Education reform

[Whistler]

I hear a lot about the US's poor performance in math and science relative to other industrialized countries.

If we're talking about high school... many other industrialized countries have trade schools or fewer students go on to high school. My husband's hypothesis is that, basically, they have fewer dumb kids (or unmotivated kids) in high school in other countries so of course their test scores will be better (while in America, we don't want to leave anyone behind).

[Marduk]

Wired, that IS what public policy is doing at the moment, I think it is entirely wrong-headed. You'll notice I named wrestling in specific, but also included the arts and other programs as well. Why? Precisely because these are the programs that are underfunded, and these things are more helpful to direct math and science goals than increasing funding in math and science. I don't think that schools should have programs in wrestling, theater, and the arts to improve capability in wrestling, theater, and the arts. I know this may seem counter-intuitive, but students who participate in these programs do better in math and science than their peers. Think about it. What did I learn in wrestling? How to wrestle, sure. I'll admit this has come to little use in my adult life. But what else did I learn? I learned what physical fitness techniques are most effective for my body in particular. I learned dedication to something, and how to be competitive at something. I learned how to see something through even through hard obstacles. And I learned a determination that simply could never have been learned in a classroom setting, or in a similar sports endeavor in a community level, because that by nature would be less competitive.

[wired]

Marduk, I'm unaware of what government is doing to promote math and science more. I don't say that as a, "You're wrong," comment, but as an, "I'm pretty clueless on this and venturing into areas I'm not well educated."

I am a little skeptical of the theory that all of those activities will really increase the US's performance in math and science in a way that I'm concerned with. (My goal would be to end up with more engineers and scientists that can be employed at the top corporations or work for the top academies, not just increase test scores. Immediately after writing that, I realize that the US not performing as well in math/science probably is measured purely by test scores, so my entire post is on some pretty shaky footing.) I'm familiar with the idea of cross-training: learning dedication in one area will facilitate it in another. I agree with it, but I don't know if I would fund it to solve any deficiency the US might face. While dedication is one part of any success, the practical interface with the subject matter is also just as essential. Rocky won't develop a cure for cancer, regardless of his drive to defeat Ivan Drago. I think that there are some students who would learn dedication from sports and extracurricular activities and then go on to apply it at the university level, then to a PhD; I don't think it would be as cost-effective as focusing on practical interface and giving students an opportunity to be challenged and succeed in those specific arenas. But really, that's just a matter of my assumptions about the world which aren't more qualified than any others.

EDIT: I should note I am aware of SMART Grants, which I think are a great idea. I also think decreasing federal aid for liberal arts educations (including my degree of Economics and my graduate degree in law) as a method of shifting students toward math/science majors would be a good public policy to get more qualified science/math professionals.

[Marduk]

So then your conjecture IS that there is a dearth of engineers and scientists in this country today?

[wired]

So then your conjecture IS that there is a dearth of engineers and scientists in this country today?

My assumptions:
-We're probably not producing as many engineers (medical, electrical, civil, mechanical, etc.) or scientists (biologists, physicists, etc.) as would be socially efficient. (This is based off the "what I've heard" spouted off on radio and television.)
-This is related to inputs at the K-12 level and at the university and post-grad level. (This is based of my views of human development.)
-We could change people's behavior by changing the inputs and changing incentives. (This is based of my views of human behavior.)

My proposal
-Focus our spending inputs in K-12 in a way that compensates for our lack of production in engineers; do more sciency stuff with school age children (there's obviously going to be diminishing return for spending in this area. We wouldn't have to eliminate everything else in order to achieve a more efficient outcome.)
-Change incentives for university work by increasing the cost to study non-science/math areas (i.e. lower subsidization for studying humanities/social sciences by decreasing PELL grant funding) and decreasing the cost to study those science/math (i.e. increase subsidization)

[Marduk]

I disagree with your first assumption. However, if I grant it, I agree with the rest of your outline.

[wired]

I disagree with your first assumption. However, if I grant it, I agree with the rest of your outline.

That's cool. Like I said, it's a pretty haphazard assumption. I'm not wedded to that assumption at all. Maybe at some point I'll look a little more into it to see what people who get paid to think about it think.