<p>I am not arguing what is the better to agree. Each student has different interests which he/she should respectfully participate in in undergraduate study. My issue is with the folks above who claim that science and mathematics is “useless” in the critical thinking process. Obviously these folks have no first hand experience with the rigor and analytics involved in these majors. </p>
<p>
As I mention earlier American students are unable to hack it because of a lack of preparation. Every engineering school I have visited is overran by immigrants coming in to the US to snag these degrees. They are not coming here because the education is better, they are coming here because they are far more prepared than our students. Regardless of what some might think, math & sciences are just as important in the critical thinking process. Degrading the fields and making excuses because our children can’t hack it in these programs is not going to help the situation. I find it funny that the points some bring up to support their arguments are “I’ll take a math class when you take a class in logic.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree to some degree. However, the technical jobs pay are paying more for a reason, for those who want to argue with that your arguments are statistically unsupported. Having technical skill is crucial to the critical thinking process, and offers diverse opportunities for analysis of any subject. The average Engineer’s IQ is far higher than the Average IQ of an Art Historian’s. Demote math and science and the huge shifts away from them due to lack of preparation is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.</p>
<p>“Engineering students continue to command positions in a comprehensive list of fields.”</p>
<p>Non-responsive. I’m talking about all your assertions about how there’s been some kind of movement in American higher education away from engineering, math and science and towards humanities and social sciences (which you continue to refer to as “liberal arts,” even though math and science ARE liberal arts). Like this:</p>
<p>“students are focusing less and less on those fields.” (Post 3)</p>
<p>“I find it ridiculous at many schools there is more emphasis on analyzing Joan Didion novels than there is on taking Calculus.” (Post 10)</p>
<p>“The American schools are quickly losing prestige.” (Post 10)</p>
<p>“most HS students eliminate mathematics and science before anything else” (Post 39)</p>
<p>Listen, I’m on your side when it comes to catching up with other countries in technological fields. I’m all for putting more emphasis on math and science in high schools and making them more appealing to kids. But you won’t get anywhere with your argument when you’re making all these factual claims with zero support. It’s pretty clear that you haven’t absorbed this point, since one of the links you provided (when pressed for citations) is a bunch of letters to the editor in response to a NY Times opinion piece. Unless your argument is “Many people believe X,” that is not support.</p>
<p>Uri, I agree with you- this topic has come up in previous threads and it makes me cringe that people think if you’re an engineer/mathematician/scientist, you are some kind of incoherent noob that can’t write, think, or speak your way out of a paper bag. Hands down, the humanities and social science classes that my kids have taken at the university level have been their least challenging- and they are in engineering programs. My point is that obviously liberal arts studies are not beyond their range; they have chosen math and science though, because that’s where their interests lie.</p>
<p>^Absolutely agree. My father was great in math but he studied French Literature for his undergraduate, he ended up heading a division of a large organization. And this comes from a country that favors math and science.</p>
Well, well. I did a search and can’t find anyone who used the word useless. That is to say except you. Your extrapolation is faulty. No one said that, or anything close to that. I will say that someone trained only in technical or scientific matters will have a hard time running a company or a state. Just like an English major without science courses would be hard pressed to make it in a lab doing anything but scut work. </p>
<p>Why are you folks trying to make this an either/or call? Read my posts if you think I’m anti-science and math. I am promoting Science and Math literacy as well as English and History. Can some of you say the same?</p>
<p>I also believe that enough kids use AP credit to avoid courses and whole subjects they’d be better off knowing at the college level that I’d be willing to give up the notion of credit completely. Many kids avoid a liberal arts and science discipline they don’t care much about, and that includes the English major avoiding science and vice versa. IMO there are better ways to do it, but everybody gets to make up their own mind. There are plenty of schools out there.</p>
<p>My physicist husband, who does R&D for the #1 company in its technical niche worldwide market is a product of a liberal arts education from a small LAC (St. Olaf.)</p>
<p>I chose my undergrad for its liberal arts emphasis, so in addition to ensuring my technical company adheres to government regulations, I can talk theater and politics with the best of them, thanks to the classes I was required to take.</p>
<p>It is not the degree that defines scholarship. It is what you did to get the degree.</p>
<p>Whatever happened to educating for the sake of education?</p>
mallomar, are you high? LOL. (This a joke. I know mallomar is not high.)</p>
<p>Elvis has left the building. That bus has left the barn. It has gone the way of the “Grand Tour”. An anachronism but I still cling to the remnants of that philosophy (learning for the sake of learning in college/high-school) while recognizing the very obvious economics that argue against it. </p>
<p>Liberal Arts (and Sciences) schools have to be concerned about the future (or is a better word choice “fortunes” LOL ?) of their graduates. It is expected that they get the top jobs and into top grad programs and professional schools and many folks including yours truly watch that stuff very closely. </p>
<p>Employability is a necessary evil. I wish it weren’t , but then again I’ve always thought it would be cool to live like I was in one of those Merchant Ivory “Grand Tour” movies. The cruel world always slaps me awake with the realization that I would have been the fat bell-hop, not the fancy young gent in all whites playing badminton near Lake Como with my eye on the governess.</p>
<p>So your worth and value to society is based on your salary? Engineers earn more than English majors? So what? Are engineers inherently more valuable than the people who teach their children?</p>
<p>I hated math; couldn’t do it if my life depended on it. Can’t visualize it. Never could figure out which train would arrive first. So I should have been forced out of school? You’re telling me I’m useless and a drag on American society? As an informed citizen my job is to understand the impact on society of science so I can engage the political process not to actually do the stuff. </p>
<p>One final comment—WHAT IT HECK DOES IT MATTER IF I KNOW CALCULUS?</p>
In the evidence, engineering students do just as well in their humanities courses as the the humanities majors, yet the majority of humanity majors would not be able to excel in an engineering program, and it’s not due to their lack of interest. Many engineers lack interest in classic cultures, yet most do significantly well in these classes as well.</p>
<p>“they have chosen math and science though, because that’s where their interests lie.”</p>
<p>Many students do choose Engineering and Natural science, but their preparation limits them and a significant number (>50% at many schools) end up transferring out of their programs. This is not due to the rigorous training but the lack of preparation. I as well think too much emphasis is put on humanities classes many times. I also agree with the statement that while most of you seem to be satisfied with the educational system in the USA we are far behind too many countries.
I see many students who require graduate degrees just to be able to support a family, with combined income. The study in one of the previous posts suggests that due to the US holding a 60% rate of students enrolled in higher education, the answer must be we are catering to more students. I feel as though other countries do not have this rate because their education is far superior, and therefore does not require college level learning to do well in the economy. Overall we should be working on the education system in general, and the part that needs the biggest fixing is in our math and natural sciences.</p>
<p>“One final comment—WHAT IT HECK DOES IT MATTER IF I KNOW CALCULUS?”</p>
<p>This is the type of thought students are developing at too early of an age. The idea that higher level mathematics is useless in the real world is a big contributing factor to this whole argument. When so many students feel it is useless, classes slow down and students who do care if they know calculus have a more difficult time actually learning calculus.</p>
<p>That’s because intro-level writing = easy, as few want to be writers(so no need to weed people out).</p>
<p>Intro level Organic Chemistry = hard, as TONS of people want to be pre-med/engineers.</p>
<p>So, governed by this dynamic, we are only using a limited spectrum to compare. I know that few lit majors could excel in higher level math, but just the same, I don’t see any evidence of being able to write coherent stories out of engineers.</p>
<p>Comparing only one part of the equation is obviously flawed. (if impossible to account for)</p>
<p>Element - if we have the highest standard of living in the world, how are we failing by achieving this, and other places are ‘far superior’. American’s in nearly any job get paid more than their world wide counterparts. You would think, that if we were so deficient, that the opposite trend would erupt.</p>
<p>Please. Don’t even think it. Put most engineers I know in a freshman seminar "Writing " class taught at a high level and graded harshly (no A’s most if not all semesters) . Assign them a topic about expessing their feelings and they’d be bailing right and left. Drop/add would be their refuge/salvation. I know there are exceptions , but don’t try to kid a kidder. Remember - my D is a high level science nerd. ;)</p>
<p>DSC a surprising number of LAC’s are demanding substantial writing competence/classes for ALL students. Hamilton, Centre, and my D’s school Rhodes leap immediately to my mind. I’m sure there are plenty of others. It seems like big push at LAC’s.</p>
<p>“the majority of humanity majors would not be able to excel in an engineering program, and it’s not due to their lack of interest”</p>
<p>Where did you find the crystal ball that enables you to measure student achievement in courses that they never actually took? Is it the same one that lets you read minds and distinguish boredom from lack of aptitude? My psychology professors would love to learn about this new technology.</p>
<p>“In the evidence”</p>
<p>Saying “In the evidence” at the beginning of a post filled with unsubstantiated assertions is not the same as providing evidence. Sources, please.</p>
<p>"Please. Don’t even think it. Put most engineers I know in a freshman seminar "Writing " class taught at a high level and graded harshly (no A’s most if not all semesters) . Assign them a topic about expessing their feelings and they’d be bailing right and left. Drop/add would be their refuge/salvation. I know there are exceptions , but don’t try to kid a kidder. Remember - my D is a high level science nerd. "</p>
<p>Engineering requires articulation and writing skill as well, it’s not just all mathematics and physics. If they choose not to take higher level writing courses, no ***** they will not be able to do the work on that level. You make the assumption that engineers are unable to do humanities work similar to humanities major. Most engineering students excel profusely and humanities classes are amongst their best grades. What exactly does this have to do exactly with the notion that math & sciences should be pushed? Doctoral and Graduate levels are not the equivalent of preparing students in math and science pre-college. The engineering students who do drop out and go into the arts typically excel profusely, I have witnessed this over and over again. I am sorry but UriA702 hit the nail on the head when he mentioned Engineers on average hold higher intelligence, that’s just fact. This is the reason when taking an IQ test those who hold 130+ are often related to Physicists, Engineers, and Medical Doctors, not authors and actors.</p>
LOL. (This a joke. I know mallomar is not high.)</p>
to live like I was in one of those Merchant Ivory “Grand Tour” movies. The cruel world always slaps me awake with the realization that I would have been the fat bell-hop, not the fancy young gent in all whites playing badminton near Lake Como with my eye on the governess.</p>