Is STEM Education Getting Too Many Props?

In a recent Huffington Post article, Alfie Kohn takes exception with what he sees as an excessive and disproportionate amount of emphasis given to STEM subject areas.  Using the bet humor he could muster, Kohn tries to make sense of “why STEM subjects consistently attract so much money and attention.”

Among decision leaders and the general public, I suspect that STEM enjoys an immediate advantage simply because it tends to involve numbers. Our society is inclined to regard any topic as more compelling if it can be expressed in numerical terms. Notice how rarely we evaluate schools by their impact on students' interest in learning; we focus on precisely specified achievement effects. Issues that inherently seem qualitative in nature -- intrinsic motivation, say, or the meaning of life -- we consign to the ivory tower. And when questions that don't lend themselves to quantification aren't simply brushed aside, they're reduced to numbers anyway. Witness, for example, how English teachers have been told that they not only can, but must, use rubrics to quantify their responses to students' writings.

Ok then. Where Mr. Kohn gets his figures for Science and Math "over-funding" must a very different source than that used by...well...everyone else.  And if Mr. Kohn could produce a reliable system for measuring student interest, he'd make a killing. 

I will concede a few points, although the author never made them.  First, Science and Math performance is easily compared across countries because of the universal nature of the subject areas.  For Math and Science, we have TIMMS.  Finding a way to compare Language Arts proficiency between American students and students from Singapore is an exercise in futility. An international comparison in Social Studies is even more difficult.  Afterall, General Santa Anna is held as a military and intellectual hero in Mexico and some of the world has yet to see the Industrial Revolution.

The second concession is that a degree in a STEM field does not necessarily offer better career prospects.  No degree is a “guarantee” of anything.

But in response to Mr. Kohn, I must concur with one of the online reader comments:

“I have a degree in the art, but think we have neglected math and science too much…mostl­y because it's hard and we don't want to put too much pressure on the kids. Grrr.

Perhaps if we pushed math and science a little more, people could have calculated their mortgage payments and realized they couldn't afford what a conniving bank said they could.”

Its not that Science and Math deserve more funding and attention than the humanities, it’s that they (Science, especially) have been so under-emphasized in the past.  They have also been taught incorrectly way too often.  Elementary grade teachers are almost always "Reading People" by preference and education.  That is not inherently a bad thing, but we do need to see the situation for what it is.

The habit of eschewing “the harder” subjects is carried by students when they get to college.  The graduation rate of pre-meds and engineers is still severely dwarfed by Sociology majors.  Heck, all majors are dwarfed by Sociology.

Of those that do graduate form an American university with a high level STEM degree,  growing numbers are from other countries.  Why?  Because foreign students are coming to American colleges better prepared for the hard stuff. 

What say you?  Leave your comments here and let's get to the bottom of this.