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?