US Congress to spend more on math+science

[Saryctos]

You know, an interestign thing about this bill is that it only offers to get more people into classes. There is no funding to improve the quality of the math and sciences departments. I bet if you got more funding for these subjects on a lower level, say grades 7-11 to make the classes teach more effectively, you'll see more people going into those fields of study.

It seems to me like the reason that most people don't persue math and science isn't a lack of interest, they just shy away from wanting a career in what they see as hard subjects. I'd suspect that's mostly because they didn't do well in those classes during early schooling, and offering incentives to people for choosing this field, will probably only sway the borderline people who were already thinking about doing it anyways, just because it's easier on the wallet.

 

Also, I'd like to add that women are on average paid more, than men. They just, on average, don't recieve as many promotions due to quitting from child birth.

[ParanoiA]

It seems to me like the reason that most people don't persue math and science isn't a lack of interest, they just shy away from wanting a career in what they see as hard subjects. I'd suspect that's mostly because they didn't do well in those classes during early schooling, and offering incentives to people for choosing this field, will probably only sway the borderline people who were already thinking about doing it anyways, just because it's easier on the wallet.

 

You just nailed me. I was intimidated by those subjects in school. Now, I wish I had given it a chance.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

as for the brighter students, they are passed on early if really bright. many students clear high school at 13 to 16 and go on into higher education, generally under some paid program. additionally if affordable or under many government and industrial programs, many go into private schooling. if for some reason this is not appropriate, many self taught individuals have done just fine. any one can go on line learn whatever, generally making things easier in the advanced schooling years.

They shouldn't have to go to private schools or sit at home and learn by themselves. The government is supposed to supply a good education system, and it is failing for some people.

 

Luke; job well done on your education. the important factor is you alone or with good parental guidance, took responsibility for yourself. no amount of government aid, would have helped you or any person to achieve what you did. likewise the public school systems, today, would never encourage the actions you took. long ago such actions were rewarded; as a drop out, i joined the service, took every course i could handle with my duties. the high school i dropped from, rewarded me with a diploma, a formal congrats and so on...in those days, there was no GED and any formal education required a past.

In some places, there is something called a Gifted and Talented program, or Academic Challenge, or whatever they decide to name it, where students are actually encouraged to learn independently and think.

 

Other places satisfy government requirements for the program by allowing students to take a class that prepares them for the Academic Decathlon competition.

 

The fact is that public schools are capable of getting the interest of the advanced students, it's just that they don't try.

[Pangloss]

Investment? So female scientists are more valuable than male scientists? Right now my sympathies are entirely with the man who couldn't get funding when the less qualified woman could. If you can make the argument that having an equal number of male and female scientists and mathematicians is more important than a) being fair, and b) having more qualified scientists and mathematicians, I'm open to it.

 

It's not a question of equality, it's a question of total numbers of available personnel. What they were saying was that if the current numbers and ratio of men to women continue to enter into math and science careers then there would automatically be a deficit of sufficient numbers of people in those fields.

 

So focusing on women specifically (e.g. advertisements, role-model encouragements and economic incentives) would benefit the whole field.

 

I'm not sure if this reasoning is entirely valid, but I thought it was an interesting point. In other words, I wouldn't toss out the constitution just to be competitive in the world economy. But there are precedents here and I think it bears a closer look.

 

(Edit: Not sure if anyone noticed it, but I accidentally put "would" instead of "wouldn't" in the previous paragraph. Fixed.)

[jackson33]

Cap'n; what you suggest is every student, some 30 million or so are the responsibility of the total national population. government IMO, has no business in education to begin with; however since there so deep into it already, the idea of funding the gifted seems a little overboard. to make myself clear, i do not think results of bad or poor parenting or the under achiever in the systems should be there responsibility.

 

back to one of my points, this underachiever in Des Moines, could well be the gifted in NYC. many things going into the educating of a human. there is no reason to listing what failures governments have already had, but this is one, as a society you do not want....

 

lets take one example; food stamps in the US are given out like candy. even a quick glance in any urban area, will tell you food is not a problem. however these very same people, for the most part get free breakfast and lunches every school day.

 

by the way, if i had a gifted child, my thought would be to assist him/her, not complain and find a solution. if its alone at home or in a private school, the effort should be well worth while to any motive...to say nothing of not being dumbed down by their piers.

[Sisyphus]

You're seriously for abolishing public education? I'm just trying to clarify the situation.

[jackson33]

You're seriously for abolishing public education? I'm just trying to clarify the situation.

 

yes, if your inferring Federal Government. to start with most of the problems they do have and there are many are from the inconsistency of governments involvement, with a little influence of unions. the heads of the educational department over the years, each gave conflicting views to the rest.

 

i would prefer some form of voucher program, if the feds need to be involved. if this cannot be achieved, then give back total control to the states and if possible some authority to local systems. the folks in NYC or Omaha, know a lot more than any person in Washington and have vested interest, not political. education of the young, w/o any social engineering, is the single most effective way to stimulate interest in any subject matter. all the farmers in NYC, would have to study social studies a little deeper and the socialist leaning students in Omaha, could learn biology or something they are already interested in.

[CPL.Luke]

there are farmers in NYC? I must have missed the vast fields of corn behind the towering skyscrapers last time I visited.

 

The federal government primarily provides funding for education, the states still control the curricullum.

 

I would also appreciate you not inferring that I had good parental involvement, I'm not saying that I didn't, but your construing my story to fit your argument.

 

anyway back to the main topic, Pangloss you seem to be operating under the assumption that there is a lack of peple in the sciences due to a lack of interest, but I can show hard evidence that this is not the case.

 

http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/emp.pdf

 

scroll down to the graph showing physics phd emoployment in various fields, you'll notice that in most fields significantly more people are forced to enter into post-doc positions than permanent jobs. According to a number of peopleon another board people will get stuck in these jobs for 10 years or more, having to move every 2 years and let unable to work on their own projects. the problem is not in the supply, its in the demand.

[Pangloss]

I'm not "operating" under any "assumptions", CPL.Luke, but I'll happily take your word that that's a valid refutation to their position. (I'm afraid I can't load Acrobat on this twitchy Vista machine atm.)

 

Let's set aside the issue of legality of female scholarships for the moment and address this question: Is it possible that Congress passed legislation increasing funding for math and science based on false information about the future availability of employees in those fields?

 

WMD 2.0?

[Sisyphus]

yes, if your inferring Federal Government. to start with most of the problems they do have and there are many are from the inconsistency of governments involvement, with a little influence of unions. the heads of the educational department over the years, each gave conflicting views to the rest.

 

i would prefer some form of voucher program, if the feds need to be involved. if this cannot be achieved, then give back total control to the states and if possible some authority to local systems. the folks in NYC or Omaha, know a lot more than any person in Washington and have vested interest, not political. education of the young, w/o any social engineering, is the single most effective way to stimulate interest in any subject matter. all the farmers in NYC, would have to study social studies a little deeper and the socialist leaning students in Omaha, could learn biology or something they are already interested in.

 

The federal government has little influence over the curriculum besides encouraging basic standards. In most places it's about 50% state, 40% local, and 10% federal. Unions are an entirely different matter, and are often at odds with the feds, as I mentioned earlier. I get the feeling you're just blaming whatever traditional conservative scapegoats you can think of.

 

However, I should add that federal funding in a lot of places is crucial. I spent my early school years in gifted programs that wouldn't have been possible without federal funding. I also wouldn't have been able to go to college without federal loans.

[Pangloss]

Somewhere out there I read a quote from what I believe was an employee of the National Science Foundation saying that by 2010 there would not be sufficient people in science/engineering careers due to the dropping female statistic. Unfortunately I can't find that quote after quite a bit of Googling. Perhaps my memory is faulty.

 

I did find this information for another thread over on the General forum:

 

This article has some statistics from the National Science Foundation on math and science college students:

http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/04/25/Features/By.The.Numbers.Women.In.Science.And.Engineering-2878908.shtml

 

It states that only 26.3% of female college freshmen intended to major in science or engineering in 2004. That compares with 40.8% of male students. The number for women is down from 34% in 1991.

 

Only 0.4% intended to go into computer science. (Compared with 4.1% of men -- both dangerously low numbers!)

 

On a more positive note, amongst 2004 graduates the numbers for men and women were almost even at a quarter-mill each.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Cap'n; what you suggest is every student, some 30 million or so are the responsibility of the total national population. government IMO, has no business in education to begin with; however since there so deep into it already, the idea of funding the gifted seems a little overboard.

 

The thing is that it takes nearly no funding. A talented-and-gifted program in one of the towns I lived in gave the same curriculum to the students (exactly the same), but the teachers simply encouraged more thought in homework assignments and class discussions. It doesn't take much to help a gifted student.

[ParanoiA]

The federal government has little influence over the curriculum besides encouraging basic standards. In most places it's about 50% state, 40% local, and 10% federal. Unions are an entirely different matter, and are often at odds with the feds, as I mentioned earlier. I get the feeling you're just blaming whatever traditional conservative scapegoats you can think of.

 

Then why is the federal government able to extort the states into adopting their ideas of education using the "money"? I haven't been following this kind of thing too closely, but I'm always hearing about the feds not having any power over the states in terms of education and so they're using "funding" to exert a sort of power. This technique was also used for the universal drinking age of 21 - using highway funds I believe.

 

Just bringing it up because it sounds like they have more than just "little influence".

 

I'm all for a system that allows me to divert my education taxes toward a private solution. For instance, I'd like for school personel to beat my son's ass when he won't behave instead of calling me at work and suspending him for stupid teenage things. I can't get the public school to do that.

[jackson33]

Luke; please, the point was the folks in NYC and Omaha have lead very different lives. there are 0 farmers in NYC and in Omaha, they generally vote conservative.

[jackson33]

the Federal Governments involvement in the US, by funding has grown from a little under 2B in 1966 to over 25B in 2006. this is currently over 10k per student k-12, does not include many other programs such as special needs.

there is no evidence that this has helped anything and many suggest the results are negative in high degrees.

 

the average class size is said to be 20-25, which means the tax payer is paying through the fed, 250k per year or those 9 months, for the teacher and what ever the class K-12 requires. would somebody please tell me this sounds like a wise investment for the results...

[jackson33]

The thing is that it takes nearly no funding. A talented-and-gifted program in one of the towns I lived in gave the same curriculum to the students (exactly the same), but the teachers simply encouraged more thought in homework assignments and class discussions. It doesn't take much to help a gifted student.

 

when it comes to the truly gifted or even those students that are bored to the point of dropping education in general, i have strong feelings. since personal responsibility has taken a back seat to parenting, the school systems and even government advice, ill place my hopes in the Internet or other modern mean of communication. please, the Federal Government, cannot help these folks.

 

IBM, Microsoft, Haliburton and most of the major companies around the world have programs to find and help these kids, just in the hope they will be noticed after graduations. Government entities likewise try to the same, such as the various military groups and NASA. i have no idea how many individuals are looking for these people as well. many offer funding for any member of HS classes, to study for and attend a college or University. even colleges and universities, have scholastic and athletic programs for students with many qualities. the arts, athletics and music just a few.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

please, the Federal Government, cannot help these folks.

Prove it.

[jackson33]

Prove it.

 

IMO, based on past performance....

 

samples;

8 TRILLION, spent on the so called War On Poverty since 1965. results; poverty according to most up....

 

2 to 25 billion, increase from 1977, spent on k-12, programs by the federal government. results;

decrease in all categories, some HS school systems running near 50% drop out rates and some say the same illiterate rates...

 

pick your figure on War on drugs; results disgustingly low and the jails are full of offenders, highest percentage...

 

want more???

[Sisyphus]

What you fail to mention is that that 25 billion still amounts to less than 5% of total spending. Almost all of it comes from state and local sources. So yes, I do want more. I want statistics that are actually remotely relevant.

[jackson33]

What you fail to mention is that that 25 billion still amounts to less than 5% of total spending. Almost all of it comes from state and local sources. So yes, I do want more. I want statistics that are actually remotely relevant.

 

of course thats absurd; according to *ed.gov*, the feds pay out 25B, to the school districts, via local and state agencies or approximately 10k per student per year. what your suggesting is the cost per student is 200k each year, allowing for inefficiency this goes beyond reality. just THINK, that 25 student classroom would cost there funders, 3 million per class.

 

relevance is in the efficiency; if you cannot see the listed cost/effective levels from whats been mentioned, nothing else would help...

 

IMO; government should step aside, let many of there functions go private and watch the results zooooom up...home schooling and private schools, have astonishing results compared to even the best government school.

 

after revisit to totals; apparently all education in the US does spend near a trillion to educate the total 56 million students, from pre-school to post graduate. the 25B is trivial, to the total, regardless where the k-12 fits in...

[ParanoiA]

of course thats absurd; according to *ed.gov*, the feds pay out 25B, to the school districts, via local and state agencies or approximately 10k per student per year. what your suggesting is the cost per student is 200k each year, allowing for inefficiency this goes beyond reality. just THINK, that 25 student classroom would cost there funders, 3 million per class.

 

relevance is in the efficiency; if you cannot see the listed cost/effective levels from whats been mentioned, nothing else would help...

 

IMO; government should step aside, let many of there functions go private and watch the results zooooom up...home schooling and private schools, have astonishing results compared to even the best government school.

 

Great post. But I would take issue with home schooling because it's not always about academics. There is social learning and development that requires interaction over the years of their education. Obviously I would never legislate such a thing as it's everyone's right to home school, but I wouldn't tout that as an achievment simply because it might result in high scores.

[Sisyphus]

of course thats absurd; according to *ed.gov*, the feds pay out 25B, to the school districts, via local and state agencies or approximately 10k per student per year. what your suggesting is the cost per student is 200k each year, allowing for inefficiency this goes beyond reality. just THINK, that 25 student classroom would cost there funders, 3 million per class.

 

Your math is waaaaaaay off. There are ~60 million Americans of k-12 age. 25 billion means about $450 per student. Total spending is about 9k per student, per year. I'm amazed you didn't notice that spending 200k every year on every child in America is obviously impossible. Blinded by idealogy much?

 

IMO; government should step aside, let many of there functions go private and watch the results zooooom up...home schooling and private schools, have astonishing results compared to even the best government school.

 

Private schools get better results because they spend a lot more money per student. Home schooling is able to get better results (although it often doesn't, since a large percentage of homeschoolers are homeschooled because their parents don't want them learning about evolution) for the same reason, and because it basically amounts to full time private tutoring, which is obviously completely impractical in the overwhelming number of cases. Both are FAR less efficient than public schooling.

 

If you want more efficiency, you should look at other countries that DO spend less and get better results. There are many, and I guarantee you they all have much more heavyhanded oversight from their national governments.

[jackson33]

the tail end of my post (an edit), said i was in error....the 57 million students, from pre-school to and including post graduate work receive near one trillion dollars to be educated. i frankly had no idea the waste was so great, but hold to my point the process is in need of a revamping.

 

no private school cost are about 1/3rd that of public schools. one thing i did not realize is tax payers help out there as well.

 

i do agree that per dollar spent, the US has terrible results. i am not familiar with the EC or how other national systems are involved in education and possibly some research should be done.

 

 

P; yes, i understand the problems from home schooling. i have to consider however that many folks, especially orientals, prefer their kids are not influenced by or even associate with the masses. the cure would be to the voucher system, where school choice would cure much of the problem.

 

 

for the record; the Department of Education's total discretionary budget in 06, was 57B dollars, for all the grades, pre and post. there are 94,000 public schools and 28,000 private schools, in 14,000 school districts. one trillion dollars is spent each year to educate peoples in the US.

 

to the thread; adding to the cost for any well intentioned reason, will not solve the obviously out of control systems in the US...

[Saryctos]

Blinded by idealogy much?

(although it often doesn't, since a large percentage of homeschoolers are homeschooled because their parents don't want them learning about evolution)

 

hmm

[Sisyphus]

the tail end of my post (an edit), said i was in error....the 57 million students, from pre-school to and including post graduate work receive near one trillion dollars to be educated. i frankly had no idea the waste was so great, but hold to my point the process is in need of a revamping.

 

The number is 75 million students all the way through, with a total of $900 billion from all taxpayer sources, state, local, and federal. I don't doubt there's waste (which is inevitable), but that's just 12k per student per year overall. You really think that's unreasonable?

 

no private school cost are about 1/3rd that of public schools. one thing i did not realize is tax payers help out there as well.

 

Private school costs $3000 a year? Really?

 

i do agree that per dollar spent, the US has terrible results. i am not familiar with the EC or how other national systems are involved in education and possibly some research should be done.

 

Most places it's directly administered by the federal government. Most places also have more specialization, as in kids go to different high schools based not just on where they live but where their aptitudes and interests lie. I have mixed feelings about that, but I think it's probably better than our patchwork system.