When casted as a non-lead role in a school play, parents tell their children, “There are no small roles, only small actors”. That’s such an important lesson to spread: have the courage to audition and appreciate the role you are given because it’s better than having no role at all.

The ability to accept the role that’s given to you, even if it’s not the one you wanted, is an important character-building trait because that’s the way the world works. You won’t always get what you want.

So then why, when it comes to parents talking to their children about cashier or waitressing jobs, are they so judgemental about that “non-lead” part?

Parents want to encourage their children to work hard so they won’t end up like that and it sheds a bad light on occupations that are essential to everyday life. The mailman, the garbage man, the school secretary, a restaurant cook, or even a dishwasher are all roles that are important to almost everyone’s day-to-day routines.

What’s even more interesting is some occupations that are widely acknowledged are similarly looked down upon. Filmmakers, artists, and authors are jobs that play a large role in society yet probably aren’t, ideally, what you would want your child to pursue.

What we set as standards for success, the younger generation feels the need to fulfill it. In the past, the ability to make a living, regardless of what job, and provide for a family was a sign of success. In modern times, the term "success" is most often associated with professions in the STEM field because that’s where everyone thinks the money is.

I’m not denying there is money to be earned with a degree or job in a STEM career; it would be foolish of me to ignore the truth in the statement. The problem is not everyone has the ability to be a STEM student.

That’s not an insult and it’s equally applicable to say that some STEM students aren’t able to grasp Humanities courses. For instance, I can do organic chemistry in a breeze but would struggle to learn about any of the important battles in history or paint any close to a realistic picture. It’s the way that some people are wired to think and work.

So the problem arises when we equate STEM careers to success when not every student is going to be a STEM student. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t happy that children are introduced to STEM at a young age in order to get them interested in the field.

I’m involved with a program at Rowan that serves that exact purpose. However, I think that the other fields should be doing the same thing. Putting an emphasis on STEM sets a standard for children that may not be achievable or, in some places, realistic.

But we need to stop judging careers when it’s convenient for us.

You can’t be a movie fanatic or go to Broadway regularly and then judge when you hear someone say they want to be a movie star or an actor. Every day, you watch or read the news, listen to music, or see art in one form or another. So why shouldn’t someone try to be a reporter, a musician, or an artist?

Sure, the opportunities in those fields may be small, but so will the ones in STEM after generations of STEM robot-students graduate and start competing for the same pool of jobs.

So stop judging humanities students by their ability to do math or a business student by their ability to write a computer program. Albert Einstein put it best when he said, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."