next »

[daniel_von_flanagan]

No. US students are brought up in a culture that says "have a tiny bit of knowledge about a lot of different things and you will be called 'educated'."

I think the point is that without some broad exposure, the students should not be called educated. Or are you saying you are happy to give college degrees to people whose math and science education ended in 8th grade? - DvF

[zharkov]

No. US students are brought up in a culture that says "have a tiny bit of knowledge about a lot of different things and you will be called 'educated'."

I think the point is that without some broad exposure, the students should not be called educated. Or are you saying you are happy to give college degrees to people whose math and science education ended in 8th grade? - DvF

In the US, part of the ideal of higher education is producing well rounded people via a liberal arts education.  For most college students, that means taking general education courses and distributive requirements in English, math, science, history, and so on.

Most accreditors require at least 1/3 of the courses for a BA or BS to satisfy the gen ed/liberal arts requirement.

A gen ed version of biology, say, does not have to be the same as the intro bio course in the curriculum for bio majors, but can (and often is) an opportunity to engage non science majors with the scientific way of thinking. 

[daniel_von_flanagan]

During the same weekday-morning time slots, I have my pick of precisely zero TV programs about science, unless we want to count a PBS series that helps high-school dropouts study for the GED. (I enjoy the GED-review programs about geometry.)

When I was growing up, there was a (local) show on around sunrise every Saturday morning consisting of an old guy (probably younger than I am now!), his scruffy dog, and a blackboard on which he would talk about physics and astronomy.  I loved that show, and it is possibly the reason I do what I do today.  Astoundingly low-tech even by the standards of the day, and the fellow (who I vaguely think was a professor at one of the local universities, possibly U. of Chicago)  wasn't especially charismatic, but the show was awesome.  (Oh, we also had Mr. Wizard, but this show was better.) - DvF

[csguy]

I think the point is that without some broad exposure, the students should not be called educated. Or are you saying you are happy to give college degrees to people whose math and science education ended in 8th grade? - DvF

In the US, part of the ideal of higher education is producing well rounded people via a liberal arts education.  For most college students, that means taking general education courses and distributive requirements in English, math, science, history, and so on.

Most accreditors require at least 1/3 of the courses for a BA or BS to satisfy the gen ed/liberal arts requirement.

A gen ed version of biology, say, does not have to be the same as the intro bio course in the curriculum for bio majors, but can (and often is) an opportunity to engage non science majors with the scientific way of thinking. 

SACS requires 36 hours -- a fair amount less than 1/3.

The gen ed math requirement can often be met by high school level courses (10th or 11th grade rather than 8th). I suspect the gen ed science courses are similarly low level.

I took the regular intro science courses (though none was my major) and I certainly had an opportunity to engage with the scientific way of thinking. I don't really think that's the reason separate gen ed courses exist.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

The gen ed math requirement can often be met by high school level courses (10th or 11th grade rather than 8th). I suspect the gen ed science courses are similarly low level.

This depends on the school and the way the core is designed.  At my institution some of the math and science gened requirements can be satisfied by AP credit, but in general courses not taught at a college level do not get accepted as satisfying the core.

I took the regular intro science courses (though none was my major) and I certainly had an opportunity to engage with the scientific way of thinking. I don't really think that's the reason separate gen ed courses exist.

Of course it is.  If you look at the statement on general education given by your school's accreditor, it will almost certainly say this explicitly. - DvF

[clarity_please]

How disappointing to find that Peter Wood was allowed to fulminate all over the perfectly good back page of the August 8 edition. 

Having noticed something deplorable (not enough students going into the sciences), he lines up everything he hates (diversity programs, efforts to attract women into the field, and -- horror of horrors -- any attempt to affirm or validate a student) and claims that these are the obvious causes of our deplorable circumstances.  He does this, however, without offering one single shred of evidence for his claim.

In addition to some of the more obvious alternative causes (as frequently cited in these posts) -- television, video games, general adolescent sloth -- why not employ Mr. Wood's own standard of evidence, and offer some other probable causes?  Let's see... how about ultraconservative organizations that put a chilling effect on teachers by encouraging students to complain about difficult assignments by labelling them as "infected with liberal bias"?  Or perhaps:  a form of no-holds-barred form of capitalism that encourages instant gratification through consumer choice while discouraging any form of work (including, obviously, K-12 teaching) that doesn't translate into immediately increased purchasing power at Wal-Mart(tm)?  Or perhaps prospective scientists don't want to spend their lives fending off fundamentalist demagogues and opportunistic politicians who pretend to tell them what "science" really is?  Or finally, consider the ramifications of a bullying right-wing media that has obviated the need for developing a careful and considered analysis of *anything* by promoting the time-honored tradition of just yelling at your opponent?

Of course, I don't have any more evidence to show that these trends have caused the lack of interest in science than Peter Wood has for his various bêtes noires.  So why does he get the whole back page of the Chronicle, while you and I are consigned to the blogs (or to the Letters to the Editor page, to which you can be sure I'll be sending these same thoughts)? 

Oh yes, I forgot.  It's because he's the director of a monochromatic, ideologically-driven organization which just happens to have the word "Scholars" in its name, whereas you and I are merely the scholars whom he pretends to "organize."