So just out of curiosity I went to their website. On a poorly presented front page they advertise themselves not to potentials readers (i.e. customers) but to academics desparate to get a book "out there" for career purposes. One of their selling points is "Our books qualify for tenure promotion," for example. Reputable publishing houses do not have to advertise in that manner to potentials authors because their reputation means that they have many more inquiries from new authors than they could possibly accept. Seems like a pretty sketchy organisation.
Well, to add my own experience... I am currently a PhD student at a public university in the US (I got my undergrad and masters' degree in the UK though) and I've taught undergraduates for a while.
In short, the state of education is pretty appalling. It's not the lack of previous physics (which is my field) knowledge that's the issue. It is students' utter inability to (a) use proper grammar and spelling (b) form coherent sentences or paragraphs (c) use basic logical reasoning (d) let alone formulate a basic coherent argument (e) deal with basic algebra such as fractions or exponentials
And I'm not requiring students to write eloquent essays, just communicate in clear written English. It's too much of a gap that they could ever make up during the four years at university. So indeed undergraduate standards are worryingly low. Many of the courses taught at the university are at a level one might consider appropriate for 14-year-olds at best.
It strikes me that the failings are mostly due a poor high-school (and possibly primary and middle-school) system, underfunded and subject to poorly thought-through policies. Messing up the public education system with counterproductive measures to supposedly improve quality seems to be almost a sport in the US. A lot of it is also political -- educated voters are just difficult to deal with, especially if you rely on your base to vote repeatedly against their own interest. And please don't get me started on the lack of historical awareness, even when just limited to US history.
So I fully agree with the original poster. But to answer his or her questions: Yes, the bar is being lowered constantly, and no, you're not expecting too much. Some of my students were pre-meds. It worries me that some day my life might depend on them.
I have some experience teaching introductory college physics to non-science students. Some impressions I've had:
1. Some just will not get it no matter how many different ways you explain it to them. Among those are two types: Those who just lack the very basic reasoning and logic skills required and there's little you can do. You wonder how they ever got into college. Then there are those who do not understand that to understand some formula, you might have to sit down and go through the derivation in your own time, very slowly. And then you need to do 20 practice problems. Very slowly. My attitude is "You're at college, not high school, so it's your responsibility to invest the time that it takes you to understand this. If you have questions, ask. But the solutions don't come all pre-chewed." Some learn, some don't.
2. Some have a natural affinity and while they clearly lack training, they're quick to learn and soon you'd wish they'd become "proper" scientists, though those are few and far between.
3. Then there's the vast majority who will "more or less" get it. In the case of physics (and things might be different with statistics) that means that they're soon able to solve the "standard" problem you went through in class, but will struggle greatly if problems require more than plugging numbers into a well-known formula. Some are definitely capable to get beyond that stage, but only by giving them individual attention to figure out exactly what their thought patterns (and corresponding misconceptions) are and helping them to figure out their own way to make sense of particular concepts. This might be difficult due to a lack of time.
4. Do not assume familiarity with concepts such as "derivation", "definition", "proof", etc. (especially not "proof"). If relevant, give examples of how to prove and also how not to prove something (for example, plugging a possible set of values into a formula to see if it works does not constitute a proof). Or other things we don't even think about, for example that if they remember a formula with 'x' but in the problem the relevant variable is called 'y', the formula still applies. You'll be surprised about the hang-ups some students have.
Your audience might be different. It'll probably depend on your institution and the quality of their students. I had a plurality of pre-med majors, some of whom struggled greatly (and their lack of basic logic made me worry about their future patients).
Well, here are some detailed criticisms one could make:
- "Is the overuse of video games and pervasiveness of online porn causing the demise of guys? Increasingly, researchers say yes..." -- but then what is referred to is not a study showing the statistical significance of the issue, but particular examples of individuals: Seungseob Lee and Anders Behring Breivik. Not a single actual statistic is provided outlining the scale of the supposed problem. One could equally find individuals whose quality of life was saved in some form or another by the consumption of video games and/or porn.
- Not a single mention is made of the vast majority of individuals who consume video games and porn responsively, and possibly even use it to enhance their relationship, and this includes young males (Yes, you can watch porn with your wife/girlfriend and yes, you can play games with her too, so clearly the content itself isn't the issue). Now few would doubt that a not insignificant number of men have problems of the sort, but the picture that is painted here is that games/porn are the problem.
- "[R]egular porn users are more likely to report depression and poor physical health than nonusers are." -- Let's just grant that this is true; the author doesn't even consider the possibility that people with depression and/or poor physical health may be more likely to want to play video games / consume porn. Perhaps the causal chain is back to front in the article. A similar criticism applies to: "Similarly, video games also go wrong when the person playing them is desensitized to reality and real-life interactions with others." -- but how far do people who are for one reason or another less socially sensitive prefer those kinds of activities? Now perhaps a causal connection could be found (in the way the author likes us to think that there is one), but the way it is presented here does not perform that analysis.
- "The next thing is creating a generation of risk-averse guys who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school and employment." And: "Guys are also totally out of sync in romantic relationships." -- The sweeping generalisations that have already been pointed out by other slashdot members. I have no doubt that some guys are totally "out of sync in romantic relationships", so are some girls. Some of them perhaps due to excessive porn or game consumption, others for plenty of other reasons. But "creating a generation"?
Just to give some examples of why one might object to the article. The sad part is that I have little doubt that there is a problem there. In the same way alcoholism is a problem. And just like with alcohol, a majority of us knows how to consume responsibly. But by proceeding in this undiscerning manner any real point that could be made is discredited. That is, such poor, careless reporting does, at least in my opinion, more harm than good in actually informing about the issues and in helping to fix them.
I wonder what's going to happen to the sonic cannons once the Olympics are done... "Oh well, now that we have them we might as well keep them. Maybe they'll come useful next time there are some student protests."
I'm somewhat confused about the timing of this article here on the site. The initial response to the PBR paper a couple of months ago was pretty varied, and mostly confused -- both from the lay public as well as from physicists. And so far this discussion also seems to suffer from misunderstandings and misinterpretations of what is the issue here. Frankly, this kind of confusion is unavoidable with an issue as subtle as this, within the constraints of a forum discussion (which is why I won't try to argue my point in detail here), although even some physicist blogs have made a mess of it. Anyway...
The reason I say that the timing is odd is that Slashdot decides to write about the PBR article, coincidental with the appearance of another paper to similar effect (but making different assumptions) on arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1439 (by Lucien Hardy at Perimeter)
About a month ago, there was another publication by Roger Colbeck and Renato Renner (at PI and Zurich respectively, although Roger Colbeck has just moved to Switherland too, I think): http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6597
The upshot of all of these is, crudely speaking, that reality is at least as "complex" as the quantum state (there have been hints of this also from earlier work by Montina, which I think is referenced in Hardy's paper). It does not say that the quantum state as we describe it mathematically is literally a real thing. The background of a lot of these papers is a recent (last 20 years) trend towards statistical/subjective/operationalist interpretations of the quantum state, mostly brought about (in my opinion, anyway) by people working in quantum information/computing.
It's a sensible move, and I hope others will follow. However, as mentioned previously it won't change a lot, at least not in physics, which is what I know. When someone publishes something of interest, I know about it and have looked up the pre-print on arxiv long (sometimes half a year) before it is scheduled to appear in one journal or another. The only role journals play in my opinion is that something that they provide prestige, like an ongoing competition for that stamp of quality they call "Nature" or "Physical Review" or whatever. Although even that doesn't guarantees the quality of a paper.
With the insight of some of the comments here I can definitely see how stopping the subscription makes financial sense.
If those journals become obsolete though, academics will have to seriously re-think the stuff the way they structure CVs, which currently really is a list of publications.
On the note of publicly funded research should be free to the public: Exactly that was on the agenda of Germany's Pirate Party a little while ago (who pointed out that we pay three times: once to fund the research, once to subsidise the journal, once for the subscription), although oddly not many people seemed to pick up on it. Maybe the general electorate just doesn't care enough about academic publishing?
I worked in Germany for a year for an aerospace company that had a 35-hour week. My experience was that people got as much (or as little) work done as they would have if they had five or more extra hours. (Though some of the management positions had longer hours.)
And we did have a very strong union presence, which as one might expect was responsible for this arrangement in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
So just out of curiosity I went to their website. On a poorly presented front page they advertise themselves not to potentials readers (i.e. customers) but to academics desparate to get a book "out there" for career purposes. One of their selling points is "Our books qualify for tenure promotion," for example. Reputable publishing houses do not have to advertise in that manner to potentials authors because their reputation means that they have many more inquiries from new authors than they could possibly accept. Seems like a pretty sketchy organisation.
Well, to add my own experience... I am currently a PhD student at a public university in the US (I got my undergrad and masters' degree in the UK though) and I've taught undergraduates for a while.
In short, the state of education is pretty appalling. It's not the lack of previous physics (which is my field) knowledge that's the issue. It is students' utter inability to
(a) use proper grammar and spelling
(b) form coherent sentences or paragraphs
(c) use basic logical reasoning
(d) let alone formulate a basic coherent argument
(e) deal with basic algebra such as fractions or exponentials
And I'm not requiring students to write eloquent essays, just communicate in clear written English. It's too much of a gap that they could ever make up during the four years at university. So indeed undergraduate standards are worryingly low. Many of the courses taught at the university are at a level one might consider appropriate for 14-year-olds at best.
It strikes me that the failings are mostly due a poor high-school (and possibly primary and middle-school) system, underfunded and subject to poorly thought-through policies. Messing up the public education system with counterproductive measures to supposedly improve quality seems to be almost a sport in the US. A lot of it is also political -- educated voters are just difficult to deal with, especially if you rely on your base to vote repeatedly against their own interest. And please don't get me started on the lack of historical awareness, even when just limited to US history.
So I fully agree with the original poster. But to answer his or her questions: Yes, the bar is being lowered constantly, and no, you're not expecting too much. Some of my students were pre-meds. It worries me that some day my life might depend on them.
I have some experience teaching introductory college physics to non-science students. Some impressions I've had:
1. Some just will not get it no matter how many different ways you explain it to them. Among those are two types: Those who just lack the very basic reasoning and logic skills required and there's little you can do. You wonder how they ever got into college. Then there are those who do not understand that to understand some formula, you might have to sit down and go through the derivation in your own time, very slowly. And then you need to do 20 practice problems. Very slowly. My attitude is "You're at college, not high school, so it's your responsibility to invest the time that it takes you to understand this. If you have questions, ask. But the solutions don't come all pre-chewed." Some learn, some don't.
2. Some have a natural affinity and while they clearly lack training, they're quick to learn and soon you'd wish they'd become "proper" scientists, though those are few and far between.
3. Then there's the vast majority who will "more or less" get it. In the case of physics (and things might be different with statistics) that means that they're soon able to solve the "standard" problem you went through in class, but will struggle greatly if problems require more than plugging numbers into a well-known formula. Some are definitely capable to get beyond that stage, but only by giving them individual attention to figure out exactly what their thought patterns (and corresponding misconceptions) are and helping them to figure out their own way to make sense of particular concepts. This might be difficult due to a lack of time.
4. Do not assume familiarity with concepts such as "derivation", "definition", "proof", etc. (especially not "proof"). If relevant, give examples of how to prove and also how not to prove something (for example, plugging a possible set of values into a formula to see if it works does not constitute a proof). Or other things we don't even think about, for example that if they remember a formula with 'x' but in the problem the relevant variable is called 'y', the formula still applies. You'll be surprised about the hang-ups some students have.
Your audience might be different. It'll probably depend on your institution and the quality of their students. I had a plurality of pre-med majors, some of whom struggled greatly (and their lack of basic logic made me worry about their future patients).
Well, here are some detailed criticisms one could make:
- "Is the overuse of video games and pervasiveness of online porn causing the demise of guys? Increasingly, researchers say yes..." -- but then what is referred to is not a study showing the statistical significance of the issue, but particular examples of individuals: Seungseob Lee and Anders Behring Breivik. Not a single actual statistic is provided outlining the scale of the supposed problem. One could equally find individuals whose quality of life was saved in some form or another by the consumption of video games and/or porn.
- Not a single mention is made of the vast majority of individuals who consume video games and porn responsively, and possibly even use it to enhance their relationship, and this includes young males (Yes, you can watch porn with your wife/girlfriend and yes, you can play games with her too, so clearly the content itself isn't the issue). Now few would doubt that a not insignificant number of men have problems of the sort, but the picture that is painted here is that games/porn are the problem.
- "[R]egular porn users are more likely to report depression and poor physical health than nonusers are." -- Let's just grant that this is true; the author doesn't even consider the possibility that people with depression and/or poor physical health may be more likely to want to play video games / consume porn. Perhaps the causal chain is back to front in the article. A similar criticism applies to: "Similarly, video games also go wrong when the person playing them is desensitized to reality and real-life interactions with others." -- but how far do people who are for one reason or another less socially sensitive prefer those kinds of activities? Now perhaps a causal connection could be found (in the way the author likes us to think that there is one), but the way it is presented here does not perform that analysis.
- "The next thing is creating a generation of risk-averse guys who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school and employment." And: "Guys are also totally out of sync in romantic relationships." -- The sweeping generalisations that have already been pointed out by other slashdot members. I have no doubt that some guys are totally "out of sync in romantic relationships", so are some girls. Some of them perhaps due to excessive porn or game consumption, others for plenty of other reasons. But "creating a generation"?
Just to give some examples of why one might object to the article. The sad part is that I have little doubt that there is a problem there. In the same way alcoholism is a problem. And just like with alcohol, a majority of us knows how to consume responsibly. But by proceeding in this undiscerning manner any real point that could be made is discredited. That is, such poor, careless reporting does, at least in my opinion, more harm than good in actually informing about the issues and in helping to fix them.
I wonder what's going to happen to the sonic cannons once the Olympics are done... "Oh well, now that we have them we might as well keep them. Maybe they'll come useful next time there are some student protests."
I'm somewhat confused about the timing of this article here on the site. The initial response to the PBR paper a couple of months ago was pretty varied, and mostly confused -- both from the lay public as well as from physicists. And so far this discussion also seems to suffer from misunderstandings and misinterpretations of what is the issue here. Frankly, this kind of confusion is unavoidable with an issue as subtle as this, within the constraints of a forum discussion (which is why I won't try to argue my point in detail here), although even some physicist blogs have made a mess of it. Anyway...
The reason I say that the timing is odd is that Slashdot decides to write about the PBR article, coincidental with the appearance of another paper to similar effect (but making different assumptions) on arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1439 (by Lucien Hardy at Perimeter)
About a month ago, there was another publication by Roger Colbeck and Renato Renner (at PI and Zurich respectively, although Roger Colbeck has just moved to Switherland too, I think):
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6597
The upshot of all of these is, crudely speaking, that reality is at least as "complex" as the quantum state (there have been hints of this also from earlier work by Montina, which I think is referenced in Hardy's paper). It does not say that the quantum state as we describe it mathematically is literally a real thing. The background of a lot of these papers is a recent (last 20 years) trend towards statistical/subjective/operationalist interpretations of the quantum state, mostly brought about (in my opinion, anyway) by people working in quantum information/computing.
It's a sensible move, and I hope others will follow. However, as mentioned previously it won't change a lot, at least not in physics, which is what I know. When someone publishes something of interest, I know about it and have looked up the pre-print on arxiv long (sometimes half a year) before it is scheduled to appear in one journal or another. The only role journals play in my opinion is that something that they provide prestige, like an ongoing competition for that stamp of quality they call "Nature" or "Physical Review" or whatever. Although even that doesn't guarantees the quality of a paper.
With the insight of some of the comments here I can definitely see how stopping the subscription makes financial sense.
If those journals become obsolete though, academics will have to seriously re-think the stuff the way they structure CVs, which currently really is a list of publications.
On the note of publicly funded research should be free to the public: Exactly that was on the agenda of Germany's Pirate Party a little while ago (who pointed out that we pay three times: once to fund the research, once to subsidise the journal, once for the subscription), although oddly not many people seemed to pick up on it. Maybe the general electorate just doesn't care enough about academic publishing?
I worked in Germany for a year for an aerospace company that had a 35-hour week. My experience was that people got as much (or as little) work done as they would have if they had five or more extra hours. (Though some of the management positions had longer hours.) And we did have a very strong union presence, which as one might expect was responsible for this arrangement in the first place.