"Five Reasons Why Your Child Won't Be a Scientist" Blog Post

[JumpyTheFrog]

http://artofthestem.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/five-reasons-why-your-child-wont-be-a-scientist-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/#trackbacks

 

A summary of the five reasons the author listed:

 

1. Kids think they aren't "good" at math or science. Most STEM majors have a scientist parent. Teachers tend to act like STEM majors are only for the smartest kids.

 

2. The process of memorization and regurgitation drives away the students more likely to "think outside the box" and come up with new theories.

 

3. Science isn't considered cool and kids' heroes aren't scientists.

 

4. Kids rarely hear about new science discoveries and controversies and end up thinking everything has already been figured out.

 

5. Students with good grades in science in K-12 are unprepared for college level STEM work and often change majors.

 

Anyone care to discuss this post? I can think of one major thing the author left out. Many science majors need a graduate degree to get a decent job that isn't just a "glorified monkey button-pushing" job, as my DH (who was a chemistry major) described it.

[kalanamak]

 

5. Students with good grades in science in K-12 are unprepared for college level STEM work and often change majors.

 

\

 

I've seen many a kid quit over the math, and move into something "softer". As someone said in another thread, get behind in English, you can take a different class, tank in abstract algebra and you are done for the year.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Oops, one of the commenters pointed out that it was originally an article from the Huffington Post.

[Rosie_0801]

3. Science isn't considered cool and kids' heroes aren't scientists.

 

Or if they are, they don't think of them that way. Technology is applied science, isn't it?

 

Rosie

[mktkcb]

well, imo, these are all well and good reasons, but frankly, there really are kids that aren't good at math, and don't like science in spite of the best of teaching and inspiration. I was a science major. I loved math. My oldest dd is good at math, and is now an engineering major. My middle dd is bad at and hates math. I jumped through hoops backwards to make her better at math, to no avail. She is an artist and a musician. She loves beautiful things, clothes, flowers, painting, sewing, making jewelry, and playing violin. She is very smart, can think outside of boxes, memorize like the dickens, thinks science is fine, and actually takes an interest in new discoveries and controversies in science. But she will never be a scientist. Why? She wasn't meant to be.

[AimeeM]

What do you do with the child that actually wants to be a scientist, loves science, loves learning about science, does very well in math, but because of learning differences (working memory problems) can never seem to retain what she needs to, in order to further her potential in a STEM field?

[Scuff]

3. Science isn't considered cool and kids' heroes aren't scientists.

 

 

I guess my kids are watching the wrong programs. Johnny Test, Spiderman, Jimmy Neutron, Dr. Horrible, the Skullcrusher song guy. Those are just the science cool/heros I thought up off the top of my head. It seems most superheros were an experiment gone wrong.

[PhotoGal]

6) Some kids just aren't interested in Science and Math?

 

I have a problem with the pushing of Math and Science on kids. You don't see that with other subjects. There aren't a lot of people pushing all kids to enjoy ballet. Or lamenting that kids' heroes aren't ballerinas, etc.

 

If it is just for career reasons, I agree that having a science degree does not actually mean it is easy to find a job. It can be quite difficult and often underpaid.

 

I guess I'm sensitive about it because I was pushed into Engineering when I never really enjoyed it. I was not the type to do science/math/tech stuff on my own time for fun (and there *are* people who do, but not me). I was good at math and female, so I got pushed into it. And the feminist side of my went for it to "prove" that women could do engineering, too. But I never really liked it!

 

So I get frustrated when I hear things like "we need to get more girls interested in Science and Math." If they are interested, they will be interested. If they are not, no one should try to make them be, kwim?

 

I so with I could go back to age 18 and pick a different major - maybe something I was interested in!

[enviromommy]

I think the biggest reason there aren't more pure scientists is that, in the U.S., people who are talented at science and math tend to choose more lucrative fields. Someone who might have gone into science would rather start the next Google or Apple and make a trillion dollars.

 

My DH is a professor of biomedical engineering (computational biology and genetics), and he sees this with American undergraduate and graduate students. They *are* going into STEM fields, but mostly the applied portions - the technology, not the science.

[serendipitous journey]

What do you do with the child that actually wants to be a scientist, loves science, loves learning about science, does very well in math, but because of learning differences (working memory problems) can never seem to retain what she needs to, in order to further her potential in a STEM field?

 

... this sounds like it may be one of your children? do you have a diagnosis, or maybe it's something you've identified yourself? Is she able to master material, but it takes longer; have you worked with mnemonic training/techniques?

 

If she loves science, learns it well, is strong in math but has a working memory problem it would be a shame for that to deter her, but more info. would be helpful. DH is a scientist (he runs a research group studying learning and memory :)) and sits on the admissions committee for the graduate program. I remember him speaking of one excellent student who is ADHD: she had strategies to help herself, and was very transparent about her challenge and got help from the faculty. Another student had a speech disorder which made communicating very hard. So programs are interested in cultivating talent, and people with these disabilities can be successful in science.

 

It's also possible that she would want to study science, and perhaps pursue an advanced degree, and find work outside of academe -- as a writer, editor, consultant, etc., depending on her particular challenges and what she loves to do.

 

RE the OP, it seems to me that even here, in threads very interested in teaching science, there is often a focus on doing experiments young which doesn't seem at all necessary to me for development of science interest. I know heaps of theoretical scientists who detest experiments. It seems more important to me to cultivate the interest; to read about the natural world, what is known, what isn't, biographies of scientists, popular science etc. and if the child loves hands-on then experiments are fine. The scientists I know don't worry about their kids doing experiments, they tend to think the best knowledge is gained (in the early years) by building stuff, playing outside, futzing, etc. Obvious caveat here: their children are raised in science-rich homes.

 

Also it seems like many (SWB comes to mind :), I must say, despite my gratitude for her work) don't think of science as what is true about the world we live in and the people who inhabit it. THAT is compelling. The WTM goal of understanding "laws and principles"? not so much.

[enviromommy]

...

RE the OP, it seems to me that even here, in threads very interested in teaching science, there is often a focus on doing experiments young which doesn't seem at all necessary to me for development of science interest. I know heaps of theoretical scientists who detest experiments. It seems more important to me to cultivate the interest; to read about the natural world, what is known, what isn't, biographies of scientists, popular science etc. and if the child loves hands-on then experiments are fine. The scientists I know don't worry about their kids doing experiments, they tend to think the best knowledge is gained (in the early years) by building stuff, playing outside, futzing, etc. Obvious caveat here: their children are raised in science-rich homes.

 

Also it seems like many (SWB comes to mind :), I must say, despite my gratitude for her work) don't think of science as what is true about the world we live in and the people who inhabit it. THAT is compelling. The WTM goal of understanding "laws and principles"? not so much.

 

That's really interesting that that is your experience with scientists, because my DH is the opposite. Even though he is a theoretical scientist (his PhD is in theoretical chemistry and his current field is computational biology) he has been insisting all along that the kids should be doing experiments, that just reading "isn't science". He always says they need to be getting the point that they should try things for themselves. I've just recently gotten through to him that background knowledge and learning about the ideas of science are part of the package as well, and that if I don't have time to do lots of experiments with them, it is still worthwhile for us to read and discuss scientific topics. Before, I think he thought that they wouldn't develop the impulse to want to go out and design an experiment unless most of their science school time was in a "lab".

 

Maybe this is because he turned to theory in grad school, after starting as a biochem major. I'm pretty sure (may be putting words in his mouth) that he thinks you develop the reflex for experimental design in a wet lab and use that mental skill set when you design a mathematical or computer based project. But I may be saying this wrong, since I have trouble really understanding what he does for a living :tongue_smilie:

[serendipitous journey]

That's really interesting that that is your experience with scientists, because my DH is the opposite. ... He always says they need to be getting the point that they should try things for themselves.

 

I agree that students should be empiricists -- that they should get a handle on making predictions and testing them -- but I think that proper "experiments" are often counterproductive and may drive some kids (like me!) away. Never would I discourage a child who liked experiments from doing them. But when I see people do science, and from the science I've done, it doesn't start with a hypothesis or an experiment; it starts by learning what people have already learned, finding what isn't known that interests you, finding how you can build on current knowledge by using available technology and tools -- or figuring out that the standard model is wrong, and how to overthrow it; or building the tools you need to get the info. you want.

 

Some folks just jump in the experimental end, of course. :)

 

My DH and I go 'round about this a bit too! I suspect there's a bit of a gender difference here. ;) -- on average, of course; there are several gung-ho experimental folks who post and are very female!

[Alenee]

6) Some kids just aren't interested in Science and Math?

 

I have a problem with the pushing of Math and Science on kids. You don't see that with other subjects. There aren't a lot of people pushing all kids to enjoy ballet. Or lamenting that kids' heroes aren't ballerinas, etc.

 

If it is just for career reasons, I agree that having a science degree does not actually mean it is easy to find a job. It can be quite difficult and often underpaid.

 

I guess I'm sensitive about it because I was pushed into Engineering when I never really enjoyed it. I was not the type to do science/math/tech stuff on my own time for fun (and there *are* people who do, but not me). I was good at math and female, so I got pushed into it. And the feminist side of my went for it to "prove" that women could do engineering, too. But I never really liked it!

 

So I get frustrated when I hear things like "we need to get more girls interested in Science and Math." If they are interested, they will be interested. If they are not, no one should try to make them be, kwim?

 

I so with I could go back to age 18 and pick a different major - maybe something I was interested in!

 

I believe the push in this country is necessary to get kids thinking about it. We are a country that used to discover, invent, manufacture...now we just sit and read and consume and our country isn't any smarter than it used to be after gaining all of this so-called knowledge. It's important to *at the very least* expose kids to science outside of a book. Our country is on the fast track to nowhere as we currently stand. I'm all for reading, but it isn't getting us anywhere.

 

I understand your frustration though...I don't really like a lot of the sciences either. Through a great program here for middle school science, I found out that I love chemistry though! I wish I'd known that when I was still in school. Thankfully, my kids are getting a fantastic education in many different scientific fields and my formerly non-mathy musician just asked me if she could get two degrees: one in science and one in music. If we hadn't exposed her to this group, she never would've known her potential in math and science.

[Bang!Zoom!]

The author is not an authority on the topic other than to offer an authors opinion as far as I can tell.

[LittleIzumi]

I've seen many a kid quit over the math, and move into something "softer". As someone said in another thread, get behind in English, you can take a different class, tank in abstract algebra and you are done for the year.

 

:iagree: That's why I have a Creative Writing degree instead of the McBio degree I wanted when I began university classes.

[gardenmom5]

hmm. neither dh or I are STEM's (or nerds. kids have two EE uncles, does that count?) 1dd is a nerd, 2dd IS a scientist (in grad school working on her doctorate in chemical/biological related science.), and 1ds & 2ds are working on their nerdiness credentials.

 

I can agree about science majors needing advanced degree's. my niece got her bs science degree, and then became a nerd (instead of getting an advanced degree in biology.).

[Rosie_0801]

It's important to *at the very least* expose kids to science outside of a book.

 

Ok, so we have this concept and I'm sitting here after having just cleaned up a tub of powdery stuff my littlies got into and assorted piles of onion skins, because ds has been into peeling onions recently. Oh, and the grass that gets traipsed into the house because he likes to play in the grass clippings. And I'm smeared with mud because he spends hours playing with his box of mud, digging and dribbling.

 

All that seems like toddler science to me. How do kids get from there to science being a thing only found in books? Are these kids I have here going to get tidy? :w00t:

 

Rosie

[serendipitous journey]

Ok, so we have this concept and I'm sitting here after having just cleaned up a tub of powdery stuff my littlies got into and assorted piles of onion skins, because ds has been into peeling onions recently. Oh, and the grass that gets traipsed into the house because he likes to play in the grass clippings. And I'm smeared with mud because he spends hours playing with his box of mud, digging and dribbling.

 

All that seems like toddler science to me. How do kids get from there to science being a thing only found in books? Are these kids I have here going to get tidy? :w00t:

 

Rosie

:iagree:

 

Rosie also touched on why I find myself sometimes sounding so harpy about experiments :D: kids sometimes think that science is a thing found only in experiments. That there are doing-science times, and not-doing-science times, as opposed to science being something like language, like thought, like faith, that runs through everything and informs one's entire existence.

 

Someone once challenged DH, "Do you raise your children 'scientifically'?" and he [of course] said, "Of course!" and they laughed "Good luck with that!" People seem to think that raising children scientifically means, I don't know, treating them like _experiments_ or like lab rats or trying to reason with your toddler like she's a grad student. Really, it means paying attention to whether or not they are thriving; applying to them what you know about how humans like to be treated, what little people are like, what their limits are, how much sleep they need and affection they are getting and how desperately children need approval and discipline too. People who aren't thinking "scientifically" often do all this, but to a scientist it's just part of science and dealing with the real world (well, it can be. Scientists, like other folks, can be horrid parents).

 

Also, much of the value of science comes in our everyday interactions and I am grateful for a more scientific understanding of my own behavior. I happen to know that "studies show" that when a person needs assistance, if there are more people around she is _less_ likely to get help: it's a weird crowd psychology effect, plus everybody thinks if help was required somebody else would give it. Since I know this I was able to help a mentally disabled adult in a crowded coffee shop, who had spilled his drink and was quite distressed: he gave a loud shout, used some fowl language, and then was silent. He was far away from me, and when I saw that the folks at nearby tables didn't do anything for him I started to assume that he was fine -- and I was a put off by the language; but then I remembered the studies, and went over to ask if he needed a hand, and found that he did (this is when it became clear that he was mentally disabled) and wasn't able to get assistance for himself. The incident stuck with me b/c of how near I was to ignoring this person, and how the science helped me be more human, more humane. It's why I love science :).

[Pippen]

That's really interesting that that is your experience with scientists, because my DH is the opposite. Even though he is a theoretical scientist (his PhD is in theoretical chemistry and his current field is computational biology) he has been insisting all along that the kids should be doing experiments, that just reading "isn't science". He always says they need to be getting the point that they should try things for themselves. ".

 

I've seen a big increase in the emphasis on reading and writing in science classes in our school district (especially at the elementary and junior high level) as fallout from No Child Left Behind. They don't even try to hide it--it's along the lines of using short (and boring to most students) science books for reading groups because the content is on state testing and Writing scores on the state tests were low so we're going to incorporate six extended response assignments in science class per quarter.

[RegGuheert]

Even though he is a theoretical scientist (his PhD is in theoretical chemistry and his current field is computational biology) he has been insisting all along that the kids should be doing experiments, that just reading "isn't science". He always says they need to be getting the point that they should try things for themselves.

I think it is important to realize that science will not advance if all we have is just one type of thinker working on a problem. Most problems that I am aware of require a very broad range of skills in order for there to be a successful outcome. Some team members will need to be deeply theoretical, some will need to be extremely "hands on", others will need to be extremely practical, some will need to manage the process, etc. Many times technical people will tend to think that their approach to the problem is the best or most valuable, when in reality nothing will get accomplished unless a broad-based set of approaches comes to bear.

All that seems like toddler science to me.

:iagree:

 

I grew up on a farm. My parents were not "sciencey", but I will say that my mom loved learning and encouraged that in us. My dad was poorly educated, but he was an extremely intelligent man with an unbelievable memory.

 

So how did I learn science? I took stuff apart! (And usually could NOT put them back together!) I drove the tractor constantly. You can learn a LOT of experiential physics by driving a tractor with loader and other implements such as a manure spreader or mower!

 

But the funny thing is that I never learned or understood electricity from my life on the farm. So I decided to go into electrical engineering! :D

[Jyniffrec]

Some of my children find what are referred to as experiments in books extremely tedious, especially when typically the outcome is already known (usually because it is obvious but sometimes because they have read about it in a book). I don't know about the smaller ones yet. I have tried to encourage them to come up with their own experiments. The last one was mixing chocolate with other flavors to find out which one tasted the best.

 

I have come to the conclusion that curiosity gets you a long, long way in life, no matter what the subject is.

[plansrme]

What do you do with the child that actually wants to be a scientist, loves science, loves learning about science, does very well in math, but because of learning differences (working memory problems) can never seem to retain what she needs to, in order to further her potential in a STEM field?

 

Can she write? If so, what you have there is a technical writer! Or science journalist. Have you seen what horrible writers most scientists and techies are?

 

Pardon the gross stereotyping, but you know, it wouldn't be a stereotype if it weren't so often true. For evidence, look no further than the heading of the original HuffPost article as well as the blog post: "reasons why" is incorrect; it should just be "reasons." I rest my case.

 

Please, please, those of you with with sciencey kids who can also write--push them into a career interpreting science and technical jargon for regular people! Thank you.

 

Terri

[Haiku]

So I get frustrated when I hear things like "we need to get more girls interested in Science and Math." If they are interested, they will be interested. If they are not, no one should try to make them be, kwim?

 

I agree. My father did his darndest to get his girls (3) interested in science. His oldest dd was naturally interested in science, now has a PhD in immunology, and loves what she does. His younger two dds were interested in humanities. One took a degree in gerontology and now massages dogs. One took a degree in social work and now homeschools her kids/works part time in a local shop. No matter what my dad did to get me interested in science, I just wasn't. I liked history and writing and sociology. Science was my dad's thing. He never made me feel guilty about it, but I definitely picked up on the "Smart girls should like science and math" vibe that goes around in our culture, and there were many people who thought I was wasting my brains on a social work degree.

 

As an adult I am far more interested in science than I was as a young person. One of my kids is super-interested in science and says she wants to major in it in college. My other two are not interested in science. One actively hates it (because of the math aspect) and one is fine with it but really couldn't care one way or another.

 

I think the author's list could pertain to many, many careers, and although it sounds nice to say we should have more kids becoming scientists/mathematicians, if they aren't interested in doing so, they just aren't.

 

Tara

[enviromommy]

Not that this has anything much to do with anything, but I personally detest experiments. At least any of the ones I've done either with my kids or in school. HOWEVER, that's all my kids want to do. :D

 

I agree. I like to sit at a nice, neat desk, reading a nice textbook, highlighting in fluorescent yellow, and typing up outlines. I like to write nice neat notecards and take lecture notes while sitting with a cup of coffee. I will happily study for a Bar exam in every single state. I do NOT like to get up and do an experiment, PE, or an art project. And I was ALWAYS like this.

[enviromommy]

I agree. My father did his darndest to get his girls (3) interested in science. His oldest dd was naturally interested in science, now has a PhD in immunology, and loves what she does. His younger two dds were interested in humanities. One took a degree in gerontology and now massages dogs. One took a degree in social work and now homeschools her kids/works part time in a local shop. No matter what my dad did to get me interested in science, I just wasn't. I liked history and writing and sociology. Science was my dad's thing. He never made me feel guilty about it, but I definitely picked up on the "Smart girls should like science and math" vibe that goes around in our culture, and there were many people who thought I was wasting my brains on a social work degree.

 

As an adult I am far more interested in science than I was as a young person. One of my kids is super-interested in science and says she wants to major in it in college. My other two are not interested in science. One actively hates it (because of the math aspect) and one is fine with it but really couldn't care one way or another.

 

I think the author's list could pertain to many, many careers, and although it sounds nice to say we should have more kids becoming scientists/mathematicians, if they aren't interested in doing so, they just aren't.

 

Tara

 

As far as women in science, I think there is less of a problem with getting them interested than in retaining them at the higher levels of academe, for the same reason as with other professions - many women are less willing to give up that time with their children than are their husbands. In big law firms, the entering first year associates are 50/50, and by the time it comes time to pick partners, many of the women have dropped out... me included. Actually, I'm pleasantly surprised by how many of my husband's colleagues are women.

[Dmmetler]

I think Phineas and Ferb are great STEMs heroes. Dr. Doofensmirtz, too :).

 

I had two STEMs parents (between them, we hit degrees in physics, math, chemistry, and microbiology), and neither my brother nor I went into STEMS (although I did get a graduate degree in math ed, the primary reason for that wasn't a passion for teaching math-it was that the state of TX would pay for my masters if I specialized in math). DD has one STEMs parent and me.

 

I don't do much planned science, except for sending DD to a weekly group class which she sees more as a social fun time because "I already know what will happen" than as an actual class, and reading books. She seems to do a good job of coming up with the hands-on stuff herself. I suspect she learns more physics in gymnastics than she learns in her science class.

 

One thing I do have to respect my parents for-while they made sure my brother and I had PLENTY of opportunities to learn, know, and understand science, they also did their best to support and understand our passions. Maybe it's because both my parents were the kids who left the farm to study something their parents didn't understand, but they never gave me the "music is a hobby, not a job" line that many people I know heard, and were much less high pressure as far as my deciding NOT to take an advanced science class in favor of taking an extra music class than, say, my high school guidance counselor, who simply couldn't understand why anyone with an A in chemistry wouldn't want to take AP chemistry.

Edited November 30, 2011 by dmmetler

[elegantlion]

http://artofthestem.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/five-reasons-why-your-child-wont-be-a-scientist-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/#trackbacks

 

A summary of the five reasons the author listed:

 

1. Kids think they aren't "good" at math or science. Most STEM majors have a scientist parent. Teachers tend to act like STEM majors are only for the smartest kids.

 

2. The process of memorization and regurgitation drives away the students more likely to "think outside the box" and come up with new theories.

 

3. Science isn't considered cool and kids' heroes aren't scientists.

 

4. Kids rarely hear about new science discoveries and controversies and end up thinking everything has already been figured out.

 

5. Students with good grades in science in K-12 are unprepared for college level STEM work and often change majors.

 

Anyone care to discuss this post? I can think of one major thing the author left out. Many science majors need a graduate degree to get a decent job that isn't just a "glorified monkey button-pushing" job, as my DH (who was a chemistry major) described it.

 

Well we're trying to break all of these reasons in our house. :tongue_smilie:

 

Ds is just wired like a scientist. His favorite question is why. He likes math and science. I see his interests going one of two ways, but definitely in the STEM area.

[laughing lioness]

1. Kids think they aren't "good" at math or science. Most STEM majors have a scientist parent. Teachers tend to act like STEM majors are only for the smartest kids.

I always thought STEM majors were the smart kids and that was the message that I got growing up. Looking back I think it was less about "smart" and more about "getting a high paying job."

Now I think it takes a certain type of intelligence. My dh's grad school had plenty of brilliant (seriously brilliant) people at it. 2 of the 3 deans of the 3 schools were former engineers who had gone from STEM careers to the humanities/academic admin/writing. I'm not sure that I agree that only STEM majors have scientist parents, but it would take a study to find that out.

 

 

2. The process of memorization and regurgitation drives away the students more likely to "think outside the box" and come up with new theories. HAHAHA. What a load of carp. But that's just mho. The process of long term memorization (vs. short term to regurgitate, in order to get a grade, rather than to "own" the material), doesn't serve anyone for the long haul. Those with memorization skills have one more serious learning tool in their tool box. Being able to memorize is important no matter what field one is going in to.

 

3. Science isn't considered cool and kids' heroes aren't scientists. Not in this house. BUT, I do see that sports and entertainment figures are the heros of the masses.

 

4. Kids rarely hear about new science discoveries and controversies and end up thinking everything has already been figured out. My kids spend copious amounts of time hanging with their dad at the NASA and NOAA web-sites, among others. At least some articles in Science News are digested each week, along with other mags. Our kids have a pretty good grasp on scientific discoveries.

 

5. Students with good grades in science in K-12 are unprepared for college level STEM work and often change majors. This would not surprise me. Grade inflation is not helping anyone. BUT, I think that those kids going to schools like Purdue, MIT, etc would be better prepared than those going to a less competitive environment.

 

Anyone care to discuss this post? I can think of one major thing the author left out. Many science majors need a graduate degree to get a decent job that isn't just a "glorified monkey button-pushing" job, as my DH (who was a chemistry major) described it.

Just like 50 is the new 40, a bachelor's degree is the new high school degree and a Master's degree is the new bachelor's degree.

We surround our kids with science. My dh is a social scientist, understands scientific thinking and includes the kids in lots of his scientific interest/passion. They love science, though we don't do a lot of sceince experiments per se. That being said, I can see only our last 2, possibly, going into science fields. It's not for lack fo interest, it's because of passion in other areas.

Edited November 30, 2011 by laughing lioness

[Heather in Neverland]

I agree. I like to sit at a nice, neat desk, reading a nice textbook, highlighting in fluorescent yellow, and typing up outlines. I like to write nice neat notecards and take lecture notes while sitting with a cup of coffee. I will happily study for a Bar exam in every single state. I do NOT like to get up and do an experiment, PE, or an art project. And I was ALWAYS like this.

 

:iagree: and I would like to add: please don't make me do a "group project". :D

 

I have one ds who loves experiments and one who loathes them.

[RegGuheert]

I agree. My father did his darndest to get his girls (3) interested in science. His oldest dd was naturally interested in science, now has a PhD in immunology, and loves what she does. His younger two dds were interested in humanities. One took a degree in gerontology and now massages dogs. One took a degree in social work and now homeschools her kids/works part time in a local shop. No matter what my dad did to get me interested in science, I just wasn't. I liked history and writing and sociology. Science was my dad's thing. He never made me feel guilty about it, but I definitely picked up on the "Smart girls should like science and math" vibe that goes around in our culture, and there were many people who thought I was wasting my brains on a social work degree.

It is interesting for me to read this since MomsintheGarden's father, who is an electrical engineer, took an entirely different tack: He told her that girls should NOT be engineers. Instead, they should be secretaries! :glare:

 

MomsintheGarden has a BS in electrical engineering and is a outstanding engineer and an even better homeschool mom! :001_smile:

[FloridaLisa]

My oldest two are going into STEM majors. The first loves science, the second math. And while my 3rd will likely find something in law/writing (his clear talent/bent), my fourth wants to go into engineering. But I do see a HUGE advantage for those children whose parents' are scientists.

 

Lisa

[TXMary2]

What about the kid who loves science and wants to be a zoology or biology major? My ds has big goals, but he struggles mightily with math and always has. He is a sophomore and still doing Algebra 1. He is almost finished, but he isn't strong with it. He spends about 2 -3 hours a day with Algebra - partly because he struggles, but mostly because he is determined and he forces himself to read, watch instructional lessons and work through several lessons a day. I am really worried about the SAT math portion.

[happyhomemaker25]

I've seen a big increase in the emphasis on reading and writing in science classes in our school district (especially at the elementary and junior high level) as fallout from No Child Left Behind. They don't even try to hide it--it's along the lines of using short (and boring to most students) science books for reading groups because the content is on state testing and Writing scores on the state tests were low so we're going to incorporate six extended response assignments in science class per quarter.

 

 

YES! I was just thinking about this today. My friend's son who is in public middle school is reading Science books that look more like LA readers to me. It's more about being able to pass a writing and comprehension part on the FCAT then on the actual science class.

[happyhomemaker25]

:iagree: and I would like to add: please don't make me do a "group project". :D

 

I have one ds who loves experiments and one who loathes them.

 

UGH, I always hated group projects. I just was not academically confident enough to ever feel like I contributed to a group project enough. I had perfect grades on individual stuff, but put me in a group and I froze.

[regentrude]

2. The process of memorization and regurgitation drives away the students more likely to "think outside the box" and come up with new theories.

 

I don't understand this. In science, there is really very little to memorize once you understand it.

 

3. Science isn't considered cool and kids' heroes aren't scientists.

That's a big one. Especially since in this society it seems to be cool to be ignorant - people are boasting of their lack of understanding. Even on this forum, I have read opinions that science education is not necessary for average people. Truly scary.

 

I can think of one major thing the author left out. Many science majors need a graduate degree to get a decent job that isn't just a "glorified monkey button-pushing" job, as my DH (who was a chemistry major) described it.

Not sure why this should be a factor. At the age kids develop an interest in science, they are not thinking about graduate school.

once they are old enough to plan that far ahead, they will have found out that grad school in sciences is much easier to swing than grad school in any other subject, because almost every science grad student gets paid by her department.

On the topic of experiments: one can be excited about science and completely abhor doing experiments. I am a theoretical physicist., I hate experiments. Never liked them, not as a kid, not in college. I have an abstract visualization of processes, and "hands-on" activities do nothing to enhance understanding for me. I much prefer to read in a book that work in a lab. My kids are the same way.

 

on the topic of women: I do not understand the push for women in science; I acknowledge that fewer girls may be interested in physics for instance (the ratio of incoming freshmen is 1 girl: 6-7 boys. It was the same under completely different societal circumstances in a communist planned economy with 98% of women in the workforce, when I went to school). there is some loss up the pipeline as women become mothers, but the input is only 1:7, so it is unrealistic to expect a ratio of more than that in faculty positions for example. I am all for encouraging interested girls to pursue their interests and become a scientist, but I fail to see the reasoning behind the push to make more girls go into STEM, just for the sake of having more female scientists.

Edited November 30, 2011 by regentrude

[RegGuheert]

UGH, I always hated group projects. I just was not academically confident enough to ever feel like I contributed to a group project enough. I had perfect grades on individual stuff, but put me in a group and I froze.

While not all STEM work is done in groups, I would venture a guess to say that MOST is. We see that DS21 and DD19 do a LOT more group work in college than we did when we were in school.

[happyhomemaker25]

http://artofthestem.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/five-reasons-why-your-child-wont-be-a-scientist-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/#trackbacks

 

A summary of the five reasons the author listed:

 

1. Kids think they aren't "good" at math or science. Most STEM majors have a scientist parent. Teachers tend to act like STEM majors are only for the smartest kids.

 

2. The process of memorization and regurgitation drives away the students more likely to "think outside the box" and come up with new theories.

 

3. Science isn't considered cool and kids' heroes aren't scientists.

 

4. Kids rarely hear about new science discoveries and controversies and end up thinking everything has already been figured out.

 

5. Students with good grades in science in K-12 are unprepared for college level STEM work and often change majors.

 

Anyone care to discuss this post? I can think of one major thing the author left out. Many science majors need a graduate degree to get a decent job that isn't just a "glorified monkey button-pushing" job, as my DH (who was a chemistry major) described it.

 

#5 is something I've been really thinking about lately. I even asked in an earlier thread how important having a strong science background was when going to college and majoring in some science related field. The general consensus was that it was very important. The question for me was prompted when I remembered my highschool science classes at a public college prep highschool that is nationally recognized. They were great, but even some of my classmates who went into science related fields said that had a lot more to learn when they got to college. They did not feel they were fully prepared for the rigor of the classes.

[regentrude]

Can she write? If so, what you have there is a technical writer! Or science journalist. Have you seen what horrible writers most scientists and techies are?

 

Pardon the gross stereotyping, but you know, it wouldn't be a stereotype if it weren't so often true.

 

The good scientists I know are all good writers - because they have to write a lot of papers and get them published in prestigious journals. If you don't write correct English, you don't get your paper published. And some editors are really nitpicky about language details. Incorrect English can be grounds to have your paper rejected, at least from the better journals.

[TravelingChris]

My dh is a physicist. His parents were definitely not STEM and not even interested in STEM subjects. BUt they were at least observant enough so they got him presents that helped him along- National Geographic subscription, telescope, books,etc. Oh and in physics, there really isn't much memorization.

 

Now out of our three kids- first didn't do a STEM major but we will see where he ends up. He may very well end up in something technology based. Number two probably isn't a STEM major either since her current plan is to be a prosecutor. However, I wouldn't be totally surprised if she decided to become a research academic- though more in soft science rather than in hard science. Number three is currently interested in becoming a accident investigator so yes that is a STEM category. So we probably will have at least one STEM and maybe up to three.

[RegGuheert]

I don't understand this. In science, there is really very little to memorize once you understand it.

I agree with you if you are discussing physics. But DD19 is studying chemistry and biochemistry. I perceive there is a MASSIVE amount of memorization in those two areas. Some things that come to mind are nomenclature rules and exceptions, chemical structures of lots of organic molecules, many different named reactions, the details of extremely complex biological machinery including reactions chains that may be twenty-or-more steps, etc. She does extremely well since memorization is a strong suit for her.

[TravelingChris]

Oh and I considered science to be very important. It was a main part of our homeschooling always.

[enviromommy]

:iagree: and I would like to add: please don't make me do a "group project". :D

 

I have one ds who loves experiments and one who loathes them.

 

:lol: yes, that describes me!

[mommymilkies]

My dh is a chemistry professor and I was pre-med and a former lab rat. Science is very important to us. My kids have already done real lab work including balancing chemical equations (well, the 9 and 10 yo).

 

The biggest problems my dh sees with his students who are science majors:

 

(Yes, he complains about these daily)

 

1. They had really terrible math & science teachers in high school. Many aren't even qualified in their areas. Many science departments in schools are underfunded. My chem class in high school did not have lab equipment because of funding, so we never even did a single experiment/demonstration. Not to mention many parents do their childrens' science and math work for them so they never really get real experience.

 

2. They are told they can be anything they want. Even a doctor despite their 2.0 GPA and lack of work ethic. A good percentage of dh's students start as pre-med but quit soon into college when they realize it's more hard work than they are willing to put in. Their parents always told them they could be anything and occupations like Doctors are highly lucrative and prestigious. Then reality kicks in.

[JenC3]

The whole parents need to be STEM is not quite true in my book. My dh would have gone in to STEM I think if he'd been allowed to pick his own STEM field. It was told to him (by his two STEM parents) he would be an engineer and he was for about 18 months of college before he almost flunked out, he hated it so much. He went on to get his PhD in English. His younger brother has an MFA, and his middle brother was an engineer until he became severely depressed and is now a neuroscientist. Their parents made STEM careers a death sentence, not fun.

 

My dd is very science bent, but is also a natural at fine arts and was an early reader. She's 8 reading at a 10th grade level. She does things from a very mechanical perspective. Who know what she will do. I think my son is more the humanities guy, but we'll see.

[mommymilkies]

What about the kid who loves science and wants to be a zoology or biology major? My ds has big goals, but he struggles mightily with math and always has. He is a sophomore and still doing Algebra 1. He is almost finished, but he isn't strong with it. He spends about 2 -3 hours a day with Algebra - partly because he struggles, but mostly because he is determined and he forces himself to read, watch instructional lessons and work through several lessons a day. I am really worried about the SAT math portion.

 

What about trying another program? Or a good tutor? What about making it relevant? I always struggled with math because I was intimidated by it. Having a math genius cousin and reading The Dancing Wu Li Masters really helped me. That and getting a decent math teacher. You can do science while struggling with math. You just have to work with it because you will use it often. The more you use it, the easier it will be. But most bio majors have to take calculus, so it's important to go into college ready for it.

[FaithManor]

I agree with you if you are discussing physics. But DD19 is studying chemistry and biochemistry. I perceive there is a MASSIVE amount of memorization in those two areas. Some things that come to mind are nomenclature rules and exceptions, chemical structures of lots of organic molecules, many different named reactions, the details of extremely complex biological machinery including reactions chains that may be twenty-or-more steps, etc. She does extremely well since memorization is a strong suit for her.

 

 

Dd's pre-med major is in chemistry. She has the entire Periodic Table of Elements memorized with atomic numbers, etc. and the significant properties of each element, medical and industrial usages, etc.

 

And yes, as a paramedic, she's memorized more than most can imagine. There was the semester in which she became the walking "Physician's Desk Reference" and regurgitate the proper use of, the doseage for infants - adults with both common and rare side effects, and contraindications on over 500 drugs. Don't start on the Anatomy and Physiology. Personally, I wouldn't want to incur people in the medical profession who aren't good a memorizing. Maybe physics and engineering isn't too bad, but I suspect chemistry and biology are heavy on memorization and I KNOW medicine is!

 

There have been many, many interesting discussions of this on the high school board. If you currently do not have a high schooler, it might be of interest to you to search that board anyway.

 

That said, my bachelor's degree is in a triple major of piano performance, music ed, and philosophy. I nearly majored in marine biology...my dad's influence kept me out of it and though I adore science, I am actually grateful for his imput because he was right about my musical talent needing to be nurtured. The school I would have ended up at for marine biology would have kept me so busy in the sciences that my piano skill would have never seen the light of day! :D Dh triple majored in math, compter science, and business administration. He filled his electives with chemistry and physics. I filled mine with biology and chemistry plus two physics classes just for fun!

 

Therefore, as science nerds, we are happy to report that we are batting 4 out of 4. DD - Chemistry/Pre-Med/Paramedic, Ds #1 - definitely headed to Anthropology/Archaeology which is considered a soft science but still a definite science, just very heavy in history and this fits his personality absolutely perfectly...he has decided he will minor in geology. Ds #2 - 13 y.o. and already checking out grad school programs. If we thought dd was a planner, well, she's been surpassed by this one. He's planning to major in Biology at one of 12 universities that offers a zoology dual emphasis with a minor in chemistry and his ultimate "landing site" is Herpetology. (This child will probably end up living in some wild place so he can collect and observe POISONOUS THINGS! GRRRRRR) Ds #3 (11 and already studying to try to get an ACT/SAT score big enough to land a place at M.I.T.) - double major in math and physics. Except dd who is currently practicing medicine as a Paramedic and will either eventually go on to a physician's assistant program or med school, the other three are all willing to make a paltry sum of money doing research. Dd currently makes a paltry sum, $12.17 an hour as a paramedic and this week alone she's successfully run codes on three heart attack victims, all of whom she is happy to report, made it. Good thing she has an absolutely excellent benefits package - lovely health, optical, and dental benefits, and nice employer matching on the 401K. (As an aside, I had to listen to the diatribe of someone at church that is adamantly opposed to paramedics, emt's, and EMS workers getting health insurance and retirement plans because, "if they didn't get paid this stuff, then calling the ambulance would be cheap". I held my tongue. Aren't you proud of me?)

 

Science is a passion here. So, well, I'll close this post because this isn't the high school board and you aren't probably looking for me give one my annual "what's wrong with science education in America" lectures! :lol:

 

Faith

[Capt_Uhura]

I think it is important to realize that science will not advance if all we have is just one type of thinker working on a problem. Most problems that I am aware of require a very broad range of skills in order for there to be a successful outcome. Some team members will need to be deeply theoretical, some will need to be extremely "hands on", others will need to be extremely practical, some will need to manage the process, etc. Many times technical people will tend to think that their approach to the problem is the best or most valuable, when in reality nothing will get accomplished unless a broad-based set of approaches comes to bear.:iagree:

 

 

 

:iagree::iagree: You need those folks who change/challenge the paradigm. You need those folks who once the paradigm shifts, goes in and fills in the details b/c the paradigm shifters have moved on to the next cool idea. YOu need those folks who can integrate it all and see the big picture while those others are at the sub-microscopic details. It's all good. :D

 

I'm only on page 3 so this is likely been said but I think it depends on the kid. DS, who was then 8yrs old, said that reading about science wasn't doing science. He wanted to do science. Some kids are content with reading books, writing a summary, researching a topic to learn more about it, DS likes discovering things for himself. WHen he was 8-9yrs old, he wanted to know if hot water cools down at the same rate that cold water warms up to room temp. He designed an experiment to test it, using the LEGO NXT to capture the data. I could have googled that and read him the answer but the look on his face when he graphed the data was priceless.

[AdventureMoms]

I have a BS and MS in Mechanical Engineering with minors in Math and Physics. My DW has a BS in Chemical Engineering (and one in History). We're a STEM family through and through.

 

I think this list is very interesting, but I also think that regional variations on this are HUGE.

 

 

1. Kids think they aren't "good" at math or science. Most STEM majors have a scientist parent. Teachers tend to act like STEM majors are only for the smartest kids.

 

I think this is very often true. I also think this is where we need to take aim when encouraging women in STEM fields. I'm actually a HUGE proponent of programs that encourage girls and young women to consider STEM as a career path. While I agree that no one should be forcing girls into fields that don't interest them, I also think there is a lot of cultural bias that women "shouldn't" be interested in those fields. Exposing girls to science, math, and engineering in middle school or earlier can help some girls discover interests they didn't know they had. Especially the "hard" sciences and engineering disciplines. In engineering school, I knew a lot of women who took Chemical Engineering because they were under the impression it was easier than Electrical or Mechanical Engineering. It is not, but it does require just a touch less math. I tutored math for all 4 years of college, and I saw WAY more math fear in women than in men. I didn't actually see less ability or less interest in women, I saw more fear. So getting the message out there that math can be interesting and also that girls can do math is something near and dear to me.

 

2. The process of memorization and regurgitation drives away the students more likely to "think outside the box" and come up with new theories.

 

 

Half true, I think. I am terrible at memorization and always have been. I did very little memorization in HS or college. The softer sciences have more memorization though. Also, I do think that many people in our culture somehow have the idea that STEM folks are not creative, or that creative people can't do STEM work. A totally wrongheaded notion, but I don't know how to fix it. Even more damaging is the notion that somehow humanities and STEM are polar opposites and don't go together well. Ask my wife with the dual engineering/history degree about that sometime!

 

3. Science isn't considered cool and kids' heroes aren't scientists.

 

True for some kids probably. But technology is pretty idolized in our culture and there are plenty of scientist heroes out there.

 

4. Kids rarely hear about new science discoveries and controversies and end up thinking everything has already been figured out.

 

I think this is very true, and it goes with the whole "creative people don't do science" notion.

 

5. Students with good grades in science in K-12 are unprepared for college level STEM work and often change majors.

 

As a former math and physics tutor, yes, this is very common. You have to understand algebra (not just regurgitate it) to understand calculus. I'm shocked at how many people graduate HS with good enough math grades to get into engineering school, but still never really UNDERSTAND algebra.

 

Anyone care to discuss this post? I can think of one major thing the author left out. Many science majors need a graduate degree to get a decent job that isn't just a "glorified monkey button-pushing" job, as my DH (who was a chemistry major) described it.

 

This is true in pure science, but not in STEM in general. DW only has a BS, and has an excellent job in an engineering field. I had one for years (and could have one now). I have an MS, but DW's experience opens more doors for her than my MS does for me. My brother worked for years in a STEM field with an associates degree. I do think that in pure science it is a barrier for some, but most people in STEM fields do not pay for their graduate work (I had a nice salary while my work paid for mine) so it is less of a barrier than many might think.

[Capt_Uhura]

The good scientists I know are all good writers - because they have to write a lot of papers and get them published in prestigious journals. If you don't write correct English, you don't get your paper published. And some editors are really nitpicky about language details. Incorrect English can be grounds to have your paper rejected, at least from the better journals.

:iagree: Japanese colleagues of mine could not get their papers published in even 2nd tier American journals due to poor grammar. After I started rewriting all of their papers, they were accepted on the first submission - same data, same science - good English.

[Capt_Uhura]

I think the notion that the only kids going into STEM fields have STEM-parents is related to the generally poor science/math education in this country. STEM-parents are more likely to nuture and afterschool their DC in science. You can have non-STEM parents who nuture and afterschool science for their DC as well. I read the speech of the valedictorian from a nearby high school. He credited his valedictorian-ship to his parents afterschooling math and science, saying that the math and science taught at his high school was crap. :001_huh: He used more sophisticated words than I am using but that was the gist. So this kid has an advantage in going into a STEM career b/c he will be better prepared for college than the other kids at his school that didn't have the ASing that he had.