There's lots of ink spilled and policy rhetoric swirling around "STEM" these days (in fact, its been years, but it's reached a fever pitch recently), which is a catch-all term for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Many critique the acronym for being meaningless, and if you think about what "technology" means or about the many disciplines and sub-fields in "science" then I think these critics have a valid point. Of course, adding an "A" for arts to make it "STEAM" makes it even more meaningless, unless one is merely trying to simply convey a collaborative of disciplines in one fell swoop. So instead of saying mechanical engineering, physical chemistry, theoretical mathematics and genetics, I'll just say STEM to capture this broad swath of fields, just like the term "humanities" encompasses many unique disciplines. That makes some sense.
But it becomes problematic in my view when the acronym is used, as it commonly is, to speak about things where nuance and specificity is required in order to maintain any semblance of coherence or realism. And when one speaks of "STEM jobs" I think coherence flies out the window. To their credit, scholars such as those out of the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce make the point that "there is a great variety of STEM occupations" in their report titled "STEM." According to their projections, in 2018 about 51% (or 4 million) of the "STEM jobs" will be in computer science, 28% in engineering, 13% in life and physical sciences, 6% in architecture, and 2% in mathematical sciences. This report is actually one of the best in drilling down into the specific competencies required for various occupations and offers a fairly nuanced discussion of the issues.
But my issue with the term "STEM" as it applies to jobs is twofold. First, in the field of practice (e.g., job sites, college classrooms) when I mention the term "STEM jobs" I get blank looks and requests for specificity. In the non-policy or non-research world you've got to be specific and talk about welding or PLC (programmable logic controller) design. Otherwise, you're talking gibberish, or worse, ivory-tower-ese.
Second, depending on how one slices and dices the world (i.e., defines the term) one can get high-wage jobs, middle-wage jobs, or low-wage jobs into your definition of "STEM jobs." My impression is that most people equate "STEM jobs" with high-wage jobs such as robotics engineering, stem-cell biotechnology research, and so on. In my visits to advanced manufacturing sites around the state of Wisconsin I've been struck by the fact that yes, these jobs do exist, and many of them are held by people with advanced degrees in fields such as engineering. But a company of say 100 people may only need 1 or 2 of these people. Many, many more who are operating CNC machines or welding parts are making between $19 and $22 an hour. Now that is a decent wage and nothing to sneeze at, but it certainly isn't comparable to what the quality control engineer upstairs is making. But aren't those jobs in that company "STEM jobs?" They require technical skills in programming, mathematical skills to do the welding or machining, and more.
The problem is, according to the folks at MIT's Department of Urban Studies, where they study living wages, $19 to $22 an hour is just at the living wage for a family of 2 adults and 2 children where one person is the sole earner (see here). It is clear that some of the "STEM jobs" provide far more than a living wage, but let's be clear (and honest with the students who are being encouraged to pursue STEM) - within this catch-all term there are a host of different fields and occupations and earning potentials. It isn't a get-rich quick pathway and I wonder if the bulk of the jobs in "STEM", if one defines the term to include CNC operators and the like, are on the lower end of what some consider to be a living wage or a wage sufficient to enter and remain in America's middle class.
No comments:
Post a Comment