Why do people who chose not to study science and math opine on the virtues of studying science and math?

Philip Greenspun:

The New York Times editorial board contains people who studied history, economics, law, history (again), journalism, journalism (again), history (again, this time for the "science" expert), journalism, English literature, French literature, English literature (again), comparative literature, law, psychology, international relations, German, modern history, and law. Yesterday, the group signed an editorial entitled "Missing from Science Class; Too Few Girls and Minorities Study Tech Subjects." The group of history and literature majors confidently wrote about the benefits of a tech education, how to motivate women and people with particular skin colors, and the sagacity of President Obama's proposal on preschools (my previous post on the subject; note that Obama has previous extolled the virtues of STEM education for people other than himself (example)).

Why would folks who apparently preferred other subjects suggest that women and particular minority groups be encouraged to study tech subjects that they themselves did not like and ended up not needing?

Separately, here is a much more substantive approach to the challenge of getting more women interested in computer science: "Feminism and Programming Languages" by Arielle Schlesinger. Excerpts:

Posted by Jim Zellmer at December 22, 2013 2:46 AM
Subscribe to this site via RSS/Atom: Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas