What's Wrong with Buying into the Battle between STEM and the Humanities

There was a great NYT piece by Michael Suk-Young Chwe this weekend. The piece describes how research methods used in the humanities could help researchers in the STEM disciplines.

To deal with the problem of selective use of data, the scientific community must become self-aware and realize that it has a problem. In literary criticism, the question of how one’s arguments are influenced by one’s prejudgments has been a central methodological issue for decades.

The "problem" Chwe refers to is the increasingly apparent skewing of research results in the sciences, results that may be skewed by confirmation bias. The most infamous example of this is actually not from a STEM discipline. It is the serious flaws in the Rogoff and Reinhart economics study, a study that influenced policy makers around the world.

I'm posting about Chwe's piece here because it sheds light on a highly visible debate about higher education - a debate which the President brought up in Wisconsin last week when he linked majoring in the humanities with lower income levels.

The Humanities

The debate, as best I can summarize it, is this:

One side says, 'The humanities are overvalued because they do not teach skills that improve employ-ability. College should primarily be about getting a good-paying job. It is an investment in your knowledge that can be measured according to how well you get paid after graduation.'

The other side says, 'STEM disciplines are overvalued because they neglect skills required to communicate and innovate. College should not primarily be about getting a job. It is a stage when you become a critical participant in an area of inquiry, the success of which can be measured by whether or not you become a constructive contributor to your community, profession, and family.'

I've always been drawn to the latter argument. I'll admit it is not a perfect argument, but I've struggled to figure out where it falls short.

Chwe helped me sort that out.

He does not pit the Humanities against STEM disciplines.
He does not argue that one is better than the other.
He argues that the research methods developed in the humanities could/should help address a serious problem in the sciences.
It is an argument that points to the value of studying the humanities - no matter what your major is.
It is an argument that points to the value of employing people with a broad spectrum of knowledges - no matter the industry.
It is an argument that exposes the flaws in a debate that pits the humanities against the STEM disciplines.

I like arguments that blow up the debate I thought they addressed. Chwe's work is a nice example of just that.