Science =/= technology. Lab training =/= science education.

[Kai]

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.

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

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.

[Faust]

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.

[Triple Zero]

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.

[Faust]

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.

[Triple Zero]

Wasn't my friend BTW, he just was there to talk about the LHC (and possibly other reasons, I don't know)

[Reginald Ret]

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.

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

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

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

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.

The 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.

[Triple Zero]

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?

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Kai]

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.

[Faust]

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.

[Kai]

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.