Interesting article. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/business/a-rising-call-to-promote-stem-education-and-cut-liberal-arts-funding.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
This is really an issue around performance based funding. State legislatures like it, since it’s view as a way to drive performance. Even President Obama has looked into linking the “federal scorecard” to funding.
Once you start looking at what factors should be used to make up your performance based funding formula, items like graduate employment, starting salaries and degree completion rates start to pop up.
Once you start looking at initial employment rates and starting salaries, it’s clear that STEM majors (in general) out perform the liberal arts.It’s tempting for the legislatures to add % STEM metrics to the performance based model.
Ultimately, if you want to make performance based funding, less LA vs STEM, you have to propose a better funding model.
Once again, people write as if STEM majors are all similar on job prospects (not true), and all are better in this respect than all H/SS majors (not true), as well as using “liberal arts” to refer exclusively to H/SS majors (“liberal arts” includes science and math).
The most popular STEM majors are in the biological sciences, which generally do not lead to high pay job prospects on average.
Stupid proposal that they’ve been talking about for years.
Answer: no. On to the next dumb idea.
No. Bad idea as proposed. And I am a STEM proponent. However, I do think an honest assessment of programs at state (not private) colleges is not a bad idea. The output of a state school should generally benefit the state economy, and one could make the argument that something such as “ancient underwater egyptian basket weaving” would not have the same impact on a state economy as literature, history, philosophy (no matter what a presidential candidate may say), chemistry, or whatever.
generally speaking, schools that offer both programs and roughly charge the same tuition to all students are already subsidizing STEM students at the expense of humanities students.
How Much Does It Cost Institutions to Produce STEM Degrees?
http://www.deltacostproject.org/sites/default/files/products/Cost%20to%20Institutions%20of%20STEM%20Degrees.pdf
“courses and degrees in the in-demand science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines are often the most expensive for colleges and universities to produce.”
See graph on page 2 of the linked article.
@romanigypsyeyes , I think the larger question is whether government should pick winners and losers. A more effective proposal might be to force colleges taking subsidies to publish employment rates/salaries by major. Then the kids could make a more informed decision and most would gravitate toward more employable fields. Finally, student loan interest rates could be tied to default rates by major. If an engineer is more ‘creditworthy’ than a French major, that student would have a lower cost of education - still without the government picking winners and losers.
I despise proposals like that- publishing careers and salaries. There are too many variables to make that useful.
There are people who don’t work to be STAPs, people who go on to grad school, etc, etc.
And who decides what’s “more employable”? Yes, let’s subsidize people and flood the engineering fields. Absolutely nothing can POSSIBLY go wrong with that idea /sarcasm
Let’s “defund” critical thinking and ability to communicate in writing. Genius!
It looks like the costs are more correlated with whether the course work in the major requires lab, equipment, or facilities beyond a classroom for lecture and discussion (note architecture and arts near the top, and math and statistics near the bottom). Engineering is likely even more because schools have to compete with industry when hiring faculty.
How would that be handled if a student takes loans in frosh year, but then changes majors by junior year to one with either a higher or lower default rate for graduates?
Also we need to consider the time lag between what a “well-paying” job looks like now and 4 years into the future as well as the fact that some STEM jobs like engineering start off higher paying but a liberal arts major may end up making more 10 or 15 years down the road than the engineer. And if you include salary info that far down the line in calculations, there is an even bigger data time lag, so it can never accurately measure anything other than the starting salaries at the time the data is collected, just a snapshot in time.
It is scary to think college is looked at as merely job training instead of getting an education. Government should not be deciding majors based on funding.
As a STEM grad my feeling is that liberal arts majors need to learn more science along with their fields of interest. I certainly gained from having many nonscience courses to indulge in. To be thorough those bean counters need to look at the backgrounds of high ranking people who majored in non STEM fields. Such as those in political jobs at high levels and the justice system. Supreme Court nominees undergrad majors?
Here are the undergraduate majors of the current members of the Supreme Court:
Roberts: history
Alito: public and international affairs
Breyer: philosophy
Ginsburg: government
Kagan: history
Kennedy: political science
Sotomayor: history
Thomas: English literature
The late Justice Scalia was also a history major.
Just sayin’.
It is interesting you say that because the advertising campaigns for most non-selective schools tout the ability to find a better job as a key reason to attend college.
Frankly, if the state government is paying for it, the government should have some right to decide what subjects are taught. The sad fact is that too many people are pushed into college that shouldn’t be there, and end up with jobs that do not require a college degree after wasting money and years of their time on a credential that is worthless. That doesn’t even consider the students that cannot even complete a two or four years degree at a non-selective college and waste years of their time and tuition finding that out. If state governments can save money by cutting these wasteful programs, they should.
re: #12
so what you are saying is that the next supreme court justice should be STEM major? They don’t seem to be represented. 
I agree with wis. I have a few borderline STEM degrees and a few solidly in the humanities. I happen to specialize in Science, Technology and Society studies and the productive work that gets done in those STEM/Humanities mixed spaces is invaluable.
I was ranting yesterday to Mr R about my college educated humanities friends who share anti-vax and articles about “neurotoxins” without having the ability to read the actual papers “cited” (distorted) and understand why it’s BS.
On the other hand, STEM people need to take humanities classes and be able to think critically about the societal impact of their work. (I work specifically in the history of eugenics so I’m biased about STEM solidly needing a humanities and ethics backbone)
@Zinhead , first, two thirds of Americans age 25-29 don’t have a bachelor’s degree. That doesn’t square with your argument that too many people are “pushed” into college. (Frankly, more should be, given the clear correlation between level of education and earnings.) Second, a huge percentage of those who do have a bachelor’s did it at relatively affordable state schools/community colleges. Third, did you ever hear the adage, if you think education is expensive, compare the cost of ignorance. Fourth, ever hear of the humanities grad who went on to study business, law or medicine? I have! And guess what… their LA degree didn’t seem to hamper them… but being forced to study something they didn’t like may very well have.
I love how people yell that government should be smaller – and then demand greater government investment and oversight. Sheesh.
According to the US census, 74% of STEM degree holders do not end up working in STEM fields. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/most-with-college-stem-degrees-go-to-other-fields-of-work/2014/07/10/9aede466-084d-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html
So, to this humanities major, it looks to me as if the numbers are not in favor of pushing people into STEM majors.
As a matter of fact, given that the STEM degrees cost more, how about levying a charge on STEM degree holders who do not end up working in STEM fields? Say, the difference in cost between a French major and a STEM major.
It would make sense to limit the numbers of STEM majors to those most likely to end up in STEM fields, if you really want to be pragmatic about public investments in education and the workforce.
Re #17
Looks like “STEM” for that article includes psychology and social science. See the link to the census graphic.
Note that engineering and CS majors are most likely to be working in their fields. Note also that health care work is not “STEM” in this graphic. So biology majors who go to medical or dental school and work as physicians or dentists are classed as non “STEM” workers.
Well, that wasn’t my point, but maybe you’re onto something. We haven’t had a STEM major on the Supreme Court in quite some time. Harry Blackmun, who served from 1970 to 1994, was a math major. Not sure about any others.
Then again, not that many STEM majors have served as President of the United States, either. Two come to mind: Herbert Hoover was an undergraduate geology major who later worked as a mining engineer. And Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer. There may have been others, but not many, I’m sure.