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.
Well, in English and many other languages, the word "you" does not always refer to the person the author is talking too...especially in written language.
I said "you" in that post but was not referring to you in particular.
Oh, but, it did mean me because your post was directed to me and no one else. You have demonstrated that you have an excuse for whatever is said about you and I am aware you are in need of having the last word, so.... next?
while i am sure most of it can be attributed to personalitly, motivation, left brain/right brain etc... I am sure a large reason too is just the way it is taught. Chemistry, math above college algebra can be pretty dense but I assume that if you have an awsome profesor, someone who is motivated, someone is willing to go over a concept, a formula more than ONCE (yes I know it is hard to believe but not everyone gets a concept explained just once) in class-that will go a large way to making math and science doable. Improve the way science and math is taught then we can go figure out shortcomings from there.
Another thing can we please make science labs not suck? Please I mean serisouly, TAs, profesors out there- lab is suppose to be when science comes alive, where all that dry boring lecture and theory actually happens, where the student actually get to see the text in action. Instead what lab is, is rush rush rush rush from one experiment to the other because you only have 3 hours and lab is only once a week and now I can't come in Weds to make up the monday lab because I have class. And god have mercy on your soul if you fall behind in a lab-truly- i pray for you.
My micro lab, i actually found somewhat interesting, spreading bacteria on the culture, coming back next week and that cool feeling of seeing a colony "magically" pop up. Seeing what types of growth on agar, blood etc... Except for the fact that micro lab was: Come in, do 4 labs for today, then check up on the 4 cultures we put in last week. So instead of enjoying and really learning, it was rush, rush rush, I got to finish, I don't even know what I am doing, I just need to finish so I can fill in the lab report.
In contrast my anatomy lab- we had one experiment for the day, one dissection etc... we took our time, we actually got to examine and appreciate the sheep heart, the sheep brain, the eyeball-we actaully got to see the lens the cornea- instead of RUSH RUSH RUSH, got to fill out the all mighty labroatry sheet!
-We want people to be interested in Science- hint don't make lab expereince suck. Nothing chases away enthusaism for science faster than terrible lab expereinces.
+1. I hated my labs, mainly because of the rush to get the work done and, at least in the Physics Dept at my first school, the equipment sucked. Much of it didn't work. When I transferred to Oregon State, they had most of their labs as computer applications, my Optics class labs and experiments were all on computers. We didn't have to waste time trying to learn how the machines worked when many times they were broken. We did need to learn how to set up an experiment, why we were doing it, what we expected to happen, and compare that with what did happen. Far more interesting and useful....
A typical science class in college does not let you write a lot of papers.
You do projects and take exams.
Yes, it is either right or wrong, so you are either good or bad.
It depends. For example, at my university everyone had to take at least two semesters of science as part of the general education requirements. We were required to take one 4-credit lab science course, and the other could be a lab or a non-lab science course.
I took History of Science as my non-lab science, and I wrote a long term paper. I can't remember the subject now, but I received an A on the paper. I know that paper would never have received an A in an English class. I also had a written final exam. My History of Science professor was a lovely man.
My lab class also had written papers assigned.
I was just glad that I didn't have to take a second lab class. My lab science class was in Geology, and it was a miserable waste of a summer. I loathe multiple choice exams, and my Geology professor was an SOB and tried to make the tests as confusing as possible.
Hello, Everyone! I'm new to this forum but very eager to hear your thoughts about mathematics and the sciences. Currently, I'm undertaking an investigation in my university rhetoric class to compare left/right-brained methods of thinking and the relative inequalities existing therein. I appreciate any insights you might have!
---
Each person is endowed with intrinsic talents in this life so that he or she may share their blessings to benefit the greater society. That much I believe is true; I need only look at those around me for verification.
I will never be as patient as my mother, a nurse, in an emergency room. I will never have the singing capacity as one of my closest, Broadway-bound friends does. I will never deliver a sales pitch quite like my brother can. I will never spell as well as my father does. I could only hope to have the humor of my co-workers or the ability to read a short story aloud with the gusto of my grandparents. The list could go on and on...
Despite my inherent lacking in these areas, I could read and write mathematics, relishing in its beautiful simplicity for hours at a time.
That talent made no difference, however, when I practically failed the first quarter of my English II class in high school, leaving me anything but overjoyed.
I guess in hindsight the subject never called to me in the same way mathematics did nor did I speak in the same tone as I did with mathematics. Consequently, I found myself in blurs of confusion, questioning whether I would ever need to know the deeper meanings of The Scarlet Letter or To Kill a Mockingbird in my life.
But my teacher never gave up on my sad case. No matter what I said about the superfluous nature of English, he would smile, laugh, stare at me while I stood looking at him in disbelief, and then proceed to add another assignment to my already long homework list. At first, I thought it was teacher abuse, but I was proven incorrect.
He was challenging me to look beyond the petty details that I so abhored, and I eventually came out of that class with a fresh understanding of English and, more importantly, a new admiration for those pursuing it as a career.
Herein, I think lies the problem with science and mathematics. Students are discouraged to enjoy either subject at a young age because of the experiences of their older siblings and/or their parents. As a result, many of those students bring preconceived notions (similar to those I had about English) to the classroom: "Mathematics is an over-complicated way to communicate unaffectionate or unappealing abstractions, and science is a promoter of such slander through its numerous physical principles that in and of themselves appear as just more abstractions." A number of teachers respond to these student doubts with the all-too-familiar phrases: "Just learn this for the final exam," or "just read the textbook." It is teaching up to standards like this that, while noble in its quest for equal educational attainment for all, has turned away far too many young Americans from the prospects of the sciences and mathematics.
I find that the pace in the classroom should never be on auto-pilot mode, where passing the class and acquiring a set of determined skills are key; rather, the classroom should be set at the pace most appropriate for giving students a challenge and inevitable appreciation for the subjects being studied.
Partly, I think it's the way that it is taught. Math, especially, is taught in a disconnected way that really makes no sense to most people. I got fairly decent test scores and grades in math classes in school, but I never really understood the underlying concepts at all. I got by because i memorized A LOT.
It's been a decade since I've taken a math class. I don't remember anything that I memorized, but I took an ACT practice test last month and got the same ACT score in math that I got in high school. This time, I was looking at the problems in a completely different way. Unlike when I was in high school, I started to see what the hell this stuff really meant. I worked out problems by intuition, basically. And ended up with a decent ACT score even thought I remembered nothing that I had actually learned in school.
As far as science, I have no problem with biology. But I feel as though I almost have a handicap when I try to learn more hard sciences like physics. I know I could learn it, but it takes so much more effort to barely comprehend it. Most of this is because I really have absolutely no personal interest in understanding this stuff for whatever reason. Besides that, I tend to comprehend and retain things that I think about often (well, duh, so does everyone). In my day to day life, I think about tons of random things that apply to English, social studies, and biological sciences. But definitely not physics.
There are a bazillion things in this world that I really want to know and comprehend on a deep level. The reality is that I will never have all the time to learn and master the subjects I'm really interested in, so why bother with something I'm not so interested in...like physics!?
Partly, I think it's the way that it is taught. Math, especially, is taught in a disconnected way that really makes no sense to most people. I got fairly decent test scores and grades in math classes in school, but I never really understood the underlying concepts at all. I got by because i memorized A LOT.
It's been a decade since I've taken a math class. I don't remember anything that I memorized, but I took an ACT practice test last month and got the same ACT score in math that I got in high school. This time, I was looking at the problems in a completely different way. Unlike when I was in high school, I started to see what the hell this stuff really meant. I worked out problems by intuition, basically. And ended up with a decent ACT score even thought I remembered nothing that I had actually learned in school.
As far as science, I have no problem with biology. But I feel as though I almost have a handicap when I try to learn more hard sciences like physics. I know I could learn it, but it takes so much more effort to barely comprehend it. Most of this is because I really have absolutely no personal interest in understanding this stuff for whatever reason. Besides that, I tend to comprehend and retain things that I think about often (well, duh, so does everyone). In my day to day life, I think about tons of random things that apply to English, social studies, and biological sciences. But definitely not physics.
There are a bazillion things in this world that I really want to know and comprehend on a deep level. The reality is that I will never have all the time to learn and master the subjects I'm really interested in, so why bother with something I'm not so interested in...like physics!?
I really appreciate the document; it's an excellent find!
I totally empathize with you in that I have no desire to learn certain subjects and, therefore, tend not to care as much about my performance in those courses. However, isn't it an objective for schools to promote well-rounded students who have solid backgrounds in every field? Should it not be a priority to understand each other and appreciate what each of our jobs contribute to society after we graduate?
On a more personal basis, do you think there might be an alternative to teaching subjects like math or physics that better serves those who have little interest in them? Do you think your teachers did a decent job fulfilling those ideas?
I really appreciate the document; it's an excellent find!
I totally empathize with you in that I have no desire to learn certain subjects and, therefore, tend not to care as much about my performance in those courses. However, isn't it an objective for schools to promote well-rounded students who have solid backgrounds in every field? Should it not be a priority to understand each other and appreciate what each of our jobs contribute to society after we graduate?
On a more personal basis, do you think there might be an alternative to teaching subjects like math or physics that better serves those who have little interest in them? Do you think your teachers did a decent job fulfilling those ideas?
Should the objective of schools be to produce people who have solid backgrounds on every field or people who can be at least average, knowledgeable, participants in a democracy who can make an honest living, be happy, do some good for others and raise children that can do the same?
I mean, I like the ideal of having a well-rounded knowledge of every field by high school graduation, but our country would be doing well to just graduate fairly literate beings who vote intelligently, fully support themselves financially and raise children who can do the same.
Unfortunately, as much as I hate hard sciences and lack a decent understanding of them, I still understand them better than probably 90% of the population, so I have no good answers about this.
I have to say though, technology is increasing at an amazingly, unprecedented levels in our world today. However, very basic things like massive starvation, ridiculously in-equal wealth distribution, war, and overpopulation are still the norm. My gut instinct is that a better understanding of hard science and math are not a particularly relevant to solving such basic human problems that desperately need solutions.
As far as teaching these subjects better, I have little to add to that too as I barely comprehend these subjects, IMHO. (I'm working on it though, just because I'm interested in education). However, I feel pretty strongly that we need more concrete constructionist type teaching done at the elementary and middle school levels so children are immersed in real life examples of science and math before they even know that they are actually learning science and math. If that makes any sense. I know, personally, as an adult learner, that I have been able to grasp science and math concepts a lot better since not being in school for ten years...because during those ten years, I have had lots of concrete experiences with real math and science that have deepened my understanding of these subjects without me really realizing it.
Last edited by soanchorless; 02-18-2013 at 06:50 PM..
This is the big lie of globalization, that you can destroy your industry and everyone will become scientists or engineers in a service economy.
The truth is that very few students have the brains (you really need an IQ of at least 115, better if it's close to 125), plus the drive and the temperament to become an electrical engineer with a master's degree.
Im not sure I agree. I think you can do it if you are willing to put in the time and effort. Unless you have a leaning disability. My dad is not an electrical engineer by title but he was teaching it on high school level in Sweden ( a little different than US high scholls ).
He does not have a super high IQ but was very driven at the time and he had a great interest for it.
His knowledge would equal a Master degree or higher.
Should the objective of schools be to produce people who have solid backgrounds on every field or people who can be at least average, knowledgeable, participants in a democracy who can make an honest living, be happy, do some good for others and raise children that can do the same?
I mean, I like the ideal of having a well-rounded knowledge of every field by high school graduation, but our country would be doing well to just graduate fairly literate beings who vote intelligently, fully support themselves financially and raise children who can do the same.
Unfortunately, as much as I hate hard sciences and lack a decent understanding of them, I still understand them better than probably 90% of the population, so I have no good answers about this.
I have to say though, technology is increasing at an amazingly, unprecedented levels in our world today. However, very basic things like massive starvation, ridiculously in-equal wealth distribution, war, and overpopulation are still the norm. My gut instinct is that a better understanding of hard science and math are not a particularly relevant to solving such basic human problems that desperately need solutions.
As far as teaching these subjects better, I have little to add to that too as I barely comprehend these subjects, IMHO. (I'm working on it though, just because I'm interested in education). However, I feel pretty strongly that we need more concrete constructionist type teaching done at the elementary and middle school levels so children are immersed in real life examples of science and math before they even know that they are actually learning science and math. If that makes any sense. I know, personally, as an adult learner, that I have been able to grasp science and math concepts a lot better since not being in school for ten years...because during those ten years, I have had lots of concrete experiences with real math and science that have deepened my understanding of these subjects without me really realizing it.
I must agree with your philosophy about school: Its number one function should be to establish thoughtful and informed American citizens. I just figured it might be beneficial for Americans to have a strong well-roundedness in addition so as to investigate better the social problems surrounding them (to ask better, more informed questions to those with expertise in areas of science and math, in this case). I find that only then will the perception of mathematics or the hard sciences be made right, and we can find a better way to approach these topics when it comes time for our children to learn them.
It's interesting you note the basic humanitarian issues we face on a global scale. Despite realizing that not all countries have started on equal footing in terms of resources, I still can't help but notice a correlation between those societies that are more mathematically/scientifically proficient and those with greater economic competitiveness. What is your take on that correlation?
A wise mathematician once said that the beauty of mathematics lies in its utter uselessness. Mathematics is what we want it to be: It's a figment of our imagination that channels creativity and inspiration. Of course, you tell this to anyone, and you sound like a fool. "Math is learning how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide." How much fun is that strict constructionist approach? Would it be more beneficial to treat math as a mind game where you imagine your own rules and conclude your own conjectures?
Imagine the endless amounts of creativity our youth could produce. Why waste it staring at a formula sheet?
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.
Potential Problem in the Sciences and Mathematics
