Slashdot Mirror
Obama Kicks Off Massive Science Education Effort
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."
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.
You're funny. They already do this in who they funnel money to for grants. This is why you see scientists in climate research doing everything they can to squelch opposing views, block FOIA requests and most likely fudge data. If this "climate gate" shows anything is that there are way too many scientists who hold their views, reputation and grant money much higher than the scientific process. Give scientists more money and you're only going to encourage psychopaths who are in it for money.
M,
This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.
T.
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091120_cru_hacked.htm
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
But aren't you doing something you like doing in that research? And get something like free room and board? Or something like that?
And do you have to TA? If I were do do a music thing, I'd have to TA to get my stipend, and the stipend is not $40k.
IMO, I don't see how anyone could complain too much about getting $25k a year for doing something you presumably love doing and not having to do anything else (like "work" for your living. I work for my living and do what I *love* doing in the evening in my "free" time. I make more than $25k a year, of course, but I have to pay for room, board, and my hobby, too).
Not saying it couldn't be improved; I'm saying it's not as bad as nothing.
Hamstringing doctors/nurses pay... not to mention biomedical research because of taxing the biomedical businesses who make their living researching and selling their tech ... somehow we're going to tax them to pay for better health care and ... erg, don't get me started in that one. Sure, maybe reform is in order, but not haphazard un-thought-out ridiculous reform from a bunch of politicians who mostly inherited fortunes from their families and have barely had to work for anything in their life. No, I'm not just talking about Democrats. That was a bipartisan critique :)
>>>Science is fun; learning it in school is not.
That's the exact opposite of what I just said. I said "School is fun; the real world of science/engineering is not."
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I don't hear you complaining about the internet your federal government built. Funny how selective people can be when it comes to anti-government rhetoric.
"More internet! Less education! More military hardware! Less health care!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
I can see that the smudge of superiority on your rose colored glasses will keep you from ever seeing any other side of things. I have very poor friends in several countries in Africa and Asia. I've lived in Africa. I know what people have to struggle through. You don't seem to know of it except from what you've seen on TV.
The friends I have in Africa (because I lived there and was helping them because I'm conservative and do want to help people) try much harder than the average American because we don't have to. They work harder and for less money. People on welfare in America are still in the top 15% of wealthiest people in the world. Boohoo for us.
I do get a little irked (like you appear to be) when we Americans get all up in arms about not getting everything we want when we want it when 1.4 Biliion people are living on $1/day and 1.6 Billion on $2/day. I do know this because I know people in that situation, they don't want our hand-outs, they want to retain their dignity and simply be given a chance. In America, we don't just want a chance, we want it rolled out before us and as easy as it possible can be....then we might try a little.
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
hilariously old reference to Hillary Clinton's book
That expression goes back way before she trotted it out, and it's still being used, ad nauseum. Google it. You'll see it being used by everyone from "urban homesteaders" to people writing current study probrams for young students. The "community organizer" industry is littered with programs called the "It Takes A Village [whatever]" where [whatever] is everything from career development programs to child-rearing life-coach nonsense. The phrase is embraced and used, continually, by a very specific type of careerist: the We Know Better Than You program runners. Which isn't to say that some social workers don't know better than some idiots. But the assertion that children simply can't be properly raised without the intercession and stewardship of the government is alive, well, and growing stronger by the minute. And when people like you shrug it off as being a bit of Hillary-bating, you're just allowing it to continue and giving it more credibility.
Community Organizing or Organizer
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I mean you say creationist you know it's a right wing kook. You hear about a person being anti-chemical or pro Naturopathy you just have to know they're a left wing idiot. Hell, both ends hate vaccines which is disturbing but true. Really both sides "use" science when they can and abuse it when it suits their purposes. (Ok, so I'm jaded. It's bad enough to have creationsts but then lefties saying how great evolution is and then basically quoting Lamarck.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Does every paper cost the same to produce? Here is a source on the data I provided, http://www.efpia.org/content/Default.asp?PageID=388.
Between 1990 and 2008, R&D investment in United States grew 5.6 times whilst in Europe it only grew 3.5 times. The latest study released in 2007 estimated the average cost of researching and developing a new chemical or biological entity at € 1,059 million.
The United States still dominates the biopharmaceutical field, accounting for the three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and R&D spending.
When do you all plan to start supporting yourselves? Until then take your righteous indignation and shove it.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
Sure, if you teach the THEORY of evolution. You just made the same mistake that's made it problematic. You didn't even refer to it as a theory, you almost blurted that out as if evolution is in fact the way we came to be how we are. And further, you're almost sure enough of yourself to make us believe you has pics, cuz otherwise it didn't happen :o.
Citation needed.
Yes, this is the simple-minded explanation, that satisfies, uhm, simple minds... What's wrong with it, is that the government does not have its own money (that you affectionately refer to as "trough") — it all comes from taxes, that the States' residents pay. So, it taxes us first, and then tells us, we can only get the services, that the taxes were meant for, if we follow some extra rules "voluntarily".
This same idea is now played with in the Obamacare projects: giving the States a "right" to "opt-out" of parts of the programs is a sham — the States will only be allowed to out-out of receiving services, not from paying for them. Pay attention...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.