4 ms·

>why push people into this when the outcome for them will likely be poor? You have used the word "push" multiple times and I'm not sure what you mean by that.

by slg 4y ago

>why push people into this when the outcome for them will likely be poor? You have used the word "push" multiple times and I'm not sure what you mean by that. I would frame it as "allow" and not "push" as the motivation at an individual level comes from the individual. The goal should be to remove obstacles that prevent poor people from joining academy. That isn't the same thing as pushing poor people into academia even if the end result is effectively the same at a societal level. Either way, I simply think the answer to this question is self-evident based on the morals we claim to have as a society. We literally call it the American Dream. The station of one's birth should not eliminate a career like academia.

foobarian 4y ago
> the word "push" Sure, one example of what I have in mind are various efforts across the board to advertise "STEM"/"STEAM" careers, teach kids programming, promote STEM competitions, run STEM courses, etc. etc. This presumably "pushes" some fraction of people into these careers that otherwise would not have gone; but there is no corresponding increase in funding or safety nets. It's not a question of allowed or not - of course anyone is already welcome and able to join academia at least in the USA, it's just that the not well-off population probably drops off before the finish line due to financial constraints.
- slg 4y ago
  It is just semantics, but I don't consider that pushing kids into specific career paths. I tend to think of it like any other school subject. Would people say that having an English literature class in middle school is pushing kids to become writers or teaching high school kids calculus pushes them to be mathematicians? I instead view it as exposing kids to a wider breadth of topics in order to allow them to better self select what career paths interest them. It is still ultimately up to the individual kid to find the topic engaging and stick with it.

by slg 4y ago

foobarian 4y ago

> the word "push" Sure, one example of what I have in mind are various efforts across the board to advertise "STEM"/"STEAM" careers, teach kids programming, promote STEM competitions, run STEM courses, etc. etc. This presumably "pushes" some fraction of people into these careers that otherwise would not have gone; but there is no corresponding increase in funding or safety nets. It's not a question of allowed or not - of course anyone is already welcome and able to join academia at least in the USA, it's just that the not well-off population probably drops off before the finish line due to financial constraints.

slg 4y ago
It is just semantics, but I don't consider that pushing kids into specific career paths. I tend to think of it like any other school subject. Would people say that having an English literature class in middle school is pushing kids to become writers or teaching high school kids calculus pushes them to be mathematicians? I instead view it as exposing kids to a wider breadth of topics in order to allow them to better self select what career paths interest them. It is still ultimately up to the individual kid to find the topic engaging and stick with it.