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 | No, Mars will not shine as big and bright as the Full
Moon on August 27th. But you can't stop a good e-mail chain letter.
Read More at: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/8708182.html

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.

On Jul 28, 9:01 am, "P. Edward Murray" 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/

Thank goodness - at last some proof it's not just the US that has its
dimwits...

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/11...ionaire_ Show

=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:35:25 -0700, Rich 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

http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/

That's all I have to say..

Mark





"Rich" wrote in message
oups.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 | No, Mars will not shine as big and bright as the Full
Moon on August 27th. But you can't stop a good e-mail chain letter.
Read More at: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/8708182.html

On Jul 28, 10:35 am, Rich 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
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 writes:

On Jul 28, 10:35 am, Rich 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 |
=================================================

On Jul 29, 9:20 am, Chris McMahan
wrote:
LarryG writes:
On Jul 28, 10:35 am, Rich 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 bull**** 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.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:19:17 -0700, LarryG 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