5 ms·

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 alwa

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.
  - nick_urban 13y ago
    There's a lot of thinking in engineering, but not much critical thinking. The type of thinking involved in STEM is mostly instrumental rather than critical. It's about mastering techniques and learning "how". Critical thinking, on the other hand, is about asking questions, especially reflective questions that are more "why" than "how". It's about examining taken-for-granted assumptions and considering alternative perspectives. In general, it's much easier to see your assumptions when you are confronted with people who have very different ones. Every age has its dogmas. Studying history, philosophy, and foreign cultures usually opens our eyes to them.
    - Crake 13y ago
      Yes, clearly critical thinking and the scientific method have nothing in common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking#Skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking#Skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_the_scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_... Obviously, no scientist or engineer has ever stopped to ask themselves "why does it..." or "what if it doesn't actually do..." or "maybe it's not x, but y instead?" It'd be wise to remember that the sciences were once called "natural philosophy." Liberal arts courses on the other hand are mostly memorization and regurgitation of the ideology currently favored by the academia's current regime. Before they moved to "~ studies" majors, liberal arts majors used to study the works written and drawn by scientists and mathematicians and engineers. It's easy to see why the humanities would prefer "critical thinking" to be redefined as something fuzzy enough to require no original thought or even an attempt at reaching a logical conclusion.
      - nick_urban 13y ago
        I'm not a scientist, so it's harder to speak to that, but as an engineer, I can definitely say that engineers are in general more interested and more skilled at asking questions of "how" rather than questions of "why". When I studied the humanities, I read Euclid, Galileo, Darwin, etc. The history of science is an essential part of the humanities. Unfortunately, it is not part of "STEM" in the sense that politicians use that term. Scientific revolutions are definitely a case of "natural philosophy", but that differs dramatically from "normal science" as described, for example, in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I am likewise concerned that movement towards a jobs-oriented STEM curriculum will actually retard the progress of the sciences, by producing more functionaries and fewer deep-thinking scientists capable of innovation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science
      - caseysoftware 13y ago
        Exactly. One of the major discussions in my engineering program is that there isn't a "right" answer like there usually is in regular math. Instead, there's a "best answer given the current circumstances and limitations." It becomes entirely about the How and the Why.
  - glesica 13y ago
    The type of thinking the humanities and social sciences teach is the type of thinking that asks "should we be doing this?" or "what will the repercussions of technology X be?". These are questions that STEM graduates don't typically ask, are not trained to ask, and maybe should not be trained to ask too often because it would retard their creativity. However, the questions are still important, someone needs to ask them. Just because business has devalued these sorts of questions does not prove that they are unimportant. This web site is filled, on an almost-daily basis with stories of corporate malfeasance and straight-up incompetence. Yet you are willing to use that broken system as a metric for the value of various sorts of education and thought?
    - caseysoftware 13y ago
      As a formally trained engineer, we had to go through numerous classes and discussions on engineering and business ethics specifically. Luckily, most of the discussion boiled down to "don't be an ass" and "breaking the law is usually bad." In fact, the lead engineer behind the Hyatt bridge collapse spent a good deal of time with us talking about how poor practices and oversight can cost careers and lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse
    - Crake 13y ago
      As a STEM student, I ask these questions, have been trained to ask them, and like to consider myself quite creative. So many people forget that the philosophers studied by liberal arts students were often mathematicians and men of science, as well. STEM graduates aren't the people getting only half of an education, here. In fact, if historical trends continue, humanities students 500 years from now will be studying the stuff they write.
      - glesica 13y ago
        I'm not saying that burying your head in a book on ancient philosophers constitutes an education. I am certainly a proponent of a truly liberal education. However, I get quite annoyed by arrogant STEM-types who pin the problem on what they perceive to be a collection of "useless" humanities and social science programs. Again and again people say that engineering graduates are basically illiterate and that they should be taught to write. This is an excellent example of a situation where "more STEM!!!" isn't a solution. Our problem is over-specialization in undergraduate curricula, and this is evident across virtually all disciplines. But the attitude that "those <insert department here> people are worthless hippies" prevents us from solving this problem. Education has many uses. Some of them are highly practical (get a job, grow food), and others are somewhat less practical (or, at least, their practicality is less obvious), but just as important IMO (understand society and government, deal thoughtfully with social issues). The ideal would be to educate most people broadly and some more specifically in each area. But inter-area bigotry and dismissal prevents us from achieving that first part.
- HarryHirsch 13y ago
  > If we were to convert to a STEM-only curriculum, I would be gravely concerned for our future. Amen. I remember this study which said that studying English Lit. reduces police brutality. This makes sense. If a policeman has to read Steinbeck in college, this makes him think about his clients and the nature of the law that he has sworn to uphold.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  What negative consequences do you believe would occur?
  - nick_urban 13y ago
    They are legion, but here are a few: - a less informed citizenry - increasing fundamentalism - increasing conformity - the loss of high culture - the triumph of materialism and external symbols over internal development - religion and politics even more dominated by strident name-calling These things are happening already, and I attribute that partially to the fact that the humanities have already been gutted, intellectually as well as financially.
    - caseysoftware 13y ago
      I find this quite ironic considering the first response to my comment was one of the humanities advocates calling me an asshole because I disagreed with him.
jmduke 13y ago
You're equivocating merit of a college program with employability.
glesica 13y ago
You implied that public funding is not a worthwhile undertaking. This means that the whole system gets thrown out. We don't fund certain programs, we fund universities. Beyond that, I think that training people to think about the problems we have as a society and to come up with and advocate for solutions to those problems is extremely mutually beneficial. Partly because of public funding, universities have traditionally been hotbeds of social activism and progress. This won't happen if these institutions are transformed into mere job-training centers.
rmc 13y ago
Computer Science can often have one of the highest percentages of graduates who can't find a job. We all know that people are leaving university and being unable to code. Maybe we should scrap CompSci then?

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.
- nick_urban 13y ago
  There's a lot of thinking in engineering, but not much critical thinking. The type of thinking involved in STEM is mostly instrumental rather than critical. It's about mastering techniques and learning "how". Critical thinking, on the other hand, is about asking questions, especially reflective questions that are more "why" than "how". It's about examining taken-for-granted assumptions and considering alternative perspectives. In general, it's much easier to see your assumptions when you are confronted with people who have very different ones. Every age has its dogmas. Studying history, philosophy, and foreign cultures usually opens our eyes to them.
  - Crake 13y ago
    Yes, clearly critical thinking and the scientific method have nothing in common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking#Skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking#Skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_the_scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_... Obviously, no scientist or engineer has ever stopped to ask themselves "why does it..." or "what if it doesn't actually do..." or "maybe it's not x, but y instead?" It'd be wise to remember that the sciences were once called "natural philosophy." Liberal arts courses on the other hand are mostly memorization and regurgitation of the ideology currently favored by the academia's current regime. Before they moved to "~ studies" majors, liberal arts majors used to study the works written and drawn by scientists and mathematicians and engineers. It's easy to see why the humanities would prefer "critical thinking" to be redefined as something fuzzy enough to require no original thought or even an attempt at reaching a logical conclusion.
    - nick_urban 13y ago
      I'm not a scientist, so it's harder to speak to that, but as an engineer, I can definitely say that engineers are in general more interested and more skilled at asking questions of "how" rather than questions of "why". When I studied the humanities, I read Euclid, Galileo, Darwin, etc. The history of science is an essential part of the humanities. Unfortunately, it is not part of "STEM" in the sense that politicians use that term. Scientific revolutions are definitely a case of "natural philosophy", but that differs dramatically from "normal science" as described, for example, in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I am likewise concerned that movement towards a jobs-oriented STEM curriculum will actually retard the progress of the sciences, by producing more functionaries and fewer deep-thinking scientists capable of innovation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science
    - caseysoftware 13y ago
      Exactly. One of the major discussions in my engineering program is that there isn't a "right" answer like there usually is in regular math. Instead, there's a "best answer given the current circumstances and limitations." It becomes entirely about the How and the Why.
- glesica 13y ago
  The type of thinking the humanities and social sciences teach is the type of thinking that asks "should we be doing this?" or "what will the repercussions of technology X be?". These are questions that STEM graduates don't typically ask, are not trained to ask, and maybe should not be trained to ask too often because it would retard their creativity. However, the questions are still important, someone needs to ask them. Just because business has devalued these sorts of questions does not prove that they are unimportant. This web site is filled, on an almost-daily basis with stories of corporate malfeasance and straight-up incompetence. Yet you are willing to use that broken system as a metric for the value of various sorts of education and thought?
  - caseysoftware 13y ago
    As a formally trained engineer, we had to go through numerous classes and discussions on engineering and business ethics specifically. Luckily, most of the discussion boiled down to "don't be an ass" and "breaking the law is usually bad." In fact, the lead engineer behind the Hyatt bridge collapse spent a good deal of time with us talking about how poor practices and oversight can cost careers and lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse
  - Crake 13y ago
    As a STEM student, I ask these questions, have been trained to ask them, and like to consider myself quite creative. So many people forget that the philosophers studied by liberal arts students were often mathematicians and men of science, as well. STEM graduates aren't the people getting only half of an education, here. In fact, if historical trends continue, humanities students 500 years from now will be studying the stuff they write.
    - glesica 13y ago
      I'm not saying that burying your head in a book on ancient philosophers constitutes an education. I am certainly a proponent of a truly liberal education. However, I get quite annoyed by arrogant STEM-types who pin the problem on what they perceive to be a collection of "useless" humanities and social science programs. Again and again people say that engineering graduates are basically illiterate and that they should be taught to write. This is an excellent example of a situation where "more STEM!!!" isn't a solution. Our problem is over-specialization in undergraduate curricula, and this is evident across virtually all disciplines. But the attitude that "those <insert department here> people are worthless hippies" prevents us from solving this problem. Education has many uses. Some of them are highly practical (get a job, grow food), and others are somewhat less practical (or, at least, their practicality is less obvious), but just as important IMO (understand society and government, deal thoughtfully with social issues). The ideal would be to educate most people broadly and some more specifically in each area. But inter-area bigotry and dismissal prevents us from achieving that first part.
HarryHirsch 13y ago
> If we were to convert to a STEM-only curriculum, I would be gravely concerned for our future. Amen. I remember this study which said that studying English Lit. reduces police brutality. This makes sense. If a policeman has to read Steinbeck in college, this makes him think about his clients and the nature of the law that he has sworn to uphold.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
What negative consequences do you believe would occur?
- nick_urban 13y ago
  They are legion, but here are a few: - a less informed citizenry - increasing fundamentalism - increasing conformity - the loss of high culture - the triumph of materialism and external symbols over internal development - religion and politics even more dominated by strident name-calling These things are happening already, and I attribute that partially to the fact that the humanities have already been gutted, intellectually as well as financially.
  - caseysoftware 13y ago
    I find this quite ironic considering the first response to my comment was one of the humanities advocates calling me an asshole because I disagreed with him.

jmduke 13y ago

You're equivocating merit of a college program with employability.

glesica 13y ago

You implied that public funding is not a worthwhile undertaking. This means that the whole system gets thrown out. We don't fund certain programs, we fund universities. Beyond that, I think that training people to think about the problems we have as a society and to come up with and advocate for solutions to those problems is extremely mutually beneficial. Partly because of public funding, universities have traditionally been hotbeds of social activism and progress. This won't happen if these institutions are transformed into mere job-training centers.

rmc 13y ago

Computer Science can often have one of the highest percentages of graduates who can't find a job. We all know that people are leaving university and being unable to code. Maybe we should scrap CompSci then?