A recent article in the LA times by a UCSD sociology professor, John D. Skrentny, claims that the "investment" in STEM has not produced useful returns, and has all been a terrible waste.
Opinion: Why pushing STEM majors is turning out to be a terrible investment
๐๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ฏ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ค๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏโ๐ต ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ข๐บ๐ด. ๐๐ถ๐ต ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฑ๐ช๐ต๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐จ๐ณ๐ช๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด, ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐บ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ด ๐ด๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ, ๐๐ฆ๐ค๐ฉ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฐ๐จ๐บ, ๐๐ฏ๐จ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐ต๐ฉ (๐๐๐๐) ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ค๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ญ๐ถ๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ค๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ค๐ฆ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ข๐จ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด, ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ฏ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ท๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ต๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ช๐ง๐บ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ฉ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ช๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ค๐ฆ. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ข๐จ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ญ๐ถ๐ค๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ค๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ค๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ต๐ถ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ถ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ-๐ฑ๐ข๐บ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด โ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฏ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ด ๐ฉ๐ข๐ด ๐ด๐ถ๐ณ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐บ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ด.
๐๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ด ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด: ๐๐ฐ๐ด๐ต ๐๐๐๐ ๐จ๐ณ๐ข๐ฅ๐ถ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏโ๐ต ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ค๐ค๐ถ๐ฑ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ถ๐ด ๐๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ถ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ 2021 ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ข๐ญ๐ต๐ณ๐บ 28% ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐๐๐ ๐จ๐ณ๐ข๐ฅ๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ด๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ญ๐บ ๐ช๐ฏ-๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ, ๐ฉ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ช๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ต ๐๐๐๐ ๐ซ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ด. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ญ๐ถ๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐ด ๐ด๐ถ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ข๐ด ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ข๐ณ๐ฎ๐ข๐ค๐ฆ๐ถ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ๐ด, ๐ค๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐จ๐บ, ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ต ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ฉ๐ข๐ญ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐๐๐ ๐ซ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฆ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ง๐ช๐ณ๐ฎ๐ด ๐ต๐บ๐ฑ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐๐๐ ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ข๐จ๐ฆ๐ด.
๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ตโ๐ด ๐ค๐ข๐ถ๐ด๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ฅ๐ช๐ด๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต? ๐๐ตโ๐ด ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ต๐ต๐บ ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ: ๐๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฐ๐บ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐ด ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ ๐ฅ๐ณ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ช๐ฐ๐ณ, ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ค๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด.
I hardly know where to start in a response and an analysis of this "comment", since it contains so many falsehoods and misunderstandings. It is more than a bit "rich" for someone in an eminently demonstrably completely worthless field like Sociology to dare publish something like this.[1]
People in the humanities, like Sociology (not even much of a science, at all), have been jealous of STEM for decades, or even more than a couple of centuries. STEM seems to get all the resources, and all the best students and all the attention. What about a "good" liberal arts education,[2] they say?
To anyone who is even mildly observant and in possession of even a remotely functional and rational set of faculties, the contributions of STEM to humanity should be more than obvious. People live longer and heathier, thanks to STEM. People are wealthier, thanks to STEM. All the tools that this professor uses to do his job, to move him from one place to another, to allow him to communicate, that provide him with entertainment, and so on, are the result of STEM.
For example, consider Israel and India and China. All of these nations are appreciably wealthier than they were just a few years ago. Most of their increase in wealth is due to STEM. If STEM is so worthless, what explains the ascensions of these nations in recent years?
The resources that the government pours into STEM are not some sort of "gift", or some attempt to lure unsuspecting students into dead-end careers. This funding is because STEM promotes economic growth, and new products and processes.
STEM is also vital for defense and intelligence which protect Western Civilization. There are many elements that seek to dislodge the West from its prominent position and to destroy liberty. The innovations from STEM barely keep these forces in check.
The billions the government spends on STEM are not for STEM education, at least not for the most part. They are to secure the benefits of STEM. Just compare the spending on pure STEM education at nonresearch institutions with the spending on STEM research at research institutions. There is a difference of orders of magnitude. Perhaps the government should spend more on STEM education, but they don't really spend much at all on just education in STEM or anything else. The only exceptions might be on special DEI and woke programs, which are promoted and championed by people like this Sociology professor. And also, a lot is spent on Education bureaucracy, like one finds at the Department of Education, which is effectively money down the drain. But I would bet quite a bit that this sociology professor is in favor of that kind of spending, even though it not only accomplishes nothing, but is an impediment to progress in many cases. These positions are basically "bullshit jobs", as described in the recent best-seller on the topic.[3]
Another criticism of this opinion piece would be that the humanities, including Sociology, have given birth to a corrosive belief system that threatens to destroy civilization. This is 'Wokeness', a sort of "weaponized compassion". As Elon Musk says, "we either defeat the woke mind virus, or nothing else matters".
Woke beliefs are now corrupting STEM, but they did not originate in STEM. This pernicious cult came from the Humanities. This is incredibly well-documented. So not only is the influence of Sociology and associated disciplines not positive or even neutral; it is decidedly negative, destructive and caustic.
According to this article and the US Census Bureau, only about one third of all STEM graduates continue to work in STEM. One might say this is too small a figure, and there is some merit to this claim. However, 1/3 is a much larger fraction than many other college majors.
People often realize that they were mistaken about their interests, or their interests shift. Opportunities also arise that lure people to other fields. For example, it is well known that many more than 50% of all engineering graduates work in other fields of engineering or even outside engineering. This has been true for a long time, perhaps even more than a century. It constitutes a natural sort of cross-fertilization process that is vital for the health of STEM and related fields.
Also, STEM is quite demanding and competitive, at least at the bleeding edge. STEM is not a cake-walk, at least if someone approaches it with the appropriate frame of mind and intensity. STEM is not for everyone; not even close. If a person does not have the ability, the passion and the motivation to pursue STEM wherever it leads, they will often fall by the wayside.
As Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis frequently pointed out, after World War II a huge flood of resources flowed into STEM. And there was a lot of hype that was associated with this. Many people who were really unsuitable for STEM were drawn into the field. Some failed out, some had marginal careers at best, and others just drifted away. A lot of them were not really that interested in STEM particularly, but had more of a "careerist" disposition. They just went through the motions but really had no business being in STEM at all, truth be told.
But, should the barriers to entering STEM be raised again? Should standards be increased? People like this Sociology professor have been pushing to lower the barriers and standards for decades. And these minimal standards produce failed careers and disappointment. People need to be equipped with the skills necessary for success, or else STEM education is indeed a waste.
This professor also complains that most of the STEM graduates work in Information Technology and with computers. But that is just what one would expect, even if they are working in Chemical Engineering or energy production or some other technical field. Computers are creating revolutions wherever they are introduced. To not know how to use a computer is like not knowing how to use a pencil and paper, these days.
There is also a lot of confusion in the article, where the professor alternately complains that salaries are too high in STEM, but then not high enough. Which is it? Or is this just another example of sour grapes and a sort of vacuous attempt to cast aspersions on an area that this Sociologist resents and envies, but knows next to nothing about.
There are shortages and surpluses in STEM, in various areas. Some of these are temporary, and some are not. And it has always been thus.
If one has an extensive STEM education, up through a Masters degree or a PhD, one will have made a serious time commitment. If you count high school preparation, the student will have spent at least 9 years in STEM studies. STEM moves so rapidly that the field will be very different after 9 or 15 years or more than it was when the student began. If the student has not been equipped with the tools to keep up with the advances in the STEM field, their preparation will be obsolete before they have even begun their careers. STEM is not static, and this is something else that must be kept in mind.
For example, I am old enough to remember several times when various previous incarnations of Artificial Intelligence crashed and burned. No one with a degree focused on AI could get any job, even an unpaid volunteer job. AI as a field was completely toxic for a large fraction of the last 70 years or longer. But, advances took place, and now AI is "hot" once again.
Also, when I began my Research and Development career decades ago in STEM, I was told repeatedly that computers and software and signal processing and the internet and cellular telephones were just fads, and pointless wastes of time. Everyone, even the "experts" were wrong. It is very difficult to predict where things are headed in STEM.
STEM is subject to market forces, like everything else and all other disciplines. And STEM moves rapidly, so if a practitioner does not keep up with the advances, they will soon become obsolete. But this was always true, in all fields. How many blacksmiths are still employed and in demand? How many typesetters? How many morse code experts work in telegraphy? How many typists? How many rotary dial telephone manufacturers are there?
Things evolve and markets and demands change. That is just reality.
The author also complains that too many STEM graduates move into STEM management, at some steady pace. Is he claiming that management of STEM activities is not important? I can confirm from my experiences that most of the inefficiencies and problems in STEM result from terrible STEM management. We need people managing and planning STEM who have some STEM experience, and also know what they are doing. That is probably the most promising way to improve the "return on STEM investment".
I have far too often observed failed STEM people or non-STEM people who have destroyed STEM enterprises because they thought they were smarter than all of the productive technical people. These stories are legion in STEM, particularly in research and development.
The author also complains about Musk sacking a large fraction of the workforce at Twitter/X. However, if you look carefully, the vast majority of those people who were let go at Twitter were not STEM people at all, but just censors and assorted leeches and hangers-on, like Yoel Roth. Roth was a problematic individual with zero technical skills who was paid massive amounts of cash. I personally was repeatedly banned from Twitter for simple things like referring to peer-reviewed NIH research. The people that banned me from Twitter were not STEM people, but basically marketing people, and assorted woke activists of various and sundry unsavory flavors, dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.
Anyone technical who might have been fired from Twitter/X soon picked up another position. Some were inadvertently let go and rehired rapidly. If someone has real technical skills, their firing from Twitter/X does not mean their career is over. They just move on to a better situation.
This professor also claims there is terrible age discrimination in STEM. I have never found this to be the case, and none of my friends in STEM have either. I have no idea what he is talking about, and he probably does not either.
There is some imbalance between males and females in STEM. We do not really understand why this is. Some have argued that this might be mainly because of the interests of women. For example, some claim women are interested in people and relationships mainly, while men are more interested in things. Is this a natural inherent difference, or is it the result of environmental factors? Some countries like Sweden or Mao's China which attempted to stamp out these differences invariably failed. This would be a great topic for sociological studies, instead of just bemoaning this imbalance.
Fossil fuel companies are only temporarily struggling for talent. Most of that is because of government actions designed to put them out of business and destroy them. This was not true just 3 or 4 years ago.
To conclude, the question might be raised, why bother responding to the clearly ridiculous comments of an obscure Sociology professor that were published in the Los Angeles Times? The sentiments Professor Skrentny expressed are actually similar to those held by a large fraction (or even an overwhelming majority) of the population. The most common statement that I hear from members of the public is, "Wow, that sounds complicated. Is it good for anything?" after I have told them what I do in STEM.
This is a serious problem, because we live in an increasingly sophisticated environment which is profoundly influenced by advances in STEM. Do we leave all our decisions up to a small cadre of political actors with assorted agendas, not all of which are necessarily aligned with continued human thriving? Do we allow assorted luddites like this Sociology professor to declare war on STEM?
My belief is that we must drastically change how we perform STEM education.ย For example, even someone whose ambition is to be a hairdresser should possess a modicum of information about what STEM is and what it is good for.
In addition, we must experiment with reforms to Research and Development with the goal of making it more productive and effective. We must address the central point that Professor Skrentny raised; that is, we must improve our return on investment in R and D and in STEM. I believe there are opportunities to improve our efficiency ofย R and D. [4] And I intend to address those in a series of essays to follow.
Notes
[1] How many students has this sociology professor trained that went on to any career even remotely associated with sociology? Is it over 1% of his students? If so, it would be a miracle.
[2] I am not sure I can see much that is "good" about a "good liberal arts education", to be honest. You do not find other countries in such a frenzy over a "liberal arts education" as people in the US seem to be.
My impression is that the "good liberal arts" education in the US is just an example of the general populace attempting to imitate the upper classes. That is it. It has no redeeming value.
[3] Bullshit Jobs
'๐๐ถ๐ญ๐ญ๐ด๐ฉ๐ช๐ต ๐๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ด: ๐ ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ' ๐ช๐ด ๐ข 2018 ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ต๐ฉ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฐ๐จ๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐๐ข๐ท๐ช๐ฅ ๐๐ณ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ต๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ซ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐บ๐ป๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ต๐ข๐ญ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ณ๐ฎ. ๐๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฐ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ญ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ต๐ข๐ญ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ ๐ช๐ด ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฑ๐ด๐บ๐ค๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฐ๐จ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ถ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ข ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ค ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ข๐ด๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ด ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ญ๐ง-๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ฉ. ๐๐ณ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด๐ค๐ณ๐ช๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ง๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐บ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ซ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ด, ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ข๐ด ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ณ๐ฎ๐ง๐ถ๐ญ ๐ข๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ช๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฃ๐ฆ: ๐ง๐ญ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฆ๐ด, ๐จ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด, ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ค๐ต ๐ต๐ข๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด, ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐น ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ข๐ด๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ข๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด. ๐๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐จ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ด๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ญ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ท๐ช๐ณ๐ต๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด ๐ด๐ถ๐ง๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ช๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฉ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ๐ด ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ข๐ญ ๐ฃ๐ข๐ด๐ช๐ค ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ด ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ญ๐ถ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ.
๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ช๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ข๐บ ๐๐ณ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ 2013, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ธ๐ข๐ด ๐ญ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ฏ๐ด๐ญ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฐ 12 ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐จ๐ถ๐ข๐จ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ญ๐บ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ช๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ค๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ถ๐ฃ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข ๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ท ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ญ. ๐๐ณ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ด๐ถ๐ฃ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ญ๐บ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ญ๐ช๐ค๐ช๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ช๐ข๐ญ๐ด ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ซ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ค๐ข๐ด๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ธ๐ข๐ด ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฏ & ๐๐ค๐ฉ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ข๐บ 2018.
[4] This professor's time would be better spent on documenting why college costs so much, as well as how to better select candidates who will be successful in fields like STEM. This would reduce the waste in the system considerably.
Excellent critique.
One caveat - in the notes - I think a really good liberal arts education can be very valuable; not all students belong in STEM.
To summarize, John D. Skrentny is a meatball. It's important, when considering artsmen criticizing STEM, to remember what Feynman said: โphilosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birdsโ
Look around you - so many things that make your life easier, better and more fun came from STEM: the Internet, search engines, email, texting, smartphones, computers, large tv's, smart cars, online banking and shopping, ...
The sad truth is that a lot of what goes on in academic STEM is just a parlour game - publishing papers to keep the grant money rolling in. Practical utility is only infrequently a factor; a genuine search for truth even more rarely enters into it.
Then as you note, there's the woke infiltration. Essentially all of the younger professors I've known are fully on board with woke. As a rule they're minimally competent, but genius is rare. Many of course were hired, or should I say included, on the strength of their diverse characteristics. They're certainly not generating any profound advances. Meanwhile, they're filling the pipeline with as many diverse grad students as they can find, while pressuring their departments to dilute undergraduate and graduate curricula to ensure their diverse students can get the credentials that make them Officially Intelligent Scientists.
At the same time the national granting agencies, also thoroughly penetrated by woke, are now insisting on obeisance to social justice in order to get scientific funding, e.g. via 'broader impact' requirements for NSF grants.
It's all well and good to preen about how much more important and valuable STEM is as compared to the humanities. There was a time in which I would have agreed. Yet who has the whip hand, now? We conceded the humanities departments to the anti-civilization marxoids; they turned them into brain-washing centers; their fanatical hordes then spread into administrative and educational positions; and now the prevailing ideology inside the STEM departments is anti-civilizational gay race communism.