How do we attract more young people to science?

[netang]

I am currently a fourth year student in a mathematics department. I am aware that only science can help to survive humans in future.

How do we attract more young people to science? I want to start to do something for it.

I want to lecture in university to train younger students, but I afraid that many will laugh at me.

[swansont]

 

I want to lecture in university to train younger students, but I afraid that many will laugh at me.

 

That's part of the problem — science is not held in high regard amongst some of the population. Another problem is the teaching method — lectures and rote learning are boring and poor methods to boot, and turns students off. Further still, we have to curtail the active socialization-related efforts to dissuade women from learning science.

 

I think a lot of kids are interested in science until the system beats it out of them one way or another. It's less of increasing attraction and more of reducing repulsion, IMO.

[Ten oz]

Science has unfortunately made some very powerful political enemies. The long history between science and the church is well known. In more recent year though Science has butted heads with capitalism. Climate, environmental, and medical science has made enemies of trillion dollar a year industries around the world and challenging governments to rethink many areas of modern living. Today both God and treasure seek to undermine science. As Swansot pointed out science simply isn't held in high regard.

 

I think one important step, which is also a simple step,would be getting the United States on the metric system. The United States is a technological world leader in many areas yet we willfully use an antiquated system. Everyone with any type of science or engineering degree has to learn the metric system. Why we put it off till college when it could be the standard in itself is a rejection of science. Or at least a rejection of good sense in favor of habit and pride. Teach people that changing to a better system is worth doing rather than telling people there is some sort of patriotic honor in refusing to change.

[Unity+]

Today both God and treasure seek to undermine science.

I and many other scientists would disagree with this notion. To many scientists, the belief in God has influenced them to pursue the field of science.Whether or not you disagree with them does not change their credibility in the field of Science.

 

 

I think one important step, which is also a simple step,would be getting the United States on the metric system.

This is something similar to the debate of the base number system, stating that one base number system works better than another. I would rather have the metric system, but neither or the other is better.

 

I think the Scientific field has been untouched by many is because of the education system, society, and the media itself. The education system, which I have been tortured through, teaches science incorrectly and pursues teaching Science in the wrong ways. Let Michio Kaku state what I mean:

 

 

Script(Summary):

 

Michio Kaku: First of all, we are born scientists, we wonder what's out there...

Michio Kaku: ...then we hit danger years, the danger years of junior highschool. Every flower of curiosity, as Einstein says, is crushed by society.

Michio Kaku: Because we have to learn all these facts and figures, which people think is science.

Michio Kaku: Then we wonder 'why aren't more people interested in science'?

 

The media also has some influence over this. There are movies that seem to portray science as being simple or it gives the wrong notion that a person, mostly, gets a spark of brilliance and gets the solution, which is completely inaccurate.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Unity+

[Ten oz]

@ Unity+, for people that are highly capable in different systems it probably does matter to much. However we live in a world where a lot of people dont know the basics. I believe the metric system is superior because it is consistant and even. Twelve inch in a foot and 3 feet in a yard is not clear as 10 millimeters in a centimeter and 10 centimeters in meter. Same goes for working in the garage with tools. What is the next size above and below a 7/32 wrench? You kind of got to think about it. For a metric wrench 6mm the next size above and below is very straight forward, 5 & 7. On top of all of that the whole world uses the metric system so it would, if nothing else, prevent a lot of unnecessary conversion.

[Unity+]

@ Unity+, for people that are highly capable in different systems it probably does matter to much. However we live in a world where a lot of people dont know the basics. I believe the metric system is superior because it is consistant and even. Twelve inch in a foot and 3 feet in a yard is not clear as 10 millimeters in a centimeter and 10 centimeters in meter. Same goes for working in the garage with tools. What is the next size above and below a 7/32 wrench? You kind of got to think about it. For a metric wrench 6mm the next size above and below is very straight forward, 5 & 7. On top of all of that the whole world uses the metric system so it would, if nothing else, prevent a lot of unnecessary conversion.

It may be a convenience, but people probably would rather want to stick to the use of technology to convert it for them instead of changing the system used in a country. It's too much of a hassle. It could be done over time, but still my point remains.

[ajb]

How do we attract more young people to science?

I must ask, how young are you thinking and to what level of science education would you seek to push them towards?

 

Maybe a bit provocative of me, but jobs in science are not easy to find and then there is huge competition; not all after their PhD find a postdoc and then less again find permanent positions. I think unless governments increase the status of scientists and the funding maybe we want less people highly educated in science. It pains me to think like this, but this is the harsh reality.

 

Attracting more into engineering will have a similar fate. Right now a lage number of engineering graduates are unemployed to working outside of engineering.

 

The situation maybe better for technical, but less academic focused jobs.

 

I want to lecture in university to train younger students...

This is admirable indeed and I for one do not laugh at you.

 

It is not easy, especially when you don't have very interested students. Teaching can be very rewarding when you know that you have helped students develop their skills and awareness of mathematics. It is great to see them suddenly get the idea and solve a problem they though they never could.

 

Most lecturing jobs at the university level will ask for a PhD. But not all do, I have seen positions teaching foundation year mathematics and similar that would not require a PhD or require you to be working towards one. That said, some of these foundation year jobs do ask for a teaching quaification.

 

So, depending on what you want to do, you may need a PhD or some teaching qualification. The best thing you can do is ask some of your lecturers about this, they should have a better feel for your local situation.

Edited August 17, 2014 by ajb

[studiot]

I would suggest that there are two things that would help.

 

Firstly for scientists in the widest sense to show more enthusiasm themselves and to be more prepared to answer questions and offer encouragement.

 

For instance in this recent thread

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85033-a-good-book-to-start-my-journey-into-chemistry/

 

Secondly I commented in my response to that thread that the presentation in one book is poor because it presents every topic as a series of disjoint items to be learned and makes no attempt to link them together to form or build up a coherent whole.

 

I am convinced that we learn better when we see how things fit in with each other rather than as a long list of isolated facts.

[swansont]

Attracting more into engineering will have a similar fate. Right now a lage number of engineering graduates are unemployed to working outside of engineering.

 

I think this is part of the problem: having a stigma attached to working outside of a narrow field. Many people act as if one has failed if they choose an alternate career path, just as many in academia consider a career outside of academia as a failure. And yet around two thirds of science jobs for PhDs are outside of academia — that's a reason why academic positions are so competitive.

[Truck.Captain.Stumpy]

 

That's part of the problem — science is not held in high regard amongst some of the population. Another problem is the teaching method — lectures and rote learning are boring and poor methods to boot, and turns students off. Further still, we have to curtail the active socialization-related efforts to dissuade women from learning science.

 

I think a lot of kids are interested in science until the system beats it out of them one way or another. It's less of increasing attraction and more of reducing repulsion, IMO.

this is all strictly IMHO but you can also add into that the problems with religion, from trying to reconcile one with the other to outright fear of science in some cases due to the religious fanaticism of some

 

One thing that can also help is the problem with PAY... while I was growing up, my parents tried EVERYTHING in their power to keep me from science and any science fields (with the exception of medicie - doctor)

My father actually said the words "there is no money in that... why would you want to do that for a living" when I talked to him about physics

 

Another big issue is how FUN the classes are, as pointed out already.

learning by rote and classes that are boring are harder to get into and learn... One class that I took on-line (after reading his book) was the physics class at MIT given by Prof Lewin

If there were more cflasses that engaged the student and were more interesting like his course, there would be better students and likely more students interested as well...

 

Interest can be INFECTIOUS when people are really truly loving what they do... whenever I read Lewin's book, I get excited about physics...

 

There ALSO seems to be some problem with classification. You can't be something IF you are something else... like religion and science. They make you choose which to be, rather than just let someone compartmentalise themselves. Some people think that there are political issues... and this just exacerbates the situation, IMHO

 

but this is just IMHO, mind you

 

I've always been respectful of the hard work and dedication needed to be involved with the scientific fields. where is that anymore? most kids want big bucks and something fast and easy... they are not willing to work HARD to achieve something that may take years... and maybe that is ALSO another problem with science and its fields? you can't just jump in and start running (so to speak)... you need hard work and training, and with the instant gratification of todays society in so many ways, this is anathema to children and thier future dreams. If they can't be rich by 20, why bother? (hyperbole)

 

just musing, btw...

good topic...

 

[netang]

Thank you very much for your answers!

 

I must ask, how young are you thinking and to what level of science education would you seek to push them towards?

Students of 1-3 courses (bachelor's degree)

 

This is admirable indeed and I for one do not laugh at you.

Oh, thanks)

 

P.S. My English is not good, sorry

Edited August 20, 2014 by netang

[ajb]

Just as a side comment, the number of UK students studying A-level physics has gone up for the 8th year in a row. This is despite an overall reduction in the number of students sitting A-level exams. It looks like in the UK we can attract school students to study physics post-compulsory.

 

This is also on top of a worrying situation where the teachers are not really qualified to teach physics. I know this is true from some first hand experience, but it would be unfair to go into details.

 

The IOP has done a good job making physics attractive I would say.

 

http://www.iop.org/news/14/aug/page_63764.html

 

If I recall correctly, the number of students in the UK on undergraduate degrees in physics has also increased. This is despite a raise in fees and a worrying time for employment.

[CreativeCatastrophe]

I've found the best way to lure people into learning something new is with humor, or by putting the information into an attractive looking infographic. Think of websites like pinterest - they're so popular because people love it when things are divided up into little bites of information.

 

You just need something to catch their attention and arouse their curiosity.

[Sensei]

I am currently a fourth year student in a mathematics department. I am aware that only science can help to survive humans in future.

How do we attract more young people to science? I want to start to do something for it.

I want to lecture in university to train younger students, but I afraid that many will laugh at me.

 

Lessons in primary & secondary schools can't be boring. They must be entertaining.

 

f.e. on lessons about optics every student should get four lasers R/G/B/White, polarization filters, diffraction granting, single & double slits. And that should be in primary school physics.

f.e. on lessons about electricity there should be showed electrons from radioactive decay in Cloud Chamber. Every school should have multiple such devices. Put them in hall, so students can see it during breaks between lessons. With buttons to turn on magnets/electromagnets, slider to control current and therefor strength of electromagnet.

On lesson about electricity and magnetics students should build their own electromagnets, their own electric engine from wires and bars of steel.

Build their own Volta's batteries, build their own array of compasses to visualize magnetic field lines.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Sensei