A bit of science and science education

I hope that I am missing something here:

as an adjunct I was subjected to class reviews, which was a simple and relatively standard process where an administrative individual would visit the class and make observations of my lecture style, student interaction, and so on. For my first couple of reviews, there were little issues that I needed to work on (such as talking too fast), but after a couple of these little tweaks, my reviews were spotless (naturally, I took their remarks constructively and worked on my faults diligently). [...]

Fast-forward to the summer semester, 2008. This semester was a rough one, as I had very small classes composed almost entirely of disgruntled students. I did my best throughout the semester. I always kept a very friendly attitude around the students, I always did my very best to address their concerns and I always treated them with respect regardless of how they treated me. After finally reaching the end of the semester and submitting my grades the the almighty department, I began preparations for the next semester (I had already been assigned two classes for the fall). It was at this point that I got the email…

The man in charge of the developmental math classes (and my direct supervisor: the one who had given me all of the classroom evaluations) sent me an email requesting that I meet with him to discuss the summer’s classes. I had similar meetings with him in the past, and it was usually a simple, 15-minute meeting where we just talked about ways to make the discipline better. I walked into his office that morning completely unaware what was waiting for me. He sat me down, and began his rant.

He told me how students were complaining about me in almost every thinkable way (and saying “students” is misleading, since it was mainly one student that he had told me previously to simply ignore when he was making negative comments). He told me that one student was coming to the office frequently saying that I would skip class, come to class late, and leave early on a daily basis. These were, of course, lies. Not only did I never skip class, show up late, or leave early, but I would frequently give extra sessions of assistance with many of my students in one of the computer lab (off the clock, doing this on my own time simply out of care for the students). I told the administrative prat that I would never be so negligent in my duties, and that the student was simply frustrated. I reminded him that this was the student who I was told to basically ignore…and Mr. administration pointedly ignored that little fact. He went on to tell me that this was a serious concern…and he then told me that my passing rates were too low for his tastes. Again, I reminded him that his evaluations of my techniques and procedures in class were all exemplary, and again, he ignored me. He continued on, saying that there were many adjuncts who were applying to teach the same classes that I was teaching, and they had specifically requested the times which I had been given. He continued to say that he would be speaking with the dean of our department about my performance, and he would get back to me.

I have yet to hear back from him, but he has already had my classes removed and I have been fired from my position…I was given no warning, and I thought that everything was perfectly fine before that day. I was taught an important lesson, and that is the fact that students now run the colleges.

Again, I hope that there is more than I am seeing here.

So, how well are we serving our students? In some ways, not so well?

Back in 2003, the National Science Board issued a report that noted steep declines in “graduate enrollments of U.S. citizens and permanent residents” in the sciences. The explanation? “Declining federal support for research sends negative signals to interested students.” That seems unlikely, in that the alleged decline hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of students from all around the world for our country’s graduate programs.

The precipitous drop in American science students has been visible for years. In 1998 the House released a national science-policy report, “Unlocking Our Future,” that fussily described “a serious incongruity between the perceived utility of a degree in science and engineering by potential students and the present and future need for those with training.”

Let me offer a different explanation. Students respond more profoundly to cultural imperatives than to market forces. In the United States, students are insulated from the commercial market’s demand for their knowledge and skills. That market lies a long way off — often too far to see. But they are not insulated one bit from the worldview promoted by their teachers, textbooks, and entertainment. From those sources, students pick up attitudes, motivations, and a lively sense of what life is about. School has always been as much about learning the ropes as it is about learning the rotes. We do, however, have some new ropes, and they aren’t very science-friendly. Rather, they lead students who look upon the difficulties of pursuing science to ask, “Why bother?”

Success in the sciences unquestionably takes a lot of hard work, sustained over many years. Students usually have to catch the science bug in grade school and stick with it to develop the competencies in math and the mastery of complex theories they need to progress up the ladder. Those who succeed at the level where they can eventually pursue graduate degrees must have not only abundant intellectual talent but also a powerful interest in sticking to a long course of cumulative study. A century ago, Max Weber wrote of “Science as a Vocation,” and, indeed, students need to feel something like a calling for science to surmount the numerous obstacles on the way to an advanced degree.

At least on the emotional level, contemporary American education sides with the obstacles. It begins by treating children as psychologically fragile beings who will fail to learn — and worse, fail to develop as “whole persons” — if not constantly praised. The self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for arduous intellectual ascents aren’t among them. What the movement most commonly yields is a surfeit of college freshmen who “feel good” about themselves for no discernible reason and who grossly overrate their meager attainments.

The intellectual lassitude we breed in students, their unearned and inflated self-confidence, undercuts both the self-discipline and the intellectual modesty that is needed for the apprentice years in the sciences. Modesty? Yes, for while talented scientists are often proud of their talent and accomplishments, they universally subscribe to the humbling need to prove themselves against the most-unyielding standards of inquiry. That willingness to play by nature’s rules runs in contrast to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along insouciance that characterizes so many variants of postmodernism and that flatters itself as being a higher form of pragmatism.

Others have noticed this:

A piece of advice to all the first year students I have or will have: To hell with your parents’ expectations.

Mommy and Daddy have spent the past 18 years of your life hovering over you, awarding you 9th place ribbons. Your parental overcompensation has come in heaps and droves. Consequently I see students who, after getting their first B back on a paper, clutch their chest in agitation; some even break down. One student told me just last week that “I know I seem calm right now, but I’m actually very troubled that I got a B+ on this test.” Another one asked, in response to an A on a paper, “What could I have done to have made this a perfect, A+ paper?” I wanted to answer that he could have kissed my ass.

Now for a bit of science: Sandwalk discusses the fact that Natural Selection (what Darwin discovered) is but one mechanism for evolution.

Quantum Mechanics: wave functions collapse and uncollapse, as predicted.

Ok, just a bit of politics: Robert Reich answers the basic questions on Obama’s energy policy, his position on off shore drilling and the like. He blows the “Obama is a flip-flopper” hypothesis out of the water. Here is a sample:

Question: But hasn’t Obama flip-flopped on offshore drilling?

Answer: No. He’s always been in favor of allowing oil companies to use the leases they already have — a total of 68 million acres of American land and seabed that they haven’t yet tapped. In fact, he’s said they should use it or lose it. He just doesn’t want them to have more. (But he’s not an ideologue on this. He’s said he’ll support the current congressional compromise that allows a bit more offshore drilling for the sake of getting lots more investment in alternative carbon-free sources of energy.)

Question: So why haven’t the oil companies used the leases they already have, if the land or seabed contains oil?

Answer: The oil companies want to grab as much land and seabed as they can right now, when a Republican administration is in power. The more land and seabed they can get, the more they can dress up their balance sheets to impute untapped reserves. It’s an accounting game. But it’s a dangerous game for America because it would give oil companies access to all sorts of land and seabed that could cause serious environmental harm if tapped.

Question: What about nuclear? Isn’t that a good option?

Answer: It is if we can figure out how to store nuclear waste safely, and guard against the possibility that fissile material will fall into terrorist hands. Obama isn’t against nuclear power. He just wants to make sure we can do it safely.