| |
Main
Date: 28 Jul 2007 08:35:25
From: Rich
Subject: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
The fact something like this exists is further testament to the fact
of the subject. Replace sciences with "social sciences" in the
schools and now Third World countries like India turn out most of the
engineers and scientists.
>From Sky & Tel:
The August Mars Hoax Is Back
----------------------------------------
July 26, 2007
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 19:58:45
From: LarryG
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
John Savard wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:19:17 -0700, LarryG <larryg_uu@yahoo.com> wrote,
> in part:
>
> >Consider the fact that many years ago, those technically talented
> >youths who could readily absorb the information, gained the training,
> >and entered the workforce in technical fields. And they were paid
> >handsomely for their efforts. They were paid so well, in fact, that
> >they had a disincentive to return to the classroom to teach the next
> >generations.
> >
> >Those teaching positions had to be staffed by those who were not as
> >qualified as their peers in industry. The result was muddled
> >education, and a generation of students who didn't want to be as
> >technically incompetent and uninspiring as their science and math
> >teacher role models.
>
> I don't think this was the main problem.
>
> The main problem was that after things changed one way in 1957, they
> changed the other way somewhere between 1968 and 1973. The post-war boom
> came to an end, unemployment skyrocketed, and we returned to a milder
> version of the historical situation in which only a favored few got the
> chance to make a decent living and escape repetitious physical labor.
>
> John Savard
> http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
There has always been a degree of mistrust of the lower classes by the
wealthy.
The communist revolutions in Russia, China and Cuba scared them
terribly,
and they feared that the same could happen in America. Roosevelt's
social
security and employment programs helped matters somewhat. But it was
the industrial employment of women during the war (WWII) and the G.I.
Bill which
gave the lower classes a taste of economic opportunity and mobility.
Were it not for those opportunities, the lower classes might come to
view the wealthier folks as useless exploitive parasites, and seek to
dispose of them by the quickest means possible. Sadly, as you point
out, we are headed back toward those dark ages again.
Cheers,
Larry G.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 19:45:08
From: LarryG
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk >
wrote:
> In article <1185679157.175857.113...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> LarryG <larryg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 28, 10:35 am, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The fact something like this exists is further testament to the fact
> >> of the subject. Replace sciences with "social sciences" in the
> >> schools and now Third World countries like India turn out most of the
> >> engineers and scientists.
>
> >There is quite enough blame to go around for the current sorry state
> >of science, education, and amateur astronomy in the United States.
> >Conservatives and capitalists were even more instrumental than the
> >timid, appeasing liberals they like to demonize.
>
> >Consider the fact that many years ago, those technically talented
> >youths who could readily absorb the information, gained the training,
> >and entered the workforce in technical fields. And they were paid
> >handsomely for their efforts. They were paid so well, in fact, that
> >they had a disincentive to return to the classroom to teach the next
> >generations.
>
> Isn't the answer simply that "many years ago" the highest-status job
> available to a smart woman was schoolteacher, and nowadays teaching
> doesn't have first call on the smartest part of half the population?
>
> Tom
While simple answers are frequently desired and sought, they are
seldom correct or fully satisfying. The history of humankind offers
many examples of simplicity leading to error and folly:
- The earth is not flat
- It is not the center of the universe
- Perfect spheres do not orbit it in perfect circles
- and the number Pi cannot be legislated to be exactly 3 or 22/7,
without introducing serious error.
Your statement about the employment restrictions on women is accurate,
but does not explain the decline in scientific, engineering and
technical education.
However, there is another historical parallel to my assertion that
technical education declined because experienced scientists and
engineers were not encouraged to share their knowledge (in the
classroom) with future generations.
During World War II, the Japanese military kept their top pilots on
the front lines, leave less experienced and less competent teachers to
prepare those who would join the fleet later on. The result was a
steady decline in aeronautical excellence, and the Japanese lost the
war (in part) after their former supremacy fell into the sea.
Cheers,
Larry G.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 17:11:25
From: LarryG
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
On Jul 29, 9:20 am, Chris McMahan <first_initiallastn...@one.dot.net >
wrote:
> LarryG <larryg...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Jul 28, 10:35 am, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The fact something like this exists is further testament to the fact
> >> of the subject. Replace sciences with "social sciences" in the
> >> schools and now Third World countries like India turn out most of the
> >> engineers and scientists.
>
> > There is quite enough blame to go around for the current sorry state
> > of science, education, and amateur astronomy in the United States.
> > Conservatives and capitalists were even more instrumental than the
> > timid, appeasing liberals they like to demonize.
>
> > Consider the fact that many years ago, those technically talented
> > youths who could readily absorb the information, gained the training,
> > and entered the workforce in technical fields. And they were paid
> > handsomely for their efforts. They were paid so well, in fact, that
> > they had a disincentive to return to the classroom to teach the next
> > generations.
>
> > Those teaching positions had to be staffed by those who were not as
> > qualified as their peers in industry. The result was muddled
> > education, and a generation of students who didn't want to be as
> > technically incompetent and uninspiring as their science and math
> > teacher role models.
>
> > And when students faired poorly on tests, due to inadequate
> > instruction, they decided that math and science were not their forte,
> > and went on to subjects like athletics, music, and business. The role
> > models they saw here were on television or radio, making fortunes with
> > little intellectual investment.
>
> > Those who could still pick up on technical matters, in spite of
> > lackluster teachers, were called nerds, geeks and dorks.
>
> > A whole volume could be written on this subject, but it would do
> > little good here. The point I wish to make, is that for every finger
> > you point at others, you've got three pointing back at you.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Larry G.
>
>
> That has got to be the most ridiculous, convoluted explaination I have
> ever come across. What you're basically saying is that since the
> economy was good and demand for a highly-educated highly-paid
> technical workforce was present, that it was the conservatives' fault
> that education is bad.
>
> This implies that
> 1. Good competent teachers are only teaching because there's no other option
There are bound to be a few technically competent people in teaching
careers. However, they are a tiny minority. Two expressions come to
mind to explain this phenomenon: "Money talks, and bullshit walks,"
and "Those who CAN, do; those who can't, teach!"
> 2. A bad economy is necessary to attract a workforce into teaching
Not necessarily. Money, social respect, and job satisfaction are much
better draws than a bad economy. Since teachers are currently
underpaid, get little respect, fear for their safety at times, and
have high burn-out rates; most would-be educators pursue other
opportunities selling real estate, retraining as nurses, or peddling
ice cream out of a truck.
> 3. The good economy was the fault of the "Conservatives and capitalists"
In part, that is true. Reagan opened the floodgates to massive
government spending, which had a ripple effect throughout the
ecomomy. A lot was on technology for the military, which sucked up
most of the technical talent, leaving education bereft.
The computer revolution began back in the late seventies, accellerated
under Reagan and Bush; then exploded under Clinton with the
popularization of the Internet and Web. Suddenly, techies could
become millionaires in a matter of years, if not overnight. Again,
schools were left in the dust.
> 4. A good economy is bad for education
Under our current economic and political system, it certainly is.
> This is silly on so many levels.
>
> - Chris
Do feel free to advance your own well informed and reasoned
explanation to the contrary. Labeling mine as such is no indication
that you can do either.
Cheers,
Larry G.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 04:08:41
From: John Savard
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:11:25 -0700, LarryG <larryg_uu@yahoo.com > wrote,
in part:
>Since teachers are currently
>underpaid, get little respect, fear for their safety at times, and
>have high burn-out rates;
Underpaid is the fault of conservatives.
Fear for their safety is the fault of liberals.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 20:19:17
From: LarryG
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
On Jul 28, 10:35 am, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com > wrote:
> The fact something like this exists is further testament to the fact
> of the subject. Replace sciences with "social sciences" in the
> schools and now Third World countries like India turn out most of the
> engineers and scientists.
There is quite enough blame to go around for the current sorry state
of science, education, and amateur astronomy in the United States.
Conservatives and capitalists were even more instrumental than the
timid, appeasing liberals they like to demonize.
Consider the fact that many years ago, those technically talented
youths who could readily absorb the information, gained the training,
and entered the workforce in technical fields. And they were paid
handsomely for their efforts. They were paid so well, in fact, that
they had a disincentive to return to the classroom to teach the next
generations.
Those teaching positions had to be staffed by those who were not as
qualified as their peers in industry. The result was muddled
education, and a generation of students who didn't want to be as
technically incompetent and uninspiring as their science and math
teacher role models.
And when students faired poorly on tests, due to inadequate
instruction, they decided that math and science were not their forte,
and went on to subjects like athletics, music, and business. The role
models they saw here were on television or radio, making fortunes with
little intellectual investment.
Those who could still pick up on technical matters, in spite of
lackluster teachers, were called nerds, geeks and dorks.
A whole volume could be written on this subject, but it would do
little good here. The point I wish to make, is that for every finger
you point at others, you've got three pointing back at you.
Cheers,
Larry G.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 23:48:14
From: Thomas Womack
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
In article <1185679157.175857.113300@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
LarryG <larryg_uu@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Jul 28, 10:35 am, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The fact something like this exists is further testament to the fact
>> of the subject. Replace sciences with "social sciences" in the
>> schools and now Third World countries like India turn out most of the
>> engineers and scientists.
>
>There is quite enough blame to go around for the current sorry state
>of science, education, and amateur astronomy in the United States.
>Conservatives and capitalists were even more instrumental than the
>timid, appeasing liberals they like to demonize.
>
>Consider the fact that many years ago, those technically talented
>youths who could readily absorb the information, gained the training,
>and entered the workforce in technical fields. And they were paid
>handsomely for their efforts. They were paid so well, in fact, that
>they had a disincentive to return to the classroom to teach the next
>generations.
Isn't the answer simply that "many years ago" the highest-status job
available to a smart woman was schoolteacher, and nowadays teaching
doesn't have first call on the smartest part of half the population?
Tom
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 04:07:24
From: John Savard
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:19:17 -0700, LarryG <larryg_uu@yahoo.com > wrote,
in part:
>Consider the fact that many years ago, those technically talented
>youths who could readily absorb the information, gained the training,
>and entered the workforce in technical fields. And they were paid
>handsomely for their efforts. They were paid so well, in fact, that
>they had a disincentive to return to the classroom to teach the next
>generations.
>
>Those teaching positions had to be staffed by those who were not as
>qualified as their peers in industry. The result was muddled
>education, and a generation of students who didn't want to be as
>technically incompetent and uninspiring as their science and math
>teacher role models.
I don't think this was the main problem.
The main problem was that after things changed one way in 1957, they
changed the other way somewhere between 1968 and 1973. The post-war boom
came to an end, unemployment skyrocketed, and we returned to a milder
version of the historical situation in which only a favored few got the
chance to make a decent living and escape repetitious physical labor.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 10:20:22
From: Chris McMahan
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
That has got to be the most ridiculous, convoluted explaination I have
ever come across. What you're basically saying is that since the
economy was good and demand for a highly-educated highly-paid
technical workforce was present, that it was the conservatives' fault
that education is bad.
This implies that
1. Good competent teachers are only teaching because there's no other option
2. A bad economy is necessary to attract a workforce into teaching
3. The good economy was the fault of the "Conservatives and capitalists"
4. A good economy is bad for education
This is silly on so many levels.
- Chris
LarryG <larryg_uu@yahoo.com > writes:
> On Jul 28, 10:35 am, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The fact something like this exists is further testament to the fact
>> of the subject. Replace sciences with "social sciences" in the
>> schools and now Third World countries like India turn out most of the
>> engineers and scientists.
>
> There is quite enough blame to go around for the current sorry state
> of science, education, and amateur astronomy in the United States.
> Conservatives and capitalists were even more instrumental than the
> timid, appeasing liberals they like to demonize.
>
> Consider the fact that many years ago, those technically talented
> youths who could readily absorb the information, gained the training,
> and entered the workforce in technical fields. And they were paid
> handsomely for their efforts. They were paid so well, in fact, that
> they had a disincentive to return to the classroom to teach the next
> generations.
>
> Those teaching positions had to be staffed by those who were not as
> qualified as their peers in industry. The result was muddled
> education, and a generation of students who didn't want to be as
> technically incompetent and uninspiring as their science and math
> teacher role models.
>
> And when students faired poorly on tests, due to inadequate
> instruction, they decided that math and science were not their forte,
> and went on to subjects like athletics, music, and business. The role
> models they saw here were on television or radio, making fortunes with
> little intellectual investment.
>
> Those who could still pick up on technical matters, in spite of
> lackluster teachers, were called nerds, geeks and dorks.
>
> A whole volume could be written on this subject, but it would do
> little good here. The point I wish to make, is that for every finger
> you point at others, you've got three pointing back at you.
>
> Cheers,
> Larry G.
>
--
(. .)
=ooO=(_)=Ooo=====================================
Chris McMahan
|
| |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 02:57:22
From: Mark F.
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/
That's all I have to say..
Mark
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1185636925.622571.178580@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> The fact something like this exists is further testament to the fact
> of the subject. Replace sciences with "social sciences" in the
> schools and now Third World countries like India turn out most of the
> engineers and scientists.
>
>>From Sky & Tel:
>
> The August Mars Hoax Is Back
> ----------------------------------------
> July 26, 2007
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 21:57:21
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:35:25 -0700, Rich <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote:
>The fact something like this exists is further testament to the fact
>of the subject. Replace sciences with "social sciences" in the
>schools and now Third World countries like India turn out most of the
>engineers and scientists.
>
>>From Sky & Tel:
>
>The August Mars Hoax Is Back
Nonsense. There are a zillion problems with education in the U.S. and
other places, but the annual Mars story on the Internet has nothing to
do with that. I don't even think it's an actual hoax, just
misinformation that gets circulated and recirculated. I have no idea how
many people actually pay all that much attention to it. You can't judge
people's education based on the email they receive, especially when
there's so much junk in circulation (which is probably coming from just
a small number of sources).
In the case of the Mars email, there was never a year attached, and the
material was correct as originally published. I don't think it indicates
a huge failure of education that people are inclined to believe what
appears to be a fairly reasonable sounding article (depending, in part,
on whether the bit about "through a telescope" is still part of it,
which it sometimes is and sometimes isn't).
Bad education shows in things like people not knowing the physical basis
of a year. I think that 50 years ago people would have been just as
willing to accept the story about Mars.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 10:19:54
From: thad@thadlabs.com
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
On Jul 28, 9:01 am, "P. Edward Murray" <ed1wa...@verizon.net > wrote:
> 40 years, I don't think so.
>
> Rich, I took Biology & Chemistry in High School and Physical Science
> like everyone else in grade school & jr. High.
>
> It's not just bad science it's anti-intellectualism and both parties,
> Dem & Republicans are just as much to blame.
>
> Learning begins at home.
>
> If you learn that science is bad and the Bible is literal truth, you
> are getting bad scientific training and bad religious training.
>
> And those whose religion is just plain science have bad training too
> for they are just as much in the dark as fundamentalist christians.
Summed up as:
Bad: <http://www.icr.org >
Good: <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ >
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 10:43:43
From: SkySea
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
Thank goodness - at last some proof it's not just the US that has its
dimwits...
http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1184907254/Never_Poll_the_Audience_on_the_French_Millionaire_Show
=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 09:01:12
From: P. Edward Murray
Subject: Re: How 40 years of liberal experiments killed U.S. science education
|
40 years, I don't think so.
Rich, I took Biology & Chemistry in High School and Physical Science
like everyone else in grade school & jr. High.
It's not just bad science it's anti-intellectualism and both parties,
Dem & Republicans are just as much to blame.
Learning begins at home.
If you learn that science is bad and the Bible is literal truth, you
are getting bad scientific training and bad religious training.
And those whose religion is just plain science have bad training too
for they are just as much in the dark as fundamentalist christians.
|
|
