NY Times "Debate", and my reaction to it. (Part 3)

Continuing coverage from Part 1 [1] of the series of my reactions to the NYT article on the future of STEM education in our country, Christopher Emdin [2] chimes in with a few cents to address his experiences with urban students from New York. His proposal, narrowly stated, wants to marry the pervasiveness of the hip hop culture in his area to the training of new scientific thinkers. In a video produced with NPR [3] he narrates the story of a group of young students writing and performing their own raps in a contest designed to promote multiple lines of thought and build confidence in the youth.

From [4]

"My father told me the program wasn't going to work and it was going to fail like every other program." says Victoria Richardson out of Bronx Compass High School [3]. She performed with two friends of hers on base pairing DNA and despite not winning the contest- they were still proud of what they were able to accomplish. Not only were they able to simply memorize rote base pairing schemes but they understood the material enough to create a work of art and communicate that knowledge enthusiastically.
Dr. Emdin says in the video, "Not every student a part of Science Genius will be a straight A student and go to college...and be the next Einstein. But you know what? We are definitely going to have more scientifically literate young people." [2]
That's a powerful point to note. In his article, he notes that the hip hop culture isn't completely general.
"I argue that the more teachers can consider the unique culture of their students, the more relevant and accessible their education will be." [2]
He basically says here that teachers should feel free to pull from whatever is popular in the kids' lives wherever they teach. Make it accessible and make it fun. Then, maybe a few, will ask those really probing questions that get them started down a really academic path. But no matter what field or endeavor these students choose- we will be all the better for a literate public.

[1] http://jsphmeany.blogspot.com/2013/12/ny-times-debate-and-my-reaction-to-it.html\
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks/in-teaching-stem-use-hip-hop-as-a-bridge
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQrj4NPefd8
[4] http://www.tc.columbia.edu/i/media/9099_SciGenius-161_MarieCurieHighSchool.jpg

NY Times "Debate", and my reaction to it. (Part 2)

The first article in the lineup, as I briefly mentioned in Part 1 is by Miyaim Bilaik, who has her PhD in Neruoscience but is also now an actress most notably playing Amy Ferrah Fowler on the show "The Big Bang Theory ." (BBT)

I liked her thoughts on the matter, noting that "[t]he confines of a classroom, combined with teaching methods that are not engaging or inspiring..." [1] were not effective at getting young minds excited about the world around them but only fearful of what will be on the next exam. She posits the idea of using modern entertainment- television, movies, and games- to help supplement people in new and interesting ways to help people think about and grasp otherwise esoteric information. This is more than just bringing nerd culture into the limelight for shame [2]/ ridicule[3]. The battle over the net effect on "geek culture" by BBT is one that will wage like the battle at Helm's Deep outside of this discussion.

SOME PEOPLE ENJOY BBT DESPITE BOTH CHAMPIONING AND DEMEANING ITS CHARACTERS AND THEIR FLAWS!!!!

Science-literate producers and directors can wield incredible power in telling a story by not only the story elements it weaves, but the concepts it has the opportunity to explain. Think about it. If Glee or High School Musical could make singing in show choir cool again- what could we do with a show about kids making science interesting and approachable? Like Beau Lotto [5] and his "Blackawton Bees" [6] kids show us- ground breaking science can really be done.

I understand there will be limitations. Story will always take precedence. But breadcrumbs of learning are always better foundation than the black pits of despair that could be found on TV today.


Let's be real. Who would you rather your kid be watching?
[0] http://jsphmeany.blogspot.com/2013/12/ny-times-debate-and-my-reaction-to-it.html
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks/use-hollywood-plots-and-characters-to-teach-stem
[2] http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-problem-with-the-big-bang-theory
[3] http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-2013-officially-marked-death-nerd/
[4] http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130117112538/lotr/images/b/b4/Theoden_leads_the_attack.png
[5] http://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_amy_o_toole_science_is_for_everyone_kids_included.html
[6] http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/2/168.abstract

Quotes from Chemistry...part 2!

"Respiration is a combustion, truly very slow but otherwise perfectly similar to that of charcoal; it occurs in the interior of the lungs... and the heat developed in this combustion is communicated to the blood which traverses the lungs and is spread throughout the animal system."
-Lavoisier and Laplace, 1783

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre-Simon,_marquis_de_Laplace_(1745-1827)_-_Gu%C3%A9rin.jpg 

Laplace, before his transform. [1]

NY Times "Debate", and my reaction to it. (Part 1)

The other day, the New York Times  [1] ran a series in their opinion page compiling a series of pieces from a rather diverse group of scientists. I was initially confused though, when it was filed under the "Room for Debate" section and the columnists were labeled as "Debaters". I thought, "Oh cool, I'll get to read about some good back-and-forth points on the STEM NGSS." I had attended a (very one-sided) panel on the New Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and some of the problems they currently face when I was at Dragon*CON back in September but I was hoping to at least see what the 'other side' had to say in their own words. Problem is, it wasn't a debate. There weren't two sides tackling the finer points of an issue or group of issues. It was a collection of like minded individuals pointing out the flaws inherent in our system and offering some (admittedly creative!) solutions. I didn't like that it was labelled a debate though. Forum might have been a better label. I'll leave a discussion of the NGSS for a future blog post; that's a topic worth a thousand words itself!

According to the lead post of the thread, this all was spurred on from an editorial article a couple days prior asserting "Who Says Math Has to be Boring?" This title is great. I'm roped in. The second paragraph points to an interesting statistic:
"Nearly 90 percent of high school graduates [3] say they’re not interested in a career or a college major involving science, technology, engineering or math, known collectively as STEM, according to a survey of more than a million students who take the ACT test."
Following through the link, I look at the graph that ACT included on that page. What I found there shocked me. I could not believe my eyes. 41% of ACT tested students interested in studying STEM-related disciplines (the 10%) met the 'ACT College Readiness Benchmark' in the sciences. Those not interested in studying STEM (the 90%) ? A dizzying 21%. This means nearly four out of every five students is underprepared for basic college level science. What this graph also shows is that, oddly enough, the STEM-interested students outperformed their peers across the four broadly-defined subject areas of English, Reading, Mathematics, and Science.
The December 8th article points to several possible overlapping culprits: underprepared teachers, outdated curriculum, lack of cultural influence, and a lack of clear applicability. This point is echoed in each of the ten follow-up opinion articles written on December 10th. All of these pieces echo one major point: We need more people interested in science. We need them for jobs. We need them for sustainability. On the other hand, nobody mentions a solution to the question:

At what level do we need these trained scientists? 

Writers tout that there seem to be this extreme need for technical thinkers, as if there are more jobs than there are qualified people to take them. They way they talk, I'm imagining jobs like so many pieces of trash just littering the streets of life blown asunder in the wind.

Yeah, Kinda like that. Even Billie Jean tells you to think twice.

I get it. Being in science in our current culture isn't glamorous. It's messy, confusing, frustrating, and doesn't always directly "apply to my life". It's not being a sports star, world-class cook, singer or actress. It doesn't promise untold fame, riches, or sex appeal (the assumption is that it leads to the opposite of these things). This is a huge point, actually, that Mayim Bialik [4] makes in her article- make modern science accessible by incorporating it into a story and give context. It's like teaching people real science through shows like CSI...except using real science to do so. [6]
But if there are so many jobs, why is no actual emphasis put on WHERE these jobs are? Who is hiring? I see my friends pulling their hair out trying to get jobs all across the spectrum- chemistry, medicine, engineering. Granted a large number of these are in the graduate level positions. But what about the bachelor's, associates, vocational and High School level? What do these jobs even look like? And if they are scattered around so proliferously, then why are new chemists leaving chemistry behind [7]?

The rest of this series will focus on my reaction to each of the individual articles and pose certain questions that I think we as a society need to find answers to- and fast. It will challenge science communicators to quit repeating the rote sentences we see all over the economic news. Sentences that, frankly, I'm sick of seeing. If I felt that I could confidently walk out of my graduate program today and have a job next week- I wouldn't be so critical. And let's not forget- not all 'jobs' are created equal.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/who-says-math-has-to-be-boring.html
[3] http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr13/stem.html
[4] http://www.mayimbialik.net/
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks/use-hollywood-plots-and-characters-to-teach-stem
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
[7] http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i4/New-Bachelor-Level-Chemists-Face.html