I’ve written a few comments on CC about why I think a LAC is the best undergraduate education for a budding scientist. This article spells it out nicely.
Grrrrrrr. One pet peeve of mine are people who write about the “Liberal Arts” who are fuzzy about the definition of the liberal arts.
Chemistry is a liberal art. So are math, biochemistry, physics, biology … even computer science (in my opinion).
Classically, there were seven “liberal arts”. They were Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric (the three of which made up the Trivium) and Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy (the four of which made up the Quadrivium). Undergraduates first studied the simpler Trivium, from which our word “trivial” is in part derived.
Math and science are foundational components of a liberal arts education, and studying them lies just as much within the liberal arts tradition as studying literature.
For some reason, many people like to use “liberal arts” as a synonym for the humanities or the creative / fine arts (they also like to use it as a synonym for “useless”, which is a whole other diatribe). A professor should know better.
@dadof1 great article! I have 2 budding scientists who attend the University of Richmond. Both have a lot of lab research with fantastic mentors under their belts, great relationships with professors, internships, study abroad, great humanities classes, too. We thought they would do well there, but their experiences have far exceeded our expectations.
Thanks for sharing the article. I am noticing that most (maybe not all) colleges require STEM majors to taking a variety of courses, including writing, communication and some humanities - I just came back from college tours at Rice, UT Austin & GA Tech and have also visited USC, UCLA and Stanford - students doing STEM majors have to take courses that not only expose them to the liberal arts but also help them become more well rounded and to develop their “soft” skills as well. One thing that I would like to see more of is allowing students to have a bit more flexibility in what they pursue that is outside their core STEM areas - so I applaud schools that encourage interdisciplinary studies and a foray into a self-selected subject or topic that is of interest to the individual student - this too can spark a broader understanding and appreciation of society and provide much needed personal satisfaction of curiosity as well.
How many STEM majors take only STEM courses in college?
Engineering probably comes the closest to only STEM courses. Most schools require about 6 Humanities, Arts and Social Science courses plus a couple of writing courses. At least one of the writing courses is STEM related (eg technical writing) and the a couple of the HAS courses can be STEM related (eg Ethics in Engineering, History of Western Medicine - for Bio Engineers/Premeds).
Students at the “open curriculum” schools (e.g. Brown, Amherst, Evergreen State) are most able to avoid specific subject areas (e.g. science majors avoiding humanities and social studies, humanities majors avoiding science and social studies, etc.).
However, ABET accreditation criteria do require some humanities and social studies, so even Brown requires its engineering majors to take some (although a smaller number than most other schools).
I agree with that. But how many companies looking for engineers will hire kids with LAC degrees (in their engineering departments)? Seems to me the article cited in the OP discusses a false choice. STEM kids don’t take only STEM courses. They take humanities/LAC classes as well. Question then becomes how many non-STEM classes are optimal. Seems to me that will vary by kid and by ultimate career goals. But I suspect that as the number of non-STEM classes increases, the likelihood of graduate school will increase. No doubt LAC professors (and college presidents) would be in favor.
Fiorina is noted in the article. But she ultimately got her MBA and a MS from MIT. Adds even more costs to an already expensive post-secondary education.
If the graduate has an engineering degree from a LAC which offers engineering, why not?
However, one does not have to study at a LAC to take a large number of liberal arts (including humanities and social studies) courses. Engineering majors take at least 25% in math and science, and usually another 20-25% in humanities and social studies (depending on school requirements), so about 45-50% of the curriculum is in the liberal arts, whether or not the school is a LAC.
But that’s my point. The OP article notes that if STEM grads are to lead the world in innovation, their science education cannot be divorced from the liberal arts. As you note, that doesn’t happen even for engineers (which of the STEM majors often can/do take fewer liberal arts classes) whether they are at LAC offering engineering degrees or large state research institutions with strong engineering colleges. So the OP article is saying to avoid doing something that STEM majors don’t do anyway.
The sciences ARE “liberal arts.”
The phrase you are looking for is “humanities and/or social sciences.”
Carry on.
Tell that to the author of the OP article.
The best college for specific student is the one that matches student personality and wide range of current and potential interests in the best way. It could be LAC, small private, huge in-state public, urban location, in a middle of nowhere, Ivy, elite, unknown local low ranked college, whatever fits the person, will work to his / her advantage. This is a simple truth that is ignored by most and replaced by pursuit of places that are recognized by others as being the best for them. But what if these places that worked so wonderfully for others, will not work for you? I believe that this is the most important question that every applicant should keep in mind and not being LAC or Ivy or private or public or whatever else.
The assumption always seems to be that STEM majors can’t write, think or do anything beyond their field. While that is true for some, many are learning beyond their field. Why isn’t the same said about an accounting major or a marketing major? Do they really take more in-depth philosophical courses than your average bio or chem major? Engineering and some other credit-intensive majors are different as the number of courses and credits required precludes students from a double major. But many science or math majors also take a minor in a non-STEM field.
Why don’t we ever say that artists or writers need to learn the beauty of math or physics or the basics of environmental science? Certainly, some learning in those fields is needed to really understand the world around us and the challenges we face going forward.
I generally don’t engage in the LAC/STEM/etc debate, but this one gets my goat (I’m the E in STEM).
Folks go to college to study a lot of different things, kind of like the Android marketing slogan, “Together, not the same”. What if the headline had been “We don’t need more LA majors. We need more LA majors with STEM training”? That’s just as stupid.
I think we do need more humanities and social science majors who under stand math (especially statistics!) and science. Poor education may be one reason we have so many citizens who doubt global warming and evolution.
Taking classes in humanities and social sciences is one thing. Being able to apply those skills in a cross disciplinary fashion is not as obvious. The writing skills that I honed in my undergrad philosophy and history courses helped me in writing my Ph.D. thesis, many years later. But I enjoyed those humanities courses. If I had to just take them to check off boxes, I don’t think they would have had the same meaningful impact.
In mid-career , as a STEM professor (math), my writing skills have moved me in a different direction rather than my technical skills.They have allowed me to retool - whereas in the technical arena, if you are not constantly innovating within the field, you quickly become an academic dinosaur. In industry, science/ engineering grads with a knack for writing usually are able to move into management or marketing in mid-career. But again, I think, at some point they have learned to incorporate the writing and communication as part of their general tool chest.
I’m with mathmom.
Do you really think the anti-vaccer’s would put their kids lives at risk if they could actually look at a table charting the spread of measles (and the footnotes with the mortality rates) and understand what it means? I have neighbors who buy extended warranties on TV’s and laptops who don’t carry life insurance- do they understand the cost/benefit analysis of insuring for trivial risk vs. catastrophic risk? Or the people who claim the risk of getting pregnant by having unprotected intercourse is “almost zero”.
EVERYONE needs basic skills in interpreting data, reading charts and graphs, understanding percentages, knowing what a standard deviation is. Nobody would be buying bogus diet supplements on TV if they actually understood the boilerplate lingo that accompanies every commercial. Nobody would confuse their marginal tax rate with their overall tax rate. What a wonderful country we would have if people understood a statistic- widely reported but not understood, that our net population outflow to Mexico last year was greater than the inflow.
One thing that should be mandated all through grade and high school and into college is basic economics. Understanding of basic economics totally sucks in the US. People would be much better off throughout their lives with a good understanding of basic economics. Would have the side benefit of preventing politicians from spewing garbage about the economy. Though no politician will get behind that effort.
[QUOTE=""]
Do you really think the anti-vaccer's would put their kids lives at risk if they could actually look at a table charting the spread of measles (and the footnotes with the mortality rates) and understand what it means?
[/QUOTE]
I am sorry, blossom - you are just too kind to give people the benefit of the doubt (that they do not understand statistics). In my opinion, these people understand the statistics all too well. I understand that if I vaccinate my kid for measles, there is a very small chance that something bad will happen. However, if all my neighbors, who are bunch of sheep to the big pharma, vaccinate their kids, the chance of my kid getting measles from this population is nil. Why not have other people’s kids take all the chance. They feel good about vaccinating their kids and my kid just freeloads - win/win for everyone!