Throughout higher education, there is a palpable divide drawn between STEM and the humanities. Among students, I have noticed that many, both graduate and undergraduate, identify themselves as “STEM” or “humanities” students, using phrases such as “I am more on the STEM side,” or vice versa. Beyond mere affiliation, I have observed that this self-identification impacts students’ self-confidence in their ability to transverse this divide. In my time as both a student and teacher, I can recall several instances where students were either completely against or expressed immense worry towards taking a course outside of their side of the STEM/humanities divide. Some go so far as to display defeatism, assuming that they will do poorly or fail before trying.
These observations interest me, in part, because of my educational background. Although I am currently a Ph.D. student in philosophy, I have a B.S. in biochemistry, and I continue to take graduate physical science courses relevant to my research interests. Additionally, I have been a supplemental instruction leader for both chemistry and organic chemistry, a teaching assistant for both logic and ethics, and an instructor for logic. In all these positions (STEM student, humanities student, STEM teacher, humanities teacher), I have observed the same student mindset and worries. As such, I am interested in this divide and how the internalization of this divide seems to impact students’ mindsets regarding their education. Here, I share my experiences with this mindset, express my concerns, and identify the problems it potentially poses for students’ educational well-being. I then leave it to the reader to reflect on their possible role—educator or otherwise—in pushing back against this mindset.
The Divide
The growth of ever more specialized research may partially explain the perceived STEM/humanities divide. Due to the rapid progress of specialized fields and sub-fields of research and research methods, it has become extremely difficult to master (in both breadth and depth) multiple topics within one’s discipline, let alone topics in other disciplines. However, this division does not require perpetuating the current perceived divide and accompanying rhetoric. A quick internet search yields a multitude of results commenting on this divide with many worried about the associated rhetoric: the humanities are “useless” in the current fast-developing world of science and technology, STEM degrees get you jobs, STEM studies one set of things using certain skills while the humanities study another with a different set of skills.
This divide has a history extending at least back to the 1950s with C.P. Snow’s The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (1959) in which Snow, a novelist and scientist, noted this divide between sciences and humanities had been developing, and moreover, he expressed his worry that the two sides could no longer communicate with each other (12-16). Snow thought the continued development of these two cultures could have potentially disastrous consequences (17-18, 21). Both sides contribute to our knowledge of the world, and acquiring this knowledge requires each culture to communicate and collaborate rather than insulate from each other. As such, he stated that the persistence of this divide—especially without channels for constant communication and collaboration—will impoverish or impede acquiring knowledge (53-54).
I have little space to critique and comment on the divide, but it’s worth noting that it is not clear on what basis this divide is drawn other than the partial explanation provided by growing specialization. First, we can draw a divide between traditional STEM disciplines (e.g. chemistry, physics, biology, computer science, engineering) and humanities disciplines (e.g. philosophy, classics, history, religious studies, languages), but there are also other categories like fine arts (dance, theater, vocal, instrument) and social sciences (e.g. anthropology, linguistics, sociology, psychology). This is reason to think the dichotomy may be misleading from the start. Moreover, among these, some share similar research methodologies, scientific approaches, or use the same empirical data. This also resists the rhetoric that each discipline requires skills that are mutually exclusive. Perhaps we can draw a divide based on the type of instruction, as the kinds of assignments and course evaluation may differ (problem sets, papers, exams, etc.). On the other hand, the kinds of assignments and teaching modalities adopted within disciplines may have less to do with the content and more so with keeping with longstanding approaches within a discipline. There has been growing interest in multi-model and innovative instruction (at least in higher education) in recent years. Regardless of the merit of the perceived STEM/humanities divide, the divide seems embedded in higher education.
Defeatism and Impacts on Students
Defeatism is the attitude of accepting defeat or assuming failure before trying something. This mindset can then limit people’s actions. If the assumption of defeat comes from a belief that they are incapable of succeeding, one can see how this mindset adopted consistently results in a person’s reduced self-confidence and potential access to future opportunities
In this case, I am worried about how this mindset impacts students’ decisions to take classes across the STEM/humanities divide. Consider the following case: while a teaching assistant for an introductory level ethics course, I had a student who was a biology major and in this course as a requirement. We met prior to the first paper assignment, and this student was very worried about their ability to write philosophy papers, stating that they are very “STEM-brained” and that these kinds of papers (argumentative philosophy papers) were not something that they thought they could do well. We then discussed the overlap between writing argumentative philosophy papers, their discipline, and career goals, and the student came to realize that there was substantial overlap between the general skills they needed in their STEM discipline and the general skills developed in this humanities course. The student reported feeling a lot more confident in their ability to do well in the course after that conversation.
Different from the example above, I worry this mindset also limits students’ willingness to voluntarily explore other disciplines across this divide, either due to a lack of self-confidence or because they do not recognize the advantages. Several of my friends in STEM Ph.D. programs have shared stories of humanities students who choose to not take any STEM classes unless required, and even then, they find the ones that are the least “STEM-y”. Speaking from personal experience, I was an instructor for a logic course that students were able to take in lieu of a mathematics course. This satisfied certain STEM requirements for humanities students (the categorization of logic as a STEM satisfactory requirement can be found at many universities). In this course, I had several journalism students who were worried about the “math-like-thinking” that they would have to do in the course. I feel no need to belabor the advantages of logic and principles of reasoning for journalism students; however, after engaging in conversations with students, I find that this defeatist mindset in relation to the STEM/humanities divide comes, in part, from the notion that each side requires different general and specific skills. Because of this, they think that transversing this divide requires a whole new way of thinking or skill set.
Speaking to fellow graduate students and faculty, this mindset tends to dissipate once students realize they can engage and do well in courses across this divide. Moreover, many realize the importance of taking coursework across this divide once they discover that the general skills in each discipline either overlap or complement each other. That is, there is something to engaging in disciplines outside of one’s own discipline for the development of these general skills. If it is not for the advantages it provides to one’s own development within their discipline, then, it seems to me, it is for the broader advantages to one’s educational well-being through achieving a well-rounded education.
General and Specific Skills
I often illustrate the importance of taking coursework within different disciplines across this divide to students by explaining that the general and specific skills frequently overlap and complement each other. Although each discipline studies particular phenomena, objects, etc., with specific methodologies, tools, etc., all of them require similar specific research skills. Examples include: gathering and analyzing data and results; finding and assessing the quality of literature; testing and positing hypotheses, theories, etc. These specific skills are supported by general skills such as the ability to problem-solve and engage in critical thinking. This includes the ability to understand complex problems, break them down, posit solutions or steps to take in the pursuit of a solution, and consider the implications and consequences. These examples are not exhaustive of the overlap between any given disciplines. Other skills include the ability to produce clear and precise writing, construct or analyze an argument, describe results, and identify limitations, as well as other general life skills like time management and communication.
It is important to acknowledge that although there is overlap, there are some specific skills that are better situated in one discipline over another. Nonetheless, these skills complement and may be necessary in other disciplines in cases of interdisciplinary work. For example, there are disciplines best suited to teaching coding languages (C++, Python, Java, etc.), and others are best suited to teaching ethical competency in applied contexts such as bioethics, engineering, etc. As such, there is substantial overlap between the general skills and specific skills within each discipline, as well as skills that are best situated within certain disciplines, but that also complement work in other disciplines.
Note that recognizing this overlap isn’t to dismiss certain particular competencies required in each discipline. I will probably never have to use an HPLC or H-NMR (instruments for analyzing chemicals) during my time as a researcher in philosophy, nor would I have to be able to symbolize anything in quantificational logic and be able to explain it to others if I was working as a laboratory assistant in a biochemistry laboratory. However, in both cases, there are skills that I have developed in both disciplines that I rely on in both cases.
I find the analogy of a tool belt helpful in explaining this overlap in general and specific skills between STEM and humanities. There is a sense in which most of the tools in your tool belt (i.e., specific skills) come from your specific discipline and the knowledge and training it provides. However, there are tools that are multi-purpose and can be used in a variety of jobs and contexts, e.g., analyzing data and presenting findings clearly to one’s audience. In these cases, the tools are acquired not just through use in one’s own discipline, but also through engaging in other disciplines where those same tools are used on different jobs. This helps you learn the many uses of the tool and gives you more practice using this tool in a variety of contexts.
Keeping with the analogy, these tools need a place to sit that is easy to access and convenient: a tool belt. General skills are the foundation for specific skills. The ability to problem-solve and engage in critical thinking are a part of every research discipline, including STEM, humanities, and others. As such, engaging in any of these disciplines is an opportunity to practice problem-solving and critical thinking. The ability to engage in these practices in a variety of contexts outside of one’s discipline only strengthens the foundation of one’s education (i.e., one’s tool belt), which one’s specific skills/tools rely on. There are plenty of situations I have encountered both in biochemistry and philosophy that I did not encounter in labs or coursework, but the purpose of this coursework is not to inform me of everything in my discipline—there isn’t enough time for that. Rather, as it seems to me, the purpose of education is to prepare me to approach novel situations with my tools and toolbelt.
Although the tools are important, the toolbelt (i.e., the general skills) appears to be the key foundation of education and as I see it, requires educational experiences beyond one’s discipline into other disciplines, especially across this STEM/humanities divide. That is, a well-rounded education is advantageous to a student’s educational well-being.
Student Defeatism and Educational Well-Being
The important takeaway here is that independent of the merit of the perceived divide, students’ educational well-being is, by my observations, adversely impacted by a failure to take courses beyond their discipline and beyond the STEM/humanities divide. If higher education aims to develop both students who are well-prepared for their careers, well-prepared members of society, or seekers of truth, it seems building these general skills (i.e., tool belts) and specific skills (i.e., tools) requires both the STEM and humanities. In agreement with Snow, I think a failure to recognize this overlap will have and maybe already has had long-term negative effects on students’ attainment of a well-rounded education, which impacts their educational well-being.
Returning to student defeatism, if this mindset is predicated on the internalization of this divide and is a contributing factor to students’ approach to (and avoidance of) classes across the divide, then this defeatism mindset has a negative impact on students’ educational well-being. In turn, I think it’s important to consider the preservation of liberal arts education or something similar for the aforementioned reasons. Moreover, I think it’s important for current and future educators in higher education to be aware of this mindset and to consider how to push back against it, given its impact on students’ educational well-being.
Thank you to William FitzPatrick, Dante Dauksz, Randall Curren, and others in the University of Rochester Department of Philosophy for their comments, feedback, and helpful conversations.
The post The STEM/Humanities Divide and Student Defeatism first appeared on Blog of the APA.
Read the full article which is published on APA Online (external link)
