AN OP-ED FROM THE FUTURE

An alternate universe. In a better one, the humanities and sciences will actually support and complement one another. Either/or thinking like this will not produce our best future. jpo

==

Editors’ note: This is part of the Op-Eds From the Future series, in which science fiction authors, futurists, philosophers and scientists write Op-Eds that they imagine we might read 10, 50 or even 200 years from now. The challenges they predict are imaginary — for now — but their arguments illuminate the urgent questions of today and prepare us for tomorrow. The Opinion piece below is a work of fiction.

Don’t Let Your Children Become ‘Insufferable Poets’

Even though STEM job prospects are slim in the 2050s, science education shouldn’t be reduced to an elective.

By Jessica Powell

Ms. Powell is the author of “The Big Disruption: A Totally Fictional but Essentially True Silicon Valley Story"

Last week, a few dozen doctors, scientists and engineers marched on Capitol Hill to protest a change in national curriculum under which science would be reduced to an elective course, joining the ranks of physical education, marching band and retail marketing as an optional part of the school day. “A bot can’t do all your thinking for you,” the protesters cried, waving posters decorated with poorly-drawn amoebas and mathematical equations. While their art and slogans needed work, their point was worth heeding: we should be strengthening science education, not weakening it.

We are living in a world in which the humanities, once in decline, now reign supreme. Today, 60 percent of college undergraduates pick a literature or arts major, which emphasizes writing, creativity and communication skills. Thirty percent choose the social sciences, prized for their emphasis on critical thinking. Only 10 percent receive G.S. (General Science) degrees, no doubt causing much hand-wringing by their parents, who had hoped their children would choose a path that could lead to viable employment.

The rise of psychologists, poets and philosophers should come as no surprise. For decades, technology has been automating our most data-heavy professions — with clear benefits to society. No longer do we fear a misinterpreted X-ray or a mistake on line 40 of our tax return. The computers perform our former jobs much better than we ever did.

The automation of more technical jobs has likewise changed which jobs are most valued, and how they are compensated. The beneficiaries of this shift include caregivers, teachers, human resources professionals and creators. To illustrate, the average income in Amherst, Mass. — a city full of college professors — is now $2 million a year, pushing out lawyers, engineers and doctors who can no longer afford to live in the leafy college town.

It is a striking contrast to the early 21st century, when parents queued up to register their children for coding camps, and well-endowed universities touted their fancy computer science and STEM-focused facilities. Nowadays, students are graduating from college with little knowledge of the sciences. In the race to prepare their graduates for the most desirable jobs, Stanford, Harvard and M.I.T. (recently renamed the Massachusetts Institute of Teleology) have eliminated most general science requirements, making room for an additional history class or empathy workshop.

But while robots and computers have freed us to develop our softer skills, the outsourcing of science has come at a cost. Our children have lost the ability to understand many of the facts that govern the world around them.

The other day, my preschooler threw a ball in the air and asked his 6-year-old sister why it then fell to the ground.

“Existence is a tremendous weight upon one’s being,” my daughter replied.

But what about physics! I wanted to cry.

While it’s always fun to attend the annual Philosophy Fair at the local elementary school and to watch your child cobble together his Sartre costume for Halloween, we would do well to make science education a mandatory part of today’s public school curriculum.

Science isn’t just about making things. It’s also about discovery and experimentation, doubt and uncertainty. In the past, it was our task to explore the universe’s unknowns; now the computers do all of that. But without a study of science, how can we know what we don’t know? How can we know what to be uncertain about?

The sciences impose rigor and discipline on our thoughts. They encourage a healthy skepticism and an awareness of the tenuousness of knowledge, which, among other things, keeps our egos in check. (Compare that with the self-confidence of our current president, a pompous comparative literature major who frequently quotes neo-post-structuralists when announcing policy decisions.)

That is why the proposal to further reduce science education in our schools is a step in the wrong direction. We should cultivate a love of science — a love of inquiry, investigation and exploration. Our children should understand the basic functioning of a robot, not simply expect it to do everything for them.

nyt