(Over)Emphasis on STEM Education is dangerous

I am lucky to live in an era where women are allowed–even encouraged–to go into STEM-related careers. For as long as we’ve existed, we’ve been fighting to be taken seriously in academia and the workforce, and this has changed dramatically in the past decade. There are still many setbacks that women have to face in this regard, some more than others, but we have seen monumental progress. Perhaps we are beginning to value gender equality, or perhaps STEM innovations are so needed that we are literally begging people to help out. Either way, the future is STEM, take it or leave it. 

But some people, like myself, are not interested in STEM. We are bored by its impersonal nature. It’s not that we don’t see value in it, or that we don’t respect the people that do, we’re just more engaged by other disciplines. Yet, a liberal arts education is slowly becoming a privilege, and we don’t see a future for ourselves in our passions. Perhaps there’s a good reason for this–maybe we need to focus on STEM for the greater good of society, and everything else is a waste of time and resources. While this seems to be a popular school of thought these days, I am firm in my belief that the over-emphasis on STEM education is dangerous for society. 

What does this reveal about the world today?

The over-emphasis on STEM education can, I believe, easily be attributed to capitalism and what it demands of us as a society. The workforce is in dire need of practical skills, which aren’t really found in a liberal arts degree. Society needs and values technological innovation, which will come sooner from an engineer than a political scientist. This isn’t to say that a liberal arts education is invaluable–it’s just to say that the skills gained from one are mostly theoretical. These skills, unlike the former, are not easily profitable. 

It’s also important to recognize how a liberal arts education has become a privilege. While STEM degrees tend to be more expensive in tuition, they’re an overall better investment; they are quite employable, whereas liberal arts degrees risk being “useless” without graduate school. Even with graduate school, it can be a lot harder to find a job simply because the skills obtained from a liberal arts degree are not in demand–plus, these jobs tend to pay a lot less anyway.

Is AI making students lazier?

How could I write an article about STEM education without bringing up AI? One pattern I have noticed amidst all of this is that the skills we value in the workforce are becoming increasingly robotic; the “human” skills, which cannot be replicated by artificial intelligence as easily, are not given much importance. I have often debated whether this is the kind of work environment I want any involvement in. I know it’s inevitable–but it’s so thoroughly depressing. I do not want to take part in innovations like artificial intelligence when I know that the second they become useful, they could destroy us–but I know that contributing to the development of AI might become my only choice.

The danger in our logic

Ultimately, we have to consider the major things we lose when we put less emphasis on liberal arts. How are students going to learn communication skills? How will they learn about the history and culture that have shaped our world today? In a world where individualism is on the rise, I would argue that a lack of these “theoretical” skills threatens a societal collapse. STEM alone cannot, and will not save us–and I fear we are raising the next generations to be entirely incompetent outside of it.