Writing at Liberty Unbound, Cal State Fullerton philosophy professor Gary Jason has an excellent discussion of the trend of fewer students’ pursuing STEM majors. Why is it that, despite the superior career prospects for students who major in one of these fields, American students have increasingly gone elsewhere? Jason contends that it probably has a lot to do with the relative effort needed: “If these students were never forced to work diligently in grade school or high school, might this not be the reason why they flee majors that require hard work, and in fact are studying less than ever in college?”
Yes, that’s a persuasive explanation. Over the last 40 years or so, high school has changed. Academic standards are lower, and the “progressive” theory that schooling should elevate student self-esteem and make learning fun (so that students will want to become “lifelong learners”) has left many students with the expectation that education should be easy. High school colors their expectations for college. They think they’re entitled to high grades without much effort. They also think (or at least did until the last couple of years) that once they had their degree (any degree would do), a good, high-paying job awaited them.
One beneficial result of OWS and all the similar protests around the country is that it has highlighted the fact that just having some college degree is no guarantee of a good job — or any job at all. That will probably do a lot to change the conventional wisdom that college is a good human-capital investment for nearly everyone. We might see an increase in the number of students in STEM fields and a large decrease in the number of students coasting their way through college in one of the many softer majors.
Now, the blogger's explanation seems likely (but only likely) to be true. let me offer an alternative:
Perhaps students have wisely decided that the economic rewards of STEM employment do not match the economic costs. That is, perhaps the reduction in STEM majors is due to rationality and knowledge, rather than laziness or grade inflation.
In STEM fields (and I have done this), many jobs are mind-numbing, do not enhance one's relationships with the larger society (I do not mean that in the leftist sense), and may become obsolete long before the worker is ready to retire. The jobs may require long hours that preclude much of a personal or family life, thus indirectly excluding participation in arts or music, or in any kind of sport other than solo running or bumping at the gym. The places where one can find employment in such fields generally have high cost of living, particularly in housing. To get a good job, an advanced degree has become necessary, and those good jobs are still life-consuming, also requiring a considerable amount of networking among others who have no outside interests. Further, the long practice of importing foreign workers from east Asia, India, and other places not culturally attuned to traditional European-American values (and here I include fully assimilated blacks and Hispanics), means that the work environment is more psychologically fragmented. Finally, the need to maintain contacts among other STEM workers means that certain all-consuming lifestyles must be pursued, at the expense of others.
What's to like? Money, you say? Apparently it's not enough, given the total cost of investment, placing a real value on lifestyle and taking into account alternatives, however poor or iffy those alternatives may be.
I know more than one, indeed more than a few, persons with reputable STEM degrees from the current and just-prior generation, who regretted STEM (some just gave it up). I eventually did so, myself, but admittedly not when young.
I recall a conversation I had many years ago, faculty-to-faculty, between myself (STEM) and a man who taught economics (Austrian school!). He had been a music major as an undergraduate, then switched to economics when he returned to grad school after working awhile. He regretted not having taken more STEM as an undergrad, supposedly because it would have sharpened his wits for grad school. Perhaps. As for me, I regretted that I had not been a music major instead, as I was approaching boredom with STEM, and actually had not used much of its knowledge (i taught general-ed courses to non-majors). Alas, college degrees cannot be traded. In that sense, they have no "market value."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think your characterization of STEM jobs is dead-on. A STEM bachelor's will most likely get you a job as a technician doing drudge work in a lab. In academia and medical settings, there is little or no possibility to move up unless you get an advanced degree. In the private sector, there is more possibility for advancement--but no matter how good you are, you can be let go in a moment if the technology changes or a project gets cancelled. STEM careers thus aren't quite as high-paying as they appear, because you have to figure in regular bouts of unemployment as you look for new work. Plus, much of the knowledge you crammed into your brain is obsolete in five years (if not fewer). You may have learned *how* to learn STEM, and that's a good thing, but the knowledge itself isn't always that useful.
If you think you're going to be a B/C student in STEM, your prospects don't necessarily look great. No surprise that some students decide to ditch it for something else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"A STEM bachelor's will most likely get you a job as a technician doing drudge work in a lab."
Whereas a bachelor's in liberal arts gets you.... oops, time to look at law school or business school!
"In academia and medical settings, there is little or no possibility to move up unless you get an advanced degree."
Whereas there is no possibility to move up with a bachelor's in liberal arts unless you have an advanced degree even if you're outside academia!
"STEM careers thus aren't quite as high-paying as they appear, because you have to figure in regular bouts of unemployment"
Liberal arts suffer from the same problem, as well as being underpaid in the first place!
"much of the knowledge you crammed into your brain is obsolete in five years"
In contrast, your liberal arts knowledge is *always* irrelevant to the real world! It does not expire in five years, it comes pre-expired!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it wasn't for liberal arts majors, National Review wouldn't exist, and you wouldn't have a place to complain about people not majoring in STEM fields.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it weren't for STEM majors, you wouldn't be able to come here and blather about the greatness of liberal arts. Who do you think created the computer and the internet you're using now? And the electricity that powers it all? What created the wealth and leisure time that allows *anyone* to care about the liberal arts, let alone major in them (hint: industrial civilization is not the product of liberal arts majors)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm just curious....how does this site know that people who graduated with liberal arts degrees didn't study hard? Did you actually observe them? I have a bachelor's and master's degree in a liberal arts field, and I certainly studied quite a bit...even during spring and fall breaks. My social life was virtually nonexistent. You do know that liberal arts majors still have to take courses in science and math, don't you?
Also, STEM is not inherently more difficult than liberal arts. It depends on the person. People have different aptitudes. Science and math come very easy to some people...not so much to others. Why do you wish to denigrate those who decided to study a subject where two plus two doesn't always equal four? What is wrong with studying subjects where there is less certainty and that requires more thinking on the part of the student?
I'd also still to like know many of NR's contributors majored in a STEM field. I suspect I won't ever get an answer because you know, as do I, that it's zero.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe that John Derbyshire was a math major, and he has written several books (good ones, I'm told) on the subject. Aside from that, you're right--there are very few people with a science background at NR, and it shows. Of course many of these people have other talents, but it'd still be nice to have some more informed science commentary around here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy only point, Lorraine, is that the VAST MAJORITY of right-leaning individuals pushing for more people to major in STEM fields did NOT do so themselves.
This is true, whether they're NR contributors, Heritage Foundation fellows, Republicans in Congress, or Republican presidential candidates. Why should we follow their advice?
I'm a conservative and don't dispute the inefficiency of the modern university, but I am sick and tired of Phi Beta Cons denigrating people like me, while idealizing high school dropouts doing menial labor. It reeks of anti-intellectualism, which I despise wherever it exists on the political spectrum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe assertion that non-STEM majors don't have a valid opinion about majoring in STEM is just the sort of anti-intellectualism you despise, and also a logically fallacious appeal to authority. Just because the people at NR did not major in STEM does not mean their opinions about whether or not people should major in STEM is invalid, and your claim to that effect is similar to those who say that non-climate-scientists cannot have a valid opinion about global warming.
It is not "anti-intellectual" to state that some people should not go to college. In fact it is the large-scale presence of those on college campuses who are intellectually unsuited for college work who are draining colleges of their genuine intellectual content and purpose. Moreover it is not "anti-intellectual" to state that people should appraise college with a clear view to its costs and benefits, and that a good many people would be better off working in skilled trades rather than attending college.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt wasn't an appeal to authority. Rather, my point is that liberal arts majors have something different to offer to society. How many successful U.S. presidents had an engineering background? (Yeah, I said successful, so that leaves out Hoover and Carter). The articles you read on this site were not written by STEM majors, for the most part. Would you rather they were? Seriously?
Why are conservatives who majored in the liberal arts good, while liberals who did the same thing are inherently bad? That's all I'm asking.
Yeah, there's some people who are unsuited for college...the ones who drop out. Oh wait, so you want to also include those who graduated with a degree in something you see as easy? As for the "skilled trades," you mean those menial labors that monkeys could learn? That's what we have immigrants for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou repeatedly asserted that NR contributors did not major in STEM, and therefore it is clear that you believe that they lack the authority to advise others to major in STEM. That is an appeal to authority and it is a logical fallacy.
Liberal arts majors may have something "different" to offer society but whether this is worth the enormous cost that this imposes on society is another matter entirely. Should the government subsidize and encourage this? Should students incur huge debts to obtain such degrees? In my view, the answer is no to both questions.
As for Presidents having an engineering background, what is the point of that observation? Do you really think people should major in liberal arts to improve their chances of becoming a successful President? LMAO! I have news for you, people are a LOT more likely to achieve success and happiness by majoring in engineering and seeking to become an engineer than they are by majoring in liberal arts and seeking to become President.
STEM majors could easily write good articles for NR, but they aren't interested in doing so or are too busy to do so. Liberal arts majors do not have a monopoly on effective writing.
It is not just the people who drop out who are unsuited for college. It is also the people who got degrees in meaningless, useless liberal arts fields, and graduated with a lot of debt and no hope of getting a job in their field of study or even a job with decent pay. Such people simply did not benefit from attending college and should not have done so.
If you allow stupid "monkeys" to work on the wiring or plumbing of your house or to repair your car, then you are even more absurd and pitiful than I already think you are. And let me ask you this, do you really think stupid "monkeys" are better off getting a liberal arts degree than learning a skilled trade? Really? So they can do what, exactly? Man the cash register somewhere? This country is failing the left side of the bell curve *precisely* because people like you think these people should go to college rather than learn a skilled trade.
Needless to say I totally disagree that we should import immigrants for skilled labor. We should train our own people to do this. Sending unsuitable people to college rather than having them learn skilled trades is a waste of our resources and does not promote happiness or success for the people who go to college and fail (or who go to college, get a useless degree, and are underemployed and underpaid as a result).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst of all, what you are accusing me of is appeal to accomplishment, not appeal to authority. Learn your fallacies or do they do not teach those in STEM classes? Oh and you committed a fallacy in the course of your post-ever heard of ad hominem?
Second, I never said non-STEM majors couldn't recommend STEM for others. I was merely commenting on the irony that individuals who majored in liberal arts and had successful careers don't seem to think other people can do the same.
As for Presidents, I was using that as ONE example to show that STEM majors can't do everything. Neither can liberal arts majors. Society needs both, but it seems one side wants to ridicule mercilessly the other. STEM majors can write good articles? Really? Which ones? Can you give me an example? Because in my experience, those who excel in math are usually much weaker in reading and writing.
The real reason for such high unemployment among young college graduates is that companies are lazy and refuse to train people, like they previously did for decades. You think those in STEM field automatically get a good-paying job? I know engineers who looked for work for a year AND had to relocate to get a job.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI majored in math as well as history.
Math and science are harder, period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have a bachelor's and master's in Aerospace Engineering, and would have had a minor in English if engineering majors were allowed to claim minors (they aren't, or every engineer would have a minor in Math, Physics and Mechanical Engineering thanks to prerequisites).
English (and other Liberal Arts) courses were my GPA-boosters. 4.0 across the board, with minimal time spent studying. My GPA in STEM courses was, er, lower, while time spent studying and doing lab work was much higher. My roommate who majored in Political Science (went to law school, he's a judge today) never cracked a book before finals, and that wasn't because he's an autodidact. It's because his coursework was very easy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's another reason: too many Asians in STEM classes. Believe it. Many white students are discouraged when they see too many Asians in classes like Computer Science and Electrical Engineering. The proof of the pudding are in the classes themselves: in any upper-level STEM class at a major university, how many white faces does one see? Answer: not many. Although I was in college long ago, I recall the attitude of many white classmates when they saw a lot of Asian faces (re: "curve-busters") on the first day of class. Many of them walked right out, never to return. And they were pretty open about why they left.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAsian culture stereotypically focuses on hard work, determination, and book-learning. That might explain part of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy own experience getting a BS and MS in Computer Engineering at a major state university: Undergraduates are mostly white males, but graduates are overwhelmingly asian or Indian. They did no better than the white students. Once I got to know them I realized they were no smarter than me (white male), though they never really knew when to "quit" when working a problem.
People who are intimidated by "yellow" faces don't have the drive to make it in a STEM major anyways.
My experience concurs with yours. The Asian kids weren't any smarter, on average... but they did tend to work a hell of a lot harder.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWork harder? Probably (fits my observation). BUT:
My undergraduate years were mostly in a reputable but not elite university, in an English-speaking country outside the USA. Thus I was a foreign student there, and as a result got to mingle with mostly foreign students (the locals had their own lives outside the confines of the university).
That was before Hong Kong was returned to mainland China. Numerous students were from Hong Kong, of Chinese (specifically Cantonese) families there. They all spoke English varying from adequately, upwards to The Queen's English. Nearly all the ones I got to meet were studying commerce or liberal arts fields, not STEM. That was partly because their families were involved in commerce, and partly because a STEM student might have chosen a different university or country.
I recall that the Chinese (Hong Kong) students were rather fun. None of this burying noses in books. Commerce is a field in which one must get to know people, not shut up and study all day. It is also a field in which it is valuable to know something about a lot of different things, rather than focus on one thing.
Today's Chinese students, in the USA and studying STEM, are a different lot entirely. I never talk with any of them, or their parents (the original ones of this category). No matter what their level of English, there is simply nothing to talk about. We have no common interests (and I did STEM). It's noses in the books, all the time. For what? An entry-level job sitting at a computer terminal? A job where you put in 60 hour weeks for a dead end? Some will get ahead, but the total quantity of effort, invested by all put together, does not seem to pay off, not even for them, compared to more than a generation ago.
If the Chinese students of my own generation had been like that, I might have dropped out of STEM myself!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not just that. Asian brilliance is, I believe, just another myth based on other factors. And, I can say that for numerous other things (as in, "white men can't jump").
Why is there little mention of Asian-only study groups, which I see on campuses? Not that anyone is excluded, it's just that how does one get in when the language in use is Chinese?
Why is there little mention of the obvious fact that nowadays, the numerous Asian students are usually not children of small shop owners or laborers, but are the children of graduate-educated parents who are studying essentially the same field as BOTH parents, and will have all the necessary social contacts, regardless of grades?
Why is there little mention of why should a (White, Black, Hispanic, Native) -American study for a career with companies that either have Asian headquarters, or are moving those jobs to Asia, for which "actually being (the correct kind of) Asian" would likely be a career advantage at anything above entry level?
Why is there little mention of the fact that in some fields, such as biotechnology, a lot of current work involves development or marketing of products that to a greater or lesser extent go against the religious tenets of a major portion of Americans?
Why is there little mention of the fact that even so, a lot of STEM work goes into the development of advanced weapons systems, which a sizable portion of Americans have reason to question? Hint: Not all of the Iowan voter for Ron Paul did it because they read "Atlas Shrugged."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne reason not to take STEM majors - if you want to go to law school, avoid hard classes like the plague. I have a lawyer friend who was asked by his son what to major in to be a lawyer. He replied, "Anything in which you can make an A." I have a law degree. I also have degress in Chemistry and Computer Science. I didn't get into my preferred law school (with my Chem degree), but a friend of mine did. She had a degree in "General Studies" and (of course) had a great GPA. My chemistry grades counted the same as her creative writing grades. My advanced math grades counted the same as her beginner's math grades. So why take hard classes if you need to go to graduate school in something other than STEM majors?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse