NY Times "Debate", and my reaction to it. (Part 1)

The other day, the New York Times  [1] ran a series in their opinion page compiling a series of pieces from a rather diverse group of scientists. I was initially confused though, when it was filed under the "Room for Debate" section and the columnists were labeled as "Debaters". I thought, "Oh cool, I'll get to read about some good back-and-forth points on the STEM NGSS." I had attended a (very one-sided) panel on the New Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and some of the problems they currently face when I was at Dragon*CON back in September but I was hoping to at least see what the 'other side' had to say in their own words. Problem is, it wasn't a debate. There weren't two sides tackling the finer points of an issue or group of issues. It was a collection of like minded individuals pointing out the flaws inherent in our system and offering some (admittedly creative!) solutions. I didn't like that it was labelled a debate though. Forum might have been a better label. I'll leave a discussion of the NGSS for a future blog post; that's a topic worth a thousand words itself!

According to the lead post of the thread, this all was spurred on from an editorial article a couple days prior asserting "Who Says Math Has to be Boring?" This title is great. I'm roped in. The second paragraph points to an interesting statistic:
"Nearly 90 percent of high school graduates [3] say they’re not interested in a career or a college major involving science, technology, engineering or math, known collectively as STEM, according to a survey of more than a million students who take the ACT test."
Following through the link, I look at the graph that ACT included on that page. What I found there shocked me. I could not believe my eyes. 41% of ACT tested students interested in studying STEM-related disciplines (the 10%) met the 'ACT College Readiness Benchmark' in the sciences. Those not interested in studying STEM (the 90%) ? A dizzying 21%. This means nearly four out of every five students is underprepared for basic college level science. What this graph also shows is that, oddly enough, the STEM-interested students outperformed their peers across the four broadly-defined subject areas of English, Reading, Mathematics, and Science.
The December 8th article points to several possible overlapping culprits: underprepared teachers, outdated curriculum, lack of cultural influence, and a lack of clear applicability. This point is echoed in each of the ten follow-up opinion articles written on December 10th. All of these pieces echo one major point: We need more people interested in science. We need them for jobs. We need them for sustainability. On the other hand, nobody mentions a solution to the question:

At what level do we need these trained scientists? 

Writers tout that there seem to be this extreme need for technical thinkers, as if there are more jobs than there are qualified people to take them. They way they talk, I'm imagining jobs like so many pieces of trash just littering the streets of life blown asunder in the wind.

Yeah, Kinda like that. Even Billie Jean tells you to think twice.

I get it. Being in science in our current culture isn't glamorous. It's messy, confusing, frustrating, and doesn't always directly "apply to my life". It's not being a sports star, world-class cook, singer or actress. It doesn't promise untold fame, riches, or sex appeal (the assumption is that it leads to the opposite of these things). This is a huge point, actually, that Mayim Bialik [4] makes in her article- make modern science accessible by incorporating it into a story and give context. It's like teaching people real science through shows like CSI...except using real science to do so. [6]
But if there are so many jobs, why is no actual emphasis put on WHERE these jobs are? Who is hiring? I see my friends pulling their hair out trying to get jobs all across the spectrum- chemistry, medicine, engineering. Granted a large number of these are in the graduate level positions. But what about the bachelor's, associates, vocational and High School level? What do these jobs even look like? And if they are scattered around so proliferously, then why are new chemists leaving chemistry behind [7]?

The rest of this series will focus on my reaction to each of the individual articles and pose certain questions that I think we as a society need to find answers to- and fast. It will challenge science communicators to quit repeating the rote sentences we see all over the economic news. Sentences that, frankly, I'm sick of seeing. If I felt that I could confidently walk out of my graduate program today and have a job next week- I wouldn't be so critical. And let's not forget- not all 'jobs' are created equal.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/who-says-math-has-to-be-boring.html
[3] http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr13/stem.html
[4] http://www.mayimbialik.net/
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks/use-hollywood-plots-and-characters-to-teach-stem
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
[7] http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i4/New-Bachelor-Level-Chemists-Face.html