University President Steven Knapp is a former English professor. A notable one, at that. But evidently, his true love is science.
Under his administration, the University has broke ground on a $275 million project to build a Science and Engineering Hall. Leaders across higher education justify spending massive amounts on science, technology, engineering and mathematics – or STEM – majors since they are disciplines that supposedly pay graduates hefty salaries upon graduation. And you know what more wealthy graduates means? More donations.
But according to a new study on early career earnings, our preconceived notions might be wrong. Mike Schneider, the president of College Measures, the group that conducted the study, had this to say in The Atlantic:
Is STEM one letter too long?
Wage data in several states show that employers are paying more – often far more – for techies (i.e.: computer science majors), engineers, and math grads. But no evidence suggests that biology majors, the most popular science field of study, earn a wage premium. Chemistry graduates earn somewhat more than biology grads, but still don’t command the wages that are quite TEM-quality.
If this study – which focused its research on Texas, Colorado and Virginia – is correct, it might cause some in higher education to stop in their tracks they contemplate whether spending millions on these majors was the right move.
But administrators should tune this new study out. It doesn’t matter if science is the most lucrative profession. It’s still a subject worth spending on because majors who study basic science go on to do great things. Their studies set the foundation for diseases to be cured, for example. Or they become science teachers, which our public schools desperately need.
Yes, money counts. And Schneider is responsible to acknowledge that “students who have been bombarded by the rhetoric invoking the critical importance of STEM education might assume that majoring in any STEM field will lead to better wages.” But there are other monikers of success beyond whether or not you make a six-figure salary.
This is a lesson GW has already learned. The University is known for its record-breaking numbers of students who occupy low-paying, but highly rewarding jobs at Teach for America and the Peace Corps after graduation. Not to mention the massive number of graduates who enter politics or join non-government organizations after their undergraduate years.
These aren’t just career paths that the University suggests as possibilities; these are professions that GW encourages .These fields aren’t going to make our graduates rich, but it’ll make them influential, relevant and honorable.
Why should our approach to the “S” in STEM be any different?
So GW, when it comes to funding science, stick to your gut.
The writer, a junior majoring in political communication, is The Hatchet’s opinions editor.
