Taking Issue With Claims That American Science Education is 'Dismal'

Funding... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:13 · Score: 0

It's for funding. Why would you want to put MORE money into something that is working just fine? Why not lie about it....

America is still number 1.

Re:Where is why? by rwv · 2012-06-05 04:14 · Score: 1

This is a discussion... maybe the summary was a teaser to get us to click the discussion where our best minds can get together refute the supposed straw man. And besides, deconstructing straw man arguments is popular around here.

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:16 · Score: 1

Summary ended early.

Nope, his writing just reflects his American education.

Science VS religion. by Kenja · 2012-06-05 04:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every few years we have people trying to legislate science out of the class room because it conflicts with their vision of religion. Of course our science classes are messed up, people have a vested interest in them being so. Frankly, much of what is taught is not even science. Anyone who comes out of high school thinking that science is about facts has been done a disservice.

And on the science vs religion front. Religion has rewritten itself often to adjust to realities that science has postulated. Science has never changed based on belief. So as a betting man, my money is on science. But as a scientist, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:Science VS religion. by Coolhand2120 · 2012-06-05 04:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

Science has never changed based on belief.

Huh? Ever hear of a paradigm shift? There's a gestalt moment there where it's all about your perception of the problem. I.e.: what you believe to be so.
Re:Science VS religion. by Kenja · 2012-06-05 04:23 · Score: 5, Informative

For it to be science, it has to be based on observable evidence and not belief. What you are talking about is the moment when what you believe is shown to be wrong, which is a change in belief and not a change in science.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Science VS religion. by DesScorp · 2012-06-05 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every few years we have people trying to legislate science out of the class room because it conflicts with their vision of religion. Of course our science classes are messed up, people have a vested interest in them being so.
Oh Rubbish. One of the reasons why people think science education is bad is this kind of nonsense. "There's a religious conspiracy to kill science!!!". Please.
The nasty truth of it is that there are two kinds of problem with science education, and neither of them are related to religion whatsoever. The first is a huge section of students with generally poor scores in science classes and tests. But these students almost always have poor scores in everything, so it's not a science problem here, it's an education problem as a whole, which could be anything from bad teachers and schools, to.. and this is more likely... unmotivated students that frankly don't care about school, with parents that could care even less. All of the money and resources and promotion of science education in the world won't change this.
The second problem really isn't a problem at all. It comes from scientists and mathematicians and educators that are unhappy that more kids aren't taking an interest in hard science classes. We regularly see lamentations from these advocates that America is sliding to hell in a handbasket if we don't have more high schoolers taking calculus, physics, software development classes, etc. But this is foolish. Most people aren't going to become scientists anymore than most people aren't going to become engineers or symphony conductors or astronauts. Professional math and science fields tend to be an elite, populated by a few capable people that are highly motivated and truly love what they do. That's reality, and if you don't like it, tough. You can no more make more scientists out of our kids than you can make more Beethovens.One of the problems I have with movies like "Stand and Deliver" is the idea that if we just had a few more Jaime Escalantes in our classrooms, we'd have this wave of untapped Isaac Newtons just waiting to make new discoveries in math and science. And it just isn't true.
Most people are not particularly brilliant at anything. Most people, with work and experience, can become at least competent, and maybe good at something. But these somethings are usually pretty ordinary fields. Unless they destroy themselves with bad decisions... drug addiction, for example... then most kids generally gravitate to what they want to do if they have any motivation. And if they don't have any motivation, then they just work at whatever pays the bills. The former might take an interest in science, but most wont. The later is pretty much a lost case, as far as science ed goes.
All we can do is make sure there are opportunities for those interested to learn. The vast majority of these kids will. The rest... why worry about it, as far as science education is concerned? A calculus or physics class will do them no more good than a class in Sanskrit. They won't like it, and they'll forget about it, and it'll generally be a waste of time all around for all involved. The truth of it is that hard math and science really isn't for most people. Instead of trying to cram more kids in an AP Physics class, we should instead provide better general science classes to kids that are more interesting and that give an appreciation for the fact that science and math is important. What you really want is a large population that supports math and science, not one that does math and science. The later is unrealistic.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Re:Science VS religion. by Brett+Buck · 2012-06-05 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why are people here so damn obsessed with religion VS science debate? It's not a significant issue (queue up apocryphal stories...). Virtually every scientist in the history of science was religious and science has progressed nicely despite the fact that the vast majority of the human population is religious.
People tend to focus on these obscure side issues like creationism, etc. I am as conservative as they come, I was raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and spend all my time with people who are religious to one degree or another. No one I know sees a significant conflict here,
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:40 · Score: 0

Science has never changed based on belief.
Huh? Ever hear of a paradigm shift? There's a gestalt moment there where it's all about your perception of the problem. I.e.: what you believe to be so.
What you're just restating is that what people beleived about science changed. However, the science came first, and peoples perception of the world (belief) was changed afterwards. It's interesting that you view it as a chicken and egg type situation, however, it has always been the case that the data, theories and hypothesis come first. Sometimes an existing belief has needed to be thrown away before someone could get the idea to look at the facts in a different way, but that's not the same as a belief changing the science.
I guess there may be instances where someone had an idea about something (believed it to be true) and then set about trying to demonstrate it scientificially, maybe even with success. But that's really no different than your regular hypothesis, experiment, review cycle.
What's being discussed here, is whether or not, faith has changed science. For example, assume for arguments sake that the science showed that the earth was round, then someone looked at the bible and it was revealed that the earth was flat. With this faith to hand they then successfully demonstrated scientifically that the earth was flat. This has not happened, to my knowledge, ever. Does anyone have any real-world counter examples?
Re:Science VS religion. by TemporalBeing · 2012-06-05 04:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

Every few years we have people trying to legislate science out of the class room because it conflicts with their vision of religion. Of course our science classes are messed up, people have a vested interest in them being so. Frankly, much of what is taught is not even science. Anyone who comes out of high school thinking that science is about facts has been done a disservice.
Science is about finding facts through experimentation; however, facts are rarely found by science as it mostly puts out theories that may or may not lead to facts.

And on the science vs religion front. Religion has rewritten itself often to adjust to realities that science has postulated. Science has never changed based on belief. So as a betting man, my money is on science. But as a scientist, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong.
Science has very well changed based on beliefts. For example - the Theory of Evolution has had a dramatic change on Science both in relation to finding facts and beliefs, and what Science is willing to accept as Science (if it doesn't link to the Theory of Evolution then Science throws it out as non-Science).

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Science VS religion. by jythie · 2012-06-05 04:50 · Score: 1

True, it is not really a 'religion vs science' debate, but 'particular religious groups vs particular scientific disciplines', but it is still pretty significant since it effects not only economic issues but often cuts strait to the issue of government being used as a tool to settle dogmatic differences between denominations.. and of course the non-christians caught in the crossfire.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:53 · Score: 0

Jus' sayin', being consistent doesn't make stupid people smart.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

The real challenge will be keeping the work output of all of these "normal" people worth anything in a meaningful sense. They are quickly being replaced by technology. This is one of the problems - in order for there to be a large middle class - the work output of the large middle class has to be worth something. Probably won't happen if they are all "out-of-work english majors"
Re:Science VS religion. by internerdj · 2012-06-05 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Evangelistic aethistic scientists have a fundamental disagreement with the attitude that humans can segregate parts of their lives into different thought processes. They think that someone cannot perform rational thought in one area of their life with demonstratable proof that they have logical flaws in other areas. The problem IMO with this line of thought is that they are pretending the human approximation to logic is closer to how we should think than the evolutionary-designed heuristic processes that allow us to think. We think within a context of data chunks, between roughly 5 and 9 chunks of data at any one time. As we gain expertise, then our chunks grow to encompass wider concepts, but we are still limited to a processing blob that deals with reality in a very segmented context. That isn't to say there aren't places that a religious scientist needs to be careful, but it is quite as intellectually honest as any other method.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:05 · Score: 0

Please familiarize yourself with the scientific use of the word "Theory" (vs. the colloquial use) before you start throwing it about.
Re:Science VS religion. by jpstanle · 2012-06-05 05:11 · Score: 2

You must not be from Texas.
Re:Science VS religion. by Brannoncyll · 2012-06-05 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Evangelistic aethistic scientists have a fundamental disagreement with the attitude that humans can segregate parts of their lives into different thought processes. They think that someone cannot perform rational thought in one area of their life with demonstratable proof that they have logical flaws in other areas. The problem IMO with this line of thought is that they are pretending the human approximation to logic is closer to how we should think than the evolutionary-designed heuristic processes that allow us to think. We think within a context of data chunks, between roughly 5 and 9 chunks of data at any one time. As we gain expertise, then our chunks grow to encompass wider concepts, but we are still limited to a processing blob that deals with reality in a very segmented context. That isn't to say there aren't places that a religious scientist needs to be careful, but it is quite as intellectually honest as any other method.
This sounds a lot like doublethink to me. From 1984:
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
I think your 'fundamentalist atheistic scientists' are right to look down upon such behaviour.
Re:Science VS religion. by the+phantom · 2012-06-05 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

For it to be science, it has to be based on observable evidence and not belief.
That is the ideal. In reality, scientists are human, are prone to error, and often become attached to bad ideas. For instance, it took decades for plate tectonics to become accepted scientific theory, even among experts, even in the face of solid predictions and observations.
I assume that the grandparent poster was using the term "paradigm shift" in the way that Thomas Kuhn used it in The Structure of Scientific Revolution. While there are many valid critiques of his work, Kuhn was a sociologist, and sought to describe the way that science is actually done, rather than how scientists feel it should be done---that is, the book should be read more as an ethnography of scientists than a manual for doing science. In that context, Kuhn's thesis is that the community of scientists gloms onto a particular paradigm or way of seeing the world. Once such a paradigm becomes entrenched, it is difficult to replace it, and an "old guard" may actively suppress new paradigms through selective publication. Eventually, the evidence becomes overwhelming and the new theory is accepted (or the old guard dies off, and the new theory is accepted).
In this way, the ideal of science (i.e. science based on observation and experimentation) is ultimately born out, but the route is not as direct as many scientists might claim it to be.

--
Rhapsody in Numbers
Re:Science VS religion. by Coolhand2120 · 2012-06-05 05:15 · Score: 2

I guess for you to understand you'd have to read a little bit. Changes in science happen all the time. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions. Thomas Kuhn is the guy who created the idea, not me. People that hold to the old scientific paradigm do so out of belief in their paradigm. They continue to use science to give more credence to their theory long after it has been falsified. These are reasoned and logical highly intelligent scientists, yet they ignore falsification. If you don't call that belief I don't know what is.

If you find Kuhn too heavy just read up on the history of caloric or phlogiston. Both of these theories were held up as "scientific fact" by the majority of scientists long after they were falsified. Adherents to the thermodynamics paradigm where laughed at.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:16 · Score: 0

Yes and no. Yes, most people aren't going to become scientists. No, there are still plenty of students who could benefit from improved science education.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:22 · Score: 0

That was f*in' brilliant.
Re:Science VS religion. by RCourtney · 2012-06-05 05:25 · Score: 2

When 46 percent of America's population outright rejects the scientific process based on religion I'd say it is a serious concern.
Re:Science VS religion. by Coolhand2120 · 2012-06-05 05:27 · Score: 1

You're pretty insightful, if only I had seen your reply before making my own.
Re:Science VS religion. by Coolhand2120 · 2012-06-05 05:31 · Score: 0

solid scientific beliefs

Only an moron would use the very phrase he was trying to refute to make his point. And you sir, are that moron. And I shall say good day to you!
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

I tell you what, show me the science tests where kids fail miserably at an understanding of evolution but score crazy high on common place science matters like basic physics and chemistry and I might begin you think to have something there.

The bottom line is that it matters little when you question evolution if Little Johnny can't understand high school Physics 1, Biology 1 or Chemistry 1. To date I haven't seen of a religious group that's trying to get f=ma or the earth orbiting the sun tossed out of the science classroom but I bet you there are more students who don't understand these concepts as there are those who reject evolution.

You make it sound like there is a substantial number of people in this nation who are still following Christian dogma from the 6th century and this simply isn't true. The questions where religion and science are likely to conflict are so few that they're not going to have an overbearing effect on the testing. Little of what's taught on the high school level is controversial.

Stop making religion your punching bag for ten minutes and consider *where* these students are failing in science and math and you'll see that religion isn't a problem. At least not as much of a mountain as you make it to be from the molehill it started from.
Re:Science VS religion. by CastrTroy · 2012-06-05 05:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

This has always been seen as a big problem. People thought that all the advances in technology would obsolete a bunch of jobs. It wasn't long ago that many white collar workers had their own secretary. Those jobs don't exist anymore. We've been pretty good at finding jobs for "normal" or "mediocre" people for the past 100 years, but I see it slowly coming to a point where there are very few jobs in America (or "the west" for that matter) for normal people. Self checkout grocery stores, online shopping, no more music and video stores, robots assembling cars, all of this stuff adds up. People will either have to get a skill doing something that can't be off-shored or done by robots, like car mechanic, barber, tailor, etc. There won't be much room for people working in the manufacturing sector, retail sector, or many other shrinking industries.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Science VS religion. by __aagmrb7289 · 2012-06-05 05:45 · Score: 2

When people REPEATEDLY claim that disagreeing over the origin of the human species means that people "outright reject the scientific thought process", I'd say we've got some serious concerns going on here, yes. Did you even READ the frickin' question in the poll? Your conclusion is not based on the evidence.
Re:Science VS religion. by internerdj · 2012-06-05 05:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

If my brain isn't chunking religous thought into the same chunk as scientific thought, then it is baffling to me how someone can think that someone would think how one chunk would corrupt the other. If my brain is chunking them both together it is baffling how a religious man ties his shoes in the morning. As posted somewhere in the mass of comments above (I'm not sure if even this thread), a number of scientists with foundational principles have been able to successfully arrange their thoughts in such a way as to accomodate religion. The scary part occurs when people make policy or scientific decisions by chunking religion with science and you can't detect that. However, there are a number of other subjects when chunked with science makes for results just as terrible, e.g. politics, e.g. money, e.g. fame.
Re:Science VS religion. by schlachter · 2012-06-05 05:48 · Score: 1

Tell that to the many boards of educations that have tried to prevent science from being taught in our education system. These efforts in lunacy are often only prevented at the last minute by a large number of people in the community coming together and dedicating themselves to the issue. So yea, it's kind of like saying, "why is everyone so obsessed with keeping the kitchen clean...it's not like we have bugs or anything".

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:53 · Score: 0

Virtually every scientist in the history of science,
This is true. But it's true because the churches often controlled access to higher learning and resources. An outspoken atheist was way more likely to get punished for his beliefs than to be financed to do research. Case in point, Galileo.
Re:Science VS religion. by avandesande · 2012-06-05 06:03 · Score: 1

That's only half of the story- when I was growing up we were promised jobs maintaining gleaming robotic factories (much like Germany has now). Instead our factories were liquidated in favor of Chinese working at slave wages in primitive polluted sweatshops.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:Science VS religion. by Brannoncyll · 2012-06-05 06:13 · Score: 2

If my brain isn't chunking religous thought into the same chunk as scientific thought, then it is baffling to me how someone can think that someone would think how one chunk would corrupt the other. If my brain is chunking them both together it is baffling how a religious man ties his shoes in the morning. As posted somewhere in the mass of comments above (I'm not sure if even this thread), a number of scientists with foundational principles have been able to successfully arrange their thoughts in such a way as to accomodate religion. The scary part occurs when people make policy or scientific decisions by chunking religion with science and you can't detect that. However, there are a number of other subjects when chunked with science makes for results just as terrible, e.g. politics, e.g. money, e.g. fame.
Many great thinkers seem to have managed to separate their religious beliefs from their rational mind, for a while at least anyway. However their beliefs were often ultimately responsible for their fall from grace. Just look at Newton, he contributed much to science but was also strongly religious; he jumped the shark later and spent the latter part of his life writing discourses disputing the holy trinity and experimenting with alchemy (giving himself mercury poisoning in the process). Einstein was also religious, but that did not stop him from doing great things for science, but he eventually let his beliefs about a deterministic universe prevent him from accepting quantum mechanics.
Re:Science VS religion. by MatthiasF · 2012-06-05 06:22 · Score: 1

Because there are people trying to turn Science into a religion to either push their preferences or oppose the other religions out of spite.
Re:Science VS religion. by arth1 · 2012-06-05 06:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Did you even READ the frickin' question in the poll? Your conclusion is not based on the evidence.
Did you? It's actually worse than portrayed. When asked directly "Do you think Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years is definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false?", 39% said definitely true and another 27% said probably true.
If that's not outright rejecting the scientific thought process, I don't know.
Re:Science VS religion. by RCourtney · 2012-06-05 06:26 · Score: 1

Ummm that humans were created at one single time in their present form within the last 10,000 years and you think that is a scientifically valid theory? Arguing where the Universe originated is valid (and unprovable) but arguing where humans came from? Not so much. Even Pope John Paul II didn't argue AGAINST evolution.
Re:Science VS religion. by MatthiasF · 2012-06-05 06:29 · Score: 1

Observations are done through one's perspective, either physically through your senses or devices created to perceive an event based off current technical know how. This means observations are not objective, hence why the Scientific Method requires independent verification of observations.

Once the observations can be trusted, inference is typically used in interpreting the observations to create theories or explanations are also very much dependent on perspective and can never be objective either.

The reason why the process of the Scientific Method has been so successful is it's ability to put observations on record, require those observations to be tested and allow many others to infer what happened during those observations.
Re:Science VS religion. by DesScorp · 2012-06-05 06:31 · Score: 1

The real challenge will be keeping the work output of all of these "normal" people worth anything in a meaningful sense. They are quickly being replaced by technology. This is one of the problems - in order for there to be a large middle class - the work output of the large middle class has to be worth something. Probably won't happen if they are all "out-of-work english majors"
This is a valid concern, with scary examples here and there, but on the whole, increasing technology has tended to expand economies, not contract them. Yes, buggy makers are out of business, but automobile makers are hiring. And much of this presupposes that new technologies completely eliminate old ones. Yet we've had the jackhammer for years, and shovels are still being used. We've got computers and calculators, and yet there are probably more pencils and paper being produced now than in anytime in history. So I won't claim that new technologies don't bring disruptions, but on the whole, the fears on this are overblown. Things tend to work themselves out in economies when new tech comes along.
One more thing; I have to take issue with the whole concept of "meaningful" work. Who defines what that is? A garbageman isn't skilled or revered, but if no one picks up the trash, things tend to go to hell pretty quick. All work isn't glamorous, but any work that needs to be done is by definition meaningful work. The world really does need ditch-diggers too. We'd all be before off if we understood and accepted this.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Re:Science VS religion. by RCourtney · 2012-06-05 06:42 · Score: 1

One cannot believe evolution is not real and also claim to believe in the very process that lead to the theory of evolution. It would be a hypocritical contradiction.
Re:Science VS religion. by lessthan · 2012-06-05 06:44 · Score: 1

How is the question ambiguous? It clearly asked if the people believed in atheistic evolution, theistic evolution, or creationism. 46% said creationism. That is pretty damning. There are no competing theories on evolution, that is where the science is at. I hate to use the all or nothing (but it feels so right), but if you don't believe (you have to believe, unless you are someone intimately familiar with the field, in that case, you can know) that evolution is currently the most likely explanation to our current physical existence and appearance, then you aren't a science-lover.

--
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Re:Science VS religion. by internerdj · 2012-06-05 06:46 · Score: 1

And science has sorted the great parts of their work from the crap. There are a number of folks, who at least talk like a religious person shouldn't be sorting journals for a real scientist because they might get bias on them. Do not hinder me from contributing to science because you have an irrational fear of one of the many awful biases that could ruin my work.
Re:Science VS religion. by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-06-05 06:48 · Score: 1

Calling Einstein religious is like calling Al Gore a climatologist.
The great scientific thinkers did not compromise their rationality with religion. It was the best hypothesis at the time for explaining human thought, where the universe came from. It was really the only game in town. Descartes even thought we had souls.
Today, there is no excuse, the god hypothesis is failed. We know how the Universe formed and we know how our thoughts occur. The danger is when people, and even scientists, reject evidence when it does not align with their beliefs. There's a great example of this walking around the creation museum.
http://youtu.be/z1xUiuZvUuw
Re:Science VS religion. by Brannoncyll · 2012-06-05 06:57 · Score: 1

Calling Einstein religious is like calling Al Gore a climatologist.
But until the day he died, he refused to accept quantum mechanics (a field that he pioneered in the first place), even in the face of overwhelming evidence, due to his fundamental belief in the deterministic nature of the universe. Although this is not a 'religious belief' as such, it is still a good example of allowing belief to take over rational thinking.
Re:Science VS religion. by Feyshtey · 2012-06-05 07:04 · Score: 1

Oh, you mean like how obsverable data demonstrated how the Sun revolves around the earth?

Whether you realize it or not, you are defining only the most recent iteration of understanding as Science, and all else as belief. But logically you are also stating that every belief has once been Science. And also logically, Science has changed.

--
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Re:Science VS religion. by hyperquantization · 2012-06-05 07:11 · Score: 1

Yes, but remember that science is merely a structure for generating beliefs about the observable universe. Whether we can call it knowledge or factual is an exercise in epistemology. A fun philosophical question of the devil's advocate: will there ever be a point where our belief in the validity of the scientific process is shown to be wrong? We may never know, as science is so deeply rooted in our own abilities--or inabilities--to perceive.

But, more on the topic: what bothers me is that people even consider "religion" and "science" to be at odds with each other to begin with. Some of the greatest men in science have also been great men of faith; a prudent and sober approach to faith can guide theories and paradigms accordingly, and vice versa.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:21 · Score: 0

Well said.
Re:Science VS religion. by englishknnigits · 2012-06-05 07:25 · Score: 2

How could this be deemed insightful? It is a gross oversimplification and mostly wrong. Religion has waged wars against segments of science that involve the past and trying to ascertain what has happened. Prime examples are evolution and methods for dating fossils. Religion has left most (aka 99.9999999%) of chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, and on and on completely alone. Claiming that religion is "trying to legislate science out of the class room" is nothing but hyperbole derived from an obviously bigoted, intolerant person.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:32 · Score: 0

But these students almost always have poor scores in everything, so it's not a science problem here, it's an education problem as a whole, which could be anything from bad teachers and schools, to.. and this is more likely... unmotivated students that frankly don't care about school, with parents that could care even less. All of the money and resources and promotion of science education in the world won't change this.
What we need is a different tool... one that will help us shape people in their everyday lives and mold them into individuals that believe education is a good thing... maybe if we started a new religion...
Re:Science VS religion. by imjustmatthew · 2012-06-05 07:47 · Score: 1

That's fantastically insightful and informative, and I just spent my mod points :(
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:49 · Score: 0

Ding, ding! Another way to say this is that science is the process, not the specific theories and facts, which are more the products of science.
But claiming the process doesn't change is incorrect. The process itself is also modified and (we hope) improved over time. We introduce new concepts and techniques for teasing logically supported understanding out of observable phenomenon (take some of the indirect methods used for deductions in Astronomy or Paleontology -- definitely a lot different from the original experimental basis for rigorous understanding).
Re:Science VS religion. by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 07:49 · Score: 2

Religion is science's enemy alright, but the real threat to science is the growing for profit education market that keeps pushing testing and the importance of their products over the needs, experience, and autonomy of classroom teachers and students. They are sucking far more money out of the pipeline directed toward educating students and building the necessary infrastructure essential to actually create future jobs than any random absurd religious notion.
Of course, test scores are going up. It's well know that there is massive, large scale cheating on these tests, which by and large don't really test understanding so much as they test retention of facts. As testing becomes more and more the norm, the opportunity for creative learning through experimentation, absolutely essential for science, is lessened, while the pressure to cheat becomes greater and greater.
Math tests should not be multiple choice, they should provide space to let a student show their work and understanding. Of course, such questions would cut into the profits of the testing corporations as they would be required to hire people who could actually grade the tests. Yet for their multiple choice exams many testing companies now see a significant part of public education spending as an entitlement to profit at the expense of the students, teachers, and of society, which will be burdened with increasing numbers of largely scientifically illiterate citizens.
Some say its all the student's and parent's fault and that those who can't "cut it" should just fail. However, this attitude fails to address the real and rising costs of a mindless citizenry and the threat it posses not only to democracy but to the habitability of the planet by Homo sapiens.
US education needs a total repeal of "No Child Left Behind" type laws and the exit of private corporations feasting on "education" scams and instead direct the resources directly into the classroom learning experience. This would probably free up about $100,000 per classroom that could then be used toward actual education rather than failed testing, which only encourages more cheating. If one really wants to retain the concepts of "No Child Left Behind", before we start penalizing students, teachers, and schools we need to first start penalizing politicians, who fail to improve our schools and to educate the next generation of Americans. We must keep in mind that other nations really are passing us, no matter what the corporations claim they are providing to justify the 6 and 7 figure annual salaries of their CEO's.
Re:Science VS religion. by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 07:53 · Score: 1

Perhaps, but this is entirely irrelevant to the actual science. Your argument is really a call to make the "ideal science" more of a reality, not bemoaning the fact that it isn't and therefore, we as individuals are fee to ignore the problem out of convenience. The fact is that we are rapidly running out of time to do so, as soon it will be way too hot to think about much of anything besides the heat.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 08:03 · Score: 0

Plate tectonics took a long time to become accepted science because, despite the solid predictions and observations, there wasn't an understood model which made those predictions. Basically, when plate tectonics was introduced, they thought that the continents were static, and then later, that the above-water portions moved through the sub-sea portions. Neither of those understandings worked with plate tectonics theory. It wasn't until the discovery of subduction zones and the like at the edges of the continental plates that a mechanism which *allowed* for plate tectonics was created, and the observations and predictions could be properly tested.
Re:Science VS religion. by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 08:06 · Score: 1

No science is not "merely a structure for generating beliefs". Rather it is an approach for distinguishing among "generated beliefs" (ie hypotheses) and discarding those that do not fully explain or are unable to explain quantifiable observations.
Science actually has very little to do with creating perceptions, but rather choosing among possible perceptions.
The fact that many great scientists have been religious men with "sober approaches to faith" is hardly material to the difference between science and religion. Science is all about HOW WE KNOW, not what we think we know. Good sophism is never a substitute for science. Neither is religion.
As far as your "fun philosophical question" is concerned, neurobiology tells us that there are all kinds of stimuli our nervous systems perceive and interpret inappropriately all the time and that there are often many ways and circumstances in which the "brain" can "fool itself". However, none of this is really material to the question of which is more valuable to humanity, science or religion. Excellently crafted sophism is no substitute for science.
Re:Science VS religion. by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 08:17 · Score: 1

The evolution of Homo sapiens is hardly a "side issue".
That "virtually every scientist in the history of science was religious" is patently false. One need only count the number of times scientists have quoted Pierre-Simon Laplace to recognize that it is completely false.
" No one I know sees a significant conflict here,". Obviously, you have been hanging around the wrong crowd.
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-05 08:40 · Score: 1

Only according to Thomas Kuhn. He also says that the sole motivation of the scientist is addiction to puzzle solving (therefore, they need an accepted "paradigm" in order to produce solvable problems).

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-05 08:42 · Score: 2

Why do you accept the bitter words of a failed scientist as fact?
The bottom line is that no theory of the philosophy of science actually matters to science at all. We just happen to like Popper best (or, dislike him least).

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-05 08:50 · Score: 1

That is the ideal. In reality, scientists are human, are prone to error, and often become attached to bad ideas. For instance, it took decades for plate tectonics to become accepted scientific theory, even among experts, even in the face of solid predictions and observations.
What does it matter how long it takes? Scientists may be human, but science is more than the successes and failings of individual scientists.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-05 08:52 · Score: 1

Oh, you mean like how obsverable data demonstrated how the Sun revolves around the earth?
How so? More than two thousand years ago observers had seen eclipses, and realized what they mean.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by TemporalBeing · 2012-06-05 08:52 · Score: 1

Please familiarize yourself with the scientific use of the word "Theory" (vs. the colloquial use) before you start throwing it about.
And that is part of the public's problem with science. When you start redefining things to meet your own needs, and subvert the public you have a problem. The term "theory" is very much what I mean - and science's actual use of it very much is what the public understands it to be, though they redefine it to be something else so that they can present theories as facts when they are not. That is, after all, the only way they can get some things (like Evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) proven scientifically, and in the same course discount other ideas on the same subject matter as not being scientific.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 08:58 · Score: 0

... and this is more likely... unmotivated students that frankly don't care about school, with parents that could care even less. All of the money and resources and promotion of science education in the world won't change this.
I disagree here. Toddlers are motivated, to the point they kick and scream until they get what they want. They are interested in the world around them. Somewhere along the line they are taught to be unmotivated.

Instead of trying to cram more kids in an AP Physics class, we should instead provide better general science classes to kids that are more interesting and that give an appreciation for the fact that science and math is important. What you really want is a large population that supports math and science, not one that does math and science. The later is unrealistic.
I suppose this is a very sub-optimal Plan B. I know Plan A is expensive, but just think of the returns!
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-05 09:02 · Score: 1

We're not unhappy because there isn't a huge wave of newly educated scientists coming to fill our ranks.
We're unhappy because blatantly illogical claims made without evidence are accepted without criticism and then endlessly disseminated by the media and the masses. If people (in the masses and the media) had basic scientific literacy they would question those claims, and ignore (or better, get angry over) misleading statistics and evidence-less policies.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by Empiric · 2012-06-05 09:02 · Score: 1

You term it "fundamental disagreement", I term it "fundamental hypocrisy". We are clearly able to think across different epistemological domains with different rules, without an issue.

I would like the opportunity to ask one of these "evangelistic atheists" (yes, "opportunity"--if you think the context of discussion in a church is constrained, that is nothing next to a professor presenting his/her views) which political party is proven correct--and if that was the one they voted for.

To go farther than this would seem to be belaboring the point that every single scientist, every single day, makes dozens of decisions and conclusions upon incomplete information and untestable premises.

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-05 09:04 · Score: 1

Einstein was also religious
He didn't participate in any organized religion, and his view of God was basically Spinozan.
Religious? No. Spiritual? Definitely.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 09:08 · Score: 1

True, it is not really a 'religion vs science' debate, but 'particular religious groups vs particular scientific disciplines', but it is still pretty significant since it effects not only economic issues but often cuts strait to the issue of government being used as a tool to settle dogmatic differences between denominations.. and of course the non-christians caught in the crossfire.
Other than some stupid electioneering legislation in a few states, i don't see this happening. It's not significant. It doesn't affect chemistry, physics, or really anything outside the actual creation/evolution debate.
I wish people would stop talking about it. Studying evolution in high school is about as significant as reading Chaucer. It might be a good idea but it really doesn't matter.
Re:Science VS religion. by Zaphod+The+42nd · 2012-06-05 09:24 · Score: 1

One of the problems I have with movies like "Stand and Deliver" is the idea that if we just had a few more Jaime Escalantes in our classrooms, we'd have this wave of untapped Isaac Newtons just waiting to make new discoveries in math and science. And it just isn't true.
I have to disagree with you entirely. Intelligence is not an inherent statistic. You can grow your mind just as you can grow your muscles. Those who exercise their mind more, end up knowing more and being more intelligent. Its vastly complicated, there are billions of different dimensions of "intelligence", maybe one person could never catch up to where some genius is at, but you can always improve from where you are. People can always learn more, become smarter, and understand more. There is always potential.

Maybe it is naive to think all people should know physics, and chemistry, and biology, and calculus. We are a specialized society, after all. However, you need to take one of them to the extreme, and see a bit of each of them. You need to understand how complicated life can be, how much further things can go. I see so many people who get frustrated with technology (computer, car) because they don't understand it. If you explain it to them (your computer is having this problem not because its "slow", but rather because you have adware installed all over it) they'll usually lose that frustration. They realize that they are expecting the impossible, because what they wanted was more complicated than they thought. Also, such understanding gives more trust, Its not that such and such company is screwing you over, its that there are a myriad complex reasons that interact to cause a result.

The number of ad hominem and cum hoc ergo propter hoc (attacks on character, correlation/causation inequality) fallacies I see in our society daily are quite alarming. People just don't know very, very basic things, and it causes so much struggle and conflict in society. If you don't know how to think logically, how to attack a problem analytically, you're going to make mistakes and misunderstandings your whole life. What is a human if not one who can learn from his failure? Without understanding logic, one mistakenly learns things which are not so, and fails to make connections that are there.

I'll agree that we shouldn't expect every student to master every class. But I think every student should be expected to have a basic understanding of every subject, and should try to master at least one subject.

--
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
Re:Science VS religion. by citizenr · 2012-06-05 09:29 · Score: 1

This has always been seen as a big problem. People thought that all the advances in technology would obsolete a bunch of jobs. It wasn't long ago that many white collar workers had their own secretary. Those jobs don't exist anymore. We've been pretty good at finding jobs for "normal" or "mediocre" people for the past 100 years, but I see it slowly coming to a point where there are very few jobs in America (or "the west" for that matter) for normal people. Self checkout grocery stores, online shopping, no more music and video stores, robots assembling cars, all of this stuff adds up. People will either have to get a skill doing something that can't be off-shored or done by robots, like car mechanic, barber, tailor, etc. There won't be much room for people working in the manufacturing sector, retail sector, or many other shrinking industries.
Lets clarify something. When you say "normal", do you actually mean useless uneducated high school dropouts with no skills?

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Re:Science VS religion. by cribera · 2012-06-05 09:29 · Score: 1

Virtually every scientist in the history of science was religious
That's FALSE, among TOP scientists, belief in a personal 'god' is an exception, rather than the norm. Here's a sample: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Re:Science VS religion. by hyperquantization · 2012-06-05 10:03 · Score: 1

No science is not "merely a structure for generating beliefs". Rather it is an approach for distinguishing among "generated beliefs" (ie hypotheses) and discarding those that do not fully explain or are unable to explain quantifiable observations.
Ouch, my hairs, you have split them! I agree, but the point still remains that science deals with belief, not knowledge or facts. I reiterate: it's easy to delve quite deep into epistemological arguments to claim otherwise.

The fact that many great scientists have been religious men with "sober approaches to faith" is hardly material to the difference between science and religion. Science is all about HOW WE KNOW, not what we think we know. Good sophism is never a substitute for science. Neither is religion.
Oh boy, I think you've got me all wrong. Assuming a modicum of philosophy, I'm trying to say that there's less of a difference between science and religion than we'd like to think. They are both systems by which we establish belief and they are both prone to error and misinterpretation. Descartes and Newton, for instance, both created extensive philosophical and religious writings which mutually benefited their theories of mathematics and physics. Scientific theories are a collection of discrete data points, but we live in a continuous universe. Dare I say, to be a good scientist, it takes a certain amount of faith-based value to fill the gaps between and beyond the data, of which there are an infinitude. For the atheist, that value might come in the form of believing science will limit to absolute knowledge. For the theologian, that value might come in the form of believing in the existence of an omniscient being.

As far as your "fun philosophical question" is concerned, neurobiology tells us that there are all kinds of stimuli our nervous systems perceive and interpret inappropriately all the time and that there are often many ways and circumstances in which the "brain" can "fool itself". However, none of this is really material to the question of which is more valuable to humanity, science or religion. Excellently crafted sophism is no substitute for science.
...nor is good sophism a substitute for thinking for yourself. I never mentioned or alluded to "which is more valuable," so, once again, you've completely misread. Whether our nervous system is prone to "fooling" us or not, there's only so many things, 4 to be exact, our physical bodies can directly interpret: visible light (sight), audible sound (hearing), appreciable physical interaction (touch, including heat) and significant chemical concentrations (smell/taste). Everything else stringently requires we engineer methods of translating into those 4 media. My question posits that, if there is something which we cannot actually perceive, neither directly nor indirectly, science would not be able to extract beliefs about it. Dark energy, for instance, although not exactly entirely imperceptible, has no real perceivable quality; it's just a massive fudge-factor for a discrepancy in our predictions of the universe's expansion rate and the data. Eventually, our theories and paradigms will shift enough to accommodate this discrepancy. But what if there's something that truly is imperceptible by our senses? If we can't perceive it, we can't take data. If we can't take data, we can't use science to refine our beliefs regarding it. That is the question I'm proposing.
Re:Science VS religion. by Brannoncyll · 2012-06-05 10:08 · Score: 1

Einstein was also religious
He didn't participate in any organized religion, and his view of God was basically Spinozan.
Religious? No. Spiritual? Definitely.
I don't see the difference between Einstein's Spinozan belief system and a religion. I don't see the difference between spirituality and religion either. Perhaps we are working with separate definitions?
Re:Science VS religion. by Brett+Buck · 2012-06-05 10:17 · Score: 1

Newton, for example, was not only religious, but even by the standards of the time, an extremist (anti-Trinitarian). To the extent that if his religious views had become known he could have been drawn and quartered for heresy. That didn't seem to inhibit him from inventing, for all intents and purposes, physics and coincidentally, calculus.
There were virtually no atheists throughout the history of humanity. They all killed each other over religion, not because some were religious and some were not, but because they couldn't tolerate the religion of others. Even today, atheists are an extreme minority mostly confined to people who want to pose as intellectuals.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 10:18 · Score: 0

It's an interesting thought experiment to figure out how society should deal with a large percentage, if not a majority, of the population who are unable to offer any service to society that's not more cheaply provided by machines. Socialism, for all its faults, does provide a solution to this problem (minimum living wage). But what does a devout capitalist society like the one in the US do in that situation? Do we sit back and allow those who can't cope to starve and die? Do we invent fake jobs to make them feel useful without really adding anything to society? Do we solve the problem scientifically? (i.e. genetic screening with forced abortions for those without the traits to succeed.)
Re:Science VS religion. by MF4218 · 2012-06-05 10:20 · Score: 1

So basically Science isn't the car, it's not the driver, it's the act of driving the car.
Re:Science VS religion. by Jonner · 2012-06-05 10:21 · Score: 1

Every few years we have people trying to legislate science out of the class room because it conflicts with their vision of religion. Of course our science classes are messed up, people have a vested interest in them being so. Frankly, much of what is taught is not even science. Anyone who comes out of high school thinking that science is about facts has been done a disservice.
And on the science vs religion front. Religion has rewritten itself often to adjust to realities that science has postulated. Science has never changed based on belief. So as a betting man, my money is on science. But as a scientist, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong.
I'm sure what you're describing does happen but I think cultural misconceptions about science are deeper than that. In particular, I think there's a very deep misconception that science is a bunch of immutable facts arrived at by a rigid process. In fact, I think that misconception is what drives most of the perceived conflict between science and religion.
Depending on what you mean by "belief," it may be accurate to say "Science has never changed based on belief." However, you can't claim science hasn't changed. Rather, scientific understanding of many things is constantly changing. A recent segment on Science Friday challenges several common misconceptions about the nature of science better than I ever could.
Re:Science VS religion. by cribera · 2012-06-05 10:34 · Score: 1

Newton, for example, was not only religious, but even by the standards of the time, an extremist (anti-Trinitarian). To the extent that if his religious views had become known he could have been drawn and quartered for heresy. That didn't seem to inhibit him from inventing, for all intents and purposes, physics and coincidentally, calculus.
There were virtually no atheists throughout the history of humanity. They all killed each other over religion, not because some were religious and some were not, but because they couldn't tolerate the religion of others. Even today, atheists are an extreme minority mostly confined to people who want to pose as intellectuals.
Did you read the link? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Did you understand that, despite over 95% of the 'normal' population were believers, only 7% of the TOP SCIENTIST (published and peer reviewed) were believers?
Did you notice how such percentage was 7% in 1998, compared to the 15% of 1933, or to the 27.7% of 1914?
Don't you see the trend? The more into the past you go, the more believers you'll find? How easy would be to proclaim themselves atheist or freethinkers in the dark ages? Isn't it true that it could get yourself killed? How come do you still claim that the vast majority of scientists are believers? COULD YOU EXPLAIN IT PLEASE?
Re:Science VS religion. by the+phantom · 2012-06-05 10:37 · Score: 1

The original poster claimed that science is never changed by belief. Coolhand2120 responded by noting what scientists believe is central to science, hence science is always being changed by what people believe. Kenja argued that belief has no place in science, because science is built on observation and experiment. My response is that science includes more than just observation and experiment, but also how those observations and experiments are interpreted, which is a matter of belief. You say

Your argument is really a call to make the "ideal science" more of a reality, not bemoaning the fact that it isn't and therefore, we as individuals are fee to ignore the problem out of convenience.
First, this doesn't address the original poster in the slightest. However, that said, I made no such argument, and no such dichotomy exists. The fact that science (both method and knowledge) is influenced by human belief is relevant to science. This does not mean that we should toss out the baby with the bathwater, throw up our hands, and do whatever we like, but it does mean that when we make decisions, we are relying on scientific belief (i.e. scientific fact), rather than some notion of objective fact. The strength of the consensus should influence the decisions we make on the basis of that consensus.

--
Rhapsody in Numbers
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 10:38 · Score: 0

If my brain isn't chunking religous thought into the same chunk as scientific thought, then it is baffling to me how someone can think that someone would think how one chunk would corrupt the other.
Where is the boundary between the "religion" chunk and the "science" chunk? It's different for every religion and probably every person. Where does the origin of the universe fall? The origin of humanity? Birth control? Blood transfusions? There are myriad issues where science says one thing and at least one religion says another.

a number of scientists with foundational principles have been able to successfully arrange their thoughts in such a way as to accomodate religion.
Should we applaud them? You're basically admitting that religious belief would wilt if subjected to the same level of scrutiny we expect people to apply to other kinds of belief. Not just scientific belief, mind you. If a scientist managed to close off their political beliefs from rational analysis, we wouldn't think that's a good thing.
Re:Science VS religion. by the+phantom · 2012-06-05 10:39 · Score: 1

Define "science." You say that science is "more than the successes and failings of individual scientists," but that does not mean that it does not include these successes and failures.

--
Rhapsody in Numbers
Re:Science VS religion. by the+phantom · 2012-06-05 10:46 · Score: 1

Yes, and? Are you arguing that plate tectonics was not science until a mechanism was discovered? If so, when did the theory of gravity become science? Or is it yet science, as, to the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus about the mechanism by which gravity operates?
Basically, you make my point for me. Plate tectonics was not accepted before a mechanism was discovered. Experts in geology did not believe the hypothesis because they didn't know about the semi-liquid interior of the Earth. Hence something that we now regard as scientific fact was excluded from the body of knowledge that we might call science on the basis of belief, in the fact of good observations and testable hypotheses (the very elements that most scientists would argue are essential to good science). Science changes all the time on the basis of belief.

--
Rhapsody in Numbers
Re:Science VS religion. by hairyfeet · 2012-06-05 11:01 · Score: 1

It ain't even religion that's the problem friend, its the fact you can get a guy with two degrees from India and pay him like you would a McDonald's worker, simple as that. If you want to know why kids aren't going for these degrees its because they aren't blind and see they would be forced to compete with some guy from Bombay that paid $10k for his degree while they paid $100K+
Its simple friend, global capitalism ONLY works for those that have enough capital to operate on a global scale, for everyone else its just importing or exporting misery. America's economy is a corpse, India and China are drowning in toxic waste, the only ones gaining from this are the ones at the top of the food chain, everyone else gets 'trickled down" aka pissed on. hell if i was a student today i'd stay the fuck away from any of the sciences other than medicine too, there just isn't any money in it when your degree costs 20 times what the guy you're competing against does.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 11:08 · Score: 0

They can look down on the behaviour all they want but it doesn't change the fact that there are people that seem to quite ably believe in 7 day creationism and at the same time reason quite competently in subject matter that is quite complex.
You can pretend that it is impossible to believe in creationism and be intelligent but there are actually many counter examples.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 11:19 · Score: 0

I live in Iowa.
My kid goes to a Catholic school (K-8).
On standardized test Iowa has been doing since before I was in school, my kid's school ranks better then 90% of the schools in the state .. at science.
Not every Christan is scared by evolution and trying to sabotage since education. In fact, we appear to be kicking the public school's ass.
Re:Science VS religion. by Brett+Buck · 2012-06-05 11:25 · Score: 1

Because your stats are from the modern era. Virtually no one in the past was an atheist, this is a ridiculous delusion of modern western society.
Re:Science VS religion. by willy_me · 2012-06-05 11:27 · Score: 1

So you're saying that not everyone should be a scientist - on that I agree. But I belive it very beneficial for the general population to understand what science is. For this you have to get your feet wet...
As long as the general population elects those in charge via a democratic process, the general population requires some breadth in their education. They don't have to be experts in every field, but a basic knowledge of economics, science, history - it's required for a healthy country. When the general population lacks this knowledge they vote based on presentation and empty promisses. "What, you're cut taxes, ballance the budget, and increase spending!! That's awesome, I'm voting for you!"
I despise the fact that polititions try to appeal to the masses. Their speeches are empty and meaningless. If the general population were better educated then our polititions would be making much better decisions. The stupid attacks would go away and things would actually get done.
While it is true there is a cost associated with educating a population, and it is true that there are lost wages, I believe the overall benefits greatly outweight the costs.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 11:34 · Score: 0

No, they aren't right to look down upon such behavior. Such behavior, as demonstrated by 2000 years of Western Philosophy, cannot be dismissed by the rational or logical. To dismiss the religious is to weaken your attempts to bring the world to a more "enlightened" understanding. I don't buy the products that salesmen yell at me to buy, I buy the products that someone explains to me in a way I can understand.
Re:Science VS religion. by arose · 2012-06-05 11:43 · Score: 1

Eventually, the evidence becomes overwhelming and the new theory is accepted (or the old guard dies off, and the new theory is accepted).
I'll just quote the part of GP's comment you apparently ignored and you tell me where the above disagrees with it, keeping in mind that science is the overall method, not the specific theories it produces.

What you are talking about is the moment when what you believe is shown to be wrong, which is a change in belief and not a change in science.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 11:44 · Score: 0

I'm sorry, but go read up on the supposed effects of any 'world changing technology'...what you wrote could have been (and was) written about the effects of the cotton gin...'o no, what are we going to do about all these people that won't have a job'...this is why the GP post has it incredibly wrong...or at least the post is wrong in terms of what needs to be considered 'general science'...with each passing year and the advances made the core curriculum of 'general science' has to be raised...no not all people love math & science so much that they will be driven to a life of 'hard science'...that's not what teaching science is about any more than teaching English classes will generate millions of Shakespeares...but the difference between teaching English & science/math is that English rules don't change, the language can evolve but even there it doesn't evolve that greatly. But the advances in science and math continue unabated, such that a class in physics that I took in high school 30 years ago would be wholly inadequate to today's youth. Newtonian mechanics should be taught in grade school, it should be second nature by the time kids get to high school and quantum mechanics, general theory of relativity, gene theory (potentially to the point of gene manipulation) should be the level of courses needed to be mastered by the end of high school...just like the idea that the 'richest 1% of society' holds 90% of the wealth, the same is happening in science, the top 1% will know extreme amounts about everything and the other 99% will eventually know nothing about how their 'nice little toys' work...so servicing these toys, machines etc. will become impossible.
When 46% of the US population agrees with a statement that God created humans 'in his image' wholly, completed as is no more than 10,000 years ago...I'd suggest that is a far better sign to worry about the state of science education than whether or not the US leads in Nobel laureates!
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 11:52 · Score: 0

RIGHT! 'Evangelistic aethistic(sic) scientists' (atheistic if you must know)...those people are the problem, not a one of them can segregate parts of their lives into different thought processes, so of course not a one of them can believe in 'love' in the 'religious non-scientific' idea of love any way. Give us a freakin' break! I'm all for being able to segregate different thought processes but when one of those thoughts based on objective evidence totally contradicts your other thought process(es) and you reject the one based on verifiable objective evidence...well I'd definitely suggest that's a problem...hey if you want to go around thinking you're Napoleon but that doesn't affect anyone else go knock yourself out...but doesn't mean you are...when it effects elections, or the teaching of or funding of scientific endeavors or even your personal ability to hold down a job, than we're going to have a talk and one of us is going to end up in the loony bin and it isn't going to be those of us that know Napoleon is dead...
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 13:07 · Score: 0

Most of the animus is directed towards Christians, especially Evangelical Protestants. This is just another expression of hatred towards White European people.
Notice that it is *always* Christians who are singled out, *never* Buddhists, Muslims, and especially never Jews.
Re:Science VS religion. by datavirtue · 2012-06-05 13:42 · Score: 1

You see, scientists should be willing to entertain any idea and be willing to at least conduct thought experiments with these ideas. I have seen forums where "scientists" descend into ad hominem attacks that grow to proportions that make a slashdot flamewar look like pillow talk just because someone was willing to entertain a crazy idea. Modern established academic science for the most part reminds me of a cult ruled by priests who are the default authorities on a given subject. It is no wonder the public don't know what science is. The definition of the word has been destroyed.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Science VS religion. by modmans2ndcoming · 2012-06-05 15:17 · Score: 1

I think you mean truth, not facts. Facts are easy to generate in science....truth is not.
Re:Science VS religion. by tqk · 2012-06-05 15:46 · Score: 1

... it is still pretty significant since it effects not only economic issues but often cuts strait to the issue of government being used as a tool to settle dogmatic differences between denominations.. and of course the non-christians caught in the crossfire.
Studying evolution in high school is about as significant as reading Chaucer. It might be a good idea but it really doesn't matter.
Gregor Mendel would disagree. The Korean Xtians who just excised the teaching of evolution would disagree.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:Science VS religion. by catmistake · 2012-06-05 16:01 · Score: 1

Consider this: wtf does it matter what other people think? Why are you so sure that you really even know what other people think?
Just sayin'.... there are more important things to be concerned about, socially and personally, than feeding your indignation at what you believe other people think based on published polls. I honestly don't believe you're even really concerned. If you're actually experiencing torches and pitchforks of townsfolk coming to get you and your mysterious and blasphemous "science," that's one thing. But otherwise, if things really are the same as you remember them being, more or less, your whole life... then just go back to your PS3, your command line or your electron microscope... I'm sure it will all be ok.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-05 17:46 · Score: 1

To me, "religion" connotes some type of ritual and/or mythological structure, while "spirituality" only implies a feeling, or experience, which is difficult to describe but many people (and modern psychology) seem to agree exists (if not what it means).
In my view, sincere religion is necessarily spiritual, but sincere spirituality is not necessarily religious.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-05 18:09 · Score: 1

I don't know that we can really define science in a rigorous way. One point of interest in the history of the philosophy of science is that it was initially an attempt to make philosophy more like science, to emulate the "standing on the shoulders of giants" that enables science to become so great (as in Carnap's Logical Structure of the World, sorry if the translated title isn't quite right). Even though Popper's work is pretty widely accepted in the scientific community there are plenty of stories about him answering questions at talks, where scientists would say "we do this thing in our lab, it sort of looks like induction" and he would say "it's not science." I think to scientists, science is just that thing we do.
Actually I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I'm still butt hurt about Kuhn calling me a helpless addict.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by cribera · 2012-06-05 23:14 · Score: 1

Because your stats are from the modern era. Virtually no one in the past was an atheist, this is a ridiculous delusion of modern western society.
Virtually no one? how about these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
And in such list, you can find several from one or 2 centuries back, when MOST OF SCIENCE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED. Don't you see that when religion had more power, Science development was clogged?
Anyway, in ancient times, there were Democritus, Diagoras of Melos, Epicurus etc, would you call them 'virtually no one' ?
BTW Who is modding you up? Could such person also explain it?
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 03:00 · Score: 0

I call bullcrap on the second part.
As one of those elitist...I recall when I stated my PhD in Math a professor telling me a story about when he was in grad school. He said,
"When I stated, I was intimidated by all the people that were far more intelligent than myself. They could recite and explain theorems that I hadn't even seen yet. But as the years went on, I saw less and less of those people. Of the 60 or so grad students entering the program that year, only 7 eventually got their PhDs. See, I didn't get my PhD because I was the smartest, I got my PhD because I worked the hardest."
You see, it doesn't take a genius to do science. But it does take someone with curiosity, an open mind, and a good work ethic. However, as Henry Ford said, "Thinking is hard work, that is why so few engage in it."
The primary problem I see is that parents are too busy, and have delegated raising of thier kids to the education system. My wife is a teacher and we see this way too often where both parents work and are tuned out as to what their kids are even doing in school. Society then takes over and teaches them they don't need to work hard but can get fast money because they deserve it. They just need to discover the next Facebook, sing well on American Idol, or play basketball and they can be the next Millionaire. And the nail in the coffin *is* religion, that teaches us to be close minded, to simply believe not understand, and to not question.
The mark of a good scientist is that they question everything and require reasons, evidence, fact. I'm not sure what religion also teaches these tenets.
Re:Science VS religion. by Feyshtey · 2012-06-06 03:16 · Score: 1

How so? More than two thousand years ago observers had seen eclipses, and realized what they mean.
Different cultures came to different conclusions. Not much more than two thousand years ago many believed the Sun was the the god Helios driving his flaming chariot across the sky every day.

--
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Re:Science VS religion. by mrjimorg · 2012-06-06 03:53 · Score: 2

If there aren't jobs for "normal" or "mediocre" people, then why are we bringing in millions of unskilled labor from the country next door?
Re:Science VS religion. by the+phantom · 2012-06-06 03:57 · Score: 1

I think to scientists, science is just that thing we do.
I like that. Mind if I steal it?

--
Rhapsody in Numbers
Re:Science VS religion. by the+phantom · 2012-06-06 04:00 · Score: 1

I disagree with your statement that science is the overall method, exclusive of the ideas it generates. Science is both a method and a body of knowledge. At least, that is the definition that I had in mind in my original reply, and is clearly the understanding had by Coolhand2120 in his first comment. Perhaps the issue here is not one of philosophy, but one of ambiguous language.

--
Rhapsody in Numbers
Re:Science VS religion. by arth1 · 2012-06-06 04:26 · Score: 1

Consider this: wtf does it matter what other people think?

It matters when they are enfanchised.

Why are you so sure that you really even know what other people think?
Um, that would be the whole point of the Gallup poll, now wouldn't it?

I honestly don't believe you're even really concerned. If you're actually experiencing torches and pitchforks of townsfolk coming to get you and your mysterious and blasphemous "science," that's one thing.
I can't become a citizen of the country I have lived in for a generation because of it, for one thing.
Re:Science VS religion. by arth1 · 2012-06-06 04:29 · Score: 1

It matters when they are enfanchised.
Urgle. Insert an r, obviously.
(Although the typo is rather apposite to current politics.)
Re:Science VS religion. by arth1 · 2012-06-06 05:16 · Score: 1

One cannot believe evolution is not real and also claim to believe in the very process that lead to the theory of evolution. It would be a hypocritical contradiction.
With the Gallup poll showing that a total of 66% think creationism is definitely or probably true, and a total of 53% think evolution is definitely or probably true, I have to conclude that at least 19% of the population are such hypocritical self-contradictors. Or had no clue what they were answering.
Granted, there were 17% who were not too familiar or not at all familiar with evolution, and there's probably some overlap because they didn't understand the question. But there must still be a lot of people who claim to understand evolution and still believe that we did not evolve but were created within the last 10,000 years.
The mind boggles.
Re:Science VS religion. by CastrTroy · 2012-06-06 05:20 · Score: 1

Not only those people, but a lot of other people as well. If you only graduated highschool, you probably aren't much more educated than the people who dropped out. Especially with the way the current system is set up, so nobody ever fails. All it really shows is that you attended classes for 4 years. someone who graduated highschool may actually be less suited to making a living than the person who dropped out at the age of 16 and started working in a field where paper certifications don't really hold much value anyway. Even people who go to university and end up with something like a psychology, english lit, or history degree might have a very hard time finding a job, especially compared to those who have actual concrete skills, like mechanics, barbers, plumbers and electricians.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-06 13:37 · Score: 1

Thanks, of course not (I don't mind).

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-06 13:53 · Score: 1

Helios is myth, and does not rest on observational evidence. The same culture that begat Helios, begat those observers who did notice that eclipses require a heliocentric model.
My point is just that, contrary to popular belief, naked-eye, terrestrial observations do support that heliocentric model (just as other naked-eye, terrestrial observations aren't consistent with a flat Earth).

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by Feyshtey · 2012-06-07 03:10 · Score: 1

You stated that more than two thousand years ago, people knew the 'truth' about the paths of planetary objects in our solar system. I just pointed out that in the general timeframe people 'knew' something we think of as fantasy. Others in the same time frame 'knew' that both the moon and Sun orbited the Earth. The point is that at the time what people 'knew' to be true was as close to our definition of Science as possible, especially in the latter case where it was based on observed information instead of tradition and culture. The point is that Kenja must concede that 'Science' does in fact change as our understanding of our surroundings changes.

Before 1879 science had determined that there were exactly three states of matter; Liquid, Solid, and Gas. But in 1879 Sir WIlliam Crookes identified a new state which later became excepted by science; Plasma. Science changed. The fact that previous understanding was proved incorrect doesnt change its classification as science. In a fundimental way science is the process of discovery, therefore by it's nature it must change to fulfill its purpose.

--
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Re:Science VS religion. by reve_etrange · 2012-06-07 10:44 · Score: 1

What does observation of new states of matter have to do with belief? All you are saying is that all knowledge is (justified) belief, a Platonic conception which is not widely accepted today.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Science VS religion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-07 17:32 · Score: 0

Accept that it is so and work around it. Humans are really, REALLY good at doublethink. Try to avoid it in yourself but don't condemn others for it.
Re:Science VS religion. by Feyshtey · 2012-06-08 02:29 · Score: 1

If you scroll back and reread the thread, I began participating because Kenja said science doesnt change. It does, by its nature, demonstrated by the example of states of matter. If science never changed its position then the inference would be that we knew everything or were too arrogant to accept our mistakes.

We believe to be true that which our current science supports. We accept that science might force us to re-evaluate our position as it changes.

Religion and belief rooted in faith are another matter entirely.

--
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi

The whole standardized test industry is the issue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

They siphon billions away from education and into worthless metrics that tell you little of value.

Individual student assessment may be valuable, but a whole class, school, district, even state?

How much are you really learning there?

Not much. But big lobbyists want you to believe in the snake oil they're selling, and they convince a lot of people to be scared...for the CHILDREN!

We cannot finish a thought? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:16 · Score: 0

We cannot finish a thought or collect the data?

Generational complaints by mu51c10rd · 2012-06-05 04:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Isn't it the right of every generation to complain of the generations coming after them? I see my kids (in public schools) having more rigorous standards and classes than when I was younger, yet I work in a bleeding edge field in the world of technology. Perhaps we have all become cynical to the point that we think kids today won't make it...although that seems to hold true by every older generation.

Re:Generational complaints by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:29 · Score: 0

I wouldn't call it a right so much as a fact - but more to the point, we haven't had any great advances in physics in the past half century - it's not just the next generation, we have so much indoctrination in our schools that the substance is lost.
Re:Generational complaints by arth1 · 2012-06-05 06:30 · Score: 1

I think the problem is that students no longer learn how to learn, they learn how to pass tests.
Schools are meant to be a foundation, not a house. You yourself should build upon it. And most kids from the last couple of generations don't know how, and don't care to either. They're looking for answers, not making answers.

education fund raising lobby? by peter303 · 2012-06-05 04:17 · Score: 1

The result of all this complaining is convince legislatures to spend more money on education "to catch up". At least this true in good economic times.

How to fix public education by Coolhand2120 · 2012-06-05 04:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait

1) Close the DoE
2) Make going to school non-compulsory

Re:How to fix public education by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:20 · Score: 5, Funny

I think you meant "How to increase NASCAR viewership"
Re:How to fix public education by h4rr4r · 2012-06-05 04:26 · Score: 1

Ok so now we have a country full of people who did not go to school and the couple that did have been taught religious nonsense instead of useful information, what do we do now?
Your plan would kill our economy.
Re:How to fix public education by Kenja · 2012-06-05 04:28 · Score: 0

what do we do now?
The Rapture? That seems to be peoples plan these days.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:How to fix public education by mehrotra.akash · 2012-06-05 04:32 · Score: 1

You get the manufacturing industries back from China?
Re:How to fix public education by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:37 · Score: 0

Number 2 only works if you have politicians who have the guts to tell the percentage of the public who choose not to go to school where to stuff it when they complain about the 1% who did.
Re:How to fix public education by h4rr4r · 2012-06-05 04:38 · Score: 1

Only at the same wages as them. Which would not even be enough to eat, so that will not work.
Re:How to fix public education by DesScorp · 2012-06-05 04:42 · Score: 1

1) Close the DoE
2) Make going to school non-compulsory
It's unlikely we'll ever do 1, and impossible that we'll ever do 2. But of 2, I will say this... I've come to agree with you that compulsory education is not seen by many students as a right, or even an opportunity, but as a burden. I've come to see as I've gotten older that you tend to want and value things more if they're not automatic and compulsory, and you want them even moreso if they have to be earned. Witness the wave of kids in India desperately trying to get into the best high schools, the way our best HS graduates desperately try to get into Ivy League schools.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Re:How to fix public education by cpu6502 · 2012-06-05 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

The grandparent poster misspoke.
He meant to say close the ONE Department of Education in the Congress. The other 50 Departments of Education would remain open, at the state level, where they are close to the parents/students being served and therefore more accountable to their demands. Democratic Republics work best when the power is only a few miles away from the People and their participation, rather than ~1500 miles away and the people's voice does not get heard.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:How to fix public education by slimjim8094 · 2012-06-05 04:46 · Score: 1

3) The country crumbles because kids don't like school and wouldn't go themselves if they had the choice, stupid parents don't realize the value of education and won't force them, and thus half the country is educated out of the Bible at best. Bam, you're back in 1650.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:How to fix public education by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:59 · Score: 0

Nope, because we wouldn't have the engineers to build the factories or make the designs, and since china still has 5 times the population as us and have communism, they will still have plenty of underpaid workers to keep us jobless. If we really want to 'win' we should do all we can to raise everyone's standards of living (even those in China) to the point at which even the lowest common denominator in every participating country is happy.
Re:How to fix public education by internerdj · 2012-06-05 05:13 · Score: 1

We would have a country with more people who did not attend school. As long as education correlates to higher wages or better lives, there will be people who pursue education and foist it upon their offspring. My grandparents grew up dirt poor, nearly as poor as the recently freed slaves. My grandfather looked at education as a way to take his family from subsistance farming to a comfortable life. He never was able to attain his education goals, but he worked his whole life so his children and grandchildren could attend college.
Re:How to fix public education by Coolhand2120 · 2012-06-05 05:21 · Score: 1

I'm replying to myself because some people thought I meant close the DoE at the state level. I was talking about at the federal level only. I think school should remain free and paid for with tax dollars but attendance should be at the option of the parent of the child. This would keep undisciplined children out of the classroom and make class sizes smaller. If half of the kids don't graduate anyway, I don't see what the big downside is. Teachers will only have to deal with parents who care about their kids education and unruly, and unaccountable, children that disrupt the classroom would be gone.

The DoE doesn't employee a single teacher. It gives out edicts from on high and expects every school system in the nation to fit its cookie cutter view of what school should be like. School K-12 should ONLY be about math, engineering and hard science, if you want to learn about all that hippy shit you can do it on your own dime.
Re:How to fix public education by cheekyjohnson · 2012-06-05 05:36 · Score: 1

2) Make going to school non-compulsory
What do you mean? Leaving it up to the parents? In my state, it couldn't be simpler to get out of public school. All you have to do is ask your parents to tell the school that you're homeschooling (or something such as that), and you'll never be bothered by them again.
I do believe the option to homeschool is important in case public schools are awful. Taking away the option or making it difficult because of some religious people is, I feel, idiotic.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:How to fix public education by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-06-05 05:45 · Score: 1

I would also suggest adding such valuable skills as reading, writing, history, geography, and government.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:How to fix public education by cpu6502 · 2012-06-05 05:49 · Score: 1

-1 Troll. Gee thanks. I say, "Democratic Republics work best when the power is only a few miles away from the People [in the Legislature] rather than ~1500 miles away" and get called a troll. No it's called an OPINION. If you don't like the opinion click the reply button and respond with some reasons, instead of abusing your moderator power.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:How to fix public education by Coolhand2120 · 2012-06-05 06:10 · Score: 1

Reading, writing are prerequisites and I assumed you would understand that engineering and science would require that. Geography I wouldn't mind having, and I'm sure there are others I've omitted that deserve to be included. I'm not so keen on having history and government taught at school, they seem to muck it up all the time, your parents or the internet are probably better at teaching that.

Children only have so much time to be educated, better we spend that time on stuff that matters than stuff that they can find out on their own very easily. Besides, how many high school graduates do you think can name the 3 branches of government? Show you where Pakistan is on a map? If we're going to teach kids, best we actually teach them, instead of whatever it is we're doing now in government and geography.
Re:How to fix public education by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:13 · Score: 0

First, in my opinion, I agree that moderating that particular post of yours troll does seem a bit off.
Now that that is out of the way, you also said:

The grandparent poster misspoke.
He meant to say close the ONE Department of Education in the Congress. The other 50 Departments of Education would remain open, at the state level, where they are close to the parents/students being served and therefore more accountable to their demands.
Why do you automatically assume that whoever modded you down you was doing so based on your views on Democratic Republics? Given your history, I could somewhat easily see how another might take that particular passage as trollish. But again, I agree with you that doing so is a bit off.
Re:How to fix public education by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2012-06-05 07:59 · Score: 1

Why not close the 50 state DOE and move the power even closer to the people at the local level? I'll tell you why not, because then you get what happened in the South during the sixties, all the fairly well to do white folks started private schools and then refused to vote in local taxes for the local public schools because they didn't want to pay for them kind of people to go to school.
That is why a federal DOE and state DOE make sense. Set the standards and ensure a decently level playing field when it comes to funding public schools.

The issue is by geekoid · 2012-06-05 04:18 · Score: 2

the undue amount of focus now on standardized tests. Teaching to the test, as it where.

remember, test makers make test designed to test things kids don't know, not what kids have learned. When the teaching focus becomes teaching the test, we have difficult.

Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student move forward in the subject.

A kids trying hes damndest and getting a B is better then a kid getting an easy A.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:The issue is by ceoyoyo · 2012-06-05 04:30 · Score: 2

"Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student move forward in the subject."
What's the point? Sure, effort marks might make kids feel good, but the point of a grade is to say how well you know a given subject. No, standardized tests might not be the best way to measure that.
Re:The issue is by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-05 04:32 · Score: 2

Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student move forward in the subject.
So what do you do when you have a student who aces every exam you throw at him, but never does homework and routinely cuts class? The problem is that no single grading standard could possibly be fair to all students, and if you give the student who aces exams without putting in any effort, you get a flood of complaints from other students and their parents about how unfair it is -- unfair that they have to work hard to understand the material.

Of course, there is a deeper issue here than being "fair," and that is the issue of why we have an education system in the first place. We do not send kids to high school so that they can learn the subjects they are taught; actually, learning is a side effect, and most people forget what they were taught in high school pretty quickly. The purpose of our high school education system is to condition people to do as they are told, whether they are told to do a boring, repetitive task or a fun and exciting task. There is no room for a student whose mind works differently and who learns by doing different things, and especially no room for a bright student who cannot work their way through the boredom.

I was told as much when I was in middle school and high school. If you do not do your homework, you get an F -- regardless of how well you understand the material, and regardless of whether or not you can demonstrate that understanding beyond any doubt. The standard answer is a complete dismissal of the idea that homework is pointless once you have internalized the material: "Well if it is so easy for you, just get it out of the way!"

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:The issue is by DesScorp · 2012-06-05 04:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

the undue amount of focus now on standardized tests. Teaching to the test, as it where.
remember, test makers make test designed to test things kids don't know, not what kids have learned. When the teaching focus becomes teaching the test, we have difficult.
Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student move forward in the subject.
A kids trying hes damndest and getting a B is better then a kid getting an easy A.
The problem with removing standardized testing is that you'd revert to a situation where we really had no idea if they were learning anything at all before. At least if they pass the standardized tests, we know they have at least a basic grasp of that material. Testing was implemented precisely because of your "participation" idea... you had kids getting decent to good to even great grades just for "class participation"... when they really weren't learning the material.
And frankly, some of the crying about the standardized tests are just silly. It's not like these test have esoteric things on them that the students don't need to know. They're standardized so that there's an assurance of a uniform field of common knowledge that's been gained. Some of it is through rote instruction, but so what? Rote instruction can be very useful. Tweak and reform testing, but don't chuck it aside completely.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Re:The issue is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:48 · Score: 0

No problems there, having been that student that did fine on tests but didn't get assignments done. Problem is, when you pick a job in the real world, you are going to want to make sure its high stimulus or is something that you can take ownership of, or you will suffer. Especially make sure that your employers understand your difficulties with routine tasks that may appear normal--i.e. TPS reports and their cover sheets...
Re:The issue is by SydShamino · 2012-06-05 04:53 · Score: 1

A kids trying hes damndest and getting a B is better then a kid getting an easy A.
Since there's nothing better than an A, anyone who can get one easily doesn't deserve it? I think your plan would reward average by explicitly punishing excellence.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:The issue is by neurocutie · 2012-06-05 04:57 · Score: 2

A kids trying hes damndest and getting a B is better then a kid getting an easy A.
Sorry, I want to reward the medical student or the mechanical engineer that gets the "easy A" because he/she truly knows the stuff rather than the student that "makes the most improvement"...
sad but true, kids, students, humans are not born equally endowed with smarts and ease of acquiring skills. The flaw of "No child gets left behind", is no child gets ahead. The best and brightest should be given every means to do as best they can and be rewarded.
the rest, sure educate them too, its important for democracy to work, but not at the expense of holding back or not rewarding true excellence, even if it comes easy to a student...
Re:The issue is by cpu6502 · 2012-06-05 05:06 · Score: 1

>>>Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student move forward in the subject. A kids trying hes damndest and getting a B is better then a kid getting an easy A.
Not in the real world.
The B kid would get fired cause the product he produced doesn't work (he left out 15% of the parts). And the A kid would replace him. I think people forget school is not just about teaching, but also about preparing people for the hard reality they must face as adults. That means strict grading just like adults have to deal with on the job.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:The issue is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:37 · Score: 0

"So what do you do when you have a student who aces every exam you throw at him, but never does homework and routinely cuts class?"
I would give him an A from the class and solved the rest as a disciplinary issue. E.g., call parents, detention, can not participate on next cools school activity or whatever punishment is usual. I would considered him smart, brilliant, knowledgeable and undisciplined trouble maker.
Re:The issue is by Hatta · 2012-06-05 06:00 · Score: 1

A kids trying hes damndest and getting a B is better then a kid getting an easy A.
I agree, if and only if the A is easy because standards are too low. If the A is easy because the kid knows his shit, that's obviously better than a kid struggling to get a B by the same standards.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:The issue is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:11 · Score: 0

Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student move forward in the subject.
So what do you do when you have a student who aces every exam you throw at him, but never does homework and routinely cuts class?
There was a dumb red neck in my HS algebra 1 class that was like this. Never said a word and just looked like the typical dumbass red neck that populated "The Home of the Mustangs". He had no clue when called upon to answer a question. Never turned in any homework. Aced all of his fucking tests.
God damn kid must have been a genius and I remember it as one of life's lessons about judging a book by its cover, blah, blah. I don't see how he could have cheated or why he would have, because he was surely failing the class by not doing homework. This was a freshman algebra class, and I am class of 2001. This kid was probably a senior or maybe a junior. Our teacher was the one that sounded like Kermit the Frog (not the big quiet guy next door) and I got in trouble one day for saying "holy shit!" out loud in class to the guy sitting behind me (I actually had to write a sentence about this 100 times - on paper). Everyone got really quiet, so I must have been really loud. If you're reading this, you know who you are. You sat right next to me on my right.
And if the teacher is reading this, you do sound like Kermit the Frog. That's cool, and do not consider it an insult.
PS: The sentence was really fucking long: "I will not use foul language in [name redacted]'s Algebra 1 class again." I mean, shit man, everyone in class was cussing all the time during those few minutes before class started. It was pretty funny that my "holy shit" got singled out and everyone got really quiet. Teacher turned around and said, "who said that?" with a suspicious look on his face. Of course, everyone knew it was me, but all were quiet as I admitted to the extraordinary transgression.
Re:The issue is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:51 · Score: 0

There are schools now where teachers can no longer teach actual books, only the content necessary to pass tests. This makes the standardized tests excellent, but it A. ruins the kids for college, and B. plays to the strengths of the system in order to produce the desired results.
Also, NCLB demands a certain level of constant movement forward which is resulting in large numbers of students hitting the upper grades with no real reading or comprehension knowledge. But man, they take tests well.
Re:The issue is by gl4ss · 2012-06-05 06:53 · Score: 1

Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student move forward in the subject.
grades should most definitely not be based on faking starting from scratch even if you already know half the material and kissing teachers ball sacks, unless you want to raise obedient fakers.
it's wrong to give to a kid who tries really, really hard something but just doesn't get it an A because he put a lot of effort to it. sure, there could be a separate grade for that(and in Finland, we used to have a grade like that on the report card).
because you don't really want to know if your doctor studied really, really, really hard. you want to know if he knows his shit and can calculate your medicine right.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:The issue is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:31 · Score: 0

Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student move forward in the subject.
A kids trying hes damndest and getting a B is better then a kid getting an easy A.
And here we have the fundamental issue underlying the decay of US education over the past 20 years. 30 years ago, grades were expected to reflect a student's mastery of material. His ability to solve calculus problems, balance the accounting books, or write a coherent paragraph. Now, apparently, a grade is to reflect the student's effort, or maybe his attitude and self-confidence. How exactly am I, as an employer, college admissions officer, or whatever else, supposed to evaluate whether a graduate is competent if all I have is "He tries _really_ hard." If my mechanic tries _really_ hard, but still can't remember to put the lug nuts back on my wheels, you can be damned sure he won't be my mechanic anymore. If my surgeon tries _really_ hard, but still leaves a half dozen sponges inside, you can be pretty sure the malpractice lawyers will be called.
Get off my lawn. Don't "try" to get off my lawn...just get off.
Re:The issue is by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2012-06-05 08:07 · Score: 1

Sure and the basketball player that works his ass off and can't score is better than the BB player that screws around and makes 10 for 10 from the 3 point line and double digit rebounds every game but loafs in practice.
How come we want show offs in sports but if you show your intelligence in the classroom you are considered a jack ass?
Re:The issue is by misnohmer · 2012-06-05 09:41 · Score: 1

Next time you need surgery, will you ask for the doctor who aced his degree or the one who got it for participation?
Re:The issue is by AthanasiusKircher · 2012-06-05 14:52 · Score: 1

The problem with removing standardized testing is that you'd revert to a situation where we really had no idea if they were learning anything at all before.
Or, you could just have better teaching evaluations where people who actually know a darn thing about classroom teaching (i.e., NOT most public school administrators) spend more than a few minutes per year in a given classroom, seeing whether learning is actually going on. As someone who has experienced the public school teaching evaluation system and one at an elite private school, I can tell you that nobody knows what's going on in public school classrooms 97% of the year, but everybody at that private school would have known if there were a slacker or just a bad teacher.

Testing was implemented precisely because of your "participation" idea... you had kids getting decent to good to even great grades just for "class participation"... when they really weren't learning the material.
This isn't all the teachers' fault in all cases. There's a lot of pressure put on teachers from administration to promote students, and a lot of pressure put on administrators and teachers from state curriculum boards, which effectively tends to force teachers to ignore true problems of understanding.
My first year teaching, I took over about 1/4 of the way into the fall semester after the previous teacher quit. Why? Because she was supposed to be teaching algebra II to kids who didn't know a darn thing about algebra I (many had had a substitute for most of the year because of the teaching shortages many poor schools have in math and science) and in some cases couldn't even do basic arithmetic. She had previously taught at schools where you'd actually want to fix that problem of understanding first, before trying to shove algebra II into their heads.
So, she first asked whether she could do remedial algebra I work. Nope -- the students had already passed that class, and the state curriculum board had a set of topics that MUST be covered in algebra II. So, then she asked whether she could require students to attend extra sessions before or after school. Nope -- the students had already passed the previous class, so on what basis was she requiring students to do more work on material they supposedly already should know?
Eventually, she attempted to fail about 70% of her students in the first grading period, because, frankly, they deserved to be failed. She was "asked" to change most of those grades. She did, and then she quit a week or two later.
I, being a young and naive teacher, came in and did the best I could. I came up with rote algorithms for students to do the steps to solve algebra II equations, even if they didn't have any conceptual understanding of whatever the heck they were doing or any applications of what it would be used for. But it was enough to satisfy the state curriculum requirements. I still failed some students, but enough could pass a stupid test based on the standardized state requirements that the school was satisfied that I had done my job.
The net result is that many of those students experienced their last math class and went out into the world not having any intuition about mathematics whatsoever or how to use it in their lives. I tried incorporating realistic application problems sometimes (like, I don't know, how to calculate loan payments when we were doing exponential equations), but the state curriculum didn't allow much time for that sort of stuff... some of which was never part of the curriculum, and some of which was assumed to have been taught in 7th grade or something, so I was not allowed to "waste" time on that in algebra II.
So, it's not just individual teachers who are at fault. It's teachers inheriting problems from other teachers, facing administrators who can't let you fail most of the class, facing state curriculum boards who tell you how to allocate 90% of your classroom time, even if it doesn't result in
Re:The issue is by WhiteStarTech · 2012-06-05 15:12 · Score: 1

A kids trying hes damndest and getting a B is better then a kid getting an easy A.
No that’s wrong. If my kid got an A in final years of science and wasnt able to tell me the laws of thermodynamics I would take him out of school and put him in one that would actually teach him. unfortunately the real world doesn’t care about effort, only results. you should not get a uni degree on effort but by knowing the stuff and being able to show it. same for jobs, if I an cruising or I am struggling my boss doesn’t care to much (so long as I don’t burn out) only that the job gets done.
Re:The issue is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 21:06 · Score: 0

No child gets ahead unless they can afford to be in the top schools. In that case they were already ahead. I'll let you guys carry the torch on this...

look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

A disturbing percentage of Americans don't understand the concept of a double blind placebo controlled test.

A disturbing percentage believe the universe is a few thousand years old, and that evolution never happened.

A disturbing percentage is unable to understand the difference between basic concepts like power and energy.

A disturbing percentage do not grasp the difference between causation and correlation.

A disturbing percentage are completely mathematically illiterate, unable to comprehend basic things like "fractions".

A disturbing percentage don't understand that examples are not proof.

I'm not going to argue whether our education is good or bad, but our population is HORRENDOUS. This leads to bad results for us all, because people make really, really bad decisions in their own lives and as matters of what they support, and of public policy.

It's badly, deeply broken.

Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:38 · Score: 0

Growing up, I was lucky enough to be in good public schools that got this point across. I remember from middle school on, the emphasis that what was being taught was a simplification, a building block to higher learning. That we're taking shortcuts to teach you important concepts. (It's also a great way to justify the emphasis of calculators in math)
That is probably the most important lesson taught to me, ever. To know that your view of the picture is probably limited in context to make it relevant to your current situation, and that your experience is probably flawed if you are not an expert. (A real, actual, literal expert)
Going in to college, I found myself absolutely shocked that this isn't what's taught to most children.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Dog-Cow · 2012-06-05 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

And a disturbing percentage think that anything you wrote matters.
The fact is that throughout history, only a tiny minority were educated to the standards of their day. In modern times, the percentages are significantly higher and are increasing over time. That we are not at 100% does not matter. That we may never reach 100% also does not matter.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-06-05 04:43 · Score: 1

A disturbing percentage of Americans won't understand your concerns or your point.

A disturbing percentage of American politicians can be accurately defined by your post.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by lsllll · 2012-06-05 04:58 · Score: 1

What's a percentage?

--
Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Rob+Simpson · 2012-06-05 04:58 · Score: 1

They didn't vote.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by internerdj · 2012-06-05 05:16 · Score: 1

No, but enough angry idiots can influence policy in any government system.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:16 · Score: 0

Are we talking now about the education of black children?
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:21 · Score: 0

Every single example you just listed is something about which people must be educated. So yes, it is an education issue, not a "population" issue.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:26 · Score: 0

*Whoosh*.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:33 · Score: 0

Athens.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:34 · Score: 0

Except that throughout human history, those nations with tiny percentages of educated people were NOT affiliated with the governance of the nation. In a democracy, even a representative-democracy, we simply must have the majority of citizens have adequate education.
By the way, ancient Greece (Athens) was able to pull this off for the most part by restricting citizenship to landowning free men, who were people with enough money to educate their children. Our country did the same when it was first founded. If we want universal suffrage, though, we MUST have a solid education for the majority of our population.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:36 · Score: 0

A disturbing percentage use quotes around words like "fractions" when they are neither quoting someone, nor using the word in an ironic or slangy way.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:47 · Score: 0

A disturbing percentage of people can't plan or cook a decent meal
A disturbing percentage can't repair a car
A disturbing percentage can't properly wire a building
A disturbing percentage can't properly pipe a building
A disturbing percentage can't properly grow crops
A disturbing percentage can't give a decent haircut
A disturbing percentage can't drive a truck
A disturbing percentage can't operate heavy machinery
A disturbing percentage can't write a good story
A disturbing percentage can't sing worth a damn
A disturbing percentage can't make custom cabinetry
A disturbing percentage has no idea how to effectively sell something
A disturbing percentage has no idea how to run a business
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:01 · Score: 0

Uninformed, or more often these days deliberately misinformed people voting is the biggest problem.
If everyone voted a combination of their conscience, and their own best interest, the Republican party would collapse and we could start building a second sane party to counter the Democrats.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by arth1 · 2012-06-05 06:01 · Score: 1

What's a percentage?
My guess: A way of saying "fraction" that those who do not understand fractions might understand?
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:25 · Score: 0

I never thought 100% was the goal. I thought the goal was to maintain an educational system as good or better than other countries. In that regard we are slipping.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by base698 · 2012-06-05 07:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, but when just 1% is convinced that they need to take up arms against our atheist-liberal-secular leaders our lives could be disrupted.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:11 · Score: 0

The fact is that throughout history, only a tiny minority were educated to the standards of their day.
That was fine, because most throughout history there has also only been a tiny minority social elite who were running society and the uneducated masses didn't have much to say.
When there's a democracy and there's an uneducated population who have the power to vote in who they think is best to lead society, you essentially wind up with the same scenario as before. The minority social elite will be the ones who actually wield power. Something resembling a *real* democracy is only possible with an educated population. If a proper education is only in reach of those who are part of the minority social elite, society will always be run by that minority social elite, whether they're called 'nobles' or 'bankers'.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:29 · Score: 0

Sigh. And that, in a nutshell, is why US education is in such horrible shape.
As a European living in the US, I get reminded of how poor the general level of education is every day. Things everyone in Germany just knows have to be explained over and over again, and, worst, people don't even understand when they are not making sense (one example => it's always true, circular arguments, correlation vs causation).
The "educated elite" from the Ivy league universities is a hit and miss as well - compared to the masses, they are definitely a step above, but compared what you'd expect from a university graduate, they have enormous gaps in their areas of specialization and general knownledge/logic. The stories I could tell about some of the clowns I had to work with...
However, the idea that that's *good enough* is what's maintaining the status quo and leads to insanely poor outcomes across the field (doctors trying to prescribe antibiotics for viral infections, bad legislation, bad decisionmaking, ...)
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by bongey · 2012-06-05 08:32 · Score: 1

And a disturbing percentage think that anything you wrote matters.
Stop your gibberish so I can get back to watching American Idol.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 08:34 · Score: 1

Yes, but it sure makes it easy for Fox to attract viewers.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 08:39 · Score: 1

"That we are not at 100% does not matter. That we may never reach 100% also does not matter."
Sadly, the history of environmental destruction on planet earth tells us that you couldn't be more wrong. What the 99.9999999% don't know or haven't been taught has very significant consequences for all. Yes, it is true as Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler proved, it only takes one or two bad apples to cause a lot of destruction, but even they don't hold a candle to the kind of thoughtless cumulative destruction that can be created by the aggregation of 6.8 billion people doing just "slightly destructive" things to the planet for lack of education.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by wwfarch · 2012-06-05 08:40 · Score: 1

I just want to reply to the portion about math and fractions in particular since I have a great story.
My father-in-law had a friend over and they were talking while he was trying to bake something. The recipe asked for 2/3 of a cup of sugar (Note: exact amount may be incorrect) and he was doubling the recipe. He asked her "Can you measure the sugar out for me? Remember that we're doubling the recipe". To which her reply was "Sorry, i can't do that. I can't do fractions."
The kicker: This woman was a 5th grade teacher
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 09:12 · Score: 0

It seems your list only has two concepts that the average person needs to know: fractions and correlation vs causation.
The rest everyone should know, but people can function just fine without knowing the difference between power and energy.
We use a basic math test when hiring - "How many eighths are in a gallon?" If they don't know that, we quickly end the interview and move on.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 11:28 · Score: 0

The problem is, in the past that tiny educated minority ruled, while now it's the other way around.
Re:look past education: the POPULATION is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 14:28 · Score: 0

Right, so we should live like it's 1699.
That said, you can be the serf I wipe my boots on because you are the least educated in the room.
At least you have a job, right?

Re:Where is why? by jdgeorge · 2012-06-05 04:18 · Score: 1

Nah. It's just confusing because the summary is more informative than the typical Slashdot summary.

Test results. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:19 · Score: 0

So since teachers are held accountable for test scores more than for what children learned, test scores rised. What a surprise!

Re:Test results. by DrgnDancer · 2012-06-05 04:51 · Score: 1

But is that a good thing per se? if, in the interest of better test score, teachers are focusing on what on the test, instead of a generalized and rounded "education" are we ahead or behind? I don't pretend to know the answers, but I know that I don't like the way education in general is moving. Funding is being slashed for stuff like art, music, PE, even "life skills" type classes like Shop and Home Ec. History and other "non-tested" academic subjects are also suffering. All efforts are being funneled to teaching a very limited subset of skills that many, if not most, kids master in relatively short order, then are forced to repeat ad nauseum both to ensure that their classmates get it and to make sure that they themselves really-really-really get it.
Is there value in ensuring that all kids master at least the most basic skills they need to function in society? Of course. Is it worth sacrificing all other forms of education in order to achieve that goal? I'd say no. The fact is that most kids can learn those minimal literacy skills and pass the standardized tests relatively easily. They don't need this kind of hyper-focused education and can get a lot of benefit out of learning other things; but the continued focus on 100% pass rates on standardized test forces schools to devote ever more resources to making sure that the last 20%, 10%, 5%, 2% get through the tests. Meanwhile the other 80% are
1) getting fat and
2) wondering why recess and PE are vanishing parts of the American educational system.
Or wondering why they have to learn the same vocabulary words *again*, or why they don't have music class anymore. When Massachusetts finally got clearance to opt out of NCLB, we had schools with something like 90-95% pass rates on the standardized tests, but they were still facing funding cuts because they couldn't show "improvement". You either have to have 100% or you have to show improvement every year. At what point are you just wasting resources trying to get perfection that will never occur?

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Re:Test results. by SydShamino · 2012-06-05 04:56 · Score: 1

FTA: "Also, they seem to hold a grudge against No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which holds teachers accountable and could be responsible for the increase in test scores."
I agree with them and you that NCLB holds teachers "accountable" and "could be responsible" for the test score changes, but not at all in the way they implied. Rather, NCLB holds teachers accountable not for how their students learn but how they can take standardized tests. Of course test scores rise, but I see no evidence even of correlation between test score increases and actual learning, much less any causation.
So the article is rather clearly biased. I wish it was labelled more clearly as an op ed piece.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.

No, our science education is dismal by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-05 04:19 · Score: 1

Our education is great for the 1% who can afford private school, private tutors, and so forth. For the majority who need to go to public schools, our education system is terrible. The article points to the successes of those whose parents could afford to give them the best education money can buy.

My German friends were expected to be able to solve calculus problems in order to graduate high school. Calculus was considered college level when I went to high school, and still is. Girls achieving parity with boys in math is a great step forward...except that there are a large number of schools where there is no option for students who are ready to go beyond algebra and trigonometry.

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:No, our science education is dismal by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-05 04:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

There's more to education than attending school 5-days a week. I practically slept through school, never studied for a test, and only brought homework home when I had to type it on my computer. Yet my GPA was still excellent. It's because I wanted to learn, not go on American Idol or join the Jersey Shore. When I got my first computer, the stipulation was that I had to fix it when it broke. So it breaks, I learn how to fix it, so I can keep playing Command and Conquer Red Alert. In that process I am learning.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:No, our science education is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:25 · Score: 1

German high school is 13 years (though moving to 12 years), so it is not totally compareable. Also you do not really learn calculus but just to do some standard tasks from calculus without understanding them.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by Pf0tzenpfritz · 2012-06-05 04:34 · Score: 1, Informative

Are you talking about differential calculus? In this case, i guess, somebody German mistranslated "High School". Differential calculus in Germany is either college level, or -if you choose to specialize on maths/science- part of 12th class higher leading schools, which are not "High Schools". Education systems are quite different, so there's no direct analogy but our middle schools would be next to US high schools.

--
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
Re:No, our science education is dismal by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-05 04:34 · Score: 1

German high school is 13 years (though moving to 12 years), so it is not totally compareable. Also you do not really learn calculus but just to do some standard tasks from calculus without understanding them.
Sure, but at least in the state of New York, a person could graduation high school having taken only eleven years of math courses; a student who passes their classes is allowed to take no math courses during their final year of high school.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:No, our science education is dismal by ceoyoyo · 2012-06-05 04:35 · Score: 1

I took calculus in standard Canadian high school. We started with limits, moved through the fundamental theorem of calculus to solving integrals and derivatives, and finished with problem solving using calculus.
The course was optional, but was highly recommended if you wanted to do science or math in university. The kids who were going to work on the rigs after graduating didn't take it.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by The+Evil+Atheist · 2012-06-05 04:37 · Score: 1

My German friends were expected to be able to solve calculus problems in order to graduate high school. Calculus was considered college level when I went to high school, and still is.
Really? Wow. I went to school in Perth, Western Australia. If you are doing TEE (university requirements) in Year 11, there is "Introductory Calculus", which moves onto full blown Calculus in Year 12. You have to learn differentiation, integration, volumes of rotational solids, harmonics and I can't even remember the other stuff. There is a separate "Applicable Mathematics" class in which you learned probability distributions, matrices, combinatorics and a lot of other stuff as well. Curiously, there was no Number Theory...

--
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-05 04:39 · Score: 1

I also slept through school, and I barely passed my classes -- despite having excellent scores on my exams. I was told that not doing my homework was the reason for my low grades, and that my understanding of the material was not relevant.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:No, our science education is dismal by Nidi62 · 2012-06-05 04:39 · Score: 1

I got an excellent education at a public high school without having to pay a dime. It's not about how much money you put in, its about how much effort you put in. I started working hard in elementary school, and in middle school I did the Duke SAT program (where middle schoolers get to take the SAT to see how well they do)in the 7th grade (I actually scored well enough to get into many colleges). Then I got accepted into a Magnet program in high school (coincidentally located within the high school I was going to go to anyway). In fact, by the time I graduated high school I already had 21 college credits covering literature, biology, history, and economics (although I did have to pay for the AP tests, they were pretty cheap). No tutors, no private school, no outside educational programs. We even got further in my high school Calc class than my college's Honors Calc class did, and that wasn't even an AP class, it was a regular honors class. I was on the football team, so I interacted with and was friends with people of a wide range of kids from differing economic backgrounds (everything from recent immigrants to poor kids living in aprtments to a guy whose father is a VP for a major gas station chain) as well as different intellectul gifts. You know what I noticed? It was the kids that put in the effort and tried to learn that got the good grades and succeeded. I knew rich kids that were smart that did horrible, because they didn't try. And I knew some poorer kids who busted their ass and did really well.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:No, our science education is dismal by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-05 04:41 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, where did you go to school?

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:No, our science education is dismal by cpu6502 · 2012-06-05 04:51 · Score: 1

>>>Our education is great for the 1% who can afford private school, private tutors, and so forth
This could be improved (not fixed) if poor or middle income parents were exempted from paying school tax for each year they send their kids to a private school. Let them keep their ~$3000 and spend it on a better place to get that better education.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:No, our science education is dismal by Nidi62 · 2012-06-05 04:54 · Score: 1

I live in Georgia. My school district was actually the district that made headlines back in 2003-2004 because they put the stupid "evolution is a theory, not a fact" stickers in all the Bio textbooks. Our class promptly ingored them.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:No, our science education is dismal by gotfork · 2012-06-05 04:56 · Score: 1

I had a similar case -- also from NC and did Duke's TIP -> IB/AP -> top tier state school for almost free. I think the author of the article is intentionally confusing the testing results which show how the US does on average with how students who actually end up doing science do.

Yet during this period of national "mediocrity," we created Silicon Valley, built multinational biotechnology firms, and continued to lead the world in scientific journal publications and total number of Nobel Prize winners. We also invented and sold more than a few iPads. Obviously, standardized tests aren't everything.
That's all great, but to some extent many students will be good at science even if they go to terrible schools. Similarly, it's worth trying to give most students a basic understanding of science even if they go into another field.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by CannonballHead · 2012-06-05 04:58 · Score: 1

There is some merit in repetition (homework). I can learn something for a test and forget it afterwards. Doing it many times over in homework tends to make it stick longer.
Of course, not all homework is merited in that way... but some is.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by FreeFire · 2012-06-05 05:06 · Score: 2

No, you were told that homework was a part of your grade, and you decided not to do it. You should expect low grades; understanding of the material was not the only grade criteria.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by the+gnat · 2012-06-05 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

For the majority who need to go to public schools, our education system is terrible. The article points to the successes of those whose parents could afford to give them the best education money can buy.
This is not universally true. I have a PhD in biochemistry, and until college I had always attended American public schools. So did many of my close friends, who now have PhDs as well. The (large, urban) high school I attended had some massive systemic problems that are probably unfixable, but at least 60% of our graduating class went to four-year colleges, including about ten or so students who attended Ivy League schools. I have very little good to say about those four years of my life, but I honestly think most of the teachers did the best they could with what they had. The quality of the science education was very mixed, but we had some terrific innovative programs (especially marine science and tech ed) that were as good as anything the private schools could offer. I know I'm not the only student who was inspired to pursue a scientific career as a result of this.
The biggest problem I faced was that a faction of the education bureaucracy was fiercely opposed to college prep courses (because they were elitist) and wanted to homogenize the curriculum. This was not the fault of the teacher's union or the politicians; I still haven't figured out where these people get their ideas. (Just to clarify, "these people" were very racially diverse - a handful of white teachers were some of the loudest advocates at my school.) However, it was every bit as anti-intellectual a movement as the right-wingers trying to force pseudoscience into the classroom. By the time I was partway through high school, my parents decided they didn't like where things were headed, and sent my siblings to a private high school (where they appear to have received the same quality education, albeit with less senseless brutality).
The more general problem is that funding is indeed limited - the difference between a high-quality private school and a large public school is that the classes in the latter will be twice as large, so teachers can't give individual students they attention they require (or that their parents feel they deserve). The really smart students will always be screwed unless there are enough of them to fill a classroom - otherwise you have to explain to the PTA why five students get their own teacher for AP American History while the rest of the students get class sizes of 30.
My German friends were expected to be able to solve calculus problems in order to graduate high school. Calculus was considered college level when I went to high school, and still is.
The high school I attended had not one but two levels of calculus - I took AP Calculus I my senior year. All you need is enough students at that level to fill a classroom, and we had enough for two periods. That was actually one of my favorite courses in all of high school - it was the first time math seemed truly intuitive to me.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by gotfork · 2012-06-05 05:13 · Score: 1

I went to a high school where ~60 percent of the students got free/reduced lunch, which meant that their parents made less than 200% of the poverty level. In my county schools are supported primarily through property tax revenues, and most of these families rent and pay property tax only indirectly. It's a moot point though, considering private school tuition runs around 15-20 k$. Families, especially those who are trying to make ends meet, can't spend ~half their net income on a single child's education.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-05 05:22 · Score: 1

understanding of the material was not the only grade criteria.
That is exactly my point. I was too young to really understand this back in high school, but there is more to school that learning what you are being taught: you are also supposed to learn how to follow instructions and do what you are told. A student who does not bow to authority and do as they are told is considered to be as bad as a student who is unable to learn the material no matter how hard they try.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:No, our science education is dismal by internerdj · 2012-06-05 05:26 · Score: 1

They can but is that an awful thing? If someone has little proficiency for math and no interest is there any point in forcing them to sit through calculus? How about precalculus? Trig? Actually Alabama was similar when I finished high school, the people uninterested in academics got 11 years of math, rather than algebra 2 and trig they got personal finance and statistics. I can't say that is an awful thing for a mechanic, or a truckdriver, or even a non-techinical professional like my real estate agent. Particular uses for higher math in non-technical fields can be picked up with on the job training and processes to catch errors. My personal issue was that limited space in Calculus meant those who didn't do well enough in 8th grade math didn't make it into Calculus their senior year. I could have skipped 3 semesters of College math if I'd had exposure.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-05 05:37 · Score: 2

They can but is that an awful thing?
Absolutely yes, since math education is about learning how to think rigorously and logically. There are requirements for four years of humanities; why should those subjects receive more attention?

If someone has little proficiency for math and no interest is there any point in forcing them to sit through calculus?
If someone has little proficiency in analyzing literature, is there any point in forcing them to sit through English classes? Why bother with 12 years of education in any subject?

I can't say that is an awful thing for a mechanic, or a truckdriver, or even a non-techinical professional like my real estate agent
Society as a whole benefits from an educated population, and that means education across the board -- math, science, humanities, languages, etc. This is especially true of a society where we vote for representatives, and where everyone is supposed to be able to run for office. One of the ways people can be disenfranchised is by being denied a good education.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:No, our science education is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:44 · Score: 0

Actually, there is amazing education going on at many (not all) public charter schools, which is free for students. The charter that I work at requires all graduating seniors to be half-way through college level calc. 2 with the Exeter Math program (we do not have electives). Unfortunately, most states legislate against charter schools due to union lobbying power. Also, even in states with good charter laws, such as Arizona, there is often far more student demand then their are spots open, which leads to lotteries. And it is never fun to see the difference between an amazing, top performing school and the local dropout factory be chance. Still, a lottery is better than the insurmountable wall of private school costs.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by cpu6502 · 2012-06-05 05:56 · Score: 1

>>>considering private school tuition runs around 15-20 k$
Wow. The average private tuition is only $6700. I am a believer that the more competition a business receives, the better it is for the customer (versus a monopoly or near-monopoly). Even is only SOME poor or middle income students can afford to escape the government school, that's better than none.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:No, our science education is dismal by gotfork · 2012-06-05 06:51 · Score: 1

I checked the numbers for the country where I grew up: http://www.charlottelatin.org/admissions/tuition.asp http://www.charlottecountryday.org/admissions/tuition-financial-aid/index.aspx http://www.providenceday.org/tuition . The medium household income is 50 k$, putting private education entirely out of reach for most families.

I am a believer that the more competition a business receives, the better it is for the customer (versus a monopoly or near-monopoly).
Sure, that makes sense for businesses, but since when is primary education a business? A lot of people would agree that a primary education is a human right: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a26 Unfortunately for many families a more economically competitive option would be to send kids to work at age 14 rather than to school. Allowing them to do that wouldn't improve schools either.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by cellocgw · 2012-06-05 06:56 · Score: 1

live in Georgia. My school district was actually the district that made headlines back in 2003-2004 because they put the stupid "evolution is a theory, not a fact" stickers in all the Bio textbooks. Our class promptly ingored them.
That's the kind of typo I like! I'm sitting here imagining the whole class taking pointy things and goring the stickers into scrap.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:No, our science education is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:59 · Score: 0

No, that's a terrible idea. We'd be dismantling our public schools, and the kids with stupid parents would wind up in schools that teach Christianity instead of knowledge. They'd never have a chance to know more than than their parents do. Public schools are an escape-hatch from the ignorance at home for many people.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:13 · Score: 0

at least 60% of our graduating class went to four-year colleges, including about ten or so students who attended Ivy League schools.
Then you went to an exceptional school. A typical rate for public schools in the US is 20-25% to a 4 year and maybe one really smart kid who goes to an Ivy League, maybe 2 every ten years or so, maybe none. (Public school math/physics teacher.)
Re:No, our science education is dismal by CastrTroy · 2012-06-05 07:15 · Score: 1

You think that's bad, when I was in highschool, in Ontario Canada, math class wasn't required after grade 10. Also science wasn't required after grade 10 either. Checking out the current requirements, it seems that grade 11 math is now required, but you don't have to take grade 11 science still. As a student who took math every year, plus 2 maths in grade 13, plus 1 or 2 science courses every year, I find it hard to imagine even getting enough credits without taking science or math courses. But I guess one could take phys ed, wood shop, and home every year to make up for the difference. I don't think that students should really be required to take math courses above grade 10, because, for the most part, nobody will ever use calculus or linear algebra in their day to day life, or even in a workplace setting. However what I think should be done is to incorporate math and science into the other courses. Make fractions part of auto shop by learning about gear ratios. Teach the the basic chemistry behind the combustion engine, and talk about the chemical properties of various fuels. Math and physics can easily be worked into wood shop. Home economics is full of math and chemistry just waiting to be taught. The same could be done for English courses. Get rid of teaching English for the sake of teaching English and incorporate essay writing and reading comprehension into the other courses.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by the+gnat · 2012-06-05 07:30 · Score: 1

Then you went to an exceptional school.
It was an exceptional school in many respects. But it was also typical of American public schools in many others: massive classes (30 was very typical, often more even though that was supposed to be the limit), chronically underfunded (my senior year the science classes started requesting a voluntary lab fee so they could afford basic supplies, like graph paper), and often incompetently managed (see my remarks about education bureaucrats above). A few years after I left, the school district "misplaced" $25 million - they simply couldn't account for it. A principal was fired for having sex with a student. My freshman year, a student emptied a 9mm in the cafeteria and hallways (fortunately, he was a poor shot). So it wasn't one of those ridiculously nice suburban schools like Scarsdale that feeds off high property tax income.
What made it exceptional was a critical mass of competent-to-excellent teachers, relatively bright (or at least hardworking) students, and very involved parents. No amount of standardized testing, union-busting, innovative techniques, or increased funding will substitute for these.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by beringreenbear · 2012-06-05 07:31 · Score: 1

The biggest problem I faced was that a faction of the education bureaucracy was fiercely opposed to college prep courses (because they were elitist) and wanted to homogenize the curriculum.
This is from a pedantic point of view that truly challenging classes are a waste of resources. It's not meant to be anti-intellectual. It's meant to get students from different social classes to socially interact instead of being tracked and segregated. The idea, to paraphrase, is to get the "science geek" and the "shop flunk-out" to respect each other and help each other out, thereby raising achievement levels over-all. The problem isn't one of hard courses being elitist, but of hard courses being perceived to be taking resources from programs that are stressed. The proposed solution is one of co-mentoring. The delivery leaves much to be desired, as co-mentoring (in my opinion) only works if it's started in kindergarten and continued through-out formal schooling.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:32 · Score: 0

I went to a public HS in the NYC suburbs, and my experiance was just like NIDI62's
Re:No, our science education is dismal by fliptout · 2012-06-05 08:24 · Score: 1

This is why I left public schools to attend a private Catholic prep school. Those average kids in public schools were holding me back, and I was seriously not challenged enough in public schools. Plus, the public schools were cutting back on gifted and talented programs and honors programs. I would have been fine taking a few classes with the average students, but there is no way putting students of all abilities in to one math class, for example, would have helped anybody.
The only drawback to going to a smaller private school was that the private school could not offer the same variety of AP/IB courses that a larger public school could offer. On the other hand, my teachers were extremely good- I don't know anyone else who had three high school teachers with PhD's.

--
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by grep_rocks · 2012-06-05 08:33 · Score: 1

I would say our educational system is bimodal, public schools in affluent suburbs are just fine - that is why real estate is so high there, you are paying for the school district everyone wants to be in - but for a huge segment of the population the schools suck, I grew up in Chicago in the 70s, there was no public school my parents were willing to send me to, they shelled our for private schools all the way. In Europe most schools are centrally funded - not dependent on local property taxes - which encourages everyone to chip in for good schools because everyone is in the same boat. Until you address our screwed up system of property tax based schools, you will continue to get this bimodal system, schools in cities and poorer areas will suck and rich suburban schools will be good. To be more fair, is is better to think of the US as a mixture of a second/third world country with a first world country - some places/counties/states in the US are dirt poor, while others are fabulously wealthy.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by cpu6502 · 2012-06-05 12:08 · Score: 1

>>>Sure, that makes sense for businesses, but since when is primary education a business?
Since forever. Education is the product/service and the student is the customer. BTW you made a strawman argument since I never said parents should be allowed to send their 14-yr-old kids to work, instead of school.
What *I* said is that parents who send their kids to private school should be exempt from paying school tax for that 1 year. Maybe if the government school starts losing students to nearby schools, the government school will make an attempt to improve the quality of their product, instead of rolling-around in money (as monopolies tend to do).

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:No, our science education is dismal by gotfork · 2012-06-05 12:39 · Score: 1

You did say that you believe that education is a business and that the more competition a business receives, the better it is for the customer. I just suggested an alternate option that would be more competitive for low-income families. I'm not implying that you're pro-child labor -- I'm giving a counterexample to show that your blanket statement is silly, and that (assuming education is a business) competition to public education is not always better for the customer.

What *I* said is that parents who send their kids to private school should be exempt from paying school tax for that 1 year.
What I'm saying is that this will do almost nothing to help low and middle-class families.
Re:No, our science education is dismal by cpu6502 · 2012-06-06 03:52 · Score: 1

>>>>> parents who send their kids to private school should be exempt from paying school tax for that 1 year.
>>
>>What I'm saying is that this will do almost nothing to help low and middle-class families.
Of course it will. It will make private school about $3000 cheaper (because their government school tax will be $0 for that year), and some of these families will be able to afford private school when they couldn't before. It's the same way that government gave $2000 credit to make Hybrids and EVs more affordable.
Or we could just give these poor/middle income families vouchers to pay for private schools. But I imagine you'd oppose that as well. Liberals always oppose the idea of vouchers, because they WANT students locked-into a monopoly school system..... just as Microsoft wants people locked-into their OS monopoly (which is why they added a key to PCs such that only Win8 will run).

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:No, our science education is dismal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-07 12:14 · Score: 0

Then what is the point of public schools?

Law of big numbers? by G3ckoG33k · 2012-06-05 04:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Could it be due to the Law of big numbers that the United States of America keeps the pace?

First, the average student still is among the top 20, which is not bad considering the number of nations.

Second, the number of students in each class is drawn from a population which is about 300,000,000 citizens...

So, the best one percent still boil down to 3,000,000 people. That is a lot of bright people.

So, just from the sheer size of the US there are many more good students in absolute numbers than most other of the top 20 nations, combined!

Re:Law of big numbers? by Jerry+Smith · 2012-06-05 04:49 · Score: 2

"So, just from the sheer size of the US there are many more good students in absolute numbers than most other of the top 20 nations, combined!"
Yup, now think of India, China or Russia. They're cheaper as well. Scared yet?

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
Re:Law of big numbers? by JoshuaZ · 2012-06-05 05:10 · Score: 2

There are other large countries, so I don't think that's all that is going on. A major part seems to be that the tail end of science ability is very long. The US does a very good job of encouraging the really talented kids, giving them good educations and lots of resources. So even as the average is bad, the outliers from the fat tail are very good. Unfortunately, for some things (political decisions on science related issues, making informed medical decisions, etc.) the knowledge level of the general population does matter.
Re:Law of big numbers? by TubeSteak · 2012-06-05 05:26 · Score: 1

Second, the number of students in each class is drawn from a population which is about 300,000,000 citizens...
So, the best one percent still boil down to 3,000,000 people. That is a lot of bright people.
This kind of logic is why America is failing.
The standardized tests are taken from grades 3 to 12 (8 to 18 years old),
I found some census numbers, which are 5-9 years, 10-14 years, 15-19 years.
So I'll go with 10-19 years: 42,165,000
1% = 42,165
Since I'm fudging the numbers and left out a year, we can adjust it upwards by 10%,
but that still doesn't do much to bring you closer to your 1% = 3 million figure

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Law of big numbers? by G3ckoG33k · 2012-06-05 06:34 · Score: 1

"This kind of logic is why America is failing
The standardized tests are taken from grades 3 to 12 (8 to 18 years old),
I found some census numbers, which are 5-9 years, 10-14 years, 15-19 years.
So I'll go with 10-19 years: 42,165,000
1% = 42,165"
1 % of 42,165,000 is not 42,165.
Does your foot still hurt?
Never mind. 1% of the entire population is 3 million and the 1% brightest students are among those.
Re:Law of big numbers? by SuperGlide · 2012-06-05 07:29 · Score: 1

1% = 421,650 This is why you think it's failing.
Re:Law of big numbers? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-06-05 11:43 · Score: 1

I dunno why Russia is on that list, since population-wise it's more than twice as small as US.
Re:Law of big numbers? by Jerry+Smith · 2012-06-06 22:10 · Score: 1

I dunno why Russia is on that list, since population-wise it's more than twice as small as US.
My bad, I still think of Russia as 'that-what-we-used-to-call-the-ussr'-big. About 300.000.000 of people. But here's a proper list, http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+by+country.

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

average poster by fluffythedestroyer · 2012-06-05 04:19 · Score: 1

TaeKwonDood must be one of those students that are average since he didn't finish the article :) lol

Of course! by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-05 04:20 · Score: 1

Attending school is about learning what is already known in the world. The ability to innovate is not present in most academic institutions, until you get into the graduate-school realm. How many computer companies were started by college drop-outs versus people with degrees? These tests measure memorization of facts which have already been proven, not the ability to create something new and radical. So while our students may not remember the date the Magna Carta was signed, they can sit around and think "I wonder if this would make things easier."

That's why the U.S. is winning the innovation sector of the sciences.

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Re:Of course! by solidraven · 2012-06-05 04:37 · Score: 2

Contrary to popular believe many of the drop outs don't make it. They fail, end up without a single penny left in their pocket.
Additionally, comparing academic achievements in the US with how good the educational standard is considering it's largely based on immigrants. And these people are not a product of US education...
Re:Of course! by cellocgw · 2012-06-05 07:30 · Score: 1

How many computer companies were started by college drop-outs versus people with degrees?
Calling Bill Gates a "dropout" simply because he chose not to finish school is disingenuous at best. Ditto for Michael Dell (sorry, I forget whether he withdrew prior to degree or not). It's hardly the same as a bunch of drunk frat boys who left with a negative GPA.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:Of course! by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-05 07:41 · Score: 1

By drop-out, I merely mean they did not finish school. Not that they failed classes or anything.

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Last poll I saw on the subject... by Rei · 2012-06-05 04:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

the US was the second lowest in the OECD in terms of evolution acceptance, with just 14% saying "definitely true" and a third saying "absolutely false" (as a side note, Iceland, where I live, is #1 in terms of acceptance - whoo!)

Until the public can come to grips with the basic tenets of science, yes, America is lagging way behind.

And I'm sorry, this "Americans suck at standardized testing" excuse is one of the flimsiest I've ever heard. Their only counterevidence -- that which has been accomplished in the US and the quality of US universities -- is hardly pinned on the understanding of science of the average American. It's a combination of the understanding of science of the top percentiles of Americans combined with research and venture capital networks and a strong H1B program (scaled by a population of over 300 million).

--
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!

Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:01 · Score: 0

"Definetly true" and "absolutely false" are both shitty positions to take on evolution. How many say "probably true" or "evidence is strong"?
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Rei · 2012-06-05 05:27 · Score: 1

Those were not the only choices, as should be obvious from the fact that even the summary graph has three sections. All "true" answers together add up to right around 40% and all "false" likewise.

--
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:29 · Score: 0

So, we base our entire educational quality test on whether or not we can displace the foundational principles of some people's lives?
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Rei · 2012-06-05 05:38 · Score: 1

Science is precisely about accepting what empirical evidence tells you, even when it contradicts with your personal beliefs on the subject.

--
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:16 · Score: 0

Americans do not believe the religion I believe in, therefore it is stupid
No, John, you ARE the demons.
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:21 · Score: 0

So what ? US's acceptance of creationistic view long proceeds its current fading scientific education. I believe in creationism and that does not prevent me grasping a high level of math and sciences. And I don't feel any discomfort from my religious idea while completing a PhD in engineering. Religion has nothing to do with US's failure in science education.
I came from China and we spent far more time and efforts on maths and sciences. And our teachers are not afraid to "discourage" students by giving failing scores. Our parents actually thinks science education is mandatory instead of optional. I am not sayying the Asian way of discipline is flawless, but it amazed me that a college freshmen could not properly linearize an Arrhenius equation and my wife had to teach college student how to solve quadratic equations. With such level of maths, one cannot even graduate from middle school in China, to say nothing of getting admitted to college.
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 09:07 · Score: 0

I wouldn't be saying "whoo" to being number one on acceptance.
My personal stance is "probably true", but I've just never been convinced with enough hard verifiable evidence to put it at "definitely true". Saying, with 100% certainty that anything is definitely true or false is always a very bold statement, and usually shows a lack of critical thinking ability. When you are certain of something, you stop looking for other explanations, and has the ability to cause one to be stuck believing a fallacy, if in fact their certainty was wrong. Scientific principal states one should always be skeptical of everything. Hell, Einsteinian physics did a hell of a lot to dispel Newtonian physics, even if Newtonian physics are still often used because they're "good enough"
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 10:32 · Score: 0

Believing something and understanding it are two different things. I understand the mythos of Star Wars, but I don't believe it was a documentary filmed in a galaxy far, far away. I understand the mythos of Star Trek, but I don't believe it's an accurate depiction of the future. I understand Greek mythology -- but I'm not a Zeus worshipper.
Literacy, competency, and comprehension and completely independent of subscription, faith, and belief -- especially when the "science" is summed up, by even its staunchest supporters, as "the best guess we've got"
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Jonner · 2012-06-05 10:42 · Score: 1

the US was the second lowest in the OECD in terms of evolution acceptance, with just 14% saying "definitely true" and a third saying "absolutely false" (as a side note, Iceland, where I live, is #1 in terms of acceptance - whoo!)
Until the public can come to grips with the basic tenets of science, yes, America is lagging way behind.
No particular facts, such as those about evolution, are "basic tenets of science." Science is an approach and set of processes and tools for discovering and proving facts. I do not wish to make any statement about the truth of the facts you refer to, but I do know that the vast majority of people surveyed do not have the capability of testing them directly using scientific techniques. That common opinions about those facts are different between Iceland and the US is a cultural difference and doesn't necessarily indicate that Icelanders know more about the nature of science even if their opinion happens to be right since at some level they are simply believing what they're told.
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Rei · 2012-06-05 22:50 · Score: 1

Were you under the impression that those were the only two choices? And if so, why?
And, FYI, if evolution isn't "definitely true", then the term "definitely true" has no meaning. Of course we can't be 100% certain of anything in this world. I can't be 100% certain that there's not an invisible troll standing behind me right now, ready to eat me if I mutter the word "green". But the odds of that happening are so ridiculously low that I have no issue saying the word "green"; I can effectively discount them, classifying things like such an invisible troll as, flatly, "false". Aka, not even worth the time of consideration.

--
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Rei · 2012-06-05 22:54 · Score: 1

You really think that something can't be a basic tenet of science if you can't test it yourself at home? Really? I mean, no, really?
And a basic tenet is something on which a large amount of other knowledge and understanding is built. So yes, evolution is a basic tenet of science. Without it, entire fields of scientific understanding collapse.

--
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Re:Last poll I saw on the subject... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 01:26 · Score: 0

"Evolution acceptance" is one of the worst things to generalize based on. Especially without knowing what they meant by "evolution"

Here's why it is views as "dismal" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:20 · Score: 0, Insightful

Because your educational system has been co-opted by revisionist ideologues and religious nuts who want to teach children distinctly wrong versions of history, and distinctly wrong, unscientific concepts. How in the hell do you teach any science at all if you eliminate the underpinnings of geology, biology, and astronomy in an absurd universe-view that is only 6,000 years old? The ignorance on display in most casual encounters with average Americans is breathtaking.

Re:Here's why it is views as "dismal" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:35 · Score: 0

The ignorance on display in most casual encounters with average Americans is breathtaking.
Less than half the country believes that, it'd be ignorant to consider it average.

Law of averages by MozeeToby · 2012-06-05 04:20 · Score: 2

The US is a large, extremely diverse country. Doesn't it stand to reason that if you lump every kid in such a place into a single category and test them on something that the overall results are going to come out to be about average? Maybe it's just really, really hard for anyone to upset that bell curve by too much? Maybe improving the bell curve isn't as important as we think it is? Perhaps it's the outliers that are the most important for cultural success? These are basically the questions the article asks and, while it pretends to have the answers, I doubt many or any of them are backed up by actually facts.

Personally I actually agree with them. The goal should be to get as many people as possible up to the education level that they themselves can tell if they enjoy it and excel at at, then provide resources for those who are capable of greatness to achieve that greatness.

Re:Law of averages by lsllll · 2012-06-05 05:08 · Score: 1

The U.S.S.R used to be about 2.5 times the size of the U.S. and contained far more diverse groups, and I think they had nailed education right on the head.

--
Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
Re:Law of averages by RobertLTux · 2012-06-05 05:32 · Score: 1

i think they may have been a bit more willing to SHOOT a bad teacher (or worse).

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:Where is why? by RivenAleem · 2012-06-05 04:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

It really wouldn't have taken a lot of effort to add "Lobbyists lie about the state of the educational system to keep getting funding."

Re:Where is why? by mu51c10rd · 2012-06-05 04:22 · Score: 5, Funny

No it didn't. Here's why.

Re:Where is why? by tlhIngan · 2012-06-05 04:22 · Score: 1

Perhaps the summary is poigniantly stating the reason.

I.e., the lack of communication skills means while the test scores go up, the ability to communicate goes down so they all look like a bunch of illiterates because no one can understand them? Science can't happen if you cannot communicate your work to others...

Now there's a lead-in to comments... by msobkow · 2012-06-05 04:22 · Score: 1

Clearly the summary's "why" is referring to the consolidated wisdom of the Slashdot cognoscenti expressed below.... :P

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Do Not Quit Fretting by eldavojohn · 2012-06-05 04:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Column: Quit fretting. U.S. is fine in science education

The article is correct in a lot of respects. But one thing I personally disagree with is that we should quit fretting. If you believe you are the best in the world at something, you might quit working hard to achieve that and stagnate into irrelevance. Personally I always view myself as "behind the curve" and therefore I am always working harder to overcome my self-perceived adjustment.

Likewise, when I am judging the United States, I'm often harsh. Because it's not going to get any better if I say "Yep, education is top notch, best in the world. We're #1." Unsurprisingly enough, my Republican friends call me a self-loathing liberal because my criticisms of the United States are often harsh. Better that than the alternative of stagnation and irrelevance.

American science education might not be 'dismal' but valid criticisms abound. Also, the measurements used for it being dismal or great are almost always flawed. For example, in the article:

Yet during this period of national "mediocrity," we created Silicon Valley, built multinational biotechnology firms, and continued to lead the world in scientific journal publications and total number of Nobel Prize winners. We also invented and sold more than a few iPads. Obviously, standardized tests aren't everything.

Surely, every one of these things had influences and inspiration other than the "United States public science education"? I'm reminded of someone from Alabama chastising me for complaining about states that have low literacy rates. She reminded me that Huntsville has more post-graduate degree holders per capita than any other city in the United States. Great. Good for them. Does that have anything to do with whether or not a random 15 year old can read in Alabama? You can cherry pick statistics one way or the other, I think China's got more published academic papers per year now than any other nation ... of course the quality over quantity can be argued.

Don't be afraid to look at yourself critically -- if you don't how will you ever improve?

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Do Not Quit Fretting by SolitaryMan · 2012-06-05 05:01 · Score: 1

I stopped reading TFA after "We also invented and sold more than a few iPads." Not that I expected any kind of good journalism from usatoday in the first place.

--
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Re:Do Not Quit Fretting by Tommy+Bologna · 2012-06-05 06:03 · Score: 1

Valid criticism is one thing -- pulling a fire alarm because you think people should be more aware of the hazards of fire is another.
How you frame the goal is important, BE HONEST. It's okay to ask, "we're number one now, but how do we stay there for the next 25 years?" You don't make the situation better by lying about the current conditions. We all have a tremendous number of demands on our attention, so when someone lies to us to jump their pet project to the front of the line based on a lie; that is factored in next time they ask for attention.
You know what academic discipline is really weak in this country? HISTORY. We don't understand it. Americans can't properly evaluate complex events in a chronological context and become easily confused by politicians and disreputable businessmen (I'm looking at you Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast). If we understood history better: Sarah Palin would have been laughed off the national stage; we'd never have had a pre-emptive war with Iraq; the NSA would have been slammed by Congress after the NSA was discovered tapping American phones; the banking reforms imposed by the Banking Act of 1933 (Glass–Steagall Act) wouldn't have been repealed and the 2009 economic crisis would have been avoided; and on and on and on.
If we knew history, we'd know why that piece of paper we call the US Constitution is still valid -- nay, essential -- and not just a bunch of hokum written by a bunch of guys dead for 200 years. We'd stop electing idiots. We'd be a better country, a better society.
And in the end, an appreciation for history necessary for a true appreciation of the advancement of science. Without history, we'd have to rediscover the same scientific principles every friggen generation. How far would we get?
Re:Do Not Quit Fretting by feepness · 2012-06-05 08:30 · Score: 1

For someone who holds self-criticism as such an important value, you actually sound quite self-congratulatory.

This is just one facet of the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

When one views the whole picture, there is a reason that people have grave concerns. A couple examples:

A friend of mine from China has his tuition, room, board, and such paid by the Chinese government to attend classes here in the US. He is planning to go into chemical engineering as soon as he graduates. Cost of education for degree to him? 0 yuan.

A relative of mine from Germany graduated college. His room, board, and tuition was paid for by the German government, and he is employed at a firm there developing better milling equipment. Cost to him? Zero Euro.

A friend of a friend was from Chile (you know, one of those perceived "turd world" nations) learning math so he can go back and teach calculus and differential equations to their equivalent of high school students. Cost out of pocket to him? Zero Chilean pesos.

Now compare a college student in the US who is trying to get an engineering degree. There is no stipend by the US government, scholarships just don't exist, or funds are long since depleted. Out of his pocket, he has to pay at least $50,000 to $100,000 depending on area of the country for room, board, tuition, books, and other items, and this is a public school.

So, comparing students from Germany, China, Chile, and the US, the American engineers have to pay big bucks to be in the same position where other students are, for zero cost to them.

With this in mind, and the fact that fear of not finding a job due to outsourcing makes US students look for a more lucrative major. STEM gets discouraged because it isn't as flashy as the law or business major.

The US has big problems in the science education department, and people need to look at the whole picture to understand why.

Re:This is just one facet of the problem... by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-06-05 04:54 · Score: 1

Well, in your previous examples the students aren't really getting all this with zero cost to them, just zero direct cost. They make up for that by either higher taxes or lower service levels or lower payouts to those that own the property or teach the classes. (Almost exclusively higher taxes though.) Often it's more difficult for those students to get into a university.
Not saying we shouldn't be better supporting our students, just that a simplistic view can't possibly see all of the factors.
Re:This is just one facet of the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:34 · Score: 0

Your argument is a nonargument. Obviously somebody pays for it but the pay structure has consequences. In other words, politics matters.
The question that is often left unanswered in these discussions is, should Americans be better educated? In Finland, where I'm from, it is a national political creed that the whole nation should be educated and that is borne out in the international PISA comparisons.
The downside to the Finnish system? The Nobel prize winners don't come from Finland.
The U.S. approach to life is the celebration of the pyramid structure of society. There's the rich and the poor, the Nobel prize winners and the analphabets, there's the Olympic gold medalists and the obese slouches. And the Americans like it that way!
Finland, in contrast, culturally seeks to flatten the pyramid. So Finland wants to have the world's richest poor, the world's smartest stupid people and the world's fittest slouches. History will tell which cultural preference wins out in the game of life.
Re:This is just one facet of the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:37 · Score: 0

Thing is, they fund it through higher taxes, which means that A) they don't have to pay when they're studying, which means they don't need to work while studying and B) whatever they pay is modulated by how much they make, so majors with lower salaries aren't penalized for it.
Honestly, if there's one thing NA education systems (Canada, while much less of a problem, still charges for education and doesn't provide accomodations) could learn from EU ones, it's that tuition fees aren't a good thing.
Re:This is just one facet of the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:55 · Score: 0

Let's not forget the fact that his entire example about the us student is totaly wrong. I have an engineering degree and i payed only about 15000 for it, almost none of it out of pocket. I was almost comlpleatly covered by federal loans and a couple of small private scholarships. THEY JUST DO EXIST and they are often execelent. If you want to goto harvard your gonna pay that much, if you want to live in reality declare residencey in mass and goto UMASS which has amazing engineering schools. In my case i even went to a privage college and still payed next to nothing for top notch edu. the options are their and they are not hard to find.
Re:This is just one facet of the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 10:05 · Score: 0

totally, paid, completely, excellent, go to, you're, residency, paid, there.

I know you said engineering and not English, but that's the most atrocious example of a "top-notch education" I think I've ever seen.

More to the point, it sounds like you're suggesting federal loans covering the cost of education don't come out of your pocket eventually, which is shortsighted. Otherwise I don't really know why you mentioned them.
Re:This is just one facet of the problem... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-06-05 11:46 · Score: 1

Well, in your previous examples the students aren't really getting all this with zero cost to them, just zero direct cost. They make up for that by either higher taxes or lower service levels or lower payouts to those that own the property or teach the classes. (Almost exclusively higher taxes though.) Often it's more difficult for those students to get into a university.
Yes, of course. The point, I think, is that those kinds of systems select students based on their ability - you'll get free education, but only if you're good enough to spend time and money on you. Whereas in US they couldn't care less about how capable (or not) you are so long as you can pay. So you end up educating not the smartest, but the wealthiest.
Re:This is just one facet of the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 12:22 · Score: 0

Whoa there...'zero cost' really?...immediate cost to the individual maybe, but also don't forget 'cost to parents' or 'cost to society'. Education isn't 'free' no matter where you get it, someone is paying for it.
There are many good debates to be had over the 'cost of education' to an individual in the US and one of them may actually start with the way government "assistance" is administered (e.g. student loans the way they are currently handed out & structured is driving up the cost of a US education enormously...well it's a debate topic but there are good reasons to believe so)...but don't fool yourself education isn't free to anyone. So the 'debt' is somewhere and has to be paid at some time...
Heck, education is probably 1 of the only 'general societal costs' that I don't mind being taxed for, but if it's not administered properly in terms of capping costs as well then those costs are going to skyrocket in comparison to their actual value to society.
Re:This is just one facet of the problem... by chrismcb · 2012-06-05 16:01 · Score: 1

The cost of tuition, room, board, supplies is estimated to be $25,000 for instate, and $40K for out of state.
There are scholarships and other programs for SOME students, just like there are for some people in other countries.
Re:This is just one facet of the problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 00:49 · Score: 0

It should have been federal aid not just fed loans, the 15k was the only loans, meaning my entire out of pocket expense is not 50 - 100k but 15, which for a 60-80k/year starting job is very reasonable. hell even for something like an english major or some other major where your only option is teaching that is still pretty reasonable. My point is, gov aid is avaliable in nearly the same way as it is for other students. Paying off a reasonable student loan is no different then paying off your fees through taxes as all of those other people do.
Re:This is just one facet of the problem... by domatic · 2012-06-06 08:34 · Score: 1

In those countries, they don't hand those stipends out for just being alive in breathing. They have systems that pretty much only hand them out to people who will take proper advantage of the opportunity. They also don't have the problems we do when it comes to being "elitist" and identifying the kids who are good at math and science and getting them ready for those stipends.

Re:Where is why? by zlives · 2012-06-05 04:26 · Score: 1

lol, ;)

Useless Article by methano · 2012-06-05 04:26 · Score: 1

I read TFA. It was basically a political screed with little useful information. However, I tend to agree with the conclusion that it ain't so bad here in America. I tend to believe that maybe we're too science literate in America. I've got a ton of friends with high quality PhD's in chemistry who find themselves out of work or under-employed. Most of the STEM worries are veiled attempts to allow companies to hire scientists at pauper wages or to get tax advantages for off-shoring scientific research.

America leader in science? Don't make me laugh. by tulcod · 2012-06-05 04:27 · Score: 0, Troll

Without a doubt, this post will get modded -1 disagree, but the truth is that all marginally useful researchers active in the USA come from Europe and Asia. America is willing to spend way billions and billions every year on a brain drain, and truth be told, they're pretty good at that: it's now come to a point where any academic here in Europe will have to consider whether he thinks going to the US for further research is worth it, or choose to live for a lower wage and keep up your standards.

Yes, good researchers often live in America, but that's because they were all, piece by piece, bought out from Europe and Asia. America a leader in science? Don't make me laugh.

Re:America leader in science? Don't make me laugh. by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-06-05 04:32 · Score: 3, Funny

"Without a doubt, this post will get modded -1 disagree"
Followed by a hyperbolic attack on US researchers. Yes, Sir, you deserve to get modded down. Kind of like saying pretentiously, "I know you'll object because you can't handle the truth, but your mother is a dirty slut."

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:America leader in science? Don't make me laugh. by tulcod · 2012-06-05 04:38 · Score: 1

Touché.
Re:America leader in science? Don't make me laugh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:06 · Score: 0

Without a doubt, this post will get modded -1 disagree, but the truth is that all marginally useful researchers active in the USA come from Europe and Asia. America is willing to spend way billions and billions every year on a brain drain, and truth be told, they're pretty good at that: it's now come to a point where any academic here in Europe will have to consider whether he thinks going to the US for further research is worth it, or choose to live for a lower wage and keep up your standards.
Yes, good researchers often live in America, but that's because they were all, piece by piece, bought out from Europe and Asia. America a leader in science? Don't make me laugh.
Excuse my french, but you are a fucking moron.
I work in research and in science particularly. I deal with absolutely incredible people who make my head spin with how intelligent and good they are. Some are from Europe and Asia but even more are Americans. Yes, their ethnicity may originate from Asia or Europe or elsewhere but they are still Americans. I do admit that we have a lot of immigrants but we also have a lot of Americans doing 'marginally', good and even great research. For example the 2011 Nobel science prizes were given to 3 American born scientists and 4 non-American scientists. So pull your head out of what ever part ass it is wedged in and start looking at things critically instead of with rose colored glasses.
This post is in defense of American scientists and in no way is meant as a criticism of fabulous scientists in other countries or the work they do.

most countries have national curricula - not US by peter303 · 2012-06-05 04:27 · Score: 0

There is the mantra that education should be "local", but science knows no boundaries. I think this just a smokescreen for anti-environmentalism and anti-evolution.

Ironically our most Biblical president of recent times- GW Bush- did more to federalize elementary education with his national testing standards and funding thereof, than previous secular presidents. And Romney is proposing more federal tentacles into local education too.

Re:most countries have national curricula - not US by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-06-05 04:36 · Score: 1

The downward pressure on nationalizing education at is core is about an attempt to reduce taxes. Look at the percentage of your local taxes going to education. I was surprised by how huge it was which suddenly made all of the anti-DoE, anti-teacher rhetoric more understandable. The proponents think that removing federal constraints will allow local governments to reduce education commitments, pursue more "profitable" solutions, then reduce the local tax rate. If schools suffer, who gives a fuck because your kid is in private school.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

This is arguably a conservative political piece by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Their "scientfiic" analysis consists of:

1) Noting that science literacy among high-school aged test-takers increased 2%. with no offered hypothesis as to the cause of the increase
2) Noting that the US has top higher-education metrics (without noting the high number of foreigners producing those metrics)
3) Noting that there are some high-tech companies in the US and scientific achievements take place here sometimes
4) Noting that girls achieved parity with boys in math (not noting whether that was just because boys' scores fell, or what)
5) Noting that Bush's No Child Left Behind policies were in place during some of these events

That's it. Then they say they aren't defending NCLB and take a quick jab at Obama and immediately say they are actually not doing those things in the very next paragraph.

Also, this was a piece by RealClearPolitics, which is 51% owned by Forbes and is known for conservative bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

I'm... not convinced that their argument is sound, to say the least. And not only because they failed at any point to argue for a better metric than our actual test-score rankings. They basically say "we invented iPads therefore science education is fine".

This is a terrible link.

Re:This is arguably a conservative political piece by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 11:48 · Score: 0

They basically say "we invented iPads therefore science education is fine". This is a terrible link.
Face it, you're just jealous because you don't have an iPad.

Re:Where is why? by cpu6502 · 2012-06-05 04:31 · Score: 3, Informative

The "why" is in the article: "In 1964, the first time an international standardized test was given, American kids were next to last. In the most recent assessment, in 2009, the U.S. scored 17th in science out of 34 countries.

"So, why do Americans believe that science education is in a downward spiral when the empirical evidence shows the opposite? Because officials keep telling us that education is abysmal. Also, they seem to hold a grudge against No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which holds teachers accountable and could be responsible for the increase in test scores..... Be wary of education lobbyists who downplay our long track record of scientific success while simultaneously asking for more money. At $91,700 per pupil from kindergarten through twelfth grade, the U.S. is outspent only by Switzerland in the education arena. Cash is not a problem."

In other words we are told things are bad by UNIONS so they can demand more pay raises & more expensive toys in the classroom. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. EVERYBODY has a bias..... it's just a matter of digging to discover it.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

HERE is why. I had to RTF(links) by x_IamSpartacus_x · 2012-06-05 04:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Additionally, the latest study released by Universitas 21, a global network of research universities, concluded that the United States ranks No. 1 in the world in higher education — a metric that partially relies on scientific research output. (Sweden came in a distant second.)

From the description this seems like a stupid metric that would be obviously skewed towards countries with higher population. With a Sweden's population of almost 9.5 million verses the USA's 315 million one would HOPE that the scientific research output is significantly higher. While TFS doesn't go into depth about the actual metric, I figured I'd need to do some reading through some links.
I just looked at the report and it looks like the metric is more than that.

It has things like

Amount spent on tertiary ed (resources like "per student" "percent of GDP" "per population head" etc)
Proportion of female students in tertiary ed
Proportion of international students in tertiary ed
Total articles produced by higher ed facilities (gross AND per capita)

So it looks like that might not be that bad of a metric after all. It's far from perfect but there are probably few if any that are. All in all, I'm impressed that the USA is ranked number 1.

When looking through the ACTUAL scores of the different countries the USA scores a dismal 37 out of 50 in the "Proportion of international students in 3rd ed and proportion of articles co-authored by international collaborators". Where the USA far and away blows away the rest of the field is in the actual scientific article output (weighted by gross and per capita as noted above).

All in all, it's an interesting report that seems to fly in the face of most of slashdot's readership's (mine included) perception of the direction of the education system in the USA. Maybe most of the bad news is at the secondary education level?

Re:HERE is why. I had to RTF(links) by Sir_Sri · 2012-06-05 05:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

The US has been able to attract top notch scientists that speak english for a long time. As essentially the wealthiest country of the lot, and english forming the biggest scientific block there's a natural advantage there. The US also has universities that can pay top scientists relatively large amounts of money. I'm in canada and the university I'm at (and the department I'm in) have had two professors who are particularly well renowned in their field, with several prestigious awards. But they get paid the same as everyone else, because there's no room to give them extra money. We are fortunate their spouses have low mobility jobs. One passed away due to heart attack earlier this year so we're down to one. But either way. If they were in the US they'd be easily making 250k and potentially up over 300k whereas here they're stuck at 120 ish. There are only a handful of universities in canada, the UK etc that can pay a premium for premium staff, and even then they can only afford a small group of them, because they charge the same per student as we do. (This would be, in canada. University of Toronto, U of British Columbia, in the Uk Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial College and a few others). In the US Harvard can have as many 400k/year staff as it wants.
In terms of actual scientific output the US isn't in a bad place, unless you consider reliance on foreign born scientists a problem (which it sort of is, and sort of isn't). Where they're always struggling is in science education at lower levels. And even there, there's only so much you can do. If you need 300k people to work assembly lines and 3000 to design the cars that are made on the lines there's only so much motivation for people to be scientifically literate anyway. When you have a political party that institutionally ignores science there's a reinforcement mechanism for generations of people to not learn, and be proud of not learning.
Re:HERE is why. I had to RTF(links) by tburkhol · 2012-06-05 07:14 · Score: 1

If they were in the US they'd be easily making 250k and potentially up over 300k whereas here they're stuck at 120 ish.
I think you may be slightly misinformed about US faculty salaries. In the sciences, you should keep in mind that faculty are generally expected to bring in some (varying, but at least 25%) of their salary from extramural sources, which generally means the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health. The NIH salary cap is currently $199,700, which sets a de facto cap on most faculty salaries, because NIH frowns on double-billing (ie, on the university supplementing their maximum $16,642/month). In my experience, only senior administration - dean level and higher - are over $250k, but they're often not involved in science at that level.
Re:HERE is why. I had to RTF(links) by x_IamSpartacus_x · 2012-06-05 07:17 · Score: 1

But here's the thing; the WORST score for the USA in the metric used was the proportion of foreign contributors to the scientific output and of foreign students in tertiary education. So the SMALLEST contributor to the ranking of the USA was the foreign scientists that helped produce science. This means that although Canadian, UK, Swedish, German, or other nationality scientists may want to go get paid in America, they are making a smaller difference in the output of the science in the USA than foreign nationals are making in their own countries!
Heck, even the proportion of international students in 3rd ed in the USA is in that metric so this means that, as compared to the other countries in this study, the USA has a very low proportion of international students in science courses and a very low proportion of international contributors to its research.
Look in the link to the study in my GP post. Under point 2.3 is the definition of their "Connectivity" metric and under point 3.3 it explains the USA's low reliance on international collaboration in research.

The United States, Korea and Japan are in the bottom quartile for [international] research collaboration, in part reflecting the existence of a critical mass within the national research community.
Re:HERE is why. I had to RTF(links) by Sir_Sri · 2012-06-05 07:37 · Score: 1

I'm not misinformed. These guys would be one step down from Nobel prize winner sort of pay grade.
Most places in the US, and most professors in the US are in the same situation (good or bad depending on your perspective) as the rest of of the world, with unionized and defined pay packages.
But the US has a handful of places that can pluck out the truly exceptional and pay them really well. And while that can happen in canada and the UK, it's much much rarer.
Re:HERE is why. I had to RTF(links) by Sir_Sri · 2012-06-05 07:42 · Score: 1

Of course. Because once you've been a researcher in the US for a few years or so you can get citizenship, at which point you're no longer a foreigner, and your children aren't either and your publications aren't.
Re:HERE is why. I had to RTF(links) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 10:11 · Score: 0

Guys I most quickly found "one step down from Nobel prize winners":
M Howard Lee, Professor at UGA, nominated in 2010 for the Nobel Prize in Physics. 2011 salary: $101,173.
Susan Wessler, Prof Genetics, National Academy of Sciences, 2011 salary $104,078
Jeffery Bennetzen (Chair of Genetics UGA), National Academy of Sciences, 2011 salary $263,159
Places like Harvard often treat their faculty poorly, including salary, because they can always find smart people willing to make substantial sacrifices just to be at Harvard.

Re:Where is why? by smooth+wombat · 2012-06-05 04:33 · Score: 2

Science can't happen if you cannot communicate your work to others...

That applies to any job. Using my place of work as an example, there is zero communication between what the other bureaus need and the IT department. We routinely have people send us an email telling us they have someone that started that day and need an account and equipment set up.

When it comes to cabling, same thing. A room gets redone, the support services area has maintenance effectively cut and pull every cable rather than leaving them in place, then we're told a few days before the people are to move in that ends for the cables need put on. In fact, as I'm writing this, my supervisor told no one in particular of this very incident. Someone sent them an email saying an end needed put on a cable for a new employee. What new employee and where is this cable?

So it's not just science that needs communication, it's everything. Yet, instead of communicating, we prefer to stick our heads in the sand and walk around with our eyes glued to a 3" screen because having to communicate is such an arduous task.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

continued upward trend? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:33 · Score: 0

The authors touting the progress of our current science education refer to 2 points as a “continued upward trend” - clearly nothing to worry about!

Re:continued upward trend? by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-06-05 04:55 · Score: 1

Well, of course. At this rate it's only 17 years until we're all perfect in science!

It is an easy claim. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:35 · Score: 0

Especially when the tests get simpler every year.

Looking at a chart shows improvement...

Unfortunately the chart is worthless.

Try something simple. Take a standard test from 1955 and give it to the same class level now.

Will the current score be better?

Most unlikely.

Bullshit. by bmo · 2012-06-05 04:35 · Score: 0, Troll

We are 5 voting percentage points from shoving religion into science classes nation-wide. The know-nothings and American Taliban (dominionists, christian reconstructionists, etc) are so bent upon bringing Gawd's Word and the law of Leviticus to the land that they have been trying, and succeeding, in getting into positions of power. It truly is frightening, and the next thing you know, Pi is going to equal 3 because that's what it says in the Bible.

The amount of people who believe in strict creationism is stunning. It is fully half of the US population, and another big chunk believe that God directly guides evolution if it exists at all. Anti-science is all the rage, because it makes people who don't actually know anything believe that their opinion is just as good as someone who holds a doctorate in physics.

http://news.yahoo.com/nearly-half-americans-believe-creationism-212000630.html

And these people are your neighbors, so they determine who is on the school boards and what textbooks get bought. Have we forgotten recent history? Have we forgotten the Dover PA school district?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Have we forgotten this too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/law-allows-creationism-to-be-taught-in-tenn-public-schools/2012/04/11/gIQAAjqxAT_story.html

A bill that allows Tennessee public school teachers to teach alternatives to mainstream scientific theories such as evolution will become law this month after the governor refused to sign or veto the measure, The Washington Postâ(TM)s Valerie Strauss reports.

Without good books, good curricula, and school boards that are not going to pander to the religious nutbags (or not be religious nutbags themselves as in Dover), the science education gets short shrift, which happens too often.

Yes, it is fucking abysmal, and don't let anyone tell you differently.

--
BMO

Re:Bullshit. by Government+Drone · 2012-06-05 05:11 · Score: 2

A measly 5 percentage points from "shoving religion into classes nationwide"? You're making the EXTREMELY questionable assumption that "the know-nothings and American Taliban (dominionists, christian reconstructionists, etc) " are: (a) near, if not in excess of, 51% of the voters, & (b) unified & organized enough to pursue a common agenda. As best as I can tell, the largest & best-organized religion in the US is the Roman Catholic Church, which is a little above 20% of the population, & has no beef either with evolution or the value of pi. The fundamentalists are largely in the Evangelical Protestant wing of Christianity, which is much more given to being a bunch of independent congregations, & not necessarily united beyond a few general doctrinal principles. And, despite the best efforts of the last 40 years, school curricula are still largely determined at the state or local levels; your illusory "dominionists" wouldn't be able to advance their doctrines too far, even if they do take over the US Department of Education. And, given the suspicion & resentment many Christian fundamentalists have to the national government, their first reactions might be to gut those federal programs anyway, making it quite difficult for anyone to easily achieve dominance over the nation's schools.
Re:Bullshit. by Minwee · 2012-06-05 05:18 · Score: 1

Yes, it is fucking abysmal, and don't let anyone tell you differently.
Why do you hate America?
Here we have a respectable newspaper which you know you can trust because it has "USA" in its name (and when you see "USA", think "Fuck, Yeah!") telling you that everything is fine and you don't need to worry about anything other than buying more iPads. Why do you need to inject all of your terrorist-loving, child-molesting, "facts" into the discussion? It's already fair and balanced enough as it is.
Please. let the experts do the thinking for you. That's what they are paid for.
Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:28 · Score: 0

Would it be smart-alecky to point out that pi does equal three if you adhere to scientific notation?
Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:31 · Score: 0

Yes, fully half believe in "creationism" according to many surveys. But seriously, if you know anything about research methodologies, you should know that surveys are one of the most unreliable ways to collect information. For example, often this question is usually phrased, "Do you believe that God created the Universe?". So, many people answer affirmatively. Because they simply answered yes, now they're labeled creationists. If better research was done, and less vague questions were asked, I do believe it would show that most people believe in some kind of "higher power", if you will, but do not seem to have any problem in believing that the origins in life came about through the means of evolutionary principles over the course of millions of years. Now granted, whether one is a theist or an atheist, I do believe that one should keep one's religious ideas out of the classroom when discussing a scientific topic as such ideas aren't falsifiable. But to be so sensationalist as to say that because someone answered that they believe that God created the Universe must mean that he did it in 7 days only 10,000 years ago out of thin air is just absolutely preposterous. Not that I think you claimed this my good sir, but I often hear rhetoric to this effect; and it has disgusted me both in my bouts as a theist and as an atheist.
Re:Bullshit. by bmo · 2012-06-05 10:50 · Score: 1

>(b) unified & organized enough to pursue a common agenda
We had 4 of them running for the Republican Nomination.
The common agenda are philosophies that has been adopted by many evangelical churches. The Christian Warrior movement, etc.
>Roman Catholic Church
Santorum is Opus Dei and makes no apologies about it. It's a powerful fundamentalist cult within the RCC.
>has no beef either with evolution
You know nothing of Opus Dei and this proves it.
>The fundamentalists are largely in the Evangelical Protestant wing of Christianity,
And we have a lot of them here in the US. It's very popular. They are what got Reagan elected, and they have been taking over the Republican Party ever since. Barry Goldwater hated it. He said that the RNC will never be rid of them, and he's right.
>which is much more given to being a bunch of independent congregations,
You don't have a clue about the Southern Baptist convention and other large fundamentalist evangelical organizations.
>illusory "dominionists"
What the hell do you think The Family is?
>wouldn't be able to advance their doctrines too far,
But they already do, as seen in the farkin' URLs I've listed, and it hasn't happened just once.
>And, given the suspicion & resentment many Christian fundamentalists have to the national government
Not when they're trying to run it. We had 4 christian fundamentalists running for the Republican nomination for President. This is not the last we'll see of their type. There is one thing about religious fundamentalists you need to learn: Since they are convinced that they are so bloody "right" they will not simply give up - they will instead redouble their efforts.
You have not paid attention to politics of the last 40 years *at all*
>I get modded flamebait
Yeah, I stepped on someone's toes.
Suggested reading: the best synopsis of Dominionism, Politics, and where we're headed.
http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm
Read that and think about what various candidates like Palin, Bachmann, Perry, etc, said in their campaigning.
What's happening to the Republican Party makes me pine for the old days of Tricky Dick. It's that screwed up.
--
BMO
Re:Bullshit. by bmo · 2012-06-05 11:23 · Score: 1

>But seriously, if you know anything about research methodologies
I do. And if you pay attention, it's not just one survey, it's surveys time-and-again come up with the same numbers even though they're different polls, different orgs, and different sets of questions.
My parents for the longest time were Young Earth Creationists, because both were brought up Catholic before the Second Vatican Council. They are typical Americans and true New Englanders at heart. Dad is smart as a whip. They have also more-or-less given up on me seeing things from their side, religiously. It's their own fault really, because they taught me and my brother to think for ourselves.
They had to shut up and smile when my brother got his degree in Anthropology.
Granted that this is a sample of 1 family, but mathematically the split is 50 percent.
Getting back to whether people are YECs or OECs or "Guided Evolution" or some such nonsense, if you read the Yahoo link, the Gallup poll differentiated between YEC and people who think God plays lesser roles in the Universe. So no, it's not just lumping everyone in one group.
As for religious ideas in the science classroom, the default should always be atheist - that God does not directly influence the universe, ever, because once you start inserting God and religion, then it's not science any more. Reserve the religious discussion for comparative religion, sociology, psychology, and history classes.
And if you're going to teach the Biblical creation story, then teach all of them, including his noodly appendage, the FSM, because that's just as valid as any other myth.
--
BMO

Re:Where is why? by eternaldoctorwho · 2012-06-05 04:36 · Score: 1

Yea, but since when is that news?

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-06-05 04:36 · Score: 1

They siphon billions away from education and into worthless metrics that tell you little of value.

Individual student assessment may be valuable, but a whole class, school, district, even state?

Everything, and I mean everything is a competition. A competition for accolades, for funding, even for bragging rights. Each class in a school is competing against each other using these standardized test scores. Same with the schools within a district, districts within a state, and states in the US. It's how we justify our contempt and condemnation of others.

Politically motivated article by nine-times · 2012-06-05 04:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Claiming that the US is #1 in the world-- check.

Vague accusations of anti-Bush bias-- check.

Implication that teachers can't stand to be held accountable-- check.

Assumption that the government spends too much on education and wants to spend more-- check.

Hinting that Obama is subverting the system for political motives-- check.

Whether or not the article has a good point-- it may be true that we're not as badly off as we think-- the article is written in a divisive way by someone who clearly leans toward the Republican end of things. Throughout the article, there's the running implication that all the doom and gloom is a scam, perpetrated by Democrats, in order to get more funding for education. However, even if we stipulate that our educational system is good, there's still another explanation: As a rule, people throughout history have believed that "the system" is falling apart and they were witnessing the downfall of civilization.

However, I would offer another interpretation of what's going on. For one thing, I would be very careful about trusting any particular standardized test, and even about trusting standardized tests in general. When you say, "Students scored higher on the ABC test this year than the year before!" you can't necessarily assume that students have been educated better. It may be a reflection of changes made to the test. The increase may not be statistically significant. It may be that the teachers started "teaching to the test" at the expense of other lessons. It may be that the school system pulled some other shenanigans to manipulate the test scores. It may be that the test was simply poorly formed in the first place, and is not actually a good reflection of the educational level of the students.

The article begins with a quote about how education is suffering, and then goes on to note that the quote is from *all the way* back in 1983. This may be a sign that the doom-saying has been going on for a long time and does not reflect a real problem. Or it might mean that the educational system has been suffering since at least as far back as 1983. In fact, I'm sure that there are people who would claim that to be the case.

Re:Politically motivated article by TubeSteak · 2012-06-05 05:35 · Score: 1

When you say, "Students scored higher on the ABC test this year than the year before!" you can't necessarily assume that students have been educated better. It may be a reflection of changes made to the test.

Almost all standardized tests include a section (or two) that isn't graded.
It's there so that the test writers can experiment with new questions and normalize them against the existing question bank.

The increase may not be statistically significant. It may be that the teachers started "teaching to the test" at the expense of other lessons. It may be that the school system pulled some other shenanigans to manipulate the test scores. It may be that the test was simply poorly formed in the first place, and is not actually a good reflection of the educational level of the students.
These are all valid criticisms and there have been a few scandals that have burned school districts for systematic changing of test answers.
But average score changes are rarely a result of changes to the test.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Politically motivated article by nine-times · 2012-06-05 05:52 · Score: 1

But average score changes are rarely a result of changes to the test.
I don't have any way of knowing this. Even if I did know that this sort of thing was "rare", it still wouldn't tell me whether it was the case with the specific test the article write cited.
Aside from that, it's only addressing one minor point that goes to the larger thrust of my argument: statistics are tricky business, and often don't demonstrate what people think they do. There are many varied ways in which a standardized test might fail to give an accurate account of the student's educational level, or in which an analysis of the compiled results might fail to give an accurate picture of what's going on in the country as a whole.
I wouldn't suggest that we should refuse to use statistics and metrics to evaluate our education system, but only that you should be careful in analyzing them. I don't trust the guy who wrote this article to have provided a decent analysis.
Re:Politically motivated article by javaxjb · 2012-06-05 08:12 · Score: 2

I was puzzled by their reference to a study placing the cost of K - 12 education at the second highest at $91,700 per student (that is a cumulative cost, not annual). The study coves ages 6 - 15, but states K - 12, which would typically be 5 - 18. A look at the PDF, suggests that the headline is just the 6 - 15 age group as it reports, "A high school graduate in 2009 had $149,000 spent on his 13 year public school education." It also states that the US pays more for only middle of the road results that have not improved over the years. I'm assuming on a relative basis with the other countries, since there is an overall inflation of test scores over time, As I read it, the study the article cites actually contradicts the conclusions in the article.
As an interesting aside, that cost of public school education is a lower annual rate than we pay for daycare (and our daycare costs are lower than average in our area). Considering that other studies have shown that earlier education opportunies (like good daycare) and supplemental learning over the summer months improve scores, I would suggest that NCLB is a failure precisely because it puts the emphasis on the wrong things. Why not focus on year-round learning (not necessarly more school days, but shorter breaks 3 or 4 times per year? And maybe work on getting more kids in a learning environment before Kindergarten (especially those at risk for underperformance).

--
Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
Re:Politically motivated article by yams69 · 2012-06-05 12:47 · Score: 1

You nailed it.

Considering his upcoming book references "the anti-scientific left" in its title, gee, I wonder how "fair and balanced" this author for The American Spectator, The National Review, and RealClear____ is?

Any political movement that denies global warming and supports creationism has a few screws loose and should not be lecturing the rest of the country on its scientific literacy.

Save it for FoxNews, Alex.

short summary by phantomfive · 2012-06-05 04:36 · Score: 1

The article says it's ok because in the 60s science education was even worse, and we still did things like the Space Program and Silicon Valley, besides China has even worse science literacy (among adults), so that's why we don't need to worry.

Personally I think our biggest problem is that the natural incentives are wrong, from the top to the bottom. Thus you have teachers who are really good being pushed out, whereas crappy teachers can get tenure after two years and are very hard to fire (note this makes it hard to mentor teachers who could otherwise be good, since it is high risk). You have students who are being taught garbage, no wonder they're bored. Superintendents are stuck as paper-work monkeys, since they have to navigate all the red tape, and legislatures are trying to score political points by starting arguments about evolution.

I would guess if you let parents choose the schools, maybe use a voucher system or something, then it would start to improve. Schools that showed good outcomes would become more popular, and schools that showed worse outcomes would cease to exist. This would be based on real world outcomes, not on synthetic, standardized tests. This is something I'd like to see implemented on a small scale, maybe in a few states, and if it works, could be expanded. If it doesn't then we can try something else. That is the advantage of the federal system, after all.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:short summary by toadlife · 2012-06-05 04:53 · Score: 1

I would guess if you let parents choose the schools, maybe use a voucher system or something, then it would start to improve. Schools that showed good outcomes would become more popular, and schools that showed worse outcomes would cease to exist.
What you are describing already exists. Read up on charter schools. They have not turned out to be a panacea.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Re:short summary by phantomfive · 2012-06-05 05:14 · Score: 2

Charter schools are different.

What I am talking about is giving consumers (parents) the ability to choose better schools over worse schools. This seems like an obvious principle, but right now, schools are chosen based on residency location, which means real-estate in good school districts is priced artificially high, and if you're poor, you have no opportunity to move to a good school district. Under the current system, only rich people can afford to live in a good school district.

Charter schools give freedom to the schools to teach however they want, with less government influence. This could be good, or it could be bad. A voucher system lets parents choose the school. These two are orthogonal concepts: they can be used together, but they don't need to be. I don't see how a charter system without ability to choose would change any incentives, though. Also, be careful whose propaganda you are reading, there are a lot of non-neutral viewpoints on this topic.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:short summary by toadlife · 2012-06-05 06:53 · Score: 1

My concern over both charter and voucher systems are pretty much the same; That they will inevitably result in society segregating themselves class and in some areas of the country, racial lines.
With both systems, children whose parents lack the financial resources needed to transport their children to schools that are many miles outside of their district will inevitably be left behind. You will end up with a system where the charter a private schools get the students whose parents have the most resources and motivation and the public schools are left with...the leftovers.
This in, in my opinion, a system which is designed to destroy the public school systems as we know it.
The biggest problem with our schools systems is child poverty. Charter school systems and voucher programs do not address this issue at all.
I happen to live in one the poorest congressional districts (a quick check shows #6) in the nation and have four kids two of which are in school. We have a local charter middle school and I have observed the exact phenomenon I described above. Kids that are enrolled in the charter middle school are almost exclusively from middle to upper middle class households.
Ironically, we will almost certainly be enrolling our kids into the charter school when they reach that age. Even though we don't think it's the best option for society as a whole, my wife and I have agreed that it's the best option for our kids at this time.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Re:short summary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:01 · Score: 0

My concern over both charter and voucher systems are pretty much the same; That they will inevitably result in society segregating themselves class and in some areas of the country, racial lines.
I'm not sure you understand that this is already how it is. The only problem is there's no way to escape your crappy low-class school if you're poor, because you have to go to the school district you live in.
If you're rich, you can move to a good school, if you're not, then you can't. People won't segregate themselves racially any more than they already do when they choose where they live. (posting anon, at work)
Re:short summary by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-06-05 07:28 · Score: 1

While I agree that charter schools are not lived up to all the promises that were made the same could be said about public schools. Some of the schools are doing quite well while others suck ass. A few days ago the local paper I get had an article covering just this as 20 years ago the first charter school opened in Minnesota. Now charter schools in Minnesota are not as free to do as the want like most people believe as they are still public schools and must take anyone who applies provided that there is space. If there isn't space then students go onto a waiting list or there is a lottery for spots. The only real priorities given to an individual student is if they have a sibling that is also going to or has gone to the school. They are also not exempted from the various sets of standardized tests that are imposed by the state and feds.

As my wife has worked in both traditional public as well as charter schools as a teacher I have ended up with a rather unique insight. The standard public schools have figured out that it is beneficial to try and dump their problem children into charters as they no longer have to deal with the problems. This was an unofficial policy as teachers were encouraged to suggest to parents of problem children that their child would be better served by the smaller class sizes, more individual attention, different environment, etc that are offered by a charter. This removes a sizable portion of the problem children from the standard public school roles while substantially increasing the number of problem children in the charters. I have watched this and currently the class my wife is teaching has 8 out of 22 students having behavioral, ADD, ADHD, or some form of autism spectrum disorder with the other class in the grade having 7in these categories. The class coming up next year is worse with 18 special needs children out of 44 and the worst one being a child that in a normal public school setting would be 1 on 1 with an aid 75% of the time (the parent decided to move the child to a charter eventhough they couldn't provide the necessary services). Also charter schools are even more money strapped than regular schools since they only get the state and federal money (no local money from property tax), don't get to own their own building and have to pay rent, still have to provide transportation to any student who is located in the same physical school district that the charter is located in (regular public school only have to do this for students who are in the boundary for each school). Given all of that it seems amazing that there is any success at all in charters. What would do the most good would be to remove the behavioral, ADD, ADHD, and autism spectrum children and have schools setup that can deal with them as these are the students that actively detract from the learning of the other students.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:short summary by toadlife · 2012-06-05 07:59 · Score: 1

I'm not sure you understand that this is already how it is.
No, I do understand that that is how it is. The charter and voucher systems only serve to make the problem worse.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Re:short summary by toadlife · 2012-06-05 08:29 · Score: 1

Yeah one of my children is one of those "problem children" that some educators want to cast away into K-12 leper colonies. He also scores off the charts in all of the standardized tests.
The school in our district wanted to put him into the classes with DD (and when I say DD, I mean the "short bus" kids, not the ADHD ones) children. We were appalled.
Because the school was identified for PI under NCLB, we were able to transfer him to a neighboring school eight miles away.
Magically, the problems with his behavior virtually disappeared at the new school. I attribute to the leadership. The leadership at the school in our local district honestly didn't seem to give a shit when our son was there, while the people at the neighboring district are engaged and really seem to care.
I'm not an expert at pedagogy, but there has to a better way of dealing with kids like mine who don't quite conform to behavioral norms than to toss them in a pen together.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Re:short summary by phantomfive · 2012-06-05 13:43 · Score: 1

Really? Are you sure? A) People who are going to self-segregate already do so by choosing where they live, and B) it will cause less segregation in schools because some people who would normally choose their living location based on racial/economic reasons will actively choose a school based on the quality of the school, not for the same reason they chose their living location.

I'm not sure why you say the voucher system would make it worse.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:short summary by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-06-06 02:23 · Score: 1

There is a difference between not fitting within behavioral norms and deciding that it is a good to threaten other students and teachers, throw things, etc. From what I have experienced with various teachers is that the real problem children are the ones that the parents don't give a shit about, or believe that everyone is out to get their child who is perfect (one of my friend's is like this with his kids). Also when I say these students should be in special classes I don't mean the warehousing that is basically done now with them but actually creating a good environment where they can actually become functional productive members of society. Unfortunately to do that requires additional resources which could be squandered elsewhere like on sports or administration. I also don't agree with putting all of the kids with the various issues in the same class as that really does a disservice to all of them as children with downs need different care and attention from the ADHD needs which is different from the various autism spectrum needs.

To me it sounds like the school really wasn't engaging with your child which really is a problem in a lot of schools. I was treated much the same when my family moved from the inner city to the suburbs. My rather crappy (funding and building wise) inner city school recognized that I was above average and I was moved off to special classes, yet when I was transferred to the suburban school district they put me in regular classes where I was board. I remember sitting with my mother and the school consular when they were trying to place me and the consular stated that even though I was in the advanced classes in my inner city school I should be in the regular classes here because they were supposedly more advanced than the ones I was previously taking. My mom fought had to get me properly placed but it didn't happen until I eventually made it to high school. So for the next 3 years I sat in classes in which I was board out of my mind being rather disruptive (I would talk to those around me) because it was so simple. I had one middle school teacher realize that I was board and not stupid but there wasn't anything he could do other than have me work on other stuff in his class like fractals with a proper understanding of fractional dimensions, how to calculate them and what they mean, countable and uncountable infinities, trig, introduction to linear algebra, etc. Once I was placed in the correct group my sophomore year in high school the behavior issues went away and by the time I graduated high school I had managed to earn enough college credit to have sophomore standing.

--
Time to offend someone

Without reading TFA... by toadlife · 2012-06-05 04:36 · Score: 5, Informative

...I would guess that the answer is poverty. My wife and I went to see Cornell West speak several months ago and one of the things he pointed out about our educational system is that if you take out the test scores of children who are living in poverty, the U.S. ranks at or near number one in the world in education.

Currently the U.S. has the second worst child poverty rate of the 23 countries listed here, and higher education rankings general correlate with lower child poverty rates.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.

Re:Without reading TFA... by SoupGuru · 2012-06-05 06:16 · Score: 3, Funny

I have a modest proposal to quickly raise our test scores.

--
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Re:Without reading TFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:50 · Score: 0

delicious!

Problem is... by TallDarkMan · 2012-06-05 04:37 · Score: 2, Informative

At $91,700 per pupil from kindergarten through twelfth grade, the U.S. is outspent only by Switzerland in the education arena. Cash is not a problem.

...what we actually have to do is spend that much on each student, rather than on the over-paid administration.

--
Will draft for food...

Re:Problem is... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-05 06:28 · Score: 1

That is not the problem.
In the US suburban school districts do extremely well in international comparisons.
The problem is the performance of children from economically stressed families. Their performance is horrific which is why the US averages are so low.
There is flat out something wrong with a society where a group this large is shut out from all opportunity to improve their lot in life.
And the problem is not in the schools. This children are doomed to fail by the environment they are subjected to from birth.
Re:Problem is... by gizmo_mathboy · 2012-06-05 07:24 · Score: 1

That is an average of $7642/year/student.
In Indiana, it is about $5,000 (for K-6). That is what is used to pay for the teacher's salary, any specialists (like art, special ed, etc.), any administrators (like a receptionist, principal, etc.), any bonds that need to be paid, any utilities, the list goes on.
And you wonder why there are 30+ kids to a classroom? Even if you cut the administration to the bone you still have lots of expenses that a school has to cover as a result of federal, state, and district mandates.
Re:Problem is... by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 09:04 · Score: 1

"the over-paid administration."
School administrators rarely get the 6 and 7 figure salaries that CEO's from corporate testing and educational companies do, nor do they have the lobbying and PR staff that is at the disposal of the CEO's. Take the 6 and 7 figure incomes out of the education business and you will see education improve dramatically.
Re:Problem is... by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 09:05 · Score: 1

"This children are doomed to fail by the environment they are subjected to from birth."
Translation: their fellow citizens.

A counter, from Slate by whitroth · 2012-06-05 04:37 · Score: 1

Excerpt:
American kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking
standardized tests.

On a morning visit to a Northern California middle school, I saw not a
single student. The principal showed me around campus, but I didn’t see or
hear students talking, playing, or moving about. The science lab was
empty, as were the library and the playground. It was not a school
holiday: It was a state-mandated STAR testing day. The school was in an
academic lockdown. A volunteer manned a table filled with cupcakes, a
small reward for students at day’s end.

This is what the American public school looks like in 2012, driven by
obsessive adherence to standardized testing. The fate of children, their
schools, and their teachers are based on these school test scores. I
wondered what kind of tests the students were taking. The California
Department of Education’s STAR website has sample test questions, and I
started looking through them randomly. Soon, I came across the following
reading comprehension question about the proper use of a microscope, shown
in the illustration below.
Proper Care and Use of a Microscope diagram

As I examined the test question, two things became apparent.

The test has become a teaching tool. Since students weren’t expected
to know from experience what a microscope is, the test must explain
what a microscope does, what the parts are named, and how to use it.
It failed to convey that the whole purpose of having a microscope is
to see things that you can’t see with the naked eye.
--- end excerpt ---

And while we're at it, tell me how many kids, or adults in the US, "don't believe" in evolution. Or spending more money on basic research (something corporations *don't* do). Or how many characters on TV are competant to clean their toasters without getting electrocuted.

mark

Re:A counter, from Slate by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-06-05 07:54 · Score: 1

This is why I will be taking a very active role in supplementing my children's education. My oldest (3 years old) is just a little sponge and I enjoy filling his head with knowledge and activities that encourage this. His latest new interest has been rockets as he saw a rocket launch in some cartoon so I showed him one of the NASA space shuttle launches and he was fascinated. So I went and got a model rocket kit and we spent a rainy afternoon assembling it together (I did most of the work but he was there "helping") and explaining what the different parts were and what they did. Last Saturday was the first day where it was nice enough to launch it (no rain and little wind), and we had fun the whole time. Last summer we went up to the iron range and saw the old equipment and active mine. I explained how the different machines worked, what they did, and why they were needed. He had a great time playing on the big shovels, buckets, excavators, steam train, 240 ton trucks, etc and learned a lot. Same thing with the threshing show last fall. Currently he has been learning about plants from the garden that we put in earlier this spring. There are lots of things like this where every day activities are a learning activity.

--
Time to offend someone

Re:Where is why? by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-05 04:38 · Score: 1

Having read TFA, I believe the premise is while scientific literacy in US adults is a rather low percentage, we're still miles ahead of the rest of the world.

I, for one, would like to know what metric they use to determine a person's level of "scientific literacy."

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by cpu6502 · 2012-06-05 04:38 · Score: 0

The "worthless" metrics you cite show that the U.S. rose from 33 in 1964 to 16th most recently. How is this not worth noting? And it appears President Clinton's No Child Left Behind, which requires frequent testing to measure if students are really learning, is working. Science scores are going UP not down.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

the best or highest average? by dropadrop · 2012-06-05 04:40 · Score: 1

I'm from Finland which always does well in these tests, though we don't have any (internationally) praised universities or a lot of anything else remarkable.

I've understood we do well because of how little bad cases we have, rather then how good our top students are. I don't know what's more important on the long run, the top students would certainly come up with more groundbreaking ideas and research, while in theory a higher average could keep national unrest and criminality levels low.

Anyway, my picture from here on the other side of the world is that you have some of the best schools and students, and if somebody is really bright he will have a lot more possibilities there then here. On the other hand I imagine you also have a lot of people who don't get very good quality education, and that if you are a drop out from a bad family nobody will give a lot of effort to help you out.

Re:the best or highest average? by TheLink · 2012-06-05 05:56 · Score: 1

In a democracy a higher average is very important in the long run. As it means the voters won't be as stupid.

Also a high average means more of the population will be remain competitive for a longer time against the cheap lower educated people in other countries, and also the hard working machines that are increasingly getting smarter.

Yes you need geniuses. But you don't need that many, and it's easier to move geniuses to your country than to "move" 60% of your population once they get "stuck".
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Re:Where is why? by Chris+Burke · 2012-06-05 04:41 · Score: 1

Gee, perhaps the "here's why" could be referring to the article linked immediately prior?

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Science VS religion - A Straw Man ... by perpenso · 2012-06-05 04:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

The whole science vs religion thing is a straw man. The idea of the rational unbiased scientist is also somewhat mythological. This history of the big bang theory, the current prevailing cosmological theory on the original of the universe, is quite insightful. The theory was offered by a Roman Catholic priest. Some of the leading scientists of the day dismissed this theory merely because it was developed by a priest, they dismissed it as "smelling of creationism".

If you want to make a claim that some group is anti-science it would be accurate to say that *some* churches may be so. The truth is that many other churches are perfectly fine with science. That scientific observations and discoveries are not in conflict with faith. Again, the whole notion of the universe originating in a big bang billions of years ago came from a priest. The western tradition of the scientific method was promoted by a bishop and other members of the clergy. The Roman Catholic church operates a world class observatory doing serious cosmological research in cooperation with other leading world class universities.

To say that religion is anti-science, well, that seems to display a mindset awfully similar to some preacher claiming that the earth was created six thousand years ago. Both comments delivered with absolute authority and passion, both comments being objectively and demonstrably false, both comments none the less held as as articles of *faith* of their respective mindsets. Reality if far more complicated than either of these mindsets believe.

Re:Science VS religion - A Straw Man ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:31 · Score: 0

Tell it to Galileo.
Re:Science VS religion - A Straw Man ... by LateArthurDent · 2012-06-05 06:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

The [Big Bang] theory was offered by a Roman Catholic priest. Some of the leading scientists of the day dismissed this theory merely because it was developed by a priest, they dismissed it as "smelling of creationism".
Not because it came from a priest, but because the church was specifically trying to frame it as proof of creation. Lamaitre had to write the pope telling him the science implied no such thing and asking him to please stop saying it did.
Basically, even while being a priest, Lamaitre was wise enough to keep religion out of his science.
Re:Science VS religion - A Straw Man ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:18 · Score: 0

You're right Science has never been at the mercy of religion. That Galileo guy was just unlucky.
Re:Science VS religion - A Straw Man ... by perpenso · 2012-06-05 06:27 · Score: 2

The [Big Bang] theory was offered by a Roman Catholic priest. Some of the leading scientists of the day dismissed this theory merely because it was developed by a priest, they dismissed it as "smelling of creationism".
Not because it came from a priest, but because the church was specifically trying to frame it as proof of creation. Lamaitre had to write the pope telling him the science implied no such thing and asking him to please stop saying it did. Basically, even while being a priest, Lamaitre was wise enough to keep religion out of his science.
I do not believe that would "exonerate" those scientists. Whether the pope liked or disliked a scientific theory is irrelevant from a scientific perspective. The fact that they made such a comment still indicates an inherent hostility to the theory due to its possible alignment with a theology. They seem to have acted very much like that pope, forming an opinion on a scientific theory due to possible alignment with a theology, merely of the opposite "polarity".
Re:Science VS religion - A Straw Man ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:44 · Score: 1

Tell it to Galileo.
Actually, the Catholic church of Galileo's day had ruled that heliocentrism was a possibility but not an established fact. Is that not similar to the definition of a theory? What got Galileo into trouble was actually that he appeared to be attacking the pope in his writings. There was not an inherent problem with heliocentrism, a theory originally advanced by Copernicus, a member of the Catholic clergy. Heliocentrism merely got caught up in the politics that Galileo was advancing.
Re:Science VS religion - A Straw Man ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:50 · Score: 0

You're right Science has never been at the mercy of religion. That Galileo guy was just unlucky.
That Galileo guy got in trouble due to political writings. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2896467&cid=40222903

And science has never been at the mercy of politics within science? Go talk to the guys doing the original research into string theory back in the day. Its politics and science that do not mix, not science and religion.
Re:Science VS religion - A Straw Man ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:17 · Score: 0

It's hard to say that religion is anti-science when Pope John XXI was a university teacher and actually died while working in his lab. Most of the cases of Religion vs Science are actually cases of "certain scientific views" vs. "new scientific view", given that Science at that time was mostly done by priests and noblemans.
There are some religious groups that are definitely anti-science, but so there are a lot of non-religious groups that are anti-science. In fact, anti-science was until a few years ago the exclusive domain of atheistic left thinkers, which have filled the universities with plenty of pseudosciences ("soft sciences") created ad hoc to disguise their flawed marxists, post-modernist and malthusian views as Science. For more information, search for the "Science wars" in google.
Re:Science VS religion - A Straw Man ... by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 08:23 · Score: 1

"I do not believe that would "exonerate" those scientists."
If anyone needed exoneration, it would be the pope.
Re:Science VS religion - A Straw Man ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 03:41 · Score: 0

Ockham's razor... it's a rule of thumb that isn't ALWAYS correct, but it can save a lot of time. Someone coming up with a field-changing idea without being a professional scientist, and potentially having a religious agenda... I can see how this would be easy to dismiss. It's good that there are sometimes individuals in a field who take the time to explore ideas such as these as an intellectual exercise even though it's usually a waste of time.

Re:Where is why? by jellomizer · 2012-06-05 04:42 · Score: 1

I think the key issue, is that Americans as a culture are not book learned, but practical learned. Standardized tests are good for people who read books and then can regurgitate what they read, they don't need to have a drive to really understand the information, they just need to know X = Y and they don't really care why X = Y.

Asian Cultures are far more booked learned. I remember in college there was this Chinese kid who kept of killing the Test Curve. However when he had to do project work he just sucked at it. A Senior Computer Science major shouldn't need to ask what Data Type does Decimal Points... As the information is no longer tested it left his brain. He complained how Americans never really read books. However the Top Performers did a lot of time practicing and understanding.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:42 · Score: 0

When a strawwoman argument comes up, we're too busy to type.

Re:Where is why? by iserlohn · 2012-06-05 04:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

WTF, another union bashing post? There are lobbyists everywhere - think textbook publishers, Universities, people that want to privatize the public educations system, etc. that would all gain by downplaying the success of the education system.

When you look at the pay, I don't think you can call a teacher's salary high by any standard.

--
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers

50+% believe Creationism over Evolution. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:42 · Score: 0

Dismal.

Re:50+% believe Creationism over Evolution. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:43 · Score: 0

[citation needed]. I've never seen anything higher than 46%. Which is still depressing, but not 50+%. But at least 2/3 still think evolution should be taught, just along side creationism.

Evidence contrary to TFA. by khasim · 2012-06-05 04:43 · Score: 1

I think the fact that someone mod'ed that "Insightful" is all the evidence needed to contradict the USA Today story.

Re:Evidence contrary to TFA. by geoffrobinson · 2012-06-05 08:59 · Score: 1

Since education is controlled at the local and state level, why should we think a large government organization created in the late 70s is necessary for good education?

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

Tests, Opinions, and Other Things by Gimbal · 2012-06-05 04:44 · Score: 1

I understand that the matter of students' performance on standardized tests could serve to produce some statistical basis for discussion. It's my impression that for some points of view in which it would be held that national science education is lacking, those points of view may not be based so much on results of standardized tests, however, as much as on opinion and, perhaps, also experience - namely experience outside of the context of any predictable, standardized test.

Then again, I'm also no fan of the idea, "We're doing good enough.* Let's do even worse, 'cos we can relax now, after all."

* or well enough either.

Re:Where is why? by jythie · 2012-06-05 04:44 · Score: 2

Including the author, who is a supporter of NCLB and wants to paint it in as positive a light as possible.

FTA - NCLB by AtomicAdam · 2012-06-05 04:45 · Score: 1

Revealing my age. I will say that I was taught that "No child left behind" was terrible during my Senior year of HS. But FTA

Yes, that's right. Test scores have increased since NCLB passed in 2002. Reading scores also are up slightly, and girls achieved parity with boys in mathematics. This is a monumental victory.

I guess holding someone accountable for what they do, DOES make them work harder.

Be wary of education lobbyists who downplay our long track record of scientific success while simultaneously asking for more money. At $91,700 per pupil from kindergarten through twelfth grade, the U.S. is outspent only by Switzerland in the education arena. Cash is not a problem. If we are to fix the science education "problem" — to the extent that there even is a problem — the current data support adding science to NCLB. Instead, the Obama administration is issuing waivers. Our point is not to defend NCLB or any particular policy. But, right now, this much is clear: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I should point how that my teachers were the people who taught me that NCLB was terrible. I wonder why.

Re:FTA - NCLB by toadlife · 2012-06-07 08:19 · Score: 1

A parents perspective...
The problem teachers and school have with NCLB is that it pits them against the problem of child poverty which has the greatest affect on test scores, but which they have absolutely no control over.
It's also had some nasty side effects which, in my opinion, are terrible for children regardless of test scores. At my child's school, where the child poverty rate is at least 50%, half the funding for field trips was cut this year in an effort to climb out of dreaded "PI" status and a long tradition of sending all second graders on a trip to the Monterrey Bay Aquarium was nixed in order to focus more resources on test score improvment. My oldest son happened to be in second grade this year and had been looking forward to the trip since last year when all of his second grade friends told him how awesome it was.
In the school's effort to climb out of PI purgatory, I have observed what can only be described as a hysteria leading up to and during the week long testing period. The school would drill it into the kids' head in the months leading up to the testing week on how incredibly important it was for them to try as hard as they could on the tests. My kids actually came home reciting stupid chants about testing. It was as if they had been indoctrinated at a cuban "reeducation" camp. On the weekend before and during every day of testing week, we would get robocalls everyday from the school reminding us to send our kids to bed early and to feed them a healthy breakfast before sending them to school.
The fact that test scores have gone up doesn't necessarily mean that our children have become better educated. If you think test scores equate to competence, I've got an MCSE to sell you.
I'm not totally against the concept of NCLB, or accountability, or even standardized testing, but until the issue of child poverty is dealt with I don't think these policies will ever serve to significantly raise our ranking in the world.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.

Watch out big oil ... education lobbyists are here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:46 · Score: 0

Please! I run a science lab in a top research university in US, and there are almost no Americans around. Despite the admission/recruitment being seriously stacked in their favor, most of them don't have neither the preparation nor motivation to study science. That's not to say that all the candidates from abroad are amazing, but most of them have the background that allows them to catch up quickly. The difference is so striking, it would be laughable to deny it.

And while I realize that TFA talks about earlier stage of education, it's ludicrous to claim success on the merits that 18yr olds can pass a basic reading/math test. If we don't have a system that brings high-end education to a substantial portion of the population, we'll get relegated into a third-world country in a matter of decades.

Re:Where is why? by NotQuiteReal · 2012-06-05 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative

I don't think you can call a teacher's salary high by any standard

How about this standard?

Generalizing is always a bad idea ;-)

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

Re:Where is why? by pimpsoftcom · 2012-06-05 04:47 · Score: 2

No.. here is why: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm The sad fact is the american education system is broken; Even our teachers think so. Funding is always a political issue, but most of th time I also see it as people who are lazy and comfortable not wanting to change..

--
- d

Article fails to adopt scientific method by melonman · 2012-06-05 04:47 · Score: 1

That is a truly terrible article.

To summarise the logic of TFA, America doesn't do well at standardised international tests, but the average level of scientific education is clearly dazzling because of Silicon Valley in general and the iPad in particular. Except that, last time I looked, the iPad was using a processor core designed in Cambridge, UK. I believe there are one or two other foreign contributions to Silicon Valley.

And, even if that were not the case, what percentage of people resident in the US work in Silicon Valley?!

My impression of US education is that, like many other aspects of America, the bell curve is very wide. The best of US education is possibly the best in the world. The worst is very bad. So, if "American education" means "the best of American education", there's nothing to worry about. If it means "what 90% of Americans have understood about science", or even "median American comprehension of science", the answer might be different. Or not. But the quality of science is not about whether or not a huge multinational with most of its labour outsourced can ship a commercial product.

(FWIW, I'm writing this in France, and I don't get the impression that science teaching here is great either.)

--
Virtually serving coffee

Re:Article fails to adopt scientific method by bmo · 2012-06-05 04:58 · Score: 1

(FWIW, I'm writing this in France, and I don't get the impression that science teaching here is great either.)
For science education in France to improve, you'd have to let the Germans invade (again).
--
BMO

Re:Where is why? by uniquename72 · 2012-06-05 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think TFA and TFS misses the point: The problem isn't that we don't have decent science education; the problem is that we don't create scientists.

Look at any science or engineering school in the U.S. and it becomes pretty clear. There are many, many more foreigners than Americans. Now go look at the liberal arts programs: Nothing but Americans. The country and the world don't need more out-of-work English majors. There not a shortage of tech jobs right now, particularly in engineering, but also in other hard sciences.

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by SydShamino · 2012-06-05 04:49 · Score: 2

NCLB requires frequent testing to measure if students remain prepped at taking tests. IMO learning goes down when testing-or-you-don't-graduate-and-your-teacher-is-fired-and-your-school-is-defunded-and-closed goes up.

And, strangely enough since you're supporting NCLB, you've miscredited it to Clinton. It was a Bush II law, though Clinton had something vaguely similar but watered down early in his administration.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:51 · Score: 0

NOW you tell me. I was hoping to find out "why Americans just aren't very good at science", so I spent the last five minutes clicking on a link that didn't exist.

Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:51 · Score: 0

Let me give you a perspective from someone who went to school in another country. I was born and raised in Mexico until I was 9 years old, and came to the US while I was in 4th grade. In Mexico I was learning more complex mathematical concepts like Algebra and a wide range of Scientific subjects like Geology, Astronomy, and so on. I started school in the US and don't even remember if we ever learn Science stuff. I was surprised that kids here were still learning the times tables, THE FREAKING TIMES TABLES. I had that covered in 1st and 2nd grade. Of course, I always finished before anyone else, but I was always beat up in the playground for being the smart kid in class.

We did sing a lot of songs, and I did learn English quite fast, but that's pretty much it.

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by AwesomeMcgee · 2012-06-05 04:52 · Score: 1

President Clinton's what now?

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by Sponge+Bath · 2012-06-05 04:52 · Score: 4, Informative

President Clinton's No Child Left Behind...

From Wikipedia: "The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)[1][2] is a United States Act of Congress that came about as wide public concern about the state of education. First proposed by the administration of George W. Bush immediately after he took office,[3] the bill passed in the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support."

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 04:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Maybe if "we" got out of the mindset of wanting to pay third world wages, people would move to these kinds of fields?

It is funny, in my opinion, the ones to the greatest extent setting wages ( trying to keep them low ) seem to be the ones lamenting the fact that people don't want those jobs, and all the while praising the market for all the magic it can do ( and it can ).

Lots of money that doesn't make it to classrooms by perpenso · 2012-06-05 04:53 · Score: 1

At $91,700 per pupil from kindergarten through twelfth grade, the U.S. is outspent only by Switzerland in the education arena. Cash is not a problem.

Lots of money that doesn't seem to make it to the classrooms. If we compare nations based upon what is actually spent in the classroom I doubt the US ranks at #2. Lots of that $92K disappears into administration and overhead, lots of impediments that teachers face in the classroom come from administration, and from what I've been told by teachers a few impediments come from their own unions.

maybe not that bad by perles · 2012-06-05 04:54 · Score: 1

Indeed, science education may not be that bad, but churchs have a strong voice that goes against it. Reducing the number of churchs and their influence in our children would certainly improve the public perception of the real science education. That would also shut up politicians that goes against science as well.

Education failed the author? by Smidge204 · 2012-06-05 04:58 · Score: 2

Additionally, the latest study released by Universitas 21, a global network of research universities, concluded that the United States ranks No. 1 in the world in higher education

Yeah, let's have a closer look at that study... in the summary:

Overall, the top five countries, nominally providing the 'best' higher education were found to be the United States, Sweden, Canada, Finland and Denmark. However, broken down into the smaller sections, it was interesting to see that the US, traditionally seen as a country with one of the strongest education systems, did not always hit the top spot.

Huh. I wonder if that warrants a closer look at the actual data? Nah, fuck it. USA! USA! USA!

Spoiler: The US only comes out on top because our universities churn out more science publications. This alone is no indication of quality or relevance (there is some reason to think that it's not that great), nor of general quality of academic performance. In all other metrics the US is #3, #4 or #36... out of 50.

And what about big scary China? Adult science literacy there is a paltry 3% compared with the U.S. at 28%. In short, our overall science performance isn't too shabby for a country that has supposedly neglected science education for years.

3% of 1,340,000,000 is 40,200,000.
28% of 312,000,000 is 87,360,000.

So despite having nearly ten times the per-capita literacy rate, we're just barely above twice the total population. China is also catching up plenty fast. Maybe we should do something about it before we're behind?

So, why do Americans believe that science education is in a downward spiral when the empirical evidence shows the opposite?

Maybe it's the active effort by the religious-right to specifically exclude actual science from science education, or the systemic denial of scientific truths such as global climate change and biological evolution, or the cynical politicizing of science in general.

Yes, that's right. Test scores have increased since NCLB passed in 2002.

This alone does not tell us what's really going on. How hard were the tests? What is the scope of the curriculum? If I was a math teacher I could make every test a single question: "1 + 1 = __ (a) 2 (b) 2 (c) 2 (d) All of the Above " and then claim all my students got perfect scores. Test performance means nothing without accounting for the quality of the test.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Well what if it's not broken per se, but merely not adequate anymore? Or heaven forbid, maybe we could continue to seek to improve our education system despite how good you think it already is!
=Smidge=

The elephant in the room. Money. by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-06-05 05:01 · Score: 1

Kids are smart enough to see the state of their elders, who are competing with low wage engineers in China and India. They also see financial professionals, many of whom are still making absurdly high salaries shuffling abstract concepts around to reach a high score in what has become the world's ultimate computer game, the financial equities industry. Even lawyers pull in up to $600 /hr.

So what's a smart, self-interested kid to do? Sweat through math and science classes in the hopes of getting that engineering job where he/she competes with someone in Uzbekhistan for $5/hr, or focus on career paths that go towards law or finance?

This is the elephant in the room that politicians and pundits dance around whenever this debate resurfaces every few months. Until salaries match price structure in the USA, there's no motivation whatsoever for parents to push for better math and science education in the public schools, and even less for students to jump up and down and squeal "Whoo! Whoo! I want to be underpaid for my skills for the rest of my life!"

They have a choice. They can go where the money is, or not. Everything else is BS, pure and simple.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

Re:The elephant in the room. Money. by cpghost · 2012-06-05 05:17 · Score: 2

Maybe the problem is astronomical tuition fees in the US? In some countries with more reasonable fees, people usually gravitate towards their natural inclinations, and if that be usually poorly paid science positions at universities and research institutions, so be it. But in the US, you can't afford the luxury to leave college with $100,000 or $120,000 debt and THEN take a measly paid job in science.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Agreed. 65% of all students having a basic grasp of science may seem high to the author of that article, but perhaps to everyone else it seems low. I think our aim should be 95% at the lowest.

Maybe they should slow things down a bit. Teach things, but teach them very well. Go in depth into the material before moving onto the next chapter.

All I really got by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:02 · Score: 0

All I really got out of it was 'No Child Left Behind' IS a good thing!

It's not a money hemorrhage that's the issue, though that is -an- issue, and a big one - schools simply do not get much once the administration blows through a massive wad that the schools definitely NEED.

The problem is with NCLB, teacher evaluations are tied directly to their student's test scores. So regardless of how 'well' you teach, students passing and failing directly relates on job performance, and WHETHER OR NOT YOU GET TO KEEP YOUR JOB. Teachers with a lot of ESL and/or low-income students get proportionally lower scores. The stress can drive teachers and administrators to cheat, as seen in that school district in Atlanta. Like every other government-imbued then fucked-over industry, they are pressured to bring high numbers and results as a condition of job-worthiness. And here enters the timeless argument of whether or not standardized tests and our 'education system' help educate students to prepare for the 'real world'.

Me, personally, I think critical thinking skills are very important, but intuitive skills (little of which are taught publically) are also important. Learning can and should be fun. Standardized testing is not fun, it's boring-ass shit. Yes, I was a mediocre student, but I also feel I have learned much more on my own, having granted myself the freedom to learn, than I ever did in the public school system.

And of course 'they' are going to say things are 'dismal' because dismal means 'time to throw more money at the problem' and boy do 'them fuckers' want more money. The school that says 'Hey, everything's great, we're churning out nicely-scoring kids' is gonna get their budget cut, because obviously something is wrong and attention should be focused on everyone else. Though I bet, working at a school like that, there's less fear of teachers losing their jobs. A lessening of fear is the first step to love. Hm.

Who needs science education? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:02 · Score: 0

What is the point of science education for the vast majority of students who do not possess the skills or interest necessary to pursue STEM-related careers? Put another way, what does an overall average score tell us, versus, say, the average score for the portion of students likely to pursue such careers (which may equate to the top 10% of students)?

If 100% of Americans were Physics PH.ds... by retroworks · 2012-06-05 05:03 · Score: 1

We would have a problem of underemployment of physics Ph.Ds, scientists flipping burgers, and a different "straw man", as the summary puts it. The issue is, sadly, race baiting. America has always been able to hire the scientists it needs from the best and brightest in other places (India, Iran, China). The panic over how many "Americans" had those jobs is only important to the people who want to keep immigrants out and deny the Ph.Ds visas. It was fine when it was ok for an American to be a car mechanic or a carpenter and have a scientist or doctor come from a country where someone really, really, really wanted to be that. The people alarmed by the low percentage of "native born" scientists are the same racists who want to deny naturalization to the foreign-born scientists.

--
Gently reply

Re:If 100% of Americans were Physics PH.ds... by DaMattster · 2012-06-05 05:31 · Score: 1

We would have a problem of underemployment of physics Ph.Ds, scientists flipping burgers, and a different "straw man", as the summary puts it. The issue is, sadly, race baiting. America has always been able to hire the scientists it needs from the best and brightest in other places (India, Iran, China). The panic over how many "Americans" had those jobs is only important to the people who want to keep immigrants out and deny the Ph.Ds visas. It was fine when it was ok for an American to be a car mechanic or a carpenter and have a scientist or doctor come from a country where someone really, really, really wanted to be that. The people alarmed by the low percentage of "native born" scientists are the same racists who want to deny naturalization to the foreign-born scientists.
Uh, no it is not. It has nothing to do with racism. I think American citizens should have the first crack at jobs in America. The same goes for other countries and their respective citizens. As a country, America has never asked itself honestly why science is on the decline. Or, more perfectly put, America is not ready to hear the answer. Science and engineering are not in demand because America is rapidly becoming a service economy thanks to the financial industry. The financial industry has closed manufacturing and engineering down and shipped these jobs overseas in the name of profit, profit, profit. Instead, finance courts engineers and mathematicians to design creative models for making even more money. If there isn't much incentive to go into an engineering career, why do it? A country that own the means of production has strong control over its destiny. Service economies are mostly third world and tend to stagnate.
Re:If 100% of Americans were Physics PH.ds... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-05 06:18 · Score: 1

Completely and 100% wrong. The US is the #1 manufacturing economy in the world, and it is focused in exactly the right areas, high value technologically intensive products.
http://business.time.com/2011/03/10/can-china-compete-with-american-manufacturing/
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-countries.htm
Furthermore it is actually improving while China and Europe are in decline.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/24/seattle-is-leading-an-american-manufacturing-revival/

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:04 · Score: 0

Sweet. I'm a 1%er.

Re:Where is why? by jc42 · 2012-06-05 05:04 · Score: 2

Be wary of education lobbyists who downplay our long track record of scientific success while simultaneously asking for more money.

In scientific circles, there's a long history of doing this openly and honestly. I've seen it expressed as a joke: "The most important part of a scientific paper is the paragraph near the end saying that further research is needed." This is funny, yes, but it's also an open admission that there are still lots of things that we don't understand at all, and it'll take time and money and hard work to learn about them.

Science education echoes this. We are continually producing new children to replace the old folks who are dying. Those children are all born totally ignorant of everything, and we (i.e., society as a whole) really needs to get them educated. This costs money to do well. And in fact, we're not doing all that good a job of it. Part of the reason is simple economic competition: Anyone competent to teach a scientific subject can get much better pay working nearly anywhere else but in the school system. So science teachers are pretty much only those people who really like doing that job and are willing to take a large pay cut to do it.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Right. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:05 · Score: 0

But considering the population of China is about 4.35 times that of the US, that 3% = ~176M, compared to the US's ~88M science literate adults.

The teacher agenda by Iniamyen · 2012-06-05 05:08 · Score: 1

Wow, Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell. Thanks for revealing the hidden agenda of teachers to get paid more. In an industry so full of pork it is refreshing to see authors willing to stand up to these rich teachers demanding even more money in this tough economy. Thanks for fighting the good fight. lol.

Unions used to be the guardians of the craft by perpenso · 2012-06-05 05:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

The union problem is not necessarily teacher salary. There might be a problem where some teachers make little to no contribution to benefits like health care and retirement, but that is a really complicated issue that can't be generalized. Contracts can vary from place to place, some reasonable, some not. The real union problem is probably union support for teachers who are not good teachers. The unions no longer seem to be the guardians of their craft, enforcing their own high standards of quality upon their members. Unions used to kick out members who couldn't perform to high standards. Today some claim that some union leadership is essentially a part of the educational bureaucracy protecting the status quo.

Re:Unions used to be the guardians of the craft by Vancorps · 2012-06-05 10:06 · Score: 2

That is one of the most sane explanations I've heard in a long time. Unions are a great idea and vital to the interests of even non-union employees. It's crazy to me the lack of regard for history that led to the formation of unions to begin with. Seems these days some unions have gone too far while others do as you say and protect people that aren't up to standards. The thing is, in every case where it seems the company can't afford to sustain their union staff the unions seem to see reason and accept pay cuts as was the case in Wisconsin.
You're right though, the issue is very complicated.

Re:Where is why? by BlackSnake112 · 2012-06-05 05:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Well unions keep crappy teachers teaching. That is a bad thing.

And no child left behind actually hurt students. Instead of having them repeat a grade since they didn't learn anything (the reasons for that aside for the moment) that student was sent to the next grade unpaired for that grade. That process keeps on repeating. This is from over 300 teachers. They were not allowed to fail a student. No NCLB is bad.

The reasons for a student not learning can be that student does not care. In those cases either have them repeat the grade so they are away from their friends, or boot them from the school. Repeating a grade can embarrass a student. That might actually make them do the work.

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

When you look at the pay, I don't think you can call a teacher's salary high by any standard.

When I look at teachers pay I have no problem calling it high. How about $93k/year in Boulder, CO. $80-ish in surrounding communities like Longmont, and Fort Collins. $75k in Madison, WI where they're trying to recall Walker today.

That doesn't count gold-plated comprehensive benefits for the whole family right through retirement. That doesn't count the defined benefit pension. That isn't amortized for the 10 month school year or the 35 hour weeks. No attempt is made to quantify the value of tenure privileges or union protection.

No, our teachers are paid well. They never hesitate to claim otherwise because suckers like you always believe it.

Comparing apples with oranges by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:14 · Score: 0

I've always thought that the reason that we score lower than other countries on these standardized tests is that virtually ALL of our youth are in school to take the tests, while in other countries, many of the youth are not in school because they're needed to help support the family.

In some countries (Kenya for example, see http://www.kenyapartners.org), elementary education is free. But, a pre-school certificate from a 'fee requiring' preschool is necessary to enter the elementary school. Thus, many children don't go to elementary school. Many high schools require passing an entrance examination. How many of our youth would be excluded from high school if they had to pass an entrance examination?

There is no question that there are problems in US education. I taught an Anatomy and Physiology class to nursing students one summer. My impression from that experience is, "DON'T GET SICK." You are in grave danger from the current nursing students (there are exceptions). When you ask a simple question about the basic anatomical unit of the kidney, and the vast majority get it incorrect, something is wrong (They don't call the medical subspecialty for the study of kidney disease Nephrology for no apparent reason.)

Re:Where is why? by BlackSnake112 · 2012-06-05 05:15 · Score: 1

Regular people think those in IT can read minds and predict the future. I keep on telling my co-workers that I cannot read minds and cannot predict the future. For if I could, do you actually think I would be working here?

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:21 · Score: 2

Another problem is that our schools are filled with rote memorization and teaching to the test. This results in people who are able to pass tests but do not actually understand the material.

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Teachers are not the enemy and it makes me sad to see an anti-education screed on Slashdot.

Let's deconstruct your post.

First off, "officials" -- also known as "teachers" and "local school board members" -- hate the No Child Left Behind Act because it is an unfunded standards-based mandate for additional instruction. The second standards rear their ugly heads in classrooms you start seeing rote learning, AKA "teaching for the test." No one benefits from rote learning. Not even the businesses that depend on the school system to turn out creative and innovative thinkers with a broad knowledge base to draw on. And while it may be responsible for an increase in test scores, students suffer in ways standardize tests can't measure.

Second, school spending. I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, so I'll have to improvise. The federal goverment's per-pupil spending (you may find how influential federal money really is enlightening from a big-picture perspective) has barely kept pace with inflation, and that's without going into all the ways the feds twist the arms of desperately underfunded local school districts with laws like NCLB, which cuts funding to the underperforming schools that need it the most (in the name of "competitiveness"). If you really want to know how much is getting spent per-pupil you should take a look at the detailed breakdown from the Census Bureau (warning, PDF). And yes, salaries are the biggest number in the list. Because the most important resource in education is PEOPLE.

We also need to talk about per-pupil spending in general, where the fundamental inequality inherent in education funding is most readily apparent. You can't just say that one area's per-pupil funding level is adequate for another's thanks to things like cost-of-living and property values. Most schools are funded at a local level, which opens you up to all kinds of funding issues brought on by things like population density and the economy. You know who was hurt the most by the recent foreclosure crisis? Here's a hint, it wasn't the homeowners, it was the school districts that depend on their property taxes.

You know what else bothers me? That all the amounts discussed in the above links are counted in the millions of dollars per year. We blow billions of dollars a week in Afghanistan and Iraq. It really shows you where the nation's priorities lie.

Re:Where is why? by Rei · 2012-06-05 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Exactly. Would they except this standard with anything else? 65% of students being literate, for example?

--
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!

just yesterday... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:24 · Score: 0

I can't really speak to the advance/decline of the level of education that our public schools are providing, but I can pass on a conversation I overheard in the breakroom just yesterday:

Lady #1: Something HAS to be done at these schools!
Lady #2: I agree! It's like we don't even have time with our own kids anymore.
Lady #1: The amount of hopmework they are giving out is INSANE! I mean three hours of homework a night?
Lady #2: EXACTLY! If they can't learn it in the classroom, what makes these teachers think the kids will learn it at home?!?!

It's not just our schools that have a problem...

USA got its science lead from foreigner by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:24 · Score: 0

There is no denying that a lot of science was done by lcoal American. But a lot of what the SUA got its lead from was in some domain from pardonned german (rocket program), some people fleeing persecution, and later on , people from various country going to the US for graduation or post graduation. If the "foreigner" tap was drying up, the lead of the US would go *pouf* pretty much quickly : too many folk in the US are anti science too few american graduate proportionally to other countries.

No sine and cosine theorems by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:25 · Score: 0

My son has just missed the whole unit about sine and cosine theorems because
the teacher run out of time. This is the last geometry course. I wonder how many
students will try to learn hove to solve triangles independently.

Re:No sine and cosine theorems by DinDaddy · 2012-06-05 06:36 · Score: 1

Most geometry classes do an intro to that, but it is more fully covered in pre-calc/trig 2 years after (11th grade in most schools in my area).

Adult Science Literacy in China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:25 · Score: 0

"And what about big scary China? Adult science literacy there is a paltry 3% compared with the U.S. at 28%."

China's low adult science literacy is much more related to the problems stemming from political instability during the mid-later 20th century than poor education. The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward pretty much destroyed the education of an entire generation of Chinese people.

While there were also large social changes in this time period in the US, it was hardly on the same scale and did not affect the same number of people.

Besides, this sort of comparison is hardly useful without other context. How does 28% rank with the rest of the world? Objectively, it seems abysmal. But if the highest score for other countries in the world is 30% then 28% is great. If it's 80% then how could anyone possibly cite this statistic as a sign that science education in the US is (or was) not lacking?

The article is partly right, but mostly dead wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:29 · Score: 0

Yes, the US started Silicon Valley, and yes, college-level STEM in the US is probably the best in the world. But...

1) Most of the people working in Silicon Valley did not learn K-12 STEM in US schools. They learned the fundamentals in India and China, then went to graduate school in the US. US K-12 schooled kids are largley absent from tech. (In my department (applied math and engineering), 80% of our hires for the past 6 years have been foreign-born and US graduate school educated.) This is further evidence that the US public education system is not delivering what tech companies need, like those in Silicon Valley.

2) The average US non-STEM student has a patheticly bad understanding of science and math, from principle to practice. With few exceptions the average US student could not describe the scientific thought process, could not explain how simple devices work (like an air conditioner), and could not critically assess a new quantitative or technical idea to decide whether it has merit or is hogwash. In short, they're woefully underprepared to work in a information-driven world, much less in a STEM job.

3) The US is enabling poor STEM education by demanding so little, not only from students, but from teachers. As long as US public schools insist on paying STEM teachers the same as history and geography teachers, public schools will continue to attract only the least qualified high-technologists. Not surprisingly, below average math teachers make less than ideal role models for budding engineers and scientists.

4) The average american student has dreadful critical-thinking skills. Few can make a logical case for or against competing ideas. Few can constructively or destructively assess the arguments of someone else. Until we teach our kids to think rationally and dispassionately and competitively, their STEM capabilities will be the LEAST of their problems in surviving the Blast Of Tomorrow.

Re:Where is why? by Sperbels · 2012-06-05 05:31 · Score: 3

When I look at teachers pay I have no problem calling it high. How about $93k/year [teacherssalary.net] in Boulder, CO. $80-ish in surrounding communities like Longmont, and Fort Collins. $75k in Madison, WI where they're trying to recall Walker today.

Boulder is an expensive place to live, but I have a hard time believing the average public school teachers is $93k. Are you sure this isn't taking into consideration private schools and UofC? And it's interesting that you didn't take into consideration the most obvious adjacent community...Denver...which averages $32k less than boulder. And you lied, Longmont and Fort Collins average around $69k according to this website, not $80ish.

Re:Where is why? by Cyberax · 2012-06-05 05:31 · Score: 1

Actually, no.

Union membership correlates with better test results. Correlation does not mean causation, but still.

Re:Where is why? by spiffmastercow · 2012-06-05 05:32 · Score: 1

Interesting.. It seems that the elementary school average salary there is 96k, yet the high school math teacher average salary is 77k, according to that. Furthermore, it says the average "College Teacher" makes less than 65k. Looks like money is inversely proportional to education in the Boulder, CO teacher hierarchy.

Re:Where is why? by Feyshtey · 2012-06-05 05:34 · Score: 1

Perhaps schools should stick to teaching these things we'd like our students to excel in, and stop spending the valuable time (and money) in classrooms telling kids what they should believe on social issues...

--
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi

Wrong abbreviation by Tommy+Bologna · 2012-06-05 05:39 · Score: 1

DoE is the conventional abbreviation for the Department of Energy. I'm not sure how closing the Department of Energy is relevant.
ED is the conventional abbreviation for the Department of Education, and is the abbreviation the Department of Education uses in its own documents.

Re:Where is why? by ShanghaiBill · 2012-06-05 05:43 · Score: 2

Because officials keep telling us that education is abysmal.

It is more than that. People just LOVE being told that their kids are stupid. So the official lies fall onto receptive ears.

In the past half century American kids' STEM scores have gone from next to last to 17 of 34 countries (about the middle). So that is an improvement. But that understates the improvement because at the same time, the scores of all the countries improved. So it is like our kids are running up an ascending escalator.

It is not just STEM. General intelligence has also been rising. This is called the Flynn Effect.

The truth is so contrary to the "common knowledge", that there must be a built-in bias to believe that kids are getting dumber. Every generation believes that, and they have (almost) always been wrong.

Re:Where is why? by Sperbels · 2012-06-05 05:43 · Score: 1

Also interesting that he selected Colorado's most affluent city (Boulder - basically a mini San Francisco) to use as an example.

Re:Where is why? by bitt3n · 2012-06-05 05:45 · Score: 1

Union membership correlates with better test results. Correlation does not mean causation, but still.

but exactly

--
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:46 · Score: 0

Really? So please mister know it all, Why is it that back in the 80's we did real chemistry experiments in high school with real reagents instead of what MY daughter did?

Science in Public schools is a joke. I don't see kids doing any real experiments. Hell even in microbiology we did gram staining to identify pathogens we planted from swabbing things around us.. They don't even do that now. It's an utter joke from what I see.

Please point me at exceptional high school science programs that are common, because I cant find them.

P.S. the tests are getting dumber not harder.

Re:Where is why? by spiffmastercow · 2012-06-05 05:49 · Score: 1

Also interesting that he selected Colorado's most affluent city (Boulder - basically a mini San Francisco) to use as an example.

Maybe so, but how much does a dev job pay there? I'd imagine not much more than that.

Re:Where is why? by WaywardGeek · 2012-06-05 05:52 · Score: 5, Informative

That site you pointed to hasn't got anything close to accurate data for teacher pay. Take home is typically closer to half what that site says. Here's the North Carolina (where I live) official teacher pay schedule.

Starting salary for teachers with teaching degrees is $34,550. With > 30 years experience, a teacher makes $58,860. Now I wont argue the benefits aren't good, but you've got wildly inaccurate data.

--
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell

Re:Where is why? by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-06-05 05:52 · Score: 0

Exactly. Would they except this standard with anything else? 65% of students being literate, for example?

I take it you are in the 35%?

US science is strong because of the brain drain by csubi · 2012-06-05 05:54 · Score: 1

The scientific output of the US is supported by the foreign students and researchers who come here to either get their PhD degree or spend a few years as post-doctoral scientists. Since most research work is effectively done by the students or postdocs, while bosses writing up the results, it is safe to stay that US science is turning on imported brain and manpower. This is true for both Universities and Federal research organizations.

I have to agree that research and science is great in the US but not because of the school system.

FTFY by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:54 · Score: 0

[The issue is] the undue amount of focus now on standardized tests -- teaching to the test, as it were.

Remember, test makers make tests designed to test things kids don't know, not what kids have learned. When the teaching focus becomes teaching the test, we have difficulties.

Grades should be based on participation, and how 'far' a student moves forward in the subject.

A kid trying his damndest and getting a B is better than a kid getting an easy A.

I assume this was some kind of test?

Re:Where is why? by scot4875 · 2012-06-05 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe so, but how much does a dev job pay there? I'd imagine not much more than that.

So? Should it? I'm a software developer but I don't see that what I do is any more valuable than what a teacher does.

--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal

Theory by arth1 · 2012-06-05 05:57 · Score: 1

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-- Inigo Montoya, TPB

A theory is a falsafiable working set based on observable data. It is what you call "facts", but subject to revision as we gain more data.

Remember that gravity is a theory, just like evolution. That doesn't make it optional.

But those who say that science is based on observed data are wrong too. It's enough that it's observable. We can have science and theories around Higgs' boson, dark matter and the future even if we have observed neither.
God, on the other hand, is not observable without drugs.

Re:Theory by TemporalBeing · 2012-06-05 09:04 · Score: 1

A theory is a falsafiable working set based on observable data. It is what you call "facts", but subject to revision as we gain more data.
No it is not. A fact is not subject to being falsafiable. It is more akin to something that is ingrained in stone that can never be changed no matter how you look at it. For instance, the chemical structure of the Oxygen molecule is very much a fact. You may learn more about the fact by observing it from different angles, or disecting it in different ways, but it is nonetheless immutable.

A "theory" is a working set of ideas about a hypothesis on which to build a model. It is not fact in any sense. Those working ideas are revised as more information about the hypothesis is discovered and the model is revised accorrdingly; however, that does not change the fact that it is still a theory about how something works.

Remember that gravity is a theory, just like evolution. That doesn't make it optional.
To use your example of gravity - gravity itself is a fact. Our understanding of it is a theory. That is not the case with evolution. Evolution is not fact; but pure theory and wholly untestable as to proving its value as the origin of everything. Yes, it is revised to match evidence such that scientifically it is accepted. But that still does not make it any more provable than, say, Creationism - both are wholly unprovable as an mechanism of creation to an equal degree; both can provide working models that explain all the evidence around.

But those who say that science is based on observed data are wrong too. It's enough that it's observable. We can have science and theories around Higgs' boson, dark matter and the future even if we have observed neither.
Those theories around Higgs' boson, dark matter, etc. are based on observed data from other things. There's a hypothesis and theory for them; finding a way to show evidence for those theories to prove the hypothesis is what is lacking and currently in the works in many cases. Yet they are at the limit of our technological capabilities, so it will be some time before they will be able to really revise the models.

So that is to say - it's not that they are not observed. They are just not directly observed at this time. The observations that led to the hypotheses and theories around them are very much based on observations.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Theory by arth1 · 2012-06-06 04:00 · Score: 1

No it is not. A fact is not subject to being falsafiable. It is more akin to something that is ingrained in stone that can never be changed no matter how you look at it.
No, that's what's know as an axiom.
If they aren't falsifiable, they can't be accepted.
Euclid's fifth postulate, for example, was falsified - in hyperbolic geometry, two straight lines with a common right angle perpendicular (parallel lines in Euclidean geometry) can intersect.
His other postulates still stand as axioms, and haven't been falsified. But they're all falsifiable.

For instance, the chemical structure of the Oxygen molecule is very much a fact.
No, that would be a posit, part of the Gillespie-Nyholm theory.

3 out of 4 adults scientifically illiterate = BAD! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 05:57 · Score: 0

"Adult science literacy there is a paltry 3% compared with the U.S. at 28%....if it ain't broke, don't fix it." .... Adult science literacy [in the U.S.] at 28%.... in other words nearly 3 out of 4 adults are scientifically illiterate. IN OTHER WORDS 3 OUT OF 4 ADULTS CAN'T THINK RATIONALLY!!!!!!!! AND YOU DON'T CALL THAT BROKEN?!?! MY GOD, MAN! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!!!!

13% of H.S. Biology Teachers Advocate Creationism by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:00 · Score: 0

Poll here. Another 60% decline to take a stance on evolution to avoid conflict. They skip the controversial aspects or present it as something students only need to regurgitate for the test.

So that's a very strong majority of American students who aren't getting a real education about evolution. And we wonder why In America, 46% of People Hold a Creationist View of Human Origins.

Who modded this informative? by spazdor · 2012-06-05 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Teachers in the richest country in the world are doing way better than southeast Asian subsistence farmers! What the heck are they even complaining about?

Cute response, but irrelevant. :p

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!

Re:Who modded this informative? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 09:24 · Score: 0

I think it's very relevant.
The GGP stated "I don't think you can call a teacher's salary high by ANY standard", the GP showed a standard by which it was pretty high. Thus the GGP is wrong, and the GP is relevant.
Re:Who modded this informative? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 09:37 · Score: 0

Many (reasonable) people, when carrying on a (reasonable) conversation or making (reasonable) statements, omit the word "reasonable" on the assumption that "reasonable" statements are a requirement of dialog. It's also quite tedious if you have to continuously remind your counterparty that you wish to exclude hyperbole or apples from your discussion of oranges. The standard of living for modern subsistence farmers, for example, if vastly higher than the generations of nomadic hunter-gatherers that preceded them. Should we consider Chinese peasants part of "the 1%"? Not in any reasonable sense, although an unreasonable argument can certainly be made.
Re:Who modded this informative? by spazdor · 2012-06-05 09:39 · Score: 1

Oh, I see, "standard" actually just means "arbitrary metric". Well then, let's just abolish the idiom "by any standard" outright because it seems that no factually true sentence can ever be constructed using it. This definitely adds value to the above discussion on how teachers are paid; keep it up!
Maybe later we should troll Hardware and help keep all of their discussions about system performance and benchmarks in perspective by reminding them of how many bogomips ENIAC could do.

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!

Re:3 out of 4 adults scientifically illiterate = B by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:00 · Score: 0

he must be one of the 3 out of 4.

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:03 · Score: 0

I think it's always wrong to generalize that generalizing is a ALWAYS a bad idea.

No inconsistency here by Corson · 2012-06-05 06:03 · Score: 1

There is no inconsistency in what you wrote. Students are failing basic science tests yet US science is in the pole position. Others have already provided the most likely explanation. There is an obsession with getting a management position but someone has to be creative in a science/research project.

Re:Where is why? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-06-05 06:04 · Score: 1

Look at any science or engineering school in the U.S. and it becomes pretty clear. There are many, many more foreigners than Americans.

Hope you realize a lot of the "foreigners" you see in engineering and medicine are actually children of naturalized American citizens. Among the children of my (Indian American, dots not feathers) friends I hardly see anyone going for liberal arts.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:Where is why? by spiffmastercow · 2012-06-05 06:05 · Score: 1

Maybe so, but how much does a dev job pay there? I'd imagine not much more than that.

So? Should it? I'm a software developer but I don't see that what I do is any more valuable than what a teacher does.

--Jeremy

Well, for one being a developer is a lot less stable (unless you go public sector like I did, where the pay is miserable). For another, it requires more education and talent. I could easily teach any high school subject with the exception of biology and maybe chemistry, but most high school teachers would likely have no idea how to code. Not saying there's anything wrong with being a teacher, but teacher pay should be consumerate with the difficulty of the subject. I can't think of a single good reason that an elementary teacher (who really only requires a 6th grade education and a bit of patience) should make 20% more than a high school math teacher, who needs to know subjects like trig and calc well enough to teach them, and has to deal with obnoxious teenagers all day.

Misleading Stats (Surprise!) by NEDHead · 2012-06-05 06:09 · Score: 1

I believe we should strive for better education at every turn, and especially in the science/technical areas. However, the comparison with other countries in these types of studies never takes into account any filtering that may occur before the test is administered. Many countries filter their students at a young age into 'appropriate' educational paths, and those that are then considered in these international 'competitions' are not necessarily representative of the population at large. Any results that do not take this into account are silly.

Re:Where is why? by superdude72 · 2012-06-05 06:15 · Score: 1

You know what the world doesn't need? More drones who are trained to produce X quantity of widgets, but who lack the broad education to fully participate as citizens in a democracy.

Look at any thriving democracy and it becomes clear: The majority of its citizens have good liberal arts educations, and are not merely trained for what their employers require.

Re:Where is why? by WaywardGeek · 2012-06-05 06:15 · Score: 1

TFA has a particular biased point of view they're selling, which is fine, but they're quite lose with the facts. They mention the success of Silicon Valley, but forgot to mention that's it's something like 50% imported talent doing the engineering there. It's disturbing to see the creators of Science 2.0 throwing statistics around like a politician.

--
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell

Re:Where is why? by vgerclover · 2012-06-05 06:18 · Score: 1

There not a shortage of tech jobs right now, particularly in engineering, but also in other hard sciences.

Maybe if "we" got out of the mindset of wanting to pay third world wages, people would move to these kinds of fields?

It is funny, in my opinion, the ones to the greatest extent setting wages ( trying to keep them low ) seem to be the ones lamenting the fact that people don't want those jobs, and all the while praising the market for all the magic it can do ( and it can ).

I thought tech jobs were paying well in the US? The lowest wage I could earn in the US is at least two times as much as I earn in Argentina working as a software developer, even when most things cost twice as much as in the US (1000 ARS are 224 USD)

I don't see how USD50 000 is a third word wage.

Re:Where is why? by djchristensen · 2012-06-05 06:22 · Score: 2

Picking a number out of your ass (95%) isn't going to help anyone. You can't just decide that 95% of kids can attain a "basic grasp of science" (as defined by achieving a particular score on a standardized test) and declare utter failure if you don't get there. Not every kid is going to be able to meet those standards, and some who maybe can won't care enough to try. Lack of scientific literacy does not equate to failure in life.

It's good to pay attention to where there are deficiencies and make improvements to allow everyone the opportunity to learn as much as possible, but don't expect of force everyone to fit in the same bucket. Some people will be good at art or history or plumbing or architecture or cooking, etc. Almost no one will be good at everything. Who's going to decide what subjects are the most important?

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:24 · Score: 0, Interesting

Union bashers have a point.
Before you move on, answer this question to yourself: What's the point of a union? Come up with 3 purposes for a union.
Now that you have those 3 reasons in mind:

Teachers are literate.
Teachers are not uneducated.
Teachers still have low wages.
The unions takes money from the teachers with low wages.
There are no performance benefits for excellent teachers.

And you want to defend these unions? The ones that are not only supposedly superfluous but fail to deliver on any of the promises made to those the unions supposedly represent?

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 06:29 · Score: 0

How is it with noting? What does it tell you? What are you going to do with that?

You didn't even get the President right, so I don't expect you to articulate the purpose of your tested, but you could try.

Maybe?

Re:Lots of money that doesn't make it to classroom by WaywardGeek · 2012-06-05 06:30 · Score: 0

This is why charter schools have so much potential. My kids go to a charter school that was built for $11 million, but provides as many spaces for kids as the new elementary school that was built at the same time for $33 million. Our charter school pays interest on the $11 million loan out of the money they get from the state per student, while our local elementary school was paid for in full by the state on top of the money per student. Our teachers get paid less, but have more flexibility to build great programs for the kids, and we have only 16 kids per class vs > 20 at our local schools. The local board of education decided to trash our local elementary school by concentrating poverty and non-English speakers there so that the other elementary schools in the system could do a little better (it's Frank Porter Graham in Chapel Hill, NC). Now they're planning to shut it down and turn it into a dual language magnet school. If parents had any power, FPG would still be one of the best elementary schools in the state, but politics got in the way. At our charter school, the board is made up of parents with kids in the school. If the board of education members in Chapel Hill all had kids at FPG, FPG would still be one of the best places to send your kids.

--
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell

Re:Where is why? by slew · 2012-06-05 06:30 · Score: 1

Actually comment like this are just annoying. So what specifically is wrong with the concept of NCLB? Sure it isn't perfect, but it's the government, no policy will be perfect.

Are you against the goals? Against the implementation? Against who gets the credit/blame?

Should we leave some children behind?
Should we not hold teachers accountable?
Should we not hold school administration accountable?
Should we not measure student progress?
Should we not give people options instead of force them to attend failing schools?

Certainly implementation of penalties in the current NCLB program are harsh. Some of the penalties are also against many long standing union and school board negotiated policies, causing lots of friction. Also the implementation of standardized student testing may not be the best way to hold teachers and administrators accountable or measure student progress, but no other means has emerged (e.g., reviews by peers, students, administrators have all been rejected). In the current NCLB implementation, states are allowed to set their own standards, and each state can certainly can set them low enough to get any passing rate they want, but of course there is some pressure to set them high enough to not get laughed at and that points to a basic problem.

The problem: what we say we are doing with public education is not really what is happening and we are starting to see that.

It's easy to say that none of the goals of NCLB are possible so we shouldn't try, but perhaps we should really just be re-examining the goals of public education rather than continue to throw money at something that we don't think is working? Is public school a babysiting service so that people can go to work? should it be a kid prep programs for jobs, college? should we be teaching academics, vocational, arts, sports, or all of the above? Or is it really just the indoctrination factory for incorporation into american society ( not indoctrination in the political sense, although many may debate the reality of that, but I mean in the social sense)?

At least in my opinion, public school should be simply striving for simple literacy (in academics, vocations, arts, sports, politics) a and inter-personal socialization to be a proper adult society indoctrination factory. Literacy is not the same as being accomplished in a subject. In this context, the goals of NCLB makes perfect sense.

However, other people have other goals in education, but they don't seem to want to articulate it. To solve the problem, it must be articulated. Here is a question: do we leave some behind to concentrate our public resources on the more promising prospects? Not everyone is college bound (or a sports star) so is if fair to have the same goal for everyone? That is an interesting debate, one often made at the college level, but rarely heard in the elemetary school level. I suspect that many would agree to leave some behind is preferable (even some teachers may probably at least subconciously agree). I think the debate about resource allocation is a open issue, but by not talking about it, it's not possible to solve it. What other unspoken goals do the "enemies" of NCLB have?

Re:Where is why? by jbengt · 2012-06-05 06:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

For another, it requires more education and talent.

On the contrary, you need a college degree and state certification to teach in most places; not so for developing software.

I could easily teach any high school subject with the exception of biology and maybe chemistry, but most high school teachers would likely have no idea how to code.

Everyone feels it's easier to do things they don't really know much about than doing the things they have experience in.

Re:Where is why? by scot4875 · 2012-06-05 06:32 · Score: 1

I think the key issue, is that Americans as a culture are not book learned, but practical learned.

I think this line of reasoning -- which I'll note that you provided absolutely no support except for a single anecdote for -- is idiotic. In my contradictory anecdotal experience, people who are into "book larnin'" usually *are* into understanding why X = Y; that's the reason they're reading the book in the first place! The people who think they're somehow above academic learning are the ones that do stupid shit that winds up on thereifixedit.com.

--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal

Re:Where is why? by wierd_w · 2012-06-05 06:36 · Score: 1

Part of the problem there is the "everyone has a RIGHT to feel SAFE!" Mantra from the liberal arts heavy side of things.

(Bear with me here...)

In today's highly specialist society and economy, we constantly run into the situation where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and vise versa. The english major may not have the slightest idea what happens when you drop copper nuggets into concentrated nitric acid, for instance. Likewise, a chemistry major may not be terribly beholden to the works of shakespear enough to know which play the scene with the 3 witches is from.

The problem comes in, where well meaning but unsavvy people want to increase their perception of security. Knowledge is power, and power gives security. As people specialize, they sacrifice general knowledge for specialist knowledge. This means that as a consequence, the less general knowledge they have, the less emotionally and intellectually defended they are from general activities outside their speciality. This is why people have unreasonable fears about "chemicals", and "germs." They don't have the general knowledge to know that everything is a chemical, and that most germs are harmless, if not beneficial to them. Instead they get taken in by overpriced organic foods, and spend tons of money on hand sanitizer, and end up with kids suffering from allergies and asthma from being too clean.

A similr thing happens with people who would want to be cutting edge scientists and engineers.

They run into all manner of organized resistance from people outside those specialities if they attempt to hone their skills outside of a well entrenched and expensive to operate environment, because the idea of somebody inventing a new plastic in their basement is scary to people who don't know that polymer chemistry is pretty damned harmless, and that the cleaners under the sink are usually more toxic.

Engineers run afoul of people who get scared by shiny, unknown cylendrical objects with wires coming out. It doesn't even have to be that ominous looking; just cutting and fabricating metal parts and gears can make non-engineer types squeemish.

The chilling effect is that enginners, chemists, and general scientists have no choice but to operate in expensive/restricting university or corporate settings, and that greatly diminishes the desire of people who would otherwise make great contributions to those fields.

If you want people to be engineers and scientists, you have to *LET* those people be engineers and scientists. Placating to other people's irrational fears about "bombs", and "chemicals" does unspeakable harm to those vocations. For added fun, mention "radiation" as well. (Be sure to emphasise that you mean photonic emissions. Enjoy the hysterionics.)

To correct the problem, we need to enforce a suitable level of general scientific and engineering literacy in our country, so that people know that dihydrogen monixide is perfectly safe to drink, and to handle in large quantities.

This means sacrificing some of the time currently spent on specialist training vocations. Force that shakesperian actor to at least know what a group 7 element is, and about simple mechanical advantage before he gets his english degree. Force the MBA students to have a reasonable amount of general science and engineering in their academic diet of economic fluff pastry before they graduate.

Really, its the only way. General knowledge has to improve, so that people stop having irrational fears about "terrorists" and "mad scientists" as neighbors, or the situation will only get worse.

Re:Where is why? by Mitchell314 · 2012-06-05 06:40 · Score: 2

NCLB, Unions, bad teachers, improper testing, all that junk is only a tiny fraction of the problem. How can you expect the best performance when there is an element in our culture that looks upon education as a bad thing? From my own experiences, teaching a student is *nowhere* near as hard as convincing them to care enough to work hard at learning. Now, yes, there are school districts that struggle to function out of sheer lack of resources. But as for the others, the infrastructure is there. The material is there. The teachers are there. What's missing in a lot of cases is the drive on the student's behalf. And that's something you just can't simply solve with legislation.

--
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie

Re:Where is why? by Sperbels · 2012-06-05 06:41 · Score: 2

Maybe so, but how much does a dev job pay there? I'd imagine not much more than that.

What's the relevance? My point is, he is clearly exaggerating to support his argument. Why not use average pool boy salaries in Beverly Hills as an example of national pool boy salaries? Because it's a number that's too skewed by the localized wealth to have anything to do with the national average.

Re:Where is why? by jythie · 2012-06-05 06:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

well, for starters, the concept behind NCLB as nothing to do with actually not leaving any children behind. In fact it sets up a system where schools have an economic incentive to find ways to rid themselves of children who are not doing well.

I agree much of the debate over it is philosophical since the majority of people outside education, economics, and psychology know very little about the relative effects of using a punishment/quantitative dynamic rather then a reward/qualitative one. I say people outside because in general the proponents of NCLB do not have any background in the field and used the legislation to test their private theories about how things should be done, including having a nice packaged up metric that is not really based on anything but they can point towards to say it is working.

Under this new system, children get left behind all the bloody time. Anything that does not contribute to getting that small set of numbers up is pretty much set aside in order to hyper focus on the one metric that determines what your budget is going to be like. There is no incentive for enrichment, no incentive for after school programs, no incentive to give the advanced students the tools that will help them succeed or to help the LD students since they absorb a disproportionate amount of resources relative to their score impact.

I agree, the stated goal of NCLB, the one used on the press package and political rhetoric is a good one, but that is where it ends. It was a law designed by amateurs who, like all armchair xyz, thought that they knew better then all those 'experts', and it was designed to be sold to an electorate that is also made up of people with no domain knowledge.

And of course when people who know what they are talking about raised objections, they can easily (politically) be written off as 'protecting the status quo' and 'just unions interested in fat paychecks'... and of course a couple years down the road you have a perfect mechanism for slashing budgets of poor schools (which fits in nicely with the 'poor people are poor because they are stupid and deserve it) and raise budgets of wealthy schools (which fits in nicely with the 'rich people are rich because they are smart and deserve it) and of course push more of our educational system into private hands (which strongly favors people with wealth, who have no interest in helping to fund the public system) so there is even less incentive to have a healthy public one.

Re:Where is why? by spiffmastercow · 2012-06-05 06:49 · Score: 0

For another, it requires more education and talent.

On the contrary, you need a college degree and state certification to teach in most places; not so for developing software.

I could easily teach any high school subject with the exception of biology and maybe chemistry, but most high school teachers would likely have no idea how to code.

Everyone feels it's easier to do things they don't really know much about than doing the things they have experience in.

Most dev jobs require a CS degree, which is a lot harder to get than an education degree. As for things I don't really know much about, are you referring to teaching? Because I teach a 2 week class that all new hires have to pass, and it's not so hard if you know the material. The most difficult part is preparing the lesson plans, which most public school teachers don't even have to do, as they work off a guide book.

Re:Where is why? by Chris+Burke · 2012-06-05 06:50 · Score: 2

I don't see how USD50 000 is a third word wage.

You have to look at it in terms of opportunity cost. Compare the amount of effort and cost of going to school for engineering and science Masters or PhD, versus the the job you could get (both pay/benefits and intangibles). Compare that with an MBA or Finance degree and the kind of job you can get with that.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:Where is why? by djchristensen · 2012-06-05 06:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think you vastly underestimate what it takes to be a good teacher and have simultaneously identified what I would consider one of the most significant issues in public education. You assert that you "could easily teach any high school subject ...". Do you have any training in teaching, or do you just assume anyone can make a good teacher? Sounds like the latter. And yet I suspect you probably could get and keep a job teaching and even attain tenure if you really wanted to, but that's more a function of poor management (or maybe misguided union protection, but I don't want to get into that discussion here) than how easy it is to be a teacher. I have school-age kids, so I know there are teachers who really should find a different line of work.

You indicate you are a developer, which means you probably have experience with at least a few managers. Have they all been exemplary (in which case consider yourself very lucky), or have you run into some, like I have, that you thought were entirely inadequate at their job? Just as not everyone is cut out to be a manager, not everyone can be a good teacher.

Oh, and the word you made up ("consumerate") would support my gut feel that you probably would not be the great and wondrous teacher you think you would be.

Re:Where is why? by wierd_w · 2012-06-05 06:56 · Score: 1

Know what else the world doesn't need more of?

People who can spout shakespeare and who compose haiku on the spot about dandilions in the breeze, but get scared and apprehensive when somebody mentions dihydrogen monoxide being dumped into rivers and lakes.

What is needed is not more LA, or specialist training. What is needed is a braoder general education to help ensure that specializing adults can still effectively communicate with each other in society, and to keep irrational fears about "scary science!" And "scary engineering!" To a minimum.

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by Jason+Levine · 2012-06-05 06:58 · Score: 2

My main criticism of NCLB is: What about the children who are ahead? They wind up being held back waiting for their peers to catch up (getting bored in the meantime since they have to learn the same material over and over lest their slower peers bring down test scores). I have no problem with helping the slower kids get up to speed, but we've also got to help the faster kids fulfill their potential which doesn't mean telling them "Just sit there quietly until the rest of the class learns that 8 + 3 = 11."

(And, yes, my son was one of those fast kids who was forced to slow down his learning.)

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Re:Where is why? by mcl630 · 2012-06-05 06:58 · Score: 1

Well, for one being a developer is a lot less stable (unless you go public sector like I did, where the pay is miserable). For another, it requires more education and talent. I could easily teach any high school subject with the exception of biology and maybe chemistry, but most high school teachers would likely have no idea how to code. Not saying there's anything wrong with being a teacher, but teacher pay should be consumerate with the difficulty of the subject. I can't think of a single good reason that an elementary teacher (who really only requires a 6th grade education and a bit of patience) should make 20% more than a high school math teacher, who needs to know subjects like trig and calc well enough to teach them, and has to deal with obnoxious teenagers all day.

Umm... there's more to teaching than simply knowing the material you're teaching. To use your example of 6th graders, I can't imagine its easy to keep a room of 30 6th graders quiet and behaved long enough to accomplish anything. Not to mention teaching the material in such a way that it sinks in for the bulk of them.

Re:Where is why? by omnichad · 2012-06-05 06:59 · Score: 1

Most high school teachers I had didn't know a lot about teaching either. They knew how to write things on the chalkboard for students to copy down or equally projecting such words. But they sure didn't understand what it means to teach.

Re:Lots of money that doesn't make it to classroom by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:00 · Score: 0

Lots of money that doesn't seem to make it to the classrooms. If we compare nations based upon what is actually spent in the classroom I doubt the US ranks at #2.

You say that like you imagine that, somehow, other countries lack administrative spending. Or are, somehow, much less mired in bureaucracy than is the US. I'd like to see some numbers to back up the hypothesis that the European, welfare-state system manages its basic services with less bureaucracy than the US's glorious capitalist system, because that seems completely at odds with general fears over the bogeyman of creeping socialism.

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by Pope · 2012-06-05 07:00 · Score: 1

From Wikipedia: "The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)[1][2] is a United States Act of Congress that came about as wide public concern about the state of education. First proposed by the administration of George W. Bush immediately after he took office,[3] the bill passed in the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support."

Pfft. There you go again, using facts to prove something wrong.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

Re:Where is why? by omnichad · 2012-06-05 07:01 · Score: 1

And there aren't a whole lot of jobs for them. Manual labor is shipped off to the lowest bidding country. I'm not sure, but it seems unsustainable.

Re:Where is why? by donscarletti · 2012-06-05 07:02 · Score: 1

I work in China in online games development. My Chinese coworkers are paid well over the average US whitecollar worker salary, here are some examples of things they cannot do:

Use quadratic curves (or cubic curves for that matter). For example, you have three vectors and a scaler, a starting velocity, starting position, finish position and time and you want to linearly accelerate so the fireball hits the target when it is supposed to (they know how to find the roots of a parabola in several ways, but where is the y=ax^2+bx+c here?).
Use a cross product to find basis vectors, or even a position to left/right of an object (they know what a cross/vector product or "Chaji"/"Xiangliangji" is, but not why you want that third vector).
Use a dot product to project vectors, for example to work out whether an object is in front or behind another (they know what a dot product or "Dianji" is, but not why you want that scalar).
Write out a 90 degree 2d rotation matrix (they know how to write an arbitary rotation matrix or "Xuanzhuan Juzheng", with cos and sin, but need a calculator to work out cos(pi/2)).
Integrate velocity/acceleration/drag/whatever over time rather than simulating with crude, uneven time slices.

I mean, sure, most westerners can't do that either, but if you're a game programmer you should eat and breathe this stuff. I think East Asian culture just does not teach people to look at some knowledge and work out how it could be applied. The mentality is "you need to know this for the exam", there is no reason beyond that, nor does there have to be.

Finally, an anecdote. I was talking to my coworkers about University, saying at my university we wrote an compiler more or less from scratch, with tokeniser, parser, code generator, etc all hand written in stages with clear interfaces between each component set by the professor. My coworker said that there was no way a Chinese professor could organise something like that. Then I pointed out that the professor who taught it was called Xue Jingling and he graduated from Tsinghua University, not 3km from the company. So in my opinion it is not Chinese people themselves that are idiotic, they are often very smart, creative, and capable. It seems that they have a couple of subtle traits that when you get a whole lot of them together, you can really make an idiotic society. The same can be said of Americans too, but the difference is that Americans are far less obnoxious in their own country than out of it, whereas Chinese are the opposite.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem

Re:Where is why? by spiffmastercow · 2012-06-05 07:02 · Score: 1

Maybe so, but how much does a dev job pay there? I'd imagine not much more than that.

What's the relevance? My point is, he is clearly exaggerating to support his argument. Why not use average pool boy salaries in Beverly Hills as an example of national pool boy salaries? Because it's a number that's too skewed by the localized wealth to have anything to do with the national average.

It's hugely relevant. A dev job in most parts of the country pays between 2 and 3 times as much as a teacher's starting salary. If teachers make the same as other professions that typically pay much better, then you can't chalk it up to being an affluent town with a high cost of living, as their relative standing has still improved. I actually don't take issue with the idea that teachers should be paid better. I just take issue with the fact that the difficulty of the subject taught is inversely proportional to the pay of the teacher, according to the data points available on that web site of teacher salaries.

-1 nonsense by csumpi · 2012-06-05 07:04 · Score: 2

Wish I had mod points, because what you are saying is nonsense and overrated.

Sounds like you are in the group that is all for science, like the gov of California, who now holds education hostage to plug the budget, while flushing 60 billion to the unions to build a train no one will ever use.

Re:-1 nonsense by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 08:25 · Score: 1

Unions? The train will be built by private corporations.
Re:-1 nonsense by csumpi · 2012-06-05 10:08 · Score: 1

So why would the unions be cheerleading for it? Just because they like to travel by train?
"""
Whether eroding public support will sway the Legislature is unclear. Brown, the Obama administration, labor unions and Democratic leaders, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, are ramping up pressure on key state senators to cast aside doubts and commit funding this summer for an initial 130-mile section of track.
"""
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/02/4533938/public-opinion-wanes-on-california.html#storylink=cpy
Re:-1 nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 03:08 · Score: 0

Um, who do you think most of the union members work for?

Re:I have a modest proposal by MRe_nl · 2012-06-05 07:04 · Score: 2

Yes! Kill all Poor Children!
We'd royally screw the pedophiles, save a ton of money AND raise the test scores. Brilliant!

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"

Where do you live? by BigDogCH · 2012-06-05 07:06 · Score: 1

"In other words we are told things are bad by UNIONS so they can demand more pay raises & more expensive toys in the classroom. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. EVERYBODY has a bias..... it's just a matter of digging to discover it."

I don't know where you are from, but I see the exact opposite. Our schools are being forced by the right to spend money on Ipods and such for each student. The teachers and the union are saying "we don't need this stuff, look at how great our test scores are". The right-wing is claiming the schools are struggling and we need to cut staff and increase spending elsewhere. Yeah, like an Ipod for each student is going to help.

Give a bad teacher technology and they will still be a bad teacher. Give a good teacher whatever tools you want, they will find a way to be a good teacher. Throwing money at it will not fix it, and this is exactly the point that our unions have been making for a long time.

Why do we have ipods going to each student in many schools across the country? Who is pushing this? I honestly don't know. Anyone with some insight?

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 07:07 · Score: 0

That was good for a laugh. The hourly rate it assumed for me was less than half my actual rate. Apparently nobody in the world works 80 hours a week. Maybe it would be worth it to move to Honduras?

Re:Where is why? by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2012-06-05 07:07 · Score: 1

What is wrong with NCLB:

1) Yes sometimes a child should be left behind, repeating a grade is not always bad.
2) Accountable, yes. Use an arbitrary test to do the measuring, no.
3) Many ways to measure success. We seemed to do pretty well in the 50s/60s/70s without that a standardized test to evaluate student abilities.
4) Problem is the option is too often a private school that is more interested in turning a profit than educating our schools or a religious school that is indoctrinating the students in the school masters cult. My tax dollars should not to any religious education outfit.

I graduated in the 70s from a decent public school in Wisconsin and I visit my kids school regularly and I believe that they are getting a pretty decent education from the public school they attend.

IMO a public should be providing a well rounded education, science/math/english/physical, not trying to prepare students for specific jobs. That kind of education should be provided by colleges, tech schools and most importantly employers. Problem is employers never want to give training any more, they just want to hire already trained employees.

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by Rockoon · 2012-06-05 07:12 · Score: 1

Indeed. The Bush administration doubled the funding for the federal department of education, much to the chagrin of fiscal conservatives on both sides of the fence (yes, there are fiscally conservative Democrats.)

The biggest problem with our education system is almost certainly how top-heavy the funding is.

--
"His name was James Damore."

Re:Where is why? by spiffmastercow · 2012-06-05 07:13 · Score: 0

I think you vastly underestimate what it takes to be a good teacher and have simultaneously identified what I would consider one of the most significant issues in public education. You assert that you "could easily teach any high school subject ...". Do you have any training in teaching, or do you just assume anyone can make a good teacher? Sounds like the latter. And yet I suspect you probably could get and keep a job teaching and even attain tenure if you really wanted to, but that's more a function of poor management (or maybe misguided union protection, but I don't want to get into that discussion here) than how easy it is to be a teacher. I have school-age kids, so I know there are teachers who really should find a different line of work.

You indicate you are a developer, which means you probably have experience with at least a few managers. Have they all been exemplary (in which case consider yourself very lucky), or have you run into some, like I have, that you thought were entirely inadequate at their job? Just as not everyone is cut out to be a manager, not everyone can be a good teacher.

Oh, and the word you made up ("consumerate") would support my gut feel that you probably would not be the great and wondrous teacher you think you would be.

That was a typo, the word I was looking for was "commensurate". I do happen to teach software development classes at my work (we've had better luck finding smart developers and teaching them our toolset than it is to find people who know our toolset and hope they're good developers). My role also involves a lot of mentoring. And you're correct, being a good teacher is hard. But being a good teacher is not a requirement for being a public school teacher either. The public school system consists mostly of a "technician" level of understanding, at this point. Read from the book and teach the test. That's not as hard as developing software.

Re:Lots of money that doesn't make it to classroom by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2012-06-05 07:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

Truly stupid and moron my ass;

My son has a measured IQ north of 140 but is also autistic. He gets extra help to cope with his difficulty in communicating verbally and is well on his way to university and will be able to handle it without an aide. It is people like you who would have thrown him into an institution in the 40s and 50s.

Re:Where is why? by mcl630 · 2012-06-05 07:14 · Score: 1

Part of the problem with NCLB is that assumes that failing students always, always, always have a singular cause (teachers), and there's only one solution (closing the worst scoring schools). There can never, ever be any other cause, and there's no other possible solution.

Re:Lots of money that doesn't make it to classroom by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2012-06-05 07:15 · Score: 1

Does your charter school have the ability to select the students or is it required to accept all applicants like the non-charter school? Just saying.

Americans by l3v1 · 2012-06-05 07:24 · Score: 1

"continued to lead the world in scientific journal publications"

Well, if you'd look around, you could see that a _lot_ of those researchers didn't learn in the US during those years that the mentioned standardized tests are scoring. And I mean a lot. Don't misunderstand: what I'd like to point at is that the number of publications is not the best (to put it mildly) measure of kids' generic education quality. The quality of general science education should be measured among those kids who have learnt in the US education system from the beginning. Now, whether the test itself is good or not, I don't know about that, since no test is perfect, ever. The only thing they could do is keep the difficulty level of those tests constant for e.g. a decade, and evaluate current results w.r.t. previous ones. But if they change the difficulty or the scoring system, than there's not much use for it.

--
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

Re:Where is why? by BigT · 2012-06-05 07:26 · Score: 1

You can't just decide that 95% of kids can attain a "basic grasp of science" (as defined by achieving a particular score on a standardized test) and declare utter failure if you don't get there.

Why not? That's exactly what No Child Left Behind does for math and reading. 100% of students are supposed to pass the test by 2014. If not, the school is a failure. No allowances made for handicaps, learning disabilities, ability to speak english, or anything else.

Not saying that NCLB makes sense, either, but precedent has been set for pulling numbers out of thin air.

--
Is it weird in here, or is it just me?

Heard about moonshots? 'A theory not a fact' now?! by D4C5CE · 2012-06-05 07:38 · Score: 1

What year was this written? 2012? 2004? 2000? Try 1983.

Thought that had been written by Doc Emmett Brown in 1885 after seeing the Tannens rule 2015. ;-)

Yet during this period of national "mediocrity," we created Silicon Valley, built multinational biotechnology firms, and continued to lead the world in scientific journal publications and total number of Nobel Prize winners. We also invented and sold more than a few iPads.

And then there was a thing about men and a moon, too (arguably a bit more of an accomplishment than selling gadgets)... or do "alternative viewpoint" (conspiracy) theories claim "equal validity in the classroom" on this one as well these days?

Re:Where is why? by spiffmastercow · 2012-06-05 07:39 · Score: 1

Umm... there's more to teaching than simply knowing the material you're teaching. To use your example of 6th graders, I can't imagine its easy to keep a room of 30 6th graders quiet and behaved long enough to accomplish anything. Not to mention teaching the material in such a way that it sinks in for the bulk of them.

But you're assuming that the high school math teacher doesn't know how to teach and the elementary school teacher does. You have to know how to teach in order to teach math, the same as you have to know how to teach in order to teach elementary school. The difference is you have to know how to teach, you have to know how to do *math*. Most school teachers can't hang with the high school math. So, given that that the math teacher has a more rare skill set, in addition to the general skill set of all teachers, that said math teacher should make more than other teachers, not less?

Re:Where is why? by mcmonkey · 2012-06-05 07:42 · Score: 1

Most dev jobs require a CS degree, which is a lot harder to get than an education degree. As for things I don't really know much about, are you referring to teaching? Because I teach a 2 week class that all new hires have to pass, and it's not so hard if you know the material.

So you teach a 2 week class, to adults, who are paid to attend. And that somehow makes you an expert on teaching full time to adolescents?

The ignorance and arrogance is astounding.

No reward for studying STEM by walterbyrd · 2012-06-05 07:56 · Score: 1

Smart Americans would have be to stupid to pursue a STEM career. You will just end up having your job offshored, or being forced to train your H1B replacement.

STEM careers are for chumps, and smart students know it.

6 US Scientists Just Won Kavli Prizes.Options by walterbyrd · 2012-06-05 07:59 · Score: 1

Looks like six of the seven scientists were Americans. How could that be? I thought all Americans were stupid and lazy, and incapable of STEM work? Looks like the only non-American to win is from Germany.

Published: May 31, 2012

> The $1 million awards, sponsored by the physicist, businessman and philanthropist Fred Kavli, are given every two years by the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters for work in the fields of astrophysics, nanoscience and neuroscience, “the biggest, the smallest and the most complex,” in the words of Mr. Kavli.

> Mildred S. Dresselhaus, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Cornelia Isabella Bargmann of Rockefeller University
> Winfried Denk of the Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg, Germany
> Ann M. Graybiel of M.I.T. McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT.
> David C. Jewitt of the University of California, Los Angeles
> Jane X. Luu of M.I.T.’s Lincoln Laboratory
> Michael E. Brown of the California Institute of Technology

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/science/seven-scientists-win-kavli-prizes.html?_r=1

Re:Where is why? by spiffmastercow · 2012-06-05 08:01 · Score: 1

Most dev jobs require a CS degree, which is a lot harder to get than an education degree. As for things I don't really know much about, are you referring to teaching? Because I teach a 2 week class that all new hires have to pass, and it's not so hard if you know the material.

So you teach a 2 week class, to adults, who are paid to attend. And that somehow makes you an expert on teaching full time to adolescents?

The ignorance and arrogance is astounding.

What's with everyone getting their panties in a wad over this? Some careers pay better than others, and some degree programs are harder than others. As I said before, there's nothing wrong with being a teacher -- they fill an important role in our society. But should elementary school teachers be paid more than engineers and software devs? If you say yes, then it should be clear why Americans aren't going the STEM route.

Education is so bad ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 08:05 · Score: 0

kids don't even know how to correctly use a phrase such as "strawman argument".

I took differential calculus in grade 12 by Chirs · 2012-06-05 08:05 · Score: 1

I'm Canadian. I took calculus (differential and integral) in my last year of high school. I was 17. It was an optional course (you needed grade 12 algebra first) but it was available.

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 08:09 · Score: 0

I've seen this in my grad classes, but the Chinese kid cheated A LOT. If he wasn't looking things up on his iphone during the test, I'm sure his room mate who took the class a quarter before had all the old tests (he said things to make me think this).

When it came project time he was useless, couldn't write a line of code in the language he picked. This was a grad class, where writing code was supposed to be automatic. He could not do it, and for some reason he could pass the complicated SQL written tests but when requested to do so in code he could not, geee I wounder why?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-06-05 08:10 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-06-05 08:18 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Lots of money that doesn't make it to classroom by pnutjam · 2012-06-05 08:18 · Score: 1

Lobbyists and budgets that are poorly spent.

http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm

--
Cheap storage VM.

Dismal science? by binkless · 2012-06-05 08:23 · Score: 1

Just economics

Science is certainly opposed to Religion by Tenebrousedge · 2012-06-05 08:24 · Score: 1

Tu quoque.

Science is an objective, empirical method of finding truth. Religious believers have either an alternate definition of truth, or an alternate method of determining it. The alternate method can be rational but is not generally empirical.

If Science and Religion are the same, believers are not consistent in claiming truths that are not scientific truths. If they are not the same, then they must vary as defined above. These are such fundamentally opposing axioms that any reconciliation of the two is best explained by cognitive dissonance.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.

Re:Science is certainly opposed to Religion by geoffrobinson · 2012-06-05 08:57 · Score: 1

I think you are confusing science with science-ism.
If you are wondering if I as a theist am worried that science will be hostile to my faith, I do not. Science rests on the assumption that physical laws will remain the same. They aren't hanging in mid-air. That's basically an assumption for a law-giver/maker/sustainer. Theism is built into the foundation of science.
Now, those who run around claiming that if we can't prove something scientifically we can't believe it, that's another matter. But I'll worry about that when they prove that belief scientifically.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Re:Science is certainly opposed to Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 10:37 · Score: 0

I am not confusing anything. You have a comprehension problem.

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 08:27 · Score: 1

So is the cheating and questionable grading.

Re:Lots of money that doesn't make it to classroom by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 08:30 · Score: 0

Also, that $91,700 is an average amount, not what's actually spent on each student. So when you exclude wealthier districts that raise money through bond measures (and graduate students who, for the most part, do well in the areas we're talking about), the total is much lower.

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by turkeyfish · 2012-06-05 08:30 · Score: 1

"The biggest problem with our education system is almost certainly how top-heavy the funding is."

To a large extent true, when you consider the testing corporations and others selling "education for a profit" are eager to assure that it is their lobbyists that write the legislation that determines the "standards". This con-game is bankrupting us.

No Focus On Poor, Too Much on Upper by mx+b · 2012-06-05 08:32 · Score: 1

It is starting to get longer ago than I like to admit, but not terribly so... but I remember my high school days complaining about similar thing. The teachers were very keen on taking me and a few other students and forcing us into more classroom time with teachers to focus on test prep, while the other students (largely poorer; granted I wasn't exactly rich, but not badly off) had some physical education freebee or pep rally or something.

I asked the teacher once why I had to be indoors doing test prep instead of taking that time to go work on a project (I and a few friends were involved in a electronics club). She was honest and said "because the school district needs higher scores, so you need to perform better". I said "Well, wouldn't it be easier to get a higher school average if EVERYONE practices? A large number of people doing slightly better will tip the average more than me and a few others getting perfect scores.". She didn't really have a response. True story; I actually I refused to do more test prep and was sent to detention for causing a scene and disobeying... but after the administrators were gone, the teacher expressed sympathy and let me sneak out.

Anyway, I still feel that today. The smart are going to keep learning if you give them the resources and get out of their way. Why not spend more time with the people that actually the need the help?

The entire article is a load of drivel by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-06-05 08:38 · Score: 1

It takes no account of population size differences. It prides itself on Silicon Valley but the US pulls those smart people from 360 million people. Far smaller countries like say Holland pull TU Delft from 16 million. Never heard of it? Well, it is up there with MIT and the place where the CD came from among many others.

The China it dismisses has indeed a lot of badly educated people BUT it also can pull ITS brainiacs from 1.5 billion people.

If the article was balanced and fair and reasonable (HA!) then it would acknowledge that absolute numbers for one example compared with percentages in for another are a very obvious way to lie with numbers.

The problem is that education isn't easy, you can't just put a lot of kids in a school and expect them to become smart. Some people are just stupid but few are willing to accept that. Mention that by the definition of IQ half the population has to have an IQ below 100 and you are called a troll. While it does not have to be 50% that scores below, the 100 IQ mark is supposed to be the average IQ. So if you only had really smart people, the average would still be 100.

But we don't consider someone intelligent unless they score 120 or higher. 100 is very average indeed. Hit the 80 range and... well. You know. Someone must be watching TV still.

Our society where production is outsourced needs more smart people. They are after all the creators. The less intelligent are the builders but we closed the factories. It leaves us with a surplus of people who have nothing to do. Unemployment is high around the world and increasing BUT not among the educated. Even in my own country, Holland, unemployment has started going up but at my company we still have vacant positions for developers. Not coders, coders are easy to find, developers are coders who can actually finish a project on time, according to the customer specifications and not an endless list of known bugs and an infinite list of "oh, I didn't think of that, you mean you wanted your files saved when you press save?"

It is not even about IQ, it is about observing the world and thinking about it. Take a pallet lifter, very simple device, you pump the handle and it lifts the pallet. Now. HOW do you lower it? AHA! If you think you need instruction, the B-Ark is over there. There is one small handle on the device and that is it. Why not pull it gently and see what happens?

A lot of people expect to be trained on such things, they don't experiment or try to reason things out but want to be told exactly what to do, have a rehearsal and someone to remind them next week how to do it again. That works fine, for the most menial types of labor. Provided you don't want to advance to say supervisor of shift-manager or even just foreman. Put widget A in hole B and repeat until the whistle goes. It is honest work and once there were countless factories in the west were people who could do such work (your average brainiac would go insane), pay taxes, raise their families and keep the economy going the old fashioned boring reliable way. But those jobs are in China now.

Coding isn't hard, most of IT isn't and that is where the jobs are. I sometimes get asked how to get into the field, what books to read, what course to take, what guide to follow. It is not just a hint they want, that I can give. It is an A-Z guide with checkpoints and a finish line. And the very fact that you ask for such a think, means you are not fit for the job. You can see it every day around you. There are people who get how the door opens and there are those who don't. Those who don't have a thought time working in a field where you are supposed to solve problems and not work to order.

Mind you, as said, this is NOT about how "smart" you are. A plumber, a builder even a garbage collector who can solve a problem and come up with a solution is a different kind then a doctor who does dna sampling all day but freezes up when his computer goes PING and stops working. We need problem solvers because they can tell others how to d

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 08:42 · Score: 0

They didn't have a whole lot of room for kids getting ahead of the average pace before NCLB, either, at least not when I was a kid. They might split the classes into a tougher and easier version of the same subject, but it's hard to significantly pull ahead. I had a teacher who let me dive into ambitious self-study in math in the 6th grade, and I soaked up a lot of algebra. Then I switched to middle school, where they only offered standard 7th grade math and then 8th grade you could do more standard math or the "advanced" kids got the algebra that I'd mostly covered back in 6th. Then high school only had enough math for me to take one class per year, ending in calculus as a 12th grader. You could take extra math if you were behind and wanted to catch up (a friend of mine didn't have algebra in middle school and doubled up one year to finish at the same place I did) but I was already in the fast track and had no options for going faster.

We had only two levels for physics, biology, and chemistry (intro and advanced for each). There may have been a stray side topic in math (statistics?) that was outside the main path, but that was about it. Same outside of science: English had just the four standard/advanced classes, one for each year, and likewise history. There were lots of electives if your tastes ran to other subjects (languages, art, shop, etc.) - you could go broader, but not any deeper.

Not that I can entirely blame them: how do you justify an extra-advanced class with two or three students in it? How much time and energy can you devote to customizing curricula for self study, and how many students would be disciplined enough to get something out of it?

Re:Where is why? by McPierce · 2012-06-05 08:50 · Score: 1

Seriously, where does this site get its data? It says I'm in the top 0.64% of the world? And putting in various amounts, making $1000/year makes you a part of the top half of all wage earners in the world? Are they counting babies in that or what?

--
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Re:Where is why? by McPierce · 2012-06-05 08:51 · Score: 2

Then fight those people who're trying to push religion in the classroom under the guise of "science".

--
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Re:Where is why? by slew · 2012-06-05 08:52 · Score: 1

Sure, you can bash NCLB implementation all you want, but if you agree that leaving no children behind is a good goal, how would you do it?

It's easy to bash the armchair 'experts' that crafted the law or the electorate that has no domain knowledge, so how to get there just "unknowable", or we just shouldn't try to do it, because it's not doable. If you have the secret, there are many people willing to listen.

Or are you arguing that public education should be doing something else and "not leaving children behind" isn't a goal of public education, and we should be spending our money instead on people that have better prospects by providing enrichment, after school programs, and advanced programs for students. It's a potentially valid argument to spend public money that way instead (not that I would advocate it), but there's only so much money to spend (and the US is spending quite a bit of it on primary education compared to the rest of the world normalized for purchasing power), and at some point, we (collectively) should make a choice compatible with our goals.

Re:Where is why? by grep_rocks · 2012-06-05 08:57 · Score: 1

Wow I guess the unions did a good job in pulling up those science scores!

Re:Where is why? by superdude72 · 2012-06-05 09:01 · Score: 1

Do you really believe there are a lot of Shakespeare-spouting extemporaneous haiku poets who get played by the "dihydrogen monoxide" gag? Science and math are included amongst the liberal arts, you know.

Ah, whatever. I get tired of being condescended to by engineers who would never hack it in a rigorous liberal arts program. The world needs engineers, yes, but if you look at the architects who designed Chicago, or the scientists who built the atom bomb... these were not narrowly educated men. They studied art, music, literature. social science. If all you aspire to be is a draftsman, then fine, go to trade school. University degrees are devalued when they're given to people who haven't really studied anything beyond a narrow career specialty.

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by utuk99 · 2012-06-05 09:03 · Score: 1

My solution was to sleep through school or read something interesting during class, read the chapter summaries to pass the tests, and study what I wanted when not in school. I was in all honors and AP classes in high school, so its not like I just took the easy classes. That was 20 years ago, so not supporting the kids who are ahead is hardly new.

As for what to do for your kids now, home school or private school. If you can't afford it put some time into getting your child learning opportunities outside of school. A lot of junior colleges now allow enrollment by high school students or have summer programs for high school students. Otherwise it is easy to get discouraged and become despondent or a trouble maker. I know, I did both before figuring out how to deal with the system and finding opportunities outside of public school. I was definitely in the could not afford home or private school category, but I still managed to find opportunities during high school. Because of those opportunities and self learning I paid my own way through college without accruing a bunch of debt. I would say I learned far more outside of school on my own than I ever did in school, but college was worth it for the people I met and the degrees of course.

My wife and I will probably be home schooling our daughter, since economically it is a better value for us than private school and my wife is crazy enough to do it. She has a liberal arts education and I have a masters of software engineering and we are both life long learners, so between the two of us we can provide a good balance. The area we live in has a ton of independent educational resources as well. We are in an area with top rated schools, but even so their primary purpose seems to be daycare not education.

Re:Where is why? by McPierce · 2012-06-05 09:32 · Score: 1

I agree.

The religion of AGW has no place in a science class.

America's Got Weasels?

--
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 09:32 · Score: 0

I'm sorry, I live in Boulder. I'm a 6 years experienced software engineer working in telecom. I wish I made 93K a year. I see teachers driving around in their audis and BMWs, I drive a golf. And you said it yourself, yeah, denver teachers make less, but denver has a lower cost of living as well, so it's expected. My brother in law is a music teacher in denver. I make 7K a year more than him, and I work 3 months a year more than him. But no, keep looking for excuses. No, I'm sorry, but they make enough.

Re:Where is why? by Ol+Olsoc · 2012-06-05 09:38 · Score: 1

In other words we are told things are bad by UNIONS so they can demand more pay raises & more expensive toys in the classroom.

You missed a few:

Liberals, the ACLU, affirmative action, the NAACP, anyone who voted for FDR, gay marriage, and people from blue states.

Now go turn in your Fox and Friends membership card.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Argument from politics not experience. by goodmanj · 2012-06-05 09:45 · Score: 1

The authors have a book coming out soon: "Science Left Behind: Feel-good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left"
http://www.hankcampbell.com/science-left-behind/
It's pretty clear that they're forming their opinions based on politics, rather than based on interacting with students. Nobody who teaches college introductory physics, as I do, could believe that high school science education is in good shape.

Re:Lots of money that doesn't make it to classroom by WaywardGeek · 2012-06-05 09:45 · Score: 1

It is not allowed to choose students. They have a lottery to see who gets in. Now you've still got a valid point. Our charter school only accepts kids from parents who go to the trouble of applying. For whatever reason, our school has less racial diversity than the county as a whole. There are not enough Blacks or Latinos to track in EOG tests. Parents are not wealthier than average I think, but there are few if any students who live in dire poverty, where parents worry more about finding money for dinner than helping with homework. However, there are many more students with issues such as ADHD, learning disorders, etc.

I did my own little study of the local student population during the redistricting mess a few years back that led to concentration of poverty at FPG. I found that the real cliff in student performance has to do with poverty. It seems that whether you're White, Black, or Hispanic, your first priorities are for food and a place to live for your family. If you can't afford that, you kids will generally do poorly at school, and there's not a lot teachers can do about it. Once the basics are met, parents of all races and cultures seem to make educating their kids a high priority. There seems to be a small culture related difference in test scores, but compared to poverty, culture has only a small effect, at least here in Chapel Hill. The other major factor is illegal immigration where the kids are mostly citizens, but their parents hide away from society. I was unable to interview a single Latino parent, as the parents refused to answer the door when a white guy comes knocking in the poor neighborhoods I was studying. These kids are often the ones who don't have enough to eat, but even if their parents are reasonably financially stable, it's hard on the kids when the parents don't come to school like the other kids parents.

Our charter school simply doesn't have kids who are too poor to afford food. The parents are all highly involved, and the kids of illegal immigrants don't apply either. Charter schools don't help parents feed their kids, so we'll need another solution for that problem. Making parents of citizens hide in fear of deportation is just a crime, and it's something Americans need to develop the political will to solve. But, charter schools do seem to solve the whole mess with too much politics and government inefficiency.

--
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell

Re:Where is why? by wierd_w · 2012-06-05 09:53 · Score: 1

Way to totally misinterperate what I said.

Simply because I am an engineer doesn't mean I don't value culture or heritage, or aesthetics in design. I bought an airbrush for personal use not that long ago, for doing artwork.

The point was about specialization, and the trend LA moves toward, which seems more geared toward hero worship of dead playwrights and literary trivia on the english lit side, and form over function, with excessive abstractionism in the graphic arts side. Art is an expression of the artist, and if you can't express yourself, you won't ever be a good one. Schools of art are useful only in teaching you how to better articulate yourself to produce that art.

However, when the architect focuses on "the aesthetic VISION!" Of his building design, completely neglecting the functional aspects, and ends up producing a leaky kontiki of an apartment building, I can't help but feel he is a bad architect. I've seen more than my fair share of "architectural wonders" that the only thing I wonder about is how they are still standing, and why the roof hasn't caved in from snow landing on top.

The best work is when function melds seamlessly with form, and the glorious looking building is equally beautifully engineered to service a need. Gargoyles on buildings serve a utilitarian purpose, and are not just idle decoration, for instance. They serve as downspouts and drains, just covered up creatively with grotesquely cute little statues of imps.

And that's just architecture.

What I am harping at here is that your "grand vision" doesn't mean shit if it has no meaning to your audience. If your audience has no more clue about your narrative structure than you do about the properties of an ether bond in a saccharide, don't expect them to understand what you are talking about.

Now. Imagine this little gem of a situation:

You want to write a story, but are told that you can only do so if already licensed to a publisher, and paying for a special room to write your story in, and that you have to obey an epic shitton of china-like regulations for narrative content, with oversight.

That's what people's obscene fears about science and engineering force hobby scientists and engineers to put up with. People are afraid of "the chemicals", or about "explosions", and "don't feel safe!" Because they don't know enough about the work those people are trying to do to know how totally benign and harmless it is. So, to make themselves feel safe, they institute all kinds of political red tape to make the bad scientists and scary engineers go away.

The LA world is not immune from this either. People worried about the use of the word "nigger" in mark twain's works for instance, or other such literary censorship, because it makes people "feel unsafe!".

The message I was conveying is that there is too much specialization, and not enough generalization. There is a decided lack of common ground for people to get to gether and realize that thir neighbor is just like they are, but with different interests.

People need to generalize, so that people can socialize effectively, communicate effectively, and work together effectively.

Without that, you end up with what we have now, with people so batshit scared of everyone else that we have people calling national security hotlines over every piddly assed thing, people convinced their neighbors are pedophiles out to rape their toddler, and people afraid to go next door and just talk!

Re:Where is why? by Dr+Damage+I · 2012-06-05 10:17 · Score: 1

Catastrophic America's Got Weasels

--
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11

Re:Where is why? by Dr+Damage+I · 2012-06-05 10:30 · Score: 1

"Look at any science or engineering school in the U.S. and it becomes pretty clear. There are many, many more foreigners than Americans

The question then becomes, why are foreigners attending American science and engineering schools if Americans make louse scientists and engineers?

--
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11

Re:Where is why? by Sperbels · 2012-06-05 10:54 · Score: 1

I see teachers driving around in their audis and BMWs, I drive a golf.

Umm, we've already established this website's figures are way off. And if you're a 6 year software engineer and can only afford a Golf, you need a new job. BMWs and Audis really aren't that expensive if you don't have any dependents.

Re:Where is why? by Pentavirate · 2012-06-05 11:15 · Score: 1

Really? Do you have a citation?

--
www.joshferguson.org

But Bible-ology is flourishing! by Pfhorrest · 2012-06-05 11:29 · Score: 1

There's an ad on this page as I write this which reads:

"Earn a Bible Degree. Study The Bible Online. Earn a Degree Today."

I would say it was ironic if not for the obvious context-based ad placement, but it's still... I don't know, poignant?

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."

Re:Where is why? by tbannist · 2012-06-05 11:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

First, when you call anything you don't like "a religion", you discredit yourself. I, personally, find it amusing that you have the hubris to call the majority of the scientists in the world, and every country's national science body part of "a false religion" because you disagree with them.

Second, neither point is "still out in the debate":
1) Humans are causing it, no other explanations fits the facts.
2) It's a bad thing. On economic grounds, estimates for end of century spending for deal with the effects of Global warming are close to 7.5 trillion, and the costs of averting it less than 2 trillion. Then there's the moral problem of having poor and undeveloped nations shoulder most of the worst consequences of our fossil fuel use.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 11:36 · Score: 0

Texas education is fine despite it being a racist shithole that doesn't care about educating all of its population. Leave Texas alone! It's not their fault that a state that was formerly Mexico is full of untermenschen.

Re:Where is why? by mcmonkey · 2012-06-05 11:41 · Score: 1

What's with everyone getting their panties in a wad over this? Some careers pay better than others, and some degree programs are harder than others. As I said before, there's nothing wrong with being a teacher -- they fill an important role in our society. But should elementary school teachers be paid more than engineers and software devs? If you say yes, then it should be clear why Americans aren't going the STEM route.

Why should software devs and engineers get paid more than elementary school teachers? You haven't supported your position any more than I've supported the converse.

Because software dev and engineering is hard? Puh-lease.

Besides, what a position pays should based on utility, not the effort of the person doing the job. It'd be pretty hard for me to dig out a pool in my backyard with a salad fork. Doesn't mean anyone should pay me to do it.

It seems the panty wads are on the folks balking at the salaries paid to teachers. What's the problem? Shouldn't someone be able to make a living acting as the steward for other people's children full time?

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 11:52 · Score: 0

The Boulder Valley School District pay scale for teachers maxes out at $84,215 for teachers with 24+ years experience and a Ph.D.

http://bvsd.org/HR/Documents/Negotiated%20Agreements%20and%20Salary%20Schedules/Teacher_2011-12.pdf

Sorry, but $84k in Boulder is not a lot of money for someone with a Ph.D and 25 years experience, especially if the degree is in a STEM field. You could not buy a house in Boulder on that salary.

Also, looking directly at teachersalary.net, they claim the average teacher's salary in Boulder is $82,286 (not the $93k listed above), and the average age is 42 years. Generously assuming that a 42 year old teacher has 20 years experience plus an MA, (this would mean that they started teaching directly after earning a BA and took night classes to get the MA), the posted schedule on bvsd.org would put the average teacher at $65,375. To get to the $82k figure, you would have to be counting another $17k in benefits, which could be a reasonable estimate for decent health care and a pension. Calling that $82k "salary" when it should really be "total compensation" is quite misleading.

Makes you wonder, do the people that run this site not know the difference between "salary" and "total compensation" or are they intentionally attempting to deceive?

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 12:06 · Score: 0

[quote] I won't argue the benefits aren't good [/quote]

Then please, allow me.

Decent health care and a pension for a productive worker should be considered a minimum standard of decency in a rich, industrialized country, and is in fact in most.

Re:The whole standardized test industry is the iss by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 12:12 · Score: 0

My main criticism of NCLB is: What about the children who are ahead?

That certainly didn't start with NCLB, it's been that way for many years. Mainstreaming is an even worse example of screwing an entire class to (possibly) benefit one special needs student.

Re:Where is why? by WaywardGeek · 2012-06-05 12:39 · Score: 1

I agree. If you devote your life to teaching the next generation at the wages we pay teachers, the least we can do is provide you with a retirement in dignity.

--
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell

FTFA by Garble+Snarky · 2012-06-05 13:07 · Score: 1

"Obviously, standardized tests aren't everything."

"Test scores have increased since NCLB passed in 2002. Reading scores also are up slightly, and girls achieved parity with boys in mathematics. This is a monumental victory." What?

Tough teaching facts to Teatards by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 13:18 · Score: 0

It's kind of difficult teaching fact-based information in a nation inhabited by Teaklanners who think cutting taxes generates revenues, giving money to wealthy people makes everyone else rich, the Bible is literally true, and the universe is only 3000 years old.

Re:Lots of money that doesn't make it to classroom by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2012-06-05 13:42 · Score: 1

Here I was all prepared to have an unfriendly discussion with you about Charter and you ruined it being all reasonable and everything. What is shashdot coming to.

Re:Where is why? by ghettoimp · 2012-06-05 14:38 · Score: 1

accept... :(

Re:Where is why? by spiffmastercow · 2012-06-05 14:56 · Score: 1

What's with everyone getting their panties in a wad over this? Some careers pay better than others, and some degree programs are harder than others. As I said before, there's nothing wrong with being a teacher -- they fill an important role in our society. But should elementary school teachers be paid more than engineers and software devs? If you say yes, then it should be clear why Americans aren't going the STEM route.

Why should software devs and engineers get paid more than elementary school teachers? You haven't supported your position any more than I've supported the converse.

Because software dev and engineering is hard? Puh-lease.

Besides, what a position pays should based on utility, not the effort of the person doing the job. It'd be pretty hard for me to dig out a pool in my backyard with a salad fork. Doesn't mean anyone should pay me to do it.

It seems the panty wads are on the folks balking at the salaries paid to teachers. What's the problem? Shouldn't someone be able to make a living acting as the steward for other people's children full time?

You do get that the whole point of having teachers is so that kids can grow up to be engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc., right? I've never claimed that teachers shouldn't make a good living. In fact, if you actually fucking read the thread, my only complaint is that elementary school teachers are getting paid more than college instructors and high school math teachers.

And as far as engineering being hard.. Well, yeah, it kinda is. You have to have a much more thorough education to be an engineer than an elementary school teacher. There are far fewer people who can do it, and without them our modern society pretty much falls apart. Also, engineers and software devs who suck at their jobs tend to get the boot.

I went through the public education system not too long ago, and all but a handful were people who couldn't do anything else, so they decided to teach. In fact, I'd say that most teachers hindered my education by insisting that I follow along with the class and making me put down whatever math, programming, philosophy, or fiction book I happened to be reading during their boring-ass lectures. Until my second year of college I never spent a moment outside of school to work on homework; I always did it the class period before it was due.

If Boulder, CO somehow has teachers worth 96k/year, then great for them. But I have to ask then why they think that high school math and college educators are less important than first grade teachers.

Funny... by publiclurker · 2012-06-05 15:29 · Score: 1

I'd say that his comment is exactly based on the evidence. Apparently you think that just because the truth offends you that it must be wrong. Unfortunately, reality does not really care about you or your opinions.

Re:Where is why? by BlueStrat · 2012-06-05 16:09 · Score: 0

And, once again, I'm modded "Troll" for being an AGW heretic and daring to speak the truth.

I suppose when you have no facts or arguments behind your views, a "Troll" mod is about the only option.

Sad, really.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Science and religion answer different questions by perpenso · 2012-06-05 18:47 · Score: 1

Science is an objective, empirical method of finding truth. Religious believers have either an alternate definition of truth, or an alternate method of determining it.

Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing. Science and religion answer different types of questions. Science aims to answer questions regarding the "mechanics" of the universe. Religions aims to answer questions related to the intent and the wishes of a deity. Some churches argue that these two types of questions are mutually exclusive and thus there is no conflict between science and religion.

Re:Where is why? by wrook · 2012-06-05 19:09 · Score: 1

I have been a programmer for 20 years and a high school teacher for 5 years. Teaching requires way more talent and knowledge than programming. Teaching is *not* standing up in front of a bunch of kids and reading out of the textbook (much as your previous teachers may have made it seem so). Technical ability in the subject matter is such a small part of the job that it doesn't even register with me. Teaching is finding a way help your students succeed in their dreams. This despite your students often being determined not to succeed. Or despite your students being confused about what they want. Or despite your students being convinced that things that kill them are a good idea. Or despite your students being so mentally abused by their families that they are just barely able to function at all. Or despite your students having mental disabilities (diagnosed/treated or not). Trust me, the problems are endless. And debugging is messy to say the least.

The problem is that people settle for teachers that are neither talented nor knowledgable. Let me put it another way. Imagine your favorite sports team hiring anybody who has a knowledge of the rules of the game and a year or two of coaching school at a university. How well would the team function? What is the difference between that and a *really* good coach? That's the difference (or more) that your children are missing out on.

Science is a question, not an answer. by Tenebrousedge · 2012-06-05 22:06 · Score: 1

Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths.

Science is a method for finding truth about the observable universe. If you admit truths that are not scientific you have just redefined truth in a way that is not compatible with the scientific method.

You've done a wonderful job proving my argument. It should be noted that you also fail at logic: the existence of a church with a certain set of beliefs is your premise, not a conclusion, and even were it true that any or all churches were compatible with science, you cannot logically conclude that no conflict exists. Most of your other sentences incorporate other fallacies. It would be tedious to list them; you may want to read up on the subject.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.

Re:Science is a question, not an answer. by perpenso · 2012-06-06 04:55 · Score: 1

Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing.
Science is a method for finding truth about the observable universe.
You are aware that you merely rephrased my point?

If you admit truths that are not scientific you have just redefined truth in a way that is not compatible with the scientific method.
Now you are constructing a straw man. All that was said is that some truth are not currently observable. Being unobservable by current technology and understanding hardly makes something true or untrue.

It should be noted that you also fail at logic: the existence of a church with a certain set of beliefs is your premise, not a conclusion, and even were it true that any or all churches were compatible with science, you cannot logically conclude that no conflict exists.
Its not a premise, its not a conclusion, it is a simple fact that some churches state that there is no conflict between scientific findings and religion. Science is about observing and understanding the working of the universe. Religion is about morality, the intent or wishes of a deity, etc. That there is no conflict because there is no overlap. That no understanding of the workings or the origin of the universe, of the human body, etc addresses religious topics like morality, deities, souls, etc.

The fact that some churches believe as described above is an observable phenomena. Its even testable and repeatable. Hence it is a scientific finding. ;-)
Re:Science is a question, not an answer. by Tenebrousedge · 2012-06-06 08:10 · Score: 1

Science "attempts" to find nothing. In asserting that you are changing the definition of science. In "rephrasing" that I insist on proper definition of terms. I'd rather deal with comprehension problems than sophistry, thank you.

If you admit truths that are not scientific you have just redefined truth in a way that is not compatible with the scientific method.
[...]All that was said is that some truth are not currently observable. Being unobservable by current technology and understanding hardly makes something true or untrue.
Your first sentence contradicts the latter directly. Also you're verging on a 'God of the gaps' argument, which I would in your place avoid. You'll have better luck in researching the difference between empiricism and skepticism, as my argument relies on skepticism being a necessary condition of science.

A Formal Restatement:
#1
I. Science is a method for determining truth.
II. The scientific method can be applied to any empirical observations.
>> The scientific method can determine any truths about the empirically observable universe.
#2
I. Religious believers postulate "truths" which cannot be determined by the scientific method.
II. The scientific method can determine any truths about the empirically observable universe.
>> Religious believers postulate "truths" which cannot be determined by empirical observations.
#3
I. Religious "truths" are the same thing as truths that can be obtained by using the scientific method.
II. Religious believers postulate truths that cannot be determined using the scientific method.
>> Contradiction. Religious truth cannot be the same thing as scientific truth.
#4
I. Science is skeptical: it limits itself to calling true that which has been proven with the scientific method.
II. Religious beliefs cannot be proven with the scientific method.
>> Religious beliefs cannot be considered scientifically true, consequently they are false.
#5
I. Science and Religion are compatible.
II. Scientific truth excludes religious truth.
>> Contradiction.
To claim belief in two contradictory things is either hypocrisy or straight-up doublethink.
You have not disputed any of the premises above or pointed out a logical fallacy. Just saying "Nope!" is not a valid argument.
You're repeating yourself in the last paragraph, and you are unequivocally wrong. Also you can't tell a premise from a hole in the ground. Let's go back to school here:
Premise: If Science and Religion deal with different subjects, they are compatible.
Premise: Some religions claim that they deal with different subjects.
Therefore, Religion and Science are compatible.
This is affirming the consequent. So you conclusion can still be false even if your premises are both true.
Your argument is entirely fallacious. I have an argument that purports to prove the opposite. You must therefore both disprove my argument and construct an argument for yours that contains no fallacies. Quite frankly you seem to be an idiot; I won't hold my breath.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:Science is a question, not an answer. by perpenso · 2012-06-06 16:14 · Score: 1

All that was said is that some truth are not currently observable. Being unobservable by current technology and understanding hardly makes something true or untrue.
Your first sentence contradicts the latter directly.
Nope. Truths are truths. Whether humans are capable of seeing the truth changes nothing. For example the heliocentric nature of our solar system was the truth, before and after the invention of telescopes, before and after Copernicus brought forth his theory. Scientific understanding merely recognized a formerly undiscovered truth.

A Formal Restatement
Which is another straw man saying things I have not. Again, what I wrote was:
"Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing. Science and religion answer different types of questions. Science aims to answer questions regarding the "mechanics" of the universe. Religions aims to answer questions related to the intent and the wishes of a deity. Some churches argue that these two types of questions are mutually exclusive and thus there is no conflict between science and religion."

Premise: If Science and Religion deal with different subjects, they are compatible.
Again, you fundamentally misunderstand my statement. What I said is that some churches believe science and religion are mutually exclusive and therefore not in conflict. That is something quite different from being compatible.
Re:Science is a question, not an answer. by Tenebrousedge · 2012-06-07 02:14 · Score: 1

Nope. Truths are truths.
I have demonstrated otherwise. "Nope" is still not a refutation.

Which is another straw man saying things I have not
No, that's my argument. Your reading comprehension is low.
Repeating yourself in different words does not make you more right. You're relying on sophism -- truths are truths, "not in conflict" is different from "compatible". It has been formally shown that scientific truth and religious truth are not the same thing. You can't simply say, "No, that is not my opinion" if I have proved it, you have to refute the logic. I feel like we're probing a gap in your education here, and honestly, I didn't get into this to have some moron repeat the same fallacy at me in different words and ignore a counter-argument. It is fallacious however it's phrased, and however you define "not in conflict". The specific fallacy is "affirming the consequent".
If you have nothing further to add please consider wasting someone else's time.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:Science is a question, not an answer. by perpenso · 2012-06-07 04:01 · Score: 1

You're relying on sophism -- truths are truths ...
Nope. That phrase was immediately followed by an example of heliocentrism being true before telescopes were invented and before Copernicus brought forward his theory, before man existed for that matter. Look at my original statement: "Nope, science only attempts to find *some* truths. Those that are discoverable by observation and testing." Nature's truths involve both the observable and the unobservable by current technology, the testable and the untestable by current technology. Science's truth are a subset of nature's truths.

... "not in conflict" is different from "compatible".
If you do not understand the distinction between the two then I suggest you think about it some more. Concentrate on the notion of two things being mutually exclusive. Things that are mutually exclusive are not necessarily compatible.

You can't simply say, "No, that is not my opinion" if I have proved it, you have to refute the logic.
There is nothing for me to refute if your logic addresses something I did not say. If you feel that I am rephrasing and repeating myself you might consider that I am simply trying to have you comprehend that you have misunderstood what I have said, that your logic is addressing a misrepresentation of what I have said. I'd be happy to address your logic should you decide to apply it to what I have actually said. Until then ...

Re:Where is why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 23:31 · Score: 0

Our goal should be to get 100%, but maybe we should aim for 95% literacy in science, math, and reading/writing. But what should define science literacy? I don't know. We need to have some basic understanding of the world around us. And the schools that fail to garner 95% literacy... more, not less, funding to them. And I seriously hope no school would do worse in order to get more funding.

Re:Where is why? by McPierce · 2012-06-06 00:44 · Score: 1

And, once again, I'm modded "Troll" for being an AGW heretic and daring to speak the truth.

Disagreeing with something does not equate with "speak[ing] the truth". You aren't an authority on the subject, so your lack of acceptance does not mean the body of knowledge is wrong.

I suppose when you have no facts or arguments behind your views...

To quote you: "I stopped reading right there." You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.

If not a troll, you definite display troll-like tendencies.

--
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Teaching is hard! by Theovon · 2012-06-06 00:53 · Score: 1

Other commenters have mentioned that teachers don't get paid well. That's not true of some professors, who get paid very well. The difference between a highschool teacher and a professor, however, is that the teacher has actual training, while the professor had to wing it when he first started and may still be totally winging it. In major universities, professors are hired to do research, and teaching is secondary at best. So even lousy instructors get tenure if they bring in grant money. And yes, I've encountered plenty of lousy instructors, along with some absolutely astounding ones. The problem with professors is that although their dissertations "prove" that they are experts in their field, they often lack the talent (and also the training) to convey the subject well.

The point is that being an expert in a field says nothing about whether or not you can teach. And people who think that they can teach anything they want are idiots. My doctorate is in computer engineering. But having a background in Linguistics and being a fairly decent writer, I may know more about English than many highschool English teachers (I suck at literary analysis, but just go with me on this). I can assure you that I still would not teach English as well as your average English teacher, because I'm not trained in instruction. My only advantage is that I have a wife and mother-in-law who do have training in instruction, and they have been willing to instruct me in it. :)

Re:Where is why? by tbannist · 2012-06-06 01:16 · Score: 2

Interesting, so you would maintain that the only people who are unbiased enough to comment on Anthropogenic Climate Change are people who are not at all involved in studying it? Because anyone who is an expert of the topic, might have a financial, career, academic, or ideological basis for supporting it?

Of course if you hadn't "stopped reading" at the site name you could have read the explanations and used a factual argument to try and prove your point, instead of writing a foolish ad hominem argument. Since you chose an obvious fallacy as your only response, I can only conclude that you have no basis other than ideology to oppose global warming and that you are conceding defeat gracelessly.

I note that you ignored the simple fact that you are in disagreement with virtually every expert on the topic, and that you choose to label them as part of a "false religion" rather than deal with the fact that you are mistaken. Every national science body in the world has concluded that AGW is real.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:Where is why? by phlinn · 2012-06-06 01:45 · Score: 1

No, but being literate is practically a prerequisite for having a basic grasp of science. One should expect lower levels of mastery in more advanced topics.

--
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari

Re:Where is why? by Dripdry · 2012-06-06 01:46 · Score: 1

Couldn't agree less.

While the teachers I know make a lower amount of pay than, say, an engineer, if you add in health care benefits and their sizable pensions you get a very salary.

Every teacher client I've shown the numbers to is shocked. Maybe it's that I only interact with well-off teachers, but even the ones who aren't doing as well still get some very handsome benefits that most people would envy and, frankly, boosts their actual pay by probably 15-20% overall.

--
-

Re:Where is why? by BlueStrat · 2012-06-06 01:50 · Score: 0

Disagreeing with something does not equate with "speak[ing] the truth".

Neither does disagreeing with something make it a "Troll" post.

You aren't an authority on the subject, so your lack of acceptance does not mean the body of knowledge is wrong.

There are no "authorities" on global climate science. That would be the equivalent of calling the first primitives to discover the wheel "authorities" on modern global transportation networks.

You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.

There IS NO "verified, objective scientific data". That's the whole point. If there was, there wouldn't be any debate. It's that precise lack (and "massaging" of the data that existed) that's the issue.

If not a troll, you definite display troll-like tendencies.

"Troll-like tendencies" like disagreeing with the group-think and having critical-thinking abilities. Yes, Copernicus and Galileo were quite familiar. I'm in good company.

My ability to look past arguments that are simply appeals to "authority" and apply critical-thinking methods upsets the popular Progressive political narrative regarding climate and makes people uncomfortable because it forces them to examine their own thinking and motivations in a less-than-stellar light.

If that's now a "Troll", then I am a proud, undeterred, and unashamed "Troll".

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Where is why? by phlinn · 2012-06-06 01:56 · Score: 1

NCLB causes no such thing. Failure to fail is the fault of the administration of various schools, districts, and individual teachers. NCLB does nothing to require that students never get held back a grade. Although it would be better if they could be held back in just one subject. There's a lot to be said for a-la-cart subject level instead of one size fits all grades which expect every 5th grader to be at the same level in every subject.

worth noting, there is nothing in NCLB which demands that you compare 5th graders to 5th graders from year to year to guage AYP. It would be legal to compare students who entered the school system in 2004 from year to year instead. That's not how anyone does it, because that would make NCLB actually sane, and the education establishment wouldn't actually want that. Please note Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy

--
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari

Re:Where is why? by McPierce · 2012-06-06 01:59 · Score: 2

Disagreeing with something does not equate with "speak[ing] the truth".

Neither does disagreeing with something make it a "Troll" post.

You're right, it doesn't.

You aren't an authority on the subject, so your lack of acceptance does not mean the body of knowledge is wrong.

There are no "authorities" on global climate science. That would be the equivalent of calling the first primitives to discover the wheel "authorities" on modern global transportation networks.

And here you're quite wrong. Your comparison is a incorrect: those climatologists who study the trends and data regarding the changes in global temperature trends are in fact authorities since that is what they have studied and what they do. That you don't like or agree with them doesn't remove their authority on the discipline.

But your statement is very troll-like in that, if you understand what makes one an authority but then say those climatologists aren't authorities, you're trolling this thread.

You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.

There IS NO "verified, objective scientific data". That's the whole point. If there was, there wouldn't be any debate. It's that precise lack (and "massaging" of the data that existed) that's the issue.

Again, you're quite wrong. You seem to greatly misunderstand how science works then if you think conclusive data precludes any debate. Quite the contrary, science and the collected body of data requires constant debate in order to refine our knowledge and theories. It's part of how we skeptically interrogate the universe to learn about it (to paraphrase Sagan).

If you don't understand how science works, then I hope this helps you take a step in the right direction. If you do, however, know this, then you're again exhibiting troll-like tendencies. Ones you apparent claim to be proud and unashamed to show.

--
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Absolutely right. by nuckfuts · 2012-06-06 02:00 · Score: 1

Being a good teacher has little to do with subject matter. I have a friend who is brilliant in math and is consistently rated as a terrible teacher. Teaching is a skill that requires significant training. Think you're good at explaining some subject? Do you know how to adapt your explanation for a student with mild autism, or dyslexia, or ADHD, or fetal alcohol syndrome? Two or three kids like that in a classroom are not uncommon, and make effective teaching a challenge.

Re:Absolutely right. by spiffmastercow · 2012-06-06 02:14 · Score: 1

Being a good teacher has little to do with subject matter. I have a friend who is brilliant in math and is consistently rated as a terrible teacher. Teaching is a skill that requires significant training. Think you're good at explaining some subject? Do you know how to adapt your explanation for a student with mild autism, or dyslexia, or ADHD, or fetal alcohol syndrome? Two or three kids like that in a classroom are not uncommon, and make effective teaching a challenge.
Well, I do pretty well teaching myself despite my (diagnosed, currently untreated) ADHD and my (suspected) dyslexia. And I'm making good progress teaching my son, who is mildly autistic. Can't say for fetal alcohol syndrome.

I never claimed that knowing the subject makes you a good teacher. The point is that knowing the subject should be a perquisite for teaching the subject. And since the intersection of the set { good at math } and the set { good at teaching } is pretty small and their value is pretty high, I think math teachers should be paid better than the people who are in the {good at teaching } set and not in the { good at math } set.

Re:Where is why? by Dripdry · 2012-06-06 02:13 · Score: 1

That is NOT informative enough. Isn't it in their best interest (in the short term) to show how little pay they get so they can push for more?
I want to see the total amount of money given to teachers as pay AND benefits. this is very common mistake people make when looking at their salary. It's one reason benefits have eroded so badly over the years, people want a basic number to look at and don't have the financial education to realize there's much more to that number.

As I mentioned earlier, those teachers are probably getting wonderful health care benefits and a pension that end up boosting their ACTUAL pay to something like a starting salary of 40-45K+ up to a high end of 80-90K, which isn't half bad at all.

--
-

Re:Where is why? by BigT · 2012-06-06 02:36 · Score: 1

I know this because my wife is a teacher, but a quick googling reveals:

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/nclb/htmls/highlights.htm

http://www.broward.k12.fl.us/hrd/Articles/FactSheet-AYP&NCLB.pdf

From the second article:

These annual objectives are based on the goal to have 100 percent of students proficient by 2013-14. All students, as well as 8 identified subgroups, must meet the proficiency target in order for a school to make AYP.
...

The subgroups are: each of the five race/ethnicity groups; economically disadvantaged students (students receiving free or reduced price lunch), students who are limited English proficient (LEP), and students with disabilities.

The result of this is that if even one subgroup doesn't make the score target on the state test, the whole school fails.

--
Is it weird in here, or is it just me?

Re:Where is why? by phlinn · 2012-06-06 02:39 · Score: 1

That's a serious misreading, as blacks in texas outperformed blacks in wisconsin. Every racial subgroup in Texas outperformed the same cohort in Wisconsin, eve though the overall average went the other way. Welcome to Simpson's paradox.

--
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari

Re:Where is why? by phlinn · 2012-06-06 02:43 · Score: 1

Except, of course, many teachers work additional time running events in the evenings or teaching summer school, all of which add to their pay and can easily take them above the cap. The pay schedule is only part of the story.

--
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari

Re:Where is why? by phlinn · 2012-06-06 02:46 · Score: 1

Things like teacher certification, whatever else they do that people find valuable, also reduce the supply of teachers. In my local area, there's still an oversupply, but the union's been pretty effective at keeping rates high, in part because the non-union administrators still make more than them which always gets pointed out when there is a salary issue.

Difficulty is not the only valid metric. Some jobs are easy, but unpleasant, and command more pay because of that.

--
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari

Re:Where is why? by Feyshtey · 2012-06-06 02:56 · Score: 1

I'm in full support. Stop teaching religion, atheism, anti-capitalism, pro-socialism, right-wing conspiracy theories, zealotous environmentalism (not to be confused with valid conservationism), and overt sexuality.

It's not a teacher's job to tell my kid what to think. It's their job to teach them how to think for themselves.

--
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi

Re:Where is why? by BlueStrat · 2012-06-06 10:22 · Score: 0

But your statement is very troll-like in that, if you understand what makes one an authority but then say those climatologists aren't authorities, you're trolling this thread.

We're at the very beginning of a new field of science with regard to global climate. How long has there even been a degreed university/college level program in global climate science? 10-15 years?

Even given that these are "authorities", that doesn't mean much when only the very first initial scratchings at the mountain of knowledge & understanding involved in the field of global climate science have been made.

Its akin to citing Marie Curie as an authority in nuclear reactor design. Sure, she's an "authority", but from a time when our understanding was in it's infancy. Same here with global climate science and global climate scientists.

Similarly, relying upon design direction from Marie Curie in building a nuclear reactor OR relying on climate scientists at the current level of understanding of global climate systems for taking action against a perceived warming trend are both likely to result in either catastrophe or a huge waste of money, or both.

Again, you're quite wrong. You seem to greatly misunderstand how science works then if you think conclusive data precludes any debate. Quite the contrary, science and the collected body of data requires constant debate in order to refine our knowledge and theories. It's part of how we skeptically interrogate the universe to learn about it (to paraphrase Sagan).

Why are you telling me this? *I'm* not attempting to shut down debate by moderating any opposing opinions "Troll". I'm questioning the validity of the data and the conclusions made from that questionable data, as well as the political/ideological motivations of many of those pushing the AGW agenda. When scientists like Mann at the CRU destroy original unaltered climate data rather than turn a copy over to someone else so that his and his colleague's research can be checked/duplicated, you'll forgive me if I am quite skeptical.

You want someone to blame for climate skeptics? Blame climate scientists like Mann that made it political and the politicians that took that political football and ran with it to bolster their own political ideologies and agendas. And blame people like yourself that refuse to acknowledge realities, and thus cause people to dismiss you as a religious zealot.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Where is why? by Bryansix · 2012-06-06 12:19 · Score: 1

I like that you made this huge claim that the majority of scientists are supporting the idea of Carbon Dioxide being the problem and yet you don't provide any facts. Secondly, I think you are confusing SCIENCE with SCIENTISTS with the latter being fallible human beings and not relevant to the discussion at all. Provide facts please. The links you posted are just as bad.

Re:Where is why? by Bryansix · 2012-06-06 12:22 · Score: 1

To quote you: "I stopped reading right there." You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.

If not a troll, you definite display troll-like tendencies.

Facts have to come from reputable sources. Too many in Academia have already proven that they will lie and smear their opponents name in the mud just to prove a point.

Re:Where is why? by Bryansix · 2012-06-06 12:28 · Score: 1

... Every national science body in the world has concluded that AGW is real.

Officially. Non-officially, there is a TON of debate on the topic. Like at this event. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/05/23/7-protest-hints-for-the-global-warming-alarmists-of-the-world/

Re:Where is why? by McPierce · 2012-06-06 12:32 · Score: 1

To quote you: "I stopped reading right there." You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.

If not a troll, you definite display troll-like tendencies.

Facts have to come from reputable sources. Too many in Academia have already proven that they will lie and smear their opponents name in the mud just to prove a point.

No argument here. There are lots of people who who will lie for various causes for various reasons. However, that still doesn't invalidate a whole discipline just because a small number were dishonest.

--
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Mathematician, astronomer and professor of physics by perpenso · 2012-06-06 16:26 · Score: 1

... Someone coming up with a field-changing idea without being a professional scientist, and potentially having a religious agenda... I can see how this would be easy to dismiss ...

The priest was also a mathematician, astronomer and a professor of physics. I think that counts as a professional. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre

Re:Where is why? by Crosshair84 · 2012-06-07 09:23 · Score: 1

"Troll-like tendencies" like disagreeing with the group-think and having critical-thinking abilities. Yes, Copernicus and Galileo were quite familiar. I'm in good company.

*Sigh*, Galileo did not get int trouble for teaching heliocentric theory.

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd11/GilRuiz1/galileo_02.jpg

Galleleo had no evidence for heliocentric theory being true and could not answer the quite serious scientific objection raised by other scientists about the lack of observed stellar parallax. (The stellar parallax is there, but was not observable using instruments of the day.) Galileo could also not answer the equally serious objection concerning the lack of perceived motion of the earth. Remember that Newtonian physics was still 60 years away and the first successful measurements of stellar parallax did not happen until 1838. At that time, claiming heliocentric theory as true would be like a professor going around today claiming that string theory is true. They would get an intellectual beat down of epic proportions by their fellow scientists because the evidence is not yet there to support such a statement. Teaching string theory as a theory today is OK. Teaching it as a fact is not.

Galileo was free to teach heliocentrism as a theory, nobody ever got into trouble for that. What got him into trouble was claiming heliocentrisim was true, without being able to prove it, everyone who disagreed, regardless of the valid scientific objections, was an idiot, and he, a layman in the area of philosophy and scripture, was going to reinterpret scripture for the church. Remember this is less than 100 years after the Protestant reformation.

His best "evidence", since he couldn't answer the stellar parallax or lack of perceived motion objections, was to suggest that the tides was evidence of heliocentrism because with the earth rotating on its axis as well as moving around the sun meant that all the water was sloshing around the oceans. Yes, Galileo thought the Earth was a giant snow-globe. Try and put forth that theory in science class tomorrow and see where that gets you.

The Church was the leading sponsor of the new science at that time and Galileo himself was funded by the church. The leading astronomers of the time were Jesuit priests. They were open to Galileo's theory but told him the evidence for it was inconclusive. (It was.) This was the view of the greatest astronomer of the age, Tyco Brahe.

The Church's view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said,

"While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe...and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me."

Galileo had no such proofs and Cardinal Bellarmine's view is hardly unreasonable.

Did the church overreact? Probably. However the story has been blown completely out of context by anti-catholic propaganda from hundreds of years ago.

Re:Where is why? by Crosshair84 · 2012-06-07 09:59 · Score: 1

Why are you telling me this? *I'm* not attempting to shut down debate by moderating any opposing opinions "Troll". I'm questioning the validity of the data and the conclusions made from that questionable data, as well as the political/ideological motivations of many of those pushing the AGW agenda. When scientists like Mann at the CRU destroy original unaltered climate data rather than turn a copy over to someone else so that his and his colleague's research can be checked/duplicated, you'll forgive me if I am quite skeptical.

Imagine if it was reversed, someone published a paper showing that what we are seeing is nothing more than natural variability and who then did exactly what Mann did, would anybody take anything they published seriously?

Re:Where is why? by BlueStrat · 2012-06-07 14:18 · Score: 1

Imagine if it was reversed, someone published a paper showing that what we are seeing is nothing more than natural variability and who then did exactly what Mann did, would anybody take anything they published seriously?

No, why should they? It's not the conclusions I'm arguing, it's the shoddy and suspect way in which the data was collected, handled, "massaged", the original datasets erased, etc etc etc. It's the horribly-bad science and then the ham-handed political agendas heaped upon it.

If one were being intellectually honest, there's no way any of that should be used to formulate massive policies and programs, regulations, restrictions, etc etc that could endanger countless lives and massively lower living standards, increase energy prices, and reduce employment in the West...and in the midst of the largest global economic plummet since the Great Depression in the US. Particularly when the "rising stars" of greenhouse-gas producing nations have and will continue to refuse to alter their footprints except in the most meaningless ways as a negotiating tactic.

This has become, whether or not the science is good or bunk, and whether you want to admit it or not, about transferring wealth, energy, and industrial capability away from the US and the West and attacking Capitalism. The science, AGW, the planet, all that, is now window-dressing for ideological struggle.

Even if the science and everything is valid, the "watermelons" (Socialists/Communists/Anarchists in the environmental movement for ideological purposes..."green" on the outside, "red" on the inside) among the environmental movement has destroyed it's credibility and that of AGW theories. They "jumped the shark" with most people who are paying attention.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Where is why? by BlueStrat · 2012-06-07 14:43 · Score: 1

And here you're quite wrong. Your comparison is a incorrect: those climatologists who study the trends and data regarding the changes in global temperature trends are in fact authorities since that is what they have studied and what they do. That you don't like or agree with them doesn't remove their authority on the discipline.

There have only been degreed global climate scientists for 10-15 years. Would you care to have your appendix operated on by "doctors" if the formal study of medicine just began 15 years ago?

Would they not be "authorities"?

Sure, they have no clue that bacteria exists and haven't developed anesthesia yet, but hey!...They're "Authorities"!

Being an "authority" in a field where even a basic understanding of the systems involved is decades or centuries away is not saying much. Particularly when actions taken based on the word of these "authorities" could cause humans to become extinct, and at the very least would cause large groups of people to endure starvation, death, economic collapse, and much lower standards of living.

That, and most of the historical climate data that climate scientists have to work with is from the same "massaged" pool of data from the CRU & Mann. Mann admitted he destroyed the original data. If that doesn't send up huge warning flares and red flags, then you're not being intellectually honest and are arguing purely from an ideological/political advocacy viewpoint.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Where is why? by BlueStrat · 2012-06-07 21:10 · Score: 1

Mann admitted he destroyed the original data.

Oops, that's Phil Jones that destroyed the original climate data, not Mann. Hard to keep all the guilty sorted without a program, it seems.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Where is why? by McPierce · 2012-06-08 01:54 · Score: 1

There have only been degreed global climate scientists for 10-15 years.

Care to cite a reference for this? Because, again, the knowledge upon which climate study is build has been accumulated for centuries. It's not like they only just started studying it in the past 10-15 years as you suggest. It's been studied for far, far longer than you seem willing to accept. [reference]

Being an "authority" in a field where even a basic understanding of the systems involved is decades or centuries away is not saying much. Particularly when actions taken based on the word of these "authorities" could cause humans to become extinct, and at the very least would cause large groups of people to endure starvation, death, economic collapse, and much lower standards of living.

Which parts of controlling our carbon emissions, preventing or slowing our alterations to the environment that are radically changing even local ecosystems will "cuase humans to become extinct"? Please, be specific.

That, and most of the historical climate data that climate scientists have to work with is from the same "massaged" pool of data from the CRU & Mann. Mann admitted he destroyed the original data. If that doesn't send up huge warning flares and red flags, then you're not being intellectually honest and are arguing purely from an ideological/political advocacy viewpoint.

Cite a source that shows the data collected by Phil Jones (which is the name you provided in your correction) is "most of the historical climate data have to work with", please. Because I don't believe that to be true. One scientist's work during one period of time in the late 90s is not "most" of any data for such a discipline. [reference]

--
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Re:Where is why? by saveferrousoxide · 2012-06-19 09:28 · Score: 1

but... that would have required reading 10 full lines of the article. it must be nice to have all the time in the world!

Slashdot Mirror

Taking Issue With Claims That American Science Education is 'Dismal'

564 comments