Topic: I've looked into this years-long STEM education promotion, and I'm thinking it's ill-focused and som
boof started this discussion 2 years ago #115,164
sometimes promotes hooey. In brief, without the detail about what specific education allows what work, kids may be steered towards degrees that don't really relate to available STEM work. If a kid doesn't really like school with all it's reading, writing, and studying, but may still have interest in something technical or scientific, it does not help to continue the schooling bias towards getting a degree generally. From what I've read, unless a kid is prepared to put in the stress and bother of getting master or Ph.D., there are only a couple of areas that a single degree is likely to lead to work that the degree had much to do with: computers and engineering. Even then, some kinds of engineering degrees are more likely than others to lead to engineering as work.
So, if the goal is to put people to work in specific fields, you'll get far more kids successfully doing that with training that is not based on getting a degree.
So, if the goal is to put people to work in specific fields, you'll get far more kids successfully doing that with training that is not based on getting a degree.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,272,482
Seeing Sheila talk seriously about something is weird and scary. It's like that time that Dave posted a Simpsons meme. I don't like it when peope act out of character, it confuses me.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,272,508
@previous (B)
> Seeing Sheila talk seriously about something is weird and scary. It's like that time that Dave posted a Simpsons meme. I don't like it when peope act out of character, it confuses me.
Ok
> Seeing Sheila talk seriously about something is weird and scary. It's like that time that Dave posted a Simpsons meme. I don't like it when peope act out of character, it confuses me.
Ok
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,272,511
पदानां फुस्कुली रानी, तस्य घ्राणं न जायते
ढमढमाढम उत्तमे पादे, टाराटूरे च मध्यमे
ढमढमाढम उत्तमे पादे, टाराटूरे च मध्यमे
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,272,517
boof (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 week later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,274,123
Consider this diagramAnonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,274,159
@previous (boof)
What are you taking away from it? I'm a little confused about what your point here is in this thread.
-One take away from what you wrote seems to be that we should keep promoting education even more because one may not need just a STEM bachelor's degree, but also a master's or possibly PhD.
-Another is that we shouldn't promote anyone going into it because too many will be pushed into STEM that aren't cut out for it.
-Another is that maybe we shouldn't need a PhD and 10+ years industry experience for a job that could've and would've been done by someone with a high school diploma and a bit of on the job training just a half century ago.
I agree with the last point of view. I think this is one of the few times where the "free market" already solves the problem, which I've never been convinced was a problem to begin with. Pay people enough and you'll find you have no shortage of people signing up for any number of years of education. Just look at how much shit people are willing to put up with to become a medical doctor or lawyer.
What are you taking away from it? I'm a little confused about what your point here is in this thread.
-One take away from what you wrote seems to be that we should keep promoting education even more because one may not need just a STEM bachelor's degree, but also a master's or possibly PhD.
-Another is that we shouldn't promote anyone going into it because too many will be pushed into STEM that aren't cut out for it.
-Another is that maybe we shouldn't need a PhD and 10+ years industry experience for a job that could've and would've been done by someone with a high school diploma and a bit of on the job training just a half century ago.
I agree with the last point of view. I think this is one of the few times where the "free market" already solves the problem, which I've never been convinced was a problem to begin with. Pay people enough and you'll find you have no shortage of people signing up for any number of years of education. Just look at how much shit people are willing to put up with to become a medical doctor or lawyer.
boof (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,274,184
yep, there is overselling of the idea of getting a STEM or STEM-adjacent degree when there is not even a whole hell of a demand for people with most degrees for anything specific in the first place. There are already plenty of graduates as it is. There is the valid general concern that a society is better off when people have some science knowledge, and more interest should lead to more great advancements, but for most of us, who are not from great generational wealth, it is cruel to point people to degrees without also emphasizing what can be expected for most people by that route. And as you say, if for example we really want lots of medical advances, people with control of societal purse strings need to pay up or shut up instead of relying on hopes of kids of modest means.
boof (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,274,185
As to the diagram specifically, it shows that most degrees do not result in employment in what could be called strictly STEM jobs. Apparently even for the degrees that are most likely to match the employment, the relatedness rate looks like only half, for the data the diagram is based on.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,274,188
@1,274,184 (boof)
I think the big societal mistake here was when we allowed universities to be relegated to the status of vocational training programs which is the reason why the vast majority of people go to college and are suckered (coerced) into taking out large amounts of debt or, at least, wasting large amounts of time for something they don't truly want to do. That wasn't the original idea of universities, to be merely a certification program for wage labor. Ironically it was the few that didn't have to do any work at all that used to go to universities.
Much of what's covered in the average university curriculum, even in STEM, is not used so frequently even in STEM fields (although this is less true in STEM, to be fair). It is not and has never been a good vocational training program. 1000x this is true for completing a PhD which are almost entirely highly, highly niche topics.
But as a separate point I think there's an incredibly strong case that we should be promoting general literacy in STEM, and to an extent world history, past and present too. Culturally, we've already engrained this idea much more than most all other past societies and I do think we slowly see the benefits. It's not a cure all, though.
Why does a cashier even need to read? The most they need to know is simple addition, and now not even really that.
Why does a construction worker need to read? Or possibly even know any math. They really don't. But I think we all both individually and collectively have a better and more interesting life and culture by promoting literacy. I'm not sure that there's a point to which that will ever stop. I'd like to think that it won't.
I think there's a difference, though, in forcing someone to learn something and having a culture of genuine interest and curiosity. We should be aiming for the latter.
I do wonder if the age of universities has or will soon pass its peak. It's not needed any more to go and listen to the lectures of some professor who happens to go to your local university. With enough motivation and a bit of time, you can learn almost anything online now. Finding other interested people to learn with (who aren't being forced to learn in a class room so they can get a job and have a roof over their head) is harder, though. But that's a cultural problem and it's one we may eventually fix.
I think the big societal mistake here was when we allowed universities to be relegated to the status of vocational training programs which is the reason why the vast majority of people go to college and are suckered (coerced) into taking out large amounts of debt or, at least, wasting large amounts of time for something they don't truly want to do. That wasn't the original idea of universities, to be merely a certification program for wage labor. Ironically it was the few that didn't have to do any work at all that used to go to universities.
Much of what's covered in the average university curriculum, even in STEM, is not used so frequently even in STEM fields (although this is less true in STEM, to be fair). It is not and has never been a good vocational training program. 1000x this is true for completing a PhD which are almost entirely highly, highly niche topics.
But as a separate point I think there's an incredibly strong case that we should be promoting general literacy in STEM, and to an extent world history, past and present too. Culturally, we've already engrained this idea much more than most all other past societies and I do think we slowly see the benefits. It's not a cure all, though.
Why does a cashier even need to read? The most they need to know is simple addition, and now not even really that.
Why does a construction worker need to read? Or possibly even know any math. They really don't. But I think we all both individually and collectively have a better and more interesting life and culture by promoting literacy. I'm not sure that there's a point to which that will ever stop. I'd like to think that it won't.
I think there's a difference, though, in forcing someone to learn something and having a culture of genuine interest and curiosity. We should be aiming for the latter.
I do wonder if the age of universities has or will soon pass its peak. It's not needed any more to go and listen to the lectures of some professor who happens to go to your local university. With enough motivation and a bit of time, you can learn almost anything online now. Finding other interested people to learn with (who aren't being forced to learn in a class room so they can get a job and have a roof over their head) is harder, though. But that's a cultural problem and it's one we may eventually fix.
boof (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,274,190
indeed