just another example of why we need to do a better job at teaching science in this country:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534017/
Missy
Yep.
Unfortunately, I do not think this even touches the tip of the iceberg. I have taught (or tried to teach) college freshman biology for non-majors. Many students took the course because science credit was required and they figured they could skate through biology as opposed to chemistry or physics. I almost despaired while trying to teach certain topics.
Part of the problem might have to do with PR.
Math and science get a bad rap - they’re supposed to be “hard” so most students don’t want to study them. More shows like “Dr. Science” might help but it’s difficult to overcome a societal tradition (kids hear adults say how bad they (the adults) are at math so it’s okay for the kids to do poorly). And unfortunately due to less people going into teaching, the quality of teaching drops and people who are some of those who didn’t do too well in math/science end up trying to teach math/science.
Mediocrity breeds mediocrity (not to say there’s not some dynamite teachers out there).
Was it Truman Capote who measured that by living in California one loses one IQ point every six months? 
Now, the Internet jokesters who started it all are lucky no-one from the Federal administration fell in their trap: they’d have the Feds and a judge already behind them…
This is an old prank. About five years ago I created a petition to ban “dihydrogen monoxide,” placed several copies around the office (lunchrooms, breaks rooms, etc.) to see what would happen.
I collected over 100 signatures!
Me fail science? That’s unpossible.
Zub - the original person to come up with the “dihydrogen monoxide” ban was a high school student doing research for a science fair. His point was that you could “phrase” anything in such a way that people (and even PhD’s in science) would sign petitions to “ban” it.
Montana - I hear ya! I’m an analytical chemist by trade - and I feel strongly that my kids, at least, get a good science education. You would not BELIEVE the, ah, disagreements, I’ve had with my son’s chemistry teacher this year. His first lab “report” was a joke - there was no objective, subject, reason stated for DOING the lab, but he was supposed to write up a report! The way he was taught the periodic table was a joke (and the book was hopeless). But what finally had me throw my hands up was when I was trying to help him with balancing equations. My son wasn’t doing dimensional analysis, he was doing something he was calling the “horseshoe” method. I looked over the instructions for this, and I didn’t understand it, so I emailed the teacher asking for more explaination so I could help son with homework. The teacher wrote me back “dimensional analysis is ok, but I teach this method because THE KIDS DON’T HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO GET THE RIGHT ANSWER.” (I added the caps). Let me get this straight - you are teaching them something so they don’t need to UNDERSTAND IT??? And this is a advanced college prep level class??? AAARRRGGGGGG!!!
Sorry - the level of science understanding in this country gets me! I’ll get off the soapbox now!! 
Missy
This is the way I think this thing went down:
The city wanted to quit having styrofoam cups at city events,
because they were tired of cleaning up the wet foam out of the
watershed (the wildlife probably weren’t so happy about it, either).
They sent a paralegal or two on a search for anything that could
prove to the public that styrofoam=evil, to ease the way for their
no-styrofoam agenda. A paralegal found a website that said,
“This icky chemical is used to make styrofoam cups, even though
it has caused thousands of human deaths!” This looked like a nail in
styrofoam’s coffin. The paralegal probably didn’t even look at the
chemical name in question. This probably continued thusly until someone
actually read the “report”. It seems to me to be more of a case of
wishful thinking and preconceived political conclusions than actual
scientific stupidity…
Not that I think it will really make you happier, but the methods of teaching you described, its goals and its results are the same here abroad.
In the French cursed cursi, you’re trained not to understand things, but to fill up tests as fast as possible. France high administration, with its math “elite” selection system is full of such people, who as main quality have more memory than deduction or (god forbids!) creativity. For understandable reasons, they all end up in finance. Jean-Marie Messier, yeah that one behind Vivendi’s stocks hype and final scandal, is a typical example. Another one is V. Giscard d’Estaing who was “creative” once in his life: he “invented” the… V.A.T.! Like Messier and most orf their peers, he thinks himself a genius, or at least vastly superior to the plebeians–and that’s a menace by itself.
The worst is that our professors–from senior high level–have to go through multiple exams, where again the selection is on the best memory, and ability to write huge memoirs while locked for eight hours, straight with no breaks nor lunch, in an exam room.
I don’t understand the state of science education on any number of levels. Most people are really fascinated by science, but teachers must actually either: a) be the exception in that they are bored by science; or b) be told in education school that science must be made unpleasant.
I think that one problem is that what’s thought of as science is in ways too narrow. I read an interesting column by Stephen Jay Gould in Natural History six or seven years ago in which he pointed out that the populace actually knows a lot more science than anyone gives them credit for. It’s just that a very narrow slice is contained in the tests. They don’t test kids’ knowledge of dinosaurs, gardeners’ knowledge of soil chemistry, or hunters’ knowledge of animal behavior, and he gave tons of other examples.
I think that what’s being taught could be made much more interesting, too (in addition to expanding what’s taught). Tell kids where what they’re learning fits in, what everyday things can be explained by what they’re learning. One really learns a lot of useful stuff in school, but it’s not presented in any useful way.
I also think standards could be set a bit higher. Last I knew, the education establishment was saying that only 2% of the population is capable of learning higher math. I think that the teachers and students are set up for failure when they begin from the point of view that they have a 98% chance of failure. Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if someone came out and said that illiteracy was high because only 90% of people are capable of learning to read at an adult level?
If I had a dollar for every time I have heard the words, “EWWW! You’re majoring in physics?” I’d have no trouble paying my tuition.
A.J.
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/dhmo.htm
Snopes.com is a great place to check out all those “Forward this to all your friends”, “Too good to be true” type emails and other urban myths before following their instructions.
For example: http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=18506
Here’s another example that’s irked me ever since a friend pointed it out, from Joan Baez’s “Diamonds and Rust”:
And here I sit, hand on the telephone
hearing the voice I'd known
a couple of light years ago
headed straight for a fall
I just can’t get past it to listen to the rest of the song. She’s had over 25 years to fix it.
When this song by Jimmy Buffet came out, I just shook my head (okay, maybe I did more than that 
). One more hurdle thrown up. At least he realizes the damage that has occurred but the people (kids) hearing the song won’t. Just another example…
http://www.nctm.org/news/articles/1999-0708cover.htm
If I may shift to literacy,
I began to realize that a signifcant minority
of the graduating seniors in my university
were functionally illiterate.
They could write their name
and maybe read a little,
but they literally could not write
a grammatical English sentence.
Many of these people are going into
education.
I wrote a letter about this to the school paper,
which didn’t print it, didn’t answer
follow up messages, etc. Then I wrote to
the faculty advisor; he did the same.
Around this time the University began
reducing its requirements in freshman comp
and foreign languages, just to make
sure that our graduates would be
illiterate, I suppose.
At many universities, dumbing down
is the name of the game, and the
results are awful to behold.
If we could routinetly graduate students
as literate as I was in junior
high school, it would be an
improvement. Best,
It’s poetic license, man! Unless maybe Joan had been traveling at a high velocity for some time and really was a couple of light years away from the voice? In which case she may as well take her hand off the phone.
Space, time? What’s the big difference–
if you’re a poet, anyhow?
Juliet is the sun.
The sun is a large gaseous object,
Therefore…
Poetic license it is. Joan’s father is a very famous physicist; I suspect his daughters knew the difference between the time and length measurements at a pretty young age.
I think maybe the problem is we’re sending too many people to college. (Not that not going to college absolves one from learning proper grammar, that really should happen in grammar school, duh. Oh, but grammar school doesn’t exist anymore either.) I’m all for going to college to enlighten oneself, or to prepare oneself for a career. But very few students go to be enlightened, and not that many careers really require college. Instead we have kids going to college to goof off, to party for four more years, or just to put off any decisions about life. I don’t have a problem with that, but because so many go to college, we have many companies requiring anyone hired for any but the most menial job to have a bachelor’s degree. It’s kind of a viscious circle, and an expensive one that keeps some bright youth from advancing.
I’ve noticed this trend too. A few years down the road you’ll need a PhD to serve fries at McDonald’s.
A.J.