War Room Lounge V43: STEM is Overrated

[Gregolian]

Read the books! And watch the movie! Not like the third one, just the first two

Third one doesn't exist Sara... we do not acknowledge it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Meh, I kind of agree, at least relative to STEM. For much of STEM, you literally just don't have and cannot gain access to the necessary tools to self-learn, particularly for things like biochemistry that require powerful microscopes and computer programs, chemicals and cultures unavailable to civilians, and other lab equipment like super-freezers. Even with less equipment-dependent things like calculus, it seems to me that persons that can self-teach without some sort of institutional support are quite limited. Meanwhile, for things like the law, sociology (my two disciplines), or history, if you can procure the primary and secondary materials (which, for law and sociology at least, you can) you can learn the material.

See, that's the thing. "Learning the material" requires instruction, collaboration and feedback. For history, there's an actual process to be refined, and it involves tons and tons of writing. Additionally, just knowing the material isn't really the point. I'm trained to interpret the past. People have this weird idea that we basically just sit around memorizing Snapple facts all day. I do hands on work as well, and quite a lot of it.

 

[Trotsky]

See, that's the thing. "Learning the material" requires instruction, collaboration and feedback. For history, there's an actual process to be refined, and it involves tons and tons of writing. Additionally, just knowing the material isn't really the point. I'm trained to interpret the past. People have this weird idea that we basically just sit around memorizing Snapple facts all day. I do hands on work as well, and quite a lot of it.

I'm not saying that the whole experience can be replicated through self-learning, but I think it can be to a much greater degree.

Also, you know my opinions on studying history:

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

See, that's the thing. "Learning the material" requires instruction, collaboration and feedback. For history, there's an actual process to be refined, and it involves tons and tons of writing. Additionally, just knowing the material isn't really the point. I'm trained to interpret the past. People have this weird idea that we basically just sit around memorizing Snapple facts all day. I do hands on work as well, and quite a lot of it.

Like historical dioramas and reenactments?

 

[Limbo Pete]

I'm not saying that the whole experience can be replicated through self-learning, but I think it can be to a much greater degree.

Also, you know my opinions on studying history:

I think you'd be surprised, bud.
And lord almighty, don't get me going on how history is taught.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Like historical dioramas and reenactments?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

seriously though, outside of writing, cataloging and maybe some database work -- what does a historian do thats hands on? Speaking engagements?

 

[tonni]

chemicals and cultures unavailable to civilians

 

[Limbo Pete]

seriously though, outside of writing, cataloging and maybe some database work -- what does a historian do thats hands on? Speaking engagements?

Oh I thought you were joking.
I'm in public history, so much of my work is made for and with non-academic audiences. Building oral history collections, for example, is a very hands on process.

 

[Fawlty]

That's pretty false, outside of equations and formulas you need actual access to equipment that is largely out the reach of the diy student. I can get the basis of a lot the humanities by simply accessing a school library, but I cant test out the aerodynamic properties of graphene without access to it.

Ambitious students from any discipline are going to go on their own to expand their knowledge base but the materials needed greatly differ from the hard sciences to the soft and arts

My point is a little different. Obviously people are not going to have lab equipment and stuff. In HASS, the questions are far more difficult and ambitious, and the "answers" are typically ambiguous and take a really long time to be recognized as answers. The process of learning in HASS is collaboration in argument and working with longer-term, less formal hypotheses. In STEM the goals and instructions are concrete and logical. The process of learning is much more about achieving an empirical result. A teacher is, very often, strictly unnecessary even if a teacher is very helpful. The student has to be more self-motivated, and generally they aren't "finding themselves," but have been on a more consistent track. And generally you either grasp the material or you don't. There isn't as much of a maturing process where the thinking is gradually elevated through contemplation, argument and feedback.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

My point is a little different. Obviously people are not going to have lab equipment and stuff. In HASS, the questions are far more difficult and ambitious, and the "answers" are typically ambiguous and take a really long time to be recognized as answers. The process of learning in HASS is collaboration in argument and working with longer-term, less formal hypotheses. In STEM the goals and instructions are concrete and logical. The process of learning is much more about achieving an empirical result. A teacher is, very often, strictly unnecessary even if a teacher is very helpful. The student has to be more self-motivated, and generally they aren't "finding themselves," but have been on a more consistent track. And generally you either grasp the material or you don't. There isn't as much of a maturing process where the thinking is gradually elevated through contemplation, argument and feedback.

Yeah, thats mostly bunk. Rules and structure as a required base are needed for both. A HASS student still needs to learn to correctly use language to write, and thats very cut and dry same with style and citation method -- however, higher levels of STEM require the same amount of free thinking and collaboration to go from conceptualization to proof. You think the process that lead from the theory of gravitational waves, to the process of developing the math to prove it, to decades later creating the experiment to testing to actualization of said theory didn't involve abstract /free / creative thinking? Collaboration? Contemplation? Feed back? I think having to go through a plethora of failed tests to finally finding a correct method to prove a theory provides a much better pathway to maturity.

Theres not a scientific breakthrough or accomplishment that didnt require all of that.

By the same regards, a HASS teacher can be replaced by a forum - i have seen far more people advance their knowledge of political science, law and history on this site than people have with math or science

 

[Falsedawn]

For the title, I personally vote for "How do you spell Abortion? S-T-A-I-R-S."

 

[Higus]

Yeah, thats mostly bunk. Rules and structure as a required base are needed for both. A HASS student still needs to learn to correctly use language to write, and thats very cut and dry same with style and citation method -- however, higher levels of STEM require the same amount of free thinking and collaboration to go from conceptualization to proof. You think the process that lead from the theory of gravitational waves, to the process of developing the math to prove it, to decades later creating the experiment to testing to actualization of said theory didn't involve abstract /free / creative thinking? Collaboration? Contemplation? Feed back? I think having to go through a plethora of failed tests to finally finding a correct method to prove a theory provides a much better pathway to maturity.

Theres not a scientific breakthrough or accomplishment that didnt require all of that.

By the same regards, a HASS teacher can be replaced by a forum - i have seen far more people advance their knowledge of political science, law and history on this site than people have with math or science

That's sort of cherry picking, isn't it?

EDIT: I mean, theoretical physicists is not a typical example of a STEM major, and the reason you see more knowledge displayed on humanities topics on forums is because they are more likely to generate a discussion because of the subjective nature of the topics compared to the objective nature of science/math questions. You can find plenty of people who have advanced knowledge of a scientific topic around here, but the questions you ask them aren't going to go for 10+ pages once the answer is shown.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

I'm not saying that the whole experience can be replicated through self-learning, but I think it can be to a much greater degree.

Also, you know my opinions on studying history:

Ken M is national treasure

 

[Limbo Pete]

a HASS teacher can be replaced by a forum

For the love of god and all that is holy

 

[Andy Capp]

For the title, I personally vote for "How do you spell Abortion? S-T-A-I-R-S."

I can't like this but you get one incredulous Cormier. Enjoy.


My vote for title goes to:

The Report Barring Something Unexpected.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

See, that's the thing. "Learning the material" requires instruction, collaboration and feedback. For history, there's an actual process to be refined, and it involves tons and tons of writing. Additionally, just knowing the material isn't really the point. I'm trained to interpret the past. People have this weird idea that we basically just sit around memorizing Snapple facts all day. I do hands on work as well, and quite a lot of it.

Not many better researchers than history majors imo

 

[Limbo Pete]

Not many better researchers than history majors imo

We're trained to do it!

 

[Limbo Pete]

I don't see how most of that is impossible outside of an education. Certainly difficult because one would need a decent chunk of time, money, and discipline to do it but impossible? I know historians aren't just memorizing history but I don't see how that contradicts what I said. Aren't there books on historiography? Aren't there historical journals I could pay for access to that would presumably display the never ending exchange of different interpretations? Do I need a history degree to access historical archives or attend history conferences? And something like H-Net has a ton of resources that would be useful for amateur students of the humanities and social sciences for instance.

The experience of being taught can't be imagined into fruition. It just can't. Living in a world of theory inside your own head is fine, but to practice history requires training, full stop. I literally could not do what I do without having been taught it by a professional public historian. I meet people that try, and have to fix their work.
I suspect that part of the problem is the extreme emphasis on wrote memorization that occurs from grade school and well into early college.