Do our schools need Less science with Higher quality?

[Boojatta]

For example, high school students at most schools could have a science class on one day of the week on alternate weeks. That policy would allow schools to ensure that the people who are doing the teaching aren't teaching any misconceptions.

[bowens43]

1. NO, we need MORE science AND higher quality.....

science class one day a week? Are you kidding. When I was i high school we had science every day, every year.

[zipplewrath]

2. Hopefully two

Hopefully you had two science classes every day, since mathematics is a science.

Quite honestly, since every high school student should have a class in chemistry, biology, physics, and geology, not to mention geometry, algrebra, trigonometry, and pre-calculus, as well as a background in both statistics and probability, one can image several hours of "science" each day.

But that's just me.

[cloudbase]

8. Dick Feynman would differ with you.

Math is not a science, in that the test of its validity is not experiment.

[mbperrin]

13. In the late 60s, out here in the west Texas "desert", we learned all those things.

Chemistry I and II; Biology I and II; Physics (1st problem to solve -shine a flashlight counter to the earth's rotation; assume a candlepower and then calculate the energy required to stop the rotation); geology (we're the biggest oil and gas field in the US - go figure); Algebra I, geometry, algebra II, trig, analytic geometry; statistics and probability were taught along with the biographies of mathematicians, including transmigration of the soul, flies on the ceiling and more.

When I majored in mechanical engineering at Texas A&M, I had to take only calculus for my math and science - I placed out of the rest of their requirements, and also two years of English - my first English course there was a junior-level Great Books survey.

Then someone decided in the 80s that EVERY student needed to go to college; killed the construction, electrical, plumbing, locksmithing, paint and body, auto mechanics, diesel mechanics, woodworking courses, dropped all the II's - chemistry, biology, physics, and got rid of the labs, except for 1 day every two weeks or so. Now they're jammed in like sardines, you can't get a plumber for less than $90 an hour, and we've had 2 National Merit finalists in the last 16 years, where before, we had two or three every year for decades.

[eridani]

15. Multiply that anecdote by a coupla hundred thousand--

--and it becomes plain what our national problem is.

[zipplewrath]

16. Man, did you open a can of worms.

Then someone decided in the 80s that EVERY student needed to go to college; killed the construction, electrical, plumbing, locksmithing, paint and body, auto mechanics, diesel mechanics, woodworking courses, ...

This what was behind Santorum's comment in Michigan, that Obama's desire for every child to go to college was some how misguided.

We need plumbers and electricians. Furthermore, we need for it to be possible for 18 year olds to get "good" jobs. There comes a place where the "ideal" of everyone being a professional, college eduated, white collar employee meets the reality that they'll be happier as a hard working, blue collar, trade school graduate. We have to be careful about deciding that too soon, and limiting their choices in the future. Cultures have been known to do this before, to decide very early who was, and wasn't going to need to study at the college level.

Upon graduation, a student right now has 3 choices, not necessarily exclusive. 1) Go to college 2) enter the work force 3) join the military.

Anyone can basically do #3 at "any time". They have to get a GED at the least, but other than that, and a relatively clean record, one can join up. This really can have the effect of delaying the decision about #1 or 2 for 4 years.

But if one is going to do #1 or #2, they really have to start "preparing" a couple of years earlier. For college, you need certain core courses, and tests have to be taken. For entering the work force, something similar to an appretice kind of training is needed. This can be anything from auto mechanics to dental hygentist. In some ways, "going to college" can be going to a "trade school" post high school. It can also involve going to a community college. But about the time one is 16, one really needs to start thinking about these things and for some, the trade school route MIGHT be the right answer, not taking a bunch of college prep courses.

But unfortunately there is a terrible tendency to push students in particular directions, based upon external perceptions of who they are. And those perceptions can be driven as much by class distinctions as anything actually about the student themselves. So we declare it a goal for "everyone to go to college". We should probably be honest and say that we expect that everyone will require post high school education. In the end, that could be college, trade school, community college associates degree, or a few years getting "educated" in the military. And we should develop methodologies for students to make these choices on their own, avoiding the class and socially driven influences on the process.

[mbperrin]

17. Yes, everyone needs post high school education.

My oldest grandson is 27 and is a licensed journeyman plumber. He netted $68,000+ last year after taxes. That seems okay to me. And he likes what he does, will be a master in a few more years, and wants to start his own company then. His boss, who is 54, netted a little more than a million dollars last year for himself with 11 employees working under him.

[zipplewrath]

20. Yup

I'm an engineer, which required more than the normal amount of "math". It also involved studying alot of science involving physics. But at the end of the day, I was in a "trade school". We used to joke that "MS and PhD" stood for "More of the Same" and "Piled higher and Deeper". I read an article by a doctor (brain surgeon actually) that said that although there was alot of science in his education, the vast majority of it was just one huge trade school. Even in my own case, college was seen as where I learned enough so that the industry could teach me how to do my job.

We probably make a mistake by differentiating between "trade school" and other professional educations. Plumbers need to know much of the same basics that engineers and doctors need to know. You may be able to get started in a trade after a two year "trade school" education, but it really shouldn't stop there. That usually puts you at the "apprentice" level. There's usually some equivalent of "journeyman" and "master craftsman" in almost any job. Doctors go from interns to resident before going into practice. Truth is, many often start out as EMT's and may get paramedics training prior to going to medical school. We have engineers working as interns while they go to school, and then there is usually a 2 or 3 year progression when then are first hired. Nurses have similar progressions, and these days some move on to physicians assistants.

Our state universities should probably figure out ways of incorporating traditionally "trade school" structures into their regular course structure. Then "everyone" can go to "college", and that can include plumbers and electricians and dental hygentists. There could be 2, 4, and 6 year tracks depending upon what area and depth one is studying. Plus, it keeps everyone's options open for as long as possible.

[mbperrin]

18. in Texas, the someone was H Ross Perot in 1984, appointed by Governor Mark White, who made that

decision.

That was the same time that high stakes testing was suggested statewide each year.

Wonder if there was any reason why a billionaire who owned Electronic Data Systems would favor grading a few million tests each year electronically?

Nah...

[Starry Messenger]

3. Er, what?

I think less science would lead to more misconceptions, if there even are any misconceptions. Unless you're talking about Creationism or something.

[elleng]

4. THAT POLICY would allow schools to graduate seriously undereducated students.

To 'ensure that the people who are doing the teaching aren't teaching any misconceptions,' we need administrators who know a thing or three about curricula, subject matter, and human relations.

If I remember correctly, I had science classes 2 or 3 days a week; will check with my classmates. Having a big # reunion in September.

edit: Just checked with a high school classmate. She recalls 2 days a week PLUS a lab. Was and still is one of the country's best public high schools.

My numbers do not include 'math' as a science; add 1 class, 5 days a week, for that.

[mopinko]

5. boojatta strikes again.

[eppur_se_muova]

12. Bingo. nt

[lob1]

6. If they're teaching from a textbook, how can they be teaching misconceptions?

When a politician says "less but better", he really means "less".

[Boojatta]

10. Feynman is mentioned in this thread at post 8.

I would recommend looking into his comments on physics textbooks. Note that his comments were based on actually reading the textbooks, in contrast with others who were judging the same textbooks at the same time.

[longship]

7. Neil deGrasse-Tyson

He's the guy on Nova - Science Now, the curator of the Hayden Planitorium at the American Museum of Natural History. (By the way, but unrelated, voted the sexiest astronomer on the planet by People magazine.)


But let's get serious about this. As Carl Sagan aptly put it, "science delivers the goods."

The problems for today are that too many people don't even understand what science is, let alone how it works. This is unexceptable. Where would we be without science?

We'd live to an average age (to be generous) in our forties. Of course, women's lives would be markably shorter - the number one cause of death in women was childbirth.

Disease would be attributed to magical causes. An imbalance of natural "humors", a witch who lives in the area, god's curse for some perceived transgression revealed solely by a man whose only authority is that he wears a special robe on Sunday.

That's what the world before science was like.

[Boojatta]

11. I didn't propose returning to a pre-scientific age.

Of course, women's lives would be markably shorter - the number one cause of death in women was childbirth.

Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and Newton were all long dead when Semmelweis was born, so it doesn't make much sense to me to suggest that there was no science until after the year 1818.

Wasn't Ignaz Semmelweis born in the year 1818? Presumably his contributions to medical practice were made some time after he was born, although I admit that if you have any evidence that he made his contributions before he was born then Republicans might have some impressive support for their stance on abortion.

[longship]

14. Huh?

I was responding to your concern that we may be paying too much attention on science. To me, that makes no fucking sense.

The little science students get already is too small. When they graduate from HS (presuming that they do so) they are so ill prepared that it's no wonder that this country is in such trouble politically. The populous is so ignorant about scientific methods (ie, how to know what are facts and what are not) that a vast plurality think that Obama is a foreign-born Muslim.

That is the result of a vast proportion of the people being uneducated in how to know what are the facts. The best way to know these things is to understand how science works

Just my opinion, but there is copious evidence to support it.

[handmade34]

9. MORE science...

from one of my favorites... Bill Nye:

"...Science is the key to our future, and if you don't believe in science, then you're holding everybody back. And it's fine if you as an
adult want to run around pretending or claiming that you don't believe in evolution, but if we educate a generation of people who don't believe in science, that's a recipe for disaster."

David Suzuki:

"...What could be better than using a puzzling question as an opportunity to teach your children how to conduct and analyze research, think critically about information, and gain new understanding? You even get to learn along with your kids. In our computer age, it's not even as time-consuming as it once was — although there's a lot to be said for direct observation, poring over an encyclopedia, or visiting the library...
Giving children the tools to learn and analyze is crucial, but it's often neglected. And that has consequences. Many people don't understand how science works — its limitations as well as its benefits. This has led to confusion over issues that could have a profound effect on society...

Having answers to our children's questions is not enough. If we want societies that provide the maximum benefit for the most people over the longest time, and if we want to find solutions to the challenges and problems we've created, we must teach our children and ourselves how to find and evaluate answers objectively. Making science education a priority is an important part of that..."


"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." Carl Sagan

[NYC_SKP]

19. Let Science be the core topic, supported by all the academics.

Let the study of the science of sustainable communities, economics, global affairs, personal wellness, etc., be the CORE.

And, let all of the other disciplines support these.

That's what we do at our program.

[Modern School]

21. Less Standards and Higher Quality

In California (and probably elsewhere) there are just too many standards. It's impossible to cover them all in any depth before standardized test time, let alone do real science. Consequently, many teachers do cookbook labs (if any), rely on multiple choice tests, lecture and constantly crack the whip to get their students ready for the exams.

[Curmudgeoness]

22. I am educated as a Biology/General Science teacher

although I do not teach. I do not teach because of the quality of what MUST BE TAUGHT in science classes. It was required in my state to teach cells and cell structure for nearly three months. I hate to say it, but that is the most boring part of Biology. Every student should know about cells, and know that there are parts of cells, but they do not need to know every detail of cells in a beginning Biology class. There is so much more that can be used in everyday life, but we can't spend too much time with that fun stuff or the students will not be able to pass mandated tests. Very frustrating.

I think we need more science taught, and it has to relate more to the student's life---the more students have to deal with evidence and experimentation, the less likely it will be that they will fall for misconceptions.