Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I used to love watching NOVA on PBS. In fact I still record and watch new episodes every Wednesday night, but in the last decade or so, they always wrap the science in a social lecture about how everyone is prejudiced, bigoted, and racist, and they beat you over the head with Global Warming every chance they get.
I'm an IT guy, not a scientist or an engineer, but I think that in trying to attract people-who-don't-like-science to science, they may be pushing people-who-like-science away.
Redirecting a bit from your insights...
1. Too much of modern STEM is "IT". Where are the jobs for physicists or mathematicians, who are not computer programmers, who aren't interested in computer programming, and who actually want to do pencil-and-paper theory? The point being, that we don't have a STEM graduate problem, but instead, a STEM jobs problem.
2. If you think that much of modern science is political, OK, let's stipulate the point. But along similar lines, too much of modern science is mired in business. What percentage of an academic scientist's time is spent in fundraising? Whatever happened to book-smart scientists who can't shake the money-tree? What are their odds of getting tenure?
All good points. So maybe instead of colleges weeding people out of STEM majors (which you support) they should focus on encouraging people into STEM majors. And maybe instead of only encouraging women and minorities into STEM fields, we need to encourage anybody who is interested.
I agree that we should be encouraging those who are interested. The basic problem starts around middle school where we, as a nation, are passively, if not actively discouraging kids from that path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
We have posters in this forum who want to tell their children what their career/job choice should be.
And the title of this post suggests that our nation should tell children what their career/job choice should be.
No, kids should chart their own course to go into careers that will be fulfilling to them, and not be unduly influenced by parents or anyone else. It should be fully their choice as to what they are going to be doing for 30-40 years or more. Of course, parents can and should make suggestions, and, as with many students, teachers or other respected non-family adults may set examples that would make them consider certain fields. Even our government might provide incentives to get young people to consider particular fields of study. But it's the kid's ultimate choice what they will do for the rest of their lives.
The title says "inspiring" not "telling." Not sure how you translate "inspiring" that way. Of course, kids should be free to choose. But they should have a full information set to make that choice. And more importantly, they should not be discouraged. They should learn how to think like a scientist while still young before they get discouraged. If a kid gets through the social and academic discouragement in middle and high school, they might have a chance at a STEM education.
Consider: More than 50 percent of teachers in mathematics (72 percent) and science (55 percent) lacked a major in their main assignment. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015815.pdf (most recent data file I could access in a quick look). It's worse in some sub-fields of science education. 83% of middle school physical science teachers lacked a degree in a physical science. In high school that figure was only slightly better at 54%.
The science related field with the highest degree holders was biology at 74% being the least mathematically intense of the primary college STEM degrees. Which follows along with the fear of math.
Hence, if many students already have a math phobia in middle school, and many STEM teachers themselves avoid math intensive courses, we will be losing those students from STEM interest before they complete high school. That is part, but not all, of what I called passively discouraging.
1. Too much of modern STEM is "IT". Where are the jobs for physicists or mathematicians, who are not computer programmers, who aren't interested in computer programming, and who actually want to do pencil-and-paper theory? The point being, that we don't have a STEM graduate problem, but instead, a STEM jobs problem.
There are a lot of jobs for those fields, not necessarily in academia. We have a hard time hiring recent grads because the competition is so stiff.
I wanted to do research in the biological field, specifically photobiology. It was the idea of endless fundraising and relatively low pay/limited earnings that put me off. It wasn't because someone didn't expose me or encourage me enough. If I was encouraged with cold cash and grants, well, I'd probably be researching something with little (apparent) economic value (so far).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Redirecting a bit from your insights...
1. Too much of modern STEM is "IT". Where are the jobs for physicists or mathematicians, who are not computer programmers, who aren't interested in computer programming, and who actually want to do pencil-and-paper theory? The point being, that we don't have a STEM graduate problem, but instead, a STEM jobs problem.
Bolded: nail on head
As for programming, I'm not sure to what depth/volume of programming you are asserting makes up STEM, but basic programming/computers is now part and parcel of STEM, and is the contemporary vehicle of "pencil-and-paper theory".
If you are saying that STEM is just a bunch of economically-driven app development rather than genuine scientific development, then I 100% agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
2. If you think that much of modern science is political, OK, let's stipulate the point. But along similar lines, too much of modern science is mired in business. What percentage of an academic scientist's time is spent in fundraising? Whatever happened to book-smart scientists who can't shake the money-tree? What are their odds of getting tenure?
Yep. In my 3rd-grade understanding of history, scientific progress is not 100% driven by economics anyway, but just as often by governments and aristocrats seeking scientific development for its own sake. Even when for military/empire domination purposes, it transcends the "sell to consumer" paradigm of scientific development that is entrenched in modern culture. This paradigm works very well, but it is not without flaws.
We have posters in this forum who want to tell their children what their career/job choice should be.
And the title of this post suggests that our nation should tell children what their career/job choice should be.
No, kids should chart their own course to go into careers that will be fulfilling to them, and not be unduly influenced by parents or anyone else. It should be fully their choice as to what they are going to be doing for 30-40 years or more. Of course, parents can and should make suggestions, and, as with many students, teachers or other respected non-family adults may set examples that would make them consider certain fields. Even our government might provide incentives to get young people to consider particular fields of study. But it's the kid's ultimate choice what they will do for the rest of their lives.
Yes, but children do need to learn the full implication of their major and career choices. It’s not just about what will interest them academically for 4 years, but about what lifestyle they can expect. Somebody who chooses to major in art history might not have as secure a lifestyle as some other majors. Some careers will involve long hours. Some will involve the need to travel frequently and at a moment’s notice. Some will require having a certain image. Some will involve the need to frequently relocate. Some will require the need to be unemployed for a while. Some willl require a life of poverty. But people need to learn those realities before choosing a major. That’s one reason why I’ve said maybe people need to work for a few years before going to college. If nothing else, you can decide if the lifestyles of your superiors would be acceptable to you or not.
Public schools do a poor job on so many things, and this is just another one of them. Schools rarely teach students about lifetime earnings potential of various types of careers and how to prepare for them, what careers will be in-demand, the types of specialized education people are likely to need to pursue those careers, etc.
That photo that you attached is completely unrealistic! The vast majorities of science majors do not start their own tech company. And, the vast majority of businesses fail, and don’t make tons of money. And, owning a business is hard work. It’s not just a constant vacation like that picture suggests. Most STEM majors struggle in their careers just like anybody else.
1. Too much of modern STEM is "IT". Where are the jobs for physicists or mathematicians, who are not computer programmers, who aren't interested in computer programming, and who actually want to do pencil-and-paper theory? The point being, that we don't have a STEM graduate problem, but instead, a STEM jobs problem.
2. If you think that much of modern science is political, OK, let's stipulate the point. But along similar lines, too much of modern science is mired in business. What percentage of an academic scientist's time is spent in fundraising? Whatever happened to book-smart scientists who can't shake the money-tree? What are their odds of getting tenure?
That is a good point, even outside of academia. Most STEM people are expected to be managers, even though most STEM people don’t like management and are lousy managers.
Great projects for a rainy day. We purchased international memberships to science centers around the world. There are some great ones. (Nearly all are 'hand's-on'). We would frequently fly to SF for a week at the Exploratorium (off season / mid week). We hired retired profs to teach at weeklong science camps (on location, Observatory, fossil beds, marine science center, Mt St Helens, wherever we happened to want to learn.
A pilot friend in Taiwan is volunteering to build an entire fluid dynamics outdoor hands-on lab for an elementary school next to his rural home in a fishing village. (very applicable)
A neighbor in WA is building a science training semi trailer and another vocational career exposure semi trailer.
Physics is so fun!
One of my kids was into high angle rope rescue and fire fighting, so had all the formulas for pulleys, and pump pressures and hose pressure loss. His many certifications paid off well for summer wildfire fighting gigs.
Another kid was crew on Alaska fishing boat, so got a lot of practical Physics applications.
Sailing every day while living on an island in Canada was also good Physics training.
The laws and principles of physics are so common and obvious to demonstrate. Newton was at our dinner table nearly everyday. 'Learning to learn' (as a lifelong journey).
Good luck.
Don't let a few sour-pusses detour your quest and mission. inspiring youth
That is a good point, even outside of academia. Most STEM people are expected to be managers, even though most STEM people don’t like management and are lousy managers.
Or have to pursue an MBA to make more money rather than an advanced degree in engineering.
My spouse works as an engineer at a fortune 100 company (50?) that for decades until about 20 years ago was constantly innovating and creating new products through long term investment in research and engineering. Then, they started hiring MBAs from the outside for leadership positions and stopped paying researchers and engineers well unless the got their MBA and moved into management rather than continue in research and development. The result was losing a lot of the innovation (and profits) as the researchers and engineers fled the company.
Now, the company is shell of what it was 20 years ago and spends more resources dealing with lawsuits and other poor decisions made by the wonderkids with MBAs than they do creating and innovating. They are now selling off the innovative and profitable parts of the company.
We have posters in this forum who want to tell their children what their career/job choice should be.
And the title of this post suggests that our nation should tell children what their career/job choice should be.
No, kids should chart their own course to go into careers that will be fulfilling to them, and not be unduly influenced by parents or anyone else. It should be fully their choice as to what they are going to be doing for 30-40 years or more. Of course, parents can and should make suggestions, and, as with many students, teachers or other respected non-family adults may set examples that would make them consider certain fields. Even our government might provide incentives to get young people to consider particular fields of study. But it's the kid's ultimate choice what they will do for the rest of their lives.
Because not everyone can be a scientist or an engineer or a doctor--and some people will need to fill the less desirable, lower paid jobs--I ultimately agree with you. And, ultimately, trying to force your kids to do something that they aren't otherwise interested in is a recipe for disaster in many ways.
That said, I sit back and look at those who heeded my advice--to include family members--and those who didn't in terms of college degree programs as a means of charting a particular path. I stressed the importance of STEM to one of my cousins numerous times during his college studies. I said even if you don't major in STEM, at least take some core STEM concentration courses and go after certain certs, etc. Didn't listen and decided to do a social science program. He's not one year removed from his BS degree and is working as a waiter in the DC area earning significantly less than his colleagues who did major in STEM.
Contrast this with two other cousins (one who is wrapping up his senior year at Columbia and the other who just started at Northwestern), both of whom are majoring/focusing in STEM. The senior already has lucrative job offers lined up but is considering business school. The other is on the right glide slope that will increase significantly the chance of financial success down the line.
All of this is to say do what you want, but don't come crying to me and others who are more successful that you need student loan relief, that you're struggling to make a living, etc., when you chose a certain education/career path. Decisions have consequences.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
