My next reading is Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, a 1994 book by biologist Paul Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt. Their book was a response to the "Science Wars" of the 80's and 90's, when the zeitgeist of certain people in humanities (and to a lesser extent social science) was "Science is just, like, a Western patriarchal heteronormative yadda yadda construct of the people at the top of the power structure." And, to be clear, their claim wasn't merely that the culture of researchers in the natural sciences was "just, like, a Western yadda yadda construct"; that claim is not entirely wrong, though surely the many non-Westerners who contribute quitie productively to the advancement of modern science would have a thing or two to say in response, as Arun Bala noted. Some went further and claimed that the body of scientific knowledge is somehow a subjective thing that arises more from our own cultural biases than any sort of meaningful, objective engagement with something that has a reality independent of our understanding of it.
With the benefit of 23 years of hindsight, as well as two and a half years of reading and blogging about cultural factors that affect the modern academy, this book feels like it missed the point. As I've said before, the modern academic left mostly does not question science. Yeah, there are a few weirdos talking about "natural" medicine, and a lot of liberal academics deny research on the predictive validity of standardized tests, but those cases are remarkable for being unusual. Most liberals, academic or otherwise, strongly support science. They might not understand it as well as they think they do, and it's possible that if they understood certain results better they would reject them, but the "Science March" was very much a thing of the left. Oh, there was probably some conservative somewhere in the audience, but it was understood as being primarily about liberal stances on environmental issues, health issues, etc., as well as opposition to the superstitions of religious conservatives (who are currently rallying around a twice-divorced casino owner and confessed sexual harasser or worse...). So, outside the academy, science is widely regarded as a thing of the left. This is probably to our detriment (I'd rather that my professional and intellectual passion be respected across the spectrum), but it is most definitely NOT what Gross and Levitt feared might come to pass. The "post-modernist" critics of science did NOT win over the non-academic left to their cause.
On campus, I'm sure somebody somewhere is still banging on about Newtonian mechanics being an artefact of white male culture, but hardly anyone pays attention to them. Administrators say "STEM! STEM! STEM!" all day long. There are certainly some people in the humanities and social sciences who grumble about this STEM obsession, but they are, at worst, expressing a bit of (understandable) jealousy, and more often are engaging in sincere defenses of things that are worth preserving. They aren't questioning our knowledge claims.
What has happened is an obsession with inclusion in STEM, because STEM is on the pedestal, and some of this comes with demands to change the culture of how STEM professionals work, but not with insistence that our knowledge is some subjective product of an arbitrary and weird culture. Nonetheless, some of the more damaging aspects of the push to transform STEM (mainly a demand that we reject meritocratic elitism in favor of getting every available warm body into The Pipeline) share roots with the Science Warriors of the 80's and 90's. So it is worth studying this phenomenon of the past, in part to understand those roots, and in part to understand how those predictions failed. We can learn a lot about how we got to where we are if we understand how old predictions went astray.
A final note, before we get going: As far as I can tell from examining the first two chapters and the index, Levitt and Gross missed/ignored the more technocratic rumblings of STEM reformers in the 90's. Sheila Tobias wasn't in the index, though she wrote They're Not Dumb, They're Different in 1990. I looked for some prominent education researchers but did not find them in the index. The National Science Foundation is not mentioned. This book really does seem to be focused, which is not a bad thing (all good books have a chosen scope) but does point to how they missed what actually happened. Ultimately, I think they spent too much time thinking that the crazier ideas espoused by humanities professors would be able to take root in the wider public, and in exactly the form in which they were originally espoused. But ideas don't work that way.
OK, let's go.
Showing posts with label Sheila Tobias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sheila Tobias. Show all posts
Friday, September 1, 2017
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Final thoughts on _They're Not Dumb, They're Different_: The policy consensus side
In her conclusions (pages 83-86), Sheila Tobias starts off going in a promising direction: She briefly questions the forecasts of a shortage of scientists. These questions are so juicy, so refreshing, that for a moment I was taken to the present! (Where a few people--just a few, mind you--are starting to question that narrative.) I felt like maybe I'm reading something from the here and now, not the 1990's. But after acknowledging that we can't be certain, she moves on to make recommendations rooted in the consensus assumption of a 1990's science education researcher. I shall quote the bottom of page 86:
Anyway, Tobias goes on to recommend the formation of an industry of advisers, mentors, recruiters, and STEM education and pipeline professionals who will devote all of their efforts to trying to get more students into and through science programs. To a large extent the National Science Foundation has done as she recommended more than a generation ago. There is indeed an industry of such people, largely funded by NSF. She wasn't the only person urging this, and such an industry was already present in some form then, but we see how the elite chatter of a generation ago to some extent does shape the enterprises of today. John Maynard Keynes was right about "practical men" being "slaves of some defunct economist." Even as we hear rumblings against the notion of a "STEM crisis", tremendous numbers of well-funded people proclaim their desire to seek "data-driven best practices" to solve a crisis whose existence was proclaimed as gospel a generation ago.
The first step is a moral and strategic imperative: no college student should be permitted to say "no" to science without a struggle.I cannot imagine anyone in a modern university calling for such an overbearing push to get more students into humanities. I cannot imagine majoring in humanities being declared a "moral imperative." The STEM pedestal is an astounding thing.
Anyway, Tobias goes on to recommend the formation of an industry of advisers, mentors, recruiters, and STEM education and pipeline professionals who will devote all of their efforts to trying to get more students into and through science programs. To a large extent the National Science Foundation has done as she recommended more than a generation ago. There is indeed an industry of such people, largely funded by NSF. She wasn't the only person urging this, and such an industry was already present in some form then, but we see how the elite chatter of a generation ago to some extent does shape the enterprises of today. John Maynard Keynes was right about "practical men" being "slaves of some defunct economist." Even as we hear rumblings against the notion of a "STEM crisis", tremendous numbers of well-funded people proclaim their desire to seek "data-driven best practices" to solve a crisis whose existence was proclaimed as gospel a generation ago.
More thoughts on _They're Not Dumb, They're Different_: The pedagogy side
The best critique of physical science education offered by the outside observers in this book is that we focus mostly on technique over concepts and the big picture. We focus on technique over concepts because we want to equip students with the tools to get meaningful, testable answers to questions, not just general ideas. The ability to precisely and accurately calculate something, even something simple and boring, means that you can engage with the material world in an objective manner that is not accessible with only qualitative, conceptual, "What does it really mean?" types of explanations and analyses. That is the power of what we offer. It's what makes progress in our disciplines possible, it's what makes us employable, it's what advances society's technological and material comfort, and it's what gives us access to truths of some sort. Whether you value the advancement of society on an intellectual level or a material level, whether you value the advancement of the pure or applied sides of the discipline, and whether you value the students' intellectual development or career preparation, the case for focusing so much attention on technique and problem-solving is quite strong. I make no apology for it.
Where I think the outside observers have a point is that we can do more to motivate technique, more to provide context. We can do this both in the structure of the material, the textbooks, the syllabi, etc., and in the structure of an individual class session via sign-posting of what we're doing, interspersing more context-rich examples with technique, etc. In the past 20 years I think there's been more (justifiably!) raised awareness of these points in science teaching, and greater emphasis on context, motivation, and organization of class time is all to the better.
But there are limits to how far we can go. These limits are best understood by contrasting two very different types of science courses: General Education science for students not majoring in science or engineering, and the more technically-focused classes for students in science and engineering. In a GE course, one can spend a quarter or semester building up, say, a basic understanding of what energy is, and the basic concept of how a nuclear power plant works, how a solar cell works, etc. In doing so, one can help the student become an informed citizen and appreciate the basic points of major societal issues and why science matters.
HOWEVER....
When you look at what it takes to prepare a person to actually make a tangible contribution to these issues, what it takes to prepare a person to make progress in solar cell technology, or to help design a safer nuclear power plant, it is painfully necessary to step back from context and focus on technique. For years. Once we've established that solar panels work by photons getting absorbed and raising electrons to higher levels, if you ask "How does that photon get absorbed? How can we improve the efficiency of that process?" we need to talk about matrix elements in quantum mechanics. There's no getting around that. If you ask "How can we make this material more cheaply?" we need to talk about a host of issues in chemistry and materials science and manufacturing, all of them highly technical. To go beyond "Oh, we need to make these parts less expensively" to "So, we'll have to deposit thin films of materials made from exotic elements, and do so in vacuum chambers..." now we're talking about highly technical matters. The goal of a science class for a science major is to help a person along that long journey. We can do some sign-posting and motivating at the beginning, but at some point you have to accept a long slog through basic optical physics in order to get at what's going on inside the solar cell on a level sufficient to improve it, and basic diffusion and transport theory in order to understand the nuclear reactor on a level deep enough to actually improve it.
As far as the competitive nature of science classes, I agree that competition can be off-putting. I didn't like taking freshman chemistry with grade-obsessed pre-meds asking questions about curves and critiquing each and every aspect of the grading scale. (I'm typing this from a cafe in a medical school, incidentally, as I wait for an appointment with a specialist.) But what I don't think students get is that when you look at the trajectory of physics problems, and the decreasing math level, in many cases "grading on a curve" is not about putting students in a Darwinian competition but about lowering our own expectations to the point where "enough" students can actually pass.
Also, lab work has always been hands-on and involved groups. Never, ever forget that. LAB WORK IS HANDS-ON!!! Critics of science education love to miss that point.
Where I think the outside observers have a point is that we can do more to motivate technique, more to provide context. We can do this both in the structure of the material, the textbooks, the syllabi, etc., and in the structure of an individual class session via sign-posting of what we're doing, interspersing more context-rich examples with technique, etc. In the past 20 years I think there's been more (justifiably!) raised awareness of these points in science teaching, and greater emphasis on context, motivation, and organization of class time is all to the better.
But there are limits to how far we can go. These limits are best understood by contrasting two very different types of science courses: General Education science for students not majoring in science or engineering, and the more technically-focused classes for students in science and engineering. In a GE course, one can spend a quarter or semester building up, say, a basic understanding of what energy is, and the basic concept of how a nuclear power plant works, how a solar cell works, etc. In doing so, one can help the student become an informed citizen and appreciate the basic points of major societal issues and why science matters.
HOWEVER....
When you look at what it takes to prepare a person to actually make a tangible contribution to these issues, what it takes to prepare a person to make progress in solar cell technology, or to help design a safer nuclear power plant, it is painfully necessary to step back from context and focus on technique. For years. Once we've established that solar panels work by photons getting absorbed and raising electrons to higher levels, if you ask "How does that photon get absorbed? How can we improve the efficiency of that process?" we need to talk about matrix elements in quantum mechanics. There's no getting around that. If you ask "How can we make this material more cheaply?" we need to talk about a host of issues in chemistry and materials science and manufacturing, all of them highly technical. To go beyond "Oh, we need to make these parts less expensively" to "So, we'll have to deposit thin films of materials made from exotic elements, and do so in vacuum chambers..." now we're talking about highly technical matters. The goal of a science class for a science major is to help a person along that long journey. We can do some sign-posting and motivating at the beginning, but at some point you have to accept a long slog through basic optical physics in order to get at what's going on inside the solar cell on a level sufficient to improve it, and basic diffusion and transport theory in order to understand the nuclear reactor on a level deep enough to actually improve it.
As far as the competitive nature of science classes, I agree that competition can be off-putting. I didn't like taking freshman chemistry with grade-obsessed pre-meds asking questions about curves and critiquing each and every aspect of the grading scale. (I'm typing this from a cafe in a medical school, incidentally, as I wait for an appointment with a specialist.) But what I don't think students get is that when you look at the trajectory of physics problems, and the decreasing math level, in many cases "grading on a curve" is not about putting students in a Darwinian competition but about lowering our own expectations to the point where "enough" students can actually pass.
Also, lab work has always been hands-on and involved groups. Never, ever forget that. LAB WORK IS HANDS-ON!!! Critics of science education love to miss that point.
Friday, November 4, 2016
Tobias, Chapter 2
I don't have time to write up my full thoughts on chapter 2; a lot of the themes seem to be repeated in what little I've read of the next chapter, so I think I'll just respond to those themes after I've read the whole book. But a few quick thoughts:
1) The student in the second chapter took a physics class. Some of the things that he reports are valid criticisms of how we teach physics. I think we've actually made progress on a subset of them (remember, this book is more than 20 years old), but we could stand to make more progress.
2) Some of his critiques go to points that sound nice on the surface, but they would not work as well as he thinks if we actually tried to do it at scale with the students that we get. The student does note that we actually do some things right, that our students do get motivated in certain ways that many humanities students don't (in his observation). Of course, we also fail to motivate in certain ways that the humanities do more effectively.
It's tempting to say "Well, obviously just take the best of each!" but that implies that upsides and downsides are completely separable. I don't think real life works that way.
3) I'm not going to name names, but in addition to the observations of the student, the author frequently cites (positively) the observations of someone whom I've interacted with. I was...not impressed. To put it mildly. That colors my reading.
4) One thing that outside critics of physics often miss is that we'd love to spend more time on the Big Picture but we have a hard, cumulative, technical task in front of us. There's no evading that. We can talk about Big Ideas all day, but the real progress on those ideas was only made through painstaking technical work. On the margin, we could (and probably should) spend a bit more time than we do on Big Ideas rather than technical calculation, but those technical skills are vital to either using physics or making progress on advancing the field of physics, and they take a lot of time to hone. I'm open to providing more complementary/supplementary treatment of Big Ideas, but if students don't get a whole lot of practice on the hard, technical side of the field then we are cheating them out of the opportunity to have a career where they either use physics or make advances in physics.
5) Frankly, a lot of the "I am more, like, into the Big Ideas, man!" types are dilettantes, and usually white dude dilettantes. Sorry, but it's true. Yes, yes, there are flaky women and flaky people of color; I recognize and support the right of people of diverse identities to be flakes. Still, the flaky "I'm, like, more into, like, the ideas than, you know, the math, because my mind is more about being weird and flexible and seeing the Real Ideas, you know?" types are disproportionately white dudes. That's my in-the-trenches observation. I try to avoid stereotyping but this one is born out by observation.
That's not to say that everyone who wants to talk about Big Ideas is a flake, but the flakes ALWAYS say that. Always.
Why am I commenting on it? Because everyone agrees that physics needs to diversify, so I find it hilarious that our critics then come at us with something that the dilettante white dudes have been saying to us since forever. Believe me, you don't want us designing curricula around those guys if you want us to attract women and people of color.
6) That said, there are curricula that do more to address Big Ideas while also developing technical skills. Moore's Six Ideas That Shaped Physics and also the Matter and Interactions curriculum are both excellent examples of that. We need to do more of that.
7) While I can and will weigh the pros and cons of the critics in more detail, it is very much a marker of when the book was written that she couches the critiques in terms of "Maybe if we addressed this we could solve the STEM shortage..." I am listening to Sublime as I type this. The 90's were good times, man. Good times.
1) The student in the second chapter took a physics class. Some of the things that he reports are valid criticisms of how we teach physics. I think we've actually made progress on a subset of them (remember, this book is more than 20 years old), but we could stand to make more progress.
2) Some of his critiques go to points that sound nice on the surface, but they would not work as well as he thinks if we actually tried to do it at scale with the students that we get. The student does note that we actually do some things right, that our students do get motivated in certain ways that many humanities students don't (in his observation). Of course, we also fail to motivate in certain ways that the humanities do more effectively.
It's tempting to say "Well, obviously just take the best of each!" but that implies that upsides and downsides are completely separable. I don't think real life works that way.
3) I'm not going to name names, but in addition to the observations of the student, the author frequently cites (positively) the observations of someone whom I've interacted with. I was...not impressed. To put it mildly. That colors my reading.
4) One thing that outside critics of physics often miss is that we'd love to spend more time on the Big Picture but we have a hard, cumulative, technical task in front of us. There's no evading that. We can talk about Big Ideas all day, but the real progress on those ideas was only made through painstaking technical work. On the margin, we could (and probably should) spend a bit more time than we do on Big Ideas rather than technical calculation, but those technical skills are vital to either using physics or making progress on advancing the field of physics, and they take a lot of time to hone. I'm open to providing more complementary/supplementary treatment of Big Ideas, but if students don't get a whole lot of practice on the hard, technical side of the field then we are cheating them out of the opportunity to have a career where they either use physics or make advances in physics.
5) Frankly, a lot of the "I am more, like, into the Big Ideas, man!" types are dilettantes, and usually white dude dilettantes. Sorry, but it's true. Yes, yes, there are flaky women and flaky people of color; I recognize and support the right of people of diverse identities to be flakes. Still, the flaky "I'm, like, more into, like, the ideas than, you know, the math, because my mind is more about being weird and flexible and seeing the Real Ideas, you know?" types are disproportionately white dudes. That's my in-the-trenches observation. I try to avoid stereotyping but this one is born out by observation.
That's not to say that everyone who wants to talk about Big Ideas is a flake, but the flakes ALWAYS say that. Always.
Why am I commenting on it? Because everyone agrees that physics needs to diversify, so I find it hilarious that our critics then come at us with something that the dilettante white dudes have been saying to us since forever. Believe me, you don't want us designing curricula around those guys if you want us to attract women and people of color.
6) That said, there are curricula that do more to address Big Ideas while also developing technical skills. Moore's Six Ideas That Shaped Physics and also the Matter and Interactions curriculum are both excellent examples of that. We need to do more of that.
7) While I can and will weigh the pros and cons of the critics in more detail, it is very much a marker of when the book was written that she couches the critiques in terms of "Maybe if we addressed this we could solve the STEM shortage..." I am listening to Sublime as I type this. The 90's were good times, man. Good times.
Monday, October 31, 2016
90's flashback: _They're Not Dumb, They're Different_ by Sheila Tobias
My next reading project is They're Not Dumb, They're Different by Sheila Tobias. Whatever else I might ultimately come to dislike about this book, it's 94 pages. Too many people turn out 200-300 page books because they think that they need to, but Tobias doesn't do that. Kudos to her.
This book was written in 1990, and while I've only read the introduction I can say that it definitely feels like a trip back to the 90's and old ideas about STEM shortages. You can almost hear Kurt Cobain singing Heart-Shaped Box. You can almost feel the political and racial tension in the air as people are glued to their TV for the latest twists in the OJ case. It's easy to remember an era when X-Files was on TV and the Clinton Administration was rocked by sex scandals.
In the intro, Tobias motivates her work by talking about the country's shortage of science talent, and the need to recruit more people into science. She mentions a longitudinal study that started with 750,000 high school students who declared a possible interest in science in the 1970's, and after more than a decade of follow-through a bit less than 10,000 of them have gotten PhDs in STEM. In my opinion, 1.3% of a potentially interested cohort getting a PhD in science is hardly a problem; it might actually be over-production. But it's presented as evidence of a problem.
More tellingly, she notes that 61,000 of them started graduate study in STEM, even though "only" 9,700 of them got a PhD. This is a lesson in how narratives are made when people start from the assumption of a moral crisis in need of resolution. If 61,000 people enrolled in PhD programs and only 9,700 of them got a PhD I would agree that there's a problem. I might not classify it as a problem of under-production, but I would agree that there is a problem of inefficiently identifying and channeling talent. There's no reason for so many people to invest prime years in a hard endeavor that so few will finish. But who said that they all entered graduate school in pursuit of a PhD? The gold standard for an engineer in industry is an MS (and many have great careers with just a BS, or even a BS and MBA). And who said that the gold standard for retention in STEM is completion of a PhD? Can't a person have a career doing economically and socially significant things in science and engineering without a PhD?
The fact that Tobias opens with these dubiously status quo assumptions, these cultural artifacts of a long-standing consensus, does not mean that there will be nothing of value in what follows. But it does mean that when I read it I detect a certain voice in the author's writing. It's like reading an old novel written in the musty language of an earlier era; you know you're reading something of a particular place and time and class. It's a narrative that sounded so seductive when I was young and dumb, something that never should have made sense yet somehow did even in an era where the SoCal aerospace industry was being completely restructured (and mostly downsized) while the IT industry was taking shape. A narrative of a strange era that is past. Oh, people still tell this narrative, but now it's a narrative that faces challengers, because the internet exists and every disgruntled postdoc and adjunct out there can take to social media.
Anyway, the focus of this book will be her "Second Tier" study. The premise is that science and engineering only select for people who will stick with it through numerous hurdles, rather than recruiting. (We shall ignore the fact that since Sputnik there have been numerous efforts to sell science and engineering to kids, numerous earnest people standing in front of students and telling them that STEM Is Our Future and we desperately need them, numerous Official Reports On The Need To Recruit and subsequent curricular redesign efforts in k-12 and beyond.) So, Tobias recruits smart people who have been successful in other fields but never gave any thought to science, and asks them to audit college math and science classes, to provide a field study of one tribe by another.
Sociologically I agree that it's an interesting concept on its own, and certainly worthwhile for a science educator who wants to engage in introspection and take in some outside critiques. I can read it with that goal in mind.
What I can't do is read it as a study that must a priori be relevant to solving systemic problems in my field, and not just because I reject the narrative of a STEM shortage. Working in the trenches of college-level science education, the problem that I face is not an abundance of empty seats while students flock to other fields. Rather, I live in a world where the classroom is filled with ill-prepared students, the cultural mindset of my peers and superiors is that it would be unjust to tell them to consider another field, and scholars in the humanities and social sciences are scared that their disciplines will be axed for the ascendant STEM fields. In this world, our biggest challenge is not to win over the bright kids who chose to major in literature or accounting, but rather to help the ill-prepared kid who harbors a dream of rocket science, and either make them into a rocket scientist or gently guide them to another path.
We can still learn something from the observations of genuine outsiders, just as we can learn something from any number of experiences and observations. There may be serendipitous insight in here, and if so, great! But I don't think that I can feasibly or realistically approach this book as one whose design promises solutions to the practical problems immediately in front of me. The design of the study means that any such solutions will emerge by lucky happenstance, not by careful targeting. I can learn new things to add to my general mental toolkit, but my inner Bayesian assigns a low prior probability to the notion that this book has direct solutions to my problems.
Also, I can read this book as a cultural artifact, as an example of what people actually believed in the early 1990's, an era when the Cold War was won, our greatest geopolitical problems were (allegedly) solved, a tech boom was building in the aftermath of a recession, the House of Clinton was ascending after a Bush presidency, and the music on the radio was good. The elite consensus that places STEM on a pedestal is a source of never-ending frustration for me, and this book is a time capsule that might help me understand it. Mind you, STEM mania predates this book by several decades, but in order for a consensus to survive it must adapt, and this book might tell me something about the current incarnation of STEM mania.
With all that said, let's see what outsiders have to say when they observe a science class.
This book was written in 1990, and while I've only read the introduction I can say that it definitely feels like a trip back to the 90's and old ideas about STEM shortages. You can almost hear Kurt Cobain singing Heart-Shaped Box. You can almost feel the political and racial tension in the air as people are glued to their TV for the latest twists in the OJ case. It's easy to remember an era when X-Files was on TV and the Clinton Administration was rocked by sex scandals.
In the intro, Tobias motivates her work by talking about the country's shortage of science talent, and the need to recruit more people into science. She mentions a longitudinal study that started with 750,000 high school students who declared a possible interest in science in the 1970's, and after more than a decade of follow-through a bit less than 10,000 of them have gotten PhDs in STEM. In my opinion, 1.3% of a potentially interested cohort getting a PhD in science is hardly a problem; it might actually be over-production. But it's presented as evidence of a problem.
More tellingly, she notes that 61,000 of them started graduate study in STEM, even though "only" 9,700 of them got a PhD. This is a lesson in how narratives are made when people start from the assumption of a moral crisis in need of resolution. If 61,000 people enrolled in PhD programs and only 9,700 of them got a PhD I would agree that there's a problem. I might not classify it as a problem of under-production, but I would agree that there is a problem of inefficiently identifying and channeling talent. There's no reason for so many people to invest prime years in a hard endeavor that so few will finish. But who said that they all entered graduate school in pursuit of a PhD? The gold standard for an engineer in industry is an MS (and many have great careers with just a BS, or even a BS and MBA). And who said that the gold standard for retention in STEM is completion of a PhD? Can't a person have a career doing economically and socially significant things in science and engineering without a PhD?
The fact that Tobias opens with these dubiously status quo assumptions, these cultural artifacts of a long-standing consensus, does not mean that there will be nothing of value in what follows. But it does mean that when I read it I detect a certain voice in the author's writing. It's like reading an old novel written in the musty language of an earlier era; you know you're reading something of a particular place and time and class. It's a narrative that sounded so seductive when I was young and dumb, something that never should have made sense yet somehow did even in an era where the SoCal aerospace industry was being completely restructured (and mostly downsized) while the IT industry was taking shape. A narrative of a strange era that is past. Oh, people still tell this narrative, but now it's a narrative that faces challengers, because the internet exists and every disgruntled postdoc and adjunct out there can take to social media.
Anyway, the focus of this book will be her "Second Tier" study. The premise is that science and engineering only select for people who will stick with it through numerous hurdles, rather than recruiting. (We shall ignore the fact that since Sputnik there have been numerous efforts to sell science and engineering to kids, numerous earnest people standing in front of students and telling them that STEM Is Our Future and we desperately need them, numerous Official Reports On The Need To Recruit and subsequent curricular redesign efforts in k-12 and beyond.) So, Tobias recruits smart people who have been successful in other fields but never gave any thought to science, and asks them to audit college math and science classes, to provide a field study of one tribe by another.
Sociologically I agree that it's an interesting concept on its own, and certainly worthwhile for a science educator who wants to engage in introspection and take in some outside critiques. I can read it with that goal in mind.
What I can't do is read it as a study that must a priori be relevant to solving systemic problems in my field, and not just because I reject the narrative of a STEM shortage. Working in the trenches of college-level science education, the problem that I face is not an abundance of empty seats while students flock to other fields. Rather, I live in a world where the classroom is filled with ill-prepared students, the cultural mindset of my peers and superiors is that it would be unjust to tell them to consider another field, and scholars in the humanities and social sciences are scared that their disciplines will be axed for the ascendant STEM fields. In this world, our biggest challenge is not to win over the bright kids who chose to major in literature or accounting, but rather to help the ill-prepared kid who harbors a dream of rocket science, and either make them into a rocket scientist or gently guide them to another path.
We can still learn something from the observations of genuine outsiders, just as we can learn something from any number of experiences and observations. There may be serendipitous insight in here, and if so, great! But I don't think that I can feasibly or realistically approach this book as one whose design promises solutions to the practical problems immediately in front of me. The design of the study means that any such solutions will emerge by lucky happenstance, not by careful targeting. I can learn new things to add to my general mental toolkit, but my inner Bayesian assigns a low prior probability to the notion that this book has direct solutions to my problems.
Also, I can read this book as a cultural artifact, as an example of what people actually believed in the early 1990's, an era when the Cold War was won, our greatest geopolitical problems were (allegedly) solved, a tech boom was building in the aftermath of a recession, the House of Clinton was ascending after a Bush presidency, and the music on the radio was good. The elite consensus that places STEM on a pedestal is a source of never-ending frustration for me, and this book is a time capsule that might help me understand it. Mind you, STEM mania predates this book by several decades, but in order for a consensus to survive it must adapt, and this book might tell me something about the current incarnation of STEM mania.
With all that said, let's see what outsiders have to say when they observe a science class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
