Comments on: Why American College Students Hate Science

By: Organic Chemistry

Organic Chemistry — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:49:23 +0000

I think you are on to something when you say to bring cutting-edge research into it. The pitch would be: “Yes, you can work on state-of-art cancer drugs, but you have to learn the basics well first.” Mr. Miyagi would have called it the “Wax On. Wax Off.” way of teaching science.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:04:38 +0000

I think my question to you is about “modules.” Why should you care about chapters or modules? The key question is what sorts of ideas you’ve retained. From your comments, it sounds like much of it is a blur.

It’s not all random, actually. It’s a question of organizing ideas.

For example, you mention VSEPR theory. It’s actually pretty reasonable — it’s a method created to explain a range of known experimental molecular structures. So it’s a set of rules that work fairly well, although there are obvious exceptions. The “real theory” underlying VSEPR is quantum chemistry, so sometimes it’s hard to rationalize the exceptions.

Perhaps that’s a good summary for our current knowledge of chemistry. Lots of great rules, some solid theories, plenty of exceptions. I think that’s the point of bringing research into the classroom. Some seemingly random pieces will fit together (because they’re using in research subject X) and a sense that some things may seem random because we just don’t know. It definitely helped for me.

By: lightbulb

lightbulb — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:03:06 +0000

i just finished my 3rd year in chemistry at college and I still couldnt tell you what a cation is but I do know retrosynthetic analysis but I dont understand VSPERT theory why is it all so random, I’m so confused……………I cant even remember what modules I have done……total autopilot

By: Geoff

Geoff — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:03:03 +0000

Well, I think a clear example is in computer science. Many students may feel that an advanced degree (e.g., Ph.D.) in computer science will not necessarily earn them a better job or provide them with a clear benefit over joining industry or starting their own company. How many “IT” people are users of technology, versus producers and developers of new science and technology?

Anecdotally, I think the question is not necessarily how many science and engineering degrees are awarded, but how many students enter science/engineering/technological careers. Government and industrial research labs are, in many cases, scaling back. Academia is not the best track for everyone.

How do we ensure continuing growth in science, engineering, and technological advances? I think these articles offer some instructive suggestions — show students at an early point how exciting research can be.

By: Puzzle Maker

Puzzle Maker — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:44:20 +0000

I’ve found it a bit strange that while this country’s youth is becoming more and more focuses on technology, engineering and science degrees are dropping. Not that I question the statistics, just that it’s very strange to me.