| > Math and physics are solidly on the STEM side when people argue the merits of STEM vs liberal arts. That's my point. I disagree with the assertion that STEM is separate from liberal arts education. Historically it hasn't been true. And it's not true today. > So instead of arguing semantics, understand what people mean. Not arguing semantics. I understand what people mean and I am disagreeing with them and I provided sources and historical proof. > When they say "Don't study STEM, study liberal arts" Who says don't study STEM, study liberal arts? > but instead "Don't study anything which requires more math than Algebra 1". You've built up an exaggeration of the side you are arguing against. That's not an honest portrayal of the issue at hand. You can study both science/engineering/etc and history/philosphy/politics/etc. It's called getting a well rounded liberal arts education. The backbone of science, technology, engineering and math along with philosophy, history, politics, etc. My suggestion was increase the amount of "STEM" within the liberal arts education system we already have - particularly the technology and engineering. It's not an either-or issue that people like to portray it as. |
The article we are commenting on.