STEM as a Zero-Sum Game

Despite its awkward fit, in the eyes of policy makers, STEM has become a zero-sum game. Zero-Sum Games are defined as 2-player engagements in which one player wins while the other loses (Ferguson, 2014; Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944). Ferguson (2014) defines the normal form of a two-person zero-sum game with the following figure.

Essentially, the figure above is broad enough to describe zero-sum games varying in complexity This is a simple definition of an incredibly complex area of scholarship. Entire major areas of study are centered on game theory; Nobel Prizes have been awarded for excellence in the field. For the limited parameters of my exploratory study, this simple definition is sufficient. In zero- sum games, there is one winner and one loser, and gain for one player results in loss for the other.

The state of Florida, in recent years, has produced policy rhetoric which has turned STEM education into a zero-sum game. The liberal arts have been selected to serve as the opponent. They have been designated as the losers before the game begins. Governor Scott fired the opening salvo in 2011, when he stated, “If I’m going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I’m going to take that money to create jobs. Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don’t think so “(Anderson, 2011, October 10, p. 1). In recent years, more prominent policy actors from the state have put forward similar zero-sum positions with liberal arts fields. Florida Senate President Don Gaetz, in the months before he ascended to his role, pushed for a bill that would mandate Florida middle schools to distribute employment rates and salary data for various career fields, in an attempt to push 6th _{graders into STEM majors} (Anderson, 2012, February 9). In defending the proposal, Gaetz stated, “Now if they choose to get a degree in political science or psychology or poetry that’s fine, but we ought to tell them the truth about their chances of getting a job” (Anderson, 2012, February 9, p. 4).

Gaetz is not the only prominent Florida politician to take a shot at psychology. On the campaign trail during the 2016 presidential primaries, former Governor Jeb Bush stated, “Universities ought to have some skin in the game…When a student shows up, they ought to say, ‘Hey, that psych major deal, that philosophy major thing, that’s great, it’s important to have

39

liberal arts…but realize, you’re going to be working at a Chick-Fil-A” (Mills, 2015, October 24, pp. 1-2). Less than a month later, Gov. Bush’s Floridian counterpart, Senator Marco Rubio, made headlines at a primary debate, stating, “Welders make more money than philosophers…we need more welders and less[sic] philosophers” (Krieg, 2015, November 11, p. 1). Zero-sum positions did not begin or end with Governor Scott’s diatribe against anthropology. If anything, such attitudes have intensified. Florida politicians used the platform of running for president to bring their zero-sum perceptions to a national audience.

Why did the liberal arts become the sworn enemy of STEM disciplines to so many policy makers? Why is Florida the epicenter of such attitudes? Finally, are such attitudes justified? These questions helped spur me to pursue this dissertation research. The literature provides no definitive answers. It is clear that the rhetoric used in forming a zero-sum game between STEM and the liberal arts is borrowed from the Cold War. President Eisenhower issued a call for science to beat the Soviets to the moon. President Obama used the language of Eisenhower to compete against the Chinese. The Soviet Union was defeated. Overtaking the Chinese in STEM fields is a formidable challenge. It is possible that defeating easy targets like anthropology departments is a way to score political points. It could also be human nature to look for opposition during perceived dark times. Noted psychologist and journalist, Oliver Burkeman, notes that people have difficulty recognizing the present as a comparably favorable time period. Burkeman (2012) states,

It is easy to feel, these days, that we live in uniquely insecure times, and that things are only going to get worse…yet it is easy, too, to find evidence that people have always believed that they are living in times of unique insecurity…try searching Googles library of digitised manuscripts for the phrase ‘these uncertain times’ and you’ll find that it occurs over and over, in hundreds of journals and books, in virtually every decade…reaching back to the seventeenth century” (pp. 130-131).

On the other hand, Florida’s economy was devastated by the Great Recession. It has only recently recovered the job losses incurred during those dark years, and the housing industry still has not reached the average home prices achieved before the bubble burst between 2006 and 2007. Psychology is one of the top two majors at six of the biggest public universities in the state (Logue, 2016, January 20). Florida’s policy makers could, perhaps with some justification, argue that they are simply doing their job to push students away from the liberal arts and into fields with more perceived economic utility. That could be why former Senate President Don Gaetz has not softened his attitude over the past four years. He recently stated, “When the No. 1 degree granted is psychology and the No. 2 is political science, maybe before we ask $100 million more of taxpayers we should redeploy what we have…that way we make sure we’re not sending graduates out with degrees that don’t mean much” (Logue, 2016, January 20, pg. 1).

Before Florida “redeploys” $100 million dollars (or more), it is essential that the state determine if such a measure is beneficial or necessary, preferably both. The available scholarship demonstrates that such zero-sum measures do not match well with the reality concerning STEM promotion, economic impact, the nature of innovation, and the status of the global marketplace. The market is not a zero-sum environment, and boosting STEM does not require denigrating liberal arts programs in the process, especially since the liberal arts stand in neither competition nor opposition to STEM disciplines. There are alternative ways to reach the goals that Scott and Gaetz seek.