My comments on this article:
>http://www.techreview.com/magazine/sep01/reviews.asp
>The United States by any conceivable measure has the finest
>scientists in the world. But the rest of the population, by any
>rational standard, is abysmally ignorant of science, mathematics and
>all things technical.
Yes, but I'm not sure the U.S. is alone, in this respect.
(still observing, from this side of the Atlantic)
>In the next century, we will need to be able to deal confidently with
>technical issues, and a responsible electorate will need to have
>some reasonable mastery of how the world works.
rather than "mastery", I would use "understanding"
>In these circumstances, an undergraduate major in science should be
>the best possible preparation for any serious profession. Or, put
>another way, the science major today should be what classical Greek
>and Latin were in the 19th century, and the liberal-arts major was
>in the 20th:
I find this statement odd. The Classical education is from where the
scientific critical thinking skills are derived. Scientists today
acquired them, not from anyone/anything recent, but from the Greeks
two thousand years ago. Starting with the classics gives basic
preparation for *anyone* today, entering *any* serious profession.
Focusing on the sciences comes after that.
>the union card required to enter the professional world.
>Unfortunately, the science education we have in place to provide
>this union card could not be less suited to the task.
which professional world? A PhD in a scientific field is the "union
card" for professional scientists, a BS and a MS in a sciences will
get you somewhere. At the very least, the Classics can give you the
critical thinking skills (among many areas) to help you learn
technical concepts on your own.
>Science education in the United States today exists as a kind of
>mining and sorting operation, in which we, the existing scientists,
>cull through what comes our way, searching for diamonds in the rough
>that can be cleaned and cut and polished into glittering gems just
>like us.
Also true in Europe
>And, it is said, many people major in elementary education for
>precisely that reason. Our elementary school teachers are therefore
>not only ignorant of science; they are hostile to science. That
>hostility must, inevitably, rub off on the young people they teach.
If this true, then it's very sad
(this was not true of my experience, and I attended 6 elementary
schools in 3 different U.S. states. Perhaps things have changed from
35 years ago.)
>A few years ago, I was on a committee to look into how well the
>"breadth" requirement-that all students take at least one course in
>science-was working at one University of California campus.
The University of California campuses is where I had my worst
educational experiences. Why? Those profs are mostly only interested
in their research, not in teaching. My best college educational
experiences were at the smaller schools: California State colleges
and junior colleges (with one exception: a private school: Colorado
School of Mines near Denver). Wherever I end up teaching, I will not
want it to be at a 'big-name' school.
>But nowhere is the problem more vivid than in graduate school. [...]
>What's lacking is a means to provide the rest of our population with
>even the most basic understanding of science in an increasingly
>science-driven world.
Comparing U.S. and Europe:
The U.S. system is more flexible to accomodate people entering
college at different stages of their life. That's a good start. (You
would never find a person in France breaking up their scientific
education into chunks, taking long breaks between the degrees, for
example.) However the costs can be prohibitive, which is where
European universities have an advantage. It is not unusual to finish
a PhD in the States being tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
Since post-doc salaries are also not particularly high, the debt can
be large crippling factor in someone's life with which to start a
scientific career.
Flexibility and cost are two aspects to consider, which might
discourage people from seriously entering the scientific world.
Now consider the social and personal aspects of a scientific career
with a newly-acquired PhD. This is the post-doc phase, where it's
normal (in the U.S as well as in Europe) to have two or three
two-year post-doc positions at different institutions before finding
a job that has some length. Would you want to up-root your family,
friends, loved ones every two-three years for some long period of
time? During the eight years I was working at NASA-Ames, I watched
three generations of post-docs pass through, starting new lives,
families, making friends, etc. etc, and then have to leave it all.
It was heartbreaking to watch. This was one factor among several why
I postponed my own PhD degree for seven years. (and now I'm one
of "them".)
>My friends from around the country tell me that the number of
>undergraduate physics majors is at its lowest point since Sputnik,
>nearly 50 years ago.
Also true in Europe.
>But imagine a world in which teaching in high school is such an
>attractive profession that it would be worth the trouble of a
>doctoral level education to get the job. For that to happen, we
>would have to pay teachers more, at least as much as what graduating
>doctoral students get.
(which is not alot....)
This is a nice dream, BTW. Something, that I would like to see
come true in my lifetime.
>Just as important, schools would have to learn to treat these
>teachers with professional respect, and society would have to afford
>them the honor and admiration that professionals expect. This is not
>unthinkable.
Also a nice dream.
However, the crux to me is how can a scientist balance in a good way
the teaching and research aspects of one's scientific life? If you
focus on being a good researcher, then it's very likely that you
will not be a good teacher, and vice-versa. The good researchers,
however, would have the best handle on presenting cutting edge
and interesting scientific topics to students, and helping them get
excited about science.
>Much more is needed, of course. The revolution would have to extend
>right down to the first grade. Teachers would have to be literate in
>science, and kids would have to find learning science as cool as
>following the fortunes of rock groups. That's an awful lot to ask
>for. But then again, only our future depends on it.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Amara
********************************************************************
Amara Graps, PhD | Max-Planck-Institut fuer Kernphysik
Heidelberg Cosmic Dust Group | Saupfercheckweg 1
+49-6221-516-543 | 69117 Heidelberg, GERMANY
Amara.Graps@mpi-hd.mpg.de * http://galileo.mpi-hd.mpg.de/~graps
********************************************************************
"Never fight an inanimate object." - P. J. O'Rourke
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:15 MDT