|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Kansas State School Board At It Once Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6724 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
I saw this to on the abcnews website. It is particularly worrying because by trying to change the definition of science in the classroom to suggest irrelevant speculation, mythology, and the supernatural are equivalent to methodological naturalism they will undermine the education in all sciences not just biology. This will definitely stratify the US even further into the tiny tiny minority of people who actually understand how science works and what the benefits of science are and the vast majority who think that because they think Star Wars, God, and pink unicorns are cool, they must exist and scientists are conspiring to prevent their existence. Interestingly, the entire decision in Kansas is being made by elected officials with no scientific background...it is about as stupid as having athiests dictate what is taught in Sunday school.
If the trend spreads from Kansas, the US will have to become an even greater importer of foreign educated scientists because the homegrown science students will be to poorly educated to be able to compete. The trend already exists and will continue to accelerate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6069 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
If the trend spreads from Kansas, the US will have to become an even greater importer of foreign educated scientists because the homegrown science students will be to poorly educated to be able to compete. The trend already exists and will continue to accelerate. Perhaps this is what is meant by "faith-based" education. We will have faith that the rest of the world will supply scientists to do our work for us. Hey, its really gonna suck for you when the world no longer believes in mammoths and so pull your grants. After all what's so special about studying the Snuffleupagus? We already know all about him from Sesame Street. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6724 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Actually it will be great. Instead of going to the trouble of testing my hypotheses or actually doing any work whatsoever, I can just say the answer is that mammoths are not extinct, they are just hiding behind my refrigerator with all the other extince animals and everyone else is just too dumb to see them... and since according to the ID crowd my just saying so is a superior method for determining the "truth" I save myself a crap load of time and effort that I can better spend drinking beer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6069 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
ID = Intelligent Drinker
OK - Cute side comment, but let's not let it sidetrack the topic. - Adminnemooseus This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-18-2005 12:55 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5403 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
Mamumthus writes: ...they will undermine the education in all sciences not just biology. Somehow I missed this crap.Now I am really pissed. Mammuthus writes: ...the tiny minority of people who actually understand how science works (in the USA) Could it possibly get smaller still ?
Mammuthus writes: ... the entire decision in Kansas is being made by elected officials with no scientific background Are you aware of any politicians that *do* have scientific background?I mean even federally, outside of Kansas ? Maybe some former medical practitioners (Bill Frist comes to mind ), but what about real researchers ? I need to find this email I got a while back, post-election, from a scientist addressed to other scientists. He complained about how totally ineffectual we are as a lobby group in US politics, when we should be one of THE most influencial of all lobby groups, given the current importance of science and technology to all aspects of our lives, economically, politically etc. Does our inaction / disorganization make us 'de facto' part of the political problem instead of part of the solution ? Are we so caught up in our research that we have become politically apathetic ? Or is it that so many of us depend on some sort of government paycheck to pursue our research dreams that we are loath to take a political stance on anything for fear of offending some administration we depend on for support ?
Mammuthus writes: ...the US will have to become an even greater importer of foreign educated scientists You mean greater importer than already ? I can tell you from my own hiring experiences for assistantships and associateships in my discipline, you are lucky to get one or two remotely qualified American applicants out of 40 or 50. I recently answered a questionnaire from a national association of biological sciences (that shall remain nameless), commissioned by Congress no less, that asked questions along a sub-text of, 'maybe we need more incentives for American students to choose a career in biological sciences', and 'maybe we need to make it more expensive / harder for foreign students to come and take graduate assistantships here'. I am not kidding. Talk about protectionism ! (sorry - that's another thread I am on). My reaction was, what are you trying to do to us - shut down our research programs !?
Mammuthus writes: The trend already exists and will continue to accelerate. We can only hope you are wrong. So much of American scientific history documents the important contributions of foreign scientists. But then, most of that was back when we were actually a welcoming haven for foreign intellectuals, an exemplary icon of freedom, as opposed to a purveyor of freedom by force that wants to build ever taller fences around its own borders. I might also mention that the average Joe has no idea of the costs to the country (in terms of lost and delayed scientific research) of the post-911 'visa renewal nightmares' suffered by foreign graduate students and post-docs. I had a post-doc stuck in Pakistan for *9 weeks* waiting for a stamp on his passport when he already had employment authorization and an approved visa ! Of course I had to maintain his salary during this period - a salary that was being paid from a grant from the Department of Homeland Scurity, no less !Are we shooting ourselves in the foot or what ? Mammuthus writes: ...because the homegrown science students will be to poorly educated to be able to compete OK. Some of us might say we are seeing this already. I know I have already thrown out one non-rhetorical question above, but I now have another.Why it is, in the USA, we seem to have such a paucity of students *interested* in a science education ? I mean, forget about students that excel in science (we certainly do have some of those), but the majority of American students with opportunity for higher education seem to choose a course of study other than science. Why ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6672 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Why it is, in the USA, we seem to have such a paucity of students *interested* in a science education ? I mean, forget about students that excel in science (we certainly do have some of those), but the majority of American students with opportunity for higher education seem to choose a course of study other than science. Why ? One has to ask, if you perceive the number of American born students in science as "low", is this in absolute or relative terms ? Relative to 1950's America, say? Or relative to other countries ? Here are a few reasons I can think of: 1) Other closely related fields (e.g engineering, computing, medicine) are perceived as more lucrative or interesting. 2) Academia is perceived as an unattractive career choice (low pay and benefits, revolving series of one year postdocs, excessive politics) 3) Students who might be interested in science are turned off at the secondary level due to the way science is taught. It seems to be perceived , especially in the physical sciences, as something only for the elite students. On the Kansas topic, I have to wonder if the mainstream science community tactic of largely avoiding the hearings was the best choice. Surely it was largely a kangaroo court, but this tactic could still be perceived as a retreat by the general public. If the state attempts to force ID to be taught, would en masse resignations of Kansas bio teachers, or en masse refusal to comply, be the response ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6724 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: I don't know that this is the limitation. Under the Clinton administration there were not more scientist politicians either. There was just more of a recognition that science brings direct economic and health benefits for everyone and more if it is done in country i.e. spawning industry. The current administration has taken a much more anti-science stance. I also don't know that having a lot of researchers in congress would necessarily make things better. Many would then tend to use the position to fund their own areas at the expense of others. The key problem is that scientists are not convincing either congress or the American public that science education and funding is a direct benefit to the country.
quote: I can use Germany as a contrast to the US. If you turn on the tv, every single day there are probably four or 5 science shows on tv. People talk about science and read about it. There is a large investment in communicating science to the public. It is much harder to have a career in science here than in the US because of a really corrupt system of patronage that only allows promotion to professor of pre-arranged candidates...but still, the science programs are full. These highly trained students fill the ranks of American and european universities as faculty and postdocs. But even on the subway, you have a good chance of finding people that are somewhat familiar with current scientific issues. This was completely different from my experiences in the US where the tv science programs were mostly crap and there was little general interest in science and not much respect shown for people who are eager to learn. This is a broad generalization and there are pockets in the US where science is heavily emphasized and well communicated. But it is not as pervasive as in many parts of Europe. As to why this may be so (in my opinion), I will address this below in my response to paisano.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6724 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
I think the 50's would be a poor metric since there was a huge displacement of foreign scientists to the US as a consequence of WWII. It would probably be better to compare the 70's or 80's to the current trends. However, the trend has been a decreasing enrollment of Americans in science programs and the gap has been filled by foreigners.
quote:I don't know that engineering is perceived as more interesting than say biology, but it is definitely perceived as being more lucrative. There is usually a much shorter period between training and the first "real" job which is a real sticking point. quote:The security of tenure is attractive but the endless postdoc series is really miserable as I can confirm as one personally in that loop. There is also the dependency on one's supervisor for advancement that can lead to abuse and the rather poor metric of performance as measured by number of publications and impact factors. This is probably for me, the biggest turnoff to the entire field. It is often politically influenced and often based on pure luck whether you get "the big" publication. There are just too many issues of patronage and luck for people to invest a longer than average time in training for a relatively low salary and a long period without benefits or a stable location (moving every 3 years is a burden). I personally would also not generally recommend a scientific career unless things are restructured in the future. quote:This is the baffling part..almost all really young kids are drawn to science. Almost everyone knows the names of dinosaurs as a kid and becomes fascinated with the idea of exploration. But some time during high school this gets killed off. And it seems to be US specific as the steep dropoff does not happen in Europe at the same time...the winnowing is usually at the college level as kids start to choose their professions and get selected out by exam scores and not interest. Something in the US system seems to work against teenagers maintaining an interest in science. quote:I think it was a mistake. They should have come in with dozens of scientists from different disciplines explaining what science is, why the ToE is science and is supported, why ID is ridiculous and show that the scientific community takes science seriously at every level. What they did was make it look like they did not want to show up to a race they think they can't win.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6069 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Something in the US system seems to work against teenagers maintaining an interest in science. I believe it is the culture at large and not something specific to the educational system. The US is anti-education and specifically anti-intellectual. Despite lip service toward education, you can hear the sizzle of venom and acid dripping from lips of Republican leaders and many other conservatives when they discuss universities and science in particular. After graduation in America's heartland... and into a full recession I was forced to try and find work in the retail sector. While there I was fully chastised, and I guess I should say harassed and discriminated against for being educated and having an interest in science. One woman specifically looked at me with pure disgust and then yelled to everyone else where we worked "He's a scientist! Hey everyone we have a scientist!" It was so filled with hate and bile I thought I was going to be lynched afterward. And let me explain, this was not because I said something controversial about evo vs creo or something. I just mentioned something about chemistry or physics. At another place I was rejected for employment as the interviewer laughed in my face saying they (everyone who worked there) didn't understand why anyone would ever want to go and get a college education. Even once I moved to the city, there was an intellectual and science negative atmosphere. When I loaned some books to my gf on evolutionary theory and she was reading them at work, coworkers came up and hassled her for believing such things. Coming to Europe I have never seen anything like that (until recently), and most people having some respect if not interest in the sciences.
I think it was a mistake. They should have come in with dozens of scientists from different disciplines explaining what science is, why the ToE is science and is supported, why ID is ridiculous and show that the scientific community takes science seriously at every level. What they did was make it look like they did not want to show up to a race they think they can't win. I cannot say it was a mistake. This was really a lose/lose situation. By not going in they might look as if scientists have something to hide (which is of course what one of the board members said). But by attending the board review they might have done something a lot more damaging. Remember that ID is making great hay out of anything they can do which brings scientists out. They say "See this must be important because scientists came and had to debate". What's worse this was a fixed race. By testifying and presenting all sorts of great evidence, the board could then go ahead and do what they wanted to do anyway and declare that the evidence was presented and ID was proven correct, setting a political/legal precedent for them to quote endlessly. It may be better off having them have to refer to the fact that scientists refused to show up, than that they did show up and were "proven wrong before a panel of intelligent and educated educators chosen by the entire state of Kansas and so surely objective and forthright in their decision and proving that democracatically elected government agencies recognize the necessity of this debate and the position of ID in that debate." After that it will be asking why other states are being held back, because obviously if the debate was held fairly ID would win its case in every state. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. This might be one, even if discretion is often mistaken as cowardice. Challenging them to a fair fight will reveal where the cowardice lies. And actually I like how this move has helped force them into the open on their true agenda. They might have avoided discussing the real element in this (ending the scientific method) by discussing all the "weak points" of evolution. Certainly that would be buried in the broader debate. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5403 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
paisano writes: 1) Other closely related fields (e.g engineering, computing, medicine) are perceived as more lucrative or interesting. 2) Academia is perceived as an unattractive career choice (low pay and benefits, revolving series of one year postdocs, excessive politics Except for the politics part (not sure what you refer to here), these are pretty much the same ideas that came to my mind when I asked the question. But I would have to say that careers in 'business management' and 'asset transformation' draw away far more students than engineering. American students have so much economic opportunity, a science career is probably perceived as way too much work for way too little return on investment. Now, you compare that to the situation for bright students in developing countries. For them, demonstrating academic prowess in the sciences can be a 'way out', a means to open up many new international opportunities for study and employment. There so many easier ways to make a more lucrative living as an American citizen. I really want to reply to some of the excellent comments by Holmes and Mammuthus, but I have a very busy day ahead of me, so I will have to do that a bit later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6672 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
American students have so much economic opportunity, a science career is probably perceived as way too much work for way too little return on investment. I think this is by far the largest factor. And many students choose nontechnical careers, which I really don't see as a problem per se. As to the culture, I can't be quite so negative as Holmes, although the "inventor-entrepeneur" (Edison, Ford, Gates, Rutan) seems to capture the public imagination as the archetypal American technologist much more than the science professor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6672 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. This might be one, even if discretion is often mistaken as cowardice. Challenging them to a fair fight will reveal where the cowardice lies. A tactical withdrawal is never cowardice, but sound strategy. If the Kansas state board forces the teaching of ID, I would love to see every biology teacher in the state resign en masse. Sort of "OK, if you don't want biology taught in this state, we are ready to accomodate you". Of course, this may not be prqactical. I'd expect some sort of refusal to teach the syllabus/firing/court fight scenario to play out. Sort of Scopes II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6724 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: I did not have such negative experiences as holmes either. But I grew up in an Ivy League university town where almost all of my science classmates were faculty brats (including myself). So I doubt my experiences are representative. I think the problem with the archetype American technologist is that it is an outdate perception, at least in the biological sciences. Biotech feeds off of academic research. It is not the home tinkerer, inventor who drive the discoveries that lead to medicines etc. but usually science professors (or more often their students in the lab). The professor usually provides the funds, the general research direction and (hopefully) the atmosphere were the discoveries can be made and the students at all levels from undergrad to postdoc work their asses off to generate and interpret the data. Many scientists are also entrepreneurs and start up their own companies or move into companies based on their research...but it usually starts from an academic setting and flows to industry. The discoveries made in academia are then often the basis for new treatments, diagnostics or industries. This structure does not seem to be as necessary in fields like engineering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6069 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
If the Kansas state board forces the teaching of ID, I would love to see every biology teacher in the state resign en masse. That would be awesome. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2419 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I will piggyback upon paisano's comment and add that many science departments are also inhospitable to women to varying degrees, so that might be another reason for the lack of interest among undergraduates. Female undergrads seem to do well, but once they get into grad school and post-graduate work some have reported problems with discrimination.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024