There are two types of college students: engineers, and those who constantly get asked, “What are you going to do with that?”
Twelve years of education teach every student that STEM fields — science, technology, engineering, and mathematics — are the only ones that really matter. The education system has developed a crippling obsession with STEM, crowding out other worthwhile subjects to the detriment of the students whom proponents aim to help.
It’s no coincidence that STEM lacks an “E” for economics. Anyone familiar with the idea of comparative advantage would recognize how silly it is to prod every student toward the same fields, regardless of their natural aptitudes and affinities. No matter how well Google pays software engineers, not every child can be a tech genius. Some will become journalists, judges, and teachers because their skills are more naturally suited to those professions.
Universal education should give students a basic foundation in an array of subjects, allowing each child to find their talents. America’s next great novelist doesn’t need to know multivariable calculus.
The STEM age started after the launch of Sputnik, amid fears the U.S. would be out-innovated by the Soviet Union. Affixing math and science at the center of childhood education was originally intended to close the science gap, but in practice, the one-size-fits-all system arbitrarily and inefficiently elevates some studies above others. Strengthened more recently by the internet revolution, STEM has evolved into an object of worship in public education.
Nowhere is that worship more fervent that in the Department of Education. According to the department’s website, “It’s more important than ever for our youth to be equipped with the knowledge and skills to solve tough problems, gather and evaluate evidence, and make sense of information. These are the types of skills that students learn by studying…STEM.” The department is apparently unaware that historians, economists, and all sorts of professionals in other fields use those exact same skills.
The federal government has also tithed generously to the Church of STEM, with many states and localities following suit. When the White House released a draft spending proposal in May, U.S. News & World Report announced that $4 billion might be cut from STEM programs. By comparison, the Education Department’s estimated 2017 spending on foreign languages totals less than $70 million. If funding signals priorities, then STEM programs are apparently 57 times more important than foreign languages.
We’re not engineers, but that math seems off.
Blind belief in STEM salvation has seeped from the educational establishment into public opinion. A Pew poll in May found that 34 percent of people would advise a high school student to go into a STEM field. Slightly fewer chose “Follow your passion.” Only 3 percent chose “Find a job that matches your skills.” And the pressure is greater on some than others.
An often-overlooked consequence of STEM zealotry is the anti-feminist message sent to girls and young women. Heavy-handed nudges toward math and science translate into an implicit suggestion that choosing a traditionally-female field would be a disservice to their gender. Moreover, treating male-dominated STEM fields as superior to professions such as teaching or nursing implies that largely-male occupations are innately better and more worthwhile than female-dominated disciplines. This perplexing side effect leaves young women facing more pressure to pursue certain lines of work than young men.
As important as science and technology undoubtedly are, modern education has forgotten the egalitarian purpose of the liberal arts. Every citizen needs to know a little history, some literature, and basic civics along with elementary math and science to be a productive member of a free society.
A recent Brookings Institution study exhibited a symptom of neglected civic education: about 44 percent of undergraduates don’t think the First Amendment protects “hate speech.” Another 16 percent chose “don’t know.” But can we blame them? They may have never been taught about the Bill of Rights.
Crowding out the liberal arts with STEM might result in more software engineers, but makes for worse citizens. Our education system drags students with diverse interests and aptitudes toward professions they won’t like or be good at. When students are deprived of the opportunity to excel, we all suffer.
Olivia Neistat and Benjamin Parker are seniors at the University of Pennsylvania. They are both majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
