3 ms·

The discussions on HN about the STEM shortage are laughable. When I see the average HN-er complain in the thread on the recent (Latimes?) article which complai

The discussions on HN about the STEM shortage are laughable. When I see the average HN-er complain in the thread on the recent (Latimes?) article which complained about how Liberal Arts degrees are letting people down, I feel that your nation has decided to strap lead weights and jump into the deep end. STEM fetishization is Bad. its stupid, counter productive and creates a vastly toxic situation where now everyone has to go to college to get a STEM degree so that they can go on to become consultants. If non-STEM inclined people start doing STEM, all you get is a huge demand for STEM and that follows with rising prices of premier institutions, dilution of degree value from anyone else and then a flood of McDonalds education institutions which prey on the weak. On top of that it leads to unhealthy competition and student suicides as - well now you need to get great SAT scores before you count anywhere in the world. I could go on, but I forget more points every time I remember one. One of the things that you will realize was important once its gone, is people actually versed in history and softer study fields who can chime in discussions and provide things like good moral arguments. If I asked someone here to defend free speech beyond the obvious first few feints and lunges, they'd fall.

001sky 14y ago
Yes, there is a lot of poor logic. Uni-dimensional education is a double edged sword. In either direction. STEM has a certain utilitly, but for many its only useful for introductory jobs. Specialization is too great. And Like accounting, it is a limited skillset, especially for senior management positions. So, yes a technical degree will put you in a better 1sr year salary than an english major (or whatever) but its not going to make a career happen per-se. Their is also dis-utility. There is a power curve thing. Unfortunately, STEM grades are more transparent and the use of curves is prevalent. Two things follow: not everyone is in the 10% (or top 10-20 schools). And there is a clear signal on who is not. Both this guy and the english major now have to go to grad school or what not to prove something. Maybe they both do MBAs. But then you have an engineer with an MBA, and still this is arguably not great either. He's arguably at a dis-advantage in soft-skills (empathy, creativity), and his former advantage in quantitative elements vs the english major is less. For some roles, this is fine. But There are plenty of smart people good at maths that make poor investment bankers, or poor economists, or poor product-dev guys. Just like the english major with the weak quant skills, but they are just missing the boat from another angle. Alternatively, for grad school in STEM you are unlikely to gain entry in the lower half of your class. So again, for the lower performers this can limit options. The only people that really have business dedicating their (entire) undergrad to science are: phd candidates, medicine, and applied engineers (like civil). And then those top or the top-top 10-20% of they best who are going to be able to leverage the full value of the degree. Go on to Ms, or otherwise put it to use in a deeper career trajectory, or go on to NASA or Google, etc. What needs to happen with the rest, though, is intesting. The level of technical skills for basic competence is higher today than 30 years ago, so people need to be doing more 3+1 or 4+1 or 2+2 degrees, combining a technical qualification with a proper education in another area, such as liberal arts or something inter-disciplinary. Being one-dimensional is now a bit of a liability (in either direction). The HN audience is not a great sample, as there are people here for whom total technical dedication indeed pays off (and makes sense). And/or who are bright enough to absorb knowledge in other areas independently. But one is best aware of what is the general and what is the exception. The odds are long otherwise.
ovi256 14y ago
>If I asked someone here to defend free speech beyond the obvious first few feints and lunges, they'd fall. Don't want to sound dismissing, but where outside scholarly work is it necessary to defend free speech beyond the obvious first few feints and lunges ? Public debate and policy making rarely go beyond those first feints and lunges, plus some vote gathering. So, if it has no practical purpose, you can argue it's worth doing for itself, but then you'd just position itself near that modern madhouse, contemporary poetry.
- intended 14y ago
  In India? Its importance is pretty huge. This is the case with an obvious argument like free speech. Have a debate on something like civil liberties and rights, or the Aadhar scheme and you will draw blanks. Or comprehensive and confident arguments against something as basic as superstition. I'm sure after a series of disasters and a home grown enlightenment movement which grows out of religious adventurism we could learn the same lessons as the west. The question is do we have to?

001sky 14y ago

Yes, there is a lot of poor logic. Uni-dimensional education is a double edged sword. In either direction. STEM has a certain utilitly, but for many its only useful for introductory jobs. Specialization is too great. And Like accounting, it is a limited skillset, especially for senior management positions. So, yes a technical degree will put you in a better 1sr year salary than an english major (or whatever) but its not going to make a career happen per-se. Their is also dis-utility. There is a power curve thing. Unfortunately, STEM grades are more transparent and the use of curves is prevalent. Two things follow: not everyone is in the 10% (or top 10-20 schools). And there is a clear signal on who is not. Both this guy and the english major now have to go to grad school or what not to prove something. Maybe they both do MBAs. But then you have an engineer with an MBA, and still this is arguably not great either. He's arguably at a dis-advantage in soft-skills (empathy, creativity), and his former advantage in quantitative elements vs the english major is less. For some roles, this is fine. But There are plenty of smart people good at maths that make poor investment bankers, or poor economists, or poor product-dev guys. Just like the english major with the weak quant skills, but they are just missing the boat from another angle. Alternatively, for grad school in STEM you are unlikely to gain entry in the lower half of your class. So again, for the lower performers this can limit options. The only people that really have business dedicating their (entire) undergrad to science are: phd candidates, medicine, and applied engineers (like civil). And then those top or the top-top 10-20% of they best who are going to be able to leverage the full value of the degree. Go on to Ms, or otherwise put it to use in a deeper career trajectory, or go on to NASA or Google, etc. What needs to happen with the rest, though, is intesting. The level of technical skills for basic competence is higher today than 30 years ago, so people need to be doing more 3+1 or 4+1 or 2+2 degrees, combining a technical qualification with a proper education in another area, such as liberal arts or something inter-disciplinary. Being one-dimensional is now a bit of a liability (in either direction). The HN audience is not a great sample, as there are people here for whom total technical dedication indeed pays off (and makes sense). And/or who are bright enough to absorb knowledge in other areas independently. But one is best aware of what is the general and what is the exception. The odds are long otherwise.

ovi256 14y ago

>If I asked someone here to defend free speech beyond the obvious first few feints and lunges, they'd fall. Don't want to sound dismissing, but where outside scholarly work is it necessary to defend free speech beyond the obvious first few feints and lunges ? Public debate and policy making rarely go beyond those first feints and lunges, plus some vote gathering. So, if it has no practical purpose, you can argue it's worth doing for itself, but then you'd just position itself near that modern madhouse, contemporary poetry.

intended 14y ago
In India? Its importance is pretty huge. This is the case with an obvious argument like free speech. Have a debate on something like civil liberties and rights, or the Aadhar scheme and you will draw blanks. Or comprehensive and confident arguments against something as basic as superstition. I'm sure after a series of disasters and a home grown enlightenment movement which grows out of religious adventurism we could learn the same lessons as the west. The question is do we have to?