H.A.--State students last in science - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 25, 2006

H.A.--State students last in science

Date: May 25, 2006

Yes, but they get good grades.

Date: May 25, 2006

This is troubling, but not surprising. It doesmake me wonder if pouring lots of money into USM's college of science and technology is the best move, especially since we seem to attract Mississippi students. I know that most of my Anthropology 101 students really don't even understand what, in science, "hypothesis" or "theory" means. They think it just means "guess."

Amy Young

Date: May 25, 2006

Amy Young wrote:

This is troubling, but not surprising. It doesmake me wonder if pouring lots of money into USM's college of science and technology is the best move, especially since we seem to attract Mississippi students. I know that most of my Anthropology 101 students really don't even understand what, in science, "hypothesis" or "theory" means. They think it just means "guess." Amy Young

Amy, I think our students would have done better, but the test were biased. They didn't allow questions on Creation Science or Intelligent Design.

People in Liberal Arts just don't understand, the money going into CoST isn't to improve education. It's to get more grant money into USM. Grant Funding is SFT's "economic development" of USM. Always was-always will be. (Mrs. Drews understood. )

Date: May 26, 2006

C.L. OPINION--Science: Student achievement nation's future

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060526/OPINION01/605260320/1008/OPINION

Date: May 26, 2006

There are three "R's" - reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic. Science demands them all!

Not only this comment but about 2500 years of anecdotal evidence suggests that to make an impact, scientists have to be good writers who understand the wider culture to which they must communicate their findings. That kind of competence goes far beyond eighth grade.

Gosh, even science benefits from the liberal arts.

Date: May 26, 2006

Jameela Lares wrote:

There are three "R's" - reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic. Science demands them all! Not only this comment but about 2500 years of anecdotal evidence suggests that to make an impact, scientists have to be good writers who understand the wider culture to which they must communicate their findings. That kind of competence goes far beyond eighth grade. Gosh, even science benefits from the liberal arts.

Jameela, please make an appointment with President Thames and explain this to him.

Date: May 26, 2006

The press is saying that scores across the country have declined. I wonder if "No Child Left Behind" policies have had an effect: science is not one of the tested subjects.

Date: May 26, 2006

Joker wrote:

Jameela Lares wrote: There are three "R's" - reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic. Science demands them all! Not only this comment but about 2500 years of anecdotal evidence suggests that to make an impact, scientists have to be good writers who understand the wider culture to which they must communicate their findings. That kind of competence goes far beyond eighth grade. Gosh, even science benefits from the liberal arts. Jameela, please make an appointment with President Thames and explain this to him.

don't see any "ristory" or "rolymers" in that list of R's

Date: May 27, 2006

Acquiring an education requires discipline and focus. Most of us had discipline imposed from outside sources and the focus followed. It was understood that learning was not fun, but rather was work that we were expected to do. Much of the external pressure to learn no longer exists. That external pressure came from parents, teachers, schools, churches, etc. and the child’s feelings were mostly immaterial. From observation, always an imperfect measure, I do not see much change in the future. Indeed, there is a large subset of people in the U.S. who have no interest in becoming educated or trained. In addition, we have large streams of Hispanic immigrants who do not have a history of valuing education, especially the males. (See Victor Davis Hansen's book Mexifornia: A State of Becoming ). Perhaps there are people who are more optimistic about the future of general education in the U.S. who can make a case that things are not as bad as I believe.

Date: May 27, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Acquiring an education requires discipline and focus. ... In addition, we have large streams of Hispanic immigrants who do not have a history of valuing education, especially the males. (See Victor Davis Hansen's book Mexifornia: A State of Becoming ). Perhaps there are people who are more optimistic about the future of general education in the U.S. who can make a case that things are not as bad as I believe.

I disagree. Acquiring an education requires opportunity, talent, motivation, and a love of learning new things. It's hard to love rote memorization and standardized tests.

I am Hispanic. In fact, I won a scholarship from the Hispanic Scholarship Fund when I was at USM. This was when I began to wonder what being "Hispanic" means. I must be an odd case. But certainly I am not as odd as Jorge Luis Borges.... What is your experience with Hispanics?

I imagine that many of the Mexican immigrants you refer to come from the lowest socio-economic class in that country--much like the African-Americans in the USA but far far worse. Most people in Latin America, that I have met, have to pay for schooling and books. It is difficult to pay for a book when you are selling hand-made tortillas to feed your family because all the land that you used to farm has been bought up by companies from more developed nations. Without the basic needs such as food and safety fulfilled, (Gosh! I won't even mention the water!) how can one focus on the luxury items such as education?

Date: May 27, 2006

I disagree. Acquiring an education requires opportunity, talent, motivation, and a love of learning new things. It's hard to love rote memorization and standardized tests.

First, do not confuse individual analysis with group analysis. Education in general requires a cultural, an environment, and pressure from family and society. In case of Mexico, there is are both cultural and economic issues involved in the low education level. Mexico is a third world country because it is hopelessly corrupt. While much of it is corrupt government, part of it is also in the culture. Mexico has abundant resources and citizens that have a strong work ethic. It does not and has not had an emphasis on education. The corruption, mostly in government, stymies the progress that could be made by citizens that would take advantage of opportunities if they existed.

Your statement about what education requires is quite narrow and not accurate. One of the most effective education programs that exists is in the armed forces of the U.S. It has been effective for many decades with and with out the draft, and it happens without much love.

Date: May 27, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Your statement about what education requires is quite narrow and not accurate. One of the most effective education programs that exists is in the armed forces of the U.S. It has been effective for many decades with and with out the draft, and it happens without much love.

Love for one's homeland is a powerful force.

m.m.

"Does nobody understand?"
~~ James Joyce, writer, d. 1941

Date: May 27, 2006

This topic should not suprise anyone, not only is Mississippi the poorest state in the Union but it is the victim of another anti science force. The Southern Baptists are at their upcoming meeting voting to disengage as a community from the public schools setting up an alternative Bible based educational system. One of the major drivers for this comes from their conflict with modern science - in the form of evolution.

We are but a generation away from the insanity of our past, and but a generation away from having biblical madrassas producing Christian versions of the the Mujahadein of our future.

Date: May 29, 2006

Obviousman wrote:

This topic should not suprise anyone, not only is Mississippi the poorest state in the Union but it is the victim of another anti science force. The Southern Baptists are at their upcoming meeting voting to disengage as a community from the public schools setting up an alternative Bible based educational system. One of the major drivers for this comes from their conflict with modern science - in the form of evolution.
We are but a generation away from the insanity of our past, and but a generation away from having biblical madrassas producing Christian versions of the the Mujahadein of our future.

If two parts of society are not speaking to each other, the answer is dialogue, not demonization. It would appear that both sides are finding fault with the other; for the good of society, they need to work out some common ground. Either side can start the dialogue.

Slightly off-topic: see the Hogwarts dinosaur.

JL

Date: May 29, 2006

Jameela Lares wrote:

Obviousman wrote: This topic should not suprise anyone, not only is Mississippi the poorest state in the Union but it is the victim of another anti science force. The Southern Baptists are at their upcoming meeting voting to disengage as a community from the public schools setting up an alternative Bible based educational system. One of the major drivers for this comes from their conflict with modern science - in the form of evolution. We are but a generation away from the insanity of our past, and but a generation away from having biblical madrassas producing Christian versions of the the Mujahadein of our future. If two parts of society are not speaking to each other, the answer is dialogue, not demonization. It would appear that both sides are finding fault with the other; for the good of society, they need to work out some common ground. Either side can start the dialogue. Slightly off-topic: see the Hogwarts dinosaur. JL

I think the problem is more complex. Most Americans have difficulty seeing the value of mathematics or science education. It is not unusual to hear people say that they don't see how math beyond simple arithmetic will be of use in their lives. They do not understand how scientists contribute to society, or why it is important as a citizen and consumer to understand basic science and the scientific process.

Most folks do not understand, or care about, the contribution of math and science to everyday common events--whether it be a visit to the doctor or to a car mechanic. This can have costs both to the individual and society at large (for example, overutilization or inappropriate use of medical resources such as antibiotocs or imaging technology; overvaluing pre-K early reading interventions).

Beyond the pragmatic, very few people see any value in learning math and science for their own sake. However, both illuminate and add beauty to life-just as great literature, art, or religion give meaning to existence. Perhaps it is our fault, in part, as scientists--math and science can seem dense and unapproachable and the domain of cultish specialists--not much different than warlocks and alchemists.

One approach to education I use is to have students read the works of some of the very talented non-scientists who write about science (such as Malcolm Gladwell).

Date: May 29, 2006

Godless Liberal wrote:

I think the problem is more complex. Most Americans have difficulty seeing the value of mathematics or science education. It is not unusual to hear people say that they don't see how math beyond simple arithmetic will be of use in their lives. They do not understand how scientists contribute to society, or why it is important as a citizen and consumer to understand basic science and the scientific process. Most folks do not understand, or care about, the contribution of math and science to everyday common events--whether it be a visit to the doctor or to a car mechanic. This can have costs both to the individual and society at large (for example, overutilization or inappropriate use of medical resources such as antibiotocs or imaging technology; overvaluing pre-K early reading interventions). Beyond the pragmatic, very few people see any value in learning math and science for their own sake. However, both illuminate and add beauty to life-just as great literature, art, or religion give meaning to existence. Perhaps it is our fault, in part, as scientists--math and science can seem dense and unapproachable and the domain of cultish specialists--not much different than warlocks and alchemists. One approach to education I use is to have students read the works of some of the very talented non-scientists who write about science (such as Malcolm Gladwell).

While I agree with "Godless Liberal", I go one step further and to more basic mental operations. Math and science use reason/logic at high level. It is the antithesis to "faith". It leads to questioning that threatens all faith base systems, unless the believers adopt a mental state that protects them from this threat. That mental state blocks the development of the logic required by math and science. I think this is the reason for the culture clash and lack of dialogue to which Jameela referred.

Date: May 29, 2006

I recall reading that Einstein once asked a poet to describe to him the process by which he created a poem. After listening to the poet explain, Einstein declared, "Yes, this is exactly how I develop a theory."

Date: May 29, 2006

Voter wrote:

I recall reading that Einstein once asked a poet to describe to him the process by which he created a poem. After listening to the poet explain, Einstein declared, "Yes, this is exactly how I develop a theory."

I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make here, voter. Granted Einstein was a scientist and he said things. To further explain my point, there are levels of logic that can be achieved through math that is not attainable through a language, such as English. Ordinary language is just not precise enough. (Of course you could spell out each math step with a precise language. That is what math is.)

The Enistein quote you mentioned may have been: "Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience. "

See http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Albert_Einstein/

Date: May 29, 2006

Athesit wrote:

Math and science use reason/logic at high level. It is the antithesis to "faith". It leads to questioning that threatens all faith base systems, unless the believers adopt a mental state that protects them from this threat. That mental state blocks the development of the logic required by math and science. I think this is the reason for the culture clash and lack of dialogue to which Jameela referred.

Actually, science is more of a logical process rather than the use of logic. To be a scientist does not exclude having faith, because science and faith are two different things. Science relies on empirical evidence and matters of philosophy usually are not observable. An often used stereotype used in media is a the scientist who will only believe what they can see, but this only applies to what they would report in a scientific journal. Therefore, science does does not necessarily cause a person to loose their faith nor does having faith prevent you from becoming s scientist...at least no more than studying religion or philosophy could lead a person to loosing their faith.

I recently read an interesting book called Misquoting Jesus, about translation problems in the New Testament. The first chapter told the story of the author/professor who went to Bible college and believed that the Bible was the word of God, only to learn that we did not know what the original words of the Bible was. He then began the scientific process of determining what the Bible really said. So it was the extreme study of the Bible and trying to reconcile the parts that do not make sense that lead him to question his faith (or at least back off from being a true fundamentalist Christian).

I would argue that good study of philosophy (which I categorize religion) requires more logic than science. I share an office wall with a philosophy professor and I often hear him working through problems with student using very sound logic, while I often find myself telling students, trust me, that is what the formula will give me and to prove it to you will require graduate level skills. Now that I write this, maybe that is the problem. Try explaining to someone that their life will be better if they live by "do unto others..." does not require much. People can easily see that, they can make connections in their mind, imagine scenarios where this works. On the other hand, the connections in science often require higher education to reach. It took me years of physics and calculus before I started to make complex connections between abstract formulas a the real world.

We often tell science students in science to have faith in what we are telling them. We can show them fossil records and show them how an animal might have evolved, but we don't have a 15 minute in-class experiment that can show evolution (I was just trying to imagine a teacher in front of a class shooting gamma radiation at a fish tank saying, "Now the fish has lungs and with another shot, poof, now the fish has legs."). Instead students are told to trust me and memorize. Trust me that animals evolve this way, trust me that this formula would work in a world with no friction or air resistance, trust me that the electrons are moving in this manner, or better yet, trust me that this end result will happen even though we don't have any evidence that shows how or why this would work (which I run into more and more).

I have rambled on long enough. My bottom line is that science is more of a process rather than logic and it is easy to keep the two separate (if you cannot "see" it, you can not use empiricism, and therefore must use faith). Also, even if you only studied the Bible, it could still cause you to question your faith.

Date: May 29, 2006

Having read the previous posts, I am about commit some sociology. My casual empiricism based on experience suggests that the preponderance of liberals I have known were not very good at math nor the logic that understanding math brings to bear on problem solving. Math is not compatible with feelings and concepts of how things "should" be. Math is very compatible with reality.

Date: May 29, 2006

believing scientist wrote:

Actually, science is more of a logical process rather than the use of logic. To be a scientist does not exclude having faith, because science and faith are two different things...

I fully agree, as a scientist I have my Beliefs and attend the Church of MY choice. Where I take issue is when Faith tries to exclude science, especially when done so as to exclude others right to believe (or not believe) what they choose while at the same time respecting and appreciating scientific method.

Date: May 29, 2006

Godless Liberal wrote:

I think the problem is more complex. Most Americans have difficulty seeing the value of mathematics or science education. It is not unusual to hear people say that they don't see how math beyond simple arithmetic will be of use in their lives. They do not understand how scientists contribute to society, or why it is important as a citizen and consumer to understand basic science and the scientific process. Most folks do not understand, or care about, the contribution of math and science to everyday common events--whether it be a visit to the doctor or to a car mechanic. This can have costs both to the individual and society at large (for example, overutilization or inappropriate use of medical resources such as antibiotocs or imaging technology; overvaluing pre-K early reading interventions). Beyond the pragmatic, very few people see any value in learning math and science for their own sake. However, both illuminate and add beauty to life-just as great literature, art, or religion give meaning to existence. Perhaps it is our fault, in part, as scientists--math and science can seem dense and unapproachable and the domain of cultish specialists--not much different than warlocks and alchemists. One approach to education I use is to have students read the works of some of the very talented non-scientists who write about science (such as Malcolm Gladwell).

from a little bunker in Germany:

"And finally, as it is not enough, before commencing to rebuild the house in which we live, that it be pulled down, and materials and builders provided, or that we engage in the work ourselves, according to a plan which we have beforehand carefully drawn out, but as it is likewise necessary that we be furnished with some other house in which we may live commodiously during the operations, so that I might not remain irresolute in my actions, while my reason compelled me to suspend my judgement, and that I might not be prevented from living thenceforward in the greatest possible felicity, I formed a provisory code of morals, composed of three or four maxims, with which I am desirous to make you acquainted. "

Rene Descartes _Discourse on Method_

http://www.literature.org/authors/descartes-rene/reason-discourse/chapter-03.html

Date: May 29, 2006

believing scientist wrote:

I share an office wall with a philosophy professor and I often hear him working through problems with student using very sound logic, while I often find myself telling students, trust me, that is what the formula will give me and to prove it to you will require graduate level skills. Now that I write this, maybe that is the problem. Try explaining to someone that their life will be better if they live by "do unto others..." does not require much. ...

We often tell science students in science to have faith in what we are telling them. We can show them fossil records and show them how an animal might have evolved, but we don't have a 15 minute in-class experiment that can show evolution (I was just trying to imagine a teacher in front of a class shooting gamma radiation at a fish tank saying, "Now the fish has lungs and with another shot, poof, now the fish has legs."). Instead students are told to trust me and memorize. Trust me that animals evolve this way, trust me that this formula would work in a world with no friction or air resistance, trust me that the electrons are moving in this manner, or better yet, trust me that this end result will happen even though we don't have any evidence that shows how or why this would work (which I run into more and more). I have rambled on long enough. My bottom line is that science is more of a process rather than logic and it is easy to keep the two separate (if you cannot "see" it, you can not use empiricism, and therefore must use faith). Also, even if you only studied the Bible, it could still cause you to question your faith.

Are we speaking of the same thing? I'm discussing the search for truth. If someone admits they "chose" to believe something, then they have no reason/logic to say it is "truth". It wasn't arrived at by sound logic with supporting evidence, but rather was a choice to attain an emotion. If science/logic doesn't supply the answers, then we can say "we don't know" rather than make up stories.

I would never tell science students what to believe. I supply the evidence, tell them the math process they can follow (if they have the time), inform them of the best scientific theory that explains the observed phenomena. Where does faith enter this process? Your explanation above is a great reason that real laboratory science should be required of all college students. Trouble is, so few can do it, we have watered it down to telling students what to "believe".

Date: May 29, 2006

Obviousman wrote:

I fully agree, as a scientist I have my Beliefs and attend the Church of MY choice. Where I take issue is when Faith tries to exclude science, especially when done so as to exclude others right to believe (or not believe) what they choose while at the same time respecting and appreciating scientific method.

I agree, Obviousman. What I take issue with is people saying what is "truth". When you know your belief was "your choice", a subjective action, why state what you believe is true? In fact religions state each has the "absolute truth" and yet there are thousands of different religions.

On the other hand science is objective and a peer reviewed consensus, except for the frontier areas still under dispute. Yet scientific "truth" is relative to our current knowledge and will change as new evidence is acquired.

Which group is lying to the public or at least using the language in decieving ways?

Date: May 29, 2006

On the other hand science is objective and a peer reviewed consensus, except for the frontier areas still under dispute.

"Science" may be objective, but scientific beliefs are not. Unfortunately, many public actions are taken based on scientific beliefs that are very questionable or flat wrong. Two that come to mind are global warming issues, and the forest management issues on Federal lands. Many people want drastic legislation that reduces our freedoms based on junk science. Those who are junk science zealots and those who are religious zealots are like two peas in a pod. No amount of information and/or evidence will convince members of either group. Unfortunate for our freedoms and our property rights, the junk science zealots are both more likely to try to get laws passed that harm others. Indeed, the junk science groups are much less respectful of individual's property rights than the religious zealots.

Date: May 29, 2006

Cossack wrote:

On the other hand science is objective and a peer reviewed consensus, except for the frontier areas still under dispute. "Science" may be objective, but scientific beliefs are not.

Unfortunately, many public actions are taken based on scientific beliefs that are very questionable or flat wrong. Two that come to mind are global warming issues, and the forest management issues on Federal lands. Many people want drastic legislation that reduces our freedoms based on junk science. Those who are junk science zealots and those who are religious zealots are like two peas in a pod. No amount of information and/or evidence will convince members of either group. Unfortunate for our freedoms and our property rights, the junk science zealots are both more likely to try to get laws passed that harm others. Indeed, the junk science groups are much less respectful of individual's property rights than the religious zealots.

The global warming issue sure gets complicated, Cossack. The words "global warming" needs to be clearly defined in my opinion. For example, one aspect of an increase of polar temps is a change in ocean currents that keep northern Europe warm. If the Gulf Stream is altered, England will have a cold time of it. People will point to this as evidence that global warming isn't happening. Since it is a very important issue for some businesses, you can expect a political cloud of misinformation on this issue with terms like "liberal" and "conservative" thrown about to impede the logic and promote emotion. Of course, someone will throw out the "Capitalism" word so it will be unpatriotic to question the some positions.

I notice how you tried to get the discussion onto this political issue earlier when you posted:

"My casual empiricism based on experience suggests that the preponderance of liberals I have known were not very good at math nor the logic that understanding math brings to bear on problem solving. " However, nobody responded to that post.

Date: May 29, 2006

However, nobody responded to that post.

Activity on this Board slows down over holidays.

Date: May 29, 2006

Cossack wrote:

However, nobody responded to that post.

Activity on this Board slows down over holidays.

I will tell "Off the Plantation" that you miss him/her.

Date: May 30, 2006

Athesit wrote:

While I agree with "Godless Liberal", I go one step further and to more basic mental operations. Math and science use reason/logic at high level. It is the antithesis to "faith". It leads to questioning that threatens all faith base systems, unless the believers adopt a mental state that protects them from this threat. That mental state blocks the development of the logic required by math and science. I think this is the reason for the culture clash and lack of dialogue to which Jameela referred.

atheist,

can you site any references?

just curious.