The New York Times has been editorializing recently on the nation’s need to enlarge our pool of science and math students, with a particular focus on girls and minorities, and to encourage them to pursue careers that will keep the country competitive.
Here’s a list of the members of the NYT editorial board, including academic major(s), which I obtained from their online bios. See if you notice anything unusual.
- Andrew Rosenthal, Editor
- (American History)
- Terry Tang, Deputy Editorial Page Editor
- (Economics, Law)
- Robert B. Semple Jr., Associate Editor
- (History)
- David Firestone, Projects Editor, National Politics, the White House and Congress
- (Journalism)
- Vikas Bajaj, Business, International Economics
- (Journalism)
- Philip M. Boffey, Science
- (History)
- Francis X. Clines, National Politics, Congress, Campaign Finance
- (none listed)
- Lawrence Downes, Immigration, Veterans Issues
- (English, Journalism)
- Carol Giacomo, Foreign Affairs
- (English Literature)
- Mira Kamdar, International Affairs
- (French Literature)
- Verlyn Klinkenborg, Agriculture, Environment, Culture
- (English Literature)
- Juliet Lapidos, Culture
- (Comparative Literature, English Literature)
- Eleanor Randolph, New York State, Northeast Region, Media
- (none listed)
- Dorothy Samuels, Law, Civil Rights, National Affairs
- (Law)
- Serge Schmemann, International Affairs
- (none listed)
- Brent Staples, Education, Criminal Justice, Economics
- (Psychology)
- Masaru Tamamoto, International Affairs
- (International Relations)
- Teresa Tritch, Economic Issues, Tax Policy
- (German, Journalism)
- Jesse Wegman, The Supreme Court, Legal Affairs
- (Law)
Did you notice that no one on that list, including the science editor, has a degree in anything related to math or science?
Now you might say, “Well, I’ve never heard of any of these people so why should I care what they think?” That’s a fair point.
But still, one has to give them credit for having made it in the big city, despite their lack of interest in math and science. So why encourage students to pursue educational goals that they themselves had no interest in, when this lack of interest has evidently not been a hindrance? Why is this a credible course of action?