What you have pointed out is that essentially, the only students that have the incentive to do well in math are those that don't care about being publicly recognized, or rather, social standing in general, since not only does participation in math not help with reputation, it generally actively labels a student as "uncool". Most people do have the need to be recognized; it takes a great deal of introversion to the point of Asperger's to truly want one's achievements to remain anonymous. Effectively restricting participation in technical fields to the extremely un-social is not only severely limiting (I've read that 25% of the population is introverted, and most of these are not extreme cases), it is also self-perpetuating, since participation in math/science etc. is now associated with low social standing, especially in high school.
One potential fix I see is making some scientific endevour(s) a national focus, like the moon landings were forty years ago. Also, there needs to be more academic separation among abilities and interest levels, and encouraging high-schoolers to participate in some system like one sport, one academic club could also help.
In summary, the inverse association between technical interest and social standing needs to be eradicated before the country can move forward with math and science education.
Have you heard of the 28 hour day system (6 day weeks)? Might do more harm than good, but worth investigating.
Personally, I find my brain is ridiculously sensitive to how much sleep I get -- more than a half hour off of about 9 and a half hours, and I'm a zombie. Getting up at the same time each day is practically mandatory, too.
People who know physics aren't going to be dumbed down by movies; likewise, those who don't know physics aren't going to be enlightened. However, cool applications of physics in movies and elsewhere in popular culture naturally lead to inspired people being swayed toward physics as a profession. Those who aren't curious can safely be ignored: unlike politics, research science does not require the active involvement of the masses to function properly.
Also, remember, "Da masses are as dumb as dumbasses". Nothing will change that, and portraying scientist types as (minor) heroes and not freaky rejects in the media will do much more for promoting science in America (and elsewhere) than checking to see that all media is totally accurate by the laws of the universe (snore). We're probably living in a simulation anyways.
Also, I'm not sure we need more scientists with their strange views. A biologist, a physicist and a mathematician were on a trip to Scotland. On their way out of the train, they see a lone black sheep standing on a grassy field. "The sheep in Scotland are black!", exclaims the biologist. "No, silly, at least one sheep in Scotland is black", retorted the physicist. The mathematician sighed, and after a brief pause, explained: "Both of you are wrong. At least one Scottish sheep is black on at least one side."
Why is gender division of tasks a problem as long as the work is being divided along lines of biologically hard-coded aptitude and not otherwise? The problem I see is that this way, the minority of a certain sex that are good at a task which is usually attributed to the opposite gender are discriminated against. (usually not officially, although comments I've heard from male daycare workers are an example to the contrary)
Slashdot Mirror
What you have pointed out is that essentially, the only students that have the incentive to do well in math are those that don't care about being publicly recognized, or rather, social standing in general, since not only does participation in math not help with reputation, it generally actively labels a student as "uncool". Most people do have the need to be recognized; it takes a great deal of introversion to the point of Asperger's to truly want one's achievements to remain anonymous. Effectively restricting participation in technical fields to the extremely un-social is not only severely limiting (I've read that 25% of the population is introverted, and most of these are not extreme cases), it is also self-perpetuating, since participation in math/science etc. is now associated with low social standing, especially in high school.
One potential fix I see is making some scientific endevour(s) a national focus, like the moon landings were forty years ago. Also, there needs to be more academic separation among abilities and interest levels, and encouraging high-schoolers to participate in some system like one sport, one academic club could also help.
In summary, the inverse association between technical interest and social standing needs to be eradicated before the country can move forward with math and science education.
Have you heard of the 28 hour day system (6 day weeks)? Might do more harm than good, but worth investigating. Personally, I find my brain is ridiculously sensitive to how much sleep I get -- more than a half hour off of about 9 and a half hours, and I'm a zombie. Getting up at the same time each day is practically mandatory, too.
People who know physics aren't going to be dumbed down by movies; likewise, those who don't know physics aren't going to be enlightened. However, cool applications of physics in movies and elsewhere in popular culture naturally lead to inspired people being swayed toward physics as a profession. Those who aren't curious can safely be ignored: unlike politics, research science does not require the active involvement of the masses to function properly.
Also, remember, "Da masses are as dumb as dumbasses". Nothing will change that, and portraying scientist types as (minor) heroes and not freaky rejects in the media will do much more for promoting science in America (and elsewhere) than checking to see that all media is totally accurate by the laws of the universe (snore). We're probably living in a simulation anyways.
By the way, science is not infallible: http://xkcd.com/298/
Also, I'm not sure we need more scientists with their strange views. A biologist, a physicist and a mathematician were on a trip to Scotland. On their way out of the train, they see a lone black sheep standing on a grassy field. "The sheep in Scotland are black!", exclaims the biologist. "No, silly, at least one sheep in Scotland is black", retorted the physicist. The mathematician sighed, and after a brief pause, explained: "Both of you are wrong. At least one Scottish sheep is black on at least one side."
Why is gender division of tasks a problem as long as the work is being divided along lines of biologically hard-coded aptitude and not otherwise? The problem I see is that this way, the minority of a certain sex that are good at a task which is usually attributed to the opposite gender are discriminated against. (usually not officially, although comments I've heard from male daycare workers are an example to the contrary)
How about it? That would make life much easier.
Also included: a comparison of fireproof suits with shock wave absorbers.
www.torrentscan.com searches every site you want. I find it very useful.
Jupiter's and Saturn's moons could be interesting, though, and are probably the next objects of interest after Mars.