Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science 954
fbg111 writes "From the NYT: A panel of experts convened by the National Academies, the nation's leading science advisory group, called yesterday for an urgent and wide-ranging effort to strengthen scientific competitiveness. The 20-member panel, reporting at the request of a bipartisan group in Congress, said that without such an effort the United States 'could soon lose its privileged position.' It cited many examples of emerging scientific and industrial power abroad and listed 20 steps the United States should take to maintain its global lead."
Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Biology and any other field of science dealing with the age of the Earth are destined to decline in the US. The balance of power has already tipped decidedly to non-US schools in technical training in these fields and will continue. This report will be ignored because Congress owes too much to the religious right to do anything that advances knowledge in human evolution or radiometric dating.
Any student of history knows that Scopes lost his trial. Things haven't changed that much in the US in nearly a century.
Erosion of intelligence in general (Score:3, Insightful)
It's red pill vs. blue pill, and now that everybody has seen how the trilogy ends, blue pill wins every time. Want to change it? Take the Nazi out of Amerika and put forward a vision of where this country is going to be in twenty years that doesn't involve killing and torturing innocent people around the world.
Really it comes down to this: the propaganda being dished by The New York Times/CNN works well, but only for the retards. The kids you want to see building tomorrow's superweapons can think for themselves, and therefore see this shit for what it is.
And when you think about it, would you really have it any other way?
--
You didn't know. [tinyurl.com]
Teh pain! (Score:4, Insightful)
Copied verbatim from TFA:
If nothing else convinces you of the magnitude of this problem, consider the fact that The New York Times confused "lose" and "loose."
Re:Not Surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Clasic solution to the perceived shortage (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Pay More
2. Pay More
3. Pay More
4. Pay More
5. Pay More
6. Pay More
7. Pay More
8. Pay More
9. Pay More
10. Pay More
11. Pay More
12. Pay More
13. Pay More
14. Pay More
15. Pay More
16. Pay More
17. Pay More
18. Pay More
19. Pay More
20. Pay More
The free market works. That's why our best and brighest are leaving Science. Dumbsh|ts!
I really don't think thats it (Score:4, Insightful)
Realistically, the reason is the almighty dollar. Everything revolves around it, it always has and always will. In the US $$ speaks more than any religious morals.
Fundamentalists *help* science (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine if the Bible said something about quantum physics (yeah, yeah, I know you can claim it does, but bear with me here). Wouldn't that speed up the demise of bad theories in that field?
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Insightful)
Realistically, the reason is the almighty dollar. Everything revolves around it, it always has and always will. In the US $$ speaks more than any religious morals
How is it profitable to lose your leading standing in scientific fields? Who would want such a thing? No, I think the original poster was bang-on. Superstition is killing your country.
Item #21 (Score:3, Insightful)
What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting 10,000 new teachers into the school system isn't going to help if they have to teach religion in their science classes. Welcome to the US where 1 in 5 people believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Our problem isn't that we don't have enough teachers.
Our problem is that being smarter than the average makes those average people hate you. Most of them don't want to know that what they believe is wrong and they'll oppose anyone who tries to tell them differently. Which is why you see the fight to include things like "Intelligent Design" on the same level as tested and verified scientific findings.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Any "student of history" also knows that the courts have ruled it is illegal to teach creation science and also illegal to prevent the teaching of evolution.
Any "student of history" also knows that the courts have ruled that teaching "intelligent
design" is tantamount to teaching "creation science".
The courts have had our back time and time again.
The problem isn't that things haven't changed. It's that they have. Fundamentalist nonsense is heavily influencing mainstream Christians. It is influencing the legislative branch of our government more than ever. And now it may influence the Supreme Court as well.
Science takes a back seat to profit (Score:5, Insightful)
How many corporations have scaled back or even eliminated their R&D departments because they won't turn a profit next quarter?
How much money does big oil spend to suppress new technologies?
Overly restrictive patents bar research by all who can't cough up the money to expand on somebody else's work.
Kids are actively discouraged from tinkering for fear of hurting themselves or hurting somebody else's bottom line. Want to experiment with chemistry? Here's some lemon juice and baking soda - but we'll arrest you if you put it into a plastic bottle. Want to play with model rockets? Prove you aren't a terrorist. Want to hack your X-Box and see how circuits work? The FBI'll be knocking on your door. Biology? Take pictures of a worm, but make sure it isn't endangered. Engineering? The city'll come and fine you for not building your treehouse to code.
When you get to college... how many professors actually teach science and how many spend all of their time seeking new grants to ensure the university can afford a new football stadium?
And of the precious little research that actually is happening, how much is classified and never sees the light of day
Re:Erosion of intelligence in general (Score:2, Insightful)
And not just today. They've been calling smart people nerds/geeks for years. The irony is these labels are negative insults towards a positive trait.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Erosion of intelligence in general (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think those are the only two choices, you're copping out. There is a third choice: work hard at making the world a better place. Yes, it can be done. Yes, you can pretend it's impossible, if you want an excuse for not doing anything.
Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Nazi Germany
Facist Italy
Rawanda about 10 years ago
A real "who's who" amongst nations to be sure. I sure am glad my country ranks amongst them.
Re:Clasic solution to the perceived shortage (Score:4, Insightful)
I am surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
I see two problems:
The first is education - the crap that is called "science education" in the schools in this country is raising idiots. They are taught to regurgitate "facts", and the definition of "fact" has changed from "what is provable" to "what we tell you". Critical thinking is discouraged, experimentation has no lab budget, and standards are dropping wildly. I read once (can't find source) that several decades ago most middle school girls could tell you what an aileron was. Today I'd be surprised if more than a few percent of high school graduates have a clue.
The other problem is money and the absolute focus most entities (commercial and educational) now have on short-term profitability. Real science means taking risks, thinking about the long term, spending time on basic science so you can reap the rewards of understanding new principles, then discovering how they may be applied. Today any idea that looks unlikely to be signifigantly profitable within 18 months has almost no chance for funding. This is a good part of the reason why basic progress is stalling in most areas of science that do not have immediate commercial applications.
Fixing either of these requires fundamental changes in the mindset. Neither are likely to happen anytime soon, mostly for the same two reasons...
Re:Erosion of intelligence in general (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes I think this world needs another regime like that because so many have forgotten how bad they were. Then I come to my senses and realize that reading a million stupid statements like yours above is a great thing. It's good that you're ignorance is showing on a subject like this.
Give up (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I'm absolutely not one of the US-haters common here, but I can see what way your contry is heading. Things like general education has a huge social inertia or whatever you want to call it. Changing the course of a society takes a huge, concentrated effort over a long period of time. Thats not gonna happen, more like the opposite.
(and spare me the comments about my spelling)
Big Shocker (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean why work hard and study when you see dimwitted athletes on MTV "Cribs" with large houses and expensive cars?
The root of the problem is that we don't value hard work and thirst for knowledge, we value "things." Why is a company going to research a cancer cure unless it can get a patent on it and make a boatlod of money in today's world?
Neo-cons like Bush and their reactionary politics and backwards religious thought is not the reason we are seeing this slow down. DaVinci studied anatomy in spite of the Catholic church's prohibition on using cadavers. I think the fact that neo-cons can dicate scientific policy is a symptom of current enviroment, where anything that is studied has have some sort of financial reward. We even tell our children to go to college, not for personal growth, but so they can get a good job and make lots of money.
In a world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Other problems include:
- poor pay
- an increasing tendancy among scientists to take theory as fact
- increased outsourcing by american business
- unmotivated and/or knowledgable teachers(see poor pay as the reason for that)
- Greater competition by other countries
- The fanatical religious destruction of the scientific community.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
This doesn't have anything to do with our scientific advances *now* as opposed to how it's taught in school. The "religion right" has no influence in our schools (thanks to the Supreme Court).
So if the religious right is so bad about science, how do you explain the better scientific education of kids coming out of religious private schools? When I graduated, I had taken both Chem II AP and Physics II AP, and got my college credits. Did my local public school even have similar courses? No.
Let's talk about the real problems with public education, and we will find an answer to our problems. How am I authoritative? My girlfriend and father teach or have taught middle school.
Problems:
Social promotion. Yes, it exists. My father was threatened with being fired for not promoting a kid to the 9th grade after failing his social studies class. The reason? The principal "wanted to get rid of the troublemaker".
Parental duties. I hear stories from my girlfriend all the time about the parents who don't care. I hear the "yups" and "uh-huhs" from my father who got the same thing 30 years ago. Parents are caring less and less about the education of their children. When kids get a bad grade, parents call to complain about how the teacher is offending their kid. When kids act bad, parents call to complain about how the school is insensitive.
Education funding. Huge problem in many states, but mostly only in the poorer areas of the state. My girlfriend works in a school district that belongs to the poorest area of Maryland. The state and federal government provides some relief, but the real problem is that the money is being wasted (given the previous two problems) on many students. The students who want to learn can not because they are being held back by the students who do not want to learn. Attempts to get kids into private schools via vouches hit a big road block when democrats objected to it. Despite the fact it would both 1) reduce the number of students per class and 2) provide more money per student; seems irrelevant to Democrats who rather keep a socialist program alive and well, even if it means dumbing down the children.
Community Support. What have you done for YOUR local public school? I like to provide some money and have even offered to help with some computer learning (rejected everytime, it seems that the elitests only want people with college masters degrees). Bt I still give money to the schools during fundraisers and actually vote for members of the school board. Considering I do not have children, this is the best I can do. But then again, even if I did have children, they probably would go to a private school where science and mathematics doesn't lag behing as much.
Stop stealing my punch lines! (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, it seems that they all declined pretty quickly and either vanished or are still on the bottom of the heap
You got two options people:
Either wise up and realize that being smarter is a good thing
or
Practice sucking up to whatever country will surpass us.
1) Educate children (Score:2, Insightful)
Or in my case... type.
Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not political. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree wholeheartedly with #2. #1 and #3 are problematic.
#1 fails because teachers are not completely responsible for the results they are expected to achieve. Students must want to learn in order to display testable results. Also see #2 for part of why #1 fails -- re-evaluate your "very little to do with our political climate" with respect to what the teachers are expected to teach each year. Consider that the agenda changes with each administration (all levels from school to county to local to state to federal), so it's hard to find a stable foundation from which to teach anything. Teachers can't teach what they want. They teach what they're paid to teach.
#3 fails because nobody is obliged to be the kind of parent *you* want. Too bad. Find a social structure that everyone agrees on (good luck) or form an educational institution that acknowledges different parents raise different kids.
Re:International Students (Score:1, Insightful)
Or ... it is 'globalization'? (Score:3, Insightful)
Changing the course of a society takes a huge, concentrated effort over a long period of time.
This is certainly true, and points out one reason why the U.S. is sliding in science and other countries (primarily in Europe and Asia) are reaching and passing contributions U.S. science has made. By "U.S. science" I mean companies that are essentially headquartered in the U.S. and are supported by U.S. universities. That doesn't matter to science - but it's salient here because we're talking about the state of science in the U.S.
However, I'd argue that globalization has much more to do with this than any degree of disinterest in science. While the Soviets are the sole provider of missions to the I.S.S. the U.S. is also leaps beyond anyone else when it comes to commercial exploration of space.
Back to globalization: The U.S. was dominant in science because the aftermath of WW II, among other things. It was U.S. science and military spending that sustained technological growth that started in WW II and continued through the end of the Cold War.
But with companies becoming less nationalistic it stands to reason other countries will be reaching the mantle of scientific contributions. And that's a great thing - science depends upon money to fuel research and the more diversified that money the more stable its input will be.
So don't get too emotional slamming the U.S. - globalization has a lot to do with other countries gaining economies capable of sustaining the budgets science requires. Just because Europe and Asia are making contributions faster today than yesterday does not mean the U.S. is slowing down - it just means others are contributing more today than yesterday. If U.S. scientific contributions sustain or slow just a bit the 'gap' appears to be very large.
Re:It's not political. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you're giving the political climate due consideration. While its effects are largely intangible, there's a creeping contempt for science that's gaining ground at all levels of government. What does your typical individual going to think about the value of science in general when a person no less than the president himself routinely and blithely disregards solid scientific findings in favor of ideological beliefs?
We are watching a slow and painful relegation of science to the role of munitions manufacturer for various political interests. When was the last time you heard a major political figure say, "You know, I always thought that X was the case, but recent studies have led me to believe otherwise"?
Remember, too, that school administrations and school boards are political institutions and have become increasingly politicized over the years.
Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simple reasons. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
big business CONSTANTLY makes accusations that environmental protections and other things that "cost money" and "reduce profit" are impacting america's ability to remain competitive in the world marketplace. they cite the lack of regulation in countries like China, 'Nam, central and south america, etc as reasons we're not profitable. this includes their whole attitude on more oil drilling in alaska, which is constatly stopped by the "green" people of the left. they are using the current oil-price crisis to get through legislation on the justification that if you didn't have to enforce the environmental policies in effect, we could drill and provide cheap oil to americans.
no, they don't claim we're falling behind scientifically. they claim we're falling behind economically.
and they COMPLETELY ignore the fact that america is less profitable in the global marketplace not because our "stuff" is more expensive due to regulation, its because our *PEOPLE* are more expensive due to our attitudes about class, cost-of-living, minimum-wage, health care, etc.
i have no problem with companies outsourcing because american people are expensive. i have a problem with american companies saying our environmental protections are really hurting them and using "think-tank" science to try to justify that false claim.
Re:I am surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, you're missing the whole point of a _Creator_.
I'll buy into the possibility of evolution being an Origin of Species when someone can document a series of reactions starting with non-organic, naturally-occurring compounds that results in an organism capable of spontaneous, sustainable reproduction, and documents a statistically significant possibility of conditions capable of producing that series of reactions occurring in the history of the earth.
Until that point, evolution remains nothing more than Natural Selection, which is repeatable and documentable, but not an origin of species.
Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wrong, as are the people you cite who are "not anti-science." Even if they dispute natural selection and genetics, they of course are pro-science when they are taking an ibuprofen or getting their children vaccinated or getting their yearly flu shot. And no one with a job or an investment portfolio wants to see America lose its technological edge.
But you, like these people, are not drawing the connections between their actions and the results. Science is not just a collection of facts. You cannot just choose to support the knowledge that benefits you (flu vaccines) and fight against the knowledge that disagrees with your beliefs (carbon dated fossils, genetic evolution). Science is first and foremost a PROCESS (not a collection of "facts"), and if you attack the process you are attacking the development of the knowledge that benefits you as well as the knowledge you don't like.
Developing an effective flu vaccine every year is absolutely impossible without basis in the theories of genetic inheritance and natural selection. These theories were not just proposed and voted on by scientists--they have resulted from and withstood investigation from the process of science, conducted by millions of independent scientists over decades.
Attacking the theories in the way that many conservative religious groups have, is to attack the validity of the scientific process itself. It's pretty hard to do a good job educating and encouraging future scientists when the very concept of science is being subverted for religious or political ends.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the reason science is on the decline is largely because politicians in power have devalued the work of scientists. Scientists work based on grants from governments in probably 75% of their research. Cutting funding not only means that there's less money for individual scientists, it also means that there's less room for new scientists in the field.
As it is, there's absolutely no reason for a scientist to realistically pursue research that doesn't have a high payout factor. Looking into a field that has no tangible and direct marketability, meaning that the tech industries will ignore your results, is moot. Why bother if you can't work and make even a modest living?
(It also doesn't help that scientists are disillusioned from teaching science, much in the same way an english teacher would be if they were told "Shakespeare was just a writer, and his works are viewed by some as offensive. We recommend the latest bestseller, available at Borders and Barnes & Noble for $19.95!")
Seriously, though, if you want to look at what commercializing science leads to, you need look no further than the glut of copycat drugs on the market. Tons of allergy medicine, stomach medicine, and sex medicine. Nothing that really cures a problematic disease -- it's all comfort medicine that sells very well.
Ending tenure to help science? You are an idiot! (Score:4, Insightful)
When every other country has a cushy tenure system and you're a top scientist who can work anywhere, why would you refuse tenure? You must think top scientists are stupid. Do you really think they like constantly updating their CV and preparing for, and doing, "productivity reviews"? Fornunately, what good scientists like is doing science, not constantly elbowing for position with their peers. That's a part of the whole point of tenure.
The other part is that tenure insulates the scientist from the political fashions. Scientists research what they like, and whether or not it's popular with the current administration, their position is secure. If it weren't for that security, do you really think they'd work here?
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think this is the root problem. I think the root problem is teachers unions. If we truly rewarded excellent teachers in public schools, I think taxpayers would be more willing to fully fund public education. If you switch parents for teachers' unions in your problems list, then it would read the same. Teachers unions do "social promotion", and in fact care about little else from what I see. Even an extension from 2 to 5 years to a tenure position is being fought tooth and nail in an all out television and radio ad campaign in California. The teachers unions don't care about if a teacher is failing. They want them to keep their job, and have pay raises early and often for even the worst teachers.
One of the problems is how one can evaluate how well a teacher can teach. The students probably know, but wouldn't be trusted to give an honest opinion. Principals don't spend much time in classrooms. Parents don't either. The ideal would be to have a good Principal to be able to select and trade teachers across districts, hiring new to replace the worst performers, and offering more money to proven good teachers. The problem would be getting rid of teachers union limits, and tenure in order to make that possible.
Vouchers would essentially provide this, and the group most against vouchers are the teachers unions, who have the democrat party in their pocket. And the unions are able to sway votes by using union dues to make misleading advertisements and fund democrat campaigns. All laws promoted to limit union sponsorship of political campaigns with dues they have essentially extorted from their members have failed because they already have so much power.
Re:It's not political. (Score:4, Insightful)
And besides, it's incompatible with your point #2. If a kid fails a class, who gets to decide if it was because he couldn't handle it or because the teacher was incompetent?
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, management can easily be outsourced. The only thing that can't be outsourced are service jobs. Want to be sure of having a job in the future? Become a teacher, pharmacist, plumber, doctor, lawyer, fireman, policeman, or any of the many other jobs that one can't telecommute to because they are required by the laws of physics to be in physical proximity to their clients.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:1, Insightful)
You can't be serious. The efforts of the radical right to divert teaching time and effort away from real science and towards "intelligent design" is widely documented.
And, even though it's not specifically science-related, information censorship in libraries and textbooks is nearly always driven by the religious zealots.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
All the math classes I have seen or heard of in the US are all about learning the "designated correct" way of doing things. If you came to the right answer using sound mathematical principles that differ from the procedural manner taught, you are marked wrong. It's as if learning about mathematics and learning how to do well in math class are two entirely different subjects.
The current system teaches following directions at the expense of critical thinking. Learning to follow directions is certainly useful, but it shouldn't be the entire point of math classes and the educational system as a whole.
What we have is a system that turns out automatons, not intelligent people capable of *using* math (and other education) as a tool. Here is an inside opinion on what our school system really teaches, from the state of NY's Teacher of the Year:
http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html [cantrip.org]
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
In a more perfect world, the Supreme court would hear the challenge within days and the proper science ciriculum would be restored before any damage to kids was done.
With Roberts and Miers headed to the court though, it remains to be seen if science is safe even in the long term challenges we face.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. You can have a scientific mindset about science and a religious mindset about religious topics, without being in conflict. The problem is when you have a religious mindset when dealing with scientific topics (age of the earth, etc.)
Oddly, you cannot have a scientific mindset about religious topics. If you try to (for instance) deny the existence of a deity because of your 'scientific' mindset, then you are not in fact exhibiting a scientific mindset. Science has nothing to do with the supernatural, for or against. Science by definition deals with the natural world (and would that people restricted their religious views to the supernatural!)
You're a good second example. (Score:3, Insightful)
Should I find a way to phrase it so I can protect their fragile egos? Maybe tell them that they aren't really "wrong"? Isn't that the approach that got us into this situation in the first place?And, in your "experience", does the Sun revolve around the Earth?Again, you're confusing an emotional reaction with a fact.
I don't care if you don't want to hear that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
I don't care if you get upset when I tell you that you are wrong for believing anything other than that.
I don't care if you don't like me for telling you that I don't care.
The criteria should NOT be your feelings, but what the FACTS are.
More to it than ID (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's not political. (Score:3, Insightful)
See? So it is political. #2 Kids who aren't in school to learn need to be removed. Yeah, so be it, some kids don't get schooled. If they nor their parents can put forth the effort, then that's too bad. Sure, we'll hear sob stories about how some are going to get left behind. Let me clue you in to a little secret. If you hold back our best and brightest to make sure no one is "left behind" then you're going to DESTROY the best and brightest. Or at least you'll have managed to severely inhibit their potential.
No. This is a good reason for kids to get more individual attention (smaller class size). It's a good reason to divide the kids up into groups based on achievement, like honors classes and "gifted and talented" programs. However, kicking kids out of school outright because they aren't doing well and aren't motivated is just a good way to breed a low-class bunch of thugs who feel like they've never really had a chance.
Kids are kids. Most of them aren't going to see the value of their education at 13, but that's not sufficient reason to toss them out. I know it's not politically correct to separate out the "smart" kids from the "dumb" kids, because "it'll hurt their self esteem," but that's basically what needs to happen. As much as possible, students should be getting help targeted directly to their needs, and they should be allowed to learn at their own pace, even (especially) when that means they're excelling and outpacing the rest of their class. That's when you find rewards for that child, as well as more advanced/challenging work (but don't simply give them MORE work, as it's a disincentive to excel).
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Insightful)
Well...it's not - on a national scale. On a personal level, however, it can be very profitable. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, project managers and middle management in general make higher salaries than the engineers who are actually doing the work. I've actually seen engineers who got an engineering degree, only to be a mediocre engineer for a few years while they part time for an MBA to move on into management where they can make "real money" and work their way up the executive ladder. Heck...alot of people don't even bother with the engineering degree as an ungraduate - they go for business and go straight into an MBA program. I honestly hate MBA's, but the salaries I see them getting can be tempting.
This is my opnion, but they tend to be the same people who valued high scores over actually learning and understanding a given subject in college..YMMV.
Well, DOH (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Socioeconomic level, the single greatest positive indicator of educational acheivement. By definition, someone who can afford to attend a private school is of a higher socioeconomic than someone who cannot. QED.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a little strong; censorship efforts also come from the left, but more around issues of race, gender, and religion. Zealotry is an equal-opportunity annoyer.
Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares how much of an asshole somebody is when you are talking about the truth. Seriously, what is more important to you? Knowledge or not being offended?
Re:Not Surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
I used to teach math at university and it was shocking how many incoming freshmen did even know the basics of algebra. And this was in a strong Democratic state during a Democratic administration and a Democrat controlled congress. Does that mean that I can lay the blame at the feet of the Democrats?
You want to point fingers? Point them at schools, specifically many public schools where a solid math/science curriculum, let alone a decent learning environment in general, is hard to find. And if "religion" was to blame then how do you explain away the fact that on a whole students of private Catholic schools usually get a better all round education (math and science included) than public school students?
I live in the District, where per student funding is among the highest in the nation and is certainly no hotbed of fundamentalism, but once my kids hit school age you can bet I'll be paying to send my kids to a private Catholic school (and I'm an atheist). Why? Because the schools are shit (there is no other way to put it). And it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with bad (and corrupt) management, a stifling (not to mention corrupt) teachers' union and a useless (and did I mention corrupt) City gov't. Until recently you could graduate from a DCPS high school without ever taking a math course. And you wonder why things are getting worse?
The "big bad religious folks causing people to get dumber" is about as logical as ID theory (i.e. not) and misses the point: US primary and secondary schools just aren't that good, and some are downright awful. Until *that* changes nothing else will.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Insightful)
ID is simply the most recent example, the examples from history are countless. Gallileo is another classic example ("And yet, they move"). And thats without even bringing in the real loonies, like the ones who are convinced that the Earth is 6000 years old, and all the animals that exist today have always existed, and no other animals ever have, and all evidence to the contrary has been *placed by God specifically in an attempt to fool people*.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
The left has prevented any nuclear plants from being built in over 20 years. The left has prevented any oil refineries in 30 years. The left has prevented any new highway construction in California of 30 years. Sounds like some sort of power, though I suppose you could argue it's not political.
The left does try to prevent certain scientific endevors - animal testing for drugs, or other medical investigations comes immediately to mind. How about defense research [slashdot.org] Oh, but since it's defense related it's okay to prevent it.
Researchers who are investigating theories that go against the whole global warming mantra are shutdown or dismissed as quacks. Doctors who fail to find links between cancer and power lines/cell phones/current evil invention are routinely ignored. The left has it's babies you dare not call ugly too.
How about faking evidence to support a theory? The left did that to show that "endangered" wildlife wasn't as prolific as it was. Indeed, a signifigant number of scientists admit to changing study results. [slashdot.org] Somehow I don't think it's because of all the crazy far-right folks out there. Or the far left people either.
Now the far right (and it's far far right too) has it's kooks and wackos, but they're not unique in their positions. And most people, left OR right try to distance themselves from the extremes. But there are reasons why science is in decline. Such as falsifying data. Or the fact that most scientific papers are wrong. [slashdot.org] Why go into science to lie or screw up when you can get paid much much more to do the same a a marketing weenie?
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Clasic solution to the perceived shortage (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Pay More
2. Pay More....
Yes, yes, yes!
I desperately want to continue doing science for the rest of my career. I can easily get such a job. But the pay is just too low. The guy building my deck makes as much as a tenure-track professor, and he works fewer hours, too. I'm probably leaving for law or industry.
It's feels like our society actively discourages science.
Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's often nice, thinking you live in a country where the touchy-feely value of everyone having an equal opinion theoretically takes precedence over more qualified people making the decisions. Of course, the people in power to make the decisions have historically not been the most qualified anyway, so I don't think it would work out otherwise.
Very out of character for me, wow. I like democracy. But on the average, people really don't understand a damned thing and don't try, but are more than happy to push their poorly-thought-out opinion in your face.
Re:It's not political. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not sure I see how this is good. Not that the current American public education system seems much better, at this point, but it seems like the free-market system isn't the correct solution.
Re:It's not political. (Score:2, Insightful)
> Salaries should be review / performance based. Schooling for teachers
> needs to be DRASTICALLY improved. Remove all the
> buzzword-techno-political crap that's found it's way into teaching
> just TEACH.
Ahh, another armchair quarterback with quick-fix for all the world's ills. Let me guess - neither you nor anyone in your family works in acedemia.
Your first sentence shows that you're really clueless in this subject area. Think, for a minute, about what tenure is FOR (and by the way, tenure is less common now than it used to be, so you can't blame any DECLINE in education quality on tenure). One thing tenure is for is to keep politcal crap *from* affecting teaching and basic research.
And if lack of tenure meant that "bad" employees would be gotten rid of, then that widely-known Scott Adams comic strip some Slashdotters love would be awfully damned dull. The pointy-haired boss doesn't have tenure.
You'll also have to be specific about what you mean by "performance". Do you mean acheivement tests? Do you mean job outcomes? Student surveys? Peer surveys? Some other measure you don't mention? In teaching, it's just a BIT harder to measure performance than it is, say, for a ditchdigger.
Re:wingnuttery IS political (Score:1, Insightful)
Why not?
> Vouchers and more private schools would be a more effective way to have
> schools be politically independant.
In what way? Any why would subsidizing private schools with government money improve them if the *same thing* supposedly doesn't work for public schools?
> allowing parents to send their kids to any school they want.
They can't do that now? (And before you answer, do you really think that the provate schools - where *exclusivity* is a big part of the sell - won't just raise their prices when the vouchers come in?)
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
Also good engineers generally enjoy what they are doing and don't want to change to managment. You will only get promoted if you show interest and ask. Thus there is a real lack of qualified technical managers.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't really any different from, say, peta or greenpeace. You're only hearing from the most radical with an agenda.
For the record, I am very opposed to teaching intelegent design in science class. Instead, I would rather see something of a compromise. Often times, evolution is taught as though it is absolute fact, leaving out the "theory" in the theory of evolution, as if science has all the answers. Later, some other discovery is made changing some of the facts. To most christians, and to me as well, the science that theory of evolution is based upon feels very shaky. A bone here, a tooth there, and all of a sudden, there's a complete artist's rendition of a mystery animal, and it's fact that it existed. Now clearly, it's hard to argue with other facts such as complete dinosaur skeletons. So there's obviously more to the story than we can devine (ha!) from the bible or science.
One of the things that I hear christians complaining about is how christianity is now the target of discrimination in public schools. I've experienced this for myself. I think what's really going on is that in some parts of the country the ultra-left is winning and in others, the ultra-right is winning. And of course, we all hear our side's horror stories about what happened in some school district somewhere. I'd like to see a highschool comparative religion class that talks about all of the major religions including christianity. This is where intellegent design belongs.
The type of christians I meet is probably a function of the people I associate with. That would be mostly science/computer people, and people who have participated in international adoption. I think upbringing, education, and intellegence has just as much of an effect on christians as it does everyone else.
As a far left socialist my take on it is: (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism has a slight case of ADHD, and companies are no longer worth more than the margin of profit you can rake home in between buying it and selling it. Whatever they produce is irrelevant, as are their workers.
Thus, capitalism is killing itself, because it promotes short term goldfish-like behavior. Investors invest in a range of companies, out of which a certain % is doomed beforehand and the loss is regarded as natural.
What does this mean in the long term? well for one thing it stiffles innovation, no incitaments for long term research, those who holds the whip and wrings results out of the peons (scientists and engineers) becomes far more important. In the long term brands are also becoming irrelevant, as the market moves faster and faster and no-one has a personal vested intrest in them they just dont have continuity or stability. Here one day, gone the next.
Re:Science takes a back seat to profit (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about? You do realize that research grant money goes directly into research, and that things like building football stadiums come from a completely different pot, mostly from alumni contributions ...
I really don't know how to respond to this. Your post makes me think that you have been near a University recently, or that you weren't paying much attention if you were.
And of the precious little research that actually is happening, how much is classified and never sees the light of day
Every single tenured faculty member I know (and, being a graduate student, I know way too many) is completely obsessed with their research. Those who aren't simply can't get hired. On what basis to can you possibly say that there is 'precious little' research happening? IMHO, there's TOO MUCH research happening and not enough time spent teaching.
Also, how much research is classified? I'm sure it's different at National Labs and Military Research Facilities, but of the 200 or so research projects in my department, the number is exactly 0.
There are many, many problems with our higher education system, but you're shooting blanks here, friend.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
I basically agree with the spirit and main thrust of your post. I don't mean to rail on your post too much, because I did enjoy it overall. However, there are a couple issues.
First, let's be careful. Your aileron example is exactly the fact-oriented, non-critical thinking measure of intellect and science skill you just railed on in your previous sentences! It goes to show that even a well-intended individual as yourself may, in a real classroom setting, make exactly the same mistakes as the very system you are being critical of.
The critical thinking version would not ask questions like "do you know the NAME of obscure airplane part X". It would ask students to THINK: "how do airplanes fly? Once in the air, does anyone know how an airplane is able to bank or roll?" Then you have yourself a nice critical thinking environment. You discuss physical principles and build an understanding of the physics. Who really cares exactly what some engineering dodad is called? Once you have the understanding, then give it a name.
Also, I suggest if you are going to make a claim about some some study you read, you probably should back it up with a reference. Anecdotal propagation of information is, in my opinion, part of the problem with the system.
Re:Ending tenure to help science? You are an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
Teachers are LEAVING the profession. After investing years in preparation, they are leaving when they find out the system they are expected to work with. There's no trouble getting rid of the bad ones, they don't want to stick around either.
The feds have designed a "testing" system that guarantees that all schools will fail, because they must do better each year than they did the previous year. This can only be done for a few years, and it's already claimed a huge number of casualties. Some of which are students that nobody wants to take, because they don't want to risk dragging their scores down. In programming something much milder than this is known as a "death march".
Currently the only people even considering becoming teachers either have no alternative, or have blinded themselves as to what they are getting into.
Thank you for that piece of Republican dogma... (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd be surprised. A full professor is pretty well paid at the moment anyway. A lot of them have explicitly chosen to stay in academia because they prefer the assurance of being essentially unsackable rather than a huge pay packet. If tenure was removed, you'd have to radically increase professor's salaries. Yes, tenure sometimes means unproductive dead wood is kept around, but it also means that academics can't get sacked purely because their research discovers conclusions that the university finds unpalatable.
And you think business is capable of funding that kind of thing? For most businesses, if it's not going to produce a marketable product within five years, maybe even three, they're not interested. Business doesn't fund basic research. The few farsighted ones that do are essentially doing so for two reasons - as a bribe to get good researchers to work for them and also do some applied research that will make them money, and philanthropy. Few businesses have ever gotten to directly exploit their basic research (Xerox and AT&T being classic examples of research labs that have made other companies a lot of money). Then there is private philanthropy, but that makes up a miniscule part of research funding and is disproportionately skewed to medical research.
To a certain extent. What if those parents want to teach their kids that their religion demands holy war against infidels?
Re:for money (Score:2, Insightful)
The very nature of science is such that you can't predict with any real accuracy which threads of research will prove useful and which ones won't. That's why it's called research and not development. Additionally, what isn't useful now may prove useful much later.
No, science itself should be about figuring out the universe. Period.
Computers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I'm footing the bill, along with every other working American who pays taxes. That is, after all, where the Navy gets its money from in the first place.
And frankly, I'm not in favor of my tax dollars being used to support the education of people who can't manage to get a scholarship to Carnegie Mellon on their own. I managed to (turned it down) and if I can do it then so can a fair number of other works who don't have rich parents. And this is back in day when colleges and universities actually had standards that were fairly difficult to meet.
There's probably a lot of people who could great great educations here (or MIT, or where ever) and CAN'T AFFORD IT.
There are two avenues for these folks:
- scholarships, if they're bright enough. If they aren't bright enough, then what the fuck are they doing going to college in the first place? College isn't a right, it's a privilege, and only the privileged (in terms of actual brainpower) should enjoy it. Anything else is a waste of resources.
- loans. Take some personal responsbility. If you desperately want that education and don't have the grey matter required to win a scholarship, then resign yourself to the fact that you're actually going to have to PAY for the service. You aren't entitled to that service; you sure as hell don't "deserve" that service. If you want it, then buck up, act like a man, and pay for it, or promise to pay for it with future income - YOUR future income, not mine.
Max
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:1, Insightful)
Get some fucking trains. 16-lane highways are a disease. How many acres of viable business/residential property do they occupy? It isn't even an environmental issue--it's a land use issue.