next »

[morrisville]

How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science


It's hardly a surprise that Peter Woods of the NAS is fast to take the conservative viewpoint: students aren't sticking it out to become scientists and engineers because of left-wing cultural factors. I agree with him that cultural factors are more important than the market, but he has completely neglected the cultural factors of immediate gratification and the disappearance of respect for knowledge and expertise. Of course, he hasn't bothered to cite any evidence for his views (and neither have I), but I'm not writing a prominent editorial.

--Robert Dushay

[inthelab]

Is there a link to see the article?

[kedves]

Is there a link to see the article?

Click the gray underlined title of the article (the link is tidy-texted).

[inthelab]

Is there a link to see the article?

Click the gray underlined title of the article (the link is tidy-texted).

Thanks, got it.

OP, you are right.
Add to the mix terrible HS math and science teachers, some of whom told my kids "I teach the subject your parents hated the most."  Now aside from the fact that husband and I are both biomedical scientists (meaning we are personally affronted by such statements), how's a kid supposed to feel about math and science after a preamble like that?
Our kids weren't raised to go for instant gratification (no video games in our house, no games on the computer).  We do not reflect the US though and we know it.
One more factor to consider:  The US in its anti-elitist zeal (dating back to the Puritans and some of the origins of the Revolution) has not adopted a culture of respecting intellect (I'm thinking of the way scholars have been revered in the far east and in part of Europe, in contrast to the US).  Think of some of our recent presidents. 

[goldenapple]

From the article:

"The antiscience agenda is visible as early as kindergarten, with its infantile versions of the diversity agenda and its early budding of self-esteem lessons. But it complicates and propagates all the way up through grade school and high school. In college it often drops the mask of diffuse benevolence and hardens into a fascination with "identity."

That could be a good thing if the introspections were enriched by professors who could show students where Plato or Shakespeare had touched such depths, or who could startle them by showing where Hobbes or Tocqueville had seen them coming. But in a curriculum dissolved in the sea of minutiae and professorial enthusiasms, the opportunity to pass through moody introspection and back into the sturdy world of real people grows rare."

I think he means that students should be studying classic texts, but what are the minutiae to which he refers? Is this some reference to microhistory or to the literary study of obscure authors?  And are Plato, Shakespeare, Hobbes, and Toqueville part of the "sturdy world of real people" or not? He lost me right in the middle of making what I consider a central part of his argument, which is about what students should be learning in the humanities.

[bms2000]

Is there a link to see the article?

Click the gray underlined title of the article (the link is tidy-texted).

Thanks, got it.

OP, you are right.
Add to the mix terrible HS math and science teachers, some of whom told my kids "I teach the subject your parents hated the most."  Now aside from the fact that husband and I are both biomedical scientists (meaning we are personally affronted by such statements), how's a kid supposed to feel about math and science after a preamble like that?
Our kids weren't raised to go for instant gratification (no video games in our house, no games on the computer).  We do not reflect the US though and we know it.
One more factor to consider:  The US in its anti-elitist zeal (dating back to the Puritans and some of the origins of the Revolution) has not adopted a culture of respecting intellect (I'm thinking of the way scholars have been revered in the far east and in part of Europe, in contrast to the US).  Think of some of our recent presidents. 

Wow, another family with no video games. Come on over, we'll challenge you to Risk :-)

It is possible to get into science in college without a lot of elementary background. My grammar school had almost nothing until 6th grade, and then a lot of what I learned was because I taught myself. High school is the important thing - that's when you either get into 'real science' or you get the terrible teachers you described. Parents can do a lot to help this, but you have to be willing to buck the culture, and go outside the school system.

[inthelab]

Is there a link to see the article?

Click the gray underlined title of the article (the link is tidy-texted).

Thanks, got it.

OP, you are right.
Add to the mix terrible HS math and science teachers, some of whom told my kids "I teach the subject your parents hated the most."  Now aside from the fact that husband and I are both biomedical scientists (meaning we are personally affronted by such statements), how's a kid supposed to feel about math and science after a preamble like that?
Our kids weren't raised to go for instant gratification (no video games in our house, no games on the computer).  We do not reflect the US though and we know it.
One more factor to consider:  The US in its anti-elitist zeal (dating back to the Puritans and some of the origins of the Revolution) has not adopted a culture of respecting intellect (I'm thinking of the way scholars have been revered in the far east and in part of Europe, in contrast to the US).  Think of some of our recent presidents. 

Wow, another family with no video games. Come on over, we'll challenge you to Risk :-)

You're on.
Do you play Encore or Taboo?  Those are big around our house too.  And Trivial Pursuit- the Lord of the Rings, the Harry Potter, and the Star Wars versions.

[drfantastic]

My reaction to this essay was why did the Chronicle let such an idiot write a poorly researched and overly sanctimonious essay?  Tons of neurological evidence that women can't do science? What a load of crap. We aren't different species!

[csguy]

From the article:
[snip]

That could be a good thing if the introspections were enriched by professors who could show students where Plato or Shakespeare had touched such depths, or who could startle them by showing where Hobbes or Tocqueville had seen them coming. But in a curriculum dissolved in the sea of minutiae and professorial enthusiasms, the opportunity to pass through moody introspection and back into the sturdy world of real people grows rare."

I think he means that students should be studying classic texts, but what are the minutiae to which he refers? Is this some reference to microhistory or to the literary study of obscure authors?  And are Plato, Shakespeare, Hobbes, and Toqueville part of the "sturdy world of real people" or not? He lost me right in the middle of making what I consider a central part of his argument, which is about what students should be learning in the humanities.

I think by minutiae he's probably referring to quizzing on details from the text.

I don't know why he doesn't like "professorial enthusiasms" though -- he wants profs that aren't enthusiastic?

I think the lack of enthusiasm for science in k-12 might have a lot to do with people not pursuing the sciences in college.

[kedves]

My reaction to this essay was why did the Chronicle let such an idiot write a poorly researched and overly sanctimonious essay?  Tons of neurological evidence that women can't do science? What a load of crap. We aren't different species!

Right on!  He has a lot of blaming to do:  Blame women!  Blame AA!  Blame the anti-Plato crowd!  Blame Canada!  I found this article very confusing. 

I understand the pipeline problem with science, but showing young people that a scientific field can be interesting and lead to a good job also works--look at the "CSI camps" and courses springing up all across the country.  I don't think it's a lost cause if we have pro-science leadership and funding from the top down.  (Yes, you, Mr. President.)

I nominate the author for Fogey of the Year.

[morsej001]

Considering that the National Association of Scholars is bankrolled by some of the same right-wing organizations that promote "intelligent design," NAS executive director Peter Woods's complaint about scientific ignorance is pretty funny. A taxonomist might classify it as a red herring.

Jonathan morse

[daurousseau]

That article rests entirely on the author's sleight-of-hand in disposing of federal funding--the decline thereof--as a reason for declining enrollment in some disciplines. Sorry, buddy, you have to come up with a real reason to discount it. I know that it was the pots of money sloppped into university coffers by the Defense Department during the 60s that kept me in school, even though my field was only relevant by a great stretch of imagination.

Like the baseball dreamer might have said, "If you pay them, they will come."

[daniel_von_flanagan]

This is a classic case where someone has two rather different ideas and wants to connect them somehow. 

He starts off OK - the idea that American students choose from an early age not to pursue science because of biases against hard work in favor of things like esteem education is worth pursuing.  That's idea #1.  His second idea, that programs promoting diversity detract from a focus on science education, is badly argued and frankly incoherent. 

Attempts to tie together two ideas - one good, the other bad - almost always result in the good idea being dragged down with the bad one. - DvF

[doctor_torrseal]

I hated this article.  It gives a bad name to a potentially good cause.  I thought it was particularly hysterical that he wants to get more people into the science pipeline, but then freaks out about attempts to remediate the problem that over 50% of the people who could go into that pipeline (women and minorities) have historically been marginalized or discouraged from going into technical fields.

[mended_drum]

My reaction to this essay was why did the Chronicle let such an idiot write a poorly researched and overly sanctimonious essay?  Tons of neurological evidence that women can't do science? What a load of crap. We aren't different species!

Hmmm...I thought the recent report about girls passing boys in math SAT averages had thrown all that nonsense into disarray.  Or did he miss that report?