Are STEM majors bourgeois?

Those grapes must be pretty sour, fam.

Most are wage earners or self-employed, so I'd guess no, in the strict sense.
Regarding ideology: as a STEM major myself coming from a family of doctors, I'd say some basic characteristics are the relative or absolute paucity of extracurricular readings.

Also, when there isn't a complete indifference towards society on display, Thatcher style, the worldview is just that 'technology will fix it', this ties in with the disdain for political economy, philosophy, history etc.

The perceived 'toughness' and the I guess somewhat realer exclusivity of their position as specialised or muh privileged segments of the proletariat gives rise to an exaltation of labor (it's amazing how much doctors idolize their work in their daily life and as a determiner of identity), coupled with a soft social Darwinism, in the way that your life is quite literally in a surgeon's hand when it comes to that.

As a special aside on doctors, most of the 20-30 year old students and interns I've spoken to idolize the American healthcare system, in the sense that they'd a fuckload more money than they do over here.

Of course there are many exceptions, with a majority of them being actually commies.
But in general the situation is kinda grim.

…

The market doesn't want or need 10,000 electrical engineers, though. There is no STEM crisis. If they really wanted to be a part of the market so bad, they'd be going into nursing school.

4th yeah physics course here, most of my mates are woke, so the answer is no, op

Is mayonnaise bourgeoisie?

But nursing doesn't pay that much

Why does the thumbnail of that picture look like the flag of Albania?

Yes

Quads of truth

Yeah, right, Soviet Union was first into space thanks to liberal arts and woman studies.

Fucking retards, that's why Western leftism will always be a joke.

What the hell did you just call me, you racist?

I didn't realize the Soviets were still pumping out STEMlords in 2016.

Of course science/engineering is important but maybe if they had less of an emphasis on masturbatory heavy industry and giant engineering works they would have been able to provide the light goods that people really wanted

Blame Khrushchev for mindlessly copying Stalin without stopping to think why he was building heavy industry in the first place.

...

Read How the Steel was tempered and see what it says about the importance of both aspects.
3/10 for getting me to reply

Yes it does, porky isn't happy with how median salaries are right now for scientists and engineers so as long as porky doesn't have to foot the bill (directly) for educating and training, then you will keep on hearing this meme from the media and politicians.

This, I don't get where this "STEM are are capitalists/ancaps" meme came from.

I dropped out of bioengineering, but I had two friends who now professors of maths and coincidentally both finished at the top of their class, they were both socialists (I would dare say Marxist but I never probed enough of their beliefs to confirm, they were certainly anti-capitalist but not like SJW liberals are) and Corbyn sympathisers.

Many of the post-doc students I came across were leftists, and unfortunately I got berated by a chem grad for using the word "faggot".

Most rightwingers and conservative proponents I met were doing law, politics and history. Unfortunately as were the New Labour apologists and even having recently met some Labour Youth activists, the anti-Corbyn ones were law and business students/graduates.

How does liberal arts solve this? Light goods like toilet paper and essential consumer goods? Or light goods as in decadent and wasteful consumerism? ie modern fashion industry, low life expectancy electronics and gadgets.

Of course liberal arts doesn't solve this directly but the STEM supremacy mindset kind of can be related to big pointless USSR white elephants, having more of a focus on the human picture through the social sciences maybe means listening to the people more. Of course I'm not in favour of consumerism but people like stuff and not just what some engineer who wants all the money for some dam project would call 'essential'. STEMfags are valuable of course but there's a place in society for all kinds.

The problem STEMfags have with philosophers is that philosophyfags are always saying that their shit is just as good as science for finding shit out about the world. This is wrong by simple observation. I don't discount that we can learn things bout ethics and shit like that from philosophy, but please stay out of my field and I'll stay out of yours.

...

I dropped out of my chemical engineering classes, I can confirm that most are.

S&M aren't bougie, but the T and E absolutely are.

You have to be joking. I've never heard a humanities major say they could design a bridge but I constantly hear STEM dorks dismiss philosophy as if they had obtained a complete understanding of it after taking a Phil 101 class.

No.

To elaborate:

Being a philosophy major makes you contribute nothing to society other than perhaps being a philosphy teacher. Same with shit like "creative writing". There is very few people who will actually benefit from art studies, they are mostly already very talented.

Most things that are turned into full blown majors are something you should study on the side, and everyone should, not something you study as a primary study.

Even without the argument of "muh market", society simply does not need many create writers or history students. It does need some, but society needs much more people who can design and build solutions to practical problems, like infrastructure.

As a rule of thumb, any field that produces a non-scarce good, be it art, games, inventions, do not require as many people, because one person could theoretically serve all of mankind.

On the other hand, you do need lots of practitioners, doctors, farmers and bookkeepers, because they provide services for specific groups of people, and the product of their labour is scarce. You also need programmers and engineers who make solutions for specific problems, such as designing infrastructure, buildings, assembly lines etc. But even then, programming and engineering beyond those scarce cases, such as consumer software or designs for mass produced constructions are not nearly as scarce and thus need jobs to fill as the scarce places.

You need lots of people to combat scarcity, but studying philosophy, while fun and useful for the self, is not something society needs masses of.

I would suggest all coming together and battle scarcity to enable all people to study interesting and creative fields such as philosophy and art, rather than schooling massive amounts of people exclusively in those fields, and then have them sit on their ass because there's not enough paid work for them.

in communism we are past the point of labour scarcity by a longshot, and paid work doesnt exist, hence you also dont need to worry about using the available labour to maximise prosperity of society.

tl;dr Science and art, not science or art.

This thread is the final proof that deontological ethics are a shit.

This is why nobody likes you people.

Read my post against you triggered fuck

It's typical STEM worship.

Also
Do you realize how fucking dumb that sounds?

You should go back to your classes about textual understanding mate. One piece of art, once created, like a movie, can serve all of mankind. Hence, to produce art for all of humanity, you do not need nearly as much people as you need to grow food or assemble tv's.

Hell I even said most stem jobs being glorified fall under this. Most engineering, industrial design, higher sciences etc fall under this. You dont need one million people to program a text editor or design a car, you need maybe 10-50 at most and then the code or design can be used by all of mankind.

And how fucking bland and uninteresting would that be? Part of the joy of life is that you get to experience the creative output of many different people. What you describe sounds like a utilitarian nightmare. There's enough people on the planet that I don't think we're going to run out of engineers and farmers if some people decide to be creative with their lives.

STEM is less bourgeois than humanities that's for sure.

Yes, and if you bothered to read my post you know what I said to that.

We should trained by artistically gifted in their skills, but right now, imo, there is a high focus on studies that dont give any benefit to society either because the study is useless 99% of the time (womens studies and shit like that) or because there is a massive oversupply of graduates (80 mediocre artists and 20 good ones out of a 100, rather than just training the ones with talent)

Some people should be creative. SOME people, not everybody. The vast majority of people, if not everyone, should learn both society-demanded skills and art and philosphy, not only either one.

If you only teach people one you end up with idiotic anclap engineers and retarded triggered fingerpainters like you.

(see corrected comment)

And who decides who is eligible for artistic training? By what measure do you determine someone's artistic output as meaningful or worthwhile? How would you measure a perons innate artistic ability? Nobody is really born with some innate artistic talent. Art is like anything else. The skills come with practice and dedication.

Do you honestly believe the world has a shortage of people involved in STEM fields?

The best artists? I'm sure you can come up with some test instead of saying

Yes. If we didnt have a shortage we would be automating the shit out of everything and building shit all over the place. Instead humanity is too busy pushing stocks and bonds around or working at starbucks because theres no jobs for most university schooled art students.

Also, the fact that stem pays this well means we have a shortage of people. If theres an oversupply in a skill, the pay is shit. Like unschooled labour and shit.

Yes but only if they are heterosexual white males.

STEM major reporting. Answer is obviously no. Right now STEM majors are just well compensated in their jobs, since those skills are still necessary and can't be automated away yet. It won't last.

Are you implying art isn't subjective?

Wow. Really profound observation.

No. There is a surplus of lawyers yet their annual average income is 130k.

So you want to live in Rationalia?

...

I like this comic, but i can watch a movie i know is bad and still like it, same for a book.
Art is both subjective and objective.

Taste in art is subjective, but art has objective elements.

Yes. Me shitting on a canvas isnt art. Artistry takes skill and all skills and talents should be nurtured early on so they can be adequately tested later on.

While there is a certain truth to it, it can only take you do far. Society as a whole does not need masses of history or art students, and thus will not pay you to do that work. Until we have reached a society where wage labour is no longer necessary, wage labour will exist and thus some jobs will get more benefits than other.

Then obviously there isnt a surplus, or there is some cartel structure going on. If there was an oversupply of lawyers, they would underbid each other.

The dietitian said that the salad is better for the persons health,unlike the deep friend mars bar.
Which is an objective truth.
However,he did not say that the salad is tastier than the deep-fried mars bar.
And even if he did it would be subjective.
Taste,just like enjoyment is subjective and varies from person to person.
I mean,look at your strawman comic.I think it's shit,whilst you think it's great.
It,objectively,has no evidence or proof to deny that art is subjective,but you SUBJECTIVELY like it.

Taste in art is subjective, but it still has objective elements.

And untalented 3 year old is never going to make something that is prettier than a talented artist. There are techniques, skill, patterns, compositions etc. Theres whole fields of study to understand why something is or is not pretty.

Actually that might be considered art given the right context. Craftsmanship and art are not the same thing.

True. There are definitely certain criteria that we value and give weight to (use of negative space, perspective, color theory, etc). But there is still an intangible creative quality to art. An artist could tick all the right boxes but fail creatively. Their piece could technically be of worth but not hold any artistic value because it lacks creativity.

I never denied that art has objective elements.
You can determine the amount of effort that went into creating a piece of art,just like the techniques,patterns,it's compositions etc.
Which is objective.
But whether a person likes it or not is indeed subjective.
That is what people mean when they say "art is subjective".

All majors are bourgeois. If you have attended university you can fuck off.

yes ,because attending college is the same as owning the means of production.
Good job.

Damn, some of you guys are spooked.

Yes, STEM is prole. First off, the products of their labour are stolen, like other proles, and they still have to sell their own labour, like other proles.

Yes, their jobs pay well. That can change at any point in time they can also work under shit conditions. Norway recently saw the longest strike among doctors in its history, and thousands of who used to be the most well paid engineers are now unemployed because of the drop in the oil price. IT is having issues as well.

Why would a STEM major claim that art is objective in any sense of the word? Most scientists recognise that objectivity doesn't exist and instead employ falsifiability and plausibility to describe knowledge. We don't know that General Relativity is true, we know that it's the most successful theory we have at this point in history.

A STEM major should also recognise that art isn't quantifiable and cannot possibly be objectively measured. If you determine art's greatness by consensus, you could easily make the case that the most popular art is the best art. But no sane person would every make this claim. Capitalism commodifies art and creates standards and formulas you are expected to follow, not following them is progressive, not bad art.

...

lmao enjoy working at burger king. At least you can squirt the ketchup on my burger with pretty patterns right? haha

STOP

FUCKING STOP

Do it dude. You'll probably end up working at some scumbag ad agency doing graphic design to get by but you can always do freelance on the side.

I'm kidding, but I mean, that's capitalism. I myself am on the other end of the spectrum- I work a job I completely hate and I can't get paid for the things I like to do (also I need money to do them)

...

This. As Leftists we shouldn't denigrate labor. I think The board needs a struggle session.

Maybe try mixing art with STEM shit?

>Taking a Data Science class in college to finish up my CS degree which at this point I'm really doing to get out of the house and be around people
It's honestly terrifying to some degree. It's like someone's laid out the blueprints for the World State from Brave New World.

This.

My dream is to become good enough at maths and computer engineering so I could program some innovative open source synthesizers on my computer, but I spent too much time studying psychology in university, and I'm now a lazy alcoholic, so I have a long road ahead of me.

It isn't bourgeois per se but the people that usually enroll in STEM majors are most often than not the biggest classcucks out there.