[eesmith]

That observation doesn't seem right. There are a lot of people in STEM. Most do not come from upper class parents. Many of the children of upper class parents go into non-STEM fields, including law. (Some go into music, which is not STEM.)

My decidedly working class parents insisted we learn to play piano. Most of my relatives had a piano in the house. I think it was a holdover of the days when home entertainment was self-made.

A friend lived in both the Los Angeles and New Orleans areas. He compared the two as: in LA, the parties of rich people have live music. In New Orleans, the parties of poor people have live music.

And Damgård, mentioned earlier, was born in 1957 Denmark, and plays Danish and Nordic folk music. Postwar Denmark was poor. Perhaps this interview (in Danish) explains why he started? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUF_EkN4Z-g

So, 1) is there a significantly high proportion of people in STEM who are into music than non-STEM? (and not simply some sort of observational bias), and 2) is the major contributing factor to the high proportion because the parents of those people were upper class? (and not some other factor like STEM fields paying enough so people have free time for hobbies.)

[zikzak]

I would add lots of kids in lower income homes are exposed to music being played by family members, peers, school programs, or church groups (examples). It's true that these kids might not be playing Mozart but there is nothing wrong with bluegrass, gospel, or whatever, to instill a love of playing music.

Maybe listen to "Juke Box Hero" or "Coat Of Many Colors" for inspiration on how people from modest backgrounds can have the same fulfilling experiences as wealthy people. (sorry - personal soapbox)

[dublin]

Actually, Music is STEM, in the true and classical sense - it's only our perverted modern view that has severed music from its moorings in mathematics.

It was even part of the quadrivium of medieval education: Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, and MUSIC! A classical education not only taught these subjects, but how they were all inextricably interrelated (or intertwingled, as Ted Nelson famously says...)

[eesmith]

STEM is not a classical term. Don't go thinking that because we don't follow ancient Greek philosophy or medieval education philosophy that are somehow perverted.

FWIW, I strongly dislike "STEM" as a term because it makes no sense to me in an educational or philosophical sense. I see it more as an attempt to lower the cost of hiring engineers and scientists by increasing the supply. For example, compare the funding going into getting more programmers and EEs, vs. marine biologists and paleontologists, even though all of them are STEM.

To clarify "no sense to me", I despise Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" because of its insistence on a clean division between romantic and classical views. I view "STEM"'s treatment of the rest of the liberal arts as being similarly incorrect in its dichotomous classification. Eg, mathematics is important for the humanities too.

But it's clear what _def is talking about by "STEM", and there's no need to suggest we or modern culture are following along with a perversion because the conversation isn't aligned with your personal views.