Higher Education and Science

Higher Education On the blog “Rate Your Students”, the question was raised: “what is wrong, what can we fix and what is unfixable?”

Here is one proposed answer as to one “unfixable” problem:

One of the most overwhelming problems in American academia is the fact that at least 50% of the “students” enrolled in American colleges have absolutely no business being there. This is the result of the counterproductive myth that everyone needs and is entitled to a college education. [...]

Here’s why many of our students shouldn’t be in college:

* Some of them are stupid. I know it’s horribly politically incorrect to point this out, but some people just ain’t got it intellectually. For example, if after a full semester of foreign language you simply cannot grasp the concept of a direct object, you probably have no business in college. As a perplexed foreign exchange student put it after a few months here, “We have stupid people in my country too…but they don’t go to college.”
* Some of them are woefully ignorant and academically unprepared. We’re talking borderline illiterate. Their reading comprehension is inadequate, and their writing skills are abysmal. And they think we fought against the Rooskies in WWII.
* Most importantly, many of them DON’T WANT TO BE HERE. Mommy and Daddy and society at large have coerced them into college even though they hate reading, hate writing, hate studying, and have precious little intellectual curiosity about anything (whence their loathing of gen ed requirements). And then we’re surprised that they have hostile pissy attitudes and always want to take the path of least resistance? But if they don’t go to college, they will never ever ever get a good job–so they’ve had drummed into them since they popped out of the womb. [...]

So, are there any facts that support these points? One fact is that the percentage of high school students going to college has gone up:

In 2004, 67% of high school graduates enrolled in college; in 1972, only 49% did.

(note: this article is mostly about the financial pressures facing many of our recent college graduates, which in itself is a worthy topic)

Of course, the higher percentage of high school students going to college means a regression to the mean of these students; that is, the intellectual abilities of those going to college now is closer to the mean intellectual ability of high school students than it was in 1972. That is, college is increasingly becoming a place for average people rather than smart ones.

So, does this tell the whole story? Probably not; after all, one of the faster growing segments of higher education is the community college (2 year schools). So it could be that many of these more average students are ending up at community colleges rather than 4 year places.

In other words, I’d need more evidence to accept the claim that today’s freshman at 4 year schools are dumber than those of several years ago; I can accept that the average one is somewhat less prepared.

Wingnut groups interfering in education.
Friendly Atheist provides an example

The ACLJ states that professor Philip Pecorino “has stated that it is his job to get students to reject a belief in a sacred or unquestionable ‘truth’ in favor of the ‘rational’ view that science, logic, and philosophy are the only reliable sources of ‘truth.’”

Gina thought she was going to get a D or F in the class because of her faith.

The ACLJ states that after they complained to the school, Gina received the grade she actually earned — a B. Now, they are claiming “victory” — one they will surely cite in their efforts to get donations.

Gee, that sounds bad, right? Well…

I love the explanation of why Gina — along with her classmates — was indeed failing at one point in the class:

“At no time did I tell her she was in danger of failing. When I had to project a grade for her earlier in the semester, I projected a ‘C’ and that was when she was most resistant to providing any reasoning to support her assertions. She was not open to examining her own beliefs or to entering into the dialectical process of inquiry in community because, according to her, she already had all the answers.” And what of the ACLJ’s claim that Gina had a failing grade average of 54 prior to the ACLJ’s intervention? “That is a misleading use of information. I use a cumulative point system in grading,” explained Pecorino. “In other words, as students progress during the semester, they earn points for each assignment, with a possible total of 100 points by the end of the semester. Gina at one point probably did have 54 points, but that in no way indicates she was in danger of failing. She had 54 points, not a failing grade average of 54. All students start the semester with 0 points, so by the ACLJ’s logic, all students are in danger of failing.”

He adds that when his college received the ACLJ’s letter, he only received support from colleagues and the administration.

These clowns would provide tons of entertainment, if they weren’t such a menace to our educational system.

Humor
Edward Current sets us straight again.

Some science

Hypothesis: early genetic material may have come from meteors.

Scientists have confirmed for the first time that an important component of early genetic material which has been found in meteorite fragments is extraterrestrial in origin, in a paper published on 15 June 2008. [...]
The scientists, from Europe and the USA, say that their research, published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, provides evidence that life’s raw materials came from sources beyond the Earth.

The materials they have found include the molecules uracil and xanthine, which are precursors to the molecules that make up DNA and RNA, and are known as nucleobases.

The team discovered the molecules in rock fragments of the Murchison meteorite, which crashed in Australia in 1969.

They tested the meteorite material to determine whether the molecules came from the solar system or were a result of contamination when the meteorite landed on Earth.

The analysis shows that the nucleobases contain a heavy form of carbon which could only have been formed in space. Materials formed on Earth consist of a lighter variety of carbon.

Lead author Dr Zita Martins, of the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, says that the research may provide another piece of evidence explaining the evolution of early life. She says:

“We believe early life may have adopted nucleobases from meteoritic fragments for use in genetic coding which enabled them to pass on their successful features to subsequent generations.”

Between 3.8 to 4.5 billion years ago large numbers of rocks similar to the Murchison meteorite rained down on Earth at the time when primitive life was forming. The heavy bombardment would have dropped large amounts of meteorite material to the surface on planets like Earth and Mars.

Note: the whole article does make some logical mistakes, but the research it reports on is exciting.

String Theory: a valuable part of mathematics and physics, even if it does not model the universe? I’d love to comment, but I am too stupid to understand String Theory. That is one of those “I’d like to learn some of this at some time in my life” sort of thing.

But I have more basic problems that are currently challenging me; three research papers I need to finish and two other “quarter-baked” projects.

Refuting Creationists/Intelligent Design types

Ok, one can’t ever really refute these folks, but one can put together stuff that shows what scientists believe and why, and one can point out how terribly wrong creationists and ID types are.

Here are a couple of resources: Attacking Intelligent Design. Various arguments are explained and refuted.

From the Big Bang to us, made easy. Here is the youtube play list that this article links to; I am listening to the 5′th one in this series as I type this. The experts or well read lay-person won’t learn anything new, but it is nice to see it all put together.