"Good manufacturing jobs"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There are left and right differences in this discussion. That’s the whole disagreement! Is it wise to continue deficit spending at the present level for even one or two more years? Depending on your perspective and what you think is important, wisdom may be had in both “yes” and “no.”

the assumption there is good intentions on both sides, just each follows a different set of economic and social theories that conflict

For most individuals on both sides I'd agree they have good intentions - just poor ability to connect cause with long term effects.......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

>I took Kallends comment to imply i was some sort of anti capitalist, marxist
>socialist and replied accordingly. i also assumed he was mostly kidding with me.

I think you're right there.

>spending money wisely is just sound policy. its not a left or right thing, in my mind.

Definitely agreed, although some people will surely disagree.

Fraction of all bachelor's degrees that are engineering:

Asia - 20%
Europe - 14%
USA - 5%

Anyone see a potential problem here?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Asia - 20%
Europe - 14%
USA - 5%

It's an eye-opening statistic.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Asia - 20%
Europe - 14%
USA - 5%

It's an eye-opening statistic.

In S. Korea it's 37%

However, the US beats the world when it comes to Womens' Studies, Urban Studies, Journalism...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

What do you think is the reason, Prof?

I can tell you mine. I went to school and started as a biology major. I couldn't hack the maths involved and the sciences and switched to political science.

In hindsight, I merely failed to apply myself. Youth is wasted on the youth. If I could go back and do it again I would try for physics or engineering. Hopefully I will.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

What do you think is the reason, Prof?

We pamper our kids.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I can't disagree with that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Having gone through high school in Europe and having exposure to it here though my children, I am convinced that the level of high school education is quite a bit lower.

This results in having to get students at a university level rapidly up to speed. Speaking with a friend of mine who went to university in Canada for a year after finishing high school in Holland, math and sciences in his first year at University were two full grades behind what he had been doing in his final year in high school.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Having gone through high school in Europe and having exposure to it here though my children, I am convinced that the level of high school education is quite a bit lower.

This results in having to get students at a university level rapidly up to speed. Speaking with a friend of mine who went to university in Canada for a year after finishing high school in Holland, math and sciences in his first year at University were two full grades behind what he had been doing in his final year in high school.

Agreed. I went to HS in England, and had 3 years of calculus, and 2 years each of physics and chemistry BEFORE going to university. In the USA I would have placed out of all the 1st year and most of the 2nd year math and science requirements for any college STEM major.

But in the US we have programmed the kids to think that math and physics are so hard that only geeks can pass, so they take the soft options instead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I’m appalled at simply the writing skills of people who have graduated from college. How many college graduates do not know the difference between “it’s” and “its.” There are plenty of college professors I’ve known (and I’m sure that kallend will back me up on this) who lament the students who lack even some fundamentals of the classes. Engineering students in need of remedial geometry.

Part of it is addressed in the stats you offered. Secondary school education provides some real problems. Teaching is dominated by those who have soft science degrees. Degrees in humanities, sociology, political science, etc. We have high school math and science classes being taught by people who majored in literature. In 2004, more than 31 percent of high school students were taught math by a teacher without a major, minor, or certification in that area. The numbers are even worse in the sciences — 45 percent with degrees in biology, 61 percent in chemistry. Fully 2/3 of physics classes in high school were taught by a teacher without a background in physics.

This was a recognized problem. In 2001 the No Child Left Behind Act required states to develop rigorous standards in reading and math and then demonstrate proficiency. Part of it was to require a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006. We know how that has gone. Teachers changing answers on tests to demonstrate mastery. Administrators changing the tests. Etc. Just last year, scandal after scandal was being played out in the press.
A decline in the quality of math and science education in the US, in my opinion, is partly responsible for the loss of our worldwide economic and technological advantage. We don’t know history or geography or languages but we make up for it by not knowing math or English. There are two plausible solutions, as I see it: (1) get rid of the Department of Education and let the states work out solutions themselves; or (2) federalize education and make requirements the same everywhere. One of NCLB’s biggest problems was it half-assed everything so each state has different standards, etc. (This is, however, understandable. Treating Arizona like Vermont, with differing demographics, is a recipe for disaster)
On the other hand, I do think that there should be some policy designed to lure the engineers, scientists and mathematicians into the education field. I also think that tenure for primary and secondary schools should be eliminated.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,153]

I agree with your points!

I grew up in a fully nationalized education system. All schools were public and there were no fully private schools at all. Curriculum and testing was standardized and if you didn't get your grades, you had to do over the whole year.

If you were not making it at all, you were downgraded to a lower level of high school. Yes, we had multiple levels of high school education, from vocational to academic. From 4 year grograms to 6 year programs.

Academic 6 year high school programs at zero option for courses not at an academic level...they were simply not offered.

My first 4 years I had all mandatory courses, with no option to chose until the final 2 years. This meant a solid 4 years of math, science, chemistry, biology, history, Dutch, English, French, German, Latin and Greek before I could make any choices or drop some of those classes.

Fail one class and you fail the whole year.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Asia - 20%
Europe - 14%
USA - 5%

It's an eye-opening statistic.

In S. Korea it's 37%

However, the US beats the world when it comes to Womens' Studies, Urban Studies, Journalism...

my father and mother insisted that i went to college to learn a skill to get a job. they found no value in the arts. to them it was a hobby. they forced us all to take music lessons but would have killed me if i tried to study that in college. i studied financea and accounting, wanting to follow my dad into business. he approved because it was basically math and a skill that got you a job. my nephews and nieces seem to feel college is about expanding your mind and finding yourself. those are luxuries of the rich. some of them cannot find work now with their degrees. we need to go back to basics.

edit to add: sorry, when i said expand your mind i did not mean with knowledge. i meant to get high and discuss things you discuss only when high.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[billvon 2,473]

>Fraction of all bachelor's degrees that are engineering:

>Asia - 20%
>Europe - 14%
>USA - 5%

>Anyone see a potential problem here?

Yep. One of those problems is a society that mocks and belittles education. People with extensive secondary education are "clueless ivory tower types" who "don't understand the real world." Colleges are "indoctrination mills" that are for snobs. We even have politicians who have come out and said they oppose teaching "Higher Order Thinking Skills" and "critical thinking skills."

Hit a high schooler with enough of that sort of attitude and that job as an electrician's apprentice is going to start looking better than college.

Good quote from the old master on this topic:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

― Isaac Asimov

[wmw999 2,171]

On the other hand, my parents encouraged us to study what enriched us. My brothers and I all paid for either all or most of our own college educations, so it wasn't a free ride.

We have 5 degrees among us; 1 engineering, 2 business, 1 music, 1 social science. And, surprise surprise, we're all three of us functioning members of society, with children who appear to be well on their way to being functioning members of society.

Some of what college does is to teach you how to study, learn, and engage new knowledge into your life. If it's only a job-skills endeavor, then it would be narrowly defined. But if it's only a job-skills endeavor, then how on earth did we get computer scientists before there were computer science programs?

Yeah, I wish I'd worked harder, particularly in math. Calculus in college just didn't click, and I blame myself for not trying hard enough. But, ya know -- that was now a long time ago, and I became reasonably numerate with my career.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[weekender 0]

>On the other hand, my parents encouraged us to study what enriched us.


when a degree cost over 150k id rather learn a skill then feel enriched. especially when the unemployement rate for recent grads is double digits.

for the record, i am not that hardline about the arts but its difficult to give a very nuanced answer and make a short post. i know its not so cut and dry, science or arts. this thread is about employers not finding skilled workers. Kallend pointed out its because we seem to not be emphasizing tangible skills in college, whereas, other nations are. i mostly agree with him and that is what i was trying to say. albeit, in a snarky way.

i see your point, fyi. and no way think studying art dooms you to be non productive. im not that black and white but again, its not easy to make a post expressing a complete thought

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

studying art dooms you to be non productive.

I agree

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,171]

Yeah, I'm conflating two topics, and in my own thread no less . That said, I agree that:

too many students take easy classes

we don't emphasize job skills enough

college can cost too much, especially when someone is not thinking about the downstream effects of their choice of college and major

But I also emphatically don't want to see college reduced to a pay-for-job kind of skills training institute. I think we probably have too many colleges/universities striving to be at the top of the research and academic heap, when there's really only space for a few (that's why it's called the top).

Getting rid of some of the proprietary colleges would probably put a dent into some of the highest student loan burdens. Not that they don't deliver, but since they're marketing-based, rather than service-based, the model isn't as much to help the student.

I used to actually "recruit" for a small college that admired the for-profit model. We would pull anyone in, no matter what their level of interest or preparation. All it took was a warm body and the ability to either pay or get a loan/grant. And, as an employee, I was judged based on my grab rate, not the graduation rate. I only lasted about 3 months.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,171]

You -- I need that phlllppt icon with the tongue sticking out

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

One of those problems is a society that mocks and belittles education. People with extensive secondary education are "clueless ivory tower types" who "don't understand the real world." Colleges are "indoctrination mills" that are for snobs. We even have politicians who have come out and said they oppose teaching "Higher Order Thinking Skills" and "critical thinking skills."

Of course, this stuff doesn't matter in the hard sciences like physics or mathematics and does not matter in engineering where indoctrination in equations and the like is the point. Such arguments really are somewhat unimportant in a class on differential equations.

I could counter your point about the outlier right-wing arguments with other arguments about left wing elements, particularly in the humanities. Just last year, Jerry Brown signed a law requiring social studies classes to include gay history in curricula. Sure, the math and science curricula are proving to be unfruitful but this is an issue of greater importance.

We see emphasis placed on matters outside the hard science in schools all the time. Let's not forget that public schools are proving grounds for societal concepts and that part won't go away. Both sides try to move into their political views and the like.

But how often do people argue about the maths and the sciences in high school (evolution aside)? It's not discussed because there aren't votes to be gained by emphasizing math and physics.

Plus the teachers aren't there to teach it, anyway.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,473]

>Of course, this stuff doesn't matter in the hard sciences like physics or mathematics
>and does not matter in engineering where indoctrination in equations and the like is
>the point. Such arguments really are somewhat unimportant in a class on differential
>equations.

I agree that it should not be important - but it is still a big issue. As a personal example, I went to a catholic high school, and when I applied to MIT for early action, they found out and called me into the guidance office to try to talk me out of going to a "secular" college and instead going somewhere that would foster more of my 'spiritual' development. In that case they had alternatives picked out for me (Holy Cross, Notre Dame) so they weren't totally anti-education - but they were certainly anti-secular-technical education.

This kind of thing is echoed by politicians today. One recent criticism of higher education complained that "62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it." That shouldn't matter to someone studying differential equations - but some politicians want to discourage such secular-oriented studies. From the stats that Kallend posted, they may be succeeding.

>But how often do people argue about the maths and the sciences in high school
>(evolution aside)?

The evolution umbrella also covers paleontology, geology, genetics, astronomy etc and thus these are often impacted as well. Climate change is another issue that is often politicized. Several states have already passed laws that explicitly allow climate change and evolution denialism from science teachers. An atmosphere of "the liberal elites want you to believe in this science shit, but I'm here to tell ya that it's all a lie" discourages students from pursuing science-oriented fields.

> It's not discussed because there aren't votes to be gained by emphasizing math and physics.

Unfortunately, there are votes to be gained by denying them.

[kallend 1,679]

Just to be clear, I do not consider math,physics, chemistry etc. to be vocational skills. They are subjects so basic to the functioning of our society that all well educated adults should have a a sound foundation of knowledge in these areas.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

One recent criticism of higher education complained that "62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it."

And it's rarely pointed out that the problem is the faith, not the school.

Quote

some politicians want to discourage such secular-oriented studies

And they are equalled by those who wish to deny religion. The religious battle has two sides. You've got guys like Newdow on the other side. I'm an atheist who has little problem with religion because I don't think I'm affected by it. If religion appears in schools, I don't have a problem with it. Two of my kids are in a Catholic school because I'd prefer that they be exposed to it. Meanwhile, I'll teach them what I know about cosmology and biology and earth sciences because I'd prefer to balance it out.

And thankfully, I am seeing that they are also learning to read and to write.

If they want to be part of the faith, good for them. If not, good for them. They have the exposure to see all sides and make a decision. I did not receive that exposure as a kid.

Quote

The evolution umbrella also covers paleontology, geology, genetics, astronomy etc and thus these are often impacted as well.

Yes. Evolution is a doozy. I specifically exempted it.

Quote

Climate change is another issue that is often politicized.

Yes. I myself see a whole lot of religious characteristics to climate alarmism. There's a whole lot of attribution. A whole lot of doomsday. A whole lot of proselytizing regarding sin. Even descriptions of a natural prescience. Meanwhile, I've looked a lot at it and say, "But what about xxx?"

Judith Curry is not considered heretic for doing the same thing.

Quote

explicitly allow climate change and evolution denialism from science teachers

Interesting link of subjects. Yes, climate change is always happening and always will. Isn't the dispute regarding the causes of climate change and the hypothesized results?

Quote

discourages students from pursuing science-oriented fields.

How many students take easy classes in high school to get a high GPA to increase their chances of going to college? How about the pressure of being involved in AP Biology versus sleeping in?

There are competing atmospheres that seek to disrupt education in reading, writing, math and science. Too many - on both sides - seek to use educators to promote an agenda.

And all the while, losing American dominance in science and engineering.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Bertt 0]

You got that right. Several years ago, at our company's annual meeting, the CEO was talking about the accomplishments in different areas and said that the data processing department had expanded it's storage capacity to x number of gigabytes, "...whatever a gigabyte is."
He was way too cool to know about that nerdy stuff. I can't imagine him saying that the finance department had achieved a certain return on investment, "whatever a return on investment is."
Lee Iacocca, of Chrysler, was quoted as saying he didn't have a computer terminal on his desk because he managed people, not computers. The CEO's with computers on their desks kicked Chrysler's ass.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[billvon 2,473]

> Yes, climate change is always happening and always will. Isn't the dispute regarding
>the causes of climate change and the hypothesized results?

Yes, and are disputes over far more than that. What are the secondary feedback loops, and are they positive or negative? Which will dominate?

But again, that's similar to the arguments creationists use. "There is some dispute over the details of evolution! Therefore we should teach the controversy and not try to indoctrinate children with unthinking rote memorization of evolution." People who advocate for this fall into several categories:

1) People who are really saying "we should be teaching more critical thinking skills." Great, everyone agrees with that - but you still have to teach science based science, and give students the best scientific background you can to let them better question things.

2) People who really, honestly do not understand evolution, and ask questions like "well, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" "why don't skydivers evolve wings if evolution is true?" etc etc. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but needless to say people who do not understand a topic should not set policy on how that topic is taught.

3) The merely religious types feel that pseudo-creationism (i.e intelligent design and its ilk) "gives God a chance" - and they want to give God a chance. Again that's fine but has absolutely no place in public schools.

4) The political types actually use it as a "wedge" to try to end teaching of secular science. (I'm sure you are familiar with the wedge document leaked from the Discovery Institute.) These are unfortunately quite numerous. They have a political goal (growth of their power) and use the schools to try to achieve it.

There's a similar spectrum of people on the climate-change issue. Fortunately most people understand climate change better than they understand evolution; while only 15% of Americans agree with the theory of evolution, 49% agree with the theories behind AGW.

>How many students take easy classes in high school to get a high GPA to
>increase their chances of going to college?

Probably a lot. There are also a lot who take AP classes thinking that will look better on their applications. Unfortunately there are more and more people who either don't care about getting into college, or look for something other than education (i.e. finding an easy college, or a party school etc.)