Letters to the Editor

• What candidate is seriosuly talking about it?

  [Read the article: Let's have a presidential debate on science]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  The article is right -- as far as it goes. The bigger problem is that the US if falling behind: in the EU 26% of graduates have degrees in Science and Engineerings, in Japan 21%, the US

  comes out with the lowest proportion 17% In the EU, about 0.56 out of every 1000 people aged 25 to 34 attained a PhD in Science and Engineering in 2000; the US ratio is 0.41 and Japan's 0.25. What is going on?

  Pull out a copy of US News and World Report College rankings. Look in the top tier of colleges. How many have a full science department, and engineerings department, how many are pure "liberal arts" colleges? Surprising isn't it? In the US a huge proportion of "top" colleges don't even seriously teach science and engineering (i.e., offer it as a major.) Why?

  Well there are a number of reasons. First, cost. As a rough "rule of thumb," every science and engineering student costs about 5 times as much to get to a degree as a liberal arts student -- 5 times! They require laboratories, with staff, high teaching ratios, with better paid teachers/professors and many more hours of classes too. Not surprisingly most countries that have strong science and engineering education state fund it. To take one example, since the 70s the Irish government has required the Universities it funds to maintain 50% of places in science and/or engineering. In the US it is no surprise that a lot of the best science and engineering faculties are in state colleges. But, in any event, one reason there are not enough scientists is that there is not the undergraduate capacity to teach them.

  Second, grades and "guts." Getting high grades in science and engineering is tough, especially in say physics -- it requires hard work, and 4.0 GPAs are not that common. Students are excellent judges of risk and reward -- graduate school, business school, law school all reward high grades, as do major employers looking to fill management positions. How many senior corporate heads in the US hold science or engineering degrees -- how many congressmen, senators, Presidents (Carter and Hoover I think is about it.) Al Gore to take an example of someone who pronounces loudly about science, has a degree in government! As a practical matter, many US students do not see an undergraduate education in science or engineerings as a path to the top. Guts -- slang for a course that is a guaranteed A -- see many science courses as guts?

  Student loans, given on a no questions asked basis. If the US was serious, it would use the student loan system to encourage science and engineering. It would for example match science and engineering tuitions and give more favorable terms to student borrowers taking these shortage subjects.

  Absolutely no question -- the US needs a president who will ask the right questions. But again and again the US gets offered complacency -- we're the best!!! But is that so, well not really anymore.

  A few weeks ago the 2006 PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) study results were released by the OECD. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

  PISA is a respected s a triennial world-wide test of 15-year-old schoolchildren's scholastic performance. Most modern countries, including the US participates.

  As it happens I was on a business trip that literally took me around the world on the same dates. PISA was front page news in so many countries -- all congratulating or excoriating themselves as to the change of their position in reading, math and science. The UK was hysterical to have slid down in the rankings for top 15 countries of the 57 participants. What happened in the US - a yawn. No coverage that I saw -- and the US was not even in the top 15 or 20 -- eeeek! Everywhere else in the world this was a big deal, not the US.

  Test this -- put PISA and 2006 into google news -- how many US articles do you see. Has a single candidate mentioned PISA? This is seriously frightening -- fixing the educational deficit of of 15-year olds will take decades, and if you don't fix them how will you solve the graduate problem.

  Permalink Thursday, December 13, 2007 02:02 AM

• My typos

  [Read the article: Let's have a presidential debate on science]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I claim the typos were added for light relief -- an effort to emulate the Gruniad.

  Permalink Thursday, December 13, 2007 02:06 AM