"Science has lost the 'cool factor' and kids have no 'science heroes'"

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Well, slick tv marketing can make anything cool, or seem far more glamorous than the reality. Think of all the would-be physicians who have their interest in pursuing a career in medicine sparked from watching shows such as <em>House</em>, only to find that even the process of getting into medical school can take more than basic intelligence and strong desire, and that the reality of medical practice also involves levels of stress (financial stress, the stress of dealing with difficult people and bureaucracies, the stress of having to quickly make and defend life and death decisions, the constant threat of frivolous law suits) that many would find unbearable.</p>

<p>At least for now, the practice of medicine is fairly lucrative for most, even if only a minority of physicians will earn enough to propel them into the top 1%. Even so, I know many middle-aged physicians who are advising thei children to find careers outside of medicine. (In fact, quite a few over the past decade or so have imagined that their children would do well to attend an elite school and enter investment banking.)</p>

<p>As for science and engineering PhD.'s outside of biology and chemistry, shows such as The Big Bang Theory can make this type of life seem glamorous, but in reality few if any real life twenty or thirty somethings that I know, who are trying to make a career in science, seem to be living this life. </p>

<p>In real life, far too many brilliant young scientists and engineers, able to hold their own among the best and brightest in the world in spite of the perceived inadequacies of our k-12 STEM education, seem to be taking way too long to finish their PhD’s, always under the threat of a sudden, mid-project cut in funding, and then spending too many years in post-doc limbo, keeping an anxious eye on government funding of R&D and corporate outsourcing of entire research departments. (At least many foreign students earning degreees in our universities do have the option of following the outsourcing back to China or India.)</p>

<p>We are actually seeing many of the best and brightest of our high school’s graduates who have gone on to major in math and science then pursue careers in education, usually skipping the science grad school option entirely. </p>

<p>I welcome the knowledge and enthusiasm these young people can bring to the table (our high school has always employed people with degrees in math and science up to the Ph.D.level to teach these subjects), but would also like to see the stable jobs in industry and academia return.</p>

42

<p>I would add, however, that perhaps the enthusiasm and knowledge of experienced scientists and engineers returning to the classroom, as well that of young people who themselves excelled enough in this area to earn degrees, will not only inspire interest in pursuing STEM careers as a “cool” use of time and talent, but will also inspire others who do not enter STEM careers to value the input of scientists when it comes to making decisions on societal issues that impact all of us, from global warming to energy policy to funding of scientific research in a variety of industries.</p>

43

<p>I thought one of the more interesting parts of the Steve Jobs bio was his explanation of why Apple manufactures in China. Jobs said it was not the cheap labor, but the need for 30,000 engineers to manage and guide the production. He said they could find the production workers in the US, but not the engineers. He said they did not need to be elite engineers and many could be trained at community colleges, but they simply did not exist in the numbers needed. Jobs said if they could find the same number of engineers they could in China, they would build factories in the US. </p>

<p>Interesting that the main motivation is not cheap labor, but a skilled workforce.</p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>That depends on what one’s tolerance level is for certain aggravations which come with the K-12 teaching profession. Among the few I’ve witnessed as a student and hearing from several friends who work(ed) in K-12:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Having to work as behavioral monitor as well as teacher of a given subject with the former taking the bulk of class time if there are even a handful of disruptive/disrespectful students. </p></li>
<li><p>So-called greater “free-time” after each school day and during summers is often a mirage…especially considering almost all grading, essay feedback, class preparation, continuing ed requirements, etc are fulfilled during that “free-time”. However, because almost all of that is invisible to most people…it is often ignored unless someone has friends/relatives who are actual K-12 teachers. </p></li>
<li><p>Dealing with aggravating parents who feel their child(ren) could do absolutely no wrong, take little/no responsibility for their kids’ poor behavior/inadequate performance, and will use their legal/political clout to get their child(ren) unmerited special privileges(i.e. An A for C or lower level work). Associated with that is being held responsible for student underperformance despite the fact that parental/societal responsibilities for them are often downplayed/effectively censored from public discourse. Odd considering that IMHO…parents and society each bear at least the same, if not greater responsibility for the student academic/behavioral performance. </p></li>
<li><p>Dealing with micromanaging educrats and board members who may have had extremely limited time in the classroom…assuming they’ve actually had any teaching experience to speak of…</p></li>
<li><p>Violence committed against them by students…a phenomenon that has been doing on for the last few decades.</p></li>
<li><p>Being in a career path that is often perceived by most IME as mostly a dumping ground for academically mediocre students with a minority of high academic achievers. The latter tends to get burned out or otherwise conclude there are better career opportunities with higher pay, better working conditions, and less aggravations within the first 5 years.</p></li>
</ol>

45

<p>It is all just about popularity in school. Excelling in math or science does not make you popular. When the kids on the Academic Bowl team are as revered as the high school quarterback and the head cheerleader, things will change.</p>

46

<p>Oldest has never attended a school ( even college) with a football team.
Youngests high school - the band & orchestra were where the cool kids were.
I think it is a regional thing.</p>

47

<p><a href=“In%20fact,%20quite%20a%20few%20over%20the%20past%20decade%20or%20so%20have%20imagined%20that%20their%20children%20would%20do%20well%20to%20attend%20an%20elite%20school%20and%20enter%20investment%20banking.”>quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Except, ironically, that the very same problems that you cited that afflict medicine as a career are also characteristic of investment banking: the very process of becoming an Ibanker in the first place is fraught with difficulty and is generally only available to the tiny percentage of students who can be admitted to a brand-name university, and the actual Ibanking job is arguably just as stressful as medicine. </p>

<p>In fact, becoming an Ibanker is arguably even more difficult than becoming a physician. Even somebody at a 4th tier college has a shot at attending a medical school, as long as he earns top grades and garners a high MCAT. But he basically has zero chance of becoming an Ibanker, at least not right out of undergrad. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I wasn’t talking about science graduates at the Ph.D. level. What you seem to be talking about is characteristic of PhD’s in general. After all, whatever problems science PhD’s encounter, surely you would agree that PhD’s in humanities and social sciences (except perhaps for economics) have it far worse. </p>

<p>But, to your point, since you mentioned Ibanking previously, how’s this for a proposal: instead of spending trillions of taxpayer dollars to bail out an ailing, corrupt, and socially parasitic banking industry, let’s redirect those funds towards basic science research. That would spark an explosion of opportunities for science PhD’s.</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>The problem with that logic is that a lack of a skilled American workforce is intertwined with cheap labor. The reason why Jobs and other tech leaders supposedly can’t find a sufficient number of American engineers is simply that those jobs don’t pay well enough to entice more Americans. After all, if engineers were paid as well as employees in the finance industry, Americans would be coming out of the woodwork to become engineers. That’s why you see even graduates with PhD’s in engineering from elite programs such as MIT or Stanford choosing to leave engineering for the finance industry. </p>

<p>One can also look at not-so-long-ago history. During the dotcom boom, thousands upon thousands of Americans enthusiastically learned software and computer-networking skills because they knew that they would be bounteously rewarded once they did. For example, I remember some guys who never graduated from college at all and had only basic IT skills that could have been learned in a few short months were nevertheless commanding $75-100 an hour. </p>

<p>That’s why I’ve always found the comments regarding the lack of engineering supply in the US by tech leaders to be deeply self-serving, because they inherently control the supply of engineers through the salaries they choose to pay. They don’t really pay strong salaries to American engineers, and then wonder why more Americans don’t become engineers, as opposed to become physicians, lawyers, bankers, or alternate careers.</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>Hey, it’s better than manning a cash register at the mall for near-minimum wage and no job security, or delivering food, or parking cars, or other such general laborer jobs that you could have garnered right after high school (or in some cases, without even graduating from high school). I can think of some science graduates who are stuck in those jobs.</p>

50

<p>

</p>

<p>I completely agree. The next logical question would be how to make math/science excellence just as popular as football or cheerleading? </p>

<p>Let’s keep in mind that there is nothing ‘natural’ about football or cheerleading sitting atop the status hierarchy. Football provides far greater social benefits than does, say, soccer… but only in the United States. In sharp contrast, soccer is the kingmaking sport in most of the rest of the world. Lionel Messi could likely walk through any American city without drawing any notice, whereas he would be absolutely mobbed if he did so in Europe or Latin America. By the same token, Aaron Rodgers could likely walk through most cities in Europe without drawing even a hint of interest.</p>

<p>What that seems to indicate that football is popular in the US because of prodigious marketing. The question then is, can we market science/math to be equivalently cool?</p>

51

<p>

Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny?</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>Nope. Many of the ‘common’ man played football in middle/high school, even as a bench warmer on the scout team; it was ‘fun.’ Math/science can never get there, nor can English for that matter.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly right.</p>

53

<p>^^^^^Agreed, but it is oh so easy to fantasize about what it takes to succeed in any of a number of “glamorous” and well-paid jobs that one personally has not had any experience in pursuing.</p>

<p>What seems to happen in real life, though, is that the disgruntled physician knows what it takes to become a doctor (get good grades, do the appropriate EC’s, do well on the MCAT’s) but is not exactly clear about what it takes to succeed in other well-paid professions except perhaps to “market the child to get into the right school” (and not clear about which schools could be the “right school”) and tell the child to try to get good grades and “make connections”. </p>

<p>Actually, most students from our suburb (where even the most successful families in “secure” professions seem to be rapidly falling away from the top 1%) seem to be entering career tracks where one or both parents already “knows the ropes” from either a vocation or avocation and can give some guidance (even if the initial guidance is “don’t do this.”) Only a minority find internships through their school’s career office these days - most seem to depend upon parental connections. (Yes, I like to ask about this.) Hmmmmm…</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, I’ve known of some teachers who quit to do equivalent type jobs(i.e. Coffee shop barista) not only because it is less aggravating for them, but also pays better than some school districts and they don’t have to take home any work at the end of their official workday* so their time after work is really all theirs. </p>

<p>As for security…that only comes after one gets tenured…that takes around 5 years in the NYC area. Before one reaches that stage…the job can be very insecure…especially if you have one of those “My child can do no wrong” type parents. </p>

<p>*i.e. Lesson plan development, homework/test/essay grading, parent-teacher meetings, afterschool tutoring, mandatory continuing ed courses, etc.</p>

55

<p>What is all this talk of the paucity of science and engineering shows on TV? Have you not seen Mythbusters? It features a ton of STEM stuff. Even better, it’s very popular (probably 90% of the kids in my school have seen at least one episode). </p>

<p>I’ve had an insatiable appetite for math and science knowledge ever since I was a child. And I found many great shows that helped to fulfill my early desire to learn. Discovery Channel in particular had so much to offer in the realm of science education. I probably learned more from DC than I did from any of my elementary school science classes. Also, Animal Planet, while not as technical as Discovery, is certainly a home to a variety of fascinating programs. And who hasn’t seen How it’s Made? For the aspiring engineer, it’s a fantastically interesting show.</p>

<p>My point is, anything from engineering competitions (with a cool spin, like Punkin Chunkin) to Amazonian expeditions can be found on TV. You just need to look for it.</p>

56

<p>The problem is not the kids; it is the adults.</p>

57

<p>I just loved math as a kid. I can still remember the excitement I felt the day our teacher introduced the concept of fractions. I went home and told Mom all about it. Even so, I never thought of being an engineer until my father, an engineering professor, jokingly told some of his students that I would be the next engineer in the family. I thought, “Huh, I guess I COULD do that!” Now, whenever I meet another female structural engineer, I ask if her father was an engineer. I can think of only two women whose fathers WEREN’T. A lot of times, I’m the only woman in a group of 40 engineers at our engineering association meetings. I’m 49 and keep expecting to see younger women entering the field in higher numbers, but it’s not happening.</p>

58

<p>Both S’s are recent engineering grads of good schools. And both say their programs (diff schools, diff engineering majors) were for the most part a long series of very time consuming and difficult weeder courses that ultimately had nothing to do with the real work associated with their particular engineering major. </p>

<p>Allot of engineering programs take the short-cut of “contrived difficulty” to achieve relative notoriety and standing, instead of delivering the much harder to deliver service of “relevance”.</p>

59

<p>I disagree toblin. That is the mentality that the US took with education. Choosing standards to satisfy the common denominator and essentially dumbing down the curriculum just produces more problems at the end.</p>