Would you agree with me that there is a need to add years in schooling dedicated purely for Science subjects ?

Question

The purpose is to promote the additional schooling period for our students to be dedicated purely for Mathematics, Science and Technology subjects to attain scientists graduates.

Answer 1

I also disagree (despite being completely immersed in science all my life).



Science is no more, and *no less* important than any other subject ... history, English, mathematics, ... or art.



The purpose of grade school and high school (and the first years of college) is to produce a fundamental well-rounded, balanced education. A student should have a fundamental education and *appreciation* for all these topics.



It is during college, especially in the later years, in which a student interested in a career in science should start to get more science.



The problem is that we start to lose sight of this in early education ... and we start *specializing* students at an earlier and earlier age. While this would seem to be a good thing (as kids good in English or history can get "honors" and "advanced placement" English or history, and kids good in math or science get honors or AP math or science) ... it also sends a message that if you're *not* good or not interested at something, you can take the "basic" English, history, math, or science ... which is barely "basic" at all, as it is dumbed down for all the other kids who are bad at it, or not interested ... which is very sad, as these are precisely the students who need *more* work in these subjects to maintain some parity.



The result is that we get scientists and engineers who can't write a complete sentence ... and good writers, speakers, and even lawyers, who don't know a beak from a beaker (and these go on to be our politicians and religious leaders ... the next time I hear a politician dodge a science question about, say, evolution by saying "well, I'm no scientist ..." I'm gonna hurl. I don't *want* politicians in office who got a C in "basic" Biology or Physics or who can't pronounce "nuclear", making decisions about science funding, or nuclear weapons!).



And the emphasis on specialization also means that some kids specialize in *sports*!! (As a star center on the basketball team, or your running back on the football team gets to take *all* the "basic" courses, with way more tutoring and help than available to other students, and is guaranteed a pass.)



And *nobody* is learning anything about art! (As art is the first thing cut to make time and money available for the other subjects.)



So, no. We don't need *more* science. We need *better* science education. I have no idea why kids are suffering through memorizing the phases of mitosis, or the Krebs cycle, when they don't know what a "theory" is ... or the difference between "proof" and "evidence" in science!



And please, please, please, keep the creationists (and their thinly disguised alter ego, Intelligent Design) out of the science classroom. Their purpose is to promote misinformation and, if necessary, confusion. To water down science education *even more.* Someone the other day posted a question about why Christian kids get to be escused form the "evolution section" in Biology. I was appalled! Not just because they are being excused (that is par for the course for closed-minded Creationists), but because evolution was being reduced to a "section" ... and an *optional* one at that (it will never appear on a test) ... for the rest of the students. And God forbid that a teacher ever mention the "e-word", or a student ask a question about it, outside of the "evolution section." So *ALL* kids are deprived of the key unifying idea of Biology. (It would be like teaching an Astronomy class while carefully avoiding the "g-word" until the optional "section" on gravity.) It all just becomes disjointed "facts" that have no connection, no central idea. No wonder kids find it difficult!



Summary ... not *more* science ... *better* science.



You don't have to be a musician to enjoy music. You shouldn't be taught that only scientists appreciate science!

Answer 2

No, I wouldn't agree. You will lose 95% of all students and not help the 5% for whom this would make some sense.



There is an easier way: start undergraduate level classes for students who are interested as soon as eight or ninth grade. Let students join whenever they feel ready. Let them progress on university level material (and university level tests) if they want to and then give them credits when they get to college or university.



This could be done for more than just science and engineering. If someone wants to learn Medieval French Poetry this way, let them.



Impossible? Ten years ago, sure. You can't have an undergraduate physics or math class for the three to five students of a high school year who can handle it. But now that we have internet and a perfect audiovisual classroom can be had for a couple thousand dollars, this is an idea whose time has come ... at least technologically. I doubt the US school system in general will catch up to it, although the better private schools probably will, if they haven't done so, already.

Answer 3

I did mostly take science courses, and barring one chemistry exam at the end of Grade - 11 (in which I got a B), I had straight A's. I did just as well in economics, which I studied in Grades 9 and 10, twice getting 99/100 in final and mock exams, and Computing (with a focus on its applications in business) in the same years. I suck at math, somehow still get an A every time. I love Biology and rarely get less that 90%, including a 95 in my last term.

Answer 4

Well, yes and no. The thing is while sciences are important, not everyone wants to study it, especially those who want to focus in the arts and humanities. But it would be great for those who are interested in becoming scientists, engineers, etc.

Answer 5

Based on a study that showed there are specific learning windows throughout a child's life, I think each subject should be given emphasis during its optimal learning window. But I also think that a wide variety of subjects need to be taught at all stages, for the sake of maintaining a balance.



For background information on this 'learning windows' theory, check out "Opening your Child's Nine Learning Windows" by Cheri Fuller.



This book helps parents understand the potential of important windows of learning opportunities and how to capitalize on each window -- language, musical, logical, mathematical, curiosity, emotional, spiritual, physical, and values. Formerly titled Through the Learning Glass.



Description:

Your child's capacity for learning is truly astonishing -- and you are the teacher. How can you make the most of your incredible, God-given opportunity? In Opening Your Child's Nine Learning Windows, educator Cheri Fuller shares amazing insights into how children learn.



You'll find chapter after chapter of principles, activities, motivation boosters, and practical tips and suggestions to help you take full advantage of nine critical "learning windows" in your child's life: musical, language, emotional, creativity, curiosity, math and logic, physical, spiritual, and values. Punctuated with personal anecdotes and filled with recent, fascinating findings of research on the brain development of babies and children,



Opening Your Child's Nine Learning Windows can help you start equipping your child today for a fruitful, satisfying tomorrow.



Formerly titled Through the Learning Glass.

Book & Bible Cover Size: Medium

Page Count: 192

Paper Edge Description: White

Size: 5.5 wide x 8.4 high x 0.6 deep in. | 139 wide x 213 high x deep 15 mm

Weight: 0.405 lb | 183 gms

Available: June, 2001

Publisher: Zondervan



http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/ProductDetail.htm?ProdID=com.zondervan.9780310239949&QueryStringSite=Zondervan

Answer 6

I don't agree.



As a professional (academic) scientist, I have already had to have plenty of schooling, thanks (6 years science at secondary school, 4 years undergraduate, 4 years PhD). We don't want our professional scientists to be *starting* their work in their 30s.

Answer 7

no. highly specializing people's education early on in their academic career would be myopic. it would be like forcing someone into a way of life before that person knowing what they'd like to do with themselves for the rest of their lives. i've known several people that have started out with scientific majors only to find out halfway through the program that they'd become unhappy with what that THOUGHT they had wanted for themselves.



schooling and education isn't just about learning one particular subject, it's also learning about yourself: learning about what you like and what you're good at.



now, what should be taught in secondary (and maybe even primary) schools is how people should go about dealing with interpersonal communication and finances--look at how poorly people behave these days!

Answer 8

not so much science as classes on morals, ethics, productivity, tact, general manners, and real world experience. : )

Answer 9

for those that can cope definately, perhaps it should be voluntary, and there's a few classes we can get rid of

Answer 10

yes, because we are now living in a digital world...