
America's obsession with STEM education is dangerous - zonotope
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-stem-wont-make-us-successful/2015/03/26/5f4604f2-d2a5-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html?hpid=z3
======
elviejo
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_evolutio...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution)
(2)[http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-
dont-...](http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-
in-man-made-global-
warming/&ved=0CCkQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNGSdRpjQK2jI1QYnqQS_vzyOAM6Yw)

~~~
reasonish
I can see the worry with vaccination, as it directly affects everyone, but
does everyone necessarily have to agree on the other two issues?

Is it a real issue if someone is doing really good things for society, being
an excellent person, but happens to disagree with you about evolution or
climate change?

Science is getting to be its own fundamental religion for many IMHO, who
prescribe 'science' as the answer to everything, and treat scientific papers
as the bible (They also cherry pick the scientific papers they like, and
ignore the ones they don't, just like religious folks do).

Also, the link you cite for climate change is 404, but I would expect the only
real bone of contention is whether any change in the climate is caused by
humans or not. Are there really people who deny the climate is changing?

~~~
IgorPartola
Yes. People who do not believe in evolution are holding back progress. They
are making everyone's quality of life worse through their sheer ignorance.

People who do not believe in global warming are even worse. I will literally
suffocate in my lifetime because of these imbicils.

I suppose in some philosophical sense, no we don't all need to agree, but in a
practical sense if we want to survive and thrive as a species, we must.

~~~
tedunangst
It's extremely hard for me to imagine how my quality of life would improve if
my neighbor started believing in evolution. Perhaps you can provide an
example?

~~~
snowwrestler
You would be less likely to get an antibiotic-resistant infection in the
future, because an understanding of evolution is necessary to understand how
massive application of antibiotics can lead to more resistant bacteria in the
future.

You would be more likely to survive a pandemic in the future because there
would be more public support for research into how diseases evolve.

There would be less racial strife because more people would understand that
the differences we see in people lie on a continuous genetic spectrum, not
broken up in distinct "races."

~~~
walterbell
What do you think of the evolutionary impact of pesticides on bacteria
resistance?

------
eutectic
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-
myt...](http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-
science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/)).

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
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
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
I originally read: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-rosen/the-truth-hurts-
th...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-rosen/the-truth-hurts-the-stem-
_b_3900575.html)

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-
hig...](http://www.itif.org/publications/real-story-guestworkers-high-skill-
us-labor-market)

------
bediger4000
_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
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.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> 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.

------
graycat
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.

------
kazinator
> _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.

------
nhebb
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
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.

------
ajaymehta
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.

------
littletimmy
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.

------
venomsnake
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.

------
robmarkg
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.

------
amarjeet
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.

------
com2kid
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!

------
hacym
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.

------
MollyR
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.

------
gegtik
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)

------
pconner
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.

~~~
subsection1h
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.

~~~
Smoofer
Eh, in a high school setting, there's no better way to learn teamwork than
being on a sports team, imo.

~~~
pconner
There are other "teams" you could be on: drama departments, school bands, etc.

------
gonewest
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.

------
todd_whitehead
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
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
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.

~~~
fweespeech
> People like him should be "attacked", if you want to dilute the meaning of
> "attacked" to include non-violent criticisms of character.

Attacking isn't purely about violence, it never was.

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack](http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/attack)

> to criticize (someone or something) in a very harsh and severe way

To be honest, you are a prime example of the article's point. There is more to
education than just STEM. The fact you failed to realize the person you were
replying to used the word "attacked" correctly, for instance, can lead to a
failure of communication. Failures of communication lead to things like this:

[http://www.wired.com/2010/11/1110mars-climate-observer-
repor...](http://www.wired.com/2010/11/1110mars-climate-observer-report/)

Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss something purely due to your own
arrogance.

Additionally:

[https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-
hominem](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem)

> 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.

Yet another flaw in your style of argument that could have been corrected with
classes in the humanities.

~~~
todd_whitehead
"Attack" has violent connotations; so does "harsh." There is more to language
than prescriptive definitions. Have you heard of "meaning as use",
Wittgenstein's "motto"? The first half of my college education was spent as a
philosophy major, which I think was useless, both personally and economically.

Please don't call me arrogant. (However much you might dislike me I can assure
you I dislike myself more.) I don't have any pretensions to being intelligent
or having something worthwhile to say. What I wrote was a knee-jerk reaction
to what I read, and I criticized his character because the idea of his
existing as a person "made me angry", and because I could not fully articulate
my problems with the content. Maybe someone else will be able to do that. Part
of it is that I spent a portion of my life believing in things like "self
enrichment through education" or "being a well rounded person" \-- the general
sentiments expressed in the article -- but now I think they're meaningless. I
learned Homeric Greek and read parts of the Odyssey in it, but the idea of an
engineer going home after a day of work and reading the Odyssey in Greek and
thinking to himself, "boy, this really makes me think; I am a well-rounded
person. Maybe tomorrow I will start Gravity's Rainbow" strikes me as
ridiculous and makes me laugh, again for a reason I can't fully articulate,
probably because I once had thoughts like that and I no longer do.

There is nothing wrong with that last quote about his writing style. It is
vague to the point of meaninglessness. My experience with the humanities has
taught me to reject most writing. In fact I have "unlearned" most of my
writing style and now try to be as honest as possible. Many people assume I am
uneducated, so I guess it's worked.

~~~
fweespeech
> "Attack" has violent connotations; so does "harsh." There is more to
> language than prescriptive definitions.

He communicated clearly and you are simply being picky because you believe
restricting the word to its more violent connotations is "superior".

The belief that a person is "wrong" because they do not meet your subjective
expectation is a conceit. Sorry, you can't simply expect the rest of the world
to bow to your subjective expectations.

> (However much you might dislike me I can assure you I dislike myself more.)

I don't dislike you or have any opinion of you beyond the assumption you don't
seem to realize how you come across and that word relayed that message. The
fact you would complain about a person's diction when they are literally
correct is precisely in line with that behavior.

> There is nothing wrong with that last quote about his writing style. It is
> vague to the point of meaninglessness. My experience with the humanities has
> taught me to reject most writing. In fact I have "unlearned" most of my
> writing style and now try to be as honest as possible. Many people assume I
> am uneducated, so I guess it's worked.

> Consider the same pattern in two other highly innovative countries, Sweden
> and Israel. Israel ranks first in the world in venture-capital investments
> as a percentage of GDP; the United States ranks second, and Sweden is sixth,
> ahead of Great Britain and Germany. These nations do well by most measures
> of innovation, such as research and development spending and the number of
> high-tech companies as a share of all public companies. Yet all three
> countries fare surprisingly poorly in the OECD test rankings. Sweden and
> Israel performed even worse than the United States on the 2012 assessment,
> landing overall at 28th and 29th, respectively, among the 34 most-developed
> economies.

That is pretty direct.

I'm dropping this mainly because at this point I am leaning towards this being
another troll account, honestly.

