>The sciences and mathematics have a historic place in the curriculum, and technology does not, for the simple reason that the latter is not inherently “about” anything. Absent human contributions on specific topics, cut off from the subject matter of academic work, technology is nothing—an electron microscope without any samples, darkened VR goggles, an empty spreadsheet. Specializing in techne as such means trying to teach people to be good at “making” without having any idea of what to make, or why to make it.
I wonder what STEM education would have been centuries ago -- a 60-minute class period learning about the inner workings of a steam engine? or how to operate a spinning jenny? It would certainly look out of place in a school curriculum, and better learned on the job or in an apprenticeship.
As a counterpoint to the author, I would point out that universal public education is a recent thing. Sure, maybe classroom education should focus on "the good, the true, and the beautiful" but then why should we expect everyone to do it?
I wonder what STEM education would have been centuries ago -- a 60-minute class period learning about the inner workings of a steam engine? or how to operate a spinning jenny? It would certainly look out of place in a school curriculum, and better learned on the job or in an apprenticeship.
As a counterpoint to the author, I would point out that universal public education is a recent thing. Sure, maybe classroom education should focus on "the good, the true, and the beautiful" but then why should we expect everyone to do it?