tracks of learning. One lane was reserved for upper-class wealthy property owners or leadership class that incorporated the classical study of the humanities with the practical elements of managing business interests. The other track implemented through apprenticeships and, to some extent, a rudimentary education system, was the focus on trades or occupational training. This track was reserved for working-class people, and very little of the curriculum included studying the humanities. The humanities were not considered necessary to plow a field, fixing farm equipment, or be employed in a trade.

The debate over the purpose of education has not substantively changed since the colonial period. Most education observers agree too much of American ingenuity relies on foreign brainpower. Countries like China, India, and some European countries graduate far more engineers and scientists than the United States. Given that much of that education is provided by American Universities, it seems counterintuitive that more Americans would not be choosing STEM courses. A report published by Inside Higher Ed (2017) found that the majority of graduate science and engineering students in American universities were comprised of international foreign-born students, many of who return to their home country after graduation. The most ardent supporter of the humanities understands the practical implication of not having enough STEM graduates to fulfill critical vacancies in American industries. There is little to disagree on this point.

Equal understanding comes from the most staunch supporters of STEM education. Core knowledge is essential, but so is critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Americans do not work in isolation for the most part, and learning how to communicate, collaborate, and problem solve are the foundation for any humanities course. Technical skills are only as good as the ability to communicate and implement the skill into a practical application. The area STEM and humanities representatives agree is the need for both sets of learning a feature of the education curriculum.

Where the disagreement begins is the balance between STEM and humanities. This disagreement goes to the core of the argument of defining what education is. What does it mean to be educated? The humanities argue education is defined by its breadth, depth, and width of general knowledge a person accumulates. All the humanities education applies to problem-solving. STEM education is more pragmatic and focused. Education is the skills and learning needed to use in an occupation—science, technology, engineering, and math.

There is a second component to the philosophical argument between STEM and the humanities. Humanities education is a component of public schools in the United States. Every student is introduced to some part of the humanities. STEM students are divided early in the education process by standardized test scores that measure propensity in math or science. The result is that some students in the public education system are excluded from upper-level STEM education. A qualifying process artificially eliminates the pool of available talent.

Imagine if in the third grade scholastic levels were determined by a standardized test, a group of children was not reading at grade level, so going forward, they would not have access to reading instruction. This proposition is absurd, if not ridiculous. Educators recognize children progress in different areas at different rates and times. The third grader behind in reading gets extra assistance until their reading meets the standard. Many students are not provided an opportunity to participate in upper-level STEM education because they cannot meet the qualifying criteria.

The issue of how to serve the interest of all students is philosophical, ethical, and practical. If the design of the public education system is based upon equal access, should all children not also have equal access to the same curriculum? This is the question humanities educators ask of their STEM colleagues.