Slashdot Mirror
New Awards To Compete With Nobel Prizes
Tsalg writes "The Nobel prizes will soon have company. Fred Kavli, a Norwegian physicist, is funding new awards in the fields of astrophysics, neuroscience and nanotechnology. Kavli already funds several think tanks both in the U.S. and abroad, and intends the awards to help 'spread the word of science and get more students interested', as 'in many parts of the world that's a problem, from Norway to the United States...'"
It's about time. The Nobel Committee isn't living up to goals Alfred Nobel had for the prize. I read an article on the Nobel Prize and how to win it. Step 1 was live a long time, because it takes so long for your research to be recognized by the committee. IIRC, the average time between doing something Nobel worthy and being nominated for it is ~20 years.
Free MacMini
...but it's not as if he's only the second person to think of giving prizes to scientists. There are plenty more prizes out there than just the Nobels.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Big name prizes don't really attract people to science. College scholarships and demonstrations of practical applications of science will atract new students. For example, it's all well and good if Dr. Hoffenheimer wins the Nobel Prize in physics for his work in anti-positron flux through a silicone wafer, but other than physics grad students and Ph.Ds, nobody else is going to understand it, and lack of understanding leads to lack of caring. I think shows like Beakman's World and Bill Nye have done more to attract kids to science by makeing it seem approchable, rather than science being some thing that old guys did in white coats in sterile labratories.
Definitely. I for one would like to see the Evil Genius Awards. These would honor mad scientists in fields such as Death Ray Technology, Underground Lair Architecture, Mind Control, and Reanimation of Dead Tissue. Acceptance speeches would, of course, all begin with, "MWAHAHA!!! They laughed, they all laughed!"
As a former public school teacher, I have to ask you about your $/pupil analaysis...how many of those nations spending less money per student yet scoring higher on the tests are actually including ALL children, and not just the ones that have tested well for entrance, have no disabilities, etc.? My experience was that 75%-85% of educational resources are spent on "special needs" students. A big part of this is the notion that they should be included with "normal" children in "normal" classrooms. I'm not aware of any other countries that supposedly outperform us that do the same.
Mutant Freaks of Nature: "Frighteningly Addictive"
I hate this attitude. Just because I choose to see the realities of our world doesn't mean I'm not an optimist. I choose to see the realities because I want to do something to improve them.
No problem. Reality is Bush and the current offices will be depopulated in 2-6 years due to that wonderful bit of democracy called elections. Bush can't run for office again, so just hope the Democrats can find a better candidate this round to beat whomever the Republicans nab to toss up for election. Hillary Clinton ain't gonna cut it.
Want to do something about it? Come up with some way for a car to run off water (recycling the same water for zero emissions), patent the technology, and give it to GM, Ford, and Dodge. That takes a WHOLE lot of money out of the way and a lot of power out of the existing elects' hands.
THAT is realism.
-What have you contributed lately?
That has traditionally been the case. However, we are starting to see some serious problems with these MBA intensive companies. The US has recently been paradise for folks with business, sales, legal skills. There is a real question whether that will remain the case.
I'll agree with you that the use of our educational dollars is questionable at times, but that's precisely what's great about a representative system like ours.
Ranting aside, parents of special needs have whined to their legislators and the courts, and it's steamrolled up from there. I'd love to see the educational system "rescued", but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
As for home-schooling, if you've been successful with it, my hat's off to you. When teaching, I encountered several previously home-schooled children. A few were brilliant, and it was obvious their parents had worked hard to get them there. Too many were held at home for indoctrination to some religion, and couldn't add two and two when they got to me. Sounds like you've done a fine job, though
The prizes you mention are useful, but the Nobel prizes are meant to encourage research in a more general way.
Try this thought experiment: come up ith a prize like the ones you mentionned (X-Prize, etc.) that will styill be relevant in 100 years. Any idea where science will be in a hundred years? Me neither. But the Nobel prize has been around for over a hundred years rewarding people who have made advances that the founders couldn't even imagine.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
If you want to know where the pathology of crime comes from, take a look at one of your vaunted public preschool programs and see 40 or 50 children being "supervised" by four untrained high school drop-outs, mostly interested in talking on their cell phones.
These children see their parents for about 20 hours a week. The rest of their time is spent in a "Lord of the Flies" environment, where the older, stronger children prey upon the smaller, younger ones. If throwing your children into this mix is your idea of parenting, you obviously haven't given much deep thought to the matter.
We are breeding an entire nation of sociopaths. Saying that "people have always thought today's kids are worse than the 'old days' (as many head-in-the-sand people do) doesn't take into account that children are raising themselves.