Quantitative rigor vs. ideological echo chambers in higher education
Frans Vandenbosch 方腾波 14.05.2025
STEM versus sociology
To render the discussion more transparent, it is first necessary to define the concept of sociology and to delineate the precise scope of the STEM disciplines. Which fields of higher education are classified as STEM (the so-called beta sciences or hard sciences), and which fall under sociology (commonly referred to as alpha sciences, soft sciences, or the humanities)?
According to Professor Wouter Duyck [1] ,[2] there exists a clear demarcation between STEM and sociology. The latter encompasses disciplines such as psychology, communication sciences, pedagogy, theology, journalism, political science, law, criminology, speech therapy, physical education and movement sciences, philosophy, language and literature, Eastern European languages, Eastern languages and cultures, African languages and cultures, ethics, art history, archaeology, anthropology, medicine, veterinary science, rehabilitation sciences and physiotherapy, pharmaceutical sciences, and applied linguistics.
Indeed, here in Europe, we conventionally classify the natural and medical sciences (医学科学- yīxué kēxué), veterinary science (兽医学 shòuyīxué), rehabilitation sciences and physiotherapy (康复科学与物理治疗 kāngfù kēxué yǔ wùlǐ zhìliáo), pharmaceutical sciences (药学 yàoxué), the humanities (人文学科 rénwén xuékē), and applied linguistics (应用语言学 yìngyòng yǔyánxué) under the umbrella of sociology or the alpha sciences.
By contrast, STEM clearly refers to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. This domain comprises numerous professions, including mechanical engineer, civil engineer, electrical engineer, chemist, bioengineer, data scientist, physicist, actuary, mathematician, materials scientist, geophysicist, and cryptographer, among others.
Not coincidentally, this same divide is also reflected in the Randal Olsen study [3] [4] concerning the IQ distribution among students of various academic disciplines.
Chinese versus western politicians
Given that nearly all Western politicians come from a background in sociology or similar ideological echo chambers, while their Chinese counterparts are overwhelmingly trained in STEM disciplines, the dysfunction of Western political systems needs no further explanation. Our leaders excel at spouting incoherent word salads, but when it comes to intellect, competence or dedication to the people, they are anything but cutting-edge.
Sociology in China
On top of that, in China, the discipline of sociology is approached with a markedly quantitative orientation, characterised by an emphasis on empirical data, statistical analysis, and methodical research techniques. Notably, at Nanjing University, students enrolled in criminology and legal studies programmes are required to acquire proficiency in AutoCAD, reflecting a broader interdisciplinary integration of technical competencies into the social sciences.
In most western countries sociology education is close to indoctrination: analytical skills are not highly encouraged; sociology students are made clear to only rely on what’s regarded as “reliable sources”.
Which is outright dangerous, as it opens the door for intellectual brainwashing and government propaganda.
In numerous Western educational contexts, sociology instruction is adopting a prescriptive framework that prioritises adherence to established authoritative sources over the cultivation of independent analytical skills. This pedagogical approach often emphasises conformity to a narrowly defined set of “reliable” sources, potentially at the expense of fostering critical thinking and open-minded inquiry. Such an environment may inadvertently suppress intellectual autonomy and discourage students from engaging with diverse perspectives or challenging prevailing paradigms.
This concern aligns with philosophical analyses of indoctrination in education. For instance, Rebecca M. Taylor discusses the ethical implications of indoctrination, emphasising the importance of educators fostering environments that encourage critical examination rather than uncritical acceptance of information [5]. Similarly, discussions on the “hidden curriculum” highlight how implicit educational practices can perpetuate social control by promoting acceptance of specific values and norms without encouraging reflective consideration [6].
Moreover, the reliance on a limited set of sources and perspectives can create conditions conducive to ideological conformity, where alternative viewpoints are marginalised. This dynamic is reminiscent of concerns raised in critical discourse studies, where the suppression of diverse narratives can lead to a form of intellectual homogenisation [7].
To uphold the foundational academic principles of open inquiry and epistemic pluralism, it is imperative for educational institutions to critically assess their pedagogical approaches. Encouraging students to engage with a broad spectrum of perspectives and to develop robust analysis and critical thinking skills is essential in cultivating informed and autonomous individuals capable of contributing thoughtfully to societal discourse.
Communication science
So-called communication science, particularly as practised in the spheres of Western politics and journalism, has evolved into a discipline uniquely unburdened by the constraints of empirical verification. Its primary output does not consist of testable hypotheses or verifiable models, but of syntactically flawless declarations that masterfully evade precision, accountability, or falsifiability. Statements are constructed with such semantic elasticity that they can mean anything (or, more usefully: nothing) depending on the needs of the moment. One might begrudgingly admire this rhetorical agility, where lexical sophistication is inversely proportional to informational clarity. For the masters in communication “science”, it is not the quality of the information provided to the public that counts, but the beauty of the word salad.
In its applied form, communication science functions less as a vehicle for transmitting truth than as a mechanism for manufacturing legitimacy. It equips politicians with the vocabulary of sincerity without the burden of substance, and journalists with the tools to shape public sentiment while preserving the appearance of neutrality. Concepts such as “narrative framing” and “agenda setting” are deployed not to interrogate power structures but to manage audience perception in ways that conveniently align with institutional interests.[8]
Were its practitioners to adopt methodologies more common to the natural sciences (such as reproducibility, falsifiability, or objective measurement) they might inadvertently discover inconsistencies in their own assumptions, or worse, contradict the ideological frameworks they are tasked with reinforcing. [9] Thus, it is perhaps no coincidence that western communication “science”, in its modern form, remains comfortably nestled within the “soft” academic disciplines: intellectually malleable, methodologically ambiguous, and ideologically aligned with the cultural apparatus it serves.
Thank you for reading! We’d love to hear your thoughts. Please share your comments here below and join the conversation with our community!
本文英文：废除选举 ！
Dit artikel in het Nederlands: Schaf de verkiezingen af !
Endnotes
[1] Prof. Wouter Duyck: De staat van het Vlaamse onderwijs. Pleidooi voor meer ambitie. Lecture on 10.12.2019
[2] Prof. Wouter Duyck: How interest fit relates to STEM study choice: Female students fit their choices better. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 129 (2021) 103614 Available online 24 July 2021 Elsevier Inc. https://users.ugent.be/~wduyck/articles/SchelfhoutWilleFonteyneRoelsDerousDeFruytDuyckInPress.pdf
[3] Randal S. Olson, “Average IQ of Students by College Major and Gender Ratio,” RandalOlson.com, 25 June 2014. Available: https://randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio. The data visualisation linked from Plotly (https://plotly.com/~etpinard/330/ ) is based on the same data and complements the original blog post. Olson sourced the figures from StatisticsBrain.com and Educational Testing Services (ETS).
[4] Randal S. Olsen: Source: https://plotly.com/~etpinard/330/us-college-majors-average-iq-of-students-by-gender-ratio/#data Data derived from Randal Olsen https://randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio Source: StatisticsBrain.com and Educational Testing Services
[5] Rebecca M. Taylor, “Indoctrination and the Epistemic Value of Critical Thinking,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 51, no. 1 (2017): 38–58. https://academic.oup.com/jope/article-abstract/51/1/38/6821392
[6] Philip W. Jackson, Life in Classrooms (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968).
See also: “Hidden Curriculum,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_curriculum
[7] José Ángel García Landa, “Propaganda and/or Ideology in Critical Discourse Studies: Historical, Epistemological and Ontological Tensions,” Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/45550501
[8] Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.
[9] Carey, James W. “A Cultural Approach to Communication.” Communication, vol. 2, no. 1 (1975): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876760
