Why a STEM major isn't the be-all...

[Anonymous]

Great article about why you shouldn't necessarily push your kid into STEM and why liberal arts might be a better route.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-stem-wont-make-us-successful/2015/03/26/5f4604f2-d2a5-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html

[Anonymous]

About time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About time

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About time

+1

+2

[Anonymous]

It maybe true but still NO jobs.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Except if you actually want a STEM major... which DS does want.

As a scientist who specialized in English lit. and European history, I hate it when people contrast liberal arts with STEM, as if they were completely incompatible. It's ridiculous. There are plenty of professions where you need backgrounds in both.

[Anonymous]

That article was a big steaming pile of BS.

[Anonymous]

Breaking news! There are different types of people in this world, and society is enriched by BOTH the humanities and STEM! Who would have thunk it?

[Anonymous]

Sadly, secondary schools -- public and private -- are now caught up in the STEM rush too. Programs in classics, Latin, etc. are being eliminated to make room for more STEM classes, and not necessarily only the rigorous STEM classes to prepare to be STEM majors in colleges, but also "soft" STEM classes whose primary benefit is marketing /appearance.

[Anonymous]

Fareed Zakaria is not someone who has a lot of credibility given his record of plagiarism.

The reality is that as the economy changes the skill-set to be marketable will also change. Not to recognize this is to risk going the way of a dinosaur. Since we are paying for our children's college, we have made it clear to them that although we will not decide their major, we reserve the right to veto a major that we believe will not increase their potential for being gainfully employed after they finish college. We sure as hell are not going to spend $200K on getting them an education in some major that will not enhance their prospects for employment down the line.

Citing the examples of Zuckerberg, Gates and others is akin to arguing that one does not need a college education because these two individuals did just fine though they dropped out of college.

[Anonymous]

For the average kid, engineering is a great major because it is a high level vocational education choice, just like pharmacy or nursing. Most engineers are just smart mechanics. They build machines/processes and tinker and learn how to do it in a disciplined way. You need lots of engineers in a modern world, so most work on pretty routine stuff that doesn't require huge brainpower. That's why engineers from third rate colleges can still get jobs.

On the other hand, you need a first rate mind to be a good philosopher or historian or anthropologist. That's why it is generally a much better idea to study one of those fields at a top tier highly selective school, rather than a 2nd tier program. The sociology major from Southwest Arkansas State may well be pulling espresso for a living, but the Yale lit major won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the average kid, engineering is a great major because it is a high level vocational education choice, just like pharmacy or nursing. Most engineers are just smart mechanics. They build machines/processes and tinker and learn how to do it in a disciplined way. You need lots of engineers in a modern world, so most work on pretty routine stuff that doesn't require huge brainpower. That's why engineers from third rate colleges can still get jobs.

On the other hand, you need a first rate mind to be a good philosopher or historian or anthropologist. That's why it is generally a much better idea to study one of those fields at a top tier highly selective school, rather than a 2nd tier program. The sociology major from Southwest Arkansas State may well be pulling espresso for a living, but the Yale lit major won't.

I am sorry you flunked out of first engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fareed Zakaria is not someone who has a lot of credibility given his record of plagiarism.

The reality is that as the economy changes the skill-set to be marketable will also change. Not to recognize this is to risk going the way of a dinosaur. Since we are paying for our children's college, we have made it clear to them that although we will not decide their major, we reserve the right to veto a major that we believe will not increase their potential for being gainfully employed after they finish college. We sure as hell are not going to spend $200K on getting them an education in some major that will not enhance their prospects for employment down the line.

Citing the examples of Zuckerberg, Gates and others is akin to arguing that one does not need a college education because these two individuals did just fine though they dropped out of college.

I'm the OP and well aware of Zakaria's record, including the plagiarism, but I still think this piece is sound and what it says is long overdue.

For one, he's arguing not that people don't pursue STEM if that is where there interests lie, but that we all need to realize that being a fully educated human and an asset in the workplace requires something deeper and broader -- as PP who was a scientist but had a background in other things noted. If the point of college now is merely to obtain technical skills or learn something practical or marketable, I think we'd be better off renaming those institutions. Although it would be interesting to see how ready DCUMers would be to send their kids to ACME Technical School for Computer Science instead of MIT.

As other PPs, have noted it's depressing to watch our universities get rid of LA courses because they don't appear to have a value in the job market. I get that parents want to make sure their kids don't major in something frivolous. But what I'm seeing more of where I live are parents insisting their kids major in STEM or business (whether they have an interest or not) because such majors will guarantee jobs. I hate this because: 1. these majors won't guarantee employment, particularly if the kids are not interested in the subjects, and 2. the message the parents are sending is one that values safety and security over following your dreams and taking chances. I think kids are better off doing the latter when they're young, unless they want to work for the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fareed Zakaria is not someone who has a lot of credibility given his record of plagiarism.

The reality is that as the economy changes the skill-set to be marketable will also change. Not to recognize this is to risk going the way of a dinosaur. Since we are paying for our children's college, we have made it clear to them that although we will not decide their major, we reserve the right to veto a major that we believe will not increase their potential for being gainfully employed after they finish college. We sure as hell are not going to spend $200K on getting them an education in some major that will not enhance their prospects for employment down the line.

Citing the examples of Zuckerberg, Gates and others is akin to arguing that one does not need a college education because these two individuals did just fine though they dropped out of college.[/quote]

Hardly. Say what you will about finishing college, neither Zuckerberg, Gates nor Jobs focused on STEM when they were in school. The brilliance of Zuckerberg and Jobs, in fact, came from mixing other disciplines, Psychology and Design, respectively, with Tech.