Viewing non-stem stubjects as a lesser course for "those who could not complete STEM degrees" is simultaneously idiotic and elitist, which is pretty impressive.
I also completely disagree with the naive assumption that non-vocational degrees are "useless degrees", there is a big difference between something being "useless" and you, personally, not understanding the use.
If you take a moment to revisit my post, you'll notice I never mentioned difficulty. I'm well aware that some non-STEM degrees are incredibly complex and I make no claim to any ability in those areas for myself.
I also never made any value judgement about courses being "greater" or "lesser". That's a subjective call and ymmv.
I absolutely don't discount all non-STEM degrees as being 'useless' and there's plenty of insight and wisdom to be had from people with a deep understanding of history, or comparative culture, or any number of fields.
And yet I still feel it's a grave disservice to tell the average high school student that they should go to university for the sake of it, even if that means specializing in glazing techniques in 14th century French pottery or whatever other navel-gazing pursuit, while your insane U.S. tuition fees are extracted from them.
I was mainly focusing on the line "targeting those who could not complete STEM degrees", which seems to heavily imply that the non-stem options are a lesser choice for those for whom stem is too difficult.
1) STEM admissions require vastly higher GPA's, SAT/GRE scores, and admit a smaller fraction of applicants.
https://www.admissionreport.com/university-of-cambridge
(10% of 1330 applicants accepted for Computer Science, 60% of 57 applicants accepted for BA Classics)
2) STEM graduates earn more.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt...
(72k/85k median/mean for STEM in Canada, 56k/69k for non-STEM)
3) Most STEM undergrad programs require students to take roughly half of their credits in non-STEM subjects, which they pass just fine, but non-STEM students are not required to learn about chemistry, electrical circuits, etc.
4) Math and compsci departments split (read: simplify) intro courses like "Statistics" into separate courses for STEM vs non-STEM students, for obvious reasons. I've never seen gender studies simplified for STEM students.
> if you tried to push me as an undergrad through a philosophy or history or literature degree or whatever I'd probably fail.
Ridiculous. I'm calling out your false modesty. If you obviously had enough intelligence and work ethic to get a PhD (any doctorate, but especially math), and then gainfully work as a physicist, you obviously could have passed any other 4-year undergrad program in any field. Undergrad is a low bar to clear.
---
One more note on this topic: when comparing fields/careers like this, I don't find it useful to look at how difficult things are for the top performers. Everything is super competitive at the very top level. Is it harder to be a Fields medalist or a Formula 1 driver? I don't know; there's literally only a handful of genius/superhuman people at that level. But looking at the median level, ask people if they would rather take a math test or a driving test and the results will be predictable.
Under such guidelines it is quite "useless" to, say, spend a decade studying Akkadian. But our understanding of the past would be so much poorer without people willing to engage with Assyriology. I'd like to see STEM-maximalists argue that one engineering field or another is somehow more difficult than ANE studies.
The organization and its agents bear no consequence for mistakes in the allocation. It has no means to compare value or incentive to do so. The system evolves according to the "iron law of bureaucracy" as a perfect rent-seeking apparatus.
It's nice to imagine everyone having enough, or maybe that everyone is "equal." But you can't save anyone from their choices.
That's not nice. It's prison.
If you know how to optimize human life for a given group of agreeable people, go for it. For the rest of us, no means no.
The mistake was assuming "going to college" was the goal and not "learning something useful." Too many kids spend years of their life and earnings studying completely useless degrees.
> Maybe the incentives focused universities on creating more "education" so they could rake in the cash made readily available through government subsidies targeting those who could not complete STEM degrees.
Nail, head, yep.