I read an article in a national newspaper recently that said something about a 2 degree C atmospheric warming (35.6 degrees F). Whoever wrote that knew how to type a number into a unit converter but doesn't understand you can't do that with differences. I just brought that up to say we could use some basic science literacy (especially for science reporters!).
I think anybody in charge of anything is seriously incapacitated if they are a narrow domain-specific expert in every respect. That's pretty rare, mind you, but I've met folks like that in academia who really just know and value their area of specialization and maybe a few adjacent areas of inquiry and think everything else is a waste of time. A lab or research center that is led by someone who was promoted strictly because of their research expertise is 9 times out of 10 going to be in a bad way because that leader will have trouble communicating with whomever holds the purse strings further up the line and trouble managing a wide range of personalities and perspectives. Same goes for artistic collaborations, etc. Various kinds of generalism have their own issues, but they do enable people to make connections and build relationships, as well as to make calculated decisions about what's worth time, energy and resources.
I rarely if ever see liberal arts students cry about having to take math classes but virtually every engineering student who is going to enter into a six figure career cries because they have to take demanding courses like “How to Read” and “Some Stuff That Happened In The Past”
to be entirely at odds with what I've lived with in several decades at tier-2 and tier-5 liberal arts colleges. At my current institution, for example, there's a lot (A. Lot.) of crying about math, and students who wish to avoid math are accommodated ("Take Intro to Sociology instead! As far as our core is concerned, they're the same thing!") Students majoring in math, physics, and computer science receive no sympathy from the institution when they object to the 3 courses in pop sociology that make up 30% of the core.
It doesn't help that some components of our core are so narrowly defined that natural science classes can't be ethically recalibrated to meet those definitions, but humanities and social science students can knock off a huge fraction of the core within their majors. My majors take many classes across the way, but there's no meaningful counterflow back to our side of campus.
I think if STEM students take Philosophy it should be critical thinking rather than (e.g.) Famous Ancient Philosophers, and a humanities math breadth course should definitely be statistics rather than calculus (in fact statistics should be required for high school graduation).
I'd hope that whatever STEM-ish course Humanity folks go for, it will include enough elementary statistics to look at a newspaper article and think "Beyes?"
I read an article in a national newspaper recently that said something about a 2 degree C atmospheric warming (35.6 degrees F). Whoever wrote that knew how to type a number into a unit converter but doesn't understand you can't do that with differences. I just brought that up to say we could use some basic science literacy (especially for science reporters!).
I think anybody in charge of anything is seriously incapacitated if they are a narrow domain-specific expert in every respect. That's pretty rare, mind you, but I've met folks like that in academia who really just know and value their area of specialization and maybe a few adjacent areas of inquiry and think everything else is a waste of time. A lab or research center that is led by someone who was promoted strictly because of their research expertise is 9 times out of 10 going to be in a bad way because that leader will have trouble communicating with whomever holds the purse strings further up the line and trouble managing a wide range of personalities and perspectives. Same goes for artistic collaborations, etc. Various kinds of generalism have their own issues, but they do enable people to make connections and build relationships, as well as to make calculated decisions about what's worth time, energy and resources.
I found this passage
I rarely if ever see liberal arts students cry about having to take math classes but virtually every engineering student who is going to enter into a six figure career cries because they have to take demanding courses like “How to Read” and “Some Stuff That Happened In The Past”
to be entirely at odds with what I've lived with in several decades at tier-2 and tier-5 liberal arts colleges. At my current institution, for example, there's a lot (A. Lot.) of crying about math, and students who wish to avoid math are accommodated ("Take Intro to Sociology instead! As far as our core is concerned, they're the same thing!") Students majoring in math, physics, and computer science receive no sympathy from the institution when they object to the 3 courses in pop sociology that make up 30% of the core.
It doesn't help that some components of our core are so narrowly defined that natural science classes can't be ethically recalibrated to meet those definitions, but humanities and social science students can knock off a huge fraction of the core within their majors. My majors take many classes across the way, but there's no meaningful counterflow back to our side of campus.
I think if STEM students take Philosophy it should be critical thinking rather than (e.g.) Famous Ancient Philosophers, and a humanities math breadth course should definitely be statistics rather than calculus (in fact statistics should be required for high school graduation).
I'd hope that whatever STEM-ish course Humanity folks go for, it will include enough elementary statistics to look at a newspaper article and think "Beyes?"
You mean, "Bayes" I hope.