Science has an image problem

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Science has a problem and it is ultimately down to the public's perception of it.

In the UK alone, the number of 15-year olds studying physics and chemistry have plunged by over 70% (Focus Magazine UK, Issue #165). Since the early 1990s, numbers of students taking A-level chemistry, maths and physics have fallen, with a 34% reduction in students taking physics.

This is starting to effect the teaching profession.

Fewer than half of sixth-form (think seniors on the verge of completing High School and going out to University or the real world) physics and chemistry teachers have a degree in the subject, while a quarter of mathematics teachers in England aren't specialists.

What could be the cause of this?

Image.

A survey of UK teenagers published last year found that while many linked scientists with being intelligent, 7% thought they were cool or fun. When asked to name a famous scientist, they usually came up with someone dead.

What is the image problem and how can it be solved?

Is it because science isn't seen as accessible? I mean, ust take the controversial issues, for example, like Evolution and Global Warming. There's overwhelming evidence, sure. But where is it?

The average Joe does not have access to this overwhelming evidence. In order to find it, they must trawl through a dedicated scholarly search engine such as PubMed or Athens.

They'll need costly subscriptions (more than one) to access all the articles and even then, they'll find the articles aren't aimed at the laymen audience and contain such difficult language that an outsider can't understand a word they're saying. (I was pretty much thwarted in my attempts to find research articles on Global warming).

Or could it be because of the salary? Scientists don't get whopping huge salaries for the time and work they do.

There's a lot of factors at work here, a lot of which I haven't even mentioned.

Part of the problem, of course, is that there are few dedicated, charismatic people that can properly convey what science is doing to the masses.

The media certainly isn't doing a good job of it. It always overhypes everything for good or bad (Frankenfood, "cure for cancer" etc. etc.)

So what can be done to address this problem? We, after all, cannot continue this way...

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,986 • Replies: 88

No top replies

Don't worry, the Chinese will take up the slack in science education and in research, just as they will in all other areas of modern life.

0 Replies

Set, i'd like to think that India will play a prominent role as well.

0 Replies

They already do . . . they're the call center to the world . . .

0 Replies

Wolf-

Why do you think that-

Quote:

We, after all, cannot continue this way...

Quote:

What is the image problem and how can it be solved?

Scientists are usually not concerned with image. Their supporters, who are usually not scientists, have a tendency which is evident on the ID/Science thread to be intolerant, bigoted and judgemental which they combine with a poor command of English. Words like "idiot", "stupid" and "superstitious ignorance" fall all to readily from their pens when they are addressing people who question any of their certainties. They use technical phrases which don't mean a very great deal as a method of brow beating others and posing as superior persons. They tend to live in a closed off world and have difficulty relating to ordinary people who they consider a lower life form. They make outrageous assertions which often rely for their validity on them having said them and on nothing else.

Young people detect this sort of thing and not wishing to end up like that themselves decide, seemingly in ever increasing numbers, to give the subject of science the go-by.

I doubt that it can be solved.

Another important cause is that all the easily explained science has been done and the areas of the unknown now being studied are so refined and esoteric that only the specialists in each area can understand them. Often scientists in one area can't understand the work of other scientists. A nuclear physicist is roughly in the same position as the layman when faced with,say,the physiology of excitable cells or audience maximisation in major sporting events.
Also the vast bulk of science is now boring repetitive task-work undertaken by flat-chested young ladies wearing spectacles of slightly neurotic disposition who are unable to make a go of the "glamour" industry or it's associated off-shoots.

The law of diminishing returns is also operative as is Hutber's Law which states that improvement means deterioration.

So nothing much can be done although I expect we will carry on in our usual manner.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Their supporters, who are usually not scientists, have a tendency which is evident on the ID/Science thread to be intolerant, bigoted and judgemental which they combine with a poor command of English.

Says the pot to the kettle...

spendius wrote:

Also the vast bulk of science is now boring repetitive task-work undertaken by flat-chested young ladies wearing spectacles of slightly neurotic disposition who are unable to make a go of the "glamour" industry or it's associated off-shoots.

The image is a problem if it means that nobody else wants to take up the field.

Already, you are accustomed to a prejudiced view of science, as proven by the above quote I took from your post.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

Says the pot to the kettle...

HoHo!! You don't think my command of English superior to my mates on the ID/Science thread do you not? I know you will say I am biased but I consider them to be almost illiterate. Their ability with language ornamentation is practically non-existent. You could easily run computer checks on vocabularies but the result is a forgone conclusion. I'd bet money they tuck their shirts in their underpants.

I would revisit your English education if I was you starting at elementary level. You are showing signs of asserting there my dear. It's a very bad habit and particularly so for science teachers.

Actually Wolf I did think of writing a longer description derived from my long experience of the young ladies mentioned but being a well-mannered ,gentle soul as I am my discretion and humility triumphed over my natural desire to entertain you with a veritable pyrotechnic display of wit, erudition and acute observation.

Why would I be prejudiced against science? I'm not prejudiced against anything or anybody.

0 Replies

Actually, I was referring to your judgemental tone, an example of which I gave immediately after.

Quote:

It's a very bad habit and particularly so for science teachers.

I suppose it would be. Are you asserting, with no evidence to back it up, that that I'm a science teacher?

0 Replies

Oh no Wolf-

You can't read that into my observation. Even if I thought you had any bad habits I wouldn't draw attention them. It would be ungallant to do so and thus unfitting for a gentleman.

I don't think it is being judgemental to say that assertions backed only by the wisdom of the asserter are bad habits. They underestime one's audience don't you think and that is ungallant as well though not as ungallant as drawing attention to any bad habits you might have should you have any which I doubt.

I think most people would agree. I think my friends on the ID/Science thread would agree as well although they usually make an exception for their own assertions which is understandable.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Oh no Wolf-

You can't read that into my observation. Even if I thought you had any bad habits I wouldn't draw attention them. It would be ungallant to do so and thus unfitting for a gentleman.

So, you do not deny that you have made an assertion that I'm a science teacher? Without any proof to the contrary?

Quote:

I don't think it is being judgemental to say that assertions backed only by the wisdom of the asserter are bad habits.

And I never said they were.

I notice, however, that once again, you seem to be dragging a thread off topic so we can all discuss your little agenda.

0 Replies

Is this turning into another of Spendius' "My vocabulary is bigger than yours" threads?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Is this turning into another of Spendius' "My vocabulary is bigger than yours" threads?

Now, now, that's irrelevant.

0 Replies

On a lighter note, and understandably under the guise of pseudo science, the Star Trek franchise may have given some much need image bolstering to the real sciences. Perhaps we are heading toward a naive future of technological wonderment. The movie Brazil come to mind too.

0 Replies

spendi is all over the decks in this . He contradicts himself among his various thread contributions so, Lets just leave him where he needs to be , kraaled.

In my area, and I do teach at various levels in college , I ve found that the great discrimenator is primarily ignorance of math. Once the kid is pissed at his or her deficiencies in math, they lose the "spirit" that first got them interested in science or engineering. Math is the universal language of the sciences and many kids come into their higher educations ill prepped. I blame a lot of this directly on the schools where so much detrital subject matter is covered and the "gut" courses like math are compart,mentalized and phase -shifted so that very small numbers of kids have been exposed to calc in HS.And many of those whove been exposed, they were taught with a method that stresses no apps. , just sheer rote . Physics is at the core of most all science and math is a mere support language of physics. ALl other sciences (those that will donate and plow new grounds) are subordinate to physics and math is the indespensible language. We need better teachesr that can

RELATE to the experience levels of students. Ive seen where , underperforming students , when put in the presence of a really great battery of teachers in math, respond by exponentially gearing up that side of their brains that process and analyze. Look how easily most kids pick up computer skills, why, cause there is some immediate application of t hese skills .
This has always been a sore under my saddle. Im usually backing up the subject material a class of kids in an introductory thermodynamics in mineralogy class and reviewing partial diff equations . I find that the kids respond with clear real world examples . I read an article bt Feynman a whole bunch of years ago and he made a comment about even the brightest students needing some coaching in specific math functions and he spent nights trying to think up new applications to which his students could relate.

In summary, I think we should have spent more time training our secondary math teachers to be more creative in their approaches.

I have examples , so Id be willing to take hits from anyone that feels differently..
Also, I have always toyed with the idea of writing a really good math book for the secondary level.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote- presuming like billyho

Quote:

I notice, however, that once again, you seem to be dragging a thread off topic so we can all discuss your little agenda.

Not at all. I was simply trying to throw some light on why Science is being rejected by large swathes of our youth, which you had said it was,and I took your word for it.

If it is actually not much fun and leads one into having to socialise with those who have chosen to eschew fun one might reasonable postulate the hypothesis that therein lies the reason for the trend you said you had detected after reading an article in a newspaper or magazine and thus was bang on topic even though it wasn't the explanation which would show you in the best possible light.

I can tell you prefer the explanation that it is a national disgrace and therefore something should be done about it such as increasing science teacher's salaries but I'm a scientist and I look at every possibility with deep suspicion and take nothing for granted except that it is quite normal in the Darwinian scheme for science teachers to prefer an explanation of that nature rather than the one I am suggesting which is,if I may use an image for efficient clarity, to increase the salaries of can-can dancers and pole posers.

0 Replies

It looks like fm has been at the medicine cabinet again.

He does get very idealistic at such times and this causes him to place a far higher value on human capacities than is justified by a close and detailed study of them. He is incapable of understanding us lesser intelligences and,in true Darwinian logic, is likely to favour our extinction by the natural process of sexual selection in which those who have been "ill prepped" in "calc" are bred out.

The Dr Strangelove position roughly.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I blame a lot of this directly on the schools where so much detrital subject matter is covered and the "gut" courses like math are compart,mentalized and phase -shifted so that very small numbers of kids have been exposed to calc in HS.And many of those whove been exposed, they were taught with a method that stresses no apps. , just sheer rote . Physics is at the core of most all science and math is a mere support language of physics. ALl other sciences (those that will donate and plow new grounds) are subordinate to physics and math is the indespensible language. We need better teachesr that can RELATE to the experience levels of students. Ive seen where , underperforming students , when put in the presence of a really great battery of teachers in math, respond by exponentially gearing up that side of their brains that process and analyze. Look how easily most kids pick up computer skills, why, cause there is some immediate application of t hese skills .
This has always been a sore under my saddle. Im usually backing up the subject material a class of kids in an introductory thermodynamics in mineralogy class and reviewing partial diff equations . I find that the kids respond with clear real world examples . I read an article bt Feynman a whole bunch of years ago and he made a comment about even the brightest students needing some coaching in specific math functions and he spent nights trying to think up new applications to which his students could relate.

In summary, I think we should have spent more time training our secondary math teachers to be more creative in their approaches.

You won't get an argument out of me, I could not agree with your viewpoint more. Sadly I am one of the losers you speak of. I lost out due to myopic teachers using rote instead of imagination and no direct application at all.

But my shop teachers were no better, and yet due to programs like American Chopper and Monster Garage I strongly suspect their image in school is now much better. That's why I bought up the media / pop culture connection in my earlier post.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

I ve found that the great discrimenator is primarily ignorance of math. Once the kid is pissed at his or her deficiencies in math, they lose the "spirit" that first got them interested in science or engineering.

One might just as easily say-

I've found that the great discriminator is primarily an unwillingness or inabilty to make sacrifices and apply effort to learning to play the piano.Once the kid is pissed at his or her deficiences in making sacrifices and applying disciplined effort he or she lose the "spirit" that first got them interested in becoming an internationally renowned concert pianist."

It is very common in the NOW generation and applies to a wide range of activities excluding boozing, hanging out and lying in bed until early afternoon.

0 Replies

That's great, Spendi. If you seriously can't say anything sensible, don't say anything at all.

Eschew fun?

I think you'll find the scientists I used to work with a great laugh with their occasional pub lunches, and during the summer days, their afternoon beer parties. You'd fit in quite well.

0 Replies

Sorry Wolf-

I was trying to address your idea that Science has an image problem and to try to pin-point the causes. It is not a cause that mathematics has been poorly taught.

I have pointed to the difficulties of the subject matter for the average person and to modern life not being conducive to the disciplines necessary to master the subjects involved. And I have also alluded to the fact that a large number of people who try to present science to the public discredit themselves by their methods of discourse.Dawkins and Jones come to mind.

Another contributing factor seems to me to be the publicity given to the dispute over animal experimentation in which scientists are easily linked,rightly in my opinion, with cruelty. The leading scientist in the field has been denied official recognition in the honour's list which equivalent scientists in other fields have been granted.

Also, there is a traditional suspicion of science in our culture which dates back hundreds of years and which is probably founded on the notion that there is danger in knowing too much about the world and ourselves.

I'm sorry that you see my contributions as the only ones deserving of being criticised in this regard but that difficulty is dealt with in the 2nd paragraph of this post.

I agree that the average scientist is often capable of inducing hilarity.

0 Replies

Science has an image problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know