Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: #6: WOMEN'S WAYS OF KNOWING (final excerpt!)



Mark:

First, let me put in a few good words for "elitism".
Unfortunately, if you want to "do" math, physics, engineering or the like
for a living you have to have the necessary talent for it. I think that
most of recognize that a relatively small number of students will have
that talent. We have an obligation to encourage, nurture, and develop
that talent. That process is almost by definition elitist. There is
nothing wrong with that. Elitism goes hand in hand with professionalism.
We have no problems with elitism in athletics, and we should have no
problem with elitism in the training of professional scientists and
engineers.

Your arguement supports my contention concerning the major role played by
elitism in physics education. Unfortunately this makes it not "education"
but filtering and vocational training. This might be okay for those who
have made known they wish to be physicists and are ready to enter training
for the profession, but it clearly does the rest of society the sort of
harm, in my view, that we have mentioned in previous notes. A case can
easily be made concerning problems with elitism in athletics, see below.

The problem comes when we take that to be our only obligation.
While very few folks ever get to be professional athletes or musicians,
very large numbers of people develop an appreciation for athletics or
music, and fairly large numbers of folks develop their more modest talents
to the point where they can regularly participate in athletic and musical
endeavors. We have an equally important obligation as science teachers to
help as many students as possible to gain an appreciation for science and
an understanding of how science affects their lives.

This 'gaining of appreciation' for athletics has left the vast majority of
us, couch potatoes, without little understanding of and almost no
inclination or habits toward exercise and activity for our own personal
health and well-being. In contrast I would point out that if our goal is
some sort of appreciation that turns out to be informed and interested
consumption of professional sports events, then whatever we are doing in
science education we are close to abject failures compared to what they are
accomplishing in physical education.

We should help all students to celebrate and appreciate the
achievements of the "elites" of science, just as we try to help all
students to celebrate and appreciate the "elites" in other fields.

Do we? Should we? Why? Who does this serve? What have such practices
gotten us?

This 'celebration and appreciation' carries us way beyond merely getting
the 'brightest and best' into the profession. It impresses a rigid, and I
think ultimately destructive, class system on our society. I'm not against
the competition for the brightest and best into our profession. What I am
against is what we do to everyone else along the way. I agree with you
that the result of education should not be to 'teach' people what they
can't do, yet this is exactly what we do to most people who experience
instruction at one level or another on physics topics. (I remind all the
readers of Phys-L that physics topic instruction goes on at various times
from 1st grade on, hence nearly _all_ of the population of our country
receives such instruction.)

We need the "few good men (and women)" in the Marines. They serve
an important purpose. At the same time we need all those grunts in Army
as well. They also serve an important purpose.....

Sure we need all sorts of roles played in society and we should value them.
Unfortunately, we don't value them. Many factors in society, education not
the least of them play a role in this. But does science/physics
"education" have to have as its primary outcome for the majority of society
that it convinces people that there is a part of the world they cannot make
sense of and that they are less than others? (Echos of the 95% discussion
about a year ago...) I think that it is possible that if we were to
reserve the vocational training and filtering for the self-selected physics
majors, then for everyone else we could focus from early grades on up on
engaging them in studying the physical world and making the best sense of
that they can. As a result, not only would we seriously diminish the major
outcome of physics education as-it-is, but we are likely end up with more
really thoughtful and intellectually sharp candidates wanting to be physics
majors than we ever imagined and who are much better in a position to take
advantage of the professional training we have to offer. ...not to mention
many more people in general who would be in the habit of making use of
their rational capabilities in everyday life than we see today.

Peace to all...

Dewey



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper

"Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and
are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external
world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld,
1938.
"Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct
of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence."
--E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958.
"Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in
There Are No Electrons, 1991.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++