That B.A. (instead of a B.S.) means that she opted for a "traditional liberal arts degree with a curriculum based across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities."
...So?
I buy your argument that this piece is not based on the work of a bona fide mathematician. But I resent your implication that a B.A. is not a valid degree, or that it nullifies the degree's "STEM-y-ness". I'm also not stoked about the way you've apparently linked this person's possession of a B.A. with her status as an "ignorant person."
My classmates who graduated with me in physics, from our liberal arts college that did not offer a B.S....
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that a BA isn't a valid degree. My point was that her degree doesn't qualify her to judge a STEM field because she lacks knowledge of the field. i stand by what I said, with the evidence being the ignorance of her remarks.
Moreover, Stanford does offer a B.S. in biology. The B.A. program she was in
is lightweight on science compared to a science B.S. at Stanford. That's just a fact.
A huge problem with educators is that many of them labor under the Dunning-Kruger effect, in that they claim expertise where they simply and manifestly don't have it. Claims about de-emphasizing the number pi or the Pythagorean theorem because they "perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans" is a case in point. Personally, I can't see how someone who understands mathematics, even at a high school level, can make a statement like that with a straight face. Worse, the deep and painful irony is that she didn't even bother to look at the HISTORY.
