How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=03hp5gr19z5sb0cdvhtsk5qgp3yhdttf

by crocus • 18 years ago

30 43 18 years ago

me2i812• 18 years ago

What a bunch of tripe. Summary: concern about self-esteem and diversity has caused our students to become shiftless. Proof: because he said so.

d0mine• 18 years ago

International tests indicate that American fourth graders rank among the top students in the world in science and above average in math. By eighth grade, they have moved closer to the middle of the pack. By 12th grade, our students score near the bottom of all industrialized nations. As a result, too many of them enter college without even the basic skills needed to pursue a degree in science or engineering. </quote>

Example of international tests: PISA 2006 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf

jleyank• 18 years ago

Given the current state of insourcing/outsourcing, why study science or engineering when both of these fields are vulnerable to job transfer to different parts of the globe? Better to concentrate on those things which will survive such shifts: Law, Medicine, and seemingly mundane things like repair-of-stuff. Business is popular right now, but after training our competitors, I think many of today's business people will see their jobs, if not their entire companies, attacked by foreign competition. Medicine's not even safe, as anything that can be done w/o patient contact can be done in different time zones.

Besides, science/engineering is hard - requiring 6+ years for engineering and 8-10+ years for science to be able to work as a "full member" of the field. Why take all that time when you can do 2-3 startups and retire rich?

mechanical_fish3• 18 years ago

I could take issue with some of these arguments. But I'm upmodding you anyway because your comment is an order of magnitude more sensible than the original article.

I used to work in the fabs of the former Hewlett-Packard, all but one of which have now been outsourced to Malaysia and Singapore. It happened to the fab I worked in -- just after 9/11 we were told that our factory would be closed in a year and that most of the local workers would be laid off. It was a profoundly depressing experience -- like the opposite of working at a startup. I was working at a shutdown.

Every time a factory closes and lays off, say, five hundred people, that's five hundred families -- and their friends, and their relations -- who learn the lesson: Technically skilled people live in fear of being laid off.

It's pretty hard to get someone excited about mechanical engineering when every automotive engineer and machinist she knows is living the life of a frightened rabbit.

Alex39172• 18 years ago

It is rather troubling when the "executive director of the National Association of Scholars" is unable to formulate a coherent argument.

anaphoric4• 18 years ago

I think it's fairly coherent. He says that Students are more affected by cultural than market forces as they are being educated. And that cultural forces are science/hard work hostile.

What I disagree with is the implication that some how the market forces are science friendly (i.e. the need for scientists and engineers translates into good working conditions, opportunity, etc.). Unfortunately this is not so much the case.

jorgeortiz85• 18 years ago

Right. I would argue that the descent of much of America into religious fundamentalism, with its associated medieval beliefs (evolution isn't true, the planet is only a few thousand years old), is much more detrimental to producing quality scientists than any diversity program.

Elepsis• 18 years ago

While there has probably been an upswing in "funtamentalist Christianity" in the U.S., I think you have an uphill climb trying to prove that there is really even a correlation between the trends of a decrease in graduate science enrollment by Americans and the religious issue. What's the data your post is based on?

donw3• 18 years ago

I'm not sure that's really the point, but I'd say that there is a heavy force in education against science, math, and all other forms of critical inquiry.

One of the biggest reasons people would leave the Mathematics department at my university was because they couldn't deal with being told that their proofs were crap, and that they needed to get the quality of their work up if they wanted to succeed.

It's not that the work was "too hard". It's that students couldn't get coast on extra credit points and pure-opinion essays, like they had gotten used to in high school and junior college. Finishing a complete trip through Math, Engineering, or any of the sciences required actual effort, as well as the ability to handle criticism, a skill that many students lacked after over twelve years of education.

I also had a chance to see the other side of the coin, because my second degree was in a foreign language. My Japanese degree consisted of nearly four years of classes which required almost no effort whatsoever. Loads of extra credit and students handing in work months after the deadline were the rule, not the exception.

Many of my fellow students in the Japanese program were majoring in Asian Studies or Asian History, and complained incessantly about the difficulty of their classes. Even though their major fields were focused heavily on Japan, many of them couldn't even read at the equivalent of a fourth-grade level, after studying the language for four years.

I asked many of them why they chose their majors, versus engineering or mathematics, and the most common responses cited how harsh their previous Math and Science professors had been, by not allowing extra credit, late homework, and so on.

While this does not constitute any sort of proof or rigorous study, it illustrates the point that our schools are far too lenient on students, and lenient schools do not produce graduates who can survive the crucible-like atmosphere of even an undergraduate science program.

donw3• 18 years ago

I think it's worth noting that I don't think the people in my Japanese classes were inherently stupid, lazy, or anything else of the sort. Merely that they've been spent years being indoctrinated to avoid criticism, and that the end result of this has been them shifting to the easiest possible path through college, rather than trying something because it was hard.

davidw• 18 years ago

I think there are many factors involved, but the author seems to want to use 'US doing bad in science' as a hammer to beat on one particular point, which may well be a valid one, but is doubtless only one of many problems.

yummyfajitas• 18 years ago

I don't think that's what he is saying. I think he is merely saying that science ranks below things like diversity and self esteem on the academic list of priorities. And that's almost certainly true. As an example, when applying for a certain NSF grant, you must address "broader impacts" (aka, "why should we care about your research?"):

"(1) effectively integrate research and education...(2) encourage diversity, broaden opportunities, and enable the participation of all citizens-women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities-in science and research; (3) enhance scientific and technical understanding; and (4) benefit society."

https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/NSFHelp/flashhelp/fastlane/Fast...

The attitudes he is describing are quite pervasive in academic culture; as an academic, I know exactly what he is talking about. Keep in mind, he is writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education, so he expects the typical reader to be familiar with what he is describing.

anaphoric4• 18 years ago

I have to agree in large part with the author's lament w.r.t. American students. There seems to be a new generation that is especially glib and shallow. There are many counter examples of course, but in general it is no surprise that they are drifting away from tougher fields. And the grade inflation at U.S. universities, oh my...

In the final analysis it smells like decline. And yes I agree that it probably has cultural roots.

menloparkbum2• 18 years ago

These articles always take the same approach: letting us know how lack of students graduating with science degrees hurts our culture and our competitiveness.

These articles would be far more interesting and more of a catalyst for change if they could explain how graduating with a science degree can benefit a young person's life.

I don't mean abstract benefits like "problem solving skills," either. I mean concrete benefits, like getting a job. For example:

Imagine you are 22 and just graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a degree in Physics. You don't have the best GPA, but not bad, either. Let's say a "B" average. You had to program some stuff in one of your classes, but you aren't really a programmer. For whatever reason, you aren't going to graduate school. So, you need to get a job. You'd like to stay somewhere in the upper midwest to be close to your friends and family.

What kind of job do you apply to, and where?

RK2• 18 years ago

Is this where you suggest becoming a bum in Menlo Park (Wisconsin)?

menloparkbum2• 18 years ago

I changed some of the details but I know someone in the position I described and I don't have any good advice. I was hoping perhaps the denizens of HN might have interesting suggestions.

ojbyrne2• 18 years ago

I think there's only one choice, and it's the one that the educational system is optimized around, for better or worse - Grad School. Of course they don't tell you up front that when you enter a pure science out of high school, you're signing up for a much-longer than 4 year process. Because an M.Sc. is really optimized for one purpose - to push you into a doctorate program. Then post-grad, then tenure track, and so on.

The $100K figure quoted in that article is really misleading because of that - it's not talking about people with a bachelor's - it's talking about people with tenure.

3flp• 18 years ago

You guys in the US & friends probably don't see it as clearly. The US focus on self esteem - justified or not - and the vague post-modern concern with various shallow attributes, like gender, background etc., is actually quite stunning to me. I've grown up in a progressive part of the eastern bloc. The schooling in science and math there has traditionally been focused on tangible results.

From the year 1 onwards. Unannounced in-class tests used to be common. If you solved the math problem you got good marks, if you didn't you get poor marks. There was nothing judgmental about it. And you could not move into higher education if you didn't have good marks.

Let me give you an analogy. Have you met the wacky person on a party who is an awful dancer, but doesn't realise it? You know, like Elaine from Seinfeld. Embarasing, obnoxious and feeling good about it. If it were a child, the US&friends school system would tend to encourage them and telling them how awesome they are, lest their feelings get hurt. An eastern block school would just give them bad marks and let them move on...

(And in soviet russia, the party embarasses you!)

ewanmcteagle• 18 years ago

We don't fully understand what the best approach is. Yes, we can see that a lot of US education is poor but the US also generates a huge amount of creative output and invention and it isn't all from immigrants. It's also not clear that it would be good to penalize students so strongly (by not allowing them higher education) if they did poorly in school. There are a lot of developmental reasons why someone might do poorly in school and be successful later in life. One of the strengths of the US system is that a person can go onto higher education in one way or another or even go back to school when old. It's possible that the US (by accident) may be doing something right. Maybe it could be better but too much "better" may also cost something else. Comparisons of education system based on academic achievement risk leaving something out of their analysis.

jacobolus• 18 years ago

Teaching people that getting the answer wrong results in negative consequences isn’t the best way to help them understand a subject. Schools should encourage “fail early, fail often,” and emphasize learning from mistakes, rather than merely penalizing them.

time_management2• 18 years ago

On a cultural front, this has a lot to do with role models. The average American grows up associating the pinnacle of achievement not with inventors, professors, or entrepreneurs, but with CEOs, people of relatively mediocre talent who manage to exploit private-sector bureaucracies and navigate their way to the top.

US&A : A second-rate producer of scientists, but a world leader at producing bullshitting rainmakers. Yay.

gaius• 18 years ago

Nah, that's not true at all. The pinnacle of American/Western cultural achievement is a media celebrity who is famous just for being themselves, e.g. the "winner" of a reality TV show, an "it girl", a supermodel, etc. I don't think the average person is really even aware of CEOs.

Incidentally, a CEO has probably worked for longer to get to where they are than a given celebrity has even been alive, and probably makes a tenth as much money.

time_management2• 18 years ago

I guess I should state that by CEO, I meant CEOs of large, established companies that were built by other people. I was thinking of Fortune 500 CEOs, not startup or small-business CEOs. In my mind were smooth-running companies so massive that advancement within the management and executive ranks has more to do with political play than anything else. These guys, in practice, can be described as both CEOs and celebrities; they're the celebs of the business world.

jimbokun2• 18 years ago

"probably makes a tenth as much money."

Really? CEOs have been doing pretty darn well recently.

Put it this way: in most cases it is probably a CEO deciding how much to pay that celebrity. I'm skeptical that the CEO is going to pay the celebrity more than he's paying himself.

ARod is rich. But he's not in the same league as George Steinbrenner.

ojbyrne2• 18 years ago

When (and how) did the "Chronicle of Higher Education" become such a superficial rag?

msluyter• 18 years ago

I think that if the article's "self-esteem/diversity education = bad" thesis were valid, we'd see problems across the board, but we still seem to graduate plenty of lawyers and doctors, both degrees that require self-discipline, dedication, etc...

As someone else noted here, the problem probably has no one cause, but numerous interrelated ones. I have a couple of suggestions to add to the list:

a.) Standardized testing -- studies have shown that extrinsic rewards tends to dampen one's intrinsic desire to do something. (In the study, children given a reward for playing with blocks lost interest in them sooner than students who weren't rewarded.) I can't help but wonder whether increased focus on testing -- and the uninspired teaching that goes along with it -- is undermining whatever sense of curiosity and wonder students might have about various subjects. Now, one might note that other cultures (Japan, for example) place even greater weight on testing than we do, but they're more culturally homogeneous and may view science with more esteem. And in poorer countries, an engineering degree might be one of the few paths into the middle class.

b.) The nerd factor -- Paul Graham has touched on this. It's always been uncool to be a nerd or to be good at school. I was a loner who had few friends in high school. Has this cultural pressure intensified?

c.) Distraction -- hell, I barely have the attention span to skim the newspaper these days. I can't imagine what it must be like with added hormonal turbulence. My cousins (in high school) visited recently and they were on the computer checking facebook every 15 minutes. Is it simply becoming harder to muster the long spans of attention it takes to solve a complicated math problem? Because,

d.) Math is the cornerstone. If we made math fun and interesting, interest in science would follow naturally. It saddens me that we seem incapable of doing this.

MaysonL• 18 years ago

I read textbooks (math, computers & science) for Reading For the Blind and Dyslexic http://rfbd.org for a number of years, but finally got so enraged/disgusted by the horrible quality that I gave up.

otto• 18 years ago

"Gates has a compelling point — largely because the shortage of Americans holding or pursuing advanced degrees in fields like computer science defies conventional market explanations. The average annual salary in the field is more than $100,000. Meanwhile, we have a robust supply of high-IQ baristas and college graduates with jobs that a generation ago would not even have required a high-school diploma."

Where? My first offer was for 50k, increasing to 60k after six months in LA County. Is this a PhD average salary?

How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science

Related Stories