Michael Nguyen
Professor Lael Ewy
English 102
26 March 26, 2019
Title
	Authors Edward Conard, and Christian Madsbjerg with author Mikkel B. Rasmussen take different perspectives on the issue of the need of humanity majors. Conard claims that humanity majors are unneeded in the current industry, and that prioritizing other jobs in STEM fields is a better option for innovation and economic growth. Madsbjerg and Rasmussen however, claim that humanity majors are important to bridge the gap between companies and consumers, that they help a business understand a customer better. Both positions take different directions in supporting their argument. Conard’s article We Don’t Need More Humanities Majors focuses on the importance of STEM fields as opposed to wasting resources on humanity majors. While Madsbjerg and Rasmussen’s article We Need More Humanities Majors state that the importance of humanity majors is because they go hand in hand with supporting big STEM businesses and fields. Conard’s position seems to be more solid and rooted, giving statistics that support the growth of STEM fields, and the unnecessary humanities.
	Conard heavily focuses on the success of STEM fields and the uselessness of humanity majors. By providing statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the estimates of the job force employment rate has risen upwards of 45 percent from early 1980 (Conard 469). He also gives the reader recognizable names of the world’s largest tech giants such as Google, Microsoft, and Apple. Another statistic that is notable is that over 90 percent of US tech founders held degrees in STEM fields (Conard 469). A possible argument Conard addresses is that some of the STEM degree holders may also have humanity degrees, but claims that most if not all learn that it is not practical and went back for further schooling on other technical degrees (Conard). The remaining portions of the article give more statistical analysis to demonstrate the economic growth of STEM field degree holders.
	The strategy of Conard’s claim is to give the reader an overabundance of statistical information about the economic and population growth caused by STEM fields. By addressing just the positives of STEM and how they benefit the economy, he is trying to depreciate the importance of humanity majors. Going by this strategy, it is also possible to devalue other various majors in comparison to STEM degrees, which is something he may not intentionally be aiming for. The comparison of humanities and STEM are mainly one of feats. By giving many examples of what STEM has accomplished, and none of humanities, he wants the reader to just disregard humanity in any way of competition compared to STEM.
	Madsbjerg and Rasmussen start off their article acknowledging a potential stigma held against humanity majors. They give examples from opposition such as North Carolina’s Governor Pat McCrory statement on subsidizing state colleges “It’s the tech jobs that we need right now” (Madsbjerg, Rasmussen 472). This is immediately followed up by a list of humanity degree holders that have “successful careers” such as Michael Eisner of Disney for English and Theatre, and former Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson for English (Madsbjerg, Rasmussen 472). The list continues on, however right after this, they introduce some statistics.