STEM...why all the sudden focus and is it the answer?

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

I see and hear it everywhere...STEM...Maybe I am missing something but why all the focus on this. And if all the focus is on STEM studies what happens to the other studies that are just as important. Personally I feel it is not the "fix" to all the educational problems but also feel those in control have just moved their focus here in the hopes it will be. Someone enlighten me please.

[almondbutterandjelly]

:bigear: I am interested in this, too. As a math major whose first job out of college was writing contracts, and then later working as a glorified secretary, I also wonder at the emphasis on STEM.

 

I have a scientist friend with a PhD who is so specialized (as scientists tend to be, it seems to me) that finding a job in a location closer to extended family is next to impossible.

[dangermom]

It seems like whenever Americans feel like we might be sliding--in international power or in the economy, things like that--we decide that more science is the answer.

[Shellydon]

I can tell you that engineering jobs abound right now and I personally get 3-6 speech pathology job offers every single day. Both are STEM jobs.

[wapiti]

I'm not sure I understand your question correctly as to who is doing this focusing and what question they are trying to answer.

 

My sense is that, to the extent educational beaurocrats appear to focus on STEM, it is lip service and window-dressing only. I doubt there is much more real focus on STEM subjects than there was before the acronym became common. The "M" seems to be at the root of the other STEM subjects, and educational beaurocrats have been trying to find that "answer" since Sputnik - nothing is new, as far as I can tell.

[GailV]

I can tell you that engineering jobs abound right now and I personally get 3-6 speech pathology job offers every single day. Both are STEM jobs.

 

In another thread we were discussing that the current engineering workforce is aging and retiring. Dh is 50, and is a youngster compared to his peer group in many areas of engineering. Few graduates are available to take the place of those retiring.

 

I have a vague memory of other threads regarding the tendency of university students to start out in STEM and then switch out because it's "too hard". I also hear about this IRL from women and men in STEM professions. There are all sorts of reasons this is happening. I think the emphasis on STEM might be in the hopes that by throwing more students into the hopper at the beginning, more might come out at the end.

[Lolly]

No. it is not the answer. First, if everyone does go into STEM careers, there will be a huge shortage of STEM jobs. Secondly, people don't go into the STEM fields often times because they cannot handle the classes. Going into a subject where you are going to fail is not the best idea for college. If you are strong in math and science, it is a wonderful idea for you to major in them! That said, I know people in STEM fields who are having difficulty finding jobs...

[regentrude]

From a purely practical perspective: STEM fields have the highest starting salaries and the lowest unemployment rates.

The graduating students at our engineering school get hired during their junior or senior year with average starting salaries of 59k. Many have multiple job offers to choose from.

The US has to import foreigners to fill STEM positions because there are not enough qualified American applicants.

 

This does not mean that other fields of study are not useful or interesting. But when it comes to also making a living and supporting a family, a classics major struggles whereas a chemical engineer does not.

 

ETA: The numbers are self-limiting. I do not think there will ever be a time when we have too many STEM graduates because the classes are hard and not everyone has an aptitude for hard math.

[Joshin]

The problem isn't new, the focus isn't new, it's the acronym that's new. The truth is that US ranks very far behind other first world nations in STEM related education, and we are turning out far less. I don't have the numbers handy (the book by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Space Chronicles, lays out the case very well), but we are way at the bottom of the pile. Yet, we have jobs for graduates in these subjects, but not enough applicants. So, we bring in scientists, engineers, and mathematicians from outside of the country to fill those jobs. Yes, we have to do that even during a recession because we aren't growing our own scientists anymore.

 

Unfortunately, I agree that the new STEM focus is just lip service to a problem, in both institutions and homeschools. I volunteer at a science center on their homeschool advisory board, and many homeschoolers I meet also fall into the trap of teaching to the test, it's just the test is to know enough about the STEM subjects to get into college "because college will teach them all that math and science stuff." Unfortunately in many cases, the spark for math and science has to be sparked fairly young in someone for them to become the type of thinker that can really excel in a STEM field and college is often too late. Plus, many (not all) liberal arts schools are easier to get into and more affordable than STEM universities. So we end up with a million out-of-work English and history majors when we need two million scientists, engineers and mathematicians.

 

Almost every single professional field needs graduates with STEM knowledge anymore. You can't be a successful publisher without some tech knowledge (digital publishing). You can't study history without a solid basis in science and tech (think forensic history). NASA receives a half cent of every tax dollar, which is very little, yet most people think they are over-funded. :confused:

 

Sorry to ramble! This is just one of my pet passions and I run into so many scientifically and mathematically illiterate adults and young adults on a daily basis that it worries me. :eek:

 

A bit of googling and I found an excerpt of the Tyson book, which at least gives the amount of US science graduates compared to Chinese:

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/perspectives/012148/by-the-numbers

[dirty ethel rackham]

From a purely practical perspective: STEM fields have the highest starting salaries and the lowest unemployment rates.

The graduating students at our engineering school get hired during their junior or senior year with average starting salaries of 59k. Many have multiple job offers to choose from.

The US has to import foreigners to fill STEM positions because there are not enough qualified American applicants.

 

It really depends on the field. STEM covers a wide range of fields so some may be experiencing a boom while others are stagnant. Anything that relies on government money (civil, aerospace) will have booms and busts. Civil will always have lower salaries as well. Environmental was really hot until people realized that there isn't a lot of money in cleaning up someone else's messes. Dh is a civil engineer and knows TONS of excellent engineers who are out of work, because there aren't enough contracts to go around.

 

If College Confidential is to be believed, there is a glut of PhD's out there who can't get jobs because they are overqualified for the positions out there. I worry about ds18 because he has wanted to be a biology researcher since toddlerhood, but the job market for this field is very flat. He may spend 10 years doing post-docs before getting his own lab. He will live like a poor college student for a fairly long time. Fortunately for him, he is not a materialistic kid.

 

This does not mean that other fields of study are not useful or interesting. But when it comes to also making a living and supporting a family, a classics major struggles whereas a chemical engineer does not.

 

Again, it depends on the field, and where the money comes from. In many areas, private sector pays well, but public sector does not.

 

ETA: The numbers are self-limiting. I do not think there will ever be a time when we have too many STEM graduates because the classes are hard and not everyone has an aptitude for hard math.

 

Again, this really depends on the field and where the money comes from. My BIL who has several masters degrees in various STEM fields (PhD's weren't worth the money,) has been laid of 6 times in the 22 years I have known him. He is an aerospace engineer working on defense projects and he has fairly high security clearance. They live like paupers because they never know when the next round of layoffs will come.

 

Every time the president announces that we need more people going into STEM fields, there is a huge outcry among those unemployed and underemployed PhD's asking where those jobs will be.

[Crimson Wife]

Because the only recent graduates who seem to be finding decent jobs straight out of undergrad these days are STEM majors. Even for the jobs that don't really have anything to do with STEM, employers tend prefer folks with those majors because they are perceived to be smarter and harder-working.

[GailV]

Because the only recent graduates who seem to be finding decent jobs straight out of undergrad these days are STEM majors. Even for the jobs that don't really have anything to do with STEM, employers tend prefer folks with those majors because they are perceived to be smarter and harder-working.

 

This does not mean that other fields of study are not useful or interesting. But when it comes to also making a living and supporting a family, a classics major struggles whereas a chemical engineer does not.

 

ETA: The numbers are self-limiting. I do not think there will ever be a time when we have too many STEM graduates because the classes are hard and not everyone has an aptitude for hard math.

 

It really depends on the field. STEM covers a wide range of fields so some may be experiencing a boom while others are stagnant. Anything that relies on government money (civil, aerospace) will have booms and busts. Civil will always have lower salaries as well. Environmental was really hot until people realized that there isn't a lot of money in cleaning up someone else's messes. Dh is a civil engineer and knows TONS of excellent engineers who are out of work, because there aren't enough contracts to go around.

 

 

:iagree: with many of the above comments.

 

Dh wanted to be a math major, but figured out that it would be hard to find a well-paying job. So he became something close to that -- a chemical engineering major. He's now employable in many, many engineering fields, and currently works in motors, which has nothing to do with chemical engineering. One of his classmates became a patent attorney -- again, not necessarily the first thing you think of with a chemical engineering degree. Graduating with a decent GPA in chemical engineering means that you've accomplished certain things in your education, and many employers acknowledge that.

 

OTOH, not every engineering degree leads to those sorts of job prospects. Just because there are really good job offers for some STEM graduates doesn't mean ALL STEM graduates have good job offers. But I imagine there's a higher probability that a STEM grad will have a good job offer than a non-STEM grad.

[Wheres Toto]

Just like anything else, there is a lot of variation. But, I do believe in general, STEM majors have an easier time finding a job. I think the emphasis on STEM comes along every few years when people get upset that we are so behind other countries. Then some lip service is paid to trying to get competitive for a few years, then it all dies down again.

 

Dh has a Bachelor's Degree in Chemistry with a few graduate level courses. He worked in an environmental lab for a while but has worked generic pharmaceuticals for a long time now. He has never had trouble finding a well paying job, despite being well past the age that people supposedly want to hire. He does work a lot with Chinese and Indian companies right now because they are building the facilities and have the lab workers but not the FDA experience and knowledge to break into the US market.

 

I do believe it is self-limiting to an extent. I have a biology degree but I never could have gotten through the math that Dh took for his degree.

[Shellydon]

Dh is a civil engineer and knows TONS of excellent engineers who are out of work, because there aren't enough contracts to go around.

 

 

 

 

Odd. DH recently put out his resume and has 8 offers on the table right now. He is a civil engineer (Ph.D, private sector). Maybe you have to be willing to move.

[dirty ethel rackham]

It may depend on where you live. In states where the government is nearly bankrupt (or run by patronage politicians), there isn't any work. Also, it depends on the type of civil. Dh has worked on transportation for 25 years. Definitely a bust here in IL. Many of these out of work engineers have high school teens who don't want to relocate, spouses who have careers, or elderly parents, so they are not all that mobile.

 

Since dh works for a quasi-public agency, his options for changing jobs are severely limited. Due to ethics rules, he would have to either get another public agency job (which would be a significant step down) or relocate somewhere and work for a small mom-and-pop since they are probably the only firms who don't have an interest in doing business with the entity where he works. Any reasonably large firm anywhere in the country is bidding on contracts from his agency. He is trapped until retirement.

[TippyCanoe]

nm

[Heather in WI]

The problem isn't new, the focus isn't new, it's the acronym that's new. The truth is that US ranks very far behind other first world nations in STEM related education, and we are turning out far less. ... Yet, we have jobs for graduates in these subjects, but not enough applicants. So, we bring in scientists, engineers, and mathematicians from outside of the country to fill those jobs. Yes, we have to do that even during a recession because we aren't growing our own scientists anymore.

 

 

The numbers are self-limiting. I do not think there will ever be a time when we have too many STEM graduates because the classes are hard and not everyone has an aptitude for hard math.[/Quote]

 

:iagree:

 

In 2007, the US was in eighth place in 4th grade math, and in eleventh place in 8th grade math. (http://nces.ed.gov/timss/table07_3.asp)

 

And, "NSF data reveal that in 2006, the foreign student population earned approximately 36.2% of the doctorate degrees in the sciences and approximately 63.6% of the doctorate degrees in engineering."(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-746.pdf)

 

I think that there is the focus now on earlier grades, because if students are not exposed to math/science at the earlier levels, they don't have the foundation needed to reach the higher levels of math.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Heather in WI

[Lolly]

 

If College Confidential is to be believed, there is a glut of PhD's out there who can't get jobs because they are overqualified for the positions out there. I worry about ds18 because he has wanted to be a biology researcher since toddlerhood, but the job market for this field is very flat. He may spend 10 years doing post-docs before getting his own lab. He will live like a poor college student for a fairly long time. Fortunately for him, he is not a materialistic kid.

 

 

 

 

My sil is a Ph.D. who does biological research. She loves her work, but she doesn't make a whole lot. Her college debt is huge and her salary is just okay. The real upside is that she looks forward to going to work each day. She has decent health insurance and excellent working conditions.

[Jane in NC]

Another reason that I think we are seeing the STEM emphasis is due to the glut of business majors that were coming our of college. Over the last couple of decades, liberal arts were devalued for so called "practical" fields. But in all honesty people with decades of business experience (but sometimes lacking degrees) have a much better understanding of business than someone with a few years of text book knowledge.

 

It is impossible for any of us to know what the hot jobs of 2030 will be. I like to believe that basic knowledge in the sciences and math provides a foundation for a variety of jobs in health, computer and engineering fields.

 

I do think that no matter what the academic field students need excellent writing skills. In almost every job, people need to write reports and detail procedures (shared knowledge). This is probably the single largest problem that my computer engineering husband sees. Someone can code like nobody's business, but if they cannot document and share their work, problems will ensue.

[laughing lioness]

I think part of the reason for the focus is that society is changing at the speed of sound and folks want something dependable to bank on.

[Mama Geek]

At least in some industries of engineering you have to go to the work. Dh has worked several jobs over the last few years that have been 3-8 month jobs. The pay is really good but with what we are doing it doesn't come with health insurance and we have lots of contacts and he is liked. If you aren't willing to move around you will not continue to go up in pay as much as he has. He has been asked several times if I would take a job at the places he has worked. We are more interested in one of us being home with dd. We keep discussing me taking a short term job just to stay current if something happened to him, but I have been to happy staying home with dd.

[regentrude]

It may depend on where you live. In states where the government is nearly bankrupt (or run by patronage politicians), there isn't any work. ... Many of these out of work engineers have high school teens who don't want to relocate, spouses who have careers, or elderly parents, so they are not all that mobile.

 

But that is par for the course for any highly qualified job: you have to be mobile and move where the work is.

Not wanting to relocate or deal with a long distance relationship means they don't need the job badly enough: many highly qualified people do not even have the luxury to choose the country where they want to live. We left our home country and moved to a country with a different language, across an ocean, and before that we did eight years of long distance marriage - and similar careers are normal for people in my field. So, I don't really feel sympathy for people who are unemployed because they do not want to move.

Picking an area first and then looking for a job there is something very few people can afford; typically in low paying jobs with little education. Fast food and restaurants and retail are everywhere...but that's pretty much it

Edited October 18, 2012 by regentrude

[a27mom]

I think it is important to remember that STEM doesn't only mean PhD's and engineers. There are lots of jobs available in the more practical/technical type jobs.

 

Skilled workers such as welders and mechanics are in high demand. Many of the trades have shortages because the push to go to college has steered people away from these. But they also require some science and math ability.

 

There are many jobs in healthcare as well. I get a few job offers in the mail every week (I am a physical therapist)

[tex-mex]

It seems like whenever Americans feel like we might be sliding--in international power or in the economy, things like that--we decide that more science is the answer.

:iagree:

 

But our public school system is a mess. STEM will not work at this rate. Many students go to college and flunk out of Calculus -- and they go find another major. We are so underprepared.

I feel like "STEM" is an overly broad categorization. There's a huge difference in the job market for, say, someone with a PhD in Astronomy, whose only related career path is to teach at the University level, and whose job prospects depend 100% on federal research funding; and someone with, say, a petroleum engineering degree, where there is lots of private sector interest.

[NASDAQ]

"The" answer? Of course not. But our students should be much stronger in math than they are. And in general, STEM majors are more difficult and more prestigious than non-STEM majors -- especially "women's studies," "cultural studies," "American studies," that sort of thing.

[Bluegoat]

The answer to what?

 

I think these kinds of studies are being pushed because some people think they are the answer to having a competitive society. That is an assumption that needs some serious unpacking on so many levels.

 

As far as being effective - I am not really convinced that pushing these subjects at the expense of others is the answer to even the kind of success envisaged by those pushing these things. I think the idea that technology is the proper end of science, which seems to be what I see being taught or assumed - is likely to kill love of the subject in many people. I think that being well educated in many areas is what makes for really creative thinkers.

 

When I look at the everyday practices of some areas of medical technology, or worse yet agriculture, I am not inclined to think we have an appropriate perspective on how to teach or use science or technologies arising from it.

[jennynd]

IAnything that relies on government money (civil, aerospace) will have booms and busts.

 

 

 

Yes and no. I am not familiar civil, but I am mechanical with master degree and and hubby is aero/mechanical phD. The beauty of our field is that with different industry up and down, there always something booming. So, If one doesn't work out, try another field.

I worked for GM research for 5 yrs and when auto went booboo, I went military aircraft design. Then the war over and the contract ran down, I went energy and making power. And we are very very busy with the developing countries eager for electricity.

Similar to my hubby, he was with me in the military aircraft, and now in a major research lab covers anywhere from jet engine to battery.

I think the government start to recognized that for a economy to grow, we have to "produce". The past 10 yrs, our economy are purely "money pushing". Not much product been made and designed in this country. I remember sit with a senior executives and she was really worried where the country gonna go with all the critically skills not valued. I am glade to see the trend that the gov start to emphasis STEM.

[rutamattatt]

DH was also a chemical engineering major at a top 5 engineering school. He graduated with a 4.0, and had a handful of job offers. He ended up with a Fortune 500 company, but doing nothing in 12+ years that has a lick to do with chemical engineering! I think having the degree in that subject from that school with that GPA was an open door for him. I agree with what others have said - right or wrong I think there is a perception that STEM graduates are more intelligent/diligent.

 

My boys attended a charter STEM public school for several years. People would camp out overnight in front of the school to try and get their child on a waiting list, blah, blah, blah. Yeah. They taught the same curriculum as the other "regular" public schools and had the same number of computers in the classrooms as my dad did when he retired from teaching 4th grade in 1993. While I understand it takes time and budget money to really get specialized in STEM subjects, I was left with the idea that STEM is a lot of smoke and mirrors that is buzzword hot right now. Now that we home school I feel like my kids are becoming better learners as we concentrate on history, literature, grammar AS WELL AS science and math.

 

(Of course, DH wants them to go into a STEM field in hopes that it will provide them with more job security than, say, my theatre major...) :D

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

:bigear:

Very interesting.

 

I am curious, will there be improvement in the teaching of STEM subjects, or just a greater focus? If it is just a greater focus then I believe we are spinning our wheels.

[sewingmama]

The problem isn't new, the focus isn't new, it's the acronym that's new

 

:iagree: Now will someone please tell me what STEM means so I can follow the conversation :D

[mirth]

STEM= Science, Technology, Engineering, Math

 

STEM Education Has Little to Do With Flowers

[Joshin]

Sewingmama: STEM means science, technology, engineering and math. :001_smile:

 

 

:bigear:

Very interesting.

 

I am curious, will there be improvement in the teaching of STEM subjects, or just a greater focus? If it is just a greater focus then I believe we are spinning our wheels.

 

I don't know what the school's are doing, but I fear it won't be too much and will result in a lot of wheel spinning. At the musuem, we are trying to reach kids in early elementary. Not with hard science, math, etc, but with fun stuff that makes them ask questions and wonder why. Then we have lots and lots of volunteers and docents around to help them explore the why. I don't know a lot about their outreach to the local schools, but I assume it's similar. How it's implemented in the schools? All I see is teachers leading kids around the hands-on exhibits while the kids scribble notes down. :glare: Not exactly in the spirit of what we're trying to do.

 

The theory with those in STEM outreach seems to be to start the spark early, before textbooks and drills turn kids off the subjects entirely. From my own viewpoint the focus in recent years on literacy has sucked the actual science from science lessons in the schools. Kids don't learn about science, they learn to read about science using boring, dry materials. All early elementary subjects are tied back into literacy, which I agree is important (I'm a writer by trade after all!) but sometimes science just needs to be science. By the time they get to a place in the educational system where science becomes more interesting, they are already completely turned off. It's also a goal to remove many of the negative nerd stereotypes that prevent many teens from pursuing STEM interests later.

 

Many of the liberal arts fields are overflowing with brilliant minds but not enough jobs. The hope is some of those brilliant minds may discover a love for a STEM field younger and choose a career there instead.

[Arcadia]

I am curious, will there be improvement in the teaching of STEM subjects, or just a greater focus? If it is just a greater focus then I believe we are spinning our wheels.

 

So far it seems to be political hogwash to me. Especially with the bankruptcy of Solyndra and a few other green companies and before that the political propaganda of creating many solar industry jobs for the younger generation.

[kalanamak]

Not to sound all gooey and altruistic, but I believe I am, as a human, a social creature and that I live in a culture that helps protect me against the vicissitudes of our natural world, I believe that each individual owes something to keeping this going. If I **can** do a job that many other people cannot do (brains, disposition, muscles, ability, what ever), then I **should** do it. Thus I am low paid for my profession (but am certainly comfortable), but have a job most people would run screaming from.

 

I think my son has a STEM mind. If he was willing to give up everything for "art", etc. I wouldn't try to stop him, but I am going out of my way to show him how beautiful science is, and my efforts appear to be falling on fertile ground. The fact that it helps on the job front is a big plus, but it isn't the most important reason for doing this.

[Jaz]

Not to sound all gooey and altruistic, but I believe I am, as a human, a social creature and that I live in a culture that helps protect me against the vicissitudes of our natural world, I believe that each individual owes something to keeping this going. If I **can** do a job that many other people cannot do (brains, disposition, muscles, ability, what ever), then I **should** do it. Thus I am low paid for my profession (but am certainly comfortable), but have a job most people would run screaming from.

 

I think my son has a STEM mind. If he was willing to give up everything for "art", etc. I wouldn't try to stop him, but I am going out of my way to show him how beautiful science is, and my efforts appear to be falling on fertile ground. The fact that it helps on the job front is a big plus, but it isn't the most important reason for doing this.

 

:iagree:

[lllll]

.....

[Mama Geek]

So far it seems to be political hogwash to me. Especially with the bankruptcy of Solyndra and a few other green companies and before that the political propaganda of creating many solar industry jobs for the younger generation.

 

"Green" jobs are only a drop in the bucket of options out there for someone choosing a STEM career.

[brownie]

When my dad went to engineering school they said "look to your left, look to your right. 2 of the 3 of you won't be here at graduation". It wasn't quite that bad when I started engineering, but it should have been. Those who struggled to get jobs either did not have the social skills to present themselves confidently in an interview, or really should never have graduated bc they struggled to do the most basic things the whole way through, barely passing.

 

"Everyone" will never go into engineering because not everyone is capable. It is exceedingly heavy on the math. It is a different type of mind than one that excels at memorizing biology or history information (which I struggle with). The focus on STEM is to make sure those who have the capability develop enough of an interest in it to consider the field. I wanted to be an English major until mid-junior year of high school! I didn't recognize that STEM was where my talent lied. I'm grateful that I realized it via my teachers and other opportunities.

 

Actually my ENTIRE family is in STEM excepting one BIL, though most lean toward the teaching of it and medical / bio end. We're all adequately employed and financially comfortable enough by my standards.

 

Brownie

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Saw on our local news a few weeks ago that the High Schools are setting up STEM classrooms. Even showed pictures. Looked just like a classroom with big round tables instead of desks, They never did explain WHAT exactly will be different in these classrooms though.

[Jane in NC]

:bigear:

Very interesting.

 

I am curious, will there be improvement in the teaching of STEM subjects, or just a greater focus? If it is just a greater focus then I believe we are spinning our wheels.

 

From what the officials here are saying, improvement is the idea, however it doesn't look a thing like it did in the space age. It looks more like Everday Math, with a computer drill program added on. See Common Core Standards Math Appendix A for an idea on the pacing the powers that be have in mind.

 

Let me elaborate on Heigh Ho's point. After the launch of Sputnik, there was an emphasis on notching up the level of math and science education. It succeeded although there was push back. Math educators began using texts written by mathematicians then balked. Too theoretical was the complaint.

 

Another point was made by Joshin about the emphasis on early reading which meant that science was ignored. I think that schools have been so busy making what little science they do "fun" that science has been left behind. My classic example is making "goo", a polymer made by combining corn starch and white glue. It is fun but do kids learn why the stuff forms into strands. How hard is it to turn "fun" into science with vocabulary and a simple explanation?

[FaithManor]

Another reason that I think we are seeing the STEM emphasis is due to the glut of business majors that were coming our of college. Over the last couple of decades, liberal arts were devalued for so called "practical" fields. But in all honesty people with decades of business experience (but sometimes lacking degrees) have a much better understanding of business than someone with a few years of text book knowledge.

 

It is impossible for any of us to know what the hot jobs of 2030 will be. I like to believe that basic knowledge in the sciences and math provides a foundation for a variety of jobs in health, computer and engineering fields.

 

I do think that no matter what the academic field students need excellent writing skills. In almost every job, people need to write reports and detail procedures (shared knowledge). This is probably the single largest problem that my computer engineering husband sees. Someone can code like nobody's business, but if they cannot document and share their work, problems will ensue.

 

I agree with this. No one can predict the future. However, the best thing we can do for our kids is to make them WELL prepared. Underprepared is an understatement for what has happened to math and science education in this country.

 

In the K-12 emphasis on STEM, the hope is just to get these kids up to par in math and science. I doubt it's going to produce a glut of STEM college grads. The number of students (many of whom ARE qualified for those majors) who change majors after a year of mind-numbing work is staggering. Many of them think romantically about being a doctor, an engineer, a chemist, an astronomer, etc....it all sounds so exciting and "cool". Then reality smacks the dream very roughly "upside the head" and only the truly passionate as well as internally driven survive!

 

It's the same with music performance. When I was a piano performance major, at the end of the first semester of my freshman year, more than 50% of intended performance majors dropped. These were profoundly talented vocalists and instrumentalists who had survived the grueling auditions, jumped the hoops, practiced their lives away during high school, etc. They suddenly found out that their passion for music might not survive the practically abusive level of stress our LAC put on their performance majors. Only the strong survived, but it was designed that way on purpose so there would not be a "glut" of performers in a profession for which job openings are few and far between and ever making it to the concert stage is a high stakes game with variables far beyond the control of the person auditioning.

 

A lot of majors are like this. How many 18 year olds want to write the next great novel, enter as English majors, decide that their passion isn't strong enough to survive writing gazzilions of pages of specific writing for an English faculty that is never going to be particularly impressed with their writing only to find out how difficult it is to get published, and how easy it would be to write something truly noteworthy and never have anyone want to print it? (How's that for a LONG sentence? I was, for heaven's sake, a piano performance major! :lol:)

 

We have a 4-H STEM club. We do high level, challenging science projects with 17 children (tonight we'll have 40 kids exploring robotics...everything from simple robot mice made from toothbrushes and brushless motors to boe-bots and Arduino programming). We do it not because we want to turn out 17 new scientists, but because we have a passion for making up deficits in critical thinking skills about math and science that their schools and parents aren't filling. That has practical application in all walks of life. Logical thinking is a good thing!

 

Faith

[GailV]

My boys attended a charter STEM public school for several years. People would camp out overnight in front of the school to try and get their child on a waiting list, blah, blah, blah. Yeah. They taught the same curriculum as the other "regular" public schools and had the same number of computers in the classrooms as my dad did when he retired from teaching 4th grade in 1993. While I understand it takes time and budget money to really get specialized in STEM subjects, I was left with the idea that STEM is a lot of smoke and mirrors that is buzzword hot right now. Now that we home school I feel like my kids are becoming better learners as we concentrate on history, literature, grammar AS WELL AS science and math.

 

 

Having the same curriculum or X number of computers doesn't mean that they are receiving the same quality of education. Dh took a class at UMSL (local CC) that used the same textbook as a class at Purdue. The caliber of professor and the caliber of students in the class were very, very different; when he transferred to Purdue he felt that he was "behind" from having taken that subject at UMSL.

 

By the same token, last year dd was enrolled in a ballet class at a large local school. They teach the Vaganova curriculum. This year she's at the same school, same curriculum, but taught by the head of the department and with higher skill-level of students in the class. She says it's a world of difference -- she's learning so much more.

 

Surely as a theatre major you know that it isn't simply the script and the swankiness of props and the set -- it's what the people involved bring TO the performance that makes the biggest difference. It's the same in teaching.

[FaithManor]

Another point was made by Joshin about the emphasis on early reading which meant that science was ignored. I think that schools have been so busy making what little science they do "fun" that science has been left behind. My classic example is making "goo", a polymer made by combining corn starch and white glue. It is fun but do kids learn why the stuff forms into strands. How hard is it to turn "fun" into science with vocabulary and a simple explanation?

 

 

Jumping up and down in agreement.

 

I've done the goo (borax, glue, and low VOC phosphorescent paint) with elementary students. I had teachers question my sanity when I said I'd be teaching the actual chemistry. At the end of the project, the kids were showing off their product with fully and appropriately filled out lab sheets while explaining to their parents the properties of polymers and coloidal suspensions as well as identifying these agents in their materials' list.

 

It wasn't difficult to do. So, I'm not certain when the concept of adequately teaching real science to 9 year olds became the province of "rocket science". :glare: But schools seem to be determined to either only teach random vocabulary and hope the kids recognize it on a multiple-choice test, or have fun-fun with no educational objective.

 

Faith

[lllll]

..

[rutamattatt]

Having the same curriculum or X number of computers doesn't mean that they are receiving the same quality of education. Dh took a class at UMSL (local CC) that used the same textbook as a class at Purdue. The caliber of professor and the caliber of students in the class were very, very different; when he transferred to Purdue he felt that he was "behind" from having taken that subject at UMSL.

 

By the same token, last year dd was enrolled in a ballet class at a large local school. They teach the Vaganova curriculum. This year she's at the same school, same curriculum, but taught by the head of the department and with higher skill-level of students in the class. She says it's a world of difference -- she's learning so much more.

 

Surely as a theatre major you know that it isn't simply the script and the swankiness of props and the set -- it's what the people involved bring TO the performance that makes the biggest difference. It's the same in teaching.

 

Absolutely! I don't buy into the "stuff makes it better" theory either. It is never the bells and whistles that make education great - it is the way the material (even in acting classes! ;) ) is presented and taught. As the daughter of two retired public school teachers (who rocked), believe me - I get the impact a great, enthusiastic, well-informed instructor can have.

 

I honestly think the key to helping children develop a love of STEM "stuff" is helping them experience the curiosity of "why is that?", "how did that happen?", and "what will happen if I...?" and that can happen in a classroom devoid of walls and walls of technology. But if that isn't happening (and being a parent there, unfortunately I knew it often wasn't because they were so busy teaching to "the test"), I don't feel like just calling a school a STEM school does much to promote that curiosity at all.

[regentrude]

p. 451 - .... The world is indeed on the verge of great discoveries, but those discoveries will not be made by men and women unprepared in mathematics and science. If you are ambitious, be ready. Store in your mind every bit of mathematics you can find. The road to great discoveries is not an easy one, but it is an interesting one, and a glorious one.

 

p. 511 - .... At present there is a big demand for engineers of all kinds, and strangely enough, the greatest shortages exist in the top positions. ......

 

 

 

Modern Algebra, Book 1 by Dolciani, Berman, and Freilich - copyright 1962 (the book dh and I had in public schools)

 

p.2 ...... Where is science taking us? In the direction of our dreams. Mathematics, the language of science, is the language of dreamers who plan to achieve their dreams. .....

 

 

I'm all for math and science. I made our kids do plenty of it. But when dd's and I would read blurbs like the above we used to laugh and jokingly say that they were teaching kids in the '60's that the engineers were going to 'save the world'.

 

They may not have "saved the world", but great discoveries have been made, and they certainly have given us tools people in the 60s could not even dream about. Computers, anybody? The computer is probably the most important invention since the printing press, electricity, the car. The internet has revolutionized the way people access information, and definitely changed the world.

[Bluegoat]

They may not have "saved the world", but great discoveries have been made, and they certainly have given us tools people in the 60s could not even dream about. Computers, anybody? The computer is probably the most important invention since the printing press, electricity, the car. The internet has revolutionized the way people access information, and definitely changed the world.

 

 

I don't know - who has gained the most power from computers? Individual citizens, or the people who want to control them? I get to chat here at WTM, submit my taxes through the internet, or play Tetris or whatever, and in the meantime some corporation is collecting all kinds of information about me to sell to someone who wants to use it for something.

 

It isn't clear to me that we are, overall, better off due to technology. I'd say technology is always as likely to create problems as it is to give solutions. And it also affects the way we interact with the world and each other at a more fundamental level. As people think and interact more and more with technology our lens for viewing reality shifts, and technology begins to shape us as much as we create it. It changes how we see work, for example - is it something that has a dignity of its own, or something we should invent a machine to avoid? I was reading some essays by Wendell Barry yesterday, and he suggested that as we have embraced industrial/technological models, we have moved from seeing things through biological and natural metaphors to seeing them through technological ones; and this has had a tendency to reductionism and missing out on complexity, to seeing people as production resources, to even seeing nature as a machine. With rather unfortunate consequences for all of us.

[regentrude]

It isn't clear to me that we are, overall, better off due to technology.

 

I personally appreciate the availability of clean water, electricity, modern medicine, none of which would exist without technology. Why do you think is the life expectancy in this country so much higher than, say, in sub-Saharan Africa?

 

Somebody hypothetically collecting data about me (which I could easily prevent by staying off the net and paying in cash) does not even register compared to the huge improvements in standard of living technology is giving me.

 

I don't know - who has gained the most power from computers? Individual citizens, or the people who want to control them? I get to chat here at WTM, submit my taxes through the internet, or play Tetris or whatever, and in the meantime some corporation is collecting all kinds of information about me to sell to someone who wants to use it for something.

maybe that is all YOU personally use your computer for... but you benefit from computer use in your power plant, waste water treatment, hospital, car manufacturer...

Aside from industrial applications, the greatest benefit may lie in the accessibility of information. Information is power. You have most likely grown up in a democracy - I have grown up in a totalitarian regime where access to information was restricted. Free exchange of information is a wonderful thing, and the internet opens completely new possibilities for a global exchange. Think of the huge impact the printing press had for disseminating information... and raise that exponentially.

Edited October 20, 2012 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

I personally appreciate the availability of clean water, electricity, modern medicine, none of which would exist without technology. Why do you think is the life expectancy in this country so much higher than, say, in sub-Saharan Africa?

 

Somebody hypothetically collecting data about me (which I could easily prevent by staying off the net and paying in cash) does not even register compared to the huge improvements in standard of living technology is giving me.

 

maybe that is all YOU personally use your computer for... but you benefit from computer use in your power plant, waste water treatment, hospital, car manufacturer...

Aside from industrial applications, the greatest benefit may lie in the accessibility of information. Information is power. You have most likely grown up in a democracy - I have grown up in a totalitarian regime where access to information was restricted. Free exchange of information is a wonderful thing, and the internet opens completely new possibilities for a global exchange. Think of the huge impact the printing press had for disseminating information... and raise that exponentially.

 

 

Many of these things do not actually require computer technology to work, and in some cases - cars for example - the benefits of them are not totally clear. Clean water may come through technology - technology may also pollute bodies of water or even groundwater or drain aquifers we all depend on.

 

It is easy enough to say that cars give us a list of benefits. But those will have to be weighed against the problems they cause (which in the case of cars run from pollution to destruction of rural communities), and we have to take a very careful look at how important some of the things we call benefits are.

 

I would not suggest that all technology is bad - I have no reason to think that we should all go back to living on the grassy plain and building nests in trees at night. But I think many of the things that we consider to be valuable technological advances, aren't particularly.

 

Even easy and fast access to information is not always a clear benefit. We find ourselves with so much information that in many cases we cannot actually process it all, and people find it stressful and overwhelming. Communications improvements have increased the amount of work we have to do as become constantly connected. Or we are full of information and facts that we have no time to contextualize them or figure out what they actually mean.

 

And I do absolutely think that the organized collection of information is potentially a way to control people. That may be avoidable to some extent by individuals (not totally if you have records in government departments or medical centers, or banks..) but the real issue is not manipulating individuals but populations. It is not you or I who can control the infrastructure that gives us the internet, it is governments and large financial interests. Even mobile access is through towers and satellites, and those are at the very top of the list of important assets for any kind of information control. Did you know, for example, that in the event of some kind of conflict, your GPS system may not only cease to work, it could give you false information? That it is designed to do that?

 

While technology may someday save the world in some sense, it is equally possible it could destroy it. I think that if we look at the real benefits we have from technology (and I mean substantial things), along side the problems it creates, it is by no means a slam dunk that there is more good done than harm.

 

This is why I think the whole rush to focus on STEM as if it will somehow make us successful and happy is a mistake. Not because it has no benefits, but because rushing into it has not tended to give good results, especially apart from people who have a broad enough education to be able to make an examination of the value of various innovations.

 

I would say at this point in time, though our public education is all round rather poor, we are probably worse at producing people who can think about the impacts of science and technology meaningfully than we are at producing people who can be employed in the technology sector.