STEM the tide

I’ve been listening to the ballyhoo about the need for more trained graduates in math and science since Sputnik shot up in 1957 and if I’d been around earlier, I’m sure I would have heard it then. Now the “rose” has another name—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)—but I’m not sure it doesn’t still smell of wrongheadedness. Corporations have been crying to the government for more support for these training programs for over 50 years now, and if I live another 50, my guess is I’ll still be hearing about it.

However, as soon as the STEMmys get jobs, the corporations start howling about how they can’t think beyond their technical specialty, can’t see the big picture, and can’t write any better than a fifth grader. Duh, why not? Could it be that they never studied anything that allowed them to see beyond the edge of their computer monitors? And a degree in STEM is no guarantee of a job, either, despite what the corporations would like us to believe. Ask anyone who’s worked for Motorola or Lucent in the last 20 years.

Unfortunately, even our beloved president—no graduate of STEM, he!—seems to be mouthing this conventional wisdom. It’s shocking that a guy whose thinking is so innovative on so many fronts seems to have a big blind spot where education is concerned. So, Mr. President, I’m going to make a really radical proposal.

Drop all special initiative for STEM. If the corporations need specialists, let the corporations PAY for that training. Maybe they’ll get the employees they need if they design the program. And why shouldn’t they foot the bills? They’re not going to reimburse the feds, like the banks have. But the role of government should be to support those important programs that do not necessarily have a direct profit price tag attached, but enhance and protect the quality of life. We are living in a world where too many governments have taken on the role of corporate partner, and in fact are impotent in the face of multinationals. But government is of, by and for PEOPLE, not business.

If government is going to support educational programs, I suggest we should be supporting the liberal arts and humanities. These are the areas of learning that lend intrinsic meaning, expression and connection to life, all things the robots of STEM cannot replicate. Maybe they don’t ring a corporate recruiter’s bells, but most of the English, or history, or French lit majors I know do find jobs. I also know plenty of computer science majors who are out of work right now.

More and more, arts instruction has become the province of the children of the upper middle class, whose parents know the value and purchase after-school instruction. But move down the economic ladder a bit and you’re out of luck—music, art, dance and theater programs have been sliced out of nearly all public school budgets.

We are seeing a country where the children of the rich are helped to express themselves, develop thinking ability, access culture and broaden their (already broad) experience, while the children of the working class and the poor are told to focus on getting a job, and get training for—for what? When I took computer science classes, we spent tons of time learning COBOL. I don’t think the schools know what technical skills will be useful by the time the kids graduate.

Mr. Obama did his undergraduate work at Columbia University (a school renowned for its Great Books-style curriculum) where he majored in political science. It doesn’t seem to have hurt his employability any.