An ambiguous post (When You Cannot Take the Road Less Traveled) led to someone contacting me and criticizing my heavy handed writing on the topic of STEM. I am always open to someone contacting me, especially, when they think that I’ve crossed a line. To be fair, the person didn’t think that I had crossed a line, but thought, I had misrepresented a group of people who truly enjoy STEM and working in those fields. They thought I had been condescending and didn’t represent the people who had chosen that pathway, because they wanted to go into a STEM field. Rereading that post, I agree with them.
Originally, I had wanted to argue that the emphasis and incentives surrounding a STEM education could lead people who didn’t want to be in that field to that line of work. I wanted to portray the fact that STEM’s monetary incentives could lead someone to making a choice against what they actually wanted to do. Yes, I agree that underrepresented individuals deserve opportunities to pursue high paying careers in STEM. But by making STEM programs cheaper, better funded, and more prevalent than other programs, we as a society are choking off culture and humanities.
However, I sometimes feel that many people make the choice to go into STEM not because they want to, but because, it is lucrative and well funded. They throw their dreams to the wayside because a pathway to a career has opened up to them and the uncertainty that surrounds their life is solved by these incentive programs. So, I don’t dislike STEM, I dislike incentive programs because I feel they pray on individuals who want stability in their life or a cheaper degree.
In the end, that post doesn’t portray my feelings properly and it is hard for me to write about the topic as I am conflicted. The take away here is this: If you have a disagreement with what I’ve said or posted, contact me, I am more than willing to speak with you in a civilized discourse and will take your words to heart.