6 ms·

America's obsession with STEM education is dangerous

57 points by zonotope 12y ago

bediger4000 12y ago
A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Indeed. But critical thinking and creativity are the things second least prized in US classrooms, right after outright disobedience. So it's no real wonder that broad, general education has fallen out of favor.
- Jimmy 12y ago
  What countries do a better job of fostering creativity and critical thinking? Every culture has its sacred cows. The idea of an environment that's fully tolerant and welcoming towards any and all dissent is, as far as I can tell, a myth. Nonetheless, my experiences with US (university) classrooms have generally been positive. As long as it's relevant to the topic of discussion, students are free to pose a wide range of ideas without fear of social or academic reprisal. Although I must admit that some recent developments on college campuses with regards to freedom of speech are troubling.
  - aianus 12y ago
    At least here in Canada, it's too late by the time students get to university. The high schools have already selected for obedience and rote memorization skills when sorting their students for university admission. That and rich cheaters who can afford to purchase higher grades by taking accredited night classes.
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    > Nonetheless, my experiences with US (university) classrooms have generally been positive. As long as it's relevant to the topic of discussion, students are free to pose a wide range of ideas without fear of social or academic reprisal. In university, yes, after 13 years of the exact opposite.
- mc32 12y ago
  They also don't pay very well. One alternative is make GE a requisite part of any education. Graduating with a liberal arts degree leads to masses of dissatisfied students who pine of the job desirability and pay of STEM workers. in terms of creativity, I'm pretty sure science has lots of creativity. What does 'creativity' even mean? imagination, ability to create things? What have the liberal arts given society whereas sciences have brought forth the end of diseases, solutions for all kinds of maladies, shortcoming and ills of society. Critical thinking is paramount in science, but I think general education as an end in itself is an oversell. You don't see china and India rushing to shore up their GE gap, do you? No, I'm pretty sure they know what pays the bills and energizes their economies. Let me know when a liberal arts degree brings home the bacon.
  - eropple 12y ago
    Your preoccupation with paying bills that are already well and effectively paid and economies quite energized seems to obscure to you that a very large part of the purpose of a university is to turn out well-rounded human beings. While I have a CS degree (which in my school was a liberal arts degree), I credit my decision to take as few in-major classes as possible, and spend as much time in the humanities as I could, to be why I manage somehow to do very well for myself and yet claim some understanding of literature, economics, and politics. A modern education is more than trade-school workmanship, and your rhetoric devalues it to such. You're right, in that China, India, et al. don't value that. But they as countries and cultures aren't at the same point on the cultural equivalent of Maslow's hierarchy as we are, and their actions in no way must determine ours.
    - kazinator 12y ago
      Would your alma mater have graduated you with a CS degree if you had no humanities credits at all? Mine wouldn't have.
      - eropple 12y ago
        It would have graduated me with less than half of the ones I had, and significantly poorer ones--one learns very little in a 100-level but might open one's brain a bit better in the right 300-level and I pushed to be in the right courses. My university had a fantastic Honors College where I learned a ton I wouldn't have picked up elsewhere, too--I was the only CS student in my year of the program and the Honors College covered most of the gen-eds so quickly that I had enough time and credit space to take classes that were more interesting and more valuable. (None of them were in CS.) I didn't finish out at the Honors College, because the CS department wouldn't play ball as far as senior projects went and I didn't have the bandwidth to do two, but it's still my most treasured time at my university. The courses that were considered part of the humanities, at least as far as STEM folks go, were pretty questionable in general, too. My university thought "technical writing" was a good course to be part of the English curriculum for STEM majors. But "good writing" wasn't, if you follow? Nor was any sort of philosophy, more than the barest rudiments of history (in a country where primary and secondary history education is little more than heroifying the names everyone knows)...it was a dire scene. (Of the liberal arts courses I found, and continue to find valuable, only microeconomics was a required course. Incredibly valuable, though--literally every person should be comfortable with the basics of microeconomics and macroeconomics, and if anybody posting here isn't, you should drop everything and get there. It's Understanding Humans 101.) Even as I'm working with some people involved with the school to push for better technical literacy for non-STEM people--because that's important--I am pushing on the CS department to turn out functional humans as well. "We're tech people" cannot be an excuse for social, political, historical, and economical ignorance.
- com2kid 12y ago
  > Indeed. But critical thinking and creativity are the things second least prized in US classrooms, right after outright disobedience. Really? I never got downgraded for giving an answer that the teacher disagreed with, rather I was given good marks for being able to clearly present my side of a discussion. For the classes I took that were subjective, History, English (in regards to literary critiques), etc, it was made quite clear that what was most valued was our ability to made a well reasoned and well thought out argument. I had teachers who would frequently play devil's advocate and argue against any position a student took up, with the same teacher taking opposite sides of an issue for sequential questions asked. Highlights of Middle School include debating the supremacy of Roman versus Greek societal structures, studying major world religions past and present, and lots long form essays. High School and College history classes consisted of "well here is the truth about stuff, yeah it is nasty" and the breaking down of nearly every beloved trope and fetishism of American supremacy. But that is just my experience going through public school. :) (And of course anecdotes aren't worth much, but I don't think there is any sort of nation wide conspiracy to undermine critical thinking!)
  - bediger4000 12y ago
    * don't think there is any sort of nation wide conspiracy to undermine critical thinking!* I don't happen to think so either. Sorry I gave that impression. I think that a bias against creativity and critical thinking exists as emergent behavior. Teachers and administrators have to get things done, there's tests to give and grade, forms to fill out, report cards to send out, and loads of standardized testing upon which schools and teachers are rated. Some random kid arguing against some question on a standardized test only disrupts the entire thing. There is a bias, I don't think you can deny it, and it's all emergent, a second order effect of other things.
venomsnake 12y ago
With software penetrating everything there is no such thing as "outside of stem" anymore ... Edit: Also philosophy is part of STEM ... just lacks rigor sense and practicality.
ajaymehta 12y ago
I think this article sets up a straw man argument that is a little disingenuous. It seems that most of the politicians (save for a couple extremists) and everyday people who support more emphasis on STEM teaching aren't arguing it should be at the expense of the liberal arts education Americans are getting now. Sure, the focus on STEM is partially about "making America more competitive" as a whole, but I think it's even more about enabling everyday people to get reliable+productive jobs and career skills that will be important in the modern workforce for decades to come. That can only be a good thing.
todd_whitehead 12y ago
This is a very disappointing article. It's a regurgitation of cliches. "Education is about critical thinking and 'self enrichment'; Steve Jobs was a Prophet; Mark Zuckerberg is a Public Hero" -- how much was the author paid by Apple and Facebook, or is this what a "stupid sheep" looks like? The conflation of STEM with "Asian educational systems" is hackneyed; every person who does serious things in STEM knows that it's not just memorization. Speaking of which, why is it that people who aren't in STEM (the journalists and politicians) are so vocally worshipping it and "whining" about women and minorities being under-represented? "No matter how strong your math and science skills are, you still need to know how to learn, think and even write." Ironically the author has none of these skills, and the best thing for him to do would be to avoid the humanities and take several rigorous math courses -- maybe then he will learn how to define his terms and stop writing things that mean essentially nothing.
- jdefr89 12y ago
  You are essentially attacking the person instead of his argument. But, the article never claimed STEM was about memorization. Perhaps you should re-read more carefully.
  - todd_whitehead 12y ago
    People like him should be "attacked", if you want to dilute the meaning of "attacked" to include non-violent criticisms of character. If he's going to litter his article with first person pronouns and make it personal, then he's "fair game." I said the article conflated STEM with "Asian educational systems", which are conflated with memorization. Read: >But technical chops are just one ingredient needed for innovation and economic success. America overcomes its disadvantage — a less-technically-trained workforce — with other advantages such as creativity, critical thinking and an optimistic outlook. A country like Japan, by contrast, can’t do as much with its well-trained workers because it lacks many of the factors that produce continuous innovation. >Americans should be careful before they try to mimic Asian educational systems, which are oriented around memorization and test-taking. I went through that kind of system. It has its strengths, but it’s not conducive to thinking, problem solving or creativity.
pconner 12y ago
I resent the seemingly common belief that STEM and creativity are so disjoint. Every breakthrough in STEM required incredible amounts of creativity. Even average STEM workers (say, for example, a software developer) usually need to exercise creativity pretty regularly.
- kazinator 12y ago
  Yes; it's just not the liberal arts kind of creativity where there is no objective criterion for being wrong. You can't teach that creativity. The people with some of the most notable kinds of creativity didn't get it from sitting through some humanities courses.
  - pconner 12y ago
    There isn't always an objective criterion for being wrong in STEM either. Obviously, in some cases, like mathematical proofs, you're either correct or not (and your correctness is formally verifiable), but design of scientific experiments or design of software systems can allow as much creativity as composing a song or writing a poem. The results of these designs can sometimes be evaluated in an objective fashion, but not in all cases necessarily.
    - kazinator 12y ago
      There are actually objective measures in evaluating a song or poem. Such concepts are rejected in the modern humanities and fine arts. The only thing wrong is to be "non-creative" (e.g. compose something in the baroque style, or paint realism: any form which has rules.) That is the real sin: to adhere to some obvious form which inherently demands the taboo of an objective evaluation of your work.
- subsection1h 12y ago
  Similarly, I'm also bothered by the common argument that participation in sports is vital for learning to work as part of a team, as if STEM projects don't facilitate gaining such experience.
elviejo 12y ago
When: 43% of americans don't believe in evolution. (1) 53% don't believe in climate change (2) 15% don't think vaccination is safe. Then I don't think you don't hace a problem of obsession with STEM, bit with The lack of It. 1 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolutio... (2)http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/&ved=0CCkQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNGSdRpjQK2jI1QYnqQS_vzyOAM6Yw http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-...
- kiba 12y ago
  It isn't really about scientific ignorance but as to what tribe(s) you belong to or what authorities you trust. To believe in evolution is to contradict their beliefs in God. Most people on HN didn't reasoned out the chain of evidence that lead to us to believe in evolution, yet they probably believe in the theory of evolution.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    "To believe in evolution is to contradict their beliefs in God." Once again, no. Stop spreading this tripe. Catholic doctrine for example is quite clear a belief in evolution does not contradict church doctrine. This is the kind of statement that tries to create a conflict where one shouldn't be.
    - kiba 12y ago
      For people who believe that evolution is false, it's a contradiction of their beliefs in God.
    - 10098 12y ago
      > Catholic doctrine for example is quite clear a belief in evolution does not contradict church doctrine. Of course they are, they have to adapt. Who would go to church if they still insisted that the sun revolves around the earth? Just goes to show that God begins where true knowledge ends.
kazinator 12y ago
> A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Exposure to a variety of fields produces synergy and cross fertilization. Yes, science and technology are crucial components of this education, but so are English and philosophy. It's a big strawman argument because the average American is poorly educated in STEM areas, and in philosophy and English. One area isn't being pitted against the other. Anyway, it's a big strawman because universities have liberal arts credit requirements for science and engineering majors. You can't just load upon STEM-related courses and nothing else. (Maybe you can in some schools? That's a local problem to fix in those schools.) A science education at a North American university exposes the human being to approximately the right does of the liberal arts. Encouraging kids into STEM steers them in an area where they will be able to do find some kind of career, and pick up a rounded education along the way.
eutectic 12y ago
This article is conflating two different ideas; that we should have more students studying STEM subjects, and that students should have a narrower (and more STEM-focused) education. You can disagree with either of these proposals (and I disagree with both), but it is wrong to set up one as a straw-man to argue against the other. The real reasons to think that STEM-mania is silly are much better described elsewhere (e.g. here; http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/ http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myt...). There is little-to-nothing to be gained by trying to entice reluctant students into fields with high unemployment and stagnant wages in the face of STEM majors leaving their respective fields in droves.
- _gotmilk 12y ago
  I have seen this argument a lot, and it doesn't hold water. Those STEM majors leaving the field often get salaries higher than people who majored in that field going into it. It seems that these employers value the STEM education moreso than people who major in the same field. Second, it is entirely possible that these STEM majors voluntarily left the STEM field. More people are doing STEM but that doesn't mean more people are passionate about STEM. Engineering isn't for everyone, and I myself have thought about leaving the field and going elsewhere not because I can't find a job but because I want to.
  - eutectic 12y ago
    The burden of proof is on the pro-STEMmers to show that we really do need a bunch more STEM majors, not on the rest of us to prove we don't. Edit: and are you sure that your higher-wages claim (source?) is not just evidence that STEM majors act as an effective filter for the smart and driven.
    - _gotmilk 12y ago
      I originally read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-rosen/the-truth-hurts-the-stem-_b_3900575.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-rosen/the-truth-hurts-th... Quote: "People in STEM jobs benefit from being in such high demand. Study[1] after study[2] confirms that STEM professionals get paid more than non-STEM professionals -- often much more -- even when you control for their education and other factors. Contrary to Charette's claim that STEM wages have stagnated, reports from Georgetown, the Commerce Department[3], and the Information Technology Innovation Foundation[4] show that they have risen faster than non-STEM wages, even in recent years. That is a sign that employers are feeling the pinch." The Studies linked: [1] http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/stem-good-jobs-now-and-future http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/stem-good-jobs-now-and-future [2] https://cew.georgetown.edu/report/stem/ https://cew.georgetown.edu/report/stem/ [3]http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/stem-good-jobs-now-and-future http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/stem-good-jobs-now-and-future [4] http://www.itif.org/publications/real-story-guestworkers-high-skill-us-labor-market http://www.itif.org/publications/real-story-guestworkers-hig...
MollyR 12y ago
Is this what happens, when non stem majors can't find jobs ? They villianize stem education ? Don't most people just get degrees in stem, because they think it leads to a good job. There was an article on HN before on how students are jumping ship from law school to engineering school.
graycat 12y ago
The article equates STEM education with technical "skills". This is comparison is absurd and is yet another attempt to set up a straw man in order to knock it down and to scream (borrowing from the movie The Music Man) "Oh we got trouble, right here in River City. Trouble starts with a T and that's rhymes with" an E, and that stands for education. So, in the movie the guy was trying to start a boy's band to sell musical instruments and band uniforms, and the OP is trying to sell courses in philosophy and art history? To the OP, I would suggest that the STEM fields do better on deep and critical thinking than philosophy and art history. For the US K-12 scores in math and science and the comparison of those scores with South Korea, Singapore, Finland, etc., I'd say: The claim of the OP on these scores is that US K-12 education needs to do better to catch up with the other countries. Okay, let's consider that claim: Compare the scores of students in those other countries with the scores of students in the US with recent ancestors from those other countries. E.g., compare scores of students in Finland with the scores of students in the US with recent ancestors from Finland. Then are doing better comparing the schools and not just the cultures. So, in crude terms, will be controlling on country of origin. Here the OP has yet another straw man erected just to be knocked down.
nhebb 12y ago
I don't think we need to worry about STEM being over-pushed. STEM degrees are self filtering. Math, engineering, and science are hard, and getting kids interested at science at a young age can motivate them only so far. Many will enroll, and when things get tough, a good portion will transfer to other majors.
- jdefr89 12y ago
  Agreed.. If you don't really love it you will not be able to pursue a career in it. It simply wouldn't be worth your time. I am in CS regardless if its needed or not.. Its simply what I like.
- rrrrrt 12y ago
  Does this "self-filtering" explain why women and minorities are vastly underrepresented in STEM educations?
gegtik 12y ago
Rich for Fareed Zakaria to lament a loss of creativity in America http://www.cjr.org/analysis/steal_this_idea.php http://www.cjr.org/analysis/steal_this_idea.php
robmarkg 12y ago
When I was in college decades ago, engineering degrees were still really valuable, but there was also awareness that engineering was not immune to economic cycles - in fact, it was recognized that engineering had a "boom and bust" cycle. That doesn't seem to have been the case in a number of years, but I am wondering if it still might happen.
littletimmy 12y ago
A part of this obsession has to do with the fact that STEM subjects are easily measurable and tested for. Our "enlightened-meritocratic" society is obsessed with who deserves money and who doesn't. It will obviously value a math test that makes it easy to judge ability, than a philosophy essay which may improve a child's critical thinking but is a lot harder to judge. That gets compounded with the fact that colleges are now practically vocational schools which themselves tout a "return-on-investment" as their salient feature. The solution is quite simple: expand humanities requirements and make them stringent. Make a student take at least 1/3 of courses in non-STEM subjects.
com2kid 12y ago
I'm sick and tired of everyone saying STEM degrees don't value anything but technical understanding. I'm also tired of posting the same rant all over the place! ;) TL;DR of my previous HN comment on this is that my CS degree included history, writing, music, painting, philosophy, and many other fields of study, just like a degree with the letters "B.A." in it would. But on top of that I also had to take science and math, courses which used to be considered part of a proper "liberal arts" degree!
gonewest 12y ago
I read this article as "STEM education to the exclusion of other liberal arts" versus "STEM in balance with liberal arts" and I tend to agree the latter is more preferable for the overall well being of a society.
hacym 12y ago
This coming from a man caught plagiarizing his work. People won't stop getting liberal arts degrees, but we need to make sure that more people (specifically, those who might not go to college or drop out) get into these types of programs. Some people don't like writing book reviews and are more technical in nature. They just don't think higher ed is for them because they don't want to go into these liberal arts classes.
amarjeet 12y ago
Can't really comment on America's obsession, but my business and real-life problem solving sense has definitely been empowered by the subjects I pursued in humanities & social sciences domain - rural development, organizational behavior, psychology, economics - apart from my Engineering major. I believe that technology is the backbone when it comes to large scale mobilization of a solution to a problem, but we do need the right perspectives to figure out the solution first.

57 points by zonotope 12y ago

A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Indeed. But critical thinking and creativity are the things second least prized in US classrooms, right after outright disobedience. So it's no real wonder that broad, general education has fallen out of favor.

Jimmy 12y ago
What countries do a better job of fostering creativity and critical thinking? Every culture has its sacred cows. The idea of an environment that's fully tolerant and welcoming towards any and all dissent is, as far as I can tell, a myth. Nonetheless, my experiences with US (university) classrooms have generally been positive. As long as it's relevant to the topic of discussion, students are free to pose a wide range of ideas without fear of social or academic reprisal. Although I must admit that some recent developments on college campuses with regards to freedom of speech are troubling.
- aianus 12y ago
  At least here in Canada, it's too late by the time students get to university. The high schools have already selected for obedience and rote memorization skills when sorting their students for university admission. That and rich cheaters who can afford to purchase higher grades by taking accredited night classes.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > Nonetheless, my experiences with US (university) classrooms have generally been positive. As long as it's relevant to the topic of discussion, students are free to pose a wide range of ideas without fear of social or academic reprisal. In university, yes, after 13 years of the exact opposite.
mc32 12y ago
They also don't pay very well. One alternative is make GE a requisite part of any education. Graduating with a liberal arts degree leads to masses of dissatisfied students who pine of the job desirability and pay of STEM workers. in terms of creativity, I'm pretty sure science has lots of creativity. What does 'creativity' even mean? imagination, ability to create things? What have the liberal arts given society whereas sciences have brought forth the end of diseases, solutions for all kinds of maladies, shortcoming and ills of society. Critical thinking is paramount in science, but I think general education as an end in itself is an oversell. You don't see china and India rushing to shore up their GE gap, do you? No, I'm pretty sure they know what pays the bills and energizes their economies. Let me know when a liberal arts degree brings home the bacon.
- eropple 12y ago
  Your preoccupation with paying bills that are already well and effectively paid and economies quite energized seems to obscure to you that a very large part of the purpose of a university is to turn out well-rounded human beings. While I have a CS degree (which in my school was a liberal arts degree), I credit my decision to take as few in-major classes as possible, and spend as much time in the humanities as I could, to be why I manage somehow to do very well for myself and yet claim some understanding of literature, economics, and politics. A modern education is more than trade-school workmanship, and your rhetoric devalues it to such. You're right, in that China, India, et al. don't value that. But they as countries and cultures aren't at the same point on the cultural equivalent of Maslow's hierarchy as we are, and their actions in no way must determine ours.
  - kazinator 12y ago
    Would your alma mater have graduated you with a CS degree if you had no humanities credits at all? Mine wouldn't have.
    - eropple 12y ago
      It would have graduated me with less than half of the ones I had, and significantly poorer ones--one learns very little in a 100-level but might open one's brain a bit better in the right 300-level and I pushed to be in the right courses. My university had a fantastic Honors College where I learned a ton I wouldn't have picked up elsewhere, too--I was the only CS student in my year of the program and the Honors College covered most of the gen-eds so quickly that I had enough time and credit space to take classes that were more interesting and more valuable. (None of them were in CS.) I didn't finish out at the Honors College, because the CS department wouldn't play ball as far as senior projects went and I didn't have the bandwidth to do two, but it's still my most treasured time at my university. The courses that were considered part of the humanities, at least as far as STEM folks go, were pretty questionable in general, too. My university thought "technical writing" was a good course to be part of the English curriculum for STEM majors. But "good writing" wasn't, if you follow? Nor was any sort of philosophy, more than the barest rudiments of history (in a country where primary and secondary history education is little more than heroifying the names everyone knows)...it was a dire scene. (Of the liberal arts courses I found, and continue to find valuable, only microeconomics was a required course. Incredibly valuable, though--literally every person should be comfortable with the basics of microeconomics and macroeconomics, and if anybody posting here isn't, you should drop everything and get there. It's Understanding Humans 101.) Even as I'm working with some people involved with the school to push for better technical literacy for non-STEM people--because that's important--I am pushing on the CS department to turn out functional humans as well. "We're tech people" cannot be an excuse for social, political, historical, and economical ignorance.
com2kid 12y ago
> Indeed. But critical thinking and creativity are the things second least prized in US classrooms, right after outright disobedience. Really? I never got downgraded for giving an answer that the teacher disagreed with, rather I was given good marks for being able to clearly present my side of a discussion. For the classes I took that were subjective, History, English (in regards to literary critiques), etc, it was made quite clear that what was most valued was our ability to made a well reasoned and well thought out argument. I had teachers who would frequently play devil's advocate and argue against any position a student took up, with the same teacher taking opposite sides of an issue for sequential questions asked. Highlights of Middle School include debating the supremacy of Roman versus Greek societal structures, studying major world religions past and present, and lots long form essays. High School and College history classes consisted of "well here is the truth about stuff, yeah it is nasty" and the breaking down of nearly every beloved trope and fetishism of American supremacy. But that is just my experience going through public school. :) (And of course anecdotes aren't worth much, but I don't think there is any sort of nation wide conspiracy to undermine critical thinking!)
- bediger4000 12y ago
  * don't think there is any sort of nation wide conspiracy to undermine critical thinking!* I don't happen to think so either. Sorry I gave that impression. I think that a bias against creativity and critical thinking exists as emergent behavior. Teachers and administrators have to get things done, there's tests to give and grade, forms to fill out, report cards to send out, and loads of standardized testing upon which schools and teachers are rated. Some random kid arguing against some question on a standardized test only disrupts the entire thing. There is a bias, I don't think you can deny it, and it's all emergent, a second order effect of other things.

venomsnake 12y ago

With software penetrating everything there is no such thing as "outside of stem" anymore ... Edit: Also philosophy is part of STEM ... just lacks rigor sense and practicality.

ajaymehta 12y ago

I think this article sets up a straw man argument that is a little disingenuous. It seems that most of the politicians (save for a couple extremists) and everyday people who support more emphasis on STEM teaching aren't arguing it should be at the expense of the liberal arts education Americans are getting now. Sure, the focus on STEM is partially about "making America more competitive" as a whole, but I think it's even more about enabling everyday people to get reliable+productive jobs and career skills that will be important in the modern workforce for decades to come. That can only be a good thing.

todd_whitehead 12y ago

This is a very disappointing article. It's a regurgitation of cliches. "Education is about critical thinking and 'self enrichment'; Steve Jobs was a Prophet; Mark Zuckerberg is a Public Hero" -- how much was the author paid by Apple and Facebook, or is this what a "stupid sheep" looks like? The conflation of STEM with "Asian educational systems" is hackneyed; every person who does serious things in STEM knows that it's not just memorization. Speaking of which, why is it that people who aren't in STEM (the journalists and politicians) are so vocally worshipping it and "whining" about women and minorities being under-represented? "No matter how strong your math and science skills are, you still need to know how to learn, think and even write." Ironically the author has none of these skills, and the best thing for him to do would be to avoid the humanities and take several rigorous math courses -- maybe then he will learn how to define his terms and stop writing things that mean essentially nothing.

jdefr89 12y ago
You are essentially attacking the person instead of his argument. But, the article never claimed STEM was about memorization. Perhaps you should re-read more carefully.
- todd_whitehead 12y ago
  People like him should be "attacked", if you want to dilute the meaning of "attacked" to include non-violent criticisms of character. If he's going to litter his article with first person pronouns and make it personal, then he's "fair game." I said the article conflated STEM with "Asian educational systems", which are conflated with memorization. Read: >But technical chops are just one ingredient needed for innovation and economic success. America overcomes its disadvantage — a less-technically-trained workforce — with other advantages such as creativity, critical thinking and an optimistic outlook. A country like Japan, by contrast, can’t do as much with its well-trained workers because it lacks many of the factors that produce continuous innovation. >Americans should be careful before they try to mimic Asian educational systems, which are oriented around memorization and test-taking. I went through that kind of system. It has its strengths, but it’s not conducive to thinking, problem solving or creativity.

pconner 12y ago

I resent the seemingly common belief that STEM and creativity are so disjoint. Every breakthrough in STEM required incredible amounts of creativity. Even average STEM workers (say, for example, a software developer) usually need to exercise creativity pretty regularly.

kazinator 12y ago
Yes; it's just not the liberal arts kind of creativity where there is no objective criterion for being wrong. You can't teach that creativity. The people with some of the most notable kinds of creativity didn't get it from sitting through some humanities courses.
- pconner 12y ago
  There isn't always an objective criterion for being wrong in STEM either. Obviously, in some cases, like mathematical proofs, you're either correct or not (and your correctness is formally verifiable), but design of scientific experiments or design of software systems can allow as much creativity as composing a song or writing a poem. The results of these designs can sometimes be evaluated in an objective fashion, but not in all cases necessarily.
  - kazinator 12y ago
    There are actually objective measures in evaluating a song or poem. Such concepts are rejected in the modern humanities and fine arts. The only thing wrong is to be "non-creative" (e.g. compose something in the baroque style, or paint realism: any form which has rules.) That is the real sin: to adhere to some obvious form which inherently demands the taboo of an objective evaluation of your work.
subsection1h 12y ago
Similarly, I'm also bothered by the common argument that participation in sports is vital for learning to work as part of a team, as if STEM projects don't facilitate gaining such experience.

elviejo 12y ago

When: 43% of americans don't believe in evolution. (1) 53% don't believe in climate change (2) 15% don't think vaccination is safe. Then I don't think you don't hace a problem of obsession with STEM, bit with The lack of It. 1 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolutio... (2)http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/&ved=0CCkQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNGSdRpjQK2jI1QYnqQS_vzyOAM6Yw http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-...

kiba 12y ago
It isn't really about scientific ignorance but as to what tribe(s) you belong to or what authorities you trust. To believe in evolution is to contradict their beliefs in God. Most people on HN didn't reasoned out the chain of evidence that lead to us to believe in evolution, yet they probably believe in the theory of evolution.
- protomyth 12y ago
  "To believe in evolution is to contradict their beliefs in God." Once again, no. Stop spreading this tripe. Catholic doctrine for example is quite clear a belief in evolution does not contradict church doctrine. This is the kind of statement that tries to create a conflict where one shouldn't be.
  - kiba 12y ago
    For people who believe that evolution is false, it's a contradiction of their beliefs in God.
  - 10098 12y ago
    > Catholic doctrine for example is quite clear a belief in evolution does not contradict church doctrine. Of course they are, they have to adapt. Who would go to church if they still insisted that the sun revolves around the earth? Just goes to show that God begins where true knowledge ends.

kazinator 12y ago

> A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Exposure to a variety of fields produces synergy and cross fertilization. Yes, science and technology are crucial components of this education, but so are English and philosophy. It's a big strawman argument because the average American is poorly educated in STEM areas, and in philosophy and English. One area isn't being pitted against the other. Anyway, it's a big strawman because universities have liberal arts credit requirements for science and engineering majors. You can't just load upon STEM-related courses and nothing else. (Maybe you can in some schools? That's a local problem to fix in those schools.) A science education at a North American university exposes the human being to approximately the right does of the liberal arts. Encouraging kids into STEM steers them in an area where they will be able to do find some kind of career, and pick up a rounded education along the way.

eutectic 12y ago

This article is conflating two different ideas; that we should have more students studying STEM subjects, and that students should have a narrower (and more STEM-focused) education. You can disagree with either of these proposals (and I disagree with both), but it is wrong to set up one as a straw-man to argue against the other. The real reasons to think that STEM-mania is silly are much better described elsewhere (e.g. here; http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/ http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myt...). There is little-to-nothing to be gained by trying to entice reluctant students into fields with high unemployment and stagnant wages in the face of STEM majors leaving their respective fields in droves.

_gotmilk 12y ago
I have seen this argument a lot, and it doesn't hold water. Those STEM majors leaving the field often get salaries higher than people who majored in that field going into it. It seems that these employers value the STEM education moreso than people who major in the same field. Second, it is entirely possible that these STEM majors voluntarily left the STEM field. More people are doing STEM but that doesn't mean more people are passionate about STEM. Engineering isn't for everyone, and I myself have thought about leaving the field and going elsewhere not because I can't find a job but because I want to.
- eutectic 12y ago
  The burden of proof is on the pro-STEMmers to show that we really do need a bunch more STEM majors, not on the rest of us to prove we don't. Edit: and are you sure that your higher-wages claim (source?) is not just evidence that STEM majors act as an effective filter for the smart and driven.
  - _gotmilk 12y ago
    I originally read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-rosen/the-truth-hurts-the-stem-_b_3900575.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-rosen/the-truth-hurts-th... Quote: "People in STEM jobs benefit from being in such high demand. Study[1] after study[2] confirms that STEM professionals get paid more than non-STEM professionals -- often much more -- even when you control for their education and other factors. Contrary to Charette's claim that STEM wages have stagnated, reports from Georgetown, the Commerce Department[3], and the Information Technology Innovation Foundation[4] show that they have risen faster than non-STEM wages, even in recent years. That is a sign that employers are feeling the pinch." The Studies linked: [1] http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/stem-good-jobs-now-and-future http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/stem-good-jobs-now-and-future [2] https://cew.georgetown.edu/report/stem/ https://cew.georgetown.edu/report/stem/ [3]http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/stem-good-jobs-now-and-future http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/stem-good-jobs-now-and-future [4] http://www.itif.org/publications/real-story-guestworkers-high-skill-us-labor-market http://www.itif.org/publications/real-story-guestworkers-hig...

MollyR 12y ago

Is this what happens, when non stem majors can't find jobs ? They villianize stem education ? Don't most people just get degrees in stem, because they think it leads to a good job. There was an article on HN before on how students are jumping ship from law school to engineering school.

graycat 12y ago

The article equates STEM education with technical "skills". This is comparison is absurd and is yet another attempt to set up a straw man in order to knock it down and to scream (borrowing from the movie The Music Man) "Oh we got trouble, right here in River City. Trouble starts with a T and that's rhymes with" an E, and that stands for education. So, in the movie the guy was trying to start a boy's band to sell musical instruments and band uniforms, and the OP is trying to sell courses in philosophy and art history? To the OP, I would suggest that the STEM fields do better on deep and critical thinking than philosophy and art history. For the US K-12 scores in math and science and the comparison of those scores with South Korea, Singapore, Finland, etc., I'd say: The claim of the OP on these scores is that US K-12 education needs to do better to catch up with the other countries. Okay, let's consider that claim: Compare the scores of students in those other countries with the scores of students in the US with recent ancestors from those other countries. E.g., compare scores of students in Finland with the scores of students in the US with recent ancestors from Finland. Then are doing better comparing the schools and not just the cultures. So, in crude terms, will be controlling on country of origin. Here the OP has yet another straw man erected just to be knocked down.

nhebb 12y ago

I don't think we need to worry about STEM being over-pushed. STEM degrees are self filtering. Math, engineering, and science are hard, and getting kids interested at science at a young age can motivate them only so far. Many will enroll, and when things get tough, a good portion will transfer to other majors.

jdefr89 12y ago
Agreed.. If you don't really love it you will not be able to pursue a career in it. It simply wouldn't be worth your time. I am in CS regardless if its needed or not.. Its simply what I like.
rrrrrt 12y ago
Does this "self-filtering" explain why women and minorities are vastly underrepresented in STEM educations?

gegtik 12y ago

Rich for Fareed Zakaria to lament a loss of creativity in America http://www.cjr.org/analysis/steal_this_idea.php http://www.cjr.org/analysis/steal_this_idea.php

robmarkg 12y ago

When I was in college decades ago, engineering degrees were still really valuable, but there was also awareness that engineering was not immune to economic cycles - in fact, it was recognized that engineering had a "boom and bust" cycle. That doesn't seem to have been the case in a number of years, but I am wondering if it still might happen.

littletimmy 12y ago

A part of this obsession has to do with the fact that STEM subjects are easily measurable and tested for. Our "enlightened-meritocratic" society is obsessed with who deserves money and who doesn't. It will obviously value a math test that makes it easy to judge ability, than a philosophy essay which may improve a child's critical thinking but is a lot harder to judge. That gets compounded with the fact that colleges are now practically vocational schools which themselves tout a "return-on-investment" as their salient feature. The solution is quite simple: expand humanities requirements and make them stringent. Make a student take at least 1/3 of courses in non-STEM subjects.

com2kid 12y ago

I'm sick and tired of everyone saying STEM degrees don't value anything but technical understanding. I'm also tired of posting the same rant all over the place! ;) TL;DR of my previous HN comment on this is that my CS degree included history, writing, music, painting, philosophy, and many other fields of study, just like a degree with the letters "B.A." in it would. But on top of that I also had to take science and math, courses which used to be considered part of a proper "liberal arts" degree!

gonewest 12y ago

I read this article as "STEM education to the exclusion of other liberal arts" versus "STEM in balance with liberal arts" and I tend to agree the latter is more preferable for the overall well being of a society.

hacym 12y ago

This coming from a man caught plagiarizing his work. People won't stop getting liberal arts degrees, but we need to make sure that more people (specifically, those who might not go to college or drop out) get into these types of programs. Some people don't like writing book reviews and are more technical in nature. They just don't think higher ed is for them because they don't want to go into these liberal arts classes.

amarjeet 12y ago

Can't really comment on America's obsession, but my business and real-life problem solving sense has definitely been empowered by the subjects I pursued in humanities & social sciences domain - rural development, organizational behavior, psychology, economics - apart from my Engineering major. I believe that technology is the backbone when it comes to large scale mobilization of a solution to a problem, but we do need the right perspectives to figure out the solution first.