Just when I think I've heard all of the outrageous things that can be said, Dr. Myron Lieberman, chairman of the Education Policy Institute, appears on C-Span to announce that universities need to pay professors of medicine much more than they pay other professors. But that isn't the best part: He goes on to say that it is much harder to teach math and science than it is to teach other subjects, and therefore math and science teachers should be given more incentives.

Why? Do students tend to have more learning problems with math and science? Is math and science harder to translate into a teaching schema? Is it harder for mathematicians and scientists to develop teaching skills? Lieberman presented no reasons for these beliefs. His statements did, however, reflect a popular belief that learning math and science is somehow superior to learning rhetoric, literature, history, art, composition, and music. This bias tosses out the window the concept that learning how to think rationally and creatively (and to express one's thoughts) is essential if one is to be a mature and productive citizen. Learning math and science is of extreme importance, but not at the cost of going through life without a frame of reference.