Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Biographies for 5th and 6th Graders?

kimery asks: "My wife has just been named librarian for a 5th and 6th grade school. As part of the science program, students are required to read several science biographies over the course of the school year. The current biography collection consists mainly of dead (but oh so famous!) scientists. She'd like to expand the collection of science biographies, and would like to have your suggestions as to which scientists should be included. Bonus points for suggesting someone outside the 'usual suspects.' So, what scientists do you think would be interesting for a typical 5th/6th grade student?"

2 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. My suggestions by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Évariste Galois is the immediate, obvious choice.

    Of course Albert Einstein would probably be in the library, but it's worth making sure there's a good biography that explains his struggles as a child, his annus mirabilis, how his Nobel was for the photoelectric effect, what E=mc^2 and relativity really are, how he was invited to be PM of Israel, etc.

    I suppose it's entirely appropriate for 5th and 6th graders to know there was indeed a real Nicholas Flamel.

    Another fascinating biography is that of Thomas Midgley, the poor soul who came up with three ideas that seemed brilliant at the time: leaded fuels, CFCs, and a system of ropes and pulleys in his bed that strangled him.

    And what middle-schooler would not appreciate the toilet humor in the life of Tycho Brahe, so concerned for court etiquette that he let his bladder clog and kill him?

  2. Mathematicians: great lessons for kids! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Alan Turing. Lesson: if you're gay, your government will use you to win the biggest war in history, then hound you to suicide.

    John Nash: Lesson: really, really, really crazy people win Nobel prizes.

    Evariste Galois. Lesson: live fast, die young, leave a good-looking corpse.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.