Growing Stronger STEMs

I'm a frequent critic of appeals for more STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) education. I am also an engineer with a PhD who teaches both grade-school and college students. I don't see this as a contradiction at all because I didn't learn to be a successful engineer in a STEM classroom.

I learned the basics of mechanical and systems engineering under the hood of a dozen or so cars and trucks that my friends and I decided we could fix. My most successful friends learned to program computers, rewire stereos and generally perform all of the "STEM" tasks because they tinkered at home. Our curiosity wasn't awoken by grades, but rather a desire to learn that our parents encouraged and our lax (by modern standards) schedules allowed. We were simply interested in making a change in the world, and as Tycho points out, no-one of any sense has ever bet against the . . . resourcefulness of young men."


An AP Economics class gave me the tools I needed to start forming economic models of the behaviors I read about in the newspaper. This, along with long discussions with my parents, led me to ask "what's the underlying dynamics here?" When confronted with organizational challenges, this education provides me with the tools to navigate them. On technical issues, knowing what the instrument really measures is the difference between a failed experiment and a PhD.

The problem with my path through STEM education is that it does not fit well into an NCLB/TAKS/Iowa Test model. At what grade level should one be able to check oil, inspect a brake pad or replace an intake manifold? Since most diagnoses take several tries, how do you test a student's ability to find "the underlying dynamics?"

In addition, the facilities required for my education spanned several cooperative households, took the time and flexibility of school administrators and a community that felt young people ought to be engaged with their world, not sheltered from potential harm. Today's education debate seems to accept as first principles that learning can only happen in a classroom, is only official if it can be tested and that there is one standard of capability to which all should be trained.

As a STEM educator, and one who holds a PhD in a mechanical field, I'd much rather teach math to studets who know metal than metal to students who know math. It's cheaper to teach and easier to to test algebra, geometry and calculus than auto mechanics, baking and philosophy. Traditionally, the latter subjects have been learned at home, and I don't want to suggest we put more of the education burden on schools. How we encourage stronger STEMs at home that will bear fruit later?