Is it a myth that "Americans are too lazy to pursue STEM careers"?

[Jamin2112]

At the university I went to, the STEM departments are filled to the brim every year. In fact the Computer Science department gets so many applicants that it let's in only 3-4% every quarter. And then you have business/political talking heads saying that Americans are too lazy to pursue careers in Computer Science, that we need to expand the number of H1B Visas in response to this crisis of a shortage of STEM workers. Something seems off.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Its only a myth if somebody is saying it. I don't deny someone is... but where have you heard it? I never have.

Rather, I hear that Americans want more money for the same jobs. I hear that directly from Americans complaining about how much they make (even though they are among the highest paid people in the world, and indeed in the history of humanity).

edit - In my estimation, most americans don't want to study STEM subjects and pursue STEM careers because they are too boring and not fulfilling. Most people don't like math and science. They like technology and when they claim to like science technology is what they really like. Maybe this is a bit of being lazy, because science and math are hard, confusing and take a lot of work. I don't blame anybody for not wanting to do it. I studied it and continue to study it because I like it. But I think there are plenty that do like it, do study it and desperately want a career or job in it. They just need to be competitive with their wage expectations if they expect somebody to pay them for it, because people all over the world can be and are just as smart.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

I have three children. Two are in high school. I have seen their homework and their classrooms. The problem with STEM studies is that schools aren't even trying to teach enough so that a motivated child can experiment or build something.

There are many social reasons why STEM is not more popular than it is.

First, we don't treat the students who are interested in such fields well. There are few places for kids to discover this sort of thing on their own. When was the last time you saw a neighborhood where some kid would tinker with a car or fix a bicycle, put up a ham radio antenna, experiment with chemistry, photography, or even travel on their own. The nannies of the world have put their foot down, fearing risks to the kids.

When I was young I remember checking out books from the library on how to make your own fireworks from the kid's section of the library. (!) You could also find children's books on how a car worked, where your electricity came from, or chemical experiments you could do in your kitchen, how an airplane flies, and so on. Just try to find such books in a library now. If you're lucky, you might find something on the Internet, but even if you do, finding parts and nearby mentors to help you is difficult.

We don't even teach rudimentary programming skills in schools any more. Apparently even writing software for fun is rapidly becoming a subversive activity.

Second, we treat the teachers like dirt, as administrators, students, and as parents. And then we sit around wondering why it is so hard to find a competent teacher. I'd settle for competent. Good teachers are so rare, that if a child ever has the opportunity to meet such a person in 12 years of school, it is notable.

Third, kids are steeped in this idiotic mythology of "leadership." It isn't that leadership is bad, but you have to understand the world around you, first. But somehow everyone glosses over or utterly skips that step. That's how we get flaming, sociopathic ignoramuses who preen and posture well enough to make a good first impression --and they then promptly discover that they have no useful ideas of how they were supposed to reach the goals that they promised. And nobody sees fit to call them on this. They should be allowed to have these failures come back to haunt them, but they don't. The blame then rolls downhill while they waltz to another place where they perpetrate the same stupidity all over again.

Fourth, despite all this, the leadership nitwits realize that there aren't enough real STEM graduates to get things done. Why? Well, with all that condescending behavior they've learned as "leaders" they've poisoned the well from which they came --but there is no use trying to explain that to them. So instead, they bring in graduates from overseas. Sooner or later, that flow will stop and these "leaders" will have to come back to reality.

At some level, kids are intuitively aware of all this. A few realize that there is a good future for STEM graduates. Some realize that trades such as plumbing, electrical work, mechanics, machinists, welders, steelworkers, and the like are in very high demand. They bypass formal schooling all together in favor of apprenticeships.

So the lack of STEM graduates from colleges starts at an early age. We have washed out any enthusiasm that a child might have for these fields in favor of "safe" stuff.

The wonder of it all is that after all that poor environment, we still get people coming to colleges with an interest in physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, or computers. They may not know much, but they at least managed to maintain an interest through school.

 

[StatGuy2000]

We don't even teach rudimentary programming skills in schools any more. Apparently even writing software for fun is rapidly becoming a subversive activity.

Is this actually the case in US schools nowadays? I live in the province of Ontario in Canada, and at least from what I hear computer programming (not just use, but programming) is part of the basic curriculum of most public schools, and I suspect the situation is the same in the other provinces as well (the other Canadians on PF can weigh in on this).

Second, we treat the teachers like dirt, as administrators, students, and as parents. And then we sit around wondering why it is so hard to find a competent teacher. I'd settle for competent. Good teachers are so rare, that if a child ever has the opportunity to meet such a person in 12 years of school, it is notable.

I wonder if this is a cultural trend within the US that is suspicious of authority, and teachers are seen as part of that authority.

On a separate note, we often decry how schools in the US teach STEM subjects poorly. I'll flip this around -- are there subjects that US schools (from K-12) do a particularly good job of teaching?

 

[atyy]

Fourth, despite all this, the leadership nitwits realize that there aren't enough real STEM graduates to get things done. Why? Well, with all that condescending behavior they've learned as "leaders" they've poisoned the well from which they came --but there is no use trying to explain that to them. So instead, they bring in graduates from overseas. Sooner or later, that flow will stop and these "leaders" will have to come back to reality.

But are some of these leaders STEM graduates themselves? In another thread I think you said you've met incompetent engineers from MIT.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

I graduated from the Washington DC public school system in 1981. Even the best schools in DC were barely rated average in the country at the time. I had to study a lot on my own to get a decent education. I was hoping my kids wouldn't have to do the same.

So where are things working well?

The music programs in our schools is very good. The sports programs are good. Foreign languages are okay, though they'd be better if they had other offerings.

English language and literature are okay, but needs improvement.

Math and science are poor.

And by the way, I'm not talking about some mediocre public school system. I'm talking about a well funded, reasonably well regarded school system in Maryland that gets good ratings from various independent groups.

I had hoped that my children wouldn't have to do what I did: my school math and science was so poor that I would study trigonometry on my own so that I could figure out how to build active filters for audio and impedance matching networks for my ham radio projects. I also spent loads of time studying semiconductor physics and relativity. And then I was disgusted when AP physics tests barely had no questions about that, and very few questions about electromagnetic subjects.

It remains to be seen whether the schools teach enough that my children will be able to figure out any of this. I have doubts. At least I had the benefit of my outside interests to motivate me. Today's kids are isolated from everything so much that the Internet actually looks like one of the few venues that they can excel in.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

But are some of these leaders STEM graduates themselves? In another thread I think you said you've met incompetent engineers from MIT.

Most people who posture as leaders do NOT come from technical backgrounds.

And in fairness, I had an extraordinary boss who had a meager technical background, but was fantastic leader.

However, many of these people walk around with a defective notion that a competent manager can manage anything. So, to use a coaching analogy, can a Hockey coach do well for a gymnastics team? No? Then why do these idiots think they know something that we don't?

 

[StatGuy2000]

I graduated from the Washington DC public school system in 1981. Even the best schools in DC were barely rated average in the country at the time. I had to study a lot on my own to get a decent education. I was hoping my kids wouldn't have to do the same.

So where are things working well?

The music programs in our schools is very good. The sports programs are good. Foreign languages are okay, though they'd be better if they had other offerings.

English language and literature are okay, but needs improvement.

Math and science are poor.

And by the way, I'm not talking about some mediocre public school system. I'm talking about a well funded, reasonably well regarded school system in Maryland that gets good ratings from various independent groups.

I had hoped that my children wouldn't have to do what I did: my school math and science was so poor that I would study trigonometry on my own so that I could figure out how to build active filters for audio and impedance matching networks for my ham radio projects. I also spent loads of time studying semiconductor physics and relativity. And then I was disgusted when AP physics tests barely had no questions about that, and very few questions about electromagnetic subjects.

It remains to be seen whether the schools teach enough that my children will be able to figure out any of this. I have doubts. At least I had the benefit of my outside interests to motivate me. Today's kids are isolated from everything so much that the Internet actually looks like one of the few venues that they can excel in.

Personally, I don't consider sports programs to be a specific educational subject that is of much use outside of the school setting (unless you are so gifted an athlete that you can compete at the professional sport level or the Olympic level). It's interesting to hear that the music program in your schools are really good, since I've heard news reports that music programs across the US are facing cuts due to budgetary issues.

It may well be the case that for students in the US to receive a good education in math and science they may need to attend private schools or special "charter schools" (btw, charter schools don't exist in Canada).

On another note, I'm skeptical that kids these levels are really that isolated from everything, nor that the Internet is the only thing they can excel in, which is really more about using gadgets. As you said, if rudimentary programming isn't offered, just how truly technically proficient are the kids you talk about? It's always easy to wax nostalgic about how things "used to be" and somehow kids these are "doomed to failure", since it seems parents have been making these assertions for ages.

 

[jkl71]

I think schools of education are a problem in USA, teachers studying teaching rather than specific academic subjects. I think this can lead to screening out people that could actually be effective teachers.

For example, I’ve got a physics PhD and have been a professional software developer for years, including a couple of jobs writing code for biomedical research and analyzing the data. I’m fairly confident I have subject matter knowledge sufficient to teach any of these at the high school level: physics, math, chemistry, programming and maybe biology. However, I believe (I’ll admit I’ve never looked into getting this kind of job, so I could easily be wrong) somebody like me wouldn’t even be considered for a high school teaching job. One reason is that I have no interest in getting teaching certifications.

To me the main drawback of the job itself would be the working environment, I have no interest in dealing with unruly students (some would be ok, but there were quite a lot of these where I went to school) and my impression is public schools have a lot of politics/bureaucracy and that doesn’t interest me at all.

My experience as a student is that I didn’t take any physics, chemistry or calculus in high school and I’m very happy I didn’t. The people I know from my high school that did, had a much harder time in the university versions of these subjects than I did. Obviously I didn’t take the courses myself so I can’t really judge the content and this is second hand, but talking to my high school friends it seems like they spent a lot of time unlearning things that were taught in high school.

 

[gfd43tg]

Well during the Cold War wasn't the government pouring money into STEM education, hence many good scientists and engineers from that era in America, but now that existential threat doesn't exist so it's not funded.

 

[Windadct]

Actually I have a rather different take - american society placed the dollar on the pedestal and challenges every child to make money - if you are bright, focus on a career that is "where the money is", engineering it too hard and you don't make as much money, teaching - same thing, it is harder then you realize and you really do not make any money. Unless you personally have the drive or personal guidance to become interested and pursue these fields - this is little in society encouraging you. Then if you do not have role models in your life showing how to accomplish your goals ( even if it is making money) - then you pick the ones you see in the media setting unrealistic expectations - etc.
The school system does have a very real problem at the post-secondary ( HS) level with good educators for these more challenging subjects. To be an effective HS educator in math for example- you really do need ~ 2 years of challenging college level math - as well as education in educational technique. If you can do that level of math you are not going into education ( as a generalization of course)
If I won the lottery - or otherwise came into wealth - I would love to take my 25 years of experience into the HS classroom - but I can not afford the pay cut.
Note for disclosure - my wife is elementary teacher with masters degree...while she loves her job her personality is such that in business with a masters she would easily be earning 2x her current salary - energetic, creative, cares about her work and most importantly gets &%!$ done.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Its only a myth if somebody is saying it. I don't deny someone is... but where have you heard it? I never have.

I've heard it plenty of times, but the word "lazy" isn't always specifically used. "Entitled," "spoiled," "soft," or anything similar will work. It's pretty much the textbook response when people actually want a decent wage for their work: just call them lazy and say that some foreign guy will do it for 3 cents an hour, so they should be happy to as well. Of course, that same foreign guy will get sent to a labor camp for criticizing his government, but nobody's suggesting that Americans should accept that...

 

[donpacino]

I've heard it plenty of times, but the word "lazy" isn't always specifically used. "Entitled," "spoiled," "soft," or anything similar will work. It's pretty much the textbook response when people actually want a decent wage for their work: just call them lazy and say that some foreign guy will do it for 3 cents an hour, so they should be happy to as well. Of course, that same foreign guy will get sent to a labor camp for criticizing his government, but nobody's suggesting that Americans should accept that...

How much money you need to live and sustain a quality life also depends on where you live.

making 30 dollars an hour in upstate NY makes you a king. making 30 dollars an hour in LA makes you poor (relatively speaking)

 

[Travis_King]

I think schools of education are a problem in USA, teachers studying teaching rather than specific academic subjects. I think this can lead to screening out people that could actually be effective teachers...

I’m fairly confident I have subject matter knowledge sufficient to teach any of these at the high school level: physics, math, chemistry, programming and maybe biology...somebody like me wouldn’t even be considered for a high school teaching job. One reason is that I have no interest in getting teaching certifications.

k-12 isn't university. Schools are eager to have industry professionals join their ranks (as long as you're willing to take a pay cut, they have limited budgets). But you also need to know how to teach. You may be brilliant, but if you can't actually teach 14 year olds, or 8 year olds, then what good are you?

That's what education degree's get you. For many schools, one enters as a subject matter major, gets a degree in that, then concurrently get's their teaching certification by way of education courses in their curriculum.

To me the main drawback of the job itself would be the working environment, I have no interest in dealing with unruly students (some would be ok, but there were quite a lot of these where I went to school) and my impression is public schools have a lot of politics/bureaucracy and that doesn’t interest me at all.

That's basically the majority of "teaching" though. Some kids truly want to be there and enjoy learning; those are easy to teach. Most kids, however, would rather be outside playing (or, for many, inside and playing) than be sitting in a classroom learning about protons and Newton. The job of the educator/teacher is not only to have knowledge of the subject matter, but to actually get the children to pay attention and learn it.

 

[analogdesign]

What seems off is that the shortage of STEM workers is itself a myth. Except in a very few well publicized specialties STEM careers have been in decline in the US (particularly for Americans who need to compete with foreign temporary workers).

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/

Maybe Americans are too smart to pursue STEM careers, not too lazy.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

My kids and their teen peers are not stupid. They see how the other kids live. They know what the other parents do for a living. Given the amount of work required, STEM careers are not as lucrative as many other options, particularly given the cost of a STEM education.

Allow me this one point: The market determines what STEM graduates are worth. Right now, ignorant managers are farming this work out to people who they may never meet, who may know nothing of the work they're being asked to do and the reasoning is that they do it so cheaply that it's worthwhile to do the job over as many as several times to get things right.

We are not marketing the STEM professions well. The value of a local, well trained STEM graduate is far higher than it might first seem. But we're going to have to get past a generation of "leaders" who are focused on quarterly profit statements and can not imagine making plans for more than five years into the future.

 

[Mogarrr]

At the university I went to, the STEM departments are filled to the brim every year. In fact the Computer Science department gets so many applicants that it let's in only 3-4% every quarter. And then you have business/political talking heads saying that Americans are too lazy to pursue careers in Computer Science, that we need to expand the number of H1B Visas in response to this crisis of a shortage of STEM workers. Something seems off.

I overheard faculty in my university, in the US, mention targets for diversity. What that precisely means, I can only guess.

I think to really excel in STEM, you need to be creative and consistent. In my opinion, it's far easier to be creative and inconsistent. I have no idea how to not be creative/imaginative, but I suppose ADD medicine might work.

 

[mal4mac]

The nannies of the world have put their foot down, fearing risks to the kids.

Sorry, I just don't buy this. Microscopes, telescopes, and well designed meccano/chemistry/electronics sets aren't dangerous. Nannies aren't stupid, they know this.

There are more fun things to do now than, like computer games and all sorts of audio-visual media on tap 24/7. Maybe the science stuff just gets crowded out by more instantly enjoyable activities.

We don't even teach rudimentary programming skills in schools any more. Apparently even writing software for fun is rapidly becoming a subversive activity.

Unstructured hobby programming may be one of the activities that distracts kids from real science. I'm old enough not to have encountered programming at school at all! In that supposed golden age of tinkering with TV's and cars, the kids weren't doing any programming.

Second, we treat the teachers like dirt, as administrators, students, and as parents. And then we sit around wondering why it is so hard to find a competent teacher. I'd settle for competent. Good teachers are so rare, that if a child ever has the opportunity to meet such a person in 12 years of school, it is notable.

This I agree with!

 

[cgk]

Unstructured hobby programming may be one of the activities that distracts kids from real science. I'm old enough not to have encountered programming at school at all! In that supposed golden age of tinkering with TV's and cars, the kids weren't doing any programming.

I disagree. I think hobby programming may the single most effective activity in existence for learning quantitative thinking and dealing with formal exactness (as required in math, comp.sci, but also law, for example). And that is a great value in itself, even if one would disregard the often *massive* practical value programming skills have as a "mundane tool". Programming skills can turn many real world problems into trivialities, problems which otherwise might be insurmountable.

But programming is also a culture technique. The computer is one of the most powerful inventions of mankind ever (I think it would rank shortly after the Haber-Bosch process.. for agricultural fertilizers). And being willing to learn how to deal with it should, at the very least, be considered at the same level of academic rigour as learning to paint, learning to play the violin, or learning math.

 

[caldweab]

Most people who posture as leaders do NOT come from technical backgrounds.
And in fairness, I had an extraordinary boss who had a meager technical background, but was fantastic leader.
However, many of these people walk around with a defective notion that a competent manager can manage anything. So, to use a coaching analogy, can a Hockey coach do well for a gymnastics team? No? Then why do these idiots think they know something that we don't?

I went to a leadership conference at SCANA last year and I totally agree with you. One of the speakers went from managing an airport to managing a power plant. He has no technical background at all, a BA in sociology and a MA in sociology and working on a PH.D in organizational leadership. He made that same statement almost verbatim " I'm prepared to lead anything because I have vision and I'm a good leader". I'm sitting there thinking how can you have vision when you don't even have the background knowledge in the field you're trying to lead, you have to be brought up to speed. He got the power plant job because a friend recommended him.

 

[StatGuy2000]

My kids and their teen peers are not stupid. They see how the other kids live. They know what the other parents do for a living. Given the amount of work required, STEM careers are not as lucrative as many other options, particularly given the cost of a STEM education.

This begs the question as to what career options are lucrative in this day and age in the US.

Law? From what I've been hearing, there are far more law graduates than available jobs.

Medicine? Yes, being a doctor is lucrative, but it is also costly and demands high effort, as much as a STEM degree (in fact, medicine can and should be considered part of a STEM degree).

Dentistry? See what I wrote about medicine.

Nursing? Many people consider nursing to be drudge work, and nursing isn't especially that lucrative, money wise, even though they are in demand. It takes a certain type of individual to really be able to make nursing a rewarding career.

Business? Does a general business degree actually open any doors for career advancement? A good sales person can graduate with any degree or no degree, depending on personality (a marketing degree tends to teach market research, which is distinct to sales). To become an accountant often requires a specialist degree in accounting, which may or may not be lucrative.

 

[mal4mac]

This begs the question as to what career options are lucrative in this day and age in the US.

IT security

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ecurity_experts_outstrips_supply?pageNumber=1

 

[Mogarrr]

Business? Does a general business degree actually open any doors for career advancement? A good sales person can graduate with any degree or no degree, depending on personality (a marketing degree tends to teach market research, which is distinct to sales). To become an accountant often requires a specialist degree in accounting, which may or may not be lucrative.

I would think a business degree at most institutions is useless without any networking skills. I know my 1st degree, a BS in Finance did not open any doors that I could otherwise open with any college degree.

As far as accounting goes, I think most of it will be automated.

 

[Locrian]

Most of what can be automated in accounting is already automated. There's an entire generation of bookkeepers and similar skilled individuals who haven't been replaced.

What's left in accounting today depends on where you work. If you're in a large institution or corporation, accounting has a lot in common with law. If you're in a consulting shop, there are people skills that are critically important. (Not that you don't need both those skill sets on the other side; just examples of what's emphasized).

 

[symbolipoint]

Sorry, I just don't buy this. Microscopes, telescopes, and well designed meccano/chemistry/electronics sets aren't dangerous. Nannies aren't stupid, they know this.

There are more fun things to do now than, like computer games and all sorts of audio-visual media on tap 24/7. Maybe the science stuff just gets crowded out by more instantly enjoyable activities.



Unstructured hobby programming may be one of the activities that distracts kids from real science. I'm old enough not to have encountered programming at school at all! In that supposed golden age of tinkering with TV's and cars, the kids weren't doing any programming.



This I agree with!

Supervisors and administrators often are focused on safety, so this becomes an interference at some level.

Technologies evolve and what was hobby and commoner in one time diminishes in a later time, and other technologies and skills become hobbyish and common. That is broadly how things are. This makes some things more difficult because some of the old types of skills which are more natural cannot be used as much.

As a slightly more specific example, a few decades ago, there was course work in community colleges called "data processing", and there were also "electronics" courses. These days, there is "computer programming" and the meaning of "Windows" has changed; and if you want an "electronics" course, you will have trouble finding them at community colleges because they are instead usually taught at universities in the engineering programs.

 

[atyy]

Most people who posture as leaders do NOT come from technical backgrounds.

And in fairness, I had an extraordinary boss who had a meager technical background, but was fantastic leader.

However, many of these people walk around with a defective notion that a competent manager can manage anything. So, to use a coaching analogy, can a Hockey coach do well for a gymnastics team? No? Then why do these idiots think they know something that we don't?

If it is possible for a person with a meager technical background to be an extraordinary boss, then couldn't it be possible to train more people like that?

Also, why do people say science and engineering are hard? Is there any scientific evidence for this? In an age where the complete laws of physics relevant to anything we need to do for the next 500 years are known, couldn't it be argued that the most difficult problems are non-scientific?

 

[analogdesign]

If it is possible for a person with a meager technical background to be an extraordinary boss, then couldn't it be possible to train more people like that?

Sure you could train someone to be a good manager/administrator. In a similar vein you could train a fresh employee to be a competent programmer or technician as well. Unfortunately, companies are loathe to train anyone for almost anything. That's one reason it is so much harder to get entry-level engineering jobs than engineering jobs that need 10 years experience.

Also, why do people say science and engineering are hard? Is there any scientific evidence for this? In an age where the complete laws of physics relevant to anything we need to do for the next 500 years are known, couldn't it be argued that the most difficult problems are non-scientific?

People say science and engineering are hard because they are. What kind of scientific evidence do you need? Most jobs don't need years upon years of specialized training to gain competence. Science, engineering, and many of the other professions (e.g. Medicine, Law, Dentistry) do. That's one definition of hard. You certainly have to study more to pass engineering and science courses than most other college courses.

And how is the fact that most laws of physics required are known in any way relevant to if something is difficult? People have known how to cut and join wood for centuries but building a high-quality cabinet is extremely difficult. So it is with engineering. I don't use any principles that haven't been known for decades in my work. But it is still hard. I think the vast majority of the most difficult problems are non-scientific and always have been.

 

[atyy]

People say science and engineering are hard because they are. What kind of scientific evidence do you need? Most jobs don't need years upon years of specialized training to gain competence. Science, engineering, and many of the other professions (e.g. Medicine, Law, Dentistry) do. That's one definition of hard. You certainly have to study more to pass engineering and science courses than most other college courses.

And how is the fact that most laws of physics required are known in any way relevant to if something is difficult? People have known how to cut and join wood for centuries but building a high-quality cabinet is extremely difficult. So it is with engineering. I don't use any principles that haven't been known for decades in my work. But it is still hard. I think the fast majority of the most difficult problems are non-scientific and always have been.

Well, the basic idea is that if the most difficult problems are non-scientific and always have been, then I'm not sure that scientists have a right to say their problems are hard - at least not with the implication that other problems are easier.

Regarding college, that seems to be a different thing. I guess you consider the non-science and non-engineering courses easier, because they don't address the what you call the vast majority of the most difficult problems?

As an aside, regarding evidence that science and engineering are hard - couldn't the courses be harder in college because instruction is poorer?

 

[analogdesign]

Well, the basic idea is that if the most difficult problems are non-scientific and always have been, then I'm not sure that scientists have a right to say their problems are hard - at least not with the implication that other problems are easier.

Regarding college, that seems to be a different thing. I guess you consider the non-science and non-engineering courses easier, because they don't address the what you call the vast majority if the most difficult problems?

As an aside, regarding evidence that science and engineering are hard - couldn't the courses be harder in college because instruction is poorer?

No, I think engineering and science are fundamentally hard because they require that a large amount of knowledge and experience be brought to bear to whatever problem is at hand. I feel like you're wordsmithing a bit here and focusing on word definitions rather than the big picture. What is a hard problem? Solving our economic crises seems impossible. Finding an end to war or a way for the people of the world to be free of hunger are incredibly hard problems that won't be solved by science.

But... that said, when most people say "subject X is hard" they aren't talking about grandiose, pie in the sky problems. They are talking about either: 1. the challenges inherent in making progress in the field, 2. the difficulty in acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to be a competent practitioner of the field, or 3. The difficultly in solving (or even grasping) salient problems before them.

Take, for example, the Apollo moon landing. It was one of the hardest projects ever undertaken and completed successfully. Yet, virtually all the techniques used to get there were techniques that were known and only in a few places (use of integrated circuits, rendevous in space, etc) was there truly something "new". But the devil's in the details and that is what science and engineering are all about: thinking creatively, carefully, and in a disciplined manner in order to meet your objectives. It's really hard to hand-wave and "wing it" in science and engineering.

I think the instruction in engineering vs other courses is roughly similar. I've got a little game for you. Pick an area of history you know little about (for example the social history of medieval Spain). Also pick an area of science or engineering you know little about. For example, if you're an EE, pick something like x-ray diffraction study of crystals and their properties. Now, study each field for a week. Do you think you'll acquire more of the body of knowledge of one field compared to another in a week? Does this say something about if History or Science/Engineering are fundamentally hard?

In college I took a lot of math, science, and engineering classes. I also took lot of music, history, and philosophy classes. The engineering and science classes required virtually constant studying, problem sets, labs, and even going through other books trying to figure out what was going on. In grad school it was worse.

To get the same grades in music or history class, for example, I would only have to cram a paper writing session into a couple of weekends and study 4 to 10 hours for the final. Much easier. Why do you think non-engineering or science students have so much more fun in college?

 

[caldweab]

If it is possible for a person with a meager technical background to be an extraordinary boss, then couldn't it be possible to train more people like that?
Also, why do people say science and engineering are hard? Is there any scientific evidence for this? In an age where the complete laws of physics relevant to anything we need to do for the next 500 years are known, couldn't it be argued that the most difficult problems are non-scientific?

Is that some sort of joke?

 

[jz92wjaz]

I'm an American and I chose STEM because it's Math heavy, and I find Math to be easier than other subjects. If I had been better at a different subject, it's doubtful I would have bothered with STEM. Because we don't have widespread poverty, we have more leeway to decide what kind of career we'd like to have.

 

[Devils]

Most people who posture as leaders do NOT come from technical backgrounds.

And in fairness, I had an extraordinary boss who had a meager technical background, but was fantastic leader.

I did a 1 year teaching diploma a few years ago as I was out of work. It was a real opener since teaching nothing but communication skills, presentations, leading groups students. You have a new speaking engagement every lesson! I learned a lot about leadership. You can't fool a bunch of 13yos, they will tell you if you are doing it wrong lol.

Nursing? Many people consider nursing to be drudge work, and nursing isn't especially that lucrative, money wise, even though they are in demand. It takes a certain type of individual to really be able to make nursing a rewarding career.

My sister is a nurse & it can be lucrative, as well paid as other technical jobs. Qualificantions are generally reognised internationally & there is a well known path of heading overseas to get experience.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

This begs the question as to what career options are lucrative in this day and age in the US.

Law? From what I've been hearing, there are far more law graduates than available jobs.

Medicine? Yes, being a doctor is lucrative, but it is also costly and demands high effort, as much as a STEM degree (in fact, medicine can and should be considered part of a STEM degree).

Dentistry? See what I wrote about medicine.

Nursing? Many people consider nursing to be drudge work, and nursing isn't especially that lucrative, money wise, even though they are in demand. It takes a certain type of individual to really be able to make nursing a rewarding career.

Business? Does a general business degree actually open any doors for career advancement? A good sales person can graduate with any degree or no degree, depending on personality (a marketing degree tends to teach market research, which is distinct to sales). To become an accountant often requires a specialist degree in accounting, which may or may not be lucrative.

What is a career? Everything you've listed requires at least a four year degree. But I've met some very wealthy, smart people with NO degree at all. They went for apprenticeships as electricians, worked their way up through various firms, got a master electrician's certificate, did some big jobs, founded a firm of their own, taught others how to succeed, and... Wow, they are rich in many ways.

We keep falling into the trap of thinking that knowledge comes from teachers in classrooms. IT DOESN'T. It comes from many places. The people who do well are those who can learn from anyone, anywhere, and who can teach outside a classroom setting.

And if that's not good enough for you, consider that there are mechanics, carpenters, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, steel workers, and many more blue collar professions with a tradition of apprenticeship and advancement.

Of course, it doesn't have the cache of a formal education, nor does it look as good on a resume, but I'll take down to Earth people like that over most Ivy League school graduates. The former will have real experience. The latter might have read about it in a book somewhere.

 

[bhobba]

At the university I went to, the STEM departments are filled to the brim every year.

Out where I am in Australia there are universities like that as well.

Yet overall people are eschewing it in their later years of study.

The reason is simple. You get a job like say an accountant or arts graduate working in a museum, and you can enjoy life without constantly updating your skills say in IT or engineering.

Kids are far from stupid, they know this and gravitate towards the path of least resistance.

OTOH some people are driven toward STEM areas - I am one - and even knowing that its all they want to study. I only ever wanted to study math - damned be the consequences.

Politicians in Australia are very perturbed at this state of affairs, and have tried all sorts of things like bonus points for taking more advanced math courses in university admission, but nothing works.

Its simple human nature IMHO. Unless you have the burning drive inside you why bother - do something easier, have an easier life and work to live instead of live to work. The issue is there are many other well paid lucrative professions that are not STEM related.

We have specialist High School programs starting to appear to get into those difficult to get into STEM areas eg:
http://www.tkis.qld.edu.au/TKIS_SUPr_Brochure.PDF

But as the brochure for that program says - if you just want an ordinary arts degree, and an associated job, there is no need to bother - simply go to your local school and take it easy - you will still do just fine. You will not earn as good money straight out of uni, but things will sure be a lot easier.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Devils]

We have specialist High School programs starting to appear to get into those difficult to get into STEM areas eg:
http://www.tkis.qld.edu.au/TKIS_SUPr_Brochure.PDF

But as the brochure for that program says - if you just want an ordinary arts degree, and an associated job, there is no need to bother - simply go to your local school and take it easy - you will still do just fine. You will not earn as good money straight out of uni, but things will sure be a lot easier.

I've help teach a Grade 10 class using the Raspbery Pi not far from you. And I've had Grade 12 ICT (Information & Communications Technology) students who would make fine software developers. I've had students who wanted to be carpenters who will probably make more than the STEM students given the state of the Australian economy.

I only ever wanted to study math - damned be the consequences.

You would have liked this : http://qasmt.eq.edu.au/

 

[StatGuy2000]

What is a career? Everything you've listed requires at least a four year degree. But I've met some very wealthy, smart people with NO degree at all. They went for apprenticeships as electricians, worked their way up through various firms, got a master electrician's certificate, did some big jobs, founded a firm of their own, taught others how to succeed, and... Wow, they are rich in many ways.

We keep falling into the trap of thinking that knowledge comes from teachers in classrooms. IT DOESN'T. It comes from many places. The people who do well are those who can learn from anyone, anywhere, and who can teach outside a classroom setting.

And if that's not good enough for you, consider that there are mechanics, carpenters, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, steel workers, and many more blue collar professions with a tradition of apprenticeship and advancement.

Of course, it doesn't have the cache of a formal education, nor does it look as good on a resume, but I'll take down to Earth people like that over most Ivy League school graduates. The former will have real experience. The latter might have read about it in a book somewhere.

Jake, I get what you are saying, and I'm not suggesting that a university education is the only path for advancement. I also agree with you that we in Canada and the US need more skilled workers of the type you are speaking above. However, keep a number of things in mind:

(1) Not everyone can work in a blue collar profession. The professions you listed above (mechanics, carpenters, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, etc.) are all physically demanding occupations which require that you are in good physical health. Not everyone has the stamina, physical health to do this. Many of the blue collar professions (I'm thinking specifically of electricians and mechanics) also require good hand-eye coordination (like surgeons), and not everyone possesses this ability.

(2) I don't know what the situation is in the US, but here in Canada, there is a huge bottleneck for aspiring blue collar skilled workers to find apprenticeships that could qualify them for the work. So many people who want to work in these positions are essentially prevented from doing so.

(3) Demand for many of the blue collar workers you listed above rely crucially on sectors such as energy or construction, which are often subject to severe boom and bust cycles. So it's not unusual for many of these workers to face stretches of unemployment until the work can pick up. And it's not obvious to me that workers who have been laid off can easily retrain to find other work.

 

[Devils]

What is a career? Everything you've listed requires at least a four year degree. But I've met some very wealthy, smart people with NO degree at all. They went for apprenticeships as electricians, worked their way up through various firms, got a master electrician's certificate, did some big jobs, founded a firm of their own, taught others how to succeed, and... Wow, they are rich in many ways.

Try reading The Millionaire Bext Door. The guy next door, driving a 15yo volvo, running a cleaning business with 5 employees, is probably saving 100K a year. And the 30yo software developer with the flashy car is probably going into debt.

There is low correlation betwwen general IQ, emotional IQ and success.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

If it is possible for a person with a meager technical background to be an extraordinary boss, then couldn't it be possible to train more people like that?

Experience. There. I said it. I'm sorry to disillusion so many of you who think you actually learn anything from an education. You don't. You learn when you apply it. Some of us take away different lessons than others.

So there is no way we can open up the brains of managers and pour knowledge in there about technical issues. They need to burn their fingers on a really hot, stupid situation. That's how people learn.

Also, why do people say science and engineering are hard? Is there any scientific evidence for this? In an age where the complete laws of physics relevant to anything we need to do for the next 500 years are known, couldn't it be argued that the most difficult problems are non-scientific?

The thing that stops so many from understanding science and mathematics is that they don't see the applications. The relationship may be comprehensible, but most people won't remember it if they don't use it or at least read about the notions that it might have. I'm having such discussions with my teen-age kids right now, while trying to explain why factoring polynomials is such a big deal. They have no experience to hang this on. They don't see any application. Remembering this sort of thing which is outside their experience is difficult. It's like trying to remain fluent in a foreign language that you haven't used or had reason to use in over a decade. It can be done, but it isn't easy.

 

[atyy]

Experience. There. I said it. I'm sorry to disillusion so many of you who think you actually learn anything from an education. You don't. You learn when you apply it. Some of us take away different lessons than others.

So there is no way we can open up the brains of managers and pour knowledge in there about technical issues. They need to burn their fingers on a really hot, stupid situation. That's how people learn.

Yes, but I think you also mentioned many leaders who seem to be just as bad even though they have lots of experience. Can leadership really not be taught?

Was the good manager you had good in part because he learned the technical stuff? What else apart from the technical stuff made him a good manager?

The thing that stops so many from understanding science and mathematics is that they don't see the applications. The relationship may be comprehensible, but most people won't remember it if they don't use it or at least read about the notions that it might have. I'm having such discussions with my teen-age kids right now, while trying to explain why factoring polynomials is such a big deal. They have no experience to hang this on. They don't see any application. Remembering this sort of thing which is outside their experience is difficult. It's like trying to remain fluent in a foreign language that you haven't used or had reason to use in over a decade. It can be done, but it isn't easy.

Hmmm, that actually shows real interest in science in some way. Although my own work as a biologist is more "basic science", applicability is always a great question.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

Yes, but I think you also mentioned many leaders who seem to be just as bad even though they have lots of experience. Can leadership really not be taught?

Was the good manager you had good in part because he learned the technical stuff? What else apart from the technical stuff made him a good manager?

Teaching management and leadership is like teaching virgins about sex. The first times they ever use that information, there will be a lot of inexperienced fumbling around, trying to do the right things. Some learn from the experience, and some don't.

In the case of that technically inept manager, reasoning his way through technical problems wasn't his strength. He was aware of what went into the work, what they needed, and how things got done, but he was never particularly proficient in diagnosing what was sitting in front of him. On the other hand, he could play the bureaucracy like a violin. He got things done that the rest of us had no patience for.

You can't teach that. You can only experience it. I've seen abstract efforts to teach this sort of thing and it never reads well.

 

[bhobba]

You would have liked this : http://qasmt.eq.edu.au/

Yea - know that mob.

A STEM related IB program is tough (math HL is generally considered the hardest HS math program out there) - indeed IB in general is tough.

It wouldn't have suited me because in HS I was so lazy it was embarrassing.

Still math was all that really interested me.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Most people who posture as leaders do NOT come from technical backgrounds.

No they don't, and some tend to look down on those with technical competence.

I had one jerk of a team leader, who was actually on exactly the same level as me, and others in the team, who when showing people around used to refer to us as the technocrats. Needless to say that went down well, especially considering he was simply some guy upper management said will be in charge of us.

We had a meeting one time about that and it was asked what people thought of those on the same level being in charge of teams. I pointed out my experience. What was the response - people need to show maturity.

You find a lot of management types basically say nothing, and couch what they do in motherhood generalised statements - in public anyway - and it occasionally leads to some of the silliest situations you can imagine - they become so caught up in that rarefied atmosphere things that are obvious aren't any more - see the video below. Its part of their diplomatic mind set - but it's actually not conducive to getting anything done.


Occasionally you get a leader that is both technically and managerially competent. They are worth their weight in gold - but are as rare as hens teeth. Needless to say I was never in that elite group. My political skills are zero. I am stupid enough to say what I think.

However, many of these people walk around with a defective notion that a competent manager can manage anything. So, to use a coaching analogy, can a Hockey coach do well for a gymnastics team? No? Then why do these idiots think they know something that we don't?

Aren't that the truth. They think management is a separate profession and you don't have to have at least high level competences in what you manage.

I saw the outcome of that far too many times.

They make decisions that backfire. Then turn around to their team to get them out of the mess.

I even had one guy that said it straight. We didn't ask you when we decided to do that, but we are asking you now. What went wrong? There were about 20 programmers in the room and he made eye contact with each one. We said nothing. It went on like that for about 15 minutes and no one said anything. He cajoled us with the usual management stuff about commitment to mission statements etc etc. Everyone simply said nothing. He was transferred to another department as the scapegoat for the whole project going kaput. But you know something - it wasn't his fault - it was actually the fault of upper management who had to placate political masters.

Feynman cottoned onto it in the Challenger disaster investigation. They simply ignore what the technical people at the coalface tell them because its politically unpalatable.

Only the very best and most talented of leaders can handle that situation. They exist, but are few and far between. Generally they are so valuable they gravitate toward consulting and bail people out once they get themselves into the mess - a mess they should have avoided in the first place. One of them took over that botched project I referred to above. He got it done - everyone thought it was beyond redemption - including me - but the situation had become so bad what he had to do created the worst working environment I have ever experienced - and the most duplicitous. If only they had done it right from the start.

BTW my management ability is very ordinary - I know that now. But in the thick of it you think these guys are total idiots not realising this managerial political stuff is very very difficult. They aren't - simply out of their depth in trying to placate two masters - the truth - and the rarefied atmosphere of high level management.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

You can't teach that. You can only experience it. I've seen abstract efforts to teach this sort of thing and it never reads well.

Very true.

But even the most inept of management neophytes, by dint of constant experiential development and mentoring, will get better - with a proviso.

That proviso is they recognise just because you are intelligent, and perhaps even technically brilliant, that leadership and management is a whole new ball game, requiring different skills. If you acknowledge that from the start, even though you are a leadership dummy like me, you will get better. It happened to me. Most bosses I had said Bill is technically A+, but has no management ability. However one boss I had took his responsibility to develop skills seriously and gave me that opportunity. My management ability went ahead in leaps and bounds - but still not really up to scratch. I felt if it had continued then I would have improved even further - but that boss went somewhere else and I was consigned to technical duties only.

What they fail to realize is the value of people that are both technically and managerially competent, so they pigeon-hole people - which every book on staff development says you shouldn't do. But because their managers don't care about it, they don't really care either - its not really going to help their career progression.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Oxvillian]

Third, kids are steeped in this idiotic mythology of "leadership." It isn't that leadership is bad, but you have to understand the world around you, first. But somehow everyone glosses over or utterly skips that step. That's how we get flaming, sociopathic ignoramuses who preen and posture well enough to make a good first impression --and they then promptly discover that they have no useful ideas of how they were supposed to reach the goals that they promised. And nobody sees fit to call them on this. They should be allowed to have these failures come back to haunt them, but they don't. The blame then rolls downhill while they waltz to another place where they perpetrate the same stupidity all over again.

Ha I'm glad I'm not the only one who rails against the dreaded "leadership skills".

I typed "leadership skills" and "mathematics education" into google's ngram viewer and the result is worrying:

 

[Best Pokemon]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

Some people say the STEM crisis is a myth.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

Some people say the STEM crisis is a myth.

And in many ways, he is right. The real crisis is not a lack of STEM graduates, but a lack of general understanding of what STEM graduates do.

Let's be brutally honest here: the reason that many people pursue the humanities is because they can't do well in mathematics or the sciences. Most people who pursue STEM degrees, do so because they CAN understand science and mathematics. Most STEM graduates are also quite literate.

In other words, what we really lack is a foundation of science and mathematics for ALL students. This is the well from which we draw the managers and "leaders" of tomorrow. That's right. They don't get math. They don't understand the techie thingies. They don't like science. And Engineering is right out.

And not only do they not like these studies, they actively shun them from the boardrooms because it makes them feel inferior and confused.

We are not going to fix this problem with more STEM graduates. We will fix this problem by teaching a better foundation starting from middle school, and high school.

And if you're an art student --YOU SHOULD STILL TAKE COURSES IN GEOMETRY AND MATHEMATICS!

But they don't. Instead we have illiterate and innumerate idiots roaming the Earth with college degrees.

Shrug.

 

[mal4mac]

... mechanics, carpenters, heavy equipment operators, plumbers, steel workers, and many more blue collar professions with a tradition of apprenticeship and advancement.

Of course, it doesn't have the cache of a formal education, nor does it look as good on a resume, but I'll take down to Earth people like that over most Ivy League school graduates. The former will have real experience. The latter might have read about it in a book somewhere.

University isn't just about reading books! Physicists get to design and perform experiments, philosophy students engage in Socratic dialogue. Good luck with employing one of your blue collar heroes at CERN or a law firm.

 

[Mogarrr]

And in many ways, he is right. The real crisis is not a lack of STEM graduates, but a lack of general understanding of what STEM graduates do.

Let's be brutally honest here: the reason that many people pursue the humanities is because they can't do well in mathematics or the sciences. Most people who pursue STEM degrees, do so because they CAN understand science and mathematics. Most STEM graduates are also quite literate.

In other words, what we really lack is a foundation of science and mathematics for ALL students. This is the well from which we draw the managers and "leaders" of tomorrow. That's right. They don't get math. They don't understand the techie thingies. They don't like science. And Engineering is right out.

And not only do they not like these studies, they actively shun them from the boardrooms because it makes them feel inferior and confused.

We are not going to fix this problem with more STEM graduates. We will fix this problem by teaching a better foundation starting from middle school, and high school.

And if you're an art student --YOU SHOULD STILL TAKE COURSES IN GEOMETRY AND MATHEMATICS!

But they don't. Instead we have illiterate and innumerate idiots roaming the Earth with college degrees.

Shrug.

I have always suspected management of idiocy.

As far as the illiterate and innumerate...they can vote when they turn 18.

 

[analogdesign]

Let's be brutally honest here: the reason that many people pursue the humanities is because they can't do well in mathematics or the sciences.

I don't think that's right. A lot of people don't *like* math and science. I'm an engineer, but my bother is a lawyer and one of my sisters is a humanities professor. They are at least as smart as I am but they followed their own interests, as did I. I chose to study math and science, my siblings chose law and philosophy. Are you saying they didn't have the capability to succeed in math or science? I find that a bit insulting to people who make different life choices than we did.

Later on you say art students should take math and geometry courses. I agree with you there. Scientific literacy should be improved across the board.

You know, from a reward/work basis going to engineering school is a pretty dumb move. I lost a decade of my youth studying late into the night and on weekends stressing out while my friends were socializing and having a good time. Now I make a comfortable living, but so too do my less dedicated friends (and some of them are doing better than I am, financially). I love my job and I'm glad I am an engineer, but maybe some people avoid STEM careers because their smarter than we are.

 

[Jamin2112]

Let's be brutally honest here: the reason that many people pursue the humanities is because they can't do well in mathematics or the sciences.

Not necessarily. Many, possibly most, pursue humanities because

* They find the subjects interesting
* They've been told to pursue what they find interesting

I'm pursuing tech work right now. Is that because I find tech work more interesting than, say, philosophy? No. If I wanted to listen to a podcast in my free time, I'd rather listen to a philosophy related one than a tech related one. I find technology a big bore, for the most part. The only reason I'm pursuing technology is because the jobs exist in high numbers, don't have too many barriers to entry and can pay a decent wage. Whatever actually interests me (philosophy, religion, math, etc.) I can pursue as a hobby.