5 ms·

I think the vast majority of people are okay sharing when they can see things moving towards some sort of mutual benefit. For example, funding students in STEM,

I think the vast majority of people are okay sharing when they can see things moving towards some sort of mutual benefit. For example, funding students in STEM, medicine, etc. But now we have programs like "[choose "minority" group] Studies" and we talk those students as seriously STEM.. or worse, we consider the STEM students as an afterthought. Also, if tuition is now 8x what you paid before, I would suggest that there's a problem with the program itself and not necessarily how we're funding it.

hack_edu 13y ago
Those "[choose "minority" group] Studies" programs were en vogue far more in the 80's and 90's, the subject of this piece, than they are now. They're also ridiculously cheap to provide, along with being the first to go when budget cuts get serious. And if you think that the vast majority of people would be willing to pay a little bit more for STEM kids to go to school... I don't even. Very few people out there care what you study in school, and considering some sort of social ROI for undergrad majors is about the last thing on most peoples' minds. Even if there is concrete proof that its better for the whole of us in the first place.
- patmcguire 13y ago
  Why would they get rid of them if they're cheap to provide? I thought the general rule was that the humanities subsidized the sciences, why cut the profitable portion?
  - hack_edu 13y ago
    Because they're small programs that aren't missed by most. And the rule of thumb that humanities and social science programs subsidize sciences seems a bit misleading. There are an enormous amount of other funding sources within the American system (federal government, industry, military) that patronize science programs. There isn't a comparable system on the other pillar of the academy.
glesica 13y ago
Just because there are some majors that you object to ("get off my lawn") and deem worthless that a handful of students choose, you're willing to throw out the whole system, including making STEM degrees just as difficult to get as the rest of them. Nice. That's just brilliant. You're an asshole and probably a bigot.
- caseysoftware 13y ago
  While that's my bias, I believe the stats back it up. For example, in all the hand wringing about "recent college grads not being able to get jobs" there's always the implied (and rarely stated) "except for STEM majors." Since society deems people outside STEM qualified to do basically nothing, we should take that as a warning sign that something is very wrong with the system. It's like if everyone who worked at a restaurant refused to eat there. You have to start wondering what's going on. (Also, I never said throw out the whole system, that is your straw man.)
  - nick_urban 13y ago
    The idea that a university education is only for job training is poisonous. The humanities teach critical thinking and broaden students' perspectives in a way that STEM programs, in general, completely fail to do. If we were to convert to a STEM-only curriculum, I would be gravely concerned for our future.
    - Crake 13y ago
      There's nothing wrong with taking english classes as part of a STEM degree. I think it's VERY rare not to. I'm also not sure why you think critical thinking skills are something that math and science don't require. If you don't have critical thinking skills, you'll have a hard time engineering anything that works or mathing out something correctly. What makes this biased assumption especially weird is the fact that you can actually check whether someone critical thought something out or not to a correct conclusion in the science and math fields. If anything, it's the humanities that need to prove they've anything to contribute to their students' critical thinking skills, because the job market seems to be finding them lacking lately.
rdouble 13y ago
They are always used as a bogeyman, but relatively few people major in those * Studies programs. The top major is always Business, followed by Psychology. Rounding out the top 5 is usually education, biology and communications.

hack_edu 13y ago

Those "[choose "minority" group] Studies" programs were en vogue far more in the 80's and 90's, the subject of this piece, than they are now. They're also ridiculously cheap to provide, along with being the first to go when budget cuts get serious. And if you think that the vast majority of people would be willing to pay a little bit more for STEM kids to go to school... I don't even. Very few people out there care what you study in school, and considering some sort of social ROI for undergrad majors is about the last thing on most peoples' minds. Even if there is concrete proof that its better for the whole of us in the first place.

patmcguire 13y ago
Why would they get rid of them if they're cheap to provide? I thought the general rule was that the humanities subsidized the sciences, why cut the profitable portion?
- hack_edu 13y ago
  Because they're small programs that aren't missed by most. And the rule of thumb that humanities and social science programs subsidize sciences seems a bit misleading. There are an enormous amount of other funding sources within the American system (federal government, industry, military) that patronize science programs. There isn't a comparable system on the other pillar of the academy.

glesica 13y ago

Just because there are some majors that you object to ("get off my lawn") and deem worthless that a handful of students choose, you're willing to throw out the whole system, including making STEM degrees just as difficult to get as the rest of them. Nice. That's just brilliant. You're an asshole and probably a bigot.

caseysoftware 13y ago
While that's my bias, I believe the stats back it up. For example, in all the hand wringing about "recent college grads not being able to get jobs" there's always the implied (and rarely stated) "except for STEM majors." Since society deems people outside STEM qualified to do basically nothing, we should take that as a warning sign that something is very wrong with the system. It's like if everyone who worked at a restaurant refused to eat there. You have to start wondering what's going on. (Also, I never said throw out the whole system, that is your straw man.)
- nick_urban 13y ago
  The idea that a university education is only for job training is poisonous. The humanities teach critical thinking and broaden students' perspectives in a way that STEM programs, in general, completely fail to do. If we were to convert to a STEM-only curriculum, I would be gravely concerned for our future.
  - Crake 13y ago
    There's nothing wrong with taking english classes as part of a STEM degree. I think it's VERY rare not to. I'm also not sure why you think critical thinking skills are something that math and science don't require. If you don't have critical thinking skills, you'll have a hard time engineering anything that works or mathing out something correctly. What makes this biased assumption especially weird is the fact that you can actually check whether someone critical thought something out or not to a correct conclusion in the science and math fields. If anything, it's the humanities that need to prove they've anything to contribute to their students' critical thinking skills, because the job market seems to be finding them lacking lately.

rdouble 13y ago

They are always used as a bogeyman, but relatively few people major in those * Studies programs. The top major is always Business, followed by Psychology. Rounding out the top 5 is usually education, biology and communications.