Science 'Not for Normal People' 232
Ant writes "BBC News reports that teenagers 'value the role of science in society, but feel scientists are "brainy people not like them".' This was according to a recent study by The Science Learning Centre in London that asked 11,000 pupils for their views on science and scientists. From the article: 'They found around 80% of pupils thought scientists did "very important work" and 70% thought they worked "creatively and imaginatively". Only 40% said they agreed that scientists did "boring and repetitive work". Over three quarters of the respondents thought scientists were "really brainy people".'"
Then perhaps.. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone who gave one of those three answers was right.
Is this really a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it really a problem that this student doesn't want to go into science? For some reason I doubt she was in line to cure cancer anyways...
Re:Is this really a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the flip side, we'll probably outsource all our science research to India too.
It IS boring (Score:5, Insightful)
I have nothing but respect for those who do research and do it well, but don't try and glam up research for the kids. It takes phlegmatic, methodical people to do it and stick to it. The flighty, can't-settle types should be in another field. Like web design
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lemme guess, you watch The Simpsons! Try meeting a real scientist.
There are three types:
1) Those who are hard workers
2) Those who are brainy
3) Those who are both
Most scientists are simply hard workers who go through years of rigorous academics and hard work. This is why it's dangerous for youngsters to think scientists are simply brainy, it will cause them to shy away from science. When really, they could be the next generation of scientists.
Campaigning to get more people to study science... (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends... (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of science, yes, is repetetive due to the nature of statistics - you need a large sample if you're going to reliably claim anything. That said though, there are again exciting, nerve-wracking moments when the data comes in and you find out whether or not you've discovered something.
As for science being "just for the brainy" this a ridiculous statement. Science is done by people who have incredible insights into the world and people who slowly and methodically puzzle things out. What non-scientists don't seem to understand is that 99% of the time the scientist is just as confused as everyone else is, they just spend the time and effort to try to come to terms with things. I'm not saying that scientists aren't smart, but a lot of hyperbole scares the normal person away from spending a while as confused as the scientist was when he first thought about things and trying to piece together the way that it works.
Re:Then perhaps.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever watched a small child learn? It's really quite amazing. And it is not only the exceptional ones that are amazing. It's a shame that the momentum is so often lost. I understand that the sponge-like absorption of language in early childhood is a developmental phase and can't reasonably be expected to go on forever or to readily transfer to other kinds of learning. But the fact that children do perform much better in some environments than in others shows that there is indeed some momentum that doesn't have to be lost. I'm convinced that there is a great deal of unrealized human potential in the world to such an extent that 'unrealized' describes nearly all of it. It's easy to talk about how 'dumb' the 'average person' is. But I believe that this dumbness is much more learned than innate. And I believe that when viewed as what they potentially could become, rather than what they often do become, an 'average person' is really a quite astounding thing.
Re:But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Polling youths can tell us some valuable things about the coming perceptions of society. It is doing the world a disservice to exclude them from voicing their opinions and participating in debate. In this case, kids aren't identifying with scientists, and perhaps that is something worth examining.
Intelligence and Normality not Mutually Exclusive (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a public conception that assigns eccentricities to highly intelligent people. From Disney's 'The Nutty Proffesor' to real life cases like Paul Erdös [wikipedia.org], to the idea of genius and madness, recently portrayed in 'A Beautiful Mind'. I doubt there's any weighty corellation between high intelligence and eccentricity.
Reasoning toward rigorous, elegant and robust conclusions is just plain old hard work requiring a tool set that in itself is difficult to acquire.
Re:NEWS FLASH (Score:2, Insightful)
No, that one's a rationalisation to justify your own awkwardness with women. I know this will surprise you, but women are people too.
What the majority of young women want is pretty much what you'd expect - entertaining, interesting, confident and funny men. If you're intelligent as well, it'll be a bonus for them.
Re:It IS boring (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to discuss it without stepping on anyone's toes, and it's an emotionally charged issue for some, so, I'll reserve my rather harsh criticism of most modern programs.
Simply put. When I was a kid, I went to lectures at a particle accelerator, and they were cool. I liked programming. I thought that AI and robots were cool. Now, I work with AI, I've done work with robots (and want to do a lot more), and one of my advisors (I've got my hands in several projects) has multiple degrees, including a background in Physics.
The key, is to get kids those opportunities. Saying "computer science isn't for geeks anymore," is kind of akin to those commercials on the radio where kids say "I know that drinking and smoking aren't for kids." We all know that kids want to be more adult, right? The advertisers don't believe that those commercials will prevent kids from drinking. Do we really believe that "oh, you're not a nerd if you go into science" sends the message that we believe that? The people who believe that never even think to say that, or, if they do, say it in jest or fun (check out the Slashdot logo).
Social skills partly to blame? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't chalk all of this up to their "superior intellect" as a few other posters have claimed. I consider myself to be a reasonably bright and sociable person. I think a great deal of it has to do with an inability to discuss topics of common interest outside of the sciences. Most people simply do not understand more advanced concepts in science, which is understandable - they have little incentive to. That said, most people don't understand the details and intricacies of other academic and professional disciplines. If I spent most of my time discussing the small differences between traditional realism and neo-realism, I wouldn't be a very interesting guy to hang out with, either.
The claims that people don't want to talk to scientists because they are "smarter" may reflect another problem - simple arrogance. In my experience this problem is, thankfully, limited to a small group. But it certainly can be a problem. No one wants to talk to someone who is secretly thinking, "I am so much smarter than this idiot who doesn't know the periodic table of elements backwards." I appreciate the contributions of those who work in the physical sciences, but for these reasons they can be a bit difficult to approach.
Define 'Normal' (Score:3, Insightful)
Geeks get no dates (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, remember that there are both male and female geeks. For that geeky male scientist out there, perhaps an equally geeky female scientist, or vise-versa.
Of course, this way probably a joke anyhow, but really I find that the biggest problem many geeks have is that the tendency to have a superiority complex over their fellows.
Me, I'm a geek. I'm a smart, and skilled. I also associate with people from many walks of life, and won't jump to the conclusion that just because somebody went into massage-therapy, web-design, or plumbing that that person is any less valuable in life... well, except for maybe the web designers
There is a bit of humour to this all too, of course... but really in many ways geeks are receiving great recognition overall. From the lab types in CSI to the computer hackers... we've been made cool in many days. Get down off your pedestols and associate with your fellow humans, and you might find they don't have any problem associating with you.
Loser Caste (Score:5, Insightful)
No one wants to be that mythical "geeky" student who loves only science and has no friends. Even though such a creature rarely exists, a lot of students will shy away from science for fear of "becoming" such a wretch.
The article shows that lot of teenagers have a view that scientists, though it is awknowladged they do important work, are still are not respected by teenagers. They are unattrative, "not like them", a subculture. Almost another caste. This reflects the wide scale rejection of "geekery" by the mainstream teenage culture. So it's not too difficult to imagine that teenagers might thinl that scientists are a kind of alien caste in society.
It's like this. When you're 15 years old, and about to decide on your future career, having spent the last 3 years in a regressive subculture, you are much more likely to pick a career choice that would draw respect rather than derision from your peers.
Re:Yeah, well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except of course they are not completely powerless, as they have the power to choose their future career choices and hence influence the whole economy. What teenagers think about their careers is something everyone really should give a crap about.
IQ is overrated. (Score:2, Insightful)
I know one "smart guy". IQ probably about 150 or more. Chess master. Knows lots of books etc etc etc. Total asshole. He can't take a defeat. He has an ego complex, his nose-in-the-sky attitude repels everyone. Most people hate or despise him, deservedly. It isn't "meek, shy" kind of lack of social skills. It's "arrogant bastard" kind of lack of social skills.
Another guy, high IQ. Cheater, thief, scoundrel of the worst kind. Stay away, don't do business with him. He got a key role in students' council, doing the organizational work quite efficiently but somehow the finances of the council were always empty. With lots of effort (and not by proving anything - impossible, just by any other legal right) we got rid of him. A small group of smart, though not nearly as smart group of students took his work. Suddenly it appeared that (with lots of effort, but...) they can manage things just as efficiently and the council can afford a xerox machine, a new computer, reduce the disco tickets price by 70% and so on. So much for high IQ.
And as for low IQ? Well, I had a girlfriend. (Really!) And honestly, she was dumb. All the way. But she was honest, she knew how to give warmth, compassion, love, lots of the really good stuff. She didn't need high IQ to feel what you felt - good empathy sense, really nice set of social skills, and still just enough of brains to make an interesting casual conversation (plus confronting the "knowledge" with the "feeling" view of things gives you quite a bit of new insight... quite useful for a nerd!)
Re:Is this really a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Myself, I think since higher education is required in today's job market that it should be covered by the government the same as lower education is. Having so many people that are less productive than they could be because they lack the financial resources to make themselves better is not a wise course of action for a country. There should be no difference in age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc - just educate everyone that is willing to learn without forcing them to jump through hurdles.
Re:It IS boring (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The problem with an above average IQ (Score:4, Insightful)
Curiosity: The motor behind science (Score:5, Insightful)
Leonardo wondered what people were made of, and he came up with great tomes of anatomy (he wondered many other things, like why birds fly, etc., but you get the idea).
Newton wondered why things fell to the ground, so he came up with the law of gravity.
Einstein wondered why when falling one couldn't feel his own weight, and he came up with the theory of relativity.
Pasteur wondered why people got sick, and he came up with vaccines.
Scientists always find a question and search for the answer. Their curiosity never stops. This is why teaching science shouldn't be about giving kids information, but giving them questions. I remember professor Jaime Escalante (in the movie "Stand and Deliver") taught the students: "Negative times negative equals a positive". And then he punched them with the question: "Why?"
A great mistake of teaching science is that teachers don't let the students ask questions. If instead you give them interesting subjects (artificial intelligence, for example) and practical examples (build your own speech synthesis program with this toolkit - ok, that's more appropriate for college students but you get the idea), they'll progress.
If science appears boring, it's because all you see is someone thinking equations. But dig into his mind and visualize the data he's thinking about... that's another thing science is missing. Sometimes it's much easier to understand something if you can visualize. This is why astronomy is becoming more popular after the Hubble photos.
See, it's all about awakening the curiosity of your students. That's all they need.
Re:But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If there's anything that'll cause huge drop out rates on science degrees, it's lying to prospective students about how difficult they are.
Science is hard. Most other jobs are hard too. Might as well do one you enjoy. And you don't have to wear a tie!