First, your “narrative” only encompasses the development of the computer and the computer science fields of occupation that followed.
Well, that was the primary driver, although we disagree about the catalyst. There have been more jobs created in “T” over the last fifty then there have been in “S”, “E” (which has seen primarily organic growth), and “M” which is undeniably driven by the population aging.
But, regardless, because of the abhorrently high cost of education these days, the need to consider $$$ when choosing a major is becoming more and more important. That said, people have *always* gravitated towards the better paid professions, which is why med school and good law schools are so damn hard to get into.
Second, even the development of computer science can be traced back to my initial claims. While young adults fresh out of college are programming basic HTML websites, governments are programming weapons and militaries.
Sure. What’s the ratio of participation? In order for you opinion to be valid, you have to believe that there are more people programming weapons and militaries than there are kids coding HTML. Seriously?
In addition, law enforcement agencies are programming “predictive policing” procedures that accumulate crime data and pinpoint “high-risk” areas: the technologies of a broken criminal justice system.
Third, STEM was overtly marketed to schools as a way of supporting the war effort.
I’d need to see documentation of that opinion. I’ve done a few years in the classroom. Schools are traditionally (and appallingly) backward when it comes to computer technologies; and science is a standard curriculum of PS, Bio, Chem, and Physics. I’ve taught those. Never seen any evidence of any “war effort” buried into the curriculum. (And if it’s so “buried” that I didn’t notice it, then nobody else did, either — which means it’s irrelevant.)
It’s objectively true when you look at the abstracts of government research and the curricula proposals pushed onto schools; both of which will mention requiring more students to be invested in the sciences to aid the war effort.
Read them. Never seen it.
There were literally courses titled, purposed, and taught for the innovation of war. If you want some real evidence on that, I’ll be more than happy to provide it to you.
Yep, you’ll have to. Please insure that that your materials are original, governmental, and not gleaned from some silly agitprop site.
Fourth, modern education is oriented towards proliferating American hegemony, which, in the context of our country’s violent upbringing and maintenance, necessitates warfare.
I’ve taken grad courses on this stuff. Again, please show me some documentation of this opinion, and again, no silly lefty agitprop, please.
When we look at A Nation At Risk, NCLB, and R2T, you’ll see that education reform has an obsession with competing against other countries and raising students to be the newest assets in American power.
Half right. The US has indeed been trying to figure out why our outcomes are lower than other OECD nations, even though we spend more per student than other nations. This is not an “obsession”; it’s called benchmarking. And, the objective is to provide basic tools for success in some job in our economy; the idea that they are going to be “assets in American power” is not mentioned.
These federal-level education reforms literally withdraw support for schools who aren’t producing competitive students or are failing to do so, instead of directing the same resources towards the schools that need it the most.
True. It’s a problem.
The reason why schools like mine are neglected is because we don’t represent the image of American exceptionalism that’s needed for America to maintain its unilateral influence on the world.
There are thousands of school districts in the US. Each one of them that has a “neglected” school has a different reason for “neglecting” it. The government does not have the ability to push initiatives into schools, and when they try (Common Core being an example) they get public pushback.
Districts are doing whatever they can to improve their outcomes. The last thing on their minds are “images of American exceptionalism”.
Next, I’ll push back against the “money is key to fulfillment” idea.
Nobody said money is fulfillment; the point is that it’s necessary.
Yes, money is crucial to some fulfillment, but it doesn’t have to be the sole factor that determines whether or not you had a good life. Therefore, your statement seems redundant.
I don’t know if it’s redundant or not, but we’re agreeing. The more pressing concern is having a job which permits you to amortize your student loans. It is unwise to borrow money that you can’t pay back.
With my initial point in consideration, I really don’t care about the rising wages of STEM professions.
Doesn’t really matter; the point is that many/most do, and the fact that many/most do is evidence that the emphasis on STEM has nothing to do with the military.
Your comment about not supporting a child going into the humanities is incredibly disheartening, but nonetheless irrelevant to the conversation. I’ll grimace accordingly, and move on.
Grimace all you like. The point is that because of the obsession of universities to provide meaningless bells and whistles and charge accordingly for them, the cost of education has become intolerably high. One of us (she or I) has to pay full freight, and it makes zero sense to rack up 60K in student debt if your best possible income scenario is that of a schoolteacher.
It should be obvious at this point that the biggest “threat” to humanities education going on into the future is the cost of university.
The comment that humanities courses are not as much “work” as STEM courses is both irrelevant and unable to be proven.
There are no labs. There is very little work that requires a high level of expertise in the courses that most students find difficult, which (unsurprisingly) are science and math. The reason why that’s relevant is that a double major in 4.5–5 years (maybe some summer work) is reasonably doable.
What constitutes as “work” and how can you quantitatively measure it?
Hours required to get the grade of your desire in a particular course. For me, I could allow 25% of my time to ace a nonscience course, 75% of my time was required for the other.
However, if you’re going to pursue this part of your overall argument, I’ll say that I’ve had a much more challenging time with the humanities than math, which is a massive irony given that my math courses seem “harder” on face, such as AP Calculus BC and AP Chemistry. Nothing has challenged me more than strategizing for midterm elections, analyzing modern systems of oppression, or engaging in hours-long seminars on canonical texts.
That’s odd. Did you grow up speaking English in the home, or were you raised bilingual or in an ESL context? I’ve had some experience with ESL students, and although after several years they were fluent in both conversational and academic English, they still had some difficulty extracting nuance from complicated texts.
I also don’t understand why “less work” is an insulting remark when the goal of innovation is to make human beings work less.
Did you take it as insulting? My point was that because one generally requires less time than the other, dual majors are a reasonable goal.
After all, we live in a capitalist society,
Thank God that we do. I’ll leave that bunk about “extraction of surplus labor” and “unfair compensation” for another day.
You do STEM for a living and think it’s boring? Good for you, I’m sure that was a choice that you made during your college years and I respect that. However, not everyone has to follow the same rubric that you did in doing so.
Never said anyone had to follow my path. I wouldn’t have followed it if I had to do it all over again; I’d choose something in health care. But the point was to have options. You don’t want to wrack up major college bills and then spend the next two decades paying off your loans. You just might want to live in not-poverty at some point.
And if because of your status, you don’t have to pay (much) for college, you’re welcome.