This is something that's bothered me for years. Which means when I saw this article earlier this week (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why-science-majors-change-their-mind-its-just-so-darn-hard.html?_r=1), I rolled my eyes at yet another journalist who doesn't fucking get it. I'm not going to quote it because the thesis is spread out over 3 pages, so I'll just let you read it there.
Okay, if I may just have a bit of space here, I'm going to fucking rant this one out. First off, yes, I do understand that it's very useful for an undergraduate student to have /some/ practical experience at the end of their career, whether that be running PCR or microscopy or field work, or running various types of equipment. What really cranks my noodle is that THIS IS NOT THE FUCKING POINT OF A SCIENCE EDUCATION.
Which brings me to the second article, someone who gets it. (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/11/problem-with-stem.html)
QuoteHere's the problem. "Science" is NOT the same as "technology" and not the same as "engineering." There's a big difference between learning science and learning how to build things. The purpose of a degree in technology and engineering is obvious—it's job training. The purpose of a science education is quite different—it's supposed to teach you how to think critically.
...
Why do science majors drop out? There are plenty of reasons. In the case of "pre-med" students (whatever they are) the reasons could be as simple as not getting high enough grades for medical school. They were never really interested in science in the first place and once they discover that they're not going to medical school they flee to other disciplines.
But that doesn't account for all the students who drop out. Some students think they are interested in "science" but they're actually interested in technology. Those students are bored reading textbooks and sitting in lectures learning about theory. What they really want to do is build robots and learn how to use DNA to solve crimes.
...
If students enter science programs because they want to become technologists, then the way to keep them happy is to let them play with fancy toys as soon as possible. They're not interested in general relativity, plate tectonics, quantum theory, or evolution. Why should they be?
But if they're not interested in those things, why are they in a science program?
A science education is not job training. I repeat IT IS NOT JOB TRAINING. And this is one of the reasons why the STEM acronym is so abhorrent to me, because to teach science is not to train lab monkeys. And the science educators job is not to make the students feel all warm and comfortable and fuzzy with fun and games and shit. If the students want this, they should go into engineering or technology or psychology (j/k about the psychology). Same as if they want to be rich; my mentor told me that scholars take a vow of poverty, scientists included.
The purpose of science education is to teach students how to think critically, and to expose them to the reality of the universe. Science classes, not technology or engineering or pre-med classes, are filled with really hard to grasp theories like evolution by natural selection. And yes, the passion of the professor will instill fun into the subject despite this. And no fucking TOYS are necessary. No fucking mollycoddling.
This is why less scientists are graduating these days. Because they equate science with technology and with their education as job training. And frankly the equation of these things is pissing me off. They can take their STEM acronym and shove it up their asses. The answer is NOT to shove more lab training into the curriculum.
Where do you draw the line between toys and tools for getting people to that ONAOIGEDDIT moment?
And, what do you mean by "toys" anyway?
College is for job training, not sitting around thinking.
\
:redneck2:
Quote from: commenter from first article
The issues addressed in this article resonated with me. When I enrolled in college, I was interested in someday becoming an astrophysicist but I wasn't sure. I took an introductory astronomy class - and it was the most boring, tedious thing I ever endured. I thought we would be observing the heavens through telescopes, not slogging through obscure information about celestial spheres and such. I decided that while science is a fun hobby, I didn't want to do something this boring for a living, so I switched to studio art. If I can't make some sort of positive impact on society, if I'm just slogging away for years on tedious tasks, then why waste my time doing it?
:lulz:
Quote from: nihilbilly on November 12, 2011, 05:30:09 AM
College is for job training, not sitting around thinking.
\
:redneck2:
Quote from: commenter from first article
The issues addressed in this article resonated with me. When I enrolled in college, I was interested in someday becoming an astrophysicist but I wasn't sure. I took an introductory astronomy class - and it was the most boring, tedious thing I ever endured. I thought we would be observing the heavens through telescopes, not slogging through obscure information about celestial spheres and such. I decided that while science is a fun hobby, I didn't want to do something this boring for a living, so I switched to studio art. If I can't make some sort of positive impact on society, if I'm just slogging away for years on tedious tasks, then why waste my time doing it?
:lulz:
Sounds like sour grapes from someone who had an interest in something, but couldn't hack the... um... math or something. Maybe they just weren't into it enough to put in the time/effort, or maybe they just didn't have the natural ability for the skill set of that particular field.
It's really not a trivial matter to figure out what you're "supposed to be doing". I have no fucken idea, myself.
I'm a little concerned with this individual's apparent distaste for "obscure information", though, cuz, man, that is where the good shit is.
Also, this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory)
Quote from: nihilbilly on November 12, 2011, 05:30:09 AM
College is for job training, not sitting around thinking.
\
:redneck2:
Quote from: commenter from first article
The issues addressed in this article resonated with me. When I enrolled in college, I was interested in someday becoming an astrophysicist but I wasn't sure. I took an introductory astronomy class - and it was the most boring, tedious thing I ever endured. I thought we would be observing the heavens through telescopes, not slogging through obscure information about celestial spheres and such. I decided that while science is a fun hobby, I didn't want to do something this boring for a living, so I switched to studio art. If I can't make some sort of positive impact on society, if I'm just slogging away for years on tedious tasks, then why waste my time doing it?
:lulz:
I am baffled by that attitude, because how the hell did they think they were supposed to understand/interpret/learn something new by looking through telescopes, if they have no idea what they're looking at?
:?
People are fucking stupid. In order to be able to SCIENCE! you have to have a grasp of what people have learned in the field before you. Otherwise, you're just playing pretend. Yay! Let's make-believe laboratory!
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2011, 05:57:38 AM
Quote from: nihilbilly on November 12, 2011, 05:30:09 AM
College is for job training, not sitting around thinking.
\
:redneck2:
Quote from: commenter from first article
The issues addressed in this article resonated with me. When I enrolled in college, I was interested in someday becoming an astrophysicist but I wasn't sure. I took an introductory astronomy class - and it was the most boring, tedious thing I ever endured. I thought we would be observing the heavens through telescopes, not slogging through obscure information about celestial spheres and such. I decided that while science is a fun hobby, I didn't want to do something this boring for a living, so I switched to studio art. If I can't make some sort of positive impact on society, if I'm just slogging away for years on tedious tasks, then why waste my time doing it?
:lulz:
I am baffled by that attitude, because how the hell did they think they were supposed to understand/interpret/learn something new by looking through telescopes, if they have no idea what they're looking at?
:?
People are fucking stupid. In order to be able to SCIENCE! you have to have a grasp of what people have learned in the field before you. Otherwise, you're just playing pretend. Yay! Let's make-believe laboratory!
I just realized how heavily the underlying tedium in astrophysical discovery could be pounded in. Try looking at years (and years (and more years)) of photographs, to identify objects' movement, and location in space.
Sounds like commenter wanted nonstop pretty, and probably has it now.
i think it has a lot to do with the american public being pushed to produce more scientists in order to keep up with other countries.
i predict this will change as, i believe, industry is finding out that science can be imported.
I want to know if this increases the odds of getting my schooling paid for.
Quote from: rong on November 12, 2011, 01:40:50 PM
i think it has a lot to do with the american public being pushed to produce more scientists in order to keep up with other countries.
i predict this will change as, i believe, industry is finding out that science can be imported.
I predict it wont happen because science is evil Devil Worship Nazism from Canada, something all right-thinking Americans reject. Only pagan atheists like India and China will it.
Also, yes, to the OP. Another difference is that technology is vastly more popular than science. The Ayatollahs are quite willing to embrace modern arms and medicine, for example, but not so keen on evolution...
Quote from: Cain on November 12, 2011, 04:28:20 PM
Quote from: rong on November 12, 2011, 01:40:50 PM
i think it has a lot to do with the american public being pushed to produce more scientists in order to keep up with other countries.
i predict this will change as, i believe, industry is finding out that science can be imported.
I predict it wont happen because science is evil Devil Worship Nazism from Canada, something all right-thinking Americans reject. Only pagan atheists like India and China will it.
Also, yes, to the OP. Another difference is that technology is vastly more popular than science. The Ayatollahs are quite willing to embrace modern arms and medicine, for example, but not so keen on evolution...
I find this hilarious in one of those :horrormirth: types of hilarity. What research do they think made the technology possible? Stupid humans.
The fastest way to cull population would be to shut down all the electricity. It would be straight out of Monsters are Due on Maple Street.
Technology is helpfully value neutral, and does not require knowledge of science for the average user, so they don't need to know. Magickal pixies might as well cause their iPad to work.
Quote from: Emo Howard on November 12, 2011, 05:28:31 AM
Where do you draw the line between toys and tools for getting people to that ONAOIGEDDIT moment?
And, what do you mean by "toys" anyway?
The ONAOIGEDDIT moment only came for me after hours and hours of thinking and discussing various topics. Metaphor was particularly important. To be completely honest, very little of the time I spent in laboratory was instrumental to the eureka moments. Some of the coolest things I know about the universe have come from listening to and discussing with my professors, reading the primary literature (including the classics like On the Origin of Species), and listening to some of the really great explainers of science like Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, etc. Even the taxonomy labs where I learned skills instrumental to doing my research did not lead to Eureka moments.
Toys? Laboratory equipment that is expensive and looks cool but actually does very little in the way of instruction in principles. Learning how to use equipment is what internships are for.
Here's the thing about scientists. You either start interested and grow even more interested in science from the get go, find an interest early on, or you fail as a scientist. Frankly I'm glad that the people who can't get interested in theory and principles don't go on to become scientists. Theres a drive and passion behind every scholar, and you can point to it for people, you can show them great examples, you can be the example, but you can't teach it. They either have it, quickly get it, or they won't.
Quote from: Emo Howard on November 12, 2011, 05:52:02 AM
Sounds like sour grapes from someone who had an interest in something, but couldn't hack the... um... math or something. Maybe they just weren't into it enough to put in the time/effort, or maybe they just didn't have the natural ability for the skill set of that particular field.
It's really not a trivial matter to figure out what you're "supposed to be doing". I have no fucken idea, myself.
I'm a little concerned with this individual's apparent distaste for "obscure information", though, cuz, man, that is where the good shit is.
Also, this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory)
I think it has very little to do with the difficulty of the math, and everything to do with failure of passion and devotion to that passion. Passionate scientists make it out of that devotion to discovery and understanding the universe.
As for obscure information...
In my third semester of grad school, I had an emotional, psychological breakdown. This was just six months after a near break from reality that many of you here on PD remember. I was physically exhausted from the many hours a week I was putting in to my new assistantship, driving 6 hours every two weeks to take samples on a DoE site. I had 4 classes in addition, two of which were very difficult, and my thesis research was not going well. The overwhelming stress lead to a collapse and I could not continue my courses, which thankfully I got departmental permission to drop them. But I asked my professor if I could sit in on the class, just to keep learning, and I started going to his office after class to discuss molecular biology (this was a physiology course). It was standing with him in front of the blackboard after one of these lectures that I was talking to him about transcription factors and he was drawing embryos and protein gradients on the board. And in that state, as bad off as I was, I GRASPED for the first time transcription factor cascades and how they draft a grid onto the embryo which acts as the architectural blueprint for development, and that these cascades are originated maternally and their cascades are originated maternally and their cascades....
You know you're a scientist when you can be at your worst and still sit in awe of the universe, and that can bring you back and make you want to live again.
I finished my technology degree a couple of years ago. Electro-Mechanology type stuff. Metaphors were important to helping me understand what I was learning. In electrical classes, the water-in-a pipe analogy is pretty common. Volume per unit time is amps, pressure is volts, they never went any further than that with the analogy, But I worked out a few others over time.
Coulombs would most closely relate to Mols.
Inductance relates to the inertia of the fluid.
Capacitance to a spring, membrane, or height/potential energy.
Transistors are different types of valves., etc...
These analogies helped my wrap my mind around things. If I can visualize something, then I get the feeling that I understand something. There seemed to be times when I had already "gotten it", I just didn't get that I got it until I could visualize it. I could do the math; Plug and chug, solve for x and shit, but if I didn't really understand how Gp related to Phi over delta Z to get to x, I knew I was just going to forget it after the next test anyway. Some classes let us use a sheet of formulas for tests, but if I didn't understand what the formulas meant, they were useless. If I understood them really well, I didn't need them.
Then there was the huge machine with dials and meters we hooked up with cables, and fiddled with dials to see how the meters changed. What was the point of that enormous and probably expensive and dangerous thing? Did they really need a huge thing capable of hundreds of amps?
Science is a tool set for analysing and hypothesising while minimising personal bias. On its own it is only useful as a stepping stone to applying methodologies like you have listed (engineering).
The reason there is such an emphasis on the practicalities is that all courses are designed to get you a job, not train you to be a good scientist. In some respects I can understand that, there is a much more pressing need for engineers (though standards may vary from place to place, some of the stuff roger has said about their engineers makes me sick), then for pure theoretical scientists.
The simple fact of the matter is that most University courses are appealing to the local industry, with the goal of bringing more money into the area. It dilutes both what it means to be a scientist AND what it means to be an Engineer (training someone into an overspecialised skillset does not a REAL engineer make).
The long and short of it is if you want a good science or engineering education, university is a good place to start but your real training will be your own and wont happen until you leave the ivory tower.
I also don't believe that psychology is anywhere near what you could call a science. Maybe in a decade or two.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 10:54:30 AM
I also don't believe that psychology is anywhere near what you could call a science. Maybe in a decade or two.
Really? Because of my college friends, the one that actually made it to the end of their Psychology Masters, nearly all of them were real good with their statistics and SPSS
1. Even though some of them still hated it :)
But they were really thorough about the hypothesis/experiment scientific feedback loop. In fact, in some sense, "
more scientific" than the stuff I was doing with Computer Science
2. Especially because they had to go through great length to try and objectively measure things that are generally considered subbjective and very hard to measure. And they learned and developed methods to do that, which is also part of the science of psychology and sociology.
Maybe you are thinking of psychiatry? Which, like medical school, is much more about learning a profession than doing Real Science. IMO the only reasons why those are taught at a university instead of higher education vocational school is because of history, prestige and that you probably want your cardiologist to have as high an education as possible.
Of course, there should exist such a thing as Medical Science, but it should be different from "training to become a doctor". Hell, even cardiologists. I've had a very bad experience with our University Medical Centre Hospital finding some slight anomaly in my ECG during a routine check, I got appointed to a cardiologist, who warned me that this could be a
very rare and really very dangerous in the "take the wrong medicine and you could drop dead" kind of sense, which included simple dentist's anaesthetics (not that she gave me, or my GP a complete or current list, oh no)--regardless of this supposedly being a life-long thing, and I can't remember my heart ever as much as skipping a beat--it took months before they finally got around to scheduling me a test, which came out negative, but she wouldn't tell me things were fine because "the symptoms were there" (indeed my ECG is very reliably slightly different than a typical one), which complicated things because my therapist and me wanted to try out some anti depressiva meds and it took the University Hospital like 3-4 weeks to schedule a portable 24h heart monitor to, I'm not really sure, be able to determine afterwards "yeah it was the heart thing that got him".
Right, what's this got to do with anything? Well at some point she wanted to test my family too, and then we slowly got the realization that she hadn't been interested in finding out whether I actually ran any risk, AND BASICALLY HAD BEEN STRINGING ME ALONG CAUSE SHE WANTED TO STUDY THIS RARE HEART CONDITION :argh!: (epilogue: I went to the other non-University hospital in town, they could set me up with a portable monitor and get back the results within less than a week, and after the third time their cardiologist said "Well, given that your test half a year ago came out negative, the monitors never find anything
and you don't have a history of any heart problems, I don't think there's much to worry about. It's a fact that some people just have an anomalous ECG and have no problems at all. If you worry about some significant change in your medications or actually do notice heart-beat-skippings, feel free to give a call and we'll set you up with another monitor, if you want." And that was that.
Sorry, went off a bit of a tangent there. But university hospitals? Fuck em! Either you get a medical student that needs to stab your arm four times before the IV needle sits right, or you get the old scientific professor doctor that's more interested in trying out new treatments, writing for medical journals and talking at symposia. Actual talented doctors seem to go someplace else.
1 this was back then, I hope nowadays they're using R.
2 except for Machine Learning and
Computational Science topics, those were all about running experiments to test hypotheses. Even though in
practice ML is all about building a smart/clever system that works, we were doing SCIENCE to them at university.
I agree that the line between science and technology needs to be made more clear.
When I entered college, I had a big interest in computers and electronics. I was under the impression this was science, and proceeded to sign up for many science classes. It wasn't until my Engineering Fundamentals class that my professor explained to us the difference between scientists and engineers. As he put it, scientists push theory and knowledge further, while engineers use the knowledge that scientists discover in practical uses. So, if I want to spend crazy time learning theory and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, I should be a scientist. If I want to make fun electronics and program them, I should go into Engineering.
So, this year I went hardcore into Engineering classes, and I'm a lot happier with it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 13, 2011, 02:55:59 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 10:54:30 AM
I also don't believe that psychology is anywhere near what you could call a science. Maybe in a decade or two.
Really? Because of my college friends, the one that actually made it to the end of their Psychology Masters, nearly all of them were real good with their statistics and SPSS1. Even though some of them still hated it :)
But they were really thorough about the hypothesis/experiment scientific feedback loop. In fact, in some sense, "more scientific" than the stuff I was doing with Computer Science2. Especially because they had to go through great length to try and objectively measure things that are generally considered subbjective and very hard to measure. And they learned and developed methods to do that, which is also part of the science of psychology and sociology.
Maybe you are thinking of psychiatry? Which, like medical school, is much more about learning a profession than doing Real Science. IMO the only reasons why those are taught at a university instead of higher education vocational school is because of history, prestige and that you probably want your cardiologist to have as high an education as possible.
From what I have seen of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in Ireland they don't do anything objectively, of course Irish psychotherapy could be ten years behind ye.
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 07:09:12 PM
I agree that the line between science and technology needs to be made more clear.
When I entered college, I had a big interest in computers and electronics. I was under the impression this was science, and proceeded to sign up for many science classes. It wasn't until my Engineering Fundamentals class that my professor explained to us the difference between scientists and engineers. As he put it, scientists push theory and knowledge further, while engineers use the knowledge that scientists discover in practical uses. So, if I want to spend crazy time learning theory and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, I should be a scientist. If I want to make fun electronics and program them, I should go into Engineering.
So, this year I went hardcore into Engineering classes, and I'm a lot happier with it.
Who makes it more clear? Isn't it made clear just by thinking about it?
How about this: if you don't understand the difference between science and engineering just by thinking about it, you should probably be an engineer, not a scientist.
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 07:36:51 PM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 07:09:12 PM
I agree that the line between science and technology needs to be made more clear.
When I entered college, I had a big interest in computers and electronics. I was under the impression this was science, and proceeded to sign up for many science classes. It wasn't until my Engineering Fundamentals class that my professor explained to us the difference between scientists and engineers. As he put it, scientists push theory and knowledge further, while engineers use the knowledge that scientists discover in practical uses. So, if I want to spend crazy time learning theory and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, I should be a scientist. If I want to make fun electronics and program them, I should go into Engineering.
So, this year I went hardcore into Engineering classes, and I'm a lot happier with it.
Who makes it more clear? Isn't it made clear just by thinking about it?
How about this: if you don't understand the difference between science and engineering just by thinking about it, you should probably be an engineer, not a scientist.
:lulz:
Before I got to college, I didn't even know what an engineer
was. I was thinking of movies like Back to the Future and the like, where there was "normal" people and the "mad scientist" that created cool stuff. To me, people who created technology and studied scientific things of any sort, were scientists. I thought everything to do with science was simply different distinctions on Scientist. As I've freely admitted many times, prior to my sudden motivation to better myself, I was stupid and ignorant to a large degree. Still am in many ways, though now I'm working on it.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 07:24:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 13, 2011, 02:55:59 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 10:54:30 AM
I also don't believe that psychology is anywhere near what you could call a science. Maybe in a decade or two.
Really? Because of my college friends, the one that actually made it to the end of their Psychology Masters, nearly all of them were real good with their statistics and SPSS1. Even though some of them still hated it :)
But they were really thorough about the hypothesis/experiment scientific feedback loop. In fact, in some sense, "more scientific" than the stuff I was doing with Computer Science2. Especially because they had to go through great length to try and objectively measure things that are generally considered subbjective and very hard to measure. And they learned and developed methods to do that, which is also part of the science of psychology and sociology.
Maybe you are thinking of psychiatry? Which, like medical school, is much more about learning a profession than doing Real Science. IMO the only reasons why those are taught at a university instead of higher education vocational school is because of history, prestige and that you probably want your cardiologist to have as high an education as possible.
From what I have seen of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in Ireland they don't do anything objectively, of course Irish psychotherapy could be ten years behind ye.
I honestly don't see a lot of that pushed at University over here any more. They are optional, usually under a History of Psychology course, but most of the actual training is done by "professional" groups and associations. I know when I did psychology, it was a very scientically heavy course. We spent our first semester learning about human physiology, the brain structure and so on, and the second on statistics and devising scientific tests. We barely actually touched on psychology at all.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 07:24:10 PM
From what I have seen of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in Ireland they don't do anything objectively, of course Irish psychotherapy could be ten years behind ye.
Aren't those more on the side of psychiatry?
I could be wrong, though.
(BTW over here psychiatry is an extra education on top of medicine, not psychology)
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 07:36:51 PMHow about this: if you don't understand the difference between science and engineering just by thinking about it, you should probably be an engineer, not a scientist.
I dunno, that sounds a littlebit too much like "if you don't know what 'n00b' means, you probably are one", as if a lack of knowledge destines one to become an engineer.
The difference is in drive, or goals. How about if you turn it around? If you don't know the difference, you'd probably not make a very good engineer? Imagine an engineer treating his work as if he was only researching a scientific theory!
That said, you could even be both.
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 08:05:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 07:36:51 PM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 07:09:12 PM
I agree that the line between science and technology needs to be made more clear.
When I entered college, I had a big interest in computers and electronics. I was under the impression this was science, and proceeded to sign up for many science classes. It wasn't until my Engineering Fundamentals class that my professor explained to us the difference between scientists and engineers. As he put it, scientists push theory and knowledge further, while engineers use the knowledge that scientists discover in practical uses. So, if I want to spend crazy time learning theory and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, I should be a scientist. If I want to make fun electronics and program them, I should go into Engineering.
So, this year I went hardcore into Engineering classes, and I'm a lot happier with it.
Who makes it more clear? Isn't it made clear just by thinking about it?
How about this: if you don't understand the difference between science and engineering just by thinking about it, you should probably be an engineer, not a scientist.
:lulz:
Before I got to college, I didn't even know what an engineer was. I was thinking of movies like Back to the Future and the like, where there was "normal" people and the "mad scientist" that created cool stuff. To me, people who created technology and studied scientific things of any sort, were scientists. I thought everything to do with science was simply different distinctions on Scientist. As I've freely admitted many times, prior to my sudden motivation to better myself, I was stupid and ignorant to a large degree. Still am in many ways, though now I'm working on it.
OK... but my question is,
who needs to make the difference between science and engineering more clear? You said "it needs to be made more clear". By whom? This is a serious question. If the problem is that people aren't figuring out the difference until after they start college, who has the responsibility of imparting that piece of information, and how is it delivered?
Should high school curricula be changed so that at some point, your science teacher is explaining the difference between science and engineering? That's not only implementable, but I think (unless the curriculum has changed radically, which is very possible) that it's already being done... not that high school students are always the best at listening and paying attention. The problem is that there is a ton of overlap between science and engineering, so it's not really all that cut and dried.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 13, 2011, 09:13:05 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 07:24:10 PM
From what I have seen of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in Ireland they don't do anything objectively, of course Irish psychotherapy could be ten years behind ye.
Aren't those more on the side of psychiatry?
I could be wrong, though.
(BTW over here psychiatry is an extra education on top of medicine, not psychology)
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 07:36:51 PMHow about this: if you don't understand the difference between science and engineering just by thinking about it, you should probably be an engineer, not a scientist.
I dunno, that sounds a littlebit too much like "if you don't know what 'n00b' means, you probably are one", as if a lack of knowledge destines one to become an engineer.
The difference is in drive, or goals. How about if you turn it around? If you don't know the difference, you'd probably not make a very good engineer? Imagine an engineer treating his work as if he was only researching a scientific theory!
That said, you could even be both.
It was a joke based on the premise that a scientist develops new knowledge, while an engineer implements what's already known.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 13, 2011, 09:13:05 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 07:24:10 PM
From what I have seen of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in Ireland they don't do anything objectively, of course Irish psychotherapy could be ten years behind ye.
Aren't those more on the side of psychiatry?
I could be wrong, though.
(BTW over here psychiatry is an extra education on top of medicine, not psychology)
Quite possibly, I'm not familiar with the differences.
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 09:16:35 PM
It was a joke based on the premise that a scientist develops new knowledge, while an engineer implements what's already known.
Oh, duh, that one flew right over me :lol:
That said, from a different perspective, when I went into Computer Science, I was definitely going for the science/research direction. Imagine my disappointment when I got a course called Software Engineering :x It was hell! All practical and shit, we had to run a software project, and it wasn't something new, or fancy, it was just very complex and the closest you got to research was figuring out what software library we were supposed to use, and how it tied in with the old system that was already there. And the textbook exam wasn't about formulas or math or code, but it was a big fat book filled with software marketing buzzwords bullshit and moronic diagrams that weren't clever or interesting at all! I absolutely hated it :)
Well that was how I learned the horrible difference between engineering and science, the hard way :lulz:
Some remarks though:
- even though I barely passed the course with a lot of effort
1, I
did learn quite a lot from that course, in hindsight, I ended up recognizing a lot of the patterns and techniques as they were
misapplied in my webdevelopment jobs. I actually read up on a couple of software engineering blogs in those days
2, and sort of planned to re-read that textbook (which I didnt get around to btw)
- at our university, there
is actually a department that studies Software Engineering as a science. I can see that making sense because large software systems are incredibly complex to manage, but it's also more a social science, in a way. I can also see that it can't possibly work very well, because the real clever ones in this area have enough business sense to let them be recruited by well-paying firms, and the ones that are left over inevitably apply too much science in their engineering. Though I could be wrong, I never paid too much attention what exactly they were doing (and when I did, it was really boring).
1 am just not very good at learning from large wordy textbooks--hence my failings at history, even when it's super interesting.
2 for people in the industry: I can really recommend joelonsoftware.com, he's not always right so don't take his word for gospel, but he does share quite a few interesting insights on estimating development time, whether to rewrite your code from scratch or not (the answer is "not") and his essay on Unicode is not called
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!) (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Unicode.html) for nothing. Seriously, any coder that ever expects to work with
text at any point in his program (so that's every coder) should read that.
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 08:05:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 07:36:51 PM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 07:09:12 PM
I agree that the line between science and technology needs to be made more clear.
When I entered college, I had a big interest in computers and electronics. I was under the impression this was science, and proceeded to sign up for many science classes. It wasn't until my Engineering Fundamentals class that my professor explained to us the difference between scientists and engineers. As he put it, scientists push theory and knowledge further, while engineers use the knowledge that scientists discover in practical uses. So, if I want to spend crazy time learning theory and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, I should be a scientist. If I want to make fun electronics and program them, I should go into Engineering.
So, this year I went hardcore into Engineering classes, and I'm a lot happier with it.
Who makes it more clear? Isn't it made clear just by thinking about it?
How about this: if you don't understand the difference between science and engineering just by thinking about it, you should probably be an engineer, not a scientist.
:lulz:
Before I got to college, I didn't even know what an engineer was. I was thinking of movies like Back to the Future and the like, where there was "normal" people and the "mad scientist" that created cool stuff. To me, people who created technology and studied scientific things of any sort, were scientists. I thought everything to do with science was simply different distinctions on Scientist. As I've freely admitted many times, prior to my sudden motivation to better myself, I was stupid and ignorant to a large degree. Still am in many ways, though now I'm working on it.
OK... but my question is, who needs to make the difference between science and engineering more clear? You said "it needs to be made more clear". By whom? This is a serious question. If the problem is that people aren't figuring out the difference until after they start college, who has the responsibility of imparting that piece of information, and how is it delivered?
Should high school curricula be changed so that at some point, your science teacher is explaining the difference between science and engineering? That's not only implementable, but I think (unless the curriculum has changed radically, which is very possible) that it's already being done... not that high school students are always the best at listening and paying attention. The problem is that there is a ton of overlap between science and engineering, so it's not really all that cut and dried.
Good question. I don't know the answer. High school would be start, but as you said, many don't pay much attention in high school. I was one of those. And as you say, it's not all that cut and dried. Academic Advisers in college would be another spot where the difference, when it applies to the student, could be articulated. Though, I can't speak for all colleges, but the one I'm going to has some extremely clueless advisers that often give extremely bad advice. In fact, one of the most common pieces of advice I hear older students giving newer ones, is to do your own research, thoroughly, rather than depending solely on an academic adviser.
I just wish I'd gone to one of those high schools that have engineering competitions and robotics clubs and the like. I feel so far behind when I see high schoolers competing in robotics competitions and such, talking about circuit boards and servos that work best, when thus far into college I haven't been taught a single thing about electronics thus far, and that is my intended major. I wish I could find some friends that do this shit for fun. My current group of friends have interests basically limited to smoking good pot and playing Call of Duty. I don't even have a friend that reads books for fun. It's kind of amazing I grew up with these people and turned out so different. Well, in some respects, anyway.
To make it clear, I don't have anything against engineers or engineering. I appreciate the applied machinations of technologists and the way they improve my life.
They however are not advancing knowledge, instead producing innovation upon existing knowledge. As Nigel said, if you need to be told the difference between a scientist and an engineer you probably should be an engineer and not a scientist. There's a whole different mentality that goes with science.
Another way to put it: An engineer knows just enough theory so they can work their equipment and inventions. A scientist knows just enough equipment so they can work their theory and experiments. These are different realms of expertise.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 13, 2011, 10:46:09 PM
Another way to put it: An engineer knows just enough theory so they can work their equipment and inventions. A scientist knows just enough equipment so they can work their theory and experiments. These are different realms of expertise.
With the exception of course of the entirety of the Manhattan project.
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 11:41:07 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 13, 2011, 10:46:09 PM
Another way to put it: An engineer knows just enough theory so they can work their equipment and inventions. A scientist knows just enough equipment so they can work their theory and experiments. These are different realms of expertise.
With the exception of course of the entirety of the Manhattan project.
That was a science/engineering collaboration of a scale not seen since.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 14, 2011, 12:28:04 AM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 11:41:07 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 13, 2011, 10:46:09 PM
Another way to put it: An engineer knows just enough theory so they can work their equipment and inventions. A scientist knows just enough equipment so they can work their theory and experiments. These are different realms of expertise.
With the exception of course of the entirety of the Manhattan project.
That was a science/engineering collaboration of a scale not seen since.
... Large Hadron Collider? :)
(and some other particle smashers were also pretty big, but none as big as the LHC)
Quote from: Cain on November 13, 2011, 08:40:54 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 07:24:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 13, 2011, 02:55:59 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 10:54:30 AM
I also don't believe that psychology is anywhere near what you could call a science. Maybe in a decade or two.
Really? Because of my college friends, the one that actually made it to the end of their Psychology Masters, nearly all of them were real good with their statistics and SPSS1. Even though some of them still hated it :)
But they were really thorough about the hypothesis/experiment scientific feedback loop. In fact, in some sense, "more scientific" than the stuff I was doing with Computer Science2. Especially because they had to go through great length to try and objectively measure things that are generally considered subbjective and very hard to measure. And they learned and developed methods to do that, which is also part of the science of psychology and sociology.
Maybe you are thinking of psychiatry? Which, like medical school, is much more about learning a profession than doing Real Science. IMO the only reasons why those are taught at a university instead of higher education vocational school is because of history, prestige and that you probably want your cardiologist to have as high an education as possible.
From what I have seen of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in Ireland they don't do anything objectively, of course Irish psychotherapy could be ten years behind ye.
I honestly don't see a lot of that pushed at University over here any more. They are optional, usually under a History of Psychology course, but most of the actual training is done by "professional" groups and associations. I know when I did psychology, it was a very scientically heavy course. We spent our first semester learning about human physiology, the brain structure and so on, and the second on statistics and devising scientific tests. We barely actually touched on psychology at all.
Relevant to the discussion: Theory, and why it's time psychology got some. (http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html)
Personally, I think the only starting theory in psychology is that the human mind is a function of ceullular connections and networks, completely. Once there is enough evidence assembled based completely in that central fact, a larger theoretical framework will emerge. Unfortunately, many psychologists still think Freud and Jung are relevant. They aren't.
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 10:25:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 08:05:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 07:36:51 PM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 07:09:12 PM
I agree that the line between science and technology needs to be made more clear.
When I entered college, I had a big interest in computers and electronics. I was under the impression this was science, and proceeded to sign up for many science classes. It wasn't until my Engineering Fundamentals class that my professor explained to us the difference between scientists and engineers. As he put it, scientists push theory and knowledge further, while engineers use the knowledge that scientists discover in practical uses. So, if I want to spend crazy time learning theory and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, I should be a scientist. If I want to make fun electronics and program them, I should go into Engineering.
So, this year I went hardcore into Engineering classes, and I'm a lot happier with it.
Who makes it more clear? Isn't it made clear just by thinking about it?
How about this: if you don't understand the difference between science and engineering just by thinking about it, you should probably be an engineer, not a scientist.
:lulz:
Before I got to college, I didn't even know what an engineer was. I was thinking of movies like Back to the Future and the like, where there was "normal" people and the "mad scientist" that created cool stuff. To me, people who created technology and studied scientific things of any sort, were scientists. I thought everything to do with science was simply different distinctions on Scientist. As I've freely admitted many times, prior to my sudden motivation to better myself, I was stupid and ignorant to a large degree. Still am in many ways, though now I'm working on it.
OK... but my question is, who needs to make the difference between science and engineering more clear? You said "it needs to be made more clear". By whom? This is a serious question. If the problem is that people aren't figuring out the difference until after they start college, who has the responsibility of imparting that piece of information, and how is it delivered?
Should high school curricula be changed so that at some point, your science teacher is explaining the difference between science and engineering? That's not only implementable, but I think (unless the curriculum has changed radically, which is very possible) that it's already being done... not that high school students are always the best at listening and paying attention. The problem is that there is a ton of overlap between science and engineering, so it's not really all that cut and dried.
Good question. I don't know the answer. High school would be start, but as you said, many don't pay much attention in high school. I was one of those. And as you say, it's not all that cut and dried. Academic Advisers in college would be another spot where the difference, when it applies to the student, could be articulated. Though, I can't speak for all colleges, but the one I'm going to has some extremely clueless advisers that often give extremely bad advice. In fact, one of the most common pieces of advice I hear older students giving newer ones, is to do your own research, thoroughly, rather than depending solely on an academic adviser.
I just wish I'd gone to one of those high schools that have engineering competitions and robotics clubs and the like. I feel so far behind when I see high schoolers competing in robotics competitions and such, talking about circuit boards and servos that work best, when thus far into college I haven't been taught a single thing about electronics thus far, and that is my intended major. I wish I could find some friends that do this shit for fun. My current group of friends have interests basically limited to smoking good pot and playing Call of Duty. I don't even have a friend that reads books for fun. It's kind of amazing I grew up with these people and turned out so different. Well, in some respects, anyway.
Thing is, not only is it not that cut and dried, and not only is there a ton of overlap, but for the most part I think that people actually NEED to experience some coursework of each before they can decide which is right for them. I am not convinced that there's a way to explain to people the permutations of difference in advance that will be meaningful enough for them to make that kind of decision, in many cases.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 12:36:21 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 14, 2011, 12:28:04 AM
Quote from: Faust on November 13, 2011, 11:41:07 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 13, 2011, 10:46:09 PM
Another way to put it: An engineer knows just enough theory so they can work their equipment and inventions. A scientist knows just enough equipment so they can work their theory and experiments. These are different realms of expertise.
With the exception of course of the entirety of the Manhattan project.
That was a science/engineering collaboration of a scale not seen since.
... Large Hadron Collider? :)
(and some other particle smashers were also pretty big, but none as big as the LHC)
Engineering wise those aren't as complex as you would think. But the data results from them are being subjected to all manner of theoretical physics, some good science being done there.
Oh. I went to a talk at our uni by a guy from the LHC and he likened it to the Great Pyramids, except he said it was even more awesome because so many nations joined and built the project together.
But then, he was totally doing a PR talk, as much as getting pretty evangelical about it, sometimes.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 01:51:41 PM
Oh. I went to a talk at our uni by a guy from the LHC and he likened it to the Great Pyramids, except he said it was even more awesome because so many nations joined and built the project together.
But then, he was totally doing a PR talk, as much as getting pretty evangelical about it, sometimes.
It is to that massive scale, but the individual hardware blocks are well understood pieces of technology, The amazing part is the calibration and as your friend said that so many nations were able to pull together for a project that scale.
Wasn't my friend BTW, he just was there to talk about the LHC (and possibly other reasons, I don't know)
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2011, 06:11:35 AM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 10:25:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 08:05:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 07:36:51 PM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 07:09:12 PM
I agree that the line between science and technology needs to be made more clear.
When I entered college, I had a big interest in computers and electronics. I was under the impression this was science, and proceeded to sign up for many science classes. It wasn't until my Engineering Fundamentals class that my professor explained to us the difference between scientists and engineers. As he put it, scientists push theory and knowledge further, while engineers use the knowledge that scientists discover in practical uses. So, if I want to spend crazy time learning theory and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, I should be a scientist. If I want to make fun electronics and program them, I should go into Engineering.
So, this year I went hardcore into Engineering classes, and I'm a lot happier with it.
Who makes it more clear? Isn't it made clear just by thinking about it?
How about this: if you don't understand the difference between science and engineering just by thinking about it, you should probably be an engineer, not a scientist.
:lulz:
Before I got to college, I didn't even know what an engineer was. I was thinking of movies like Back to the Future and the like, where there was "normal" people and the "mad scientist" that created cool stuff. To me, people who created technology and studied scientific things of any sort, were scientists. I thought everything to do with science was simply different distinctions on Scientist. As I've freely admitted many times, prior to my sudden motivation to better myself, I was stupid and ignorant to a large degree. Still am in many ways, though now I'm working on it.
OK... but my question is, who needs to make the difference between science and engineering more clear? You said "it needs to be made more clear". By whom? This is a serious question. If the problem is that people aren't figuring out the difference until after they start college, who has the responsibility of imparting that piece of information, and how is it delivered?
Should high school curricula be changed so that at some point, your science teacher is explaining the difference between science and engineering? That's not only implementable, but I think (unless the curriculum has changed radically, which is very possible) that it's already being done... not that high school students are always the best at listening and paying attention. The problem is that there is a ton of overlap between science and engineering, so it's not really all that cut and dried.
Good question. I don't know the answer. High school would be start, but as you said, many don't pay much attention in high school. I was one of those. And as you say, it's not all that cut and dried. Academic Advisers in college would be another spot where the difference, when it applies to the student, could be articulated. Though, I can't speak for all colleges, but the one I'm going to has some extremely clueless advisers that often give extremely bad advice. In fact, one of the most common pieces of advice I hear older students giving newer ones, is to do your own research, thoroughly, rather than depending solely on an academic adviser.
I just wish I'd gone to one of those high schools that have engineering competitions and robotics clubs and the like. I feel so far behind when I see high schoolers competing in robotics competitions and such, talking about circuit boards and servos that work best, when thus far into college I haven't been taught a single thing about electronics thus far, and that is my intended major. I wish I could find some friends that do this shit for fun. My current group of friends have interests basically limited to smoking good pot and playing Call of Duty. I don't even have a friend that reads books for fun. It's kind of amazing I grew up with these people and turned out so different. Well, in some respects, anyway.
Thing is, not only is it not that cut and dried, and not only is there a ton of overlap, but for the most part I think that people actually NEED to experience some coursework of each before they can decide which is right for them. I am not convinced that there's a way to explain to people the permutations of difference in advance that will be meaningful enough for them to make that kind of decision, in many cases.
Quite true, but having 60-80%
1 of dropouts caused by a difference between expected sciencyness/enginyness and reality is not a good thing. There must be something that can be done.
1 source (http://arturovasquez.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/th.jpg)
Quote from: Regret on November 14, 2011, 06:41:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2011, 06:11:35 AM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 10:25:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 08:05:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2011, 07:36:51 PM
Quote from: trix on November 13, 2011, 07:09:12 PM
I agree that the line between science and technology needs to be made more clear.
When I entered college, I had a big interest in computers and electronics. I was under the impression this was science, and proceeded to sign up for many science classes. It wasn't until my Engineering Fundamentals class that my professor explained to us the difference between scientists and engineers. As he put it, scientists push theory and knowledge further, while engineers use the knowledge that scientists discover in practical uses. So, if I want to spend crazy time learning theory and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, I should be a scientist. If I want to make fun electronics and program them, I should go into Engineering.
So, this year I went hardcore into Engineering classes, and I'm a lot happier with it.
Who makes it more clear? Isn't it made clear just by thinking about it?
How about this: if you don't understand the difference between science and engineering just by thinking about it, you should probably be an engineer, not a scientist.
:lulz:
Before I got to college, I didn't even know what an engineer was. I was thinking of movies like Back to the Future and the like, where there was "normal" people and the "mad scientist" that created cool stuff. To me, people who created technology and studied scientific things of any sort, were scientists. I thought everything to do with science was simply different distinctions on Scientist. As I've freely admitted many times, prior to my sudden motivation to better myself, I was stupid and ignorant to a large degree. Still am in many ways, though now I'm working on it.
OK... but my question is, who needs to make the difference between science and engineering more clear? You said "it needs to be made more clear". By whom? This is a serious question. If the problem is that people aren't figuring out the difference until after they start college, who has the responsibility of imparting that piece of information, and how is it delivered?
Should high school curricula be changed so that at some point, your science teacher is explaining the difference between science and engineering? That's not only implementable, but I think (unless the curriculum has changed radically, which is very possible) that it's already being done... not that high school students are always the best at listening and paying attention. The problem is that there is a ton of overlap between science and engineering, so it's not really all that cut and dried.
Good question. I don't know the answer. High school would be start, but as you said, many don't pay much attention in high school. I was one of those. And as you say, it's not all that cut and dried. Academic Advisers in college would be another spot where the difference, when it applies to the student, could be articulated. Though, I can't speak for all colleges, but the one I'm going to has some extremely clueless advisers that often give extremely bad advice. In fact, one of the most common pieces of advice I hear older students giving newer ones, is to do your own research, thoroughly, rather than depending solely on an academic adviser.
I just wish I'd gone to one of those high schools that have engineering competitions and robotics clubs and the like. I feel so far behind when I see high schoolers competing in robotics competitions and such, talking about circuit boards and servos that work best, when thus far into college I haven't been taught a single thing about electronics thus far, and that is my intended major. I wish I could find some friends that do this shit for fun. My current group of friends have interests basically limited to smoking good pot and playing Call of Duty. I don't even have a friend that reads books for fun. It's kind of amazing I grew up with these people and turned out so different. Well, in some respects, anyway.
Thing is, not only is it not that cut and dried, and not only is there a ton of overlap, but for the most part I think that people actually NEED to experience some coursework of each before they can decide which is right for them. I am not convinced that there's a way to explain to people the permutations of difference in advance that will be meaningful enough for them to make that kind of decision, in many cases.
Quite true, but having 60-80%1 of dropouts caused by a difference between expected sciencyness/enginyness and reality is not a good thing. There must be something that can be done.
1 source (http://arturovasquez.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/th.jpg)
OK, but what is this "something" and who should do it?
Perhaps there should be a class about the differences between science and engineering that should be a prerequisite for anyone taking science/engineering classes past a certain point? I don't know. I suspect that a shit ton of those dropouts happen because kids are stupid and science and engineering are not all fun and games.
And, the 60% switching majors or dropping out figure only applies when you factor in premed students who don't get good enough grades to get into med school. It's 40% without those students. So, 40% of the people who start science/engineering programs either switch majors or drop out of college.
QuoteThe bulk of attrition comes in engineering and among pre-med majors, who typically leave STEM fields if their hopes for medical school fade.
from the article Kai posted in the OP. I know this is also true for med tech and optometry. People who can't get the grades they need to get into the medical training program they wanted are often not interested in science at all, so why stay in a field that was only a means to an end?
But back to the problem at hand. If you read the blog Kai linked to in the OP, you see that there, also, is acknowledgement that there is a problem in lack of understanding of the difference between science, engineering, and technology. A lot of the people who think they want to be scientists or engineers actually want to be
technicians. So, all around, there is a need for people to be educated in the difference, and the reality of what the coursework will be. So, my question is, when and how is that education imparted, and whose responsibility is it? As it stands, students are finding out after they enter college.
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2011, 07:33:03 PMOK, but what is this "something" and who should do it?
Perhaps there should be a class about the differences between science and engineering that should be a prerequisite for anyone taking science/engineering classes past a certain point?
Sounds like a good idea, except I don't think you need an entire course about it. It's a rather straightforward difference. However, in order to catch the kids that aren't always paying attention (who can still be
really smart, just bored, even in the best of educations), it's probably a good idea to just repeat it a lot.
Things like
"so for the Scientists among us that means ..." or
"if you want to be an engineer you'd just ..." -- often possible to pass it as a joking remark while explaining something else.
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2011, 07:33:03 PM
A lot of the people who think they want to be scientists or engineers actually want to be technicians.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Technicians get shit done. Engineers get in the way of getting things done (FACT. 1% of engineers design shit that works, and 99% of engineers exist solely to demonstrate how smart they are by fucking up everything they come across.).
Scientists, by and large, mostly work as either engineers or technicians, these days. That's not because they WANT to do that, it's because there's fuck all for funding when it comes to new research.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2011, 07:53:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2011, 07:33:03 PM
A lot of the people who think they want to be scientists or engineers actually want to be technicians.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Technicians get shit done. Engineers get in the way of getting things done (FACT. 1% of engineers design shit that works, and 99% of engineers exist solely to demonstrate how smart they are by fucking up everything they come across.).
Scientists, by and large, mostly work as either engineers or technicians, these days. That's not because they WANT to do that, it's because there's fuck all for funding when it comes to new research.
There's nothing wrong with any of those fields; however, the consensus seems to be that kids are entering these programs without knowing what they really want to be doing, and that somewhere in the education pipeline, someone should be explaining to them the difference between science, engineering, and tech. I am not entirely sure I agree that "someone should do something", because for the most part we are talking about kids fresh out of high school who are going to have to experience the coursework, and in most cases switch majors a few times, before they actually figure out what they want to do. I'd love to see the persistence and completion rates for kids who initially declare a Lit major, for instance.
I didn't find that online, but I did find this:
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/?level=nation&mode=graph&state=0&submeasure=27
I'm not convinced that the lack of understanding of the various disciplines and what they mean is the real problem.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2011, 07:53:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2011, 07:33:03 PM
A lot of the people who think they want to be scientists or engineers actually want to be technicians.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Technicians get shit done. Engineers get in the way of getting things done (FACT. 1% of engineers design shit that works, and 99% of engineers exist solely to demonstrate how smart they are by fucking up everything they come across.).
Scientists, by and large, mostly work as either engineers or technicians, these days. That's not because they WANT to do that, it's because there's fuck all for funding when it comes to new research.
Getting funding, like everything else, is all about having a good idea and selling to the public. Even my science, as low tech as it tends to be, requires some funding for labor (i.e. scientific enlightenment doesn't grant some immunity to exhaustion, hunger or the elements). But there is money. I have to fight for it.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 15, 2011, 01:33:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2011, 07:53:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2011, 07:33:03 PM
A lot of the people who think they want to be scientists or engineers actually want to be technicians.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Technicians get shit done. Engineers get in the way of getting things done (FACT. 1% of engineers design shit that works, and 99% of engineers exist solely to demonstrate how smart they are by fucking up everything they come across.).
Scientists, by and large, mostly work as either engineers or technicians, these days. That's not because they WANT to do that, it's because there's fuck all for funding when it comes to new research.
Getting funding, like everything else, is all about having a good idea and selling to the public. Even my science, as low tech as it tends to be, requires some funding for labor (i.e. scientific enlightenment doesn't grant some immunity to exhaustion, hunger or the elements). But there is money. I have to fight for it.
You're lucky, I still have to secure funding for my PhD and that's with an observatory.
Quote from: Faust on November 15, 2011, 08:31:01 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 15, 2011, 01:33:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2011, 07:53:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2011, 07:33:03 PM
A lot of the people who think they want to be scientists or engineers actually want to be technicians.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Technicians get shit done. Engineers get in the way of getting things done (FACT. 1% of engineers design shit that works, and 99% of engineers exist solely to demonstrate how smart they are by fucking up everything they come across.).
Scientists, by and large, mostly work as either engineers or technicians, these days. That's not because they WANT to do that, it's because there's fuck all for funding when it comes to new research.
Getting funding, like everything else, is all about having a good idea and selling to the public. Even my science, as low tech as it tends to be, requires some funding for labor (i.e. scientific enlightenment doesn't grant some immunity to exhaustion, hunger or the elements). But there is money. I have to fight for it.
You're lucky, I still have to secure funding for my PhD and that's with an observatory.
On second thought, it will probably be more than that. I need to examine the types of all the species involved, many of which are in European collections. So I'll either have to travel to them or get them sent. Then theres the collecting, which I need to do all over North America. So travel money will be an issue.