Is it the battle of STEM(M) v Humanities?

Introduction:

In previous posts I've discussed my educational background because it is a point of reference that shows why I think about education and teaching in the way that I do and why I'm not only passionate about education but also certain aspects of education e.g. choosing subjects/careers, music education, LGBT+inclusivity. In both this post (and the previous one) I'm discussing one such aspect: choosing A Levels, and GCSE's.

Freedom to Choose Subjects You Love:

Why was I horrified that Susan James's parents ruled out the humanities option for university? Apart from the obvious that young people should have freedom of choice when it comes to subjects they wish to study or the career they wish to pursue, it can encourage a condescending attitude towards certain disciplines. This, I think, is wrong not least because it means that all those staff who are working hard to encourage appreciation of their subject👩‍🏫 hoping to encourage pupils into it at a higher level are wasting their time and energy if there are pupils sitting in front of them who, no matter how good they are in the subject, will never choose it at degree level and not necessarily through their own choice but rather through outside interference. That's rather soul destroying. 😪

I had one such example. I was teaching Philosophy A Level (A2) and one student was very talented at it. She wrote amazing essays which had the philosophical structure I was looking for. Her essays were already good enough for  undergraduate level. I approached her about studying Philosophy at university and she was enthusiastic about it but her mother wanted her to become an accountant, despite her grades being worse in Maths than in her other A Levels. When speaking to her mother on parents evening I could see there was no persuading her otherwise. So here was an extremely able, hard working, budding philosopher who was lost to the subject. Worse still, she was going into a profession she wasn't interested in. 

How many people end up doing subjects/jobs they don't want to and have no interest in doing?

To STEM or not to STEM:

I am aware that the government is pushing for more uptake in STEM subjects. This is counterproductive. It's more important to enthuse young people so they wish to do those subjects and once they do it's important to work hard to keep them. Science has taken centre stage over the past two years and I'm not sure it's necessarily made it more popular. 

Even I have become tired of hearing from them and I'm someone who has always liked science and been used to talking about science with my brother and now with my daughter. Despite their inclination towards Physics both were/are equally happy to discuss any field in Science from Space Science to Botany. In both the secondary schools I attended I was told I was talented at Science. In the first senior school it was Biology, in the second one it was Chemistry. My Chemistry teacher was already gearing me up to study the subject at A Level and told my parents as such. This panicked me because I had barely started studying Chemistry. My previous school only offered General Science in the first two years. Anyway, I preferred Biology and was hands-on for any practical but loved Chemistry experiments. I found chemical reactions fascinating. However, despite this I didn't end up in Science despite my apparent talent, (although I was shocking at Physics) simply because my school didn't offer Biology or Botany at advanced level. 

The government has a cynical approach to anyone outside of STEMM (the extra M is for medicine), negatively labelling them as possessing a so-called 'Mickey Mouse' degree (usually something with 'studies' in the title) which is perceived as not directed at a particular job/career. Recently, there has been an even greater push to retrain these graduates and those working in the creative industries into STEMM. We all remember the UK Government advert promoting how ballerinas can quickly retrain in IT and jump into a job in cyber security. However, an example of how this doesn't and won't work is Joshua Burke. Here was a nice young man who became a professional violinist having studied at the Yehudi Menuhin School for 5 years and then at the RCM. He became a member of the London Chamber Orchestra and taught music. So you'd think he was all set. No. A few years later finds him on a graduate medical fast-track 4 year degree at Warwick University. Graduating in 2019, Joshua starts his career as a junior doctor but within a year, during the first lockdown when on a professional break, he takes his own life. I'm not going to speculate why this happened, I never met him so I don't know him. But he sounds like a sensitive, caring, ethical young man who struggled with the ethos of the medical profession. He had put his heart and soul into both careers, which couldn't be more different from one another, yet neither seemed to work out for him. This must have been confusing, and very distressing even more so given the psychological impact that lockdown has on everyone bar the extremely privileged. 

So here's a young person who has retrained, just as the present government wants creative people to do, and it hasn't done him or us any good. On the contrary, Joshua Burke's story is a truly sad one, and he is by no means the only one to whom this happens. As the British Medical Association has pointed out, roughly 50% of doctors suffer from burnout which often brings with it anxiety and depression. A third suffering worsening mental health during the pandemic. This I suggest, may well be the result of the bullying and sexual harassment culture which is said to be endemic in NHS hospitals (Feb 2019 The Guardian: Sarah Marsh). BBC News last September corroborates this by reporting on bullying and racial discrimination issues at the Nottingham University Hospitals Trust. However, it's not as simple as doctors being less than fully fit to do their job, it also has a severe impact on their ability to care for patients. As a result, we, the general public are worse off.

So, does it make sense to attempt to push people into subjects and careers they don't wish to do?

Is it not better to have less doctors but dedicated, fit ones than lots of doctors who cannot work at full capacity. There is, of course, the glaringly obvious point that conditions in hospitals need to substantially improve. Long hours with non-nutritional food from vending machines is a recipe for a lack of productivity which, all too easily, turns into a disaster for doctors, nurses and patients. Providing nurses and doctors with healthy meals on the premises would make a great deal of difference! The same is true where long hours on duty are concerned. Cut the hours or give doctors and nurses rest periods during long stretches of time when on duty. 

The government should not put pressure on young people to go into a favoured few degrees and professions simply because, through Brexit, there's a shortage of vital professionals. These professionals equally need relax time which is what the creative industries provide! 🤗 

So creative people are providing important mental and emotional support for those who are in non-creative professions. That is how a society works. Every one is valued and important and has their part to play for the good of the whole. Otherwise, you have a divided, malfunctioning society. 

STEEMM: Science, Technology, Economics, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine are, apart from medicine, non-people careers, which come across as soul-less, stuffy, restrictive, and closed-ended. Therefore, they don't appeal to a vast amount of people, not just those who are creative but also those who prefer Humanities; Languages (including Classics) which can fall under Humanities; Social Sciences including Philosophy (Humanities?), Sociology, Political Science, Law, Policy Studies, International Relations, Human Rights, Psychology (a pseudo-science). They also have less appeal for many women, racial minorities, LGBT+ and gender non-conforming people, partly because of their 'snotty' attitude towards them.

Further Education Colleges:

So this is the first problem: Are schools offering enough variety of subjects at A Level?

If not, we should ask the question whether further education should be expanded to resolve this problem. I can't help feeling that 17-18 year olds no longer belong in school. By the time they are 18 they are adults. How can adults still be going to school as pupils? Further education colleges would also provide a better stepping stone for university or apprenticeships.

Why Don't People Stay in STEM?

Is it a perception of science as rather boring?

Is it that it's not welcoming to gender non-conforming individuals?

Is it lack of interesting work?

Is it too fussy over grades?

Indeed, are we all too obsessed with grades?

What about just enthusiasm for and love for a subject/career?

I'm watching 'The Great Pottery Throw Down' (Channel 4) which I'm enjoying enormously. The returning presenter Siobhan McSweeney started out in STEM. She studied Science at University College, Cork but then went on to Central School of Speech and Drama in London and became an actress. She is also a presenter. Nothing wrong with any of that. However, Siobhan followed the STEM route but didn't remain in it. Why not? This one example illustrates how it's not enough to encourage or even push students into Science because, unless they genuine want to do it and it's entirely their own choice, then they won't stay the course. As with many things, it's also not always up to them. If they were not happy studying it or were not given opportunities to have a career in it then all that effort in promoting STEM is a waste of time. There are students who enjoy STEM subjects, the trick is to know how to channel that enthusiasm so it translates into a fulfilling career that means they'll want to remain in it.

Another example is Karl Chu from Britain's Most Expensive Houses programme, aired on Channel 4 and still available On-Demand, who studied Economics then worked for Microsoft as a software engineer before working his way up to investment banks. But his real passion was: shoes!👞So, he left the City and set up an upmarket shoe business in Savile Row called Ascot Shoes. So Karl, like Siobhan, also started in STEM but, in his case, he ended up in the fashion industry. He followed his passion. Isn't this what everyone should be encouraged to do? I doubt this would mean everyone will rush to be pop stars or artists but it will mean people will be enthusiastic about their careers and thus more productive and engaged with life. 

Creative Industries:

In contrast, Andrew Lloyd Webber is a fine example of someone who followed his passion very early on. He has always been passionate about musicals and has not only been hugely productive but also stays passionate about music and music education and brings joy to us all through his music. He's not in STEM, quite the opposite, he went up to Oxford University (for a term as it turned out) to read History but left to pursue music. His passion for musicals generates a great deal of revenue and draws people to London and its cultural life in general which includes galleries and museums. Tourists come to London to see these galleries and museums which make the UK the number 1 country in the world for the most visited museums/galleries because it has 4 (Tate Modern, V&A, National Gallery, British Museum) that rank in the top 10. Andrew Lloyd Webber is also a fantastic advert for the UK as a musical capital. 

Let's talk statistics📈📊: Creative industries in 2019 contributed £116 billion to the UK! In February 2020, around the start of the pandemic, the creative industries contributed almost £13 million an hour to the UK economy! And the government thinks creative arts are a waste of time and don't boost the economy. So 'do STEM that's where the money is', they say! That's what we need! But as Boris Johnson pointed out Peppa Pig is a creative idea that has gone global and had a net worth of £1.4 billion pre-pandemic. In the worldwide retail sales alone e.g. toys it has generated $1.35 billion! This is not counting theme parks, TV programmes, advertising revenue and so on. 

Indeed, in 2019, the government was investing money in apprenticeships to encourage people into the creative industries yet, only a couple of years later, they were pushing those very same people to retrain in something more 'useful'. We can't live like this being subjected to the latest governmental whim. 

Is it, therefore, not far better to allow young people to find the subjects that appeal to them because they'll be better at them, and find them more fulfilling? This will make them happier and happy people tend to work harder and find what they do more satisfying. They are also more likely to help others in the same field. That feeds back into society and the economy. Forcing people to do what they don't wish to do has the opposite effect.

How Does One Choose Subjects at School?

So how does one help a young person find the subject for them be it at GCSE or A Level?

Should it be based on grades?

Should teachers, parents and others have their say too?

In my case, the school was far too interfering. I couldn't do Art GCSE, for example, because it wasn't academic enough which is why we studied Art History in the sixth form because that's an university subject (years 12, 13) quite apart from the fact they did not appreciate my modern art drawings and paintings. However, this is exactly what art colleges want! Representational art is not their thing. Yes, I even thought about going to art college. There was one only a few minutes walk from home and I would go past it and peer through the window longingly. In fact, I still do when in the vicinity! Art college was next on my list after music college. But this is going back a bit. And it only occurred to me because when I started my second secondary school, the out-going art teacher thought I was very talented at art and wanted to teach me privately. My parents didn't seem keen so she offered the lessons for free. Still nothing doing. I think they didn't feel it was right for her to teach for free but couldn't afford to pay for the tuition thenselves.

Or should it be left up to the young person who knows better than anyone else what subject/s they enjoy the most? 

Or should young people do the same subjects as their parents and then follow them into the same profession? 

Or should young people choose one subject from each group: humanities, sciences, languages, creative arts (music, art, dance,) so they have a broad perspective and the skills to then choose any one from the category that is related to it. For instance, if you choose Physics at A Level you could go on to study Astronomy, Space Science, Engineering, Computer Science, Ophthalmology, Mathematics, Nuclear Energy, Photography and more. If you choose History you can go on to study any one of: Politics, Gender Studies, Women's Studies, Law, Classics, Archaeology, Anthropology, Art History, Philosophy, Sociology. And so on. 

Conclusion:

I'm not sure whether we have solved the subject choice issue and how to both satisfy the young person's interest and at the same time make sure there are careers at the end of their study which will enable them to flourish. After all, every subject/discipline has the potential to be a financially rewarding career if the opportunities are there. Maybe that's where the focus should be. 

Do sign up to be a member of this blog, write a comment and tell me what you think about the topic! I'm very interested in your thoughts on this post. I think education needs a rethink, especially at the top end, 16+. What do you think? 

Author: Jana Kaucky

Proofread, edited and IT: Liba Kaucky