I liked several of these articles, but I'm going to have be negative towards the one on STEM education.
I may be biased (I have a Chemistry degree and I work in the field), but I think the American public's understand of science is really terrible. In addition, it seems to be generally considered acceptable to have little scientific understanding. So I think the push for STEM education is good.
Additionally, I think the article presents many false dichotomies and correlations. The article seems to correlate providing a STEM education as removing a student's ability to "learn, think, and write". I was a chemistry major and a political science minor in college and I would say that the science curriculum did NOT require less of any of those, much less "critical thinking".
Additionally, I think its hard to correlate America's education system with America's innovation. Again, working in a STEM field, a large portion of my coworkers are foreign born (and educated). So its hard to correlate education with achievement when the achievement is done with the top talent from other countries.
And in general, I think the dichotomy of math/science and literature/arts is false but very popular. People can be multifaceted with varied interests. Also, math and science have many similarities with philosophy and logic. Creating proofs is basic logic using mathematical terms. Scientific theories and hypotheses are often applied philosophy, let alone theoretical science.
Sorry for the long commentary, but I think this is an example of how science is largely misunderstood in America since I don't think the author's criticism is well placed. I don't know if he knows what a STEM education consists of. It seems like his idea of one is multiplication tables and flash cards.
no subject
I may be biased (I have a Chemistry degree and I work in the field), but I think the American public's understand of science is really terrible. In addition, it seems to be generally considered acceptable to have little scientific understanding. So I think the push for STEM education is good.
Additionally, I think the article presents many false dichotomies and correlations. The article seems to correlate providing a STEM education as removing a student's ability to "learn, think, and write". I was a chemistry major and a political science minor in college and I would say that the science curriculum did NOT require less of any of those, much less "critical thinking".
Additionally, I think its hard to correlate America's education system with America's innovation. Again, working in a STEM field, a large portion of my coworkers are foreign born (and educated). So its hard to correlate education with achievement when the achievement is done with the top talent from other countries.
And in general, I think the dichotomy of math/science and literature/arts is false but very popular. People can be multifaceted with varied interests. Also, math and science have many similarities with philosophy and logic. Creating proofs is basic logic using mathematical terms. Scientific theories and hypotheses are often applied philosophy, let alone theoretical science.
Sorry for the long commentary, but I think this is an example of how science is largely misunderstood in America since I don't think the author's criticism is well placed. I don't know if he knows what a STEM education consists of. It seems like his idea of one is multiplication tables and flash cards.