Live data from Hacker News

The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

spectrum.ieee.org

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

#61
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have literally been saying just this for years when someone says "STEAM". At that point, it is just school again. I agree that History, Art, Music, Literature, Philosophy...etc are important and can't imagine a world without them, but the whole point behind STEM was to put a focus on Math and Science because those help us keep our economic edge and solve the world's upcoming problems on the technical side. Providin…

It turns out that those solutions STEM folks have to technical problems have created a whole host of social problems. The pendulum needs to swing the other way.

There are still grave social injustices in the world, but do you think the US (for example) is worse off than in the 1850's or 1940's?

What would your ideal curriculum be?

Re: The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

#62

The local schools here now call it STEAM, include in "Arts" and now say: >"It will include subjects like history, social studies, and language arts, all of which are vital facets of a STEAM curriculum." and now STEM has no meaning anymore (if it ever did). These are all fine subjects, but they miss the point of the push for STEM that was based on the theory that Americans are falling behind in Math, Science, and Engi…

That was a coup by the Rhode Island School of Design.[1]

As a result, we now have "maker spaces" with people making collages and doing embroidery, but no metalworking tools.

[1] https://www.risd.edu/academics/public-engagement/

Re: The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have literally been saying just this for years when someone says "STEAM". At that point, it is just school again. I agree that History, Art, Music, Literature, Philosophy...etc are important and can't imagine a world without them, but the whole point behind STEM was to put a focus on Math and Science because those help us keep our economic edge and solve the world's upcoming problems on the technical side. Providin…

Two points: it seems a little grotesque to be focusing on creating people trained in STEM solely for the purpose of keeping an "economic edge", as if they were troops that we need to keep us safe, and university students are some kind of army we need to train, and secondly more and more ethical and cultural issues due to what STEM students go on to create have come to light recently, and training in critical thinking…

Is there any evidence that training people in critical thinking at school actually improves their critical thinking? Also, the same question about ethics.

Re: The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

#64
post #22

The local schools here now call it STEAM, include in "Arts" and now say: >"It will include subjects like history, social studies, and language arts, all of which are vital facets of a STEAM curriculum." and now STEM has no meaning anymore (if it ever did). These are all fine subjects, but they miss the point of the push for STEM that was based on the theory that Americans are falling behind in Math, Science, and Engi…

Something I've observed working in education: All educational acronyms eventually become SCHOOL.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics -> Science, CHemistry, and Object-Oriented Languages ?

Re: The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points: it seems a little grotesque to be focusing on creating people trained in STEM solely for the purpose of keeping an "economic edge", as if they were troops that we need to keep us safe, and university students are some kind of army we need to train, and secondly more and more ethical and cultural issues due to what STEM students go on to create have come to light recently, and training in critical thinking…

Is there any evidence that training people in critical thinking at school actually improves their critical thinking? Also, the same question about ethics.

Critical thinking, at least in my country, isn't taught widely at school. But my proposal wouldn't be to introduce a mandatory 'critical thinking' class, it would be to reform the education system to be built on critical thinking in every facet, whether it be in STEM, philosophy or otherwise. I too doubt the effectiveness of a class that explicitly teaches critical thinking, just as I doubt the effectiveness of ethics seminars at big companies.

Re: The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

#66
post #32

The local schools here now call it STEAM, include in "Arts" and now say: >"It will include subjects like history, social studies, and language arts, all of which are vital facets of a STEAM curriculum." and now STEM has no meaning anymore (if it ever did). These are all fine subjects, but they miss the point of the push for STEM that was based on the theory that Americans are falling behind in Math, Science, and Engi…

STEAM just correctly recognizes that STEM people systematically underrate the importance of history and social studies.

It’s not a question of importance, but abundance.

Looking at salaries there is an over abundance of history and social studies graduates. It’s simply a supply vs demand imbalance, and one that has real consequences.

Many STEM fields are also over saturated, and some arts fields can make a good career path. But, nuances are not really the point of this discussion.

Re: The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

#67

Slightly off topic, but I feel like when people talk of STEM as a lucrative field of study, they tend to imply CS. Non-CS STEM field hardly have a shortage of qualified and talented people. In fact, there's probably a oversupply compared to job prospects in non-CS STEM fields. I see so many talented Math/Physics majors end up switching to CS and do mundane software engineering work.

Do you mean computer science or programming? Most programmers are not doing computer science, and I wonder how many are actually doing engineering.

Programming is a paradox because it's an easy job, but with entry barriers that we don't fully understand. It seems to be prohibitively hard for most people, but easy for a few, and for those few, it doesn't seem to matter too much what their educational background is. I know people with music degrees who became programmers.

I was a math/physics major. Don't know about the talented part. ;-) Today, if you were to monitor what I spend time doing at work, it's mostly programming, followed by some electronics and optics design, and lab work. Lucrative, easy, what's not to like? Also, it was possible to get into programming without anybody's permission, because the tools are free.

It's also kind of a one way street. I've noticed that once people break away from quantitative engineering work, it's hard to go back, and they can't just start doing it on their own because the tools in those fields (e.g., mechanical and electrical CAD) are proprietary and expensive. This is like an imaginary thermodynamics experiment where you have two livestock pens separated by a one-way gate, and eventually all of the animals end up on one side if they are just walking at random.

Re: The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

#68

Slightly off topic, but I feel like when people talk of STEM as a lucrative field of study, they tend to imply CS. Non-CS STEM field hardly have a shortage of qualified and talented people. In fact, there's probably a oversupply compared to job prospects in non-CS STEM fields. I see so many talented Math/Physics majors end up switching to CS and do mundane software engineering work.

People with a solid STEM background may not get a job in their field, but they learn skills that are generally useful outside of their specialty. I was working with a recent MIT graduate who had a Masters in Engine Design. While his job had little to do with that, it did make use of his significant statistics training and paid a significant salary.

By comparison my coworker with a Philosophy degree had gained what he described as zero useful skills. He was also making good money, but he described his degree as little more useful than a check box on the application.

Re: The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points: it seems a little grotesque to be focusing on creating people trained in STEM solely for the purpose of keeping an "economic edge", as if they were troops that we need to keep us safe, and university students are some kind of army we need to train, and secondly more and more ethical and cultural issues due to what STEM students go on to create have come to light recently, and training in critical thinking…

Is there any evidence that training people in critical thinking at school actually improves their critical thinking? Also, the same question about ethics.

Do we actually have a class called "critical thinking"?

Re: The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013)

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have literally been saying just this for years when someone says "STEAM". At that point, it is just school again. I agree that History, Art, Music, Literature, Philosophy...etc are important and can't imagine a world without them, but the whole point behind STEM was to put a focus on Math and Science because those help us keep our economic edge and solve the world's upcoming problems on the technical side. Providin…

Two points: it seems a little grotesque to be focusing on creating people trained in STEM solely for the purpose of keeping an "economic edge", as if they were troops that we need to keep us safe, and university students are some kind of army we need to train, and secondly more and more ethical and cultural issues due to what STEM students go on to create have come to light recently, and training in critical thinking…

I mean, you're not wrong. That's the whole point behind a specialized workforce. The whole point to modern society is individuals focus on something and do it, really, really well. We then suffer doing other stuff competently. Other than the occasional hobby gardener, how many tech engineers know how to maintain a vegetable garden? I've asked this to a few people before. They just imagine it's as simple as throwing seeds in the ground, making sure there's water and waiting. Growing food on a decent scale, like feeding just yourself, takes a lot more. Knowing how and when to fertilize soil. How much sunlight. How much water. Seasonal timing for maximum yield. Recognizing disease and ailments. And it goes on. But we're a society where not everyone has to farm. That's both good and bad. Same goes with building homes, bridges, maintaining a water supply, electricity, preserving food, curing disease, etc.

But the drawback to that system, it's easier to wipe out a small population and start to handicap that society. Thus, you do have a "type of army" of structural engineers that build and help maintain bridges. If they're gone, there are problems.

I do have one... discussion point(?) I'd like to bring up. I constantly see and hear that liberal arts and what not is supposed to teach critical thinking. How does it do so more than engineering? Engineering especially forces you not to just think of the immediate solution, but long term both in terms of wear/tear, environment factors, attack vectors and future proofing against obsolescence. Yet, I'm told, rather often by other people that a liberal arts major can do this better than an engineer. Look, I'm a sub-par engineer and programmer. I say this often and will never hide it. But I've yet to meet someone with a liberal arts or literary degree that can do analysis and solution strategies on complex, real world problems anywhere close to me. Sure, I get hung up on theoretical problems. Really badly too. But when it comes to the real world, I've never met a non-engineer who can step forward on a, again, real world problem.

Post reply on HN