US Congress to spend more on math+science

[Pangloss]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-compete26apr26,1,1959536.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

 

They may not agree on much these days, but this week bills sailed through both houses of congress and appear poised for signature by the president. The bills in question will provide funding for 20 new federal education spending programs aimed at students performing below par on mathematics and the sciences, high school teachers working on postgraduate degrees, and scholarships for students entering college in math or science programs. Other funding for the NSF will go specifically to women interested in math and science degrees.

 

The overall amounts are proverbial drops in the bucket these days (a couple billion). But they're going straight to areas that are currently in distress. I have some personal experience in this area -- my sister is a high school teacher in a rural area and has had many problems pursuing an advanced degree.

 

Sounds like a step in the right direction.

[Phi for All]

Very nice. It's always refreshing when education gets the spotlight and both houses can stop bickering and get something done about it. Then the wheels of congress find some purchase and stop spinning so much.

[jackson33]

certainly, i hope so...but;

 

my continuous problem with the federal government involvement in all educational institutions lay in effectiveness. then i have problems with religious and private schooling which chose there own curriculum.

 

i would like to see a general guide, where all institutions are subject to certain subjects and to a specific degree. there is another problem in College preparation. all students, certainly the near 50% drop outs in some high school systems are not going to attend which would be best handled in some form of career education, the last 2-3 years of schooling.

[Sisyphus]

Other funding for the NSF will go specifically to women interested in math and science degrees.

 

This part is annoying and unjust, and possibly unconstitutional. Otherwise, sounds good.

[Pangloss]

Well it certainly would be if the money were granted to rich white Christian males.

[Sisyphus]

Yes, it would be. What obstacles are in place that make it harder for women to get math and science degrees? None. Are women biased against in the educational system in general? Hardly - they outnumber men in college, and get better grades. This has even less justification than racial affirmative action. Didn't anybody object to this? Or is everybody just cowering in the wake of the ridiculous outrage against the (former) Harvard president's perfectly reasonable speech on the subject?

[Dak]

indeed, science seems to be one of the places least in need of this... there are no barriers to women going to college, not even the barrier of it being male dominated as a hang-over from when there were barriers (as sysiphus said, its slightly dominated by women), and, once there, progression and success is inherently based upon aptitude, not arbritrary facts such as gender.

 

post-qualification, i'm not aware of women being under-represented in labs.

 

so, why is this neccesary? i'll reluctantly concede that stuff like affermative action may be temporarily benificial in order to hurry the normalisation of black representation (i.e., hurry the dissipation of the white-dominance of workplaces that are a 'hang-over' effect from when racism was allowed) which could otherwize take some time, but this seems unnessesary... it'll actually generate an over-representation of women, surely?

 

unless it's 'women with babys', in which case it makes sence.

[ParanoiA]

unless it's 'women with babys', in which case it makes sence.

 

Particularly since 'women with babies' are more than likely single women with babies given the irresponsibility of the new american male.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6589301.stm

 

We don't need to get people up to par. We need to set par higher.

 

I've always thought that American schools are slowed down by people who are "below par." People who learn quickly (like me) don't need to spend three class periods on one concept, and should be allowed to move along, but the schools don't allow for that sort of thing.

 

I'd be happier if Congress allocated more money to gifted and talented student programs so the bright people can get brighter. It will benefit everybody.

[jackson33]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6589301.stm

 

We don't need to get people up to par. We need to set par higher.

 

I've always thought that American schools are slowed down by people who are "below par." People who learn quickly (like me) don't need to spend three class periods on one concept, and should be allowed to move along, but the schools don't allow for that sort of thing.

 

I'd be happier if Congress allocated more money to gifted and talented student programs so the bright people can get brighter. It will benefit everybody.

 

it would be hard to argue, government involvement has not hurt the over all system and in particular the brightest students. the actual results are as detrimental to the slower learners far more than the best. to receive government money or even acceptance these are the folks that are passed on from very low grades and in some cases receive HS diploma's with a fifth grade mentality. i won't get into the mentality of *teacher unions*, who to keep credibility do the passing...

 

as for the brighter students, they are passed on early if really bright. many students clear high school at 13 to 16 and go on into higher education, generally under some paid program. additionally if affordable or under many government and industrial programs, many go into private schooling. if for some reason this is not appropriate, many self taught individuals have done just fine. any one can go on line learn whatever, generally making things easier in the advanced schooling years.

[Sisyphus]

"It would be hard to argue..."

 

Maybe and maybe not. But you just make a few assertions seemingly out of nowhere, and the grammar of your post makes me not sure what you're actually trying to say! "It would be hard to argue that government has...." or "It would be hard to argue; government has...." ?

[CPL.Luke]

Also speaking from experience the only bright students who clear the system early are the ones who get fed up and drop out, to then go on to college or other bigger and better things.

 

Quite honestly I despise this bill. We need more money for the sciences, however it needs to go to expanding the job market, and opening up new professorships. Right now the main reason that the hard sciences are doing poorly in america is the poor allocation of funds that are destroying them as a carreer path.

 

Take a stroll by physics forums to here jut how difficult it is to find a job as a physics professor/ independant researcher in today's market. We are literally graduating more than two times more phds in physics than there are professorships offered.

 

Also the bill ignores some fundamental aspects of academia and the sciences, namely that its a smarty pants competition. The best people get the recognition, and their work goes on to be remembered and taught to future generations. Science education should be geared with that in mind, creating more oppurtunities for gifted students to excel, if this can' be done in a conventional high school setting, then the magnate school programs should be expanded. The sciences are not a case of training sub-par people to perform well enough to get a job to get by on, you must train the best to be better. (not to say that if more funding is allowed then you can accept more people into these programs, but the funding should always be allocated to the top performers, and hen as more becomes available trickle it down)

 

Also how does a highschool teacher benefit from getting a phd if their intention is to continue teaching highschool? shouldn't those spots be reserved for people who have the intention of using the knowledged gained in post-graduate education to do real work in those fields. (also a post-graduate degree will do nothing for say a highschool physics teacher's ability to teach students, it would only be of actual use if they were working on the side)

 

All this bill means is that people like me will have a harder time distinguishing ourselves in the job market, and that there will be fewer jobs per graduate.

[CPL.Luke]

also the chinese version of the test, while more difficult, also just contains a bit of visual trickery. th problem is really just two kies overlayed on eachother, and then rotated to hide the natural relationships, the problem is actually very simple and merely requires several applications of the UK analogue, which is typical of chinese education. Western education usually emphasises more conceptual understanding and as such the UK test only wanted to know that you could do the problem. (although perhaps the extra difficulty is required to create a good distribution)

[jackson33]

"It would be hard to argue..."

 

Maybe and maybe not. But you just make a few assertions seemingly out of nowhere, and the grammar of your post makes me not sure what you're actually trying to say! "It would be hard to argue that government has...." or "It would be hard to argue; government has...." ?

 

in the past 40 years or so, government, in the US, has with the aid of unions, attempted to substitute for the parents involvement in the subject matters taught. the end results being a lowering of the levels to a point more and more of the brightest students feel, as the post i addressed, boredom in the classroom.

[ParanoiA]

The sciences are not a case of training sub-par people to perform well enough to get a job to get by on, you must train the best to be better. (not to say that if more funding is allowed then you can accept more people into these programs, but the funding should always be allocated to the top performers, and hen as more becomes available trickle it down)

 

Actually, America frowns on those who out perform others. That's why we redistribute wealth. In keeping with the american spirit of redistribution you should happily share your grades with those that are sub par. It isn't fair that you exceed their intelligence, now you want all of the money. Training the best to be better? Isn't that like advocating the rich to get richer? This is how the smart keep getting smarter, while the dumb just get dumber...

[jackson33]

Luke; what really worries me on this subject and the post i see, are the referance to government help. government help, in this area has never helped, cannot nor could it ever help. the NYC school systems or LA and the vast majority in small town, where ever have nothing in common. to think some guy or gal, sitting behind some desk in Washington DC, can solve my kids problems or your is at best a joke. additional the cost/effective ratio are so far out of line already any additional effort is at best a politically motivated, empty thought. this can be related to national competitions just as well.

 

as for the brightest, dropping out of school; i doubt they are that bright if this is their remedy. even if they do so, in the US, a quick GED test would qualify them for anything a HS diploma would. whether 13 or 17, they could go on. i might add however most places, you can't just quit until your 16 or so.

 

many of the corporations, in the US and assume the world, offer scholarships for students as well. these cannot solve the problems however, that government places on any system it attempts to help.

 

IMO; the original purposes of learning anything is lost, when the subjects are reduced, altered or taught in such a manner to influence a particular point. called social engineering and very common in the US government school system. these issues are argued daily by each group with a view of whats right or wrong. actually, science has suffered the most with this attitude and math (along with all the lead in subject matter) which lends to the science field has been lost. my personal favorite, US and World History, currently make up a fraction of what was, just 30 years ago, even then diluted in content.

[jackson33]

Actually, America frowns on those who out perform others. That's why we redistribute wealth. In keeping with the american spirit of redistribution you should happily share your grades with those that are sub par. It isn't fair that you exceed their intelligence, now you want all of the money. Training the best to be better? Isn't that like advocating the rich to get richer? This is how the smart keep getting smarter, while the dumb just get dumber...

 

you are 100% correct, up to the word "America". a fraction of people do and these tend to be liberal thinking, self righteous and in the end have socialism in their minds. however this is NOT YET, America.

[Sisyphus]

in the past 40 years or so, government, in the US, has with the aid of unions, attempted to substitute for the parents involvement in the subject matters taught. the end results being a lowering of the levels to a point more and more of the brightest students feel, as the post i addressed, boredom in the classroom.

 

Haha, you think it's because of less parent involvement? You mean like where they want to teach creationism and stuff? B.S. "Parent involvement" sounds good on the podium, but it's a private concern. Obviously kids do much better if their parents are involved in their lives, and create a home environment friendly to intellectual pursuits. That's a long way from "I don't want my kids learning your secular propaganda!" That's the extreme case, but 90% of my experiences with PTAs and the like just involve hindrances to teachers actually doing their jobs.

 

And BTW, government hasn't done **** "with the aid of unions." The push from government has been for more and more standardized testing, with teachers accountable for the results. Teachers unions vehemently oppose this, because it forces them to "teach to the test," and the kids just learn how to score well on the test and not the actual subject they're supposed to be learning.

 

IMO, they're both right. We DO need standards, to make sure people are actually learning. But the methods we've come up with to impose those standards are counterproductive as often as not. We get generations of ignorant kids who are expert test-takers. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is. But I know it's not right-wing wacko conspiracy theories about "social engineering" and "liberals" wanting us all to be the same.

[CPL.Luke]

the tests are a good idea, however they aren't being done subject by subject. There is nothing wrong with a national subject test. There is something wrong with national tests that are aplied to everybody. Whats been happening recently is that the tests are being applied to everybody, so people who would normally go on to be mechanics are kicked out of shop and forced to learn algera which won't help them. they don't benefit from the education and they get bored. So they don't do work, so they fail, and because we can't fail more than a certain portion of people we lower the standards.

 

There is nothing wrong with not desiring a higher education, or wanting to just become a mechanic. There used to be big programs inside of companies that would higher people fresh out of high school and after 10 or 15 years have them running their own garages (you can make more money than most people with a college education in this fashion). Some people desire a life like this, and they can be damn good at it. Why force them ito something they don't want?

 

the lowering of the stndards also goes on to effect other students who under normal circumstances would want a college education, they end up thinking they're to smart to do work (which they can be right about in HS), they do poorly and slip through the cracks while others breeze right on through without learning anything.

 

Jackson I did sy that they could go on to college after dropping out. Thats what I did, and for comparison I went from being in the bottom 4 of a class of 400 to being in the top 3 percent of the country on the GED test. To me that shows a fatal flaw in the education system.

[john5746]

Actually, America frowns on those who out perform others. That's why we redistribute wealth. In keeping with the american spirit of redistribution you should happily share your grades with those that are sub par. It isn't fair that you exceed their intelligence, now you want all of the money. Training the best to be better? Isn't that like advocating the rich to get richer? This is how the smart keep getting smarter, while the dumb just get dumber...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

 

According to this link, many countries redistribute more than the US, so I wouldn't say it is an American ideal. Not implying anything else with this link, just that the numbers don't support your statement.

[ParanoiA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

 

According to this link, many countries redistribute more than the US, so I wouldn't say it is an American ideal. Not implying anything else with this link, just that the numbers don't support your statement.

 

 

Actually, I wasn't implying that it wasn't an ideal anywhere else nor to what degree. It is a trend here in America to punish those who out perform others. Maybe it's a trend that pales in comparison to other countries, but I'm not talking about them. I could care less and it's completely irrelevant to my point.

 

The fact you took issue with it though, tells me you got my point and you don't have much to say in defense of redistribution except to point to others and say "we're not as bad as them".

 

In keeping with the relatively newly adopted philosophy of punishing the rich with higher taxes and then continuing to blame them for all of our problems, despite their taking care of 90% of the total tax revenue, I don't see how grades are any different. People who exceed, obviously did it off the backs of someone else who couldn't help themselves. And now we have people wanting to get the extra funds for it too...the nerve.

 

This shouldn't really be an issue. If a really smart person exceeds and earns an A, and some subpar student can only muster a D - then the A student should get a B and the D student get a C. After all, the A student has plenty of good grades. More good grades than he'll ever need. The D student is doing the best he can, and probably came from a background that isn't his fault and he certainly can't do it on his own.

 

If redistribution is so righteous, then what's the issue?

[jackson33]

this subject is very complex, but one i feel is vital to the future of any society. not in particular for the advancement of science or any particular subject matter. the purpose of education, should be to give person an understanding to evaluate and establish an opinion. what goes on today, is not with this in mind, but to establish what society feels is the established opinion a child should have.

 

Luke; job well done on your education. the important factor is you alone or with good parental guidance, took responsibility for yourself. no amount of government aid, would have helped you or any person to achieve what you did. likewise the public school systems, today, would never encourage the actions you took. long ago such actions were rewarded; as a drop out, i joined the service, took every course i could handle with my duties. the high school i dropped from, rewarded me with a diploma, a formal congrats and so on...in those days, there was no GED and any formal education required a past.

 

there are far to many people in school, to learn things they do not wish to know, much less use. if the person changes goals, the education is always available. obviously most folks prefer to leave to others the obligations of owning and operating a business. in fact very few, even those that try accomplish the feat. on the other hand many of those drop outs from HS or even earlier, have done pretty well. the list is long, but these guys and gals followed their dreams, ambitions and with the passion it takes accomplished much more than all the education in the world could provide. self pride....

[john5746]

The fact you took issue with it though, tells me you got my point and you don't have much to say in defense of redistribution except to point to others and say "we're not as bad as them".

 

We argued about it before and agreed to disagree. Actually, the trend in America is going towards more wealth inequality. That may be one reason why there is more talk about it.

 

 

If redistribution is so righteous, then what's the issue?

 

Redistribution of grades != Redistribution of wealth

[Pangloss]

Yes, it would be. What obstacles are in place that make it harder for women to get math and science degrees? None. Are women biased against in the educational system in general? Hardly - they outnumber men in college, and get better grades. This has even less justification than racial affirmative action. Didn't anybody object to this? Or is everybody just cowering in the wake of the ridiculous outrage against the (former) Harvard president's perfectly reasonable speech on the subject?

 

Sure -- they can't legally be paid less either. The whole argument about women being paid less than men is a logical fallacy. When it does happen that women are paid less than men it's illegal and gets settled in court. When it comes to averages (the argument that women are paid less than men on average), it's due to market factors and career trends, which are matters of choice, and therefore irrelevent to the argument of discrimination.

 

All of that's true and the media doesn't get it, I agree. But I think you're missing the more important point, which is that we want to do more to encourage more women to go into math and science pursuits. This is about investment, not lowering barriers.

 

(Sorry for the late reply; it's been a busy week.)

[Sisyphus]

Investment? So female scientists are more valuable than male scientists? Right now my sympathies are entirely with the man who couldn't get funding when the less qualified woman could. If you can make the argument that having an equal number of male and female scientists and mathematicians is more important than a) being fair, and b) having more qualified scientists and mathematicians, I'm open to it.