The STEM of Wrong Thinking in Education
“It is typical of our time that the more doubtful we are about the value of philosophy, the
more certain we are about the value of education.” – G.K. Chesterton
Much has been written about STEM education since the acronym was first coined in the
1980’s. There has also been much written about the challenges American schools faced
during the second industrial revolution of the 1860’s. What is not common are articles
that draw the parallels between the two in the search of solutions to the challenges of
modern education in America and around the world.
Why would I consider myself qualified to write on this subject? I took the long way
becoming a high voltage engineer and my contemporaries think I made some wrong
turns. In retrospect they might have been right.
My high school chums were convinced I was going to be a lawyer. I originally enrolled at
the local university in a liberal arts program and focused on philosophy and calculus. I
realized that I was unlikely to support my lifestyle as a philosopher, so I switched to
engineering. After one year of common engineering I spent another studying
microelectronics. I spent the next year in Europe studying analog and digital
communications. On return I switched to power engineering and finally obtained my
degree after six years with far more courses than necessary.
I joined a local power transformer company after a short stint working in the university
astronomy department upgrading the electronics and control systems of the planetarium
and observatory. I soon registered as a part-time MBA student. Executive MBA’s were
extremely rare then, so I had to take the full course load. When I applied I was told I
needed a strong background in mathematics and had to list all of my prior courses. I listed
more than 30 in pure and applied mathematics without including any in physics or
engineering. Seemingly repeating my original error, I majored in operations research with
a minor in strategic marketing. It took me another six years to complete my MBA.
STEM I got! But what I also got along the way was a very broad liberal education that
included philosophy, history, literature and classics. I find all this contrived and
antagonistic discussion about STEM education as a dichotomy to a liberal one extremely
annoying. This, plus my struggle to fill the gaps in my daughters’ high school education
and fear for their future education compels me to write this article.
Greater thinkers than I have argued in the defense of a liberal education and for a more
balanced perspective. One of the better authors in recent times is Fareed Zakaria in his
article “Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous” . I do not always agree
with Mr. Zakaria, but he makes good arguments for a more balanced education. In the
end, however, the dichotomy is still fed by a myth that a STEM education has a higher
utility. It is to this error which I write.
From my overseas experience as a student, engineer and entrepreneur I agree that an
education in STEM to the exclusion of other subjects drives out innovation and critical
thinking. In my book, De Venalicium pro Apparatu Electrica et Operi, I argue that
totalitarianism in Europe not only stunted the social sciences but left Europe far behind in
business education that relies so heavily on them. The impact lasted generations.
Consider that the first American MBA was first offered in 1908 but the first one in
Germany was not offered until 1998. The rise of American multi-national corporations
since the 1930’s has as much to do with broader education as being victorious in World
War II.
A review of the historical writings about education in America shows a remarkable
resemblance to the discussions today except that there is an absence of this dichotomy
between STEM and non-STEM education. Implied in the current debate is that STEM
education has greater economic utility. The counter argument is that a broader liberal
education is required to extract the full value of a STEM education. My position is that the
two are inseparable and of equal utility both to the individual and society in general.
The Reconstruction Of The Secondary-School Curriculum Its Meaning And Trends by Walter
S. Monroe and M. E. Herriott from 1928 gives a fascinating look into American high school
education and the discussions from before 1893 to the time of publication. It would be
easy to discard it due to its age and retort that an old book contributes nothing to the
current debate in our electronic society, but that misses the point.
The United States in the 1860’s was embroiled in a devastating civil war when the second
industrial revolution was taking off in Britain. Germany and France were playing catch-up
with Britain and the United States risked being left behind. The Union won the war
because of its larger population and rapidly expanded industrial output. The South was
devastated and the North could not build a modern economy on wartime production
alone. There was a huge shift in population from farms to cities as people looked for
work, much like what is taking place today in developing economies. But rather than
developing a curriculum focused on STEM, American educators decided on an extremely
wide and liberal one and the American economy soon surpassed those of Europe in many
areas.
The idea now that a STEM education has a higher utility is heavily promoted in America
because of two fundamental issues; the first is that many technology companies claim
they need more suitable candidates to fulfill their immediate requirements or look
overseas; the second is that in response to these claims, government and educators are
promoting STEM to improve economic growth and competitiveness, increase
employment and reduce reliance on foreign candidates. Both groups are taking a shortsighted “plug-and-play” view towards students and employees.
There should be no lack of STEM educational capacity in America if the utility of a STEM
education is truly higher. The 2014 article, The STEM Enrollment Boom indicates that there
has been an increase in STEM studies at the college level but goes on to reference
conclusions that the “ "STEM vs. liberal arts" comparison doesn’t make sense.” What is
truly frightening is that the same article refers to a study that suggests enrollment in
business and education studies are shrinking at the same time. The long term impact of
this trend would result in exactly what Mr. Zakaria refers to as a “dangerously narrow
path for the future”. The net result may be a more skilled workforce in the near term but
an educational system strained to prepare future generations and a reliance on foreign
business leaders to grow the economy in the long term. As a business consulting firm in a
STEM industry, we see the strongest demands for our services from countries that
emphasis STEM education.
But statistics on how many undergraduate college students enter STEM programs only
tells part of the story. How successful these students are in their studies and throughout
their careers is what really matters. There are critical factors that contribute to the
success and attrition of STEM students and professionals. Engineering societies and
industry associations have raised the alarm on attrition factors that need to be tackled in
light of an aging workforce. Even before they graduate, college students face a variety of
pressures that make them reevaluate their career choices or drop out (STEM Attrition:
College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields). This is most prevalent among women
and minorities that do not encounter a nurturing environment. The very same factors are
seen in the workplace. It is noble that companies hire women and minorities to create a
diverse workforce but they don’t do enough to create a positive atmosphere to keep
them. I have known too many brilliant women that have completely abandoned their
engineering careers after only a few years from graduating because they felt excluded
and their skills unappreciated.
Sure, some STEM graduates start out with higher salaries but it is hardly a level field.
There are plenty of biologists, chemists, mathematicians and astronomers with
undergraduate degrees that make far less than those in the highly prized fields of
computer science and engineering. What really makes the difference is what people do
after they get their first job. It is common among engineers to get “kicked upstairs” into
management after a few years where they see strong salary growth but stop practicing
engineering or even maintain their professional registration. Unfortunately, many are
woefully prepared for their new responsibilities. It was for this very reason that the MBA
was created in America. The rapid industrial growth in the early 20th century was fueled by
technical innovators that needed to learn an entirely different skillset to manage the very
companies they built and most of those skills come from the liberal arts.
On the other hand, there are plenty of graduates from liberal arts programs that have
done well for themselves and have higher incomes than STEM graduates that stay in a
technical career track. If top business founders, CEO’s and innovators have one thing in
common is that they have a strong empathy for broad based academics and a view of lifelong learning. Their undergraduate degrees, if they even have one, are just as likely to be
in business, communications, finance, economics or journalism as they are in engineering
and computer science. Let’s not forget that plenty of them graduated from the school of
hard knocks. If we can draw any conclusion it’s that great leaders of today and the future
are polymaths, the modern equivalent of the Renaissance Man (or Woman).
Rather than hold out examples of modern captains of commerce as others have done, I
offer up a few historical ones that defy this contrived dichotomy.
•
Pythagoras; philosopher or mathematician? Known in mathematics for the
Pythagorean theorem, he also founded one of the earliest schools of Western
philosophy. STEM or non-STEM?
•
Aristotle; philosopher or natural scientist? Recognized as one of the great Western
philosophers, his concept of genus and species is still used today to categorize all
living organisms. STEM or non-STEM?
•
René Descartes; mathematician or philosopher? Modern mathematics be would be
difficult without his Cartesian coordinate system but he is equally well known for
“Cogito ergo sum”. STEM or non-STEM?
•
Sofia Kovalevskaya; mathematician or novelist? An important contributor to partial
differential equations and the first woman to hold a university chair in modern
Europe. She also wrote novels. STEM or non-STEM?
•
Bertrand Russel; philosopher, logician, mathematician, linguist or historian? He was
all of these and more. His many fields of study contributed large to artificial
intelligence and computer science but he is equally known as a philosopher and
social critic. STEM or non-STEM?
•
Ludwig Wittgenstein; mechanical engineer, mathematician or philosopher? Known
for his philosophical works in logical positivism, he was also an avid mathematician
and aeronautical researcher. STEM or non-STEM?
If we truly want to see a renaissance in economic growth, then maybe we should stop all
this talk about STEM versus liberal arts education and embrace the same concepts that
were so boldly used to develop a broad based curriculum in America from a time that
seems to be forgotten.