6 ms·

What a bunch of tripe. Summary: concern about self-esteem and diversity has caused our students to become shiftless. Proof: because he said so.

by me2i81 18y ago

d0mine 18y ago
International tests indicate that American fourth graders rank among the top students in the world in science and above average in math. By eighth grade, they have moved closer to the middle of the pack. By 12th grade, our students score near the bottom of all industrialized nations. As a result, too many of them enter college without even the basic skills needed to pursue a degree in science or engineering. </quote> Example of international tests: PISA 2006 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf
jleyank 18y ago
Given the current state of insourcing/outsourcing, why study science or engineering when both of these fields are vulnerable to job transfer to different parts of the globe? Better to concentrate on those things which will survive such shifts: Law, Medicine, and seemingly mundane things like repair-of-stuff. Business is popular right now, but after training our competitors, I think many of today's business people will see their jobs, if not their entire companies, attacked by foreign competition. Medicine's not even safe, as anything that can be done w/o patient contact can be done in different time zones. Besides, science/engineering is hard - requiring 6+ years for engineering and 8-10+ years for science to be able to work as a "full member" of the field. Why take all that time when you can do 2-3 startups and retire rich?
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  I could take issue with some of these arguments. But I'm upmodding you anyway because your comment is an order of magnitude more sensible than the original article. I used to work in the fabs of the former Hewlett-Packard, all but one of which have now been outsourced to Malaysia and Singapore. It happened to the fab I worked in -- just after 9/11 we were told that our factory would be closed in a year and that most of the local workers would be laid off. It was a profoundly depressing experience -- like the opposite of working at a startup. I was working at a shutdown. Every time a factory closes and lays off, say, five hundred people, that's five hundred families -- and their friends, and their relations -- who learn the lesson: Technically skilled people live in fear of being laid off. It's pretty hard to get someone excited about mechanical engineering when every automotive engineer and machinist she knows is living the life of a frightened rabbit.
  - kscaldef 18y ago
    > Technically skilled people live in fear of being laid off. I don't know. The folks I know without a solid education of some sort live in much more fear of losing their jobs than I do. And with good reason it would seem. Most of them go through 2-3 jobs a year.
    - mechanical_fish 18y ago
      The problem with losing a job in high-end American manufacturing [1] is that you often cannot get another such job without, at the very least, moving your family across the country. There used to be half a dozen HP fabs in California. I believe there may still be one of them left, but I'm not even sure of that. And, mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd certainly rather be an unemployed engineer than a fully employed minimum-wage day laborer. And, if that were the choice, engineering schools would all be full of people. But what we're trying to explain is why young people choose to pursue legal or medical [2] or business education instead of engineering. That's not necessarily a rational choice. Young people make that choice based on cultural cues. And the culture of U.S. manufacturing has been gloomy for years, not without reason -- the overvalued dollar was a disaster for domestic manufacturing. [1] As opposed to sweatshop manufacturing, which I know nothing about. For all I know there's plenty of work as sweated labor. But that doesn't exactly encourage folks to go out and get those advanced degrees. [2] Here it's worth noting that, thanks to their effective political organization, doctors and lawyers have licensing requirements that protect them from foreign competition. That's why everyone's free to talk about outsourcing medical tasks to India over the network, but nobody ever talks about the obvious possibility of importing Indian doctors to serve in roles -- like primary care -- that are suffering from shortages in the USA. For some reason that H1B-visa solution is only ever applied to engineers... do you think that people choosing college majors (and their parents) don't notice that and draw conclusions from it? Now, I don't think this is as big a problem, in reality, as I just made it sound. Engineering is a much safer career than people think, and medicine and law are much more tedious and problematic than people realize. But that's not reflected in the relative reputations of the fields.
      - 18y ago
Alex3917 18y ago
It is rather troubling when the "executive director of the National Association of Scholars" is unable to formulate a coherent argument.
- anaphoric 18y ago
  I think it's fairly coherent. He says that Students are more affected by cultural than market forces as they are being educated. And that cultural forces are science/hard work hostile. What I disagree with is the implication that some how the market forces are science friendly (i.e. the need for scientists and engineers translates into good working conditions, opportunity, etc.). Unfortunately this is not so much the case.
  - me2i81 18y ago
    He says it, as if it were true, without any evidence or even argument other than "I said so" to support whether these cultural forces have any effect on outcomes. As someone elsewhere points out, he does reference poor outcomes, but that doesn't mean he's made any argument other than hand-waving.
    - Herring 18y ago
      Also, "Back in 2003, the National Science Board issued a report that noted steep declines in "graduate enrollments of U.S. citizens and permanent residents" in the sciences. The explanation? "Declining federal support for research sends negative signals to interested students." That seems unlikely, in that the alleged decline hasn't dampened the enthusiasm of students from all around the world for our country's graduate programs." Almost stopped reading there. I can think of 10 reasons why that's stupid reasoning.
      - anaphoric 18y ago
        Yes I agree that was some weak reasoning on his part.
  - Alex3917 18y ago
jorgeortiz85 18y ago
Right. I would argue that the descent of much of America into religious fundamentalism, with its associated medieval beliefs (evolution isn't true, the planet is only a few thousand years old), is much more detrimental to producing quality scientists than any diversity program.
- Elepsis 18y ago
  While there has probably been an upswing in "funtamentalist Christianity" in the U.S., I think you have an uphill climb trying to prove that there is really even a correlation between the trends of a decrease in graduate science enrollment by Americans and the religious issue. What's the data your post is based on?
donw 18y ago
I'm not sure that's really the point, but I'd say that there is a heavy force in education against science, math, and all other forms of critical inquiry. One of the biggest reasons people would leave the Mathematics department at my university was because they couldn't deal with being told that their proofs were crap, and that they needed to get the quality of their work up if they wanted to succeed. It's not that the work was "too hard". It's that students couldn't get coast on extra credit points and pure-opinion essays, like they had gotten used to in high school and junior college. Finishing a complete trip through Math, Engineering, or any of the sciences required actual effort, as well as the ability to handle criticism, a skill that many students lacked after over twelve years of education. I also had a chance to see the other side of the coin, because my second degree was in a foreign language. My Japanese degree consisted of nearly four years of classes which required almost no effort whatsoever. Loads of extra credit and students handing in work months after the deadline were the rule, not the exception. Many of my fellow students in the Japanese program were majoring in Asian Studies or Asian History, and complained incessantly about the difficulty of their classes. Even though their major fields were focused heavily on Japan, many of them couldn't even read at the equivalent of a fourth-grade level, after studying the language for four years. I asked many of them why they chose their majors, versus engineering or mathematics, and the most common responses cited how harsh their previous Math and Science professors had been, by not allowing extra credit, late homework, and so on. While this does not constitute any sort of proof or rigorous study, it illustrates the point that our schools are far too lenient on students, and lenient schools do not produce graduates who can survive the crucible-like atmosphere of even an undergraduate science program.
- donw 18y ago
  I think it's worth noting that I don't think the people in my Japanese classes were inherently stupid, lazy, or anything else of the sort. Merely that they've been spent years being indoctrinated to avoid criticism, and that the end result of this has been them shifting to the easiest possible path through college, rather than trying something because it was hard.
  - jimbokun 18y ago
yummyfajitas 18y ago
I don't think that's what he is saying. I think he is merely saying that science ranks below things like diversity and self esteem on the academic list of priorities. And that's almost certainly true. As an example, when applying for a certain NSF grant, you must address "broader impacts" (aka, "why should we care about your research?"): "(1) effectively integrate research and education...(2) encourage diversity, broaden opportunities, and enable the participation of all citizens-women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities-in science and research; (3) enhance scientific and technical understanding; and (4) benefit society." https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/NSFHelp/flashhelp/fastlane/FastLane_Help/fastlane_help.htm#fastlane_faqs_introduction.htm?areaIndex=1 https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/NSFHelp/flashhelp/fastlane/Fast... The attitudes he is describing are quite pervasive in academic culture; as an academic, I know exactly what he is talking about. Keep in mind, he is writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education, so he expects the typical reader to be familiar with what he is describing.

What a bunch of tripe. Summary: concern about self-esteem and diversity has caused our students to become shiftless. Proof: because he said so.

by me2i81 18y ago

What a bunch of tripe. Summary: concern about self-esteem and diversity has caused our students to become shiftless. Proof: because he said so.

d0mine 18y ago

International tests indicate that American fourth graders rank among the top students in the world in science and above average in math. By eighth grade, they have moved closer to the middle of the pack. By 12th grade, our students score near the bottom of all industrialized nations. As a result, too many of them enter college without even the basic skills needed to pursue a degree in science or engineering. </quote> Example of international tests: PISA 2006 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf

jleyank 18y ago

Given the current state of insourcing/outsourcing, why study science or engineering when both of these fields are vulnerable to job transfer to different parts of the globe? Better to concentrate on those things which will survive such shifts: Law, Medicine, and seemingly mundane things like repair-of-stuff. Business is popular right now, but after training our competitors, I think many of today's business people will see their jobs, if not their entire companies, attacked by foreign competition. Medicine's not even safe, as anything that can be done w/o patient contact can be done in different time zones. Besides, science/engineering is hard - requiring 6+ years for engineering and 8-10+ years for science to be able to work as a "full member" of the field. Why take all that time when you can do 2-3 startups and retire rich?

mechanical_fish 18y ago
I could take issue with some of these arguments. But I'm upmodding you anyway because your comment is an order of magnitude more sensible than the original article. I used to work in the fabs of the former Hewlett-Packard, all but one of which have now been outsourced to Malaysia and Singapore. It happened to the fab I worked in -- just after 9/11 we were told that our factory would be closed in a year and that most of the local workers would be laid off. It was a profoundly depressing experience -- like the opposite of working at a startup. I was working at a shutdown. Every time a factory closes and lays off, say, five hundred people, that's five hundred families -- and their friends, and their relations -- who learn the lesson: Technically skilled people live in fear of being laid off. It's pretty hard to get someone excited about mechanical engineering when every automotive engineer and machinist she knows is living the life of a frightened rabbit.
- kscaldef 18y ago
  > Technically skilled people live in fear of being laid off. I don't know. The folks I know without a solid education of some sort live in much more fear of losing their jobs than I do. And with good reason it would seem. Most of them go through 2-3 jobs a year.
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    The problem with losing a job in high-end American manufacturing [1] is that you often cannot get another such job without, at the very least, moving your family across the country. There used to be half a dozen HP fabs in California. I believe there may still be one of them left, but I'm not even sure of that. And, mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd certainly rather be an unemployed engineer than a fully employed minimum-wage day laborer. And, if that were the choice, engineering schools would all be full of people. But what we're trying to explain is why young people choose to pursue legal or medical [2] or business education instead of engineering. That's not necessarily a rational choice. Young people make that choice based on cultural cues. And the culture of U.S. manufacturing has been gloomy for years, not without reason -- the overvalued dollar was a disaster for domestic manufacturing. [1] As opposed to sweatshop manufacturing, which I know nothing about. For all I know there's plenty of work as sweated labor. But that doesn't exactly encourage folks to go out and get those advanced degrees. [2] Here it's worth noting that, thanks to their effective political organization, doctors and lawyers have licensing requirements that protect them from foreign competition. That's why everyone's free to talk about outsourcing medical tasks to India over the network, but nobody ever talks about the obvious possibility of importing Indian doctors to serve in roles -- like primary care -- that are suffering from shortages in the USA. For some reason that H1B-visa solution is only ever applied to engineers... do you think that people choosing college majors (and their parents) don't notice that and draw conclusions from it? Now, I don't think this is as big a problem, in reality, as I just made it sound. Engineering is a much safer career than people think, and medicine and law are much more tedious and problematic than people realize. But that's not reflected in the relative reputations of the fields.
    - 18y ago

Alex3917 18y ago

It is rather troubling when the "executive director of the National Association of Scholars" is unable to formulate a coherent argument.

anaphoric 18y ago
I think it's fairly coherent. He says that Students are more affected by cultural than market forces as they are being educated. And that cultural forces are science/hard work hostile. What I disagree with is the implication that some how the market forces are science friendly (i.e. the need for scientists and engineers translates into good working conditions, opportunity, etc.). Unfortunately this is not so much the case.
- me2i81 18y ago
  He says it, as if it were true, without any evidence or even argument other than "I said so" to support whether these cultural forces have any effect on outcomes. As someone elsewhere points out, he does reference poor outcomes, but that doesn't mean he's made any argument other than hand-waving.
  - Herring 18y ago
    Also, "Back in 2003, the National Science Board issued a report that noted steep declines in "graduate enrollments of U.S. citizens and permanent residents" in the sciences. The explanation? "Declining federal support for research sends negative signals to interested students." That seems unlikely, in that the alleged decline hasn't dampened the enthusiasm of students from all around the world for our country's graduate programs." Almost stopped reading there. I can think of 10 reasons why that's stupid reasoning.
    - anaphoric 18y ago
      Yes I agree that was some weak reasoning on his part.
- Alex3917 18y ago

jorgeortiz85 18y ago

Right. I would argue that the descent of much of America into religious fundamentalism, with its associated medieval beliefs (evolution isn't true, the planet is only a few thousand years old), is much more detrimental to producing quality scientists than any diversity program.

Elepsis 18y ago
While there has probably been an upswing in "funtamentalist Christianity" in the U.S., I think you have an uphill climb trying to prove that there is really even a correlation between the trends of a decrease in graduate science enrollment by Americans and the religious issue. What's the data your post is based on?

donw 18y ago

I'm not sure that's really the point, but I'd say that there is a heavy force in education against science, math, and all other forms of critical inquiry. One of the biggest reasons people would leave the Mathematics department at my university was because they couldn't deal with being told that their proofs were crap, and that they needed to get the quality of their work up if they wanted to succeed. It's not that the work was "too hard". It's that students couldn't get coast on extra credit points and pure-opinion essays, like they had gotten used to in high school and junior college. Finishing a complete trip through Math, Engineering, or any of the sciences required actual effort, as well as the ability to handle criticism, a skill that many students lacked after over twelve years of education. I also had a chance to see the other side of the coin, because my second degree was in a foreign language. My Japanese degree consisted of nearly four years of classes which required almost no effort whatsoever. Loads of extra credit and students handing in work months after the deadline were the rule, not the exception. Many of my fellow students in the Japanese program were majoring in Asian Studies or Asian History, and complained incessantly about the difficulty of their classes. Even though their major fields were focused heavily on Japan, many of them couldn't even read at the equivalent of a fourth-grade level, after studying the language for four years. I asked many of them why they chose their majors, versus engineering or mathematics, and the most common responses cited how harsh their previous Math and Science professors had been, by not allowing extra credit, late homework, and so on. While this does not constitute any sort of proof or rigorous study, it illustrates the point that our schools are far too lenient on students, and lenient schools do not produce graduates who can survive the crucible-like atmosphere of even an undergraduate science program.

donw 18y ago
I think it's worth noting that I don't think the people in my Japanese classes were inherently stupid, lazy, or anything else of the sort. Merely that they've been spent years being indoctrinated to avoid criticism, and that the end result of this has been them shifting to the easiest possible path through college, rather than trying something because it was hard.
- jimbokun 18y ago

yummyfajitas 18y ago

I don't think that's what he is saying. I think he is merely saying that science ranks below things like diversity and self esteem on the academic list of priorities. And that's almost certainly true. As an example, when applying for a certain NSF grant, you must address "broader impacts" (aka, "why should we care about your research?"): "(1) effectively integrate research and education...(2) encourage diversity, broaden opportunities, and enable the participation of all citizens-women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities-in science and research; (3) enhance scientific and technical understanding; and (4) benefit society." https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/NSFHelp/flashhelp/fastlane/FastLane_Help/fastlane_help.htm#fastlane_faqs_introduction.htm?areaIndex=1 https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/NSFHelp/flashhelp/fastlane/Fast... The attitudes he is describing are quite pervasive in academic culture; as an academic, I know exactly what he is talking about. Keep in mind, he is writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education, so he expects the typical reader to be familiar with what he is describing.