Is STEM major taking over the world? Conard states that we need more STEM majors because our economy depends in it. Do we really need more STEM majors when some get their doctorate and can’t get a job for their position, how do we need more STEM majors when there not all getting hired for those jobs? STEM major has been the focus of the new generation in the United States and that has led for the new generation to focus on that goal, which is bad because we that can cause a lot of problems. With commercials and banners saying to get into STEM. But I disagree because our economy also needs humanitarians, people who do more than just STEM-related majors. More STEM major will also hurt our economy due to the increase in wealth. It will really impact our yearly budget and expenses we have.
Conard's assertions make me note that the humanities play a significant role in the development of a country. I can see that people with humanitarian careers are creative because their field is competitive. We always need a creative person in a group that is successful. Conard claims that education should teach students the still which can use it to make money, and that education should teach student how to think and make them be good people. STEM majors can really take away job away from the people that aren’t able to get jobs. Or people that are part of art majors or language majors. If we think about it if we all converted to STEM, we would have no English teachers to teach the new generations. I really don’t agree because it will affect the school system so much and it would be a poor choice. I don't think making money should be the goal of education, and I claim that education should develop the critical thinking skills and study of liberal arts is very meaningful. If we just focus on making money, we don’t really learn it we just remember it because we must use it in our day-to-day life. But education should be for fun and to really understand what we and what we love to do. But Samuelson thinks that the humanities will eventually disappear because, currently, the goal of an education is based on economic and technological advancement power.
This is true everyone just wants a high paying job no matter what it is. I think that affects how we see the economy, because if we just want the jobs that pays a lot, then lose all the minimum wage jobs. It’s also good because more students are motivated to go to college, which is good, but the cost tuition will rise even more, and I think that it would be a limit for most students that can’t afford school tuition, because most student will try to apply to private school for a higher role in school. Growth in the U.S. is predominately driven by successful high-tech startups, such as Google, Microsoft, and Apple, which have spawned large industries around them, which means that the growing of American is depend on those high technological company.
Rasmussen argues that we need more humanities majors because they provide the human part of a work force. A humanities major has marketable skills, flexibility, life skills. I think a STEM major would lose them create their creative side. It means that we should not hope that receiving education now will pay off in the future, weather this returns to the future education or something else. Education should not be promoted. I think it should be an option to the students, because if we force them to become a STEM major, they can disagree and cause a bigger problem.
I think that we should have an even amount of STEM and humanities majors, because if we have more of one, we start to think that one is better than the other. The world is running by STEM and the humanities. From iPhone to textbooks, I disagree that we should just focus on STEM. I think STEM became popular because that’s the only way tell the younger generation that we need to change the way we run the world.
Conard is only focused on the economy part, not the political and personal affects and advantages. I don’t think she understands that yes, the sound of more STEM students will rise the economy, but it will also affect the economy for the worst due to the fact that not everything revolves around STEM. I believe that the world would be so boring if it just revolved around STEM. There will be no movies, music, art, no video games, TV shows, radios, etc. But also, if we have more STEM majors, we will be more modernized, and we would hopefully solve most of America’s environmental problems and are lack of technology.
Rotella’s thesis this would be economy because she is only talk about how this would help the economy, and how it would help people get higher paying jobs, and how that would make everyone richer. He also said how it would open more job opportunities, but it would also leave a lot of people with jobs due to the lack of education. So, his thesis is very single minded because he is only focused on money and jobs. But I think that he has a point that it would be advantage for those type jobs that have to deal with majors. His thesis is well supported, but he is lacking the other important information that can really support his thesis. Other jobs that don’t have to do with STEM related majors.
In conclusion, I disagree with Conard because is not think of the after affects or the consequences that can lead to a higher economy and how it would affect the people that can’t get those type of job. I also believe that we should fix our college system first before we start telling people to major in STEM.