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: [Phys-l] Was, reading PER literature



I would argue that science education HAS improved in this country. I had only ONE science class in K-8. My college prep HS taught only two science courses--Chemistry & Physics (but everyone took both).

Several things have happened in the last 100 years--the most critical is that 'higher' education is now populated with many, many more students and the median skill/intelligence/motivation level of those students is much lower than 50 years ago. Trying to aim for this new center puts the top third of these students at a real disadvantage. The same has happened in HS and earlier education. When the social equality group jumped in and all but eliminated any kind of track system, this has redirected our whole educational system at the mediocre. Now while some systems have returned to 'gifted' programs, you'll often find those same programs have effectively eliminated their special education programs by 'integrating' those students into the 'normal' classrooms. Well in the case of the developmentally disabled, that is a travesty--pulling down the general level in the classrooms and leaving the disabled without the kinds of training and programs from which they can really learn the daily living skills they will need to operate independently. Students who can't subtract two digit numbers in pre-algebra classes! ;-(

Now couple this with increased opportunities for the gifted students to excel in many fields. How many potential scientists have been lured into computer science? Remember these are smart kids who can see that getting their first measly paychecks at age 27-30 is not the way ahead in this society. Is there any wonder that we have so few American students in our grad-schools.

Concentrating on lecture as the root of all educational evil is to ignore the multitude of social problems and educational philosophy problems that have strongly contributed to our problems in science. YET...is the world of research science, of industrial science, of government science really all that bad off? Where is the evidence for that?

BTW: If, as Jack has stated, we have met the enemy and they are us, the same can be said about Bernard's 'rulers'--they are the people WE have put in place. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Rick

***************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
******************************
Free Physics Software
PC & Mac
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
*******************************


----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Cleyet" <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Was, reading PER literature


http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

for starters.

"The paradox is this: as a lingering result of the golden age, we still
have the finest scientists in the world in the United States. But we also
have the worst science education in the industrialized world."


I assume the above is the quote. Did I disagree w/ it?

Of course teaching has changed. especially after about 1960. I have a
HS lab manual (Millikan ca. 1910). many of the xpts. and their format
are the same as I did in HS and as a freshman at UCSB. Current ones
are different, but still lectures reign supreme. That's what I
meant. I disagree w/ his crunch analogy -- inflation then stasis is
more accurate. His mining one is quite apt. That's the way it's been
'till recently all over the world. Now "we" expect to teach all instead
of a few with the expected result. As I've posted before, immediately
after sputnik the freshman class at UCSB more than doubled; the
sophomore class was back to normal.


His reason for improving sci. ed. is quite admirable -- necessary for a
"Jeffersonian Demo." My belief is forget it.

bc

p.s. here's an example of the problem the rulers would have from an
enlightened populace. Remember the liquid bomb scare? supposedly, and
the chemist member can confirm or refute this, the reaction to make the
bomb takes about 30 minutes and may prematurely explode being a
"fizzle". Can you imagine someone successfully doing this in a crowded
plane?

One version:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

another view:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/10/uchemical.xml