America Does Not Need More STEM Education

The resolution Pro defends is "America Does Not Need More STEM Education. " The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that in STEM occupations in the nation there are two job openings for every unemployed STEM worker, whereas in in the non-STEM occupations there are three unemployed workers for every opening. More STEM education is the method by which we can get more STEM workers and fewer non-STEM workers. Pro's first argument was "labor markets adhere to how when supply goes up, price goes down. The key to modern prosperity, therefore, is not to increase supply. Raising the supply of STEM in America would only depreciate its value. " The objective is not to keep the salaries of STEM workers high, the objective is to fulfill the needs for qualified workers in society, ranging from health care to skilled technicians. That makes society as a whole the most prosperous. Pro argues that there are really plenty of STEM workers available, but they just don't know how to find jobs by networking. With two job openings for every applicant, applicants readily find jobs by responding to employment ads. In the information technology field the 4.4% unemployment rate nationwide in that field is effectively full employment, considering the frequency of voluntary job changing. In some STEM occupations like Bio Engineering the shortages are severe. We would need more STEM education even if it were only for specialized fields. A blog associated with salon. com is still a blog, and it did not provide data supported Pro's case. Pro never cites statistics showing that there are available STEM workers as he claims. He cited the example of Apple Computer moving production overseas to obtain lower labor costs. However, mass manufacturing like Apple's is not a STEM job, it's unskilled labor. Instead of providing more STEM education, skilled immigrants could be allowed to fill more of the jobs. Pro cited President Obama saying he wanted to expand the H1B visa program to facilitate that. However, Democrats have in fact blocked every move to actually expand the program, and the visa quotas for the year are used up in three months. Obama gets a lot of money from high tech CEOs, so he tries to placate them, but he gets a lot more money from labor unions intent on restricting supply. Pro offers no evidence that immigrant STEM workers are paid less than native workers. They are not. Pro argues that there is a problem attracting students to pursue STEM education, but that does not reduce the need for more STEM education. It increases the need to get students on board early. Pro argues that increasing language skills will somehow motivate more students. That's contradicted by the very large numbers of foreign students, having lesser language skills, in STEM. The cure is to reduce the subsidies for non-STEM education like law. The government effectively controls education, so its a matter of policy. Pro argues that many students drop out of STEM careers in the first year. That is true for the most difficult professions like engineering and medicine, and the main cure is to have better preparation in high school. However, there is a large range of STEM fields. A person not qualified to be an engineer may chose a career as a skilled technician. The problem is match skills to abilities, not limiting STEM education. Pro argues that because IT focuses on short-term consumer needs, the occupation is ultimately doomed by lack of long-term thinking. There is no sign of this theory having any effect, but Pro assures us that the problem looms. He recommends more study of the humanities, including music, as the cure. The problem hasn't occurred, and will not, because (1) very few visionaries are required and mass education will not produce more of them, and (2) products evolve successfully without visionary planning. Visionaries speed progress, but progress happens incrementally regardless. The resolution is negated.