Steaming toward STEM
Wiki Commons
Gov. Bob McDonnell has been a huge proponent of the STEM philosophy. That is our school children need to be well-versed in science, technology, engineering and math in order to compete for jobs in the economy they will encounter upon graduation.
McDonnel usually adds a hyphenated “H” to his STEM in order to promote the health fields as well.
While no doubt the future holds well-paying job in the STEM fields, will this concentration on the technical strip our children of a more fundamental, well-rounded, dare I say, liberal education. Will they be less capable of understanding and appreciating the rest of life that occurs outside the workplace?
Danielle Allen, a professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., makes the case for humanities in an op-ed into today’s Washington Post, “The humanities are just as important as STEM classes.”
Also, check out that movement to transform STEM to STEAM with the addition of arts and design to the curriculum as important components that help students better grasp technical concepts.
There is but so much time in a school day. The arts have historically been crowded out for the three Rs. Will they be kicked to the curb entirely for STEM? How will this serve our society in the long run?
February 15, 2013 - 11:27 AM
It’s a bad idea to crowd arts and humanities out of the K-12 school day to make room for more math and science. Hopefully that is not what is being proposed. Talk to practicing scientists, and you’ll find many who are also quite literate, who read history, who enjoy and participate in music and the arts, and who have quite broad interests. The arts foster creativity and curiosity, the cornerstones of discovery. Ask college professors in the STEM field what they want their students to learn, and I bet you expository writing and critical reading will be near the top of that list. Students don’t need college math and science classes while they’re still in high school either. What they need are really good high school classes that are small in size and taught by the best teachers money can buy.
The best way to support STEM-H is just to strengthen K-12 and higher education overall. And for K-12 that means fewer students in each classroom so that greater emphasis can be placed on individualized assignments (especially writing), more offerings in music and the arts (not fewer), more field trips to places like Appomattox Court House, better pay for teachers, more guidance counselors to help students experiencing problems to stay on track, and more nurses and resource officers to keep them healthy and safe so they can concentrate on learning. Students who do not have talent for STEM or interest in STEM should not be pushed into STEM. K-12 must be broad enough that students can be exposed to the full range of intellectual, professional, and vocational opportunity.
I seriously cannot believe there is even any debate about this issue. Sad.
1 – I agree with you with the caveat that “arts and humanities” includes English, the ability to write and communicate. It is SUCH an important skill, especially in a heavily technological society.
#3 Yes, certainly. I thought that was clear from my post.
4 – it is (and was). Apologies if I was not clear.
Discussion of STEM is apropos as this blog entry just popped up at one of my favorite sites.
http://anticap.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/teach-your-parents/
Kids are going to have to start teaching their parents because, if they don’t, there won’t be an educational system left for them.
Not if Republicans get their way. . .
In Florida, where Gov. Rick Scott wants the state’s public universities to start charging undergraduates different tuition rates depending on their major…..
In North Carolina, where Gov. Pat McCrory proposes to eliminate courses that offer “no chances of getting people jobs.”……
And in Texas, where the Republican Party rejects “critical thinking.”….
Let’s not make this a political issue Scott. Virginia Tech currently has a surcharge for the College of Engineering. There is legislation up for vote this term for colleges and universities to publish graduation rates, placement rates and starting salaries of each major and discipline. Regardless, we are losing ground and we need to catch up. STEM, STEM H, STEAM.. are all worthwhile initiatives. Before you criticize a program, take some time to read a little about the program. Parents, guardians, etc all play a significant role in educating our children. Government schools can only do so much and spend too much time with disruptive students. We all need to do better.
Here’s a link to the State Council of Higher Education’s report on wages of graduates by school and major.
6 – the notion of charging undergraduates different tuition rates depending on majors is interesting. Just for kicks, Scott:
a) would you support this?
and if yes,
b) would you scale the rates based on potential employability/income upon graduation, or upon burden to taxpayer (we’re talking public institutions here).
Put differently, would you charge more for an engineering degree or for a degree in rhetoric and communications?
Name Withheld…technical people read history and practice music as a hobby. Not as a college major.
“The arts foster creativity and curiosity”…How? Thru art appreciation class?
“Ask college professors in the STEM field what they want their students to learn, I bet you expository writing and critical reading will be near the top of that list”…I disagree. You think math, chemistry, and engineering professors want expository writing and critical reading? No way. Reading Writing and Rithmatic sounds like a good plan.
Right now, kids are entering college totally unprepared for science, and have poor reading levels.
I do agree that reading is of the utmost importance, without it kids can go no where.
I read that piece in the Washington Post and it sounded like a liberal arts guy trying to justify his job.
Better guide kids to an education that will allow them to make a good living and not be a waiter with a BA degree and STEM does it.
The reason I think STEM college professors want their students to have good backgrounds in writing and critical reading is because I know dozens and dozens of them and we talk about this quite a lot. What is the basis for your counter claim?
My daughter is finishing up her PhD in neuroscience. She tells me the vast majority of those she comes into contact with (including her advisor) are essentially drones, unable to do anything but make incremental changes to existing paradigms. If all you’re looking for is a slightly better windshield wiper on next years Buick, by all means encourage a circumscribed curriculum. But if you want to actually have technological breakthroughs, you might want to encourage critical thinking skills from very early on.
My high school Latin teacher told me it’s not what you can do with an education, it’s who you can be with one. I’d be sad to think that were no longer true.
Well said, Painless.
#12 Making “incremental” changes is something that can be done well, and sometimes it requires a lot of ingenuity and a complete education. And it employs people at professional wages. Your example of windshield wiper design is something that would be assigned to an entry-level engineer, not someone with a PhD. Maybe a better example would be the Boeing Dreamliner batteries that have had problems. Will that problem be solved by a radical paradigm change (switching to nuclear fusion, perhaps), or will they find better materials for the electrodes or the membrane or will they adjust the electrolyte composition or change the design of the case? You could argue that the problem might have been prevented by a paradigm change in the first place, obviating lithium batteries, but it’s more likely that the problem is a *result* of an intended paradigm change in aircraft design. Big new ideas create voids that lesser, yet still fully trained scientists fill. I’m in a position to observe a lot of graduate students in STEM and what I see is that there is a good balance between those who seem destined to make the big jumps and those who seem more likely (as a result of interest and motivation as well as ability) to take up the “development” side of R&D. Far fewer of the former are needed. Another good example is in the chemical industry, where an “incremental” improvement in a process can result in enormous increases in profits due to the scale on which the process operates. Hiring scientists and engineers to find such “small” improvements seems easily justified. But global competition ensures that “incremental” does not mean easy.
I think we do agree that all these people need to be able to read, write, communicate. As far as “critical thinking” is concerned, I think there are a variety of ways to define that, and I don’t think it only applies to the likes of Einstein.