Dear Editor,

Individuals choose to become professionals in their area of interest because it hones their innate ability.

An educator is a humanitarian who is passionate about developing minds and behaviour. The plumber is one who loves dexterity and troubleshooting. Both have taken two divergent academic routes, but despite their pursuits they contribute greatly to society. Why then do people disparage subjects catering to a hands-on approach and compliment subjects catering to academia? Subject prejudice still lingers and is injurious to students and the society.

From conversations with peers at university, I have ascertained that many post-secondary students choose the STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) academic route because of the validation associated with it. Students who study the sciences, technology, engineering, or mathematics have been categorised as the smarter of the cohort in comparison to students who had interest in other subject areas. STEM students are characterised as more logical and bound for a life filled with luxury, while non-STEM students are deemed to have lower IQs and will only live comfortable lives. This has ruined self-motivation in many students and has led them to unfavourable alternatives, like scamming.

If we could only take the chance to research to see that both areas are important, then it would balance our fat-headedness. According to
Google, air traffic controller, elevator installer, and police officers are the top three occupations that make a decent amount of money. These occupations do not require subjects from STEM and they don’t require a four-year degree/licence. Currently, the median salary for these jobs is between US$129,000 and US$84,000.

Don’t get me wrong, perhaps a college degree may be the best path for a student to pursue a career that allows him or her to use his or her talents, but the filtered truth that STEM subjects are the only way to earn a decent living should be eradicated from our thoughts immediately.

Students find non-STEM subjects easier because they are relatable. A theory in education supports this point. Jean Piaget, in the constructivist theory, indicates that humans create knowledge through interaction between their experiences and ideas. In essence, the theory suggests that a child learns new concepts by making a link to past experiences with what they are currently learning. Home economics and social studies are two of the disparaged subjects. Students do well in these subjects because they are relatable to life experiences. Therefore, learners construct knowledge psychosocially rather than passively take in information.

The responsibility belongs to those who are informed to break the misconstrued thought that STEM education is of more quality than other subject areas. Each subject has its place and will impact students once taken with the right approach. Students who prefer not to venture into non-STEM subjects are as equally smart as those who do. Let us ensure that we don’t make other jobs extinct because of our prejudice.

Alexious Gonzales

alexiousgonzales6@gmail.com