STEM and the Arts

I’ve heard a lot of talk recently about the problematic distinction, especially in education, of identifying someone as a “science” person, or an “art” or “humanities” person. 

With the widening career gap in the sciences between men, and women and people of color, much attention has been paid to how to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups in the sciences. Predominant focus falls, as usual, on our education system and how K-12 institutions can change these disparities. Programs targeted at increasing youth exposure to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields abound. But at what cost?

Breaker (via stock.xchng)

I for one, when faced with the question “Are you a science person or an art person?” legitimately can’t answer.

Partly because I think it’s a meaningless distinction; an arbitrary definition based on our limited understanding about people and how they think about the world.

But partly it’s because I consider myself both a science person and humanities person. I love learning about what science tell us about the world and each other. But I also love singing, books, and writing. And it’s the combination of these that I find truly fascinating.

I think it’s why I love psychology and qualitative research so much. Those two fields marry the scientific method and the humanities in a way that is both logically appealing and creatively fascinating to me. The study of words, relationships, and people acknowledges the beautiful complexity of the human condition while also seeking to understand it more fully.

Jane Austen (via http://commons.wikimedia.org/)

But if I had never had the opportunity to deeply study BOTH science and arts, I know I wouldn’t have ended up where I am today. If I had been labeled as a “science” person when I was young, just because I was a girl who happened to be good at math, I would have turned out a poor scientist. Similarly, if I had been labeled an “art” or “humanities” person because I happened to be a good singer and liked reading Jane Austen novels, I would have turned out a poor humanities scholar. I am neither one nor the other. I am both. And I know I’m not alone in that.

The abundant focus on STEM at the expense of the arts leaves us with an “either or” scenario, not a “both and.”

But I’ve found that really understanding the human condition requires both a willingness to acknowledge what science tells us about ourselves, but also a willingness to acknowledge that we don’t know everything. Not everything is as neat and quantifiable as science would like. Nor is everything always as achingly complex and mysterious as the arts might suggest. Reality is somewhere in the middle.

I think it’s unfortunate that we as a society are still trying to label our youth as one or the other and intrinsically placing more value on one (science) over the other (humanities). This does our youth a disservice because it does not foster their own intellectual curiosity. It perpetuates the tendency toward stereotypes, labeling and judgment.

In reality we would all be better off if we viewed this as a spectrum, acknowledging that everyone is at least a little bit of a scientist and a little bit of an artist. Scientists can be good artists just as artists can be good scientists.

Life shouldn’t be about whether you’re a “science” person or a “humanities” person. It’s about wonder, curiosity, passion, and creativity. Those are quintessentially human traits that have spanned generations and brought the fields sciences and humanities to where they are today – to a better understanding of the world and the human condition.

So focus on developing children’s wonder, curiosity, passion and creativity and let them discover where their fascination will take them.

We’ll all be better off in the longer run.

What do you think? How can we enhance interest in science while also teaching the value of humanities and arts?