Obama Kicks Off Massive Science Education Effort 801
In a speech at the White House today, President Obama launched a new campaign, "Educate to Innovate," designed to get American students fired up about science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). The full text of the speech is also available on whitehouse.gov. "The new campaign builds on the President's Inaugural Address, which included a vow to put science 'in its rightful place.' One of those rightful places, of course, is the classroom. Yet too often our schools lack support for teachers or the other resources needed to convey the practical utility and remarkable beauty of science and engineering. As a result, students become overwhelmed in their classes and ultimately disengaged. They lose, and our nation loses too. The partnerships launched today aim to change that. They respond to a challenge made by the President in April, when he spoke at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences and asked the nation's philanthropists, professional and educational societies, corporations, and individuals to collaborate and innovate with the goal of reinvigorating America's STEM educational enterprise. The partnerships announced today — dramatic commitments in the hundreds of millions of dollars, generated through novel collaborations and creative outreach activities — are just the first wave of commitments anticipated in response to his call."
And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
America's artistic value continues to decline with each hollywood blockbuster to be released. No studies whatsoever have been made to test if it could possibly be correlated to poor schooling in the fields of Language Arts, Drama/Theatre, and Humanitarian studies.
Up Next, a story about how a 3 legged dog saved a baby.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other news politicians still haven't made the connection between an arbitrary and inherently abusive disciplinary system of absolute authority with no accountability or responsibility layed over the top of a system of "education" designed around teaching students to do well on a few standardized tests and students becoming "disengaged".
Ditch zero tolerance and standardized tests and the problem will solve itself.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even better, ditch the Department of Education with its centralized planning, heavy handed bureaucracy and one-size-fits-nobody policies and return the control of education to local school boards. Let them decide for themselves what's right for their district and what isn't because no two school districts are alike, and what works for one fails for another.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, after all, it was the DoE's fault that Kansas wanted to teach creationism - oh, wait, that was the Kansas board of education.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Education also doesn't mean that people will make sensible decisions about "the course of legislation and whatnot". I'm sure you can insert the name of your own favourite university-educated idiot politician here.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not giving tax credits for having children would be a good start. Why reward the uneducated for breeding?
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if they're going to ask for food stamps when they can't compete against students who are not taught science out of the bible.
Look at the countries that are doing better jobs of teaching their children. You think they teach creationism in science class? How much time you think Japanese or Korean students spend in school prayer?
Parents have 18 years to fill their kids' heads with whatever kind of mush they want. Can't they allow them a few short hours a day, 9 months a year, to at least have a shot at competing in the world? C'mon, give your kids at least a fighting chance.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:4, Informative)
Why do catholic schools consistently outperform public schools on standardized science tests?
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having a wife who went through Catholic schools, and 2 kids who went to Catholic high school, I can say that it's at least partly because they don't confuse religion with education. There are religion classes, but they're NOT in the science classes. Plus before you get too upset about religion classes, in some other school they might be counted under ethics or some form of social studies. Neither of my kids nor my wife complained about the religion classes being some form of indoctrination. (My wife is a self-professed liberal, and proud of it.)
One other ingredient is a little discipline. Not the sort that stamps out all fun, but the sort that keeps an anti-education counter-culture from growing. (Not physical discipline, either.) My son was thrilled after his first day in high school, because when some kid started cutting up, the rest of the class shushed him.
By the way, the Catholic schools are privately funded. Even at that, the cost per pupil is cheaper than the public schools, I suspect at least partly because they're not the baby-sitter-of-last-resort. Unfortunately I paid both tuition and taxes for the schools - it hurt, but it was worth it.
Nor do they neglect sports or the arts, just for a little further completeness.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm actually aware of that, having gone to a Catholic school. Just to expand on this a bit, in Catholic school they teach religion and science in two separate classes. They teach the creation story as a parable, and evolution and the big bang as facts. They also teach the history and beliefs of every major religion, not just Christianity, so you get a balanced view. Personally, I always liked Buddhism and Hinduism.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always been a little concerned that the campaigners to keep religion and existential philosophy out of schools
Has anyone been saying this, ever?
No one wants to keep this out of schools. We want to keep it out of science class.
you can't actually control what the children are thinking about or the questions they will internally ask.... if you think a policy of "no philosophical or religious discussion allowed" will stop children from thinking and internally asking those religious/existential questions,
You seem to be assuming (mistakenly) that we want children to stop asking these questions.
We don't. There is a time and a place for such questions. A few possible places in school include religion class, philosophy class, or ethics class -- all of which are important, but are not science class.
Suppose a student stood up in math class and asked, "What is knowledge? How can we really say that we know, or have proved, anything?"
That's an important question, and it may even be somewhat relevant to math, but it is inherently not math, it's offtopic, and it's disruptive when the intent is to actually teach math.
So the answer to all of these questions would be, very simply, "That's an interesting question. Why don't you ask that in philosophy?"
A better answer would be to actually explain why that question is outside the domain of science. Carl Sagan's "dragon in my garage" might be a good start.
And if you wish to stop those questions from being discussed in class, then frankly you might as well put up a sign saying "only government pre-approved questions may be asked, and only government pre-approved answers will be given"
Really?
You really can't see a difference between trying to keep things on-topic and a totalitarian government pre-approved list of questions and answers?
The empirical evidence in Europe is that science applications to universities appear to have fallen as society and schools have become more secular. And the empirical evidence in Europe is that it seems to be the religious schools that produce the best science results
Nice evidence. Now, how do you connect it with this conclusion:
and part of that is that they most certainly do make space in their schools (in RE classes) for discussion of what (let's face it) society has always called "the big questions" about the meaning of life.
Really?
How do you know that? Especially given that the person you are replying to claims that this is actually not what happens -- that the religious schools absolutely do keep religion out of the science classroom, and instead tell their students to ask in a more appropriate class?
they expect them to think about everything, not just science.
That's a good idea.
Why don't you think about what you've learned here, if you've been paying attention. Two important things:
First, read the post before replying.
Second, make an effort to understand what your opposition says, rather than creating elaborate strawmen.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Interesting)
Catholic schools don't teach creationism since the Catholic Church does not believe such rubbish, even as far back as St. Augustine. Catholic schools simply care about teaching children. Even though there is a religious element, it is not nearly as pervasive and forceful as creationist-fuckwad-controlled public schools.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then maybe the real issue is people using the school system to indoctrinate people. It's no secret that educators across America push liberal ideals. Just take a look at the list of Obama's top donors, http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 [opensecrets.org]. It should be stopped all around.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FTFY. In case you haven't noticed, things like creationism are *conservative* ideologies. Anyway, the ultimate problem is politicians, school boards, and so on, trying to push *any* ideologies instead of, I don't know, actually teaching educational material. Call me crazy, but school time is limited and should be spent teaching things like math, science
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:4, Interesting)
Giving the Federal DoE the power to trump local governments would violate the Constitution by giving the Federal Government a right, that it is not explicitly given to it by the document. All such powers belong to the States — and the people [wikipedia.org]. That this is happening in other areas is not an excuse.
Actually, no, the Kansas precedent shows the exact opposite — it will not get any worse, because DoE currently has no control over local boards anyway. It might or it might not get better, but it will not degrade and we'll save a ton money spent on Washington bureaucrats. Just this year — despite the dire crisis, we rewarded failure at the DoE with about $100 bln dollars [nytimes.com]. It was trumpeted as "Money for Education" (think of the children!), but it was, in fact, "Money for the Department of Education"...
You focus so much on Kansas' decision to teach, that Humanity has other explanations for nature's diversity, but you miss the bigger picture — Kansas' SAT-scores [collegeboard.com] are quite a bit higher, than national average, while New York's are way lower. And New York spends the most per pupil of all States of the Union. And they have a lot of pupils, so one would think, they enjoy the economy of scale...
Something tells me, the Federally-guided education practices are closer to New York's — and, in particular, you would want them to be, even if you aren't happy with the results.
Oh, boy, you have a long way to go, before you realize, that "educated men of science" are just as prone to petty politicking, championing their own pet projects, and justifying their political agenda by "science" (climate cough research cough) etc. as the local dunces...
At least, if a State's board screws up, only that State's education is affected. If the Federal DoE screws up (or, deliberately sets some aspect of education onto a wrong track), the entire Union is screwed up. Seriously, what happened to the Celebrate Diversity slogan?
Unconstitutional...
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:4, Insightful)
If/when a State's department screws up, only that State is affected, and the others learn, how not to do things. When the Federal department screws up, we are all affected and — having little to compare with — may not even know, how much better (or worse) the things could be.
More importantly, most of the modern "national" Departments violate the Constitution [wikipedia.org] — if not in letter, then in spirit — by usurping the powers not explicitly enumerated as Federal by the document. Lip-service to that is still paid by Congress — the Federal attempts to regulate the maximum speed nationally, for example, are hidden behind "federal highway money": States don't have to set certain speed limits, but will not get federal funds, unless they cap the speeds...
I don't understand the modern Left's obsession with the all-knowing and benevolent Central government. What happened to "stick it to the man", etc? I'm not alone in my puzzlement [salon.com], BTW:
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Substituting experts making decisions on a national scale is a pretty good idea.
Perhaps but it's not authorized. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words the right to regulate education belongs to your local State government, until you expand the Constitution with an amendment.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Informative)
Is it indoctrination to show a child that 2 + 2 =4?
If not then teaching evolution is fine, if so we have a real problem.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Blaming the DoE, standardized tests and zero tolerance for education failure is like blaming extra paper cups for the bankruptcy of Enron. It might contribute, but it isn't the big problem.
There are tons of other countries with bigger standardized tests, even less tolerance and bigger departments of education with more heavy-handed bureaucracy that produce way more scientists per capita. Look at any east Asian country, for instance.
The big problem is really obvious. It's the quality of teachers. And it's not that the teachers are bad per se, it's that they're unmotivated to do better. Teacher's unions make it so that you get paid on years on the job and tenure, not how well you teach. Decoupling rewards with results in this way has been the single worst decision in education in this country.
Look at most charter schools. They flourish. Why? Because the teachers are motivated to teach well, not just do well until they get to tenure status.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem is really obvious. It's the quality of teachers.
It's not that obvious, nor that's the primary reason. It certainly might be contributing reason, but it's also unfair to a ton of good public teachers out there.
I think the pres touched on the real reasons: demand for a good education by the parents. It's really the quality of parents that's the problem, not the quality of teachers. The parents don't value science, and neither will their kids. If they did, more people would enter the field. If parents demanded good educations, they would not tolerate poor teachers. They would also want teachers to get more money to be retained.
Charter schools flourish because of the parents. Non-religious charter schools will lose all their students if they try to teach creationism as science, while religious schools might lose a good portion if they did the opposite. This is why charter schools flourish -- they teach what the parents want taught. When you shove them all together in a public school, you get conflicting parental desires for education, and then everything goes to hell.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
and then everything goes to hell.
that only happens in religious schools, in public schools it just creates a mess.
Teachers aren't the ONLY problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll readily agree with you that we have some lousy teachers, but the problems go far beyond them. Unions sink any disruptive reform that threatens their status or wealth, for instance. But there are deep structural problems with our very method of education, starting with the education major itself in colleges. We should frankly chuck education degrees for junior high and high school teaching. And there's no getting around the fact that education majors in most colleges are almost always from the lowest tier of ACT/SAT scores. We could debate all day about the virtues and vices of government involvement in education.
But equally as big is the problem of students and their parents. Frankly, lots of people simply don't care about schooling. Many parents see school mainly as a place to get rid of their kids for 7 hours a day. Most kids see school as a chore to be endured, from one degree to another.
Look at countries like Finland, where they spend less per pupil and less on facilities than we do. Their kids spend fewer days in school per year and fewer hours in class per day, and fewer years in what we would call the K-12 system. And yet they outgain US kids in all phases of standardized testing. Why? Simply put, there's a culture of responsibility.
Until we find a way to change attitudes among parents and kids, all of the money and legislation in the world won't make a difference.
Re:Teachers aren't the ONLY problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You hit +5, so I won't try to upmod you anymore. I taught HS science for 5 years. You hit the nail on the head. There are lots of other issues, but that was the primary one I saw.
The kids who's parents demanded they get a good education did. The other kids, the majority, did not. Intelligence was only part of the equation, for sure.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:4, Insightful)
...
The big problem is really obvious. It's the quality of teachers. And it's not that the teachers are bad per se, it's that they're unmotivated to do better. Teacher's unions make it so that you get paid on years on the job and tenure, not how well you teach. Decoupling rewards with results in this way has been the single worst decision in education in this country.
Look at most charter schools. They flourish. Why? Because the teachers are motivated to teach well, not just do well until they get to tenure status.
Unions are NOT the problem. The unions in Europe are incredibly strong, probably much stronger than any teachers unions in the U.S. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/01/speakout-american-teachers-unions-the-fatal-flaw/ [rockymountainnews.com] Why don't we put the blame on teacher training and certification instead. How else can you explain how 16% of U.S. science teachers are creationists? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13930-16-of-us-science-teachers-are-creationists.html [newscientist.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You could easily test that hypothesis by comparing educational outcomes in states with teachers unions to those without.
In most cases, non-union states pay their teachers like sh*t, and educational outcomes are somewhat poorer.
I'm not going to argue that unions are perfect in their current form -- they can and often do start to act in their own interests rather than those of their members. In other cases (ie. the autoworkers) unions can become too powerful, and force their parent industry out of business.
H
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up.
Teachers aren't the problem. A thirst for learning and understanding begins before school begins. Even when that fire has been lit, society does its best to extinguish it.
How many young people started down the right path until the social pressures to be cool and conform dampened their pursuit of knowledge?
Re:Not just teachers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Covered perfectly (Score:3, Funny)
Funny you should propose that, it was proposed in the brilliant Yes Prime Minister series.
See below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP-9WzAh26Y [youtube.com]
Teach What Science Really Is (Score:5, Insightful)
With our modern obsession with applicability and utility, where nothing seems to mean anything unless it makes money, we need to remember what science really is. Science isn't just a collection of facts. It isn't just an engine of economic growth. Science is above all a method of exposing nonsense for what it is. Science provides a method for anyone to identify truth from nonsense. When a dispute arises over whose assertions about the physical world are correct, we all agree to look to the physical world as the ultimate arbiter of truth, not to a priest, nor a CEO, nor a minister. Science cannot prove truth. It can only disprove nonsense.
If we, as citizens of a democracy, lose the ability to tell nonsense from truth, then our civilization is in trouble.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's obvious that local school boards can't run their schools according to standards. We should have a national educational governance with the ability to override the folly of local school board.
For further information, see "Creationists take over local school board and fuck everyone's chances of being accepted into a college"
Standards? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Quality Counts report, a publication from Editorial Projects in Education, which publishes the trade magazine Education Week, rated the 50 states and the District in six areas of education performance and policy.
The District was ranked 51st in the report
Maybe we should return control of local school systems back to local school boards. And let Congress and the DOE control only the
Re:Standards? (Score:4, Interesting)
And if it is something the Feds can do, let them prove it in the one school sytem Congress can take direct responsibility for. After all, if the DC school system is truly excellent, then there should be no problem applying those policies and funding decisions to other school systems.
What, the DC school system is not among the finest in the nation?
(snip)
Maybe we should return control of local school systems back to local school boards. And let Congress and the DOE control only the DC school system. When the DC school system is ranked among the top 25 then perhaps we might want to pay attention to the example set by Washington. Pay attention to the example - not do as they say. Under local control, some schools would undoubtably do better, some might do worse, but DC is dead last right now - so even your religious nutjob nightmare districts are still likely to do a better job than the nations capital.
I'm stunned this was modded as "Insightful." As someone who actually lives in DC, I can tell you that the involvement of Congress in the DC Public Schools is zero. However Congress' powers of oversight may *allow* Congress to get involved, the practical fact of the matter is that they do not. Instead, the absolutely awful DC public school system is treated by Congress in exactly the same way as every other school district throughout the United States. It is not an example of a failure of Federal management, since there isn't any more here than there is for Schnectady, New York or Hays, Kansas.
Re:Standards? (Score:4, Insightful)
You make interesting assumptions. They are incorrect.
I don't have a problem with the Interstate highway system either.
More internet - you darn betcha - but I also think it should be metered so you pay for what you use. The rates charged should be such that the comm industry will have an incentive to improve it and increase speeds.
Less Education - Umm no. less Federal interfernce in education as the only school system the Federal gowvenmrnt is directly responsible for is ranked dead last in the country. If the Feds could demonstrate an ability to do better than half the country, then they would have an example worth looking at - for the half of the country they do better than.
Military hardware - Well the US is currently riding on the tiger there - the alternative may well be riding inside the tiger.
Less health care - less health care for whom? How much money do you donate to charity hospitals? Is it OK for me to hold a gun to your head to make you "donate" more? If it is not OK for me to do that, why should it be OK if it is the federal govenrment holding the gun?
Re:Standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
The countries that are kicking our asses in science education don't have "less Federal inerfernce" they have more. Plus, the countries that are most successful in teaching their children have free education, financed by taxpayers.
When you scratch the surface of the "let the free market run everything" argument, you don't have to go very far before you start to see the FAIL showing through.
Re:Standards? (Score:4, Interesting)
The part I don't understand is how you get from "less Federal interference" to "let the free market run everything".
There is a general observation that, in American politics, State Rights in their entirety are favored either by libertarians, or by really crazy conservatives. I don't blame GP for making that mistake, but it's really a pity.
Personally, I would classify myself as a moderate leftie (in favor of social welfare / free decent healthcare / free education, progressive taxes, generally pro-union and labor rights, etc), . At the same time, while I'm not an American, I'm broadly in favor of small government because I think that centralized democracies become increasingly corrupt as they grow, and representatives are removed further away from people who elect them. Just like direct democracy only really works on a city-state level, representative democracy only really works on a relatively small (a few millions, top) state level - beyond that it quickly degenerates into oligarchy with a caste of "professional electees".
The solution is always more decentralization - either by forming a proper confederacy with large degree of autonomy for member states (as the original US was), or by going for alternate systems designed to tackle this, such as soviet (council) democracy with its multiple levels of representative bodies from local level up, and direct responsibility of elected delegates to the lower-level council that sent them (to the point of being recallable at any moment). Of those two, confederation is a more tried approach.
So, while I broadly agree with the direction outlined in TFS, I also agree with you that, ultimately, it would be best for your country if this was left to the individual states - like most other things. On the other hand, looking at it in present-day context, a sudden rapid decentralization is highly unlikely - and decentralizing individual things on their own while retaining massive centralization elsewhere won't do much good even at best, and will likely do a lot of harm in practice. It's really either all (okay, most) or nothing, unfortunately.
Re:Standards? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish you had not posted anonymously so I could thank you by name for your insight. In the US, we have more local governance of schools than most developed countries. The only time most school boards become aware of "Federal interference" is when they get money from the Federal government. And yet the schools fail. Even when the DOE tries to say to school districts, "If you're going to teach Science, please make sure it's really Science" you've got local school boards, packed with extremists, saying "We want to teach science out of the Bible", then when their students can't compete, they point back at the Federal government saying "You did this!"
As you say, the Federal government through the DOE tries to bring up the levels of failing schools. There are still problems not because of Federal involvement, but because the problems are bigger than help the feds are sending. And with one of the major political parties dedicated to gutting the Department of Education (as well as the rest of the Federal government) there's little mystery in why it's not more successful.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, how do home-schooled children do when compared to children of reasonably well-educated parents who take a lot of interest in the child and his or her education? There's a tremendous amount of selection bias here.
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Funny)
Getting an MBA sure seems like confirmation of the earlier diagnosis :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Our modern institutionalized schools teach to the average, and frequently hightly intellligent children are labelled with ADHD or hyperactivity when the truth is that they are merely bored. By the same token, children with a less than average IQ would be stuffed into a special education class, doomed with
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Judging from context, I don't think that the word fascist [wikipedia.org] means what you think it does. Before complaining about how school boards act, I'd suggest that you fill this hole in your own education.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't? You think that the realities of education in an inner-city school where the children come from poor families and, often, broken homes is the same as one in an upper-middle-class neighborhood? I don't. One needs emphasis on the fundamentals so that the children learn what they need to improve themselves, with emphasis on
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know I think they (meaning the government) have this backwards. Engineering and science is FUN. You get to learn all kinds of neat facts, and do cool projects like building solar-powered cabins or toy cars while going through your high school & college courses.
It's the real world that sucks. I enjoyed my engineering/science right up to the point where I graduated, and they stuck me in a little tiny cubicle, by myself, staring at boring code and schematics. Day-after-day. Week-after-week. Year-after-year.
That's when it stopped being fun.
Good Point, So What Do We Do? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well most engineers like interacting with people, especially when solving problems, so rather than assigning one problem per engineer... try assigning one problem to a TEAM of engineers. And it doesn't have to be every day; twice a year ought to be enough where you have a "team project".
Also, why not send engineers on sales calls, so they can meet the people who desire the product?
And finally let engineers have freedom. On my last job I had to account for every 0.1 tick of the clock. If I wasn't working
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:5, Insightful)
You grew up.
Don't ever do that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True, Engineering is Fun. In the UK we already have a STEM net. [http://www.stemnet.org.uk/home.cfm] I am an Engineering professional, who goes in to schools as an STEM Ambassador, (alas do not get the chocolates [youtube.com]).
I try and explain how much fun it is to have a real job as an Engineer. We have a real shortage of young people who consider doing engineering at all levels as a career. From spending all day outside fixing traffic lights, to spending multi-million pounds on engneering contracts. Engineer is a
Standardized tests are needed, but better ones (Score:3, Interesting)
To you and people who think like that (sibling post by techno-vampire going even further in this)... I'd like to note that there is a reason why we need standardized tests. If each school acts on it's own, some might become better than now, others worse. You could look at two people's papers and not know how good they are compared to each other unless you are well familiar of quality of every school in the country. We really need standardized tests to fix this, to give some guideline with which to compare s
Re:And In Unrelated News... (Score:4, Insightful)
While I won't argue that Hollywood isn't currently stuck in a "remake rut", realize that much of what we consider to be classics of literature (the popular medium before moving pictures) was considered popular trash at the time. That's before we even consider that what we now perceive as the "quality" of years past is simply the filtered gems of those eras, with the chaff cast away and trodden into obscurity by the relentless march of popular culture.
There are gems still hidden here and there in the modern age, even in pop music. For example, did you know that one of Avril Lavigne's hits "Damn Cold Night" is actually a waltz?
Art is there if you have your eyes open.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That was Emperor Claudius, circa 10 B.C. He bemoaned that Roman women were walking-around in see-through dresses made of Chinese silk, men were sleeping with those same loose women, and other "moral decay" within the Republic.
And he actually may have been right. After the year 100 A.D. Rome invented very few new ideas. Heck some guy invented a primitive steam engine, and Rome never developed it. They saw no need to innovate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do any of it then? What is the point of studying sciences aimed towards the continuation of the human race if we do not enjoy or encourage that which makes us human?
Easier solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Massive cash awards to US scientists. These kids choose not to go into science because it is not cool. Why is it not cool? Lots of hardwork and small incomes. If you give scientists boat loads of money, they become cool.
Instead we will waste another $huge_amount dollars on some lame education effort only to have the kids still want to be Kobe Bryant, or Dr. Dre.
Re:Easier solution: (Score:5, Informative)
It's true - when growing up I was among the more technically inclined kids and thus was slightly interested in computer sciences. While programming was fun I wasn't sure if its what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.
However, when I was old enough to start looking at the numbers, I realized it was a good field to get into. Little Post secondary required to land a high paying job.
When scientific research reaches such a status, I'm sure the same thing will happen. A handful of people I know wish they could become theoretical physicists, but because the money isn't there, they go into Engineering.
Re:Easier solution: (Score:5, Funny)
Being cool means kids don't feel stigmatized if they enter a field. The study comes later after choosing a career. Lawyers and doctors are often portrayed as smart, powerful, as well as highly paid in movies and TV. Compare that to the lead scientist in Independence Day. He couldn't even afford decent pants.
Re:Easier solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easier solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it really necessary to have 8 years of education to become the equivalent of an organic engineer (doctor)? No.
Ummm... says who? Personally, I like the idea of having my doctor know what he's talking about. Not just "Oh, I saw this done once," but actually be able to explain to me what muscles he's going to be working on, what they have to do with my eye, why the curvature of the lens is important, etc. There's a ton of information there. And it's not like you can section one part of the body off, it's very helpful to know about the entire thing.
But hey, if you want undereducated doctors, feel free to go to surgeons in another part of the world. Hospitals and American-educated (and Indian, to some extent, I guess) doctors frequently complain about foreign-educated doctors. They don't know as much, they are somewhat careless, and their English is hard to understand (hehe). No, not a slam against all non-Americans... but I think American medical education is very good. Costly? Yup. But very good. Which is why every rich person in the world goes to an American university to get care. Ok, over-generalization, but ....
Medical education is a huge deal. And I'm willing to pay for a perhaps over-qualified doctor.
Otherwise you get a double standard. Yeah, you can solder and debug a circuit card... but what if that circuit card was irreplaceable and if you messed up your soldering you would die on the spot. Do you think you'd like to have a qualified, if not MASSIVELY OVERQUALIFIED person do it? And pay extra for it? Or would you still go out and hire the cheapest guy who can say "Oh yeah, I've been soldering for years now. So, what does this circuit board do, again? Why can't you just get a new one?"
Not a direct analogy, but seriously... when you are touching my eyes, my hearts, my lungs, my kidneys... I want you to be pretty qualified, educated, and skilled. And I'm willing to pay extra for that.
Re:Easier solution: (Score:4, Funny)
Excellent! More awards! (Score:5, Funny)
Now we can give Obama the Nobel prize for Chemistry and Physics as well!
ws
fired up, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
...designed to get American students fired up about science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).
No offense, Mr. President, but you want to know what really gets us fired up about those things? Getting paid for it. There are a select few of us that are willing to work for peanuts making the world a better place, spending hours working intractable problems, and sacrificing our social and sex lives all for the sake of The Greater Good. The rest of us -- we want to be paid for our work. The work isn't glamorous -- it's demanding, thankless, and for most requires an expensive education that they aren't reimbursed for. This field in particular (information technology) was gutted about seven years ago under the last administration in the name of short term profits. There is no R&D budget left for innovation, and not much has happened that's revolutionary in this industry since the bubble burst.
If you want to showcase our science and technology, start by making this country the best place to be for it once again -- rather than watching as Europe turns on the LHC while ours sits half-finished in Texas. Send some money to the Department of Energy to fund some physics over here. Give some grant money out so we can deploy a successor to the internet that doesn't suck, controlled by private interests who only want to sell us viagra, cheap thrills, pay per view, and piss-poor last mile connections. Put us back in space, which was once a source of national pride and now languishes as an embarassment. And cancel Enterprise -- goddamn that show sucks!
bucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Not going to happen.
A post-doc doing biomedical research (which is the highest-paid field) makes $40k at NYU. This is after spending 4 years in college, and then doing research for 6 years making a $25k/year stipend. With a conversion rate of under 1 percent for faculty positions (which don't pay that much more anyway), why in the world would anyone actually do that to themselves?! You'd have to be REALLY driven to want to work 60+ hour weeks, under the perpetual stress of having your grant pulled, for less than subway ticket clerks make.
Even better, in our new future we'll hamstring doctors and nurses pay, and make sure that nobody gives a damn about that kind of science too.
As for physics and chemistry (and I am not even talking about Mathematics), we've already driven them into the ground. No need to worry any further.
I used to be a chemist (Score:4, Insightful)
As for physics and chemistry (and I am not even talking about Mathematics), we've already driven them into the ground. No need to worry any further.
The problem is there just isn't a big market for science. I really can't advise anyone to take science at all. Not for money anyway.
There is however a big market for Quants.
Re:bucks (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're really young, you might think that doing something you like and getting enough money to pay for a small apartment and some Ramen noodles is a good deal. However, when you get a little older, you realize there's more to life than work. Many people like the idea of dating and getting married. Many of those like the idea of also having children.
No decent woman is going to marry you if you have a job working 100 hours/week (which means you're never home to spend time with her) and only make $25k (which means you can't even support her). No decent woman will want to have children with you when you're never home, and don't make any money to buy them decent clothes and food, forcing her to apply for welfare. Dating is a competition with all the other males out there, and not many women are going to choose you when they can get some other guy who makes 3x as much money and who has time to spend helping her raise the kids.
Asking prospective scientists to give up their chances at marriage and family is beyond insulting.
Asia is where we were (Score:3, Insightful)
And Asia one day will be where we are.
Don't forget your history. In the 40s, 50s, and 60s, scientists and technicians were practically revered in this country. We valued the idea(l) of progress, and were convinced that we could improve our lives through the application of knowledge. And we did. Learning was valued, and science was respected.
That's all changed now, of course. But respect for learning isn't a uniquely Asian cultural phenomenon: rather, it's what you see in a society after it's become prospero
Mythbusters (Score:3, Interesting)
Adam Savage from Mythbusters was present, and twittered [twitter.com] about the day's event, including being mentioned in Obama's speech and even posted a photo or two of meeting him and Dean Kamen.
soundbite lessons as PSAs (Score:5, Interesting)
stem cells (Score:5, Funny)
We should set up small groups around the country to independently engage in the study of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math... call them STEM Cells, and watch the right-wingers line up to ban funding them, on reflex.
Not without the parents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not without the parents (Score:4, Insightful)
You say parents won't be involved, and therefore this initiative is doomed. Therefore we shouldn't even try. And since we can't compel parents to do better, let's sit on our thumbs. That's not an argument. That's an excuse.
Go to hell. We need better education in this country, and if parents can't be bothered, then schools must take up the slack. Old approaches not working? Then let's try some new ones. Let's think of a better way to tackle the problem! We can do it!
Americans used to be famous world-wide for a "can-do" attitude: we used to look at a problem and think of ways to fix it. These days, we have defeatism embedded in our culture. People like you and most of my other countrymen look at a problem and think "ah, that's hard. Crap. Let me go back to World of Warcraft."
Get up off your ass and start thinking of solutions. Get rid of that defeatist attitude.
Parents . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Parents, parents, parents.
They are in the best position (or should be!) to motivate their kids. If they can't, no billion dollar program will either.
Re:Parents . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was about 4 years old, dad put a cup of ice water on the counter and told me to come back in about 10 minutes. After the time had elapsed, I did, and there was condensation on the outside of the glass. Dad asked me how the water got there. I speculated that it had somehow leaked through the glass.
I can't remember if he told me how the water actually got there, but that was the first time I can remember deliberately forming a hypothesis about something I'd observed
Also, for as long as I can remember, my folks had science books just floating around--lots of them with pictures like the Time-Life science books, which I had thumbed through many times before I even knew how to read. Plus they had a set of World Book Encyclopedias. I was always re-readings those.
I do wonder if I'd be as science-minded as I am today without such encouragement, or if I was just born that way to begin with. I'm sure the encouragement didn't hurt.
Practical utility and remarkable beauty (Score:4, Funny)
Yet too often our schools lack support for teachers or the other resources needed to convey the practical utility and remarkable beauty of science and engineering.
This looks like a job for...Sagan-Man [xkcd.com]!
Government intrusion and control isn't innovative (Score:4, Interesting)
Red flag No. 1: Teacher unions like this plan (Score:5, Insightful)
The teacher unions complained loud and early about this plan. They pushed hard for (and eventually) got numerous changes to the original proposal.
Most of my kids' teachers have been good people generally interested in educating kids. The unions, on the other hand, are out of touch with the classroom and mostly interested in their own survival.
Sorry to be so cynical - and I only speak from personal experience - but I have yet to see the unions fight to get their way about something (tenure, testing methods, school hours, curriculum, etc.) and get a positive result in the end. And with this much money at stake...
Re:Red flag No. 1: Teacher unions like this plan (Score:5, Interesting)
On the flip side in states where you can't unionize, North Carolina for example, in order to balance the budget they gave teachers a retroactive pay cut which means your next paycheck gets docked all the money you got payed earlier in the year to bring it down to your new lower salary level. For all you people who think I typed something wrong because that sounds too illegal and crazy to be true, it is, and it did happen. The Governor apparently has broad constitutional rights to balance the state budget. Teachers that had a lot of money already taken out for things like medical spending and the like actually had to PAY the state back. That sorta thing doesn't exactly help get good teachers in our state.
Now compare that to the quality of education in the state of New york where I first lived and they did have teacher unions....
If you pay them, they will come. (Score:4, Interesting)
I was going to say stop paying executives and lawyers so much.
But then I realized an even more fundamental problem.
Science is hard. Degrees are expensive in the U.S.
Knowing science does not result in either good pay or security.
So smart people choose other fields which require boots on the ground, better security, and better social status.
Only suckers do science right now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only suckers do science right now.
And people that actually love it.
It'd be nice to reward that category before rewarding people that just want to make money and don't care about the field.
The Education Silver Bullet (Score:5, Insightful)
The silver bullet for education is very simple: Fix society. There's nothing inherently wrong with our schools. The problem is that schools are nothing but a microcosm of our society. We think that because schools are full of kids we have some special control over them, but that's generally not true. Kids learn what to value first from their parents, second from their role models (which are usually popular media figures), third from their peers, and only then from teachers. It's even worse when you think you can control teenagers who are not children.
Parents that do not value education produce kids that do not value educations. Parents with no ambitions produce kids with no ambitions. A society that values fame and fortune over science and progress produces kids that value fame and fortune over science and progress.
Quite simply, sick schools are a symptom of the real disease, a sick society. Of course few want to admit our society is sick, and even fewer want to make an effort to fix it. They'd rather just pretend that there's a magic trick to turning blank children (who aren't really blank) into perfect adults. Well sorry adults, but a) kids will turn out fine without you trying to "fix" them, and b) YOU are the real problem. We have to do what we want kids to do: We have to take responsibility and try to fix things instead of pushing problems onto somebody else, i.e. another generation.
Fix society, and you fix schools. It's that simple. Fixing society isn't that simple? Tough. Either do it or stop complaining about schools.
IT'S A SOCIALIST CONSPIRACY! (Score:3, Funny)
Obama is a member of the One World Order muslim kenyan atheist conspiracy and is only interested in promoting America-Last policies like Darwinism, heliocentrism, and rational thought.
YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!
Dude . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
If you listen to Fox News long enough, you'll be able to simultaneously believe that Obama is an Atheist, Muslim, Indonesian, Kenyan, a radical black Christian, and . . . have they gotten around to him being a reptoid yet?
Doublethink is a form of trained, willful intellectual blindness to contradictions in a belief system. Doublethink differs from ordinary hypocrisy in that the "doublethinking" person deliberately had to forget the contradiction between his two opposing beliefs — and then deliberately forget that he had forgotten the contradiction. He then had to forget the forgetting of the forgetting, and so on; this intentional forgetting, once begun, continues indefinitely. In the novel's notes, Orwell describes it as "controlled insanity".
-- Wikipedia on Doublethink.
No impact on corporate america (Score:5, Insightful)
Corp america doesn't care how many millions of kids become engineers or scientists. It'll always be cheaper to hire an engineer in India/China than in the US. My company (large IT company), hasn't had any layoffs, but all the hiring that has been happening has been overseas. So when the CEO gets on the quarterly call and says that the company has continued to hire people; he leaves out the little footnote about how 90% of them are overseas.
Teachers really are the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Warning! Anecdotal evidence ahead, my own two cents, etc....
My wife is a teacher now for 6 years and from what I can make of it, teachers are there own worse enemy when it comes to any improvements in the schools. They regularly resist any change, argue over almost any point, and back stab each other the smallest perceived slight. I think, at least in part, its comes from just a lot of burn out and frustration with students, but as I said this comes to be second hand from my wife so I know I don't have the clearest view.
My wife was an accountant and got her MBA before deciding to get out of the corporate life and to take up teaching. She went through an accelerated course to get her teaching degree. Now teaching business at the high school level for several years, but continues to be look down on by many of the teachers at the school. She didn't get a normal degree in education, she one of the "transplants". Such narrow mindedness....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We are going to join the Warsaw Pact?
Because Nato is first world, Warsaw Pact second and everyone else third. Words have meaning, learn what they are before you use them.
Re:STEM... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:STEM... (Score:5, Funny)
The Cold War ended 18 years ago... OMG, that's what causing Global Warming(TM)!
Re:In Russia, commie govt gives health care to YOU (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>Republican pundits would say as much about Democratic proposals for U.S. universal health care.
- We believe in the right to get health or sickcare.
- We also believe in the right to choose smoking, drinking, or overeating.
- We even believe you have the right to replace your damaged lung, liver, or fatty heart.
What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill. Most Americans consider that theft of another man's labor. We are amazed that Europeans do not. If you wanted to make a "safety net" to help-out those who can't afford their own care, fine, but 99% of Americans have enough money to pay the bill themselves and should do so.
Also the "40 million American are uninsured" is only half the story. The other half of the story is that 30 million of those Americans are uninsured but covered by government programs like SCHIP and Medicare. The remaining ones are illegal intruders (non-citizens).
Re:In Russia, commie govt gives health care to YOU (Score:5, Insightful)
99% do not have the money to pay for their own care, the reality is most private bankruptcies are the result of a medical issue.
We are paying for their medical care, like it or not, who do you think pays when the patient files bankruptcy?
Our system is so messed up I have turned down better paying jobs due to the cost of their insurance.
We have health discount plans not insurance. I do not need someone to pay every time I get the sniffles, I need millions in case I get brain cancer. Instead we have the worst of both worlds.
You forgot (Score:3, Insightful)
The other half of the story is that 30 million of those Americans are uninsured but covered by government programs like SCHIP and Medicare. The remaining ones are illegal intruders (non-citizens).
You left out lawful tax-paying immigrants not yet naturalized, and you also left out people whom all the available insurance companies have declined to cover due to a preexisting condition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The remaining ones are illegal intruders (non-citizens).
I'm not sure whether to parse it as a badly worded way to say "illegal intruders (who are all non-citizens)", or whether you're implying that all non-citizens on U.S. soil are "illegal intruders".
If the latter, I would like to remind you that e.g. non-citizen H1-B guys also pay taxes that support your socialized healthcare programs in full, same as all citizens, except that they aren't entitled to any benefits from those programs.
Re:In Russia, commie govt gives health care to YOU (Score:5, Insightful)
"What I do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill."
FTFY.
What he really means "I am a heartless selfish asshole who would rather watch unfortunate poor people die in the gutter than pay a pittance for a decent universal health care scheme".
I pay into 1.5% of my salary above 30K Australias universal health care and am happy to do so. It works very well. We have good health care for everyone. If you want private insurance you can have that too, and get a tax rebate.
Our government spends less to give universal health care than yours does to NOT provlde it.
Drink the republican kool-aid much.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, the same tired and inaccurate claim.
Ever hear of the cochlear implant, developed in OZ?
We punch significantly above our weight in the medical research area.
Does the US govt PAY for that supposed 82%?
How much is done by big pharma, for huge profits?
You cant count that as govt spending you know.
In fact according to the study I just looked up;
We identified 1 485 749 articles published by authors from the European Union and the four candidate countries and 1 356 805 articles published by US authors.
See;
http [nih.gov]
Re:In Russia, commie govt gives health care to YOU (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the rest of the goddamn civilized world shows us that the system we're trying to build here is the one that actually works, and it is ours that is the known-broken one.
But I don't expect ideologues like you to apply reason to these things. After all, America, Fuck Yeah!
Re:Naming? (Score:5, Informative)
You mean, his anti-stem cell research policy where he shrunk the previous administrations budget of $0.00 to several millions. Is that the anti-stem cell research policy you are talking about? I guess you would have been much happier if he just kept the previous administrations spending level on this research.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wait --- let me get this straight: you're actually claiming that education is actually a political ploy to garner more support for the left? You're actually arguing that science education is a bad thing because it encourages parents to be lazy? Therefore we shouldn't teach kids, and that'll show them unions and pinko parents? Never mind that we're falling further and further behind other nations in science: the solution, on the planet you live on, is to teach less science.
You're arguing that your partisan g
Re:Translation: Massive Union Vote Buying Program (Score:4, Insightful)
No. I'm saying that the teachers' unions are dependable voters for Obama's party, as long he continues to throw them a bone in the form of money and power of far-reaching programs that involve the continued employment of their members under their terms. Education (especially as it relates to science) doesn't stick in a kid's head because of large government programs. It sticks in their heads because their parents have made them receptive to it in the first place. Big government programs don't cause parents to be more thoughtful about how they interact with their own kids.
Obama knows this, just like every educator knows this. Which makes large, money-centric programs like this all about the people to whom the money goes: the unions. And the unions then take the dues they collect, and advertize on behalf of the politician than promises to deliver more of the same. Such unions were a big part of how Obama got elected, and he's doing payback, that's all
You're arguing that your partisan gain is more important than the success of the next generation
No. I'm saying that such programs have nothing to do with the success of the next generation, and are in fact all about the partisan gains pursued by the party dishing out the cash. Simple as that. Of course, you already knew that.
Re:Translation: Massive Union Vote Buying Program (Score:4, Informative)
Spin that with your broad generalizations about the left and a hilariously old reference to Hillary Clinton's book just shows that you're hopelessly mired in ideological cliches with no objective reasoning whatsoever...something I might add is important when discussing science.
I, on the other hand, am actually happy that government is actually paying attention to science and not making an enemy of it.
Re:Translation: Massive Union Vote Buying Program (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course this is true, but context is everything. Seeing that you threw this in during your general rant against liberals and then capitalized the words, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what you're implying.
More to the point of your question though is that you never do address the very thought of what you think is wrong with science education, which is the only way to have proper science education is get the parents involved. So how do you propose to do this, pray tell? Wave some magic wand to make parents who are too set in their ways to somehow imbue them with the necessary curiosity and objectivity to pass it on to their kids?
But the government proposes a plan to spur science education and your fault is with the people who proposed it. Might as well throw up your hands and admit you either 1) don't think there is anything wrong with science education today or 2) admit that we cannot possibly change the status quo and give up. Seriously, I would love to hear your proposal to get all parents more involved with their children's education. I don't think you have any idea on how that can be accomplished, but if you have something, I'm all ears.
Really? You stop being interested when you're reminded that your current president's only executive experience prior to his current OTJT, was his holding of that title? Yeah, I can see why you'd rather not be reminded of that.
Seriously? This doesn't have a thing to do with the topic. And who cares about this unless you have some sort of cognitive dissonance about who got elected into office. Obviously, this weak argument didn't hold enough water during the campaign, you think I give a shit about it now?
Distortion turned up to eleven! (Score:3, Informative)
not sit back and watch as my Obama-money comes pouring in while watching Oprah
Yep... and then distort it even further if you can get away with it?
not the land of hand-outs for not trying
Check. Now can the GOP continue on and show that they have no grasp on how the rest of the world funds education and operates their national budgets?
In most of the world, they are passing us up because their lives depend on them doing well and getting a job to earn money. Without it, they starve.
That is an excellent start. Can you drive home the distortion now by belittling people who didn't crawl out of the correct vagina and find themselves born into wealth?
With more and more fallback in America, we slowly reduce the incentive to do anything. Ultimately, the government (via taxing the rich) will give me everything I ever want whether I try or not.
Yeah, we see why the conservatives
Re:Education and Equality Don't Mix (Score:4, Insightful)
Your argument is that UK education was ruined by Tony Blair trying to equalize it for all.
Have you considered the possibility that Tony Blair was a neocon who simply lied? That education was never a priority for him, and that it's fallen into disrepair through neglect, not through well-meaning but ill-conceived repairs?
Blair didn't really want to fix education. His only goal was to destroy it for short-term political points. The same disease that's afflicted us on this side of the Atlantic has also infected you.