I had genuinely thought that STEM elitism was a thing of the past, but then I read an opinion column published on Sept. 12 in the Technician titled “Standing up for STEM.” While reading it, I was instantly reminded of the smugness and bravado that cause people to generalize STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) majors as judgmental and arrogant. Luckily enough, most STEM majors are not as loud or wrong as the writer of this article. The fact that the entire argument is based on advertisements that Wells Fargo apologized for got the writer off to a bad start. Then, to make matters worse, the actual points made in defense of STEM were even worse.
So let’s start on why the commercial was so blatantly wrong. The ads, “A ballerina yesterday. An engineer today,” and “An actor yesterday. A botanist today,” are about telling kids what career paths are more socially acceptable. I do, however, find it funny that they display an ad saying young actors would better serve as botanists, considering the fact that the ads themselves featured people who are probably actors. Someone also has to direct their commercials, and I’m guessing that person is not a botanist or an engineer.
The next thing brought up was how these were “good career moves” because of the lack of competitiveness and higher starting salaries. Well, according to the same study the author quoted by Georgetown University in 2012, the author is incredibly wrong. That study says that many recent college graduates with a STEM bachelor’s degree are headed toward higher likelihoods of unemployment. For example, recent graduates with a bachelor’s degree in the areas of computers or mathematics have unemployment rates at 8.2 percent. Physical and life science majors’ unemployment rates are at 7.7 percent and the unemployment rate of engineering majors is at 7.5 percent. These unemployment rates are all higher than those of their counterparts. Graduates who majored in education had an unemployment rate of 5.4 percent, those in psychology and social work had a rate of 7.3 percent, communication and journalism had a rate of 7.3 percent and those in business had a rate of 7.4 percent.
At least engineering, as well as computer and mathematics majors, are paid handsomely which could possibly make the high unemployment rates worth the risk. Physical and life science majors, however, have the rawest of deals. They have an average starting salary of $32,000 per year. That is lower than the average starting salaries of people with degrees in communication and journalism ($33,000), education ($33,000), law and policy ($34,000), social science ($37,000) and business ($39,000).
But please keep telling the actors and actresses to become botanists so they can make as much, if not less, than the people who actually stuck to their passions. Let’s ignore the fact that, if we’re going off of employment percentages and salary, at least the ad about being a botanist would’ve been more accurate if it said “actor yesterday, teacher today” or “actor yesterday, journalist today.” Mind you, that’s disregarding the obvious ignorance of telling someone to drop their dream because it is not likely to work out. The idea, then, to keep pushing kids to STEM because they will be a failure if they’re not a STEM major is outlandish.
As a communication major, I am biased toward CHASS and that decision was a great one for me. It won’t be a preferable path for everyone but it will allow me to follow my passion. I would not force CHASS down anyone else’s throats based on societal falsehoods. If I was selling how great CHASS is to someone, I would not have to paint a nightmarish scene that is statistically proven to be false in order to get that person to bite.
By the way, after looking at the Pew Research statistic the author quoted about millennials living at home, I realized that it did not feature any delineation between majors. So STEM majors who live at home also constitute the group the author described. I believe the author’s statement was very misleading and incorrect. It is sad that the statistic was pulled out and used without any context or relevance to the point the author was trying to make.
Lastly, the author implies that we should stop telling our kids reach for the stars. But before we do, I just have a few questions. Why would you want people to stop telling their kids you can be whatever you want to be if you work hard enough? Would the benefits of the cynical denial of a child’s dream outweigh the negative effects of discouraging children? In a world that already sends messages to most people saying you aren’t good enough, why not send them another one saying be practical — you can’t be anything other than what is practical? What damage could that possibly do to a young child, adolescent or teenager?
