STEM as safe subjects: the cost of an education system prioritizing reductionism over humanity

On the go? Listen to the commentary podcast episode (created by AI): https://youtu.be/n-EDSDx-_mY

Education is often framed as a gateway to opportunity, a system designed to prepare young minds for the complexities of the adult world. In this system, however, a striking dichotomy emerges between subjects that prioritize clarity and measurable success and those that demand ambiguity and introspection. STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) subjects are often positioned as the “safe” choice within schools, promising clear pathways to high grades, job security, and societal approval. By contrast, Humanities and Arts subjects explore the essence of humanity, offering the tools for critical thinking and self-awareness. Yet, as the education system increasingly prioritizes grades and employability, it sidelines the very disciplines that cultivate the kind of creativity and reflection essential for a thriving society. The problematic dominance of STEM subjects in education and the values it perpetuates create an urgent need for a reimagined system that places greater emphasis on the Humanities and Arts.

THE ALLURE OF STEM: SAFETY THROUGH SIMPLICITY

STEM subjects appeal to students and educators alike because of their perceived clarity. They operate within frameworks where success is defined by objective standards: solving equations, applying formulas, and adhering to predetermined methodologies. A mathematics test, for example, has one correct answer to each question, and success is a matter of practice and precision. This reductionist approach to learning makes STEM subjects an attractive option for students seeking reliable paths to high grades. Mark schemes in STEM subjects often reward accuracy over interpretation, making achievement a matter of following established rules rather than engaging in abstract or critical thought. This, of course, is a perfect path for creating middle management and corporate ‘rats’ (think: rat race) – corporate success is based on measurable outcomes, KPI’s and reduction of risk; STEM subjects do the same.

The education system’s emphasis on grades as the ultimate measure of success further bolsters STEM’s popularity. Because grades in STEM subjects can be achieved through consistent, repetitive practice and/or rote memorization, they provide students with a sense of control over their academic trajectories. Humanities and Arts, by contrast, involve subjective assessments, where essays and projects are evaluated on interpretation, argumentation, and originality. Whether they know it or not (and as a teacher, I suspect it is usually the latter), for many students, the perceived unpredictability of these assessments makes Humanities and Arts a riskier, and thus less attractive choice.

PRECLUDING SELF-KNOWLEDGE: THE INDUSTRIALIZED EDUCATION MODEL

A critical flaw in the current education model is its failure to foster self-knowledge. From a young age, students are rarely asked who they are, what they feel, or how their experiences connect to those of humanity as a whole. Instead, the hyper-individualistic approach that aligns with STEM disciplines pushes students toward external markers of success: grades, accolades, and predefined career paths. As a result, students often reach adulthood without a sense of who they are or what they truly value, feeling unmoored unless they cling to the clarity STEM subjects provide.

This hyper-individualized framework mirrors the industrialized approach to education, where students are treated as products on an assembly line. Knowing "what to do" becomes the primary goal, leaving little room for exploration of "who to be." STEM subjects excel in this framework because they offer clear, linear pathways that reduce the uncertainty of life choices. Humanities and Arts, by contrast, challenge students to grapple with the unknown, inviting them to discover not only what they want to do but also who they are. This distinction is crucial: knowing who one is provides a foundation for a life grounded in purpose and happiness, rather than a life dictated by the mechanistic demands of a flawed social reality.

STEM AND THE MECHANISTIC VIEW OF THE WORLD

The reductionist nature of STEM subjects reflects and reinforces a mechanistic worldview. This perspective, rooted in Enlightenment thinking, views the world as a system of interconnected parts that can be understood, manipulated, and controlled. While this approach has obviously led to technological advancements and scientific breakthroughs, it also perpetuates a patriarchal, capitalist ethos that prioritizes efficiency, productivity, and material wealth. But surely, you might say, these priorities aren’t always a bad thing? In response, I would only point to the proliferation of both the self-help and fitness industries in the 21st century: increased demand for these services underscore how capitalist values prevent humanity from thriving whilst simultaneously destroying the environment, exacerbating humanity’s disconnection from the earth and each other, and provoking our despair.

Furthermore, STEM disciplines often serve as the backbone of industries that drive the global economy, from engineering and technology to pharmaceuticals and finance. These industries thrive on the capitalist model of constant growth, which prioritizes short-term profits over long-term sustainability. For example, advances in engineering and technology have enabled mass production and consumerism, contributing to environmental degradation and climate change. While individual scientists and engineers have worked to address these issues, the broader system often co-opts their efforts to serve corporate interests.

Moreover, the focus on STEM as a pathway to lucrative careers reinforces a commodified view of education. Students are encouraged to see their studies as investments, with the ultimate goal of securing high-paying jobs. Never mind that these very jobs will be soulless cogs in a money-making machine. This instrumentalist approach to learning undermines the intrinsic value of education as a means of personal growth and societal contribution. By prioritizing STEM, schools inadvertently perpetuate the idea that success is defined by economic gain rather than intellectual fulfillment or social impact.

THE WIDENING GYRE: FROM INDUSTRIAL TO CORPORATE

If you caught the poetic refence in the subtitle here, this essay probably isn’t for you. If you didn’t, read ‘The Second Coming’ by WB Yeats, because evidently, the industrial model of education and its rigid structures got you, too.

Ken Robinson’s famous TED Talk, “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” critiques the overemphasis on rigid structures in modern education systems. He argues that schools prioritize conformity, standardization, and measurable outcomes, stifling the creativity necessary for human innovation. However, nearly two decades later, Robinson’s insights remain largely unaddressed, with education systems calcifying into the very industrial-era paradigms he critiqued. These systems, increasingly standardized, operate less as platforms for intellectual discovery and more as prolonged preparatory pipelines for university admission, reflecting what Robinson aptly identified as a means-to-an-end model of education. The persistence of this structure begs the question: why hasn’t meaningful change occurred despite widespread recognition of its flaws?

The answer, I think, lies in the symbiotic relationship between STEM education and the capitalist system it serves. STEM’s dominance reflects a broader economic preference for quantifiable metrics over qualitative understanding, perpetuating a feedback loop that prioritizes economic utility over human flourishing. As Henry Giroux argues in Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education, education has been reduced to “training students to become skilled workers rather than critical and engaged citizens,” a shift that aligns perfectly with corporate interests. STEM subjects, with their focus on measurable outputs and practical applications, feed directly into this corporate agenda, producing a workforce optimized for efficiency and productivity rather than creativity or introspection.

One glaring casualty of this trend is the demise of public intellectual discourse. Nowhere is this more evident than in the circus acts of national news and politics. Just tune in for a dose of playground-level vocabulary, half-baked ideas, and the kind of petty bullying that would make even a middle-schooler blush. If you're looking for proof of the public's "stupidification," it’s right there in the headlines—served with a side of smug soundbites and an extra helping of intellectual void. This erosion of thoughtful, informed dialogue mirrors the broader educational shift away from fostering critical thinking skills, leaving the public sphere a hollowed-out echo chamber of performative outrage.

This corporatization dynamic is not limited to K-12 education but extends to higher education, where the rise of the "corporate university" reinforces the commodification of learning. In The University in Ruins, Bill Readings highlights how the university has shifted from being a space for critical inquiry to a “transnational bureaucratic corporation” that values market-driven goals above intellectual growth. This shift trickles down to earlier stages of education, where the curriculum is increasingly shaped by market imperatives rather than pedagogical or humanistic concerns. STEM, as the cornerstone of this model, becomes the logical choice for students seeking to navigate a system that equates success with economic gain. The result is an educational ecosystem that prioritizes employability over enlightenment, leaving little room for the cultivation of broader human potential.

The corporatization of education not only undermines creativity but also erodes original and meaningful human expression. One only has to look to the modern trend of mediocre movie remakes and sequels to see how the corporatization of the arts functions to destroy original and meaningful human expression. But you would need a Humanities and Arts education to understand and articulate that. Our currently reality in big-budget (read: ‘profitable’ from the corporate perspective) arts is as Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer observed in Dialectic of Enlightenment: the “culture industry” standardizes art to serve capitalist consumption, stripping it of its critical and transformative potential. Education that emphasizes STEM over the Humanities perpetuates this cycle by devaluing the critical thinking and cultural awareness necessary to challenge such trends. Without a robust grounding in the Humanities, students lack the tools to question the systems that prioritize profit over originality, reinforcing a worldview that commodifies even human creativity.

This commodification extends to the students themselves, who are encouraged to view education as a transactional process—an investment in future earning potential rather than a journey toward self-discovery. STEM disciplines, with their promise of clear career pathways and tangible rewards, align perfectly with this instrumentalist mindset. Yet, as sociologist C. Wright Mills emphasizes in The Sociological Imagination, true education should “link personal troubles to public issues,” fostering a sense of agency and purpose that transcends individual success. Humanities and Arts disciplines, which grapple with questions of identity, morality, and meaning, are uniquely equipped to cultivate this perspective. However, their marginalization within an education system driven by corporate values ensures that such opportunities remain rare.

Ultimately, the entrenched dominance of STEM reflects not an inherent superiority but a systemic bias toward what is easily measurable and marketable. Education has been sold to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder in our world of Late-Stage Capitalism is always a corporate conglomerate.

To challenge this trajectory, we must recognize the broader ideological forces at play and advocate for an education system that values creativity, critical thinking, and humanistic inquiry. As Robinson warned, failing to do so risks producing a generation of workers optimized for corporate needs but bereft of the imagination and self-awareness necessary to build a better world.

THE ROLE OF HUMANITIES AND ARTS: EDUCATING FOR HUMANITY

In contrast to STEM’s reductionist approach, Humanities and Arts subjects explore the complexities of human experience. Literature, history, philosophy, and the arts invite students to grapple with questions about identity, morality, and meaning. These disciplines cultivate critical thinking, empathy, and creativity—skills that are essential for navigating a rapidly changing world.

Humanities and Arts also challenge students to question societal norms and imagine alternative futures. A history class, for example, might examine how colonialism shaped modern power structures, encouraging students to think critically about issues of justice and equity. Similarly, a literature class might explore themes of alienation and belonging, helping students to understand their own experiences and those of others. These subjects provide a counterbalance to the technocratic ethos of STEM, reminding us that education is not only about solving problems but also about understanding who we are and what kind of world we want to create.

The intrinsic value of Humanities and Arts lies in their ability to foster a sense of purpose and connection. While STEM subjects often prepare students for specific careers, Humanities and Arts provide tools for living a meaningful life. They encourage students to reflect on their values, engage with diverse perspectives, and contribute to society in ways that extend beyond material success. As Robinson asserted, creativity and imagination are at the heart of human thriving, and they must be nurtured through education.

STEM AND THE CAPITALIST MACHINE

The dominance of STEM in education reflects and reinforces the capitalist logic that drives modern society. By preparing students for careers in high-demand fields, STEM subjects align with the needs of a global economy that prioritizes innovation, efficiency, and consumption. This alignment is not inherently problematic—after all, technological advancements have improved healthcare, communication, and quality of life. However, the uncritical embrace of STEM risks perpetuating systems of inequality and environmental harm.

Consider the issue of the climate crisis. Many of the technologies that have driven economic growth—fossil fuels, industrial agriculture, and mass transportation—were developed through STEM disciplines. While STEM professionals are now at the forefront of efforts to address these challenges, their work is often constrained by corporate and governmental agendas that prioritize profits over sustainability. The Humanities and Arts, with their focus on ethical reflection and systemic critique, offer essential perspectives that can guide these efforts toward more just and sustainable outcomes.

Furthermore, the capitalist model of constant growth is inherently unsustainable, as it relies on the exploitation of finite resources. STEM subjects, by training students to optimize processes and develop new technologies, risk perpetuating this cycle unless tempered by the critical perspectives of the Humanities and Arts. Education must therefore balance the technical expertise of STEM with the moral and philosophical insights of the Humanities to address the complex challenges of the 21st century.

TOWARD A BALANCED EDUCATION

To create a more equitable and sustainable future, the education system must move beyond its narrow focus on grades and employability. This requires reimagining education as a holistic process that values both technical expertise and critical reflection. STEM subjects should not be abandoned but rather integrated with Humanities and Arts in ways that encourage interdisciplinary thinking and ethical awareness.

For example, a curriculum that combines environmental science with philosophy could help students understand the scientific basis of climate change while grappling with its ethical implications. Similarly, a program that pairs engineering with literature might explore how technological innovations shape human experience, fostering empathy and creativity alongside technical skills. By bridging the gap between STEM and the Humanities, education can prepare students not only for careers but also for lives of purpose and meaning.

Moreover, educators must challenge the instrumentalist logic that defines success in terms of grades and economic gain. This means creating spaces for students to explore their interests, take intellectual risks, and develop a sense of agency. It also means advocating for policies that support diverse educational pathways, recognizing that the value of a subject cannot be measured solely by its marketability or job-market appeal.

The dominance of STEM subjects in education reflects a broader societal preference for clarity, efficiency, and economic gain. While STEM disciplines have undoubtedly contributed to human progress, their reductionist approach risks perpetuating systems of inequality, environmental harm, and cultural stagnation. Humanities and Arts, by contrast, offer the tools for critical thinking, self-awareness, and social transformation. To create a more just and sustainable future, we must reimagine education as a process that values both technical expertise and human flourishing. Only by embracing the full spectrum of human knowledge can we hope to build a world that balances innovation with integrity, productivity with purpose, and progress with compassion.