by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

When I read Mel Riddile’s discussion of the value of a math education my immediate response was to cheer.  For years I told my students and their parents that obtaining a degree in math was the pathway to financial success.  The Wall Street Journal chart provided in the post plainly showed that the starting salaries of math-related careers were among the highest. The paper’s analysis of the data was clear—"(the) starting pay of certain liberal arts majors generally clocks in well below that of graduates in engineering fields." Just as I began to run a victory lap around my computer, my telephone rang.

A difference of opinion

The call was from a friend who could not believe what she had just read.  The conversation began “Stu, I read the post on “Math Pays” and I thought the math/economics person in you would realize…”  From the tone of her voice I knew immediately that I was in trouble.  This individual is not only very intelligent; she also has a strong math background though her area of expertise is in liberal arts.  I must report (with no sense of pride) that I interrupted the caller to relate that I had not written the article in question.  Yes, I admit it—in a moment of panic I threw my subject under the educational bus. 

As she continued I found that her thoughts were both interesting and informative.  “…you should realize that pay differences may also be due to scarcity – as more engineers are produced wages will decline.  Also, snapshots are not trends.  Additionally, these seem like four-year degree first jobs – does this exclude graduate degree wages?”

She finished with a compelling closing.  “Wages are supposed to be the equivalent of societal value.  I’d argue that the free market undervalues jobs that are in the commons and overvalues jobs in the private sector.  Example:  no matter how logical a scientific or mathematical position may be, without political will and knowledge of the system little will get done.  Just consider issues such as global climate change and infrastructure. Knowledge of how a community functions is necessary for positive progress, yet nowhere on the chart is there anything to do with civics/political science.”

Finding some common ground

When she paused to catch her breath I quickly mentioned that I had previously written a post defending the teaching of math but with the use of social rather than financial arguments. This article brought us closer to a consensus.  Her response after reading it was “Something that really bothers me is the use of undergrad education as a high-level trade school.  We should be educating all students in the sciences, social sciences, history, math, literature. Do you know that for most Americans the last history class they take is 11th grade U.S. History?   The idea that someone in engineering school can go through four years of college and only be educated in engineering is absurd.  The idea that a student majoring in Theater can’t interpret simple statistics or identify mode, mean, median of attendance data is nonsensical.  The knowledge to understand equilibrium should not be limited to science majors.  The trend of higher education seems to be to create cogs in the economic machine at the expense of participants in a healthy society.”

The more perspectives the better

Is it possible that I have been convinced to abandon a belief I have been espousing for decades?   No, I will continue to argue vehemently that the study of math is critical for everyone. However, I do find the input of someone from outside the field extremely persuasive.  Voices representing every academic endeavor need to be heard and heeded.  If we actually listen we will soon realize that the best education is a well-rounded one. 

Perhaps my caller’s final statement presented the essential overriding thought: “My feeling is that no subject holds a monopoly on thinking skills or usefulness.”  Let me just say, “Amen”.