• 10
  • comments
Post Image

There’s been a lot of consternation about the number of U.S. students pursuing science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) degrees.  Many states have created specific STEM schools with the goal of ”[helping students] think critically, solve complex problems, and drive advancements in science and technology.”  I recently attended a workshop sponsored by DARPA which called the decline in STEM graduates a “matter of national security.”

The problem is we’re too caught up in labels.  The idea only computer science and engineering majors can significantly contribute to robotic design, for example, is silly.  Although we understand many of the problems of the future will require a multi-disciplinary approach, we seem stuck in the paradigm this dictates a group of highly specialized individuals, rather than a group individuals with a broad range of experience and knowledge which can be tailored to the problem at hand.   After all, it wasn’t all that long ago that significant contributions to the field were frequently made by amateur scientists such as Benjamin Franklin.

Moreover, the demand for a college degree in order to enter nearly every industry leads many to believe universities are designed to provide nothing more than career preparation.   No wonder music students are mystified when they’re told they must take a year of hard science (sounds more like a sentence), and engineers see little need for their English courses.   We spend a lot of energy trying to explain all the jobs that require the use of trigonometry on a daily basis, missing an opportunity to discuss how math is the fundamental language of the universe.  The role of secondary and collegiate education is to teach you how to think, both critically and creatively.   Just because formal apprenticeships are no longer fashionable doesn’t mean there isn’t a significant amount of OJT required to succeed in nearly every profession.

Instead of worrying about how many students are graduating with a particular degree, I’d love to see industry, and particularly government, demand the development of skilled learners and thinkers.      And maybe we’re getting there, at least on the industry side.  A recent article in Business Week claims the one competency CEO’s most desire is creativity.

This is not to discourage anyone from a degree in science, math, or engineering.  Far from it.  As I told my students over and over, “Science is life and life is science.  You can’t be interested in one and not the other.”  But that isn’t enough to save a nation.  To do that, we have to instill the idea that learning doesn’t end outside the classroom and there are no boundaries on where our curiosity should lead us.

  • Liked this post? Click here to subscribe to
  • Everyday Bright Logo
  • Add Comment
  • A Chance to
  • Speak Your Mind

10 Responses to How Many Scientists Does It Take To Save A Nation?

  1. Brilliant, Gen. Love the last sentence.

    • Thanks so much, Jay! I appreciate you taking the time to say that. This topic is near and dear to my heart.

  2. Mine too! Glad there’s lots of discussion on this topic lately.

  3. Pingback: Tweets that mention How Many Scientists Does It Take To Save A Nation? Everyday Bright -- Topsy.com

  4. Very interesting point of view, Jennifer. Your post inspired me to talk about it a little more here: http://www.stemschool.com/2010/05/stem-students-robots.html

    Best,
    Tyler

    • On
    • May 24, 2010 at 10:31 pm
    • Teri Guill
    • Said...

    I followed your link over from Brazen, and just wanted to chime in with agreement. My academic background is extra-artsy (Studio Art and English) and my husband is very STEM (Electrical Engineering, about to start his MS in Computer Engineering). But, we both find that having well-rounded knowledge and interests helps us in our chosen fields. Biology is not more valuable than Music, or vice versa. The world is not a choice between art and science, literature or math. It’s using knowledge and curiosity about all kinds of things to learn, understand, and solve problems that’s aren’t limited to a specific discipline.

    • On
    • May 24, 2010 at 10:41 pm
    • Teri Guill
    • Said...

    Oh, and I might also add: My extra-artsy education certainly encouraged critical thinking skills. Every essay that hit a sticky point or confusing piece of literature or painting that wasn’t quite right involved analysis, review, study, discussion and sometimes experimentation to find a solution. Analysis and problem-solving are not limited to the engineering department.

    • Teri,
      Yes, exactly! It’s so important that we teach creative and critical thinking in all our subjects. One of my “campaigns” is to help young scientists understand the role creativity plays in their work. Without it, they are doomed to mediocrity (or a very lucky break). Couldn’t agree with you more!
      Jen

    • On
    • May 28, 2010 at 9:40 pm
    • Vincent
    • Said...

    I was definitely one of those kids who believed in the separation of art and science. It wasn’t until undergrad doing arty things that I realized the connection. The patterns, the problem solving, the hypotheses, and the proofs, I did that in art and poetry as I had in high school science. I believe the lack of engineers might be due to its poor public image and the lack of opportunities for some interested middle class and poor students to pursue the field.

    • Vincent,

      That’s interesting that you say engineers have a poor public image. Why do you think that’s the case? With regards to opportunities to pursue the field, I think there are more and more programs, the challenge is knowing about them! There’s just so much information out there, it’s tough to find just what you need. I’ve considered pulling together a portal of things like summer programs, science fairs, etc. Do you think there would be an audience for that? I can’t tell you how many times I’m telling people in my local community about a program my lab sponsors and they’ve never even heard of it. And that’s just at the local level!

      But the best part of your message was your discovery of the interconnectedness between art and science. That makes me smile from ear to ear!