[NickC25]

>Not everything that we learn has to be learned in college.

This honestly is the crux of the issue with higher education. In fact, most things we learn outside of STEM in academia can be learned elsewhere - literature, languages, arts, etc.

I'm 100% for the humanities, and majored in them myself. But they shouldn't cost a fortune to study, nor should they really be in a narrow results-focused academic environment. Now, are they worth learning? Of course they are, and I think they make us better human beings. But spending dumb money to learn something niche that can be learned and practiced on one's own time is probably not a great use of time nor money.

I studied multiple languages, and while they are incredibly useful and absolutely worth learning, academia is not the place to do it. While I did do the Middlebury intensive program (which is hard, and the results were great), I improved the most when I actually went and lived in a country that spoke the language I wanted to improve at. Some of the best speakers of a foreign language that I know got so good by having a girlfriend who was native to the language that they wanted to learn. No formal education needed.

If I wanted to learn puppetry, I'd use YouTube to learn the basics, and then perhaps even document my progress through making videos of my own. I'd probably make a few bucks on it too. People do the same thing for learning animation, acting, music production, video production, etc.. why can't puppetry be the same?

[SketchySeaBeast]

> In fact, most things we learn outside of STEM in academia can be learned elsewhere - literature, languages, arts, etc.

Why specify STEM as being an exception to that rule? Are people unable to learn programming or math outside of academia? It's a shame the arts aren't seen as valid jobs and so are unworthy of investment.

[derbOac]

This is critically important, because in my experience it can work both ways.

Sure, you can learn writing and exposition on the side, but you'll learn it faster to a greater precision in good courses. You can also learn math and computer science, or whatever "on the side" through research projects and work. It might take longer but it can happen.

It always strikes me as strange to see all these postings to open STEM coursework, but then this idea that someone who is really bright who just didn't happen to major in a STEM program can't pick up a lot of STEM experience through non-coursework experiences.

I know of someone who had history undergrad and grad degrees, for example, but who became heavily involved in computer science and imaging research because of some project involving imaging some artifacts or fragile records (I don't remember what, although it was in north/east africa). It launched a new line of work that was pretty much all computer science and image processing. I suspect by the end of it, which was years, they were probably comparable to someone with a comp sci bachelor's degree in their knowledge. I certainly got the sense they were more competent in computer science by the end of it than some of of the CS bachelor-level graduates I've worked with.

Stuff like this happens all the time. I'm not saying that there's no value in a STEM degree, but there's this weird fixation on certifications in general that's grossly inaccurate. My sense is it happens to make HR departments' jobs easier, nothing more.

We live in this world where it's assumed competency is equal to test scores on a general achievement test, and skillset is equal to degree or certificate. It leads to these gross distortions and over and underemployments — not only in the sense of who is being hired as an employee, but who is being recruited to accomplish tasks and solve problems in professional capacities in general.

[nonameiguess]

Depends on the STEM. A whole lot of experimental science depends upon lab equipment that is either too expensive, too dangerous, or both to try and self-learn. Or it might be totally inaccessible no matter what. If you want to be an astronomer, you're gonna need time on one of the 4 meter scopes that is on top of a mountain that they don't just give public access to. Even if you had the billion dollars to build one in your backyard, the light pollution would make it useless. Wanna do medical research, you can't legally except under the supervision of somebody who already knows what they're doing and has access to a clinical population.

Programming and math are probably the two you can reliably self-teach, but probably the only two, and "programming" in at least some contexts might also benefit from extremely high performance or large capacity equipment you're not gonna find in a typical homelab or be able to afford renting from a public cloud.

[TimPC]

I think STEM is suited to academia in multiple ways: first, the chances of success at learning it seem to be higher in a structured, rigorous program compared to independently. One of the problems with online universities is that they don't apply enough deadline pressure so in many cases only 20% of students who sign up for a course even finish it. If you want to put four years into something and reliably get somewhere then an academic program still seems like your best for that. The other piece of the puzzle is that a STEM degree is a useful credential that can help substantially in the job market compared to being self-taught. Furthermore, most STEM fields have job markets where salaries that can realistically make getting a degree a worthwhile investment are obtainable. I think it's this combination of good way to learn, valuable credential and decent cost/benefit that make STEM degrees make more sense.

[SketchySeaBeast]

> first, the chances of success at learning it seem to be higher in a structured, rigorous program compared to independently

That seems an argument for all education to take place inside academia. Keep in mind that liking to read history books is not equivalent to a university degree in history.

> Furthermore, most STEM fields have job markets where salaries that can realistically make getting a degree a worthwhile investment are obtainable.

Yeah, that's ultimately it, it's seen as more valuable because you can make good money in tech. Though I'd argue that much of that may not be the case - are those with science and math education making money hand over fist?

[TimPC]

Math education is the second highest paid undergrad in arts and science and was number one ahead of CS for a long-time. Many people with math degrees end up in high paying technology or statistics jobs. Math is both an incredibly marketable skill and the program often indirectly selects for high IQ which is correlated with success to a certain degree. You generally aren't going to do abstract algebra or topology for a career unless you are a math professor but being good at abstract algebra or topology generally requires a lot of skills that are useful in the labour market.

As for the main point, I think the best form of education for something does depend on what the outcomes are. If you're getting a degree that doesn't qualify you pay back the costs of that education maybe alternative methods have better outcomes (we'd accept a decrease in educational attainment for cost). If being a small amount better at something is lucrative we should optimize for performance more than cost.

[chaostheory]

A lot of STEM requires expensive equipment that most individuals cannot afford with either money, space, and time to operate safely; though they are exceptions.

Also when a history major forgets a fact or two in their realm, it’s not as catastrophic as an aerospace or civil engineer forgetting a key fact in their domain. The gains from STEM are also more concrete and immediate compared to the liberal arts.

[variadix]

Some parts of STEM are very accessible outside of an institution (math, CS, theory) but for many fields of engineering and hard sciences you need expensive equipment and materials that may also be hazardous to work with if you’re untrained. Even for fields that are mostly done on computers, there’s still the issue of the software used being too expensive for a typical individual to purchase.