5 ms·

Interesting that America's Tech Guru is an economics major from Harvard. I don't doubt his talent, but this wouldn't happen in other professions. America's le

by geebee 12y ago

Interesting that America's Tech Guru is an economics major from Harvard. I don't doubt his talent, but this wouldn't happen in other professions. America's legal guru would have gone to law school, the surgeon general would have gone to med school. It's generally a good thing that you can follow more than one path to tech, and I honestly don't think what you major in is all that critical. But I'm going to have to admit, with a bit of embarrassment, that it's a little depressing to hear that an econ major is the highest tech guy in government, and that a president who emphasizes the importance of science and engineering didn't choose someone with that background to lead.

bch 12y ago
Would you say this is different than a theoretical physicist [1] participating in research on a space vehicles mechanical failure [2]? Maybe Mr. Park is just excellent and what was needed, regardless of his degree. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report
- geebee 12y ago
  I don't doubt Mr. Park's talent. It sounds like he was an excellent choice for the position. I can believe this while also noting that Obama, who has vocally encouraged more young people to get STEM degrees, didn't choose someone with a stem degree to hold the highest technical office in his administration.
skywhopper 12y ago
The difference is that law and medicine are both highly proceduralized, regulated, and standardized careers, and they both require far more training, at a far deeper level. Ultimately, though, what matters is experience and skills. Again, in law and medicine, the only way into the profession to gain the experience is to have the degree. That's not the case in the tech world.
- asdkl234890 12y ago
  More legally regulated is the only real difference.
- xiaoma 12y ago
  Actually it's possible to enter the legal profession without a law degree, apprentice under a practicing lawyer and then take the bar and become a lawyer. It's the path President Lincoln took. While it's not as common now as it was in his day, it's still a well-trodden path in many states. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/how-to-learn-the-law-without-law-school.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/how-to-le...
- geebee 12y ago
  Right - but then why are STEM degrees so important? Then why is Obama encouraging young people to pursue them? Even he didn't choose someone with a STEM degree to hold the highest technical office in his administration. I also have a different perspective from you on STEM degrees. It's true that tech has a "lower barrier to entry" if all you look at is official, legal, licensed barriers. But majoring in STEM fields is vastly more difficult than a major typical of a law school graduate, and elite STEM graduate programs have vastly higher attrition rates than elite law or medical schools (like, 50-100 times higher). The coursework is exceptionally rigorous and difficult. The difference is that you don't strictly have to do this to go into high tech - lots of people don't. And that's great. But then, again - why is Obama pushing STEM?

by geebee 12y ago

bch 12y ago

Would you say this is different than a theoretical physicist [1] participating in research on a space vehicles mechanical failure [2]? Maybe Mr. Park is just excellent and what was needed, regardless of his degree. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report

geebee 12y ago
I don't doubt Mr. Park's talent. It sounds like he was an excellent choice for the position. I can believe this while also noting that Obama, who has vocally encouraged more young people to get STEM degrees, didn't choose someone with a stem degree to hold the highest technical office in his administration.

skywhopper 12y ago

The difference is that law and medicine are both highly proceduralized, regulated, and standardized careers, and they both require far more training, at a far deeper level. Ultimately, though, what matters is experience and skills. Again, in law and medicine, the only way into the profession to gain the experience is to have the degree. That's not the case in the tech world.

asdkl234890 12y ago
More legally regulated is the only real difference.
xiaoma 12y ago
Actually it's possible to enter the legal profession without a law degree, apprentice under a practicing lawyer and then take the bar and become a lawyer. It's the path President Lincoln took. While it's not as common now as it was in his day, it's still a well-trodden path in many states. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/how-to-learn-the-law-without-law-school.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/how-to-le...
geebee 12y ago
Right - but then why are STEM degrees so important? Then why is Obama encouraging young people to pursue them? Even he didn't choose someone with a STEM degree to hold the highest technical office in his administration. I also have a different perspective from you on STEM degrees. It's true that tech has a "lower barrier to entry" if all you look at is official, legal, licensed barriers. But majoring in STEM fields is vastly more difficult than a major typical of a law school graduate, and elite STEM graduate programs have vastly higher attrition rates than elite law or medical schools (like, 50-100 times higher). The coursework is exceptionally rigorous and difficult. The difference is that you don't strictly have to do this to go into high tech - lots of people don't. And that's great. But then, again - why is Obama pushing STEM?