang=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=1325190&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=110935&PRID=10&PTYPE=109445&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2017&THEME=123&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=0 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt... (72k/85k median/mean for STEM in Canada, 56k/69k for non-STEM) 3) Most STEM undergrad programs require students to take roughly half of their credits in non-STEM subjects, which they pass just fine, but non-STEM students are not required to learn about chemistry, electrical circuits, etc. 4) Math and compsci departments split (read: simplify) intro courses like "Statistics" into separate courses for STEM vs non-STEM students, for obvious reasons. I've never seen gender studies simplified for STEM students. > if you tried to push me as an undergrad through a philosophy or history or literature degree or whatever I'd probably fail. Ridiculous. I'm calling out your false modesty. If you obviously had enough intelligence and work ethic to get a PhD (any doctorate, but especially math), and then gainfully work as a physicist, you obviously could have passed any other 4-year undergrad program in any field. Undergrad is a low bar to clear. --- One more note on this topic: when comparing fields/careers like this, I don't find it useful to look at how difficult things are for the top performers. Everything is super competitive at the very top level. Is it harder to be a Fields medalist or a Formula 1 driver? I don't know; there's literally only a handful of genius/superhuman people at that level. But looking at the median level, ask people if they would rather take a math test or a driving test and the results will be predictable.

GhostVII 5y ago

At least in my university, the failure rate for STEM programs is much higher than non-STEM, despite having a higher entrance average requirement. So that is some evidence for those programs being more difficult.