3/21 (Tue) Obsession w/STEM education is dangerous (Wenhan)

3/21 (Tue) Obsession w/STEM education is dangerous (Wenhan)

文章wenhan1122 » 週四 3月 16, 2017 12:53 pm

Dear YoYo Members,

It’s my pleasure to host the meeting on 03/21. Through the discussion of last Tuesday about saving the dying language, it aroused my curiosity on utilitarianism and how it’s possibly shaping our understanding and expectation to education. Below is an article posted on Washington Post with a certain length, as it looks like. But trust me, this article and the vocabularies within are super plain that it won’t take you more than 20 minutes to finish it. Or you may read it directly by https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-stem-wont-make-us-successful/2015/03/26/5f4604f2-d2a5-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html?utm_term=.82f47ad2d879

“Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous”
By Fareed Zakaria

If Americans are united in any conviction these days, it is that we urgently need to shift the country’s education toward the teaching of specific, technical skills. Every month, it seems, we hear about our children’s bad test scores in math and science — and about new initiatives from companies, universities or foundations to expand STEM courses (science, technology, engineering and math) and deemphasize the humanities. From President Obama on down, public officials have cautioned against pursuing degrees like art history, which are seen as expensive luxuries in today’s world. Republicans want to go several steps further and defund these kinds of majors. “Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists?” asked Florida’s Gov. Rick Scott. “I don’t think so.” America’s last bipartisan cause is this: A liberal education is irrelevant, and technical training is the new path forward. It is the only way, we are told, to ensure that Americans survive in an age defined by technology and shaped by global competition. The stakes could not be higher.

This dismissal of broad-based learning, however, comes from a fundamental misreading of the facts — and puts America on a dangerously narrow path for the future. The United States has led the world in economic dynamism, innovation and entrepreneurship thanks to exactly the kind of teaching we are now told to defenestrate. A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Exposure to a variety of fields produces synergy and cross fertilization. Yes, science and technology are crucial components of this education, but so are English and philosophy. When unveiling a new edition of the iPad, Steve Jobs explained that “it’s in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough — that it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing.”

Innovation is not simply a technical matter but rather one of understanding how people and societies work, what they need and want. America will not dominate the 21st century by making cheaper computer chips but instead by constantly reimagining how computers and other new technologies interact with human beings.

For most of its history, the United States was unique in offering a well-rounded education. In their comprehensive study, “The Race Between Education and Technology,” Harvard’s Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz point out that in the 19th century, countries like Britain, France and Germany educated only a few and put them through narrow programs designed to impart only the skills crucial to their professions. America, by contrast, provided mass general education because people were not rooted in specific locations with long-established trades that offered the only paths forward for young men. And the American economy historically changed so quickly that the nature of work and the requirements for success tended to shift from one generation to the next. People didn’t want to lock themselves into one professional guild or learn one specific skill for life.

That was appropriate in another era, the technologists argue, but it is dangerous in today’s world. Look at where American kids stand compared with their peers abroad. The most recent international test, conducted in 2012, found that among the 34 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States ranked 27th in math, 20th in science and 17th in reading. If rankings across the three subjects are averaged, the United States comes in 21st, trailing nations such as the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia and Estonia.

In truth, though, the United States has never done well on international tests, and they are not good predictors of our national success. Since 1964, when the first such exam was administered to 13-year-olds in 12 countries, America has lagged behind its peers, rarely rising above the middle of the pack and doing particularly poorly in science and math. And yet over these past five decades, that same laggard country has dominated the world of science, technology, research and innovation.

Consider the same pattern in two other highly innovative countries, Sweden and Israel. Israel ranks first in the world in venture-capital investments as a percentage of GDP; the United States ranks second, and Sweden is sixth, ahead of Great Britain and Germany. These nations do well by most measures of innovation, such as research and development spending and the number of high-tech companies as a share of all public companies. Yet all three countries fare surprisingly poorly in the OECD test rankings. Sweden and Israel performed even worse than the United States on the 2012 assessment, landing overall at 28th and 29th, respectively, among the 34 most-developed economies.

But other than bad test-takers, their economies have a few important traits in common: They are flexible. Their work cultures are non-hierarchical and merit-based. All operate like young countries, with energy and dynamism. All three are open societies, happy to let in the world’s ideas, goods and services. And people in all three nations are confident — a characteristic that can be measured. Despite ranking 27th and 30th in math, respectively, American and Israeli students came out at the top in their belief in their math abilities, if one tallies up their responses to survey questions about their skills. Sweden came in seventh, even though its math ranking was 28th.

Thirty years ago, William Bennett, the Reagan-era secretary of education, noticed this disparity between achievement and confidence and quipped, “This country is a lot better at teaching self-esteem than it is at teaching math.” It’s a funny line, but there is actually something powerful in the plucky confidence of American, Swedish and Israeli students. It allows them to challenge their elders, start companies, persist when others think they are wrong and pick themselves up when they fail. Too much confidence runs the risk of self-delusion, but the trait is an essential ingredient for entrepreneurship.

My point is not that it’s good that American students fare poorly on these tests. It isn’t. Asian countries like Japan and South Korea have benefitted enormously from having skilled workforces. But technical chops are just one ingredient needed for innovation and economic success. America overcomes its disadvantage — a less-technically-trained workforce — with other advantages such as creativity, critical thinking and an optimistic outlook. A country like Japan, by contrast, can’t do as much with its well-trained workers because it lacks many of the factors that produce continuous innovation.

Americans should be careful before they try to mimic Asian educational systems, which are oriented around memorization and test-taking. I went through that kind of system. It has its strengths, but it’s not conducive to thinking, problem solving or creativity. That’s why most Asian countries, from Singapore to South Korea to India, are trying to add features of a liberal education to their systems. Jack Ma, the founder of China’s Internet behemoth Alibaba, recently hypothesized in a speech that the Chinese are not as innovative as Westerners because China’s educational system, which teaches the basics very well, does not nourish a student’s complete intelligence, allowing her to range freely, experiment and enjoy herself while learning: “Many painters learn by having fun, many works [of art and literature] are the products of having fun. So, our entrepreneurs need to learn how to have fun, too.”

No matter how strong your math and science skills are, you still need to know how to learn, think and even write. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon (and the owner of this newspaper), insists that his senior executives write memos, often as long as six printed pages, and begins senior-management meetings with a period of quiet time, sometimes as long as 30 minutes, while everyone reads the “narratives” to themselves and makes notes on them. In an interview with Fortune’s Adam Lashinsky, Bezos said: “Full sentences are harder to write. They have verbs. The paragraphs have topic sentences. There is no way to write a six-page, narratively structured memo and not have clear thinking.”

Companies often prefer strong basics to narrow expertise. Andrew Benett, a management consultant, surveyed 100 business leaders and found that 84 of them said they would rather hire smart, passionate people, even if they didn’t have the exact skills their companies needed.
Innovation in business has always involved insights beyond technology. Consider the case of Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg was a classic liberal arts student who also happened to be passionately interested in computers. He studied ancient Greek intensively in high school and majored in psychology while he attended college. And Facebook’s innovations have a lot to do with psychology. Zuckerberg has often pointed out that before Facebook was created, most people shielded their identities on the Internet. It was a land of anonymity. Facebook’s insight was that it could create a culture of real identities, where people would voluntarily expose themselves to their friends, and this would become a transformative platform. Of course, Zuckerberg understands computers deeply and uses great coders to put his ideas into practice, but as he has put it, Facebook is “as much psychology and sociology as it is technology.”

Twenty years ago, tech companies might have survived simply as product manufacturers. Now they have to be on the cutting edge of design, marketing and social networking. You can make a sneaker equally well in many parts of the world, but you can’t sell it for $300 unless you’ve built a story around it. The same is true for cars, clothes and coffee. The value added is in the brand — how it is imagined, presented, sold and sustained. Or consider America’s vast entertainment industry, built around stories, songs, design and creativity. All of this requires skills far beyond the offerings of a narrow STEM curriculum.

Critical thinking is, in the end, the only way to protect American jobs. David Autor, the MIT economist who has most carefully studied the impact of technology and globalization on labor, writes that “human tasks that have proved most amenable to computerization are those that follow explicit, codifiable procedures — such as multiplication — where computers now vastly exceed human labor in speed, quality, accuracy, and cost efficiency. Tasks that have proved most vexing to automate are those that demand flexibility, judgment, and common sense — skills that we understand only tacitly — for example, developing a hypothesis or organizing a closet.” In 2013, two Oxford scholars conducted a comprehensive study on employment and found that, for workers to avoid the computerization of their jobs, “they will have to acquire creative and social skills.”

This doesn’t in any way detract from the need for training in technology, but it does suggest that as we work with computers (which is really the future of all work), the most valuable skills will be the ones that are uniquely human, that computers cannot quite figure out — yet. And for those jobs, and that life, you could not do better than to follow your passion, engage with a breadth of material in both science and the humanities, and perhaps above all, study the human condition.

One final reason to value a liberal education lies in its roots. For most of human history, all education was skills-based. Hunters, farmers and warriors taught their young to hunt, farm and fight. But about 2,500 years ago, that changed in Greece, which began to experiment with a new form of government: democracy. This innovation in government required an innovation in education. Basic skills for sustenance were no longer sufficient. Citizens also had to learn how to manage their own societies and practice self-government. They still do.

QUESTIONS

SESSION I

1. In this article, the author mentioned that even the test scores, of US kids, for science and math have lagged behind the major OECD players, US still leads the technological developments of the world.  Do you agree that these science or math tests don’t really gauge the success of the national education?  Could you come out a reason why the US, Sweden and Israel are highly innovative while their student test scores are in lower tier?
 
Other than test scores (or if they are not a good predictor as the author argued), are there any ways else to accurately grade students? Or to properly measure the success of science or math education?
 
2. “…..A country like Japan, by contrast, can’t do as much with its well-trained workers because it lacks many of the factors that produce continuous innovation.  Americans should be careful before they try to mimic Asian educational systems, which are oriented around memorization and test-taking….”,  Do you agree with this statement?  If you don’t, please share with us your views on this regard, or, please share with us for any of the strength that Asian education possesses
 
 
3. What was your major or diploma from schools (high school and above) before?  Are/Were your  jobs positively relevant to what you have learned from schools?
If yes, please share with us how the knowledge/skills you have learnt helped develop your career?  Or, why not?
If not relevant to your jobs, do you still consider what you have learnt from schools helped develop your career? Why? Or, why not?
 
4. NTU professor Benson Yeh is also promoting coding education to kids (In Chinese, http://topic.parenting.com.tw/issue/201 ... cle-5.html).  Do you agree coding is eventually essential to fundamental education in the near future?  Or is it just an another wave under STEM fever?  If you would choose only one subject for your kids to attend in their private time, based on your best judgement, what subject will you suggest for them to learn from, and why? (Coding? Art? Music? Math? Sport? Languages...)

SESSION II

5. Yeats said "Education is not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a fire". How would you interpret this approach?
Would you please share what you know about “education” and “training”?  what are their similarities and differences, or relations in between?
Furthermore, would you share what you know about “ knowledge” and “skill”? what are their similarities and differences, or relations in between?
 
6. If you know someone and  who is seeking for your opinions for a). studying the philosophy for four years at the best university to get a college degree , or b). enrolling for the computer program in community college for two years to get a diploma, which option would you recommend to go?  
 
If we are adding one more condition, only 10% of Philosophy BAs gets an job right after graduation while 90% of the computer students from community college gets an offer right after their graduation, would it change your previous answer?
 
7. The first ever female principal of Harvard University has her own educational approaches to Harvard graduates. (In Chinese, https://read01.com/6mmj4N.html
Do you agree her approaches? Is she too idealistic or such an old school?



********************************************************************************************************************************************
Agenda:
6:45 ~ 7:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
7:00 ~ 7:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
7:10 ~ 7:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
7:50 ~ 8:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
8:10 ~ 8:25pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
8:25 ~ 9:05pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
9:05 ~ 9:25pm Summarization (20 mins)
9:25 ~ 9:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements ********************************************************************************************************************************************
聚會日期:列於該貼文主題內
聚會時間:當天請準時於 6:45 pm 到達 ~ 約 9:30 pm 左右結束
星期三聚會地點:丹堤濟南店
地址、電話:台北市濟南路三段25號 地圖 (02) 2740-2350
捷運站:板南線 忠孝新生站 3 號出口
走法:出忠孝新生站 3 號出口後,沿著巷子(忠孝東路三段10巷)走約 2 分鐘,到了濟南路口,左轉走約 2 分鐘即可看到。
最低消費: 80 元


注意事項:
1. 文章是否需要列印請自行斟酌,但與會者請務必自行列印 Questions for discussion。
2. 與會者請先閱讀過文章,並仔細想過所有的問題,謝謝合作!


給新朋友的話:
1. 請事先準備 2~3 分鐘的英語自我介紹;會議結束前可能會請你發表 1~2 分鐘的感想。
2. 請事先閱讀文章以及主持人所提的討論問題,並事先寫下自己所欲發表意見的英文。
3. 全程以英語進行,參加者應具備中等英語會話能力,對任一討論問題,能夠以 5 到 10 句英文表達個人見解。
4. 在正式加入之前,可以先來觀摩三次,觀摩者亦須參與討論。正式加入需繳交終身會費 NT$1,000。
最後由 wenhan1122 於 週日 3月 19, 2017 6:50 pm 編輯,總共編輯了 5 次。
The real peace is not merely the absence of warfare, but the presence of justice
頭像
wenhan1122
Vice President
 
文章: 157
註冊時間: 週三 8月 20, 2008 3:29 pm

Re: 3/21 (Tue) Obsession w/STEM education is dangerous (Wenh

文章Rock » 週六 3月 18, 2017 10:48 am

Great topic, and Wenhan's writing is excellent, too. Waiting for his inspiring questions.

Personally, I think this is an argument about 專才 and 通才 (how do you say them in English?).

The solution from our ministry of education in Taiwan is offering two different ways for the students to enter the universities, the so called 學測 and 指考 (how to say them, again?) I guess Katherine can tell us more because her daughter is going to take one of them.

Maybe we can vote for the "most useless subject" you've learned at school to see who looks down on who?
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
頭像
Rock
President
 
文章: 1722
註冊時間: 週三 10月 31, 2007 9:03 am

Re: 3/21 (Tue) Obsession w/STEM education is dangerous (Wenh

文章Luis Ko » 週一 3月 20, 2017 10:24 pm

the article is quite hard to read. it's too long so that i inevitably forget what the points of previous paragraphs are after finishing the next ones.. XD

idealistically or realistically, or say pragmatically, the answers to the questions for education could be totally different. anyway, it does need thinking deeply to answer them lo~ 8)
i might be a cynic and, a sceptic as well but, i'm definitely not a bad person!!
Luis Ko
YOYO member
 
文章: 777
註冊時間: 週三 6月 06, 2007 10:18 pm

Re: 3/21 (Tue) Obsession w/STEM education is dangerous (Wenh

文章Rock » 週二 3月 21, 2017 11:21 pm

As you can see, though the topic is difficult, we still go for it. The attendees: Wenhan (host), Iris, Cindy, Catherine, Luis, Eileen, Alex, Ronald, Janice, Rock, Julian, Stephen, Steve, Jason, Jessica, JD, Morris, Shirley and Kat. Thank you all for coming.
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
頭像
Rock
President
 
文章: 1722
註冊時間: 週三 10月 31, 2007 9:03 am


回到 每週討論主題 Meeting Topics

誰在線上

正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者:沒有註冊會員 和 4 位訪客