Today I was catching up on the news over breakfast, and something caught my eye. An article from the Washington Post, written by Fareed Zakaria (who I respect, despite controversy), entitled “Why America’s Obsession with STEM Education is Dangerous” linked here. Admittedly, after only half a cup of coffee I was ready to open my laptop and blindly start throwing punches before even reading the rest of the article, but over the course of my careful reading and a few more cups of coffee I was ready to form an informed response.
I had every intention of disagreeing with every part of this article, but, as with most arguments that surround education debates, there are some good points here. I will agree that STEM education should not edge out or replace other areas of study. As I finish up my liberal arts education, I know that my Bachelor of Arts degree is highly valuable because I have received extensive education outside of my field of study, specifically in the humanities. I would say that every student, especially those going into highly technical or academic fields, should receive not just a surface-level education in the humanities, but should deeply study social issues, religion (which I cover later this week), and other cultures. Although technical degrees and certificates do have their place, and provide value to the workforce in mid-range employment, I still think a 4 year, BA degree should be the preferred educational path for STEM students.
I also agree that our scores on international tests of math and science knowledge do not accurately describe the country’s prowess for technical innovation and the progression of our high-tech economy. Should we be focused on these tests and teaching only to their content? Absolutely not. We place a disproportional amount of value on these tests, and that is something that probably stems from the “If you’re not first, you’re last.” attitude that many have on the subject. We can’t neglect other subjects just to teach STEM classes so our kids will pass the tests. That defeats the purpose of having a broad, general education followed by specialization and workforce training.
Where my disagreement with this article lies is in the implication that we will somehow create a workforce of technically skilled individuals with no other abilities, like basic writing skills or an understanding of business. My argument is that we need students who are inspired by science and technology, who want to innovate, and who have the technical knowledge to do so. Yes, being able to communicate your ideas effectively is an absolutely vital skill, so teach that too. The future is going to see advances in technology and media that we can’t even imagine today. Technology is already becoming the underpinning of literally everything we do. Show me an industry that doesn’t rely on today’s modern high technology, and I will show you a thousand that do.
I say that every person, regardless of if they are an art history major or a English literature major, should understand science and technology, because when they graduate college, there is a disproportionately huge chance that the jobs available to them will have something to do (if even tangentially) with the tech sector. If we want to stay competitive in the 21st century and into the 22nd, we have the educate students to be critical thinkers in STEM, or consider at least how to apply advances in STEM to their field.
If you want to inspire students to love literature, you sit them down when they are young and hand them great works of literature. If you want to instill an appreciation for art and music, you expose them to incredible works of art and moving compositions. Inspiration isn’t a passive game, it requires active, continuous exposure. We need students to understand STEM, not for the sake of a test, not for the sake of funneling them into highly technical fields without a broad education, but because the future is going to bite us hard if we don’t. I am not saying that American education should look like much of Asia’s, I am saying that we have a lot of work to do if we really want our children to be prepared for the future.
So, I am feeling dangerously obsessed with STEM education, because I am dangerously obsessed with science, technology, engineering and mathematics (ok, not mathematics, but you get the point). I am fully invested in the future of STEM because I plan to work in it for the rest of my life. Eventually someone will need to take over for me when (or maybe if) I retire, and that person is going to have to be so much smarter than I could ever hope to be. They will have to understand technology on a whole different level than what we see today, and if we do this right the next great innovations will continue to continue to come from younger and younger people with more and more technical prowess. Before we know it there will be 16 year olds running companies that are so innovative it is almost unbelievable. (Later this week, a piece on the imagination and inspiration of young people is coming, and I encourage you to check it out.)
Readers, what do you think? Are we too focused on STEM? Do we need to take a step back? Are you a student studying a non-STEM field? I want to hear from you! I see how many of you are reading these posts, and I know that you aren’t commenting, so maybe fix that.
