History of S.T.E.M. in Education and The Conflict Between STEM and the Liberal Arts

My neighborhood in the Salt Lake Valley is finally receiving its first winter snows. Usually there is several feet of snow on the ground by the end of November. Anyway, since it is snowing I ran outside in my bare feet and snapped a few photos of snow on branches. I took the pictures in bare feet because I believe that artists must suffer for their work.

I've been considering writing some posts for STEM Geeks. STEM is an acronym for Science Technology Engineering and Math. All three disciplines require a certain amount of academic rigor. Since I do not have the resources to engage in rigorous research at the moment, I worry that my posts are not up to snuff.

The fact that I flunked out of college also deeply affected me.

I was flunked out of college for political reasons.

As you see. I was interested in becoming a math teacher. I had completed most of the classes needed to get a masters degree in math but I had to get a bachelor's degree before I could get a masters degree. To get a teaching certificate I would need an education degree.

I was concerned with teaching math. My thoughts on the best way to teach math was at odds with the political thoughts of the professoriat in the education department. The professoriat taught that education was a praxis in the social revolution and that teachers should use the school as a platform for advancing social justice.

As a math student, I held the reactionary view that teachers should concentrate on helping students develop their ability to think and should not be teaching students what to think.

I might write posts that go into detail into what happened. I might finally explain why I chose the name @yintercept.

Anyway, in my last quarter at school, I took three education classes. The professors gave me "F"s in all three courses. I was told that I would receive a failing grade in any class in education or sociology or any classes at the state's network of community colleges.

Flunking out of the Education Department destroyed my ability to get a masters degree. I was simply stuck with a huge amount of student debt and no way to pay it off.

I was not the only student who received that treatment. I met several other people in the same boat. One was a professional engineer who simply wanted to spend the twilight of his career teaching the joys of engineering to high school students.

The teaching school was blatantly flunking students for political reasons. Several students became political. I had no money and was simply stuck in a sub-minimum wage job.

So, I know for a fact that politicians were deeply desturbed with the radicalization of schools back in the 1980s and 1990s.

The Rise of S.T.E.M. Education

The Wikipedia article for STEM education for STEM traces the acronym to a promotional campaign by the Center for the Advancement of Hispanics in Science and Engineering Education (CAHSEE) in 1999.

STEM education became extremely popular among teachers who wanted to focus on teaching. STEM education also became a focal point of right wing politicians who were opposed to the left-wing hegemony in schools.

Since I was one of victims of the culture war battles surrounding STEM, I associate the acronym with the political conflicts at the foundation of the movement.

The political side of STEM education brings up an interesting paradox: Is it possible to create a political movement that stands against the abuses of politics. Any attempt to stand against the abuses of politicians will be sucked into the political void.

I think that teachers should focus on the subject at hand and should stay out of politics. The paradox is that an apolitical stance is still a political stance. Teachers who strive to keep politics out of the classroom can still be scrunched by the political machine.

Conservatives and S.T.E.M.

Conservatives see the world in the terms of culture war.

Conservatives promote an "un v. them" mentality based on the narrative that "liberals are the problem and conservatives are the solution."

My experience is that arguments for education reform are often captured by Conservative politicians who, like the progressives that control the education system, seek to use the school system in their quest for power.

I have encountered Conservatives who claim that the "liberal arts" are the problem and that the goal of education reform should be to drive the liberal arts from school and to replace it with a myopic focus on STEM.

The core idea of this political approach to education sees a fundamental conflict between the Liberal Arts and S.T.E.M..

I find this naive notion to be as destructive as the progressive view that education system should be used as a tool for imposing their vision of social justice.

I've met Conservative Reformers who claim that Liberal Arts is the problem and that S.T.E.M. education is the solution. I spent about a decade studying the foundations of mathematics and take this type of claim seriously.

Is There a Conflict Between the Liberal Arts and S.T.E.M.?

Liberal Arts refers to an approach to education suggested by the Roman Senator Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC). Cicero had traveled to Athens to learn philosophy at Plato's Academy. Cicero was clearly an admirer of Aristotle.

Cicero advanced a conciliatory approach to education. In the conciliatory view, one sees culture building up over time. In this view one would see Aristotle building on Plato who built on Socrates.

One can contrast the conciliatory view with the oppositional view which emphasizes the conflict between schools of thought. A person who likes Plato must be in opposition to a person who likes Aristotle.

Conservatives and Progressives both favor the oppositional approach to education.

The core of liberal arts education is "The Trivium." The three legs of the trivium are: Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. Grammar refers to the structure of language. Logic refers to the structure of ideas and Rhetoric refers to the art of communication.

Cicero became a member of the Roman Senate and was a leading advocate of the Roman Republic. He became and adversary of Julius Caesar who advocated the creation of an empire.

On the Ides of March in 44 BC, several Roman Senators engaged in a conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar. The assassination of Caesar led to the collapse of the Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.

The liberal arts approach to education faded from common use.

It was revived by scholars in the medieval world by scholars such as Thomas Aquinas. The revival of the liberal arts played a central role in the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

The US Founders had received a Liberal Arts education. The Founders were deeply influenced by the liberal arts tradition and sought to improve society by establishing a Constitutional Republic and a small collection of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I openly admit. I like the US Founders and the liberal arts tradition.

But, I digress, the centerpiece of the liberal arts is logic. In a liberal arts education students learn the structure of language so that they are able to communicate. They then learn the structure of ideas so that they can think. Finally they learn the art of rhetoric; so that they can learn to communicate effectively.

Logic is the centerpiece of the liberal arts. The claim that STEM is in conflict with the Liberal Arts implies that STEM is somehow in conflict with logic.

Is STEM in Conflict With Logic?

I've engaged Conservatives in conversations about this topic. I have lost every single argument, but I beg the reader to ask the question: Is STEM in Conflict With Logic?

I studied the history of Mathematics and Science. The history of mathematics and science shows clearly that advanced mathematics and science rose from the study of logic.

Mathematics, of course, is almost pure logic. Science is the application of logic to the study of nature. Engineering and Technology apply science and math to the questions people have when living their daily lives.

If STEM rises from logic, then how can it be in conflict with logic?

The view that STEM is in conflict with the liberal arts and logic seems completely ludicrous to me.

STEM in the Internet Age

The acronym STEM first appeared in 1999. Its history coincided with the rise of the Internet.

At the dawn of the Internet I held to the view that if one simply concentrated on the technology, that the Internet would naturally evolve into a force that help liberate the masses.

To an extent this has happened.

While the Internet is an inherently good thing, the world saw the rise of Big Tech. Big Tech refers to a collection of multinational organizations which have come to dominate the Internet.

The rise of Big Tech raises the question if technology in and of itself provides solutions.

In my view, technology itself is morally benign.

What really matters is the way that people use technology. Why I like Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, I find the S.T.E.M. approach to education reform to be lacking because S.T.E.M. education lacks the moral foundation to determine the best use of technology.

For example, a group of scientists research bat-viruses might use science to create a strain of virus which is highly contageous among humans.

This is all well and wonderful. Science does not answer the question of whether or not the scientists should release the virus into the human population.

Conclusion

Writing this post made me depressed. Progressive and Conservatives have been ripping our society apart with their stupid culture war.

The decision by some educators to concentrate on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math is a relatively positive movement. After all teachers should concentrate on teaching students how to think and avoid the temptation of trying to teach students what to think.

While I support efforts to promote STEM in schools, I find the political debate swirling around STEM to be disturbing. STEM is not in itself sufficient to prepare students to live in the modern world.

I admit I had wondered. If I was not flunked out of school; would I have become an advocate of STEM? Despite the fact that I wanted to teach mathematics. I think I would have adhered to the liberal arts tradition of Cicero, Aquinas and the US Founders as I find this to be a more holistic approach to education.

Posted with STEMGeeks