<p>
[quote]
Simply exposing more students to more science may not by itself produce a single extra science majormuch less the influx of new scientists envisioned nationally.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It did not, in the story, mention where these extra science teachers came from. My experience is that even for students that are very interested in science, high school science teachers can temper their zeal. And if they aren’t particularly interested in science, after a year of not helpful teaching, they don’t suddenly become enamored with the idea of studying more science.</p>
<p>Yes, there are amazingly good high school science teachers, but even in good schools, there are too many mediocre science teachers.</p>
<p>And it does not at all surprise me that kids didn’t do well in science might be less likely to go to college, as I’m guessing the confidence hit and hit to their GPA might have given them doubts when it was time to apply to college.</p>
<p>The purpose of teaching science in high school is not to produce science majors or increase the chance of attending college. The purpose should be to teach science. For the vast majority of Americans, their science education ends when they leave high school.</p>
<p>The problem in USA HS is that it is way too late to effectively teach serious math and science to general student body at this age. With the exception of better students, most kids are not prepared for science classes at college level and even the best of the best are not prepared enough. In other countries, serious science and various math classes (algebra, geometry, trig) start in 5-6 grade and are part of every year curriculum. I am not talking about science class, I am talking about chemistry, physics, biology - separate classes with different teachers who have degrees in a subject that they are teaching. It is not possible to teach physics in one year, since it is barely enough time to teach just mechanics portion of it. Even the best kids with AP Physics and 5 on exam do not have sufficient knowledge of it.</p>
<p>As Homer Simpson would say, Doh!</p>
<p>This is a perfect example of why Educ in this country is a mess. Tighten grad requirements in a district with a 50% dropout rate, and we find, what, that kids don’t voluntarily embrace the new, more stringent requirement? What were they thinking? Did it take a bunch of PhD’s to figure this out? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Every other country in the world tracks students into science tracks and non-science tracks. Why America has decided to force everyone to take hardcore science courses is beyond me.</p>
<p>I would rather see a kid get a C in high school chemistry than never take it at all.</p>
<p>While sciences may indeed injure a kid’s ego, I think if nothing else, it teaches kids to not back away from learning something “hard.” This should be the message, not the science major aspect. Quit associating learning science and math as if it is reserved for the “smart” kids and that the challenge is merely being foisted on the majority. It really underestimates all kids in my opinion. But the truth is, there are some science teachers who act very elitist in their teaching and therefore, that’s what turns off the student just as much, if not more, than the actual material. And too… yes, I’d rather see a C in chem than a kid never taken it at all.</p>
<p>S was always a great student, but to develop a passion for science (that would typically lead one to be a science major) is very different than learning the material, even when learning is the goal (as it should be) vs the grade. In fact, it wasn’t until his senior year that he had a teacher that really turned him into a “science kid.” I still think his penchant for arguing would keep him in the world of humanities and possibly law, but now I see the possibilities in that he questions so much that science is an equally good fit, if you’re willing to look for the answers thru research. But my point is, it’s not all about aptitude as much as it is about attitude. It’s not about the requirements, it’s about the teaching.</p>
<p>"Every other country in the world tracks students into science tracks and non-science tracks. " </p>
<ul>
<li>You are not correct at all. But I am not supporter of public education at all, I do not know why we are wasting $$ trying to teach kids that learning is a boring meanningles non-challenging task that needs to be performed 8am - 3pm every day because parents are not at home. It is way too low of goal to spend thousands on each kid, by far much more than most other countries. Do not teach them science, math, English, just baby sit them, it will do. No need to go to college anyway jobs are not available. With this approach we will go very far and very fast, but not in a direction of scientific progress.</li>
</ul>
<p>My point also is… I am growing extremely weary of how much we worry about self-esteem. Seems to me our kids have raised thinking they are quite special and have been given blue-ribbons since pre-k just for showing up. Enough already. Let’s raise the expectations and instill the confidence that they are worthy of the challenge regardless of reward.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about that. My son got a C- in high school chemistry – by far the worst grade he’s ever gotten in his entire life. (He blamed it on the class having been first thing in the morning, with an unbelievably soporific teacher. Not to mention his complete lack of interest in the subject.) And even though it obviously didn’t prevent him from getting into both the U of Chicago and Johns Hopkins, among other schools, I think he’d rather not have taken it at all! And I’m sure he’s forgotten everything he learned, just as I forgot everything I learned in my high school chemistry class within five minutes of taking the final exam. All I remember is that there’s something called a mole. That’s it. So it hasn’t been of any benefit to me, either, at any time in the 39 years since I took the class.</p>
<p>Oddly enough, my son did very well in his high school biology class, as well as in the biology classes he’s taken in college to meet the core requirements. Why the difference? I imagine it has something to do with the quality of teaching, but probably has a lot more to do with his interest in the subject matter. So, again, I see no benefit from having forced him to take a chemistry class he had no interest in whatsoever.</p>
<p>^Yep, and it goes beyond education, we have accepted much lower levels of expectations in everything and are forcing our kids into this thinking which is not beneficial for their future at all, reality is quite brutal for somebody who is told that you do not have towork very hard to achieve minimum survival. Bird got to fly… or it dies. Got to get sufficient training and work very hard to get minimum to survive.</p>
<p>I’ll put my son’s desire to work hard against anyone’s. One exception does not establish a trend. (And considering his lack of interest or any particular aptitude in math, I’m every bit as proud of the fact that he just got a B+ in the math class he was required to take to satisfy Chicago’s core requirement, as I am of the fact that he got A’s in every other course this term.) But that isn’t my point. </p>
<p>My point is that I see no value in forcing someone with no interest in a particular hard science or mathematics subject to take it, when having a knowledge of that subject is entirely unnecessary to the vast majority of occupations. (I’ve managed to survive all these years without ever taking a course in either physics or calculus. And with coming close to failing advanced algebra and trigonometry in 11th grade.) If the idea is to get students used to doing unpleasant things for their own sake, then why not just dose them with castor oil a few times and get it over with?</p>
<p>Personally, I think it would be far more productive to require people to study the history of countries other than the U.S. And to become fluent in at least one foreign language, and preferably more.</p>
<p>DonnaL – if your S should not have been required to take Chemistry because he had no interest, should I argue that my D should not have been required to take HS English / literature because she had no interest?</p>
<p>Of course not. Almost everyone agrees that HS graduates should have at least a minimal competency in writing and some knowledge of literature. As a scientist, I believe that every HS graduate should also have at least a minimal competency in chemistry, physics, biology, and math. </p>
<p>(Full disclosure: I’m a chemist, D1 is a chemistry major. “Mole” is spoken in my house!)</p>
<p>Donna:</p>
<p>The problem with your logic is where do you draw the line, or do you draw it at all? If I despise history, can I skip it for four years of HS? What about civics? What about English Lit? What about PE? What about fine arts?</p>
<p>No, I don’t necessarily agree, mrsref. Competency in English is a necessity in most walks of life. Knowledge of, or even minimal competency in, chemistry and physics is not. I"m thoroughly incompetent in both (although I know a few things about biology), and I honestly don’t believe that that incompetence has detracted from my life.</p>
<p>bluebayou, of course you have to draw the line somewhere in terms of what requirements are mandatory. Everyone has their own value judgments as to what’s important. I’m simply suggesting that drawing the line in favor of the inclusion of hard science isn’t based on any truly objective reality as to what is or isn’t “necessary.” But I do understand that there’s a longstanding consensus to draw the line approximately where it is now, and that that consensus isn’t likely to change in favor of, say, dropping chemistry requirements and adding a requirement that people study art history. Even though I doubt I can be convinced that knowledge of the former is inherently more important than knowledge of the latter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Acutally, I think it was exactly your point. 
What you’re suggesting is that since your kid is academically sound, if he doesn’t want to take it, he shouldn’t have to? Most schools require an introduction: Bio, Chem and Phys. 3 years of science. It’s exposure, not a life sentence. It might not be sexy, but it’s reasonable to expose kids to myriad of subjects. However, it’s somewhat ironic that you would offer foreign language as a replacement. If this is a subject that comes easier to your kid than I can see why he would like it. But there are threads and threads about the difficulties for some students, including processing deficits, that make learning a foreign language nearly impossible for them. Just sayin…</p>
<p>^I agree with what Modadunn said.</p>
<p>If allowed, my D1 would have taken every math / science course in HS in place of Spanish. But she took three years of Spanish because a foreign language is required/recommended for college-bound students. She even needed a semester in college to fulfill a gen ed requirement. I bet she never uses it again…unless she wants to order a beer in Mexico ;).</p>
<p>Don’t look now, Donna, but your son has two quarters of “physical science” (basically, stuff on the physics-chemistry continuum) ahead of him at Chicago, unless he placed out of it. They agree it belongs in a liberal arts core, too.</p>
<p>I don’t think you are going to get much sympathy for the proposition that competent students shouldn’t be exposed to some significant amount of science in high school. High school students often do not know in advance what they like, and what they are good at. There are plenty of parents on CC who would be perfectly happy to get their kids out of English, or Spanish, or History, or Art so they could take more math, and those are some of the same kids who post that their parents want them to be engineers but they would rather write.</p>
<p>Of course, very few kids get “fluent” at chemistry OR a foreign language in high school, and fluency in either is a chimaerical goal for most students who don’t feel naturally attracted to the subject. We ought to be – and usually aren’t – honest and rigorous about ALL of our educational requirements: What exactly are we trying to accomplish? What are the options for accomplishing that? Under what circumstances is it OK to take another route? I would suggest that very little of a standard college-prep high school curriculum could really survive the test of “are we confident this substantive material will be useful to the majority of students over the course of their lives”? So either that isn’t the real standard for curriculum inclusion, or we really need to blow up the high school curriculum. (Or both.)</p>
<p>
Thank you. I like this so much I thought it worth repeating.</p>
<p>DonnaL - one of my girls got C’s in high school Chemistry and went on to graduate as a BioChemistry major. Who knew?<br>
Also, I would question that he doesn’t remember or won’t use any of it. he does and he will even if he doesn’t think so now.</p>