For the record, I disagree with your definition, at least re economics.
Economics is ~75% STEM. It is the major exception among the social sciences.
The parts of psychology most related to biology and the brain might be 50% STEM; that is the subject that is the borderline.
I agree with the rest of your description, inclusive of using the word STEM as a weapon.
And in fact the last 10-15 years has demonstrated that most of the social sciences have “developed” into purely leftist politics, and not science. To say nothing of an ever increasing fraction of the humanities. And so in that very real sense I am in favor of the weaponization of the word STEM.
And if one is neither an elite student nor come from money, imo one would do very well to focus one’s college career on “STEM” and not on the rest, lest one finish with a mountain of student debt majoring in grievance studies and yet be unemployable in fields which could help pay off that debt.
Of course, sadly an increasing fraction of *economists* have moved closer to this leftist ideologizing camp.
I think the ascendancy of STEM and its overemphasis is mostly due to the advent of spurious “Studies” programs in Academe. Gender Studies, Islamic Studies, the myriad other Marxist DEI offshoots, all were little more than aspersions cast onto arts and literature departments.
There's nothing Marxist about Islam, since Marxism is inherently anti-religion. Islamic Studies have existed since the Golden Age of Islam which was notably centuries before Karl Marx was born. Calling entire subjects "DEI"? I don't think DEI has anything to do with subjects in themselves, it has to do with college applicants or job applicants. I think you're just saying buzzwords made up by the Donald Trump administration, Elon Musk, and the myriad other anti-intellectual "slopulist" hypocritical right-wing gurus like them
Yet it is Marxists and Islamists (the Red-Green Alliance) who have partnered up these days. Marxism may be technically anti-religion, but it worships the idea of destroying western civilization, as do the Islamofascist partners of Marxism ( or Democratic Socialism as they like to call it these days). So the Venn diagram of Marxism and Islamism has significant overlap. The Marxists figure, once they win the revolution, they'll just shoot all the Islamists, and the Islamists figure once the Marxists are no longer useful idiots, they'll shoot them. Truly a marriage made in, well, not heaven, the other place. Meanwhile, no worries, as I am sure your Masters in 14th Century Afghanistan Gender Studies will help get you a rewarding career at Starbucks.
PS- my only right-wing guru is Ludwig von Mises.
PPS - Islam's 'Golden Age' was pretty much the wearing of conquered peoples' achievements like a skin suit. It was a 7th century death cult back then, and it still is today.
This is just the latest battle in the age-old war of idealism vs. realism. The subjects you list: economics, politics, history, anthropology, philosophy, art, theology, and literature, are all great in their intrinsic value, but have little career opportunity. In the perfect world, we would be free to pursue our interests as much as we wanted, but in the real world putting food on the table, paying the bills, and keeping a roof over one's head is of more pressing urgency. That's why a qualify myself as an 'amateur' astronomer and 'armchair' historian in my profile. Those are my passions, but I knew the realistic possibilities of making a career of either was very low. Even going to college and getting a BS degree for the consolation prize of qualifying to be a history teacher never amounted to anything.
STEM has this virtue: it resists politicization. It is not entirely proof against it, but it is the enterprise we have that most resists it.
I think the best case for publicly funded education is in moral and civic education, done wisely; but I have to admit, I am not aware of it being done wisely anywhere. (Of course, there are things I don't know.)
Whatever virtues there may be in studies that do not advance the national defense, medicine, law, the economy, or some other useful enterprise, the case is less obvious for *making others pay for them.* Even in useful fields the case is far from perfect. See generally Bryan Caplan's The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money.
Oh, and by the way, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of mercy. Allowing the war to continue to an invasion of Japan, when it could be prevented, would have been an atrocity.
Very nice, and thought-provoking, Dierdre! But, I have a caveat: The problem is not only that STEM is over-valued, but it is still, at least in American universities, under-utilized relative to non-STEM disciplines (though I think economics is perhaps the exception). Many marginal students go to college thinking they will be STEM majors, then find that those courses are demanding in terms of formal technique. They then switch to non-STEM majors which they generally find "easier." Sadly, many potentially good STEM majors also find that they get easy As in non-STEM courses and fall for that temptation. So, I believe two things: 1) there are too many students going to college (their lack of qualifications causes dilution in the rigor of material presented in both STEM and non-STEM courses), and 2) the proportion of non-STEM courses is too large, partly because of 1). The U.S. has too many lawyers and unemployed social science/humanities graduates and not enough good engineers, while many other countries (e.g. Japan as you emphasize, or China) have too many engineers and not enough non-STEM graduates for balance creativity independent of growth.
Why not leave it to the market to decide? At a minimum the state shouldn’t subsidize any higher education but if employers don’t hire graduates with degrees in Japanese poetry so be it.
On the other hand, if there is a market for the study of the humanities schools will provide those classes.
As someone who grew up in the competitive academic environment of Eastern Europe, I felt this in my bones. Since high school, we are pressured to choose STEM subjects because we're told there’s 'no future' in Latin, philosophy, or history.
I’ve always had the soul of a humanities student, yet I chose Computer Science and Mathematics because everyone around me said: 'it’s a waste of your intelligence to throw it away on such subjects.' There is a massive prejudice against non-STEM fields, fueled by the harsh reality that, unless you have a solid financial safety net from your parents, studying something that doesn't 'put bread on the table' feels like an enormous risk.
It’s a tragic trade-off: we trade our spirit for economic security, and then we spend our lives trying to find our way back to the poetry we were told was useless.
Without it, most inhabitants of the world would be very poor and lead short, brutish lives.
Of course, I do realize that this view is at odds with Mother Gaia worship, and those who wish there were fewer humans on the planet (though oddly, they never include themselves among those who should not exist).
Are you proposing that people who, say, studied biology to try to understand crippling neurological illnesses are doing something soulless and unfulfilling? Or that STEM programs are built in a way that sucks the soul out of scientific curiosity?
Yes! I hope your readers in Brazil take this column to heart: let us have arrangements by which we can get richer, but what do we get richer for?
It is an often overlooked point that cosmology is more like the humanities in its effects than it is like civil engineering: knowledge of black holes produces as many bridges as a Henry Moore sculpture.
For the record, I disagree with your definition, at least re economics.
Economics is ~75% STEM. It is the major exception among the social sciences.
The parts of psychology most related to biology and the brain might be 50% STEM; that is the subject that is the borderline.
I agree with the rest of your description, inclusive of using the word STEM as a weapon.
And in fact the last 10-15 years has demonstrated that most of the social sciences have “developed” into purely leftist politics, and not science. To say nothing of an ever increasing fraction of the humanities. And so in that very real sense I am in favor of the weaponization of the word STEM.
And if one is neither an elite student nor come from money, imo one would do very well to focus one’s college career on “STEM” and not on the rest, lest one finish with a mountain of student debt majoring in grievance studies and yet be unemployable in fields which could help pay off that debt.
Of course, sadly an increasing fraction of *economists* have moved closer to this leftist ideologizing camp.
But not, IMO, economics overall.
Respectfully.
I think the ascendancy of STEM and its overemphasis is mostly due to the advent of spurious “Studies” programs in Academe. Gender Studies, Islamic Studies, the myriad other Marxist DEI offshoots, all were little more than aspersions cast onto arts and literature departments.
There's nothing Marxist about Islam, since Marxism is inherently anti-religion. Islamic Studies have existed since the Golden Age of Islam which was notably centuries before Karl Marx was born. Calling entire subjects "DEI"? I don't think DEI has anything to do with subjects in themselves, it has to do with college applicants or job applicants. I think you're just saying buzzwords made up by the Donald Trump administration, Elon Musk, and the myriad other anti-intellectual "slopulist" hypocritical right-wing gurus like them
Yet it is Marxists and Islamists (the Red-Green Alliance) who have partnered up these days. Marxism may be technically anti-religion, but it worships the idea of destroying western civilization, as do the Islamofascist partners of Marxism ( or Democratic Socialism as they like to call it these days). So the Venn diagram of Marxism and Islamism has significant overlap. The Marxists figure, once they win the revolution, they'll just shoot all the Islamists, and the Islamists figure once the Marxists are no longer useful idiots, they'll shoot them. Truly a marriage made in, well, not heaven, the other place. Meanwhile, no worries, as I am sure your Masters in 14th Century Afghanistan Gender Studies will help get you a rewarding career at Starbucks.
PS- my only right-wing guru is Ludwig von Mises.
PPS - Islam's 'Golden Age' was pretty much the wearing of conquered peoples' achievements like a skin suit. It was a 7th century death cult back then, and it still is today.
This is just the latest battle in the age-old war of idealism vs. realism. The subjects you list: economics, politics, history, anthropology, philosophy, art, theology, and literature, are all great in their intrinsic value, but have little career opportunity. In the perfect world, we would be free to pursue our interests as much as we wanted, but in the real world putting food on the table, paying the bills, and keeping a roof over one's head is of more pressing urgency. That's why a qualify myself as an 'amateur' astronomer and 'armchair' historian in my profile. Those are my passions, but I knew the realistic possibilities of making a career of either was very low. Even going to college and getting a BS degree for the consolation prize of qualifying to be a history teacher never amounted to anything.
STEM has this virtue: it resists politicization. It is not entirely proof against it, but it is the enterprise we have that most resists it.
I think the best case for publicly funded education is in moral and civic education, done wisely; but I have to admit, I am not aware of it being done wisely anywhere. (Of course, there are things I don't know.)
Whatever virtues there may be in studies that do not advance the national defense, medicine, law, the economy, or some other useful enterprise, the case is less obvious for *making others pay for them.* Even in useful fields the case is far from perfect. See generally Bryan Caplan's The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money.
Oh, and by the way, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of mercy. Allowing the war to continue to an invasion of Japan, when it could be prevented, would have been an atrocity.
Very nice, and thought-provoking, Dierdre! But, I have a caveat: The problem is not only that STEM is over-valued, but it is still, at least in American universities, under-utilized relative to non-STEM disciplines (though I think economics is perhaps the exception). Many marginal students go to college thinking they will be STEM majors, then find that those courses are demanding in terms of formal technique. They then switch to non-STEM majors which they generally find "easier." Sadly, many potentially good STEM majors also find that they get easy As in non-STEM courses and fall for that temptation. So, I believe two things: 1) there are too many students going to college (their lack of qualifications causes dilution in the rigor of material presented in both STEM and non-STEM courses), and 2) the proportion of non-STEM courses is too large, partly because of 1). The U.S. has too many lawyers and unemployed social science/humanities graduates and not enough good engineers, while many other countries (e.g. Japan as you emphasize, or China) have too many engineers and not enough non-STEM graduates for balance creativity independent of growth.
Why not leave it to the market to decide? At a minimum the state shouldn’t subsidize any higher education but if employers don’t hire graduates with degrees in Japanese poetry so be it.
On the other hand, if there is a market for the study of the humanities schools will provide those classes.
As someone who grew up in the competitive academic environment of Eastern Europe, I felt this in my bones. Since high school, we are pressured to choose STEM subjects because we're told there’s 'no future' in Latin, philosophy, or history.
I’ve always had the soul of a humanities student, yet I chose Computer Science and Mathematics because everyone around me said: 'it’s a waste of your intelligence to throw it away on such subjects.' There is a massive prejudice against non-STEM fields, fueled by the harsh reality that, unless you have a solid financial safety net from your parents, studying something that doesn't 'put bread on the table' feels like an enormous risk.
It’s a tragic trade-off: we trade our spirit for economic security, and then we spend our lives trying to find our way back to the poetry we were told was useless.
Unfortunately STEM goes hand in hand with consumerism. Not many gadgets are produced by Poli Sci majors.
Thank goodness for “consumerism”.
Without it, most inhabitants of the world would be very poor and lead short, brutish lives.
Of course, I do realize that this view is at odds with Mother Gaia worship, and those who wish there were fewer humans on the planet (though oddly, they never include themselves among those who should not exist).
STEM could easily be substituted with “lean this to make money”—it’s a vocation program masquerading as something soulful and fulfilling.
I used to work at a STEM charter school as an English teacher and I will attest it was barbarous…
Are you proposing that people who, say, studied biology to try to understand crippling neurological illnesses are doing something soulless and unfulfilling? Or that STEM programs are built in a way that sucks the soul out of scientific curiosity?
The latter! I think exclusively advancing science and tech and not the humanities is really detrimental to young minds.
Another beautiful essay. Thanks Deirdre.
Yes! I hope your readers in Brazil take this column to heart: let us have arrangements by which we can get richer, but what do we get richer for?
It is an often overlooked point that cosmology is more like the humanities in its effects than it is like civil engineering: knowledge of black holes produces as many bridges as a Henry Moore sculpture.
Philosophy is not STEM but psychiatry is. And to question that is taboo.
But who reads Barzun now?
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/jacques-barzuns-monumental-contribution
The fragile European miracle.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/science-as-a-particular-mode-of-thinking
Jacques Barzun to the rescue!
Teach science as a part of the humanities and save democracy from the technocrats!
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/teaching-science-as-a-humanities
Science is the search for true positive statements. Or is that philosophy?