Duty now for the future

With the election over, I’ve been getting caught up on issues of Time. Okay, a lot of the articles there were about the election, and I’m currently on the special double issue commemorative election issue. But this isn’t about all that, believe it or not!

One recent issue was about the future of education in our country, and I found it fascinating. It should go without saying that we have a real problem in that area. We are falling farther and farther behind in our skills compared to other developed countries, and a high school diploma is no longer a guarantee of literacy and basic skills. Even a college diploma does not mean that a student will graduate with critical thinking skills that allow them to reach beyond the immediate and obvious.

One of the topics this issue focused on was online classes. With the advent of computers and faster connections, education is more accessible than ever, especially to those in remote areas or poorer countries. There is a bit of an explosion at the moment in MOOCs, massive open online courses, and top-notch universities like Harvard and Stanford are participating. I’ve signed up for a couple myself on Coursera, when they become available: one taught by Ezekiel Emanuel (yes, brother of Rahm) on health policy and the Affordable Care Act, and one on vaccines taught by Dr. Paul Offit. I won’t get college credit for these, but that’s okay. I just want to learn.

However, these online courses are shaking things up a bit in academia, and some accredited colleges are starting to accept transfer credits for such courses through non-accredited portal sites such as Coursera. If we want to get back up to speed and become more competitive, we need to explore all options in order to reach as many people as possible. What is fascinating about many of these online courses is that they are rethinking the way subjects are taught, or at least paying attention to what past studies have shown. Rather than 45 minutes to an hour of straight lecturing, the instructor will teach for a few minutes and then engage the students in asking questions and getting feedback. They will be tasked with figuring out a problem, or discuss the concepts just presented. This makes sense to me, because I truly believe that the way we learn is changing. When I was in college, I would sit for an hour and take notes (unless it was lab time, which was always fun and hands-on). Handwritten notes! O the horror! Now I find myself getting constant input. If I’m reading something, I’ll stop after a few minutes and check for info online; I’ll pay attention to a news story on TV; I’ll watch a video I’ve come across. I’m 50 years old, and MY brain has been changed by these sorts of stimuli. How must it be for someone half my age, who grew up with such input? If you want people to learn, you have to figure out the most effective way to convey your information, and that has changed considerably in the past few decades.

I often hear older people talking about how they didn’t have computers when they were in school, and they learned just fine. Times have changed, people. The computer is an essential part of learning, whether it’s to get a syllabus for a class, research a paper you’re working on, submit that paper, or check your grades. This starts in grade school. Computers are no longer a luxury; they are an essential part of the learning process.

I believe that we need to commit to rethinking our system, and figuring out the best way to teach kids, from preschool through grad school. This involves more than money, though. My question is how do we change the culture so that we foster a love of learning? I’m all for tech schools that teach specific skills for specific jobs. Our jobs are becoming increasingly technical, and as we (hopefully) continue to expand manufacturing, we can rely on an increasingly educated and stronger middle class. But how do we promote that sense of learning beyond job needs? How do we instill a sense of curiosity in kids, one that leads them to explore and learn and grow beyond their imagined boundaries?

I still believe there is a place for four-year degrees in which you are able to take a few electives beyond the requirements for your major. Because of my high school class ranking and advanced placement tests, I was able to test out of something like 28 credit hours for English and German. I almost regret that now, because I wish I would have taken more electives! (But it was a good thing for Mom and Dad’s bank account!) Online courses can be wonderful for someone like me who still wants to learn, but has no need to get the degree or cannot justify the fees involved. As we continue to develop these online courses, it can also be wonderful for kids who hope to further their education by getting a scholarship, or for young women in countries with oppressive attitudes towards women’s education. There really is no downside here.

Beyond fostering an attitude of the joy of learning, I believe we need to condemn the opposite attitude. I’ve written before about the bizarre tendency lately to dismiss facts and numbers if they don’t jibe with your personal reality. This needs to stop. To be completely frank, part of that needs to involve keeping religion out of the science classroom. I’ve written about that, too, so I won’t go into it in depth again, but it’s long past time that we stopped treating creationism/intelligent design as a valid scientific theory. It is not. It is a religious belief. People can believe whatever they want to believe, reconcile their beliefs with scientific fact in whichever way they choose, and they can teach those beliefs in their home and in their churches. No one is stopping them from that. But they must not be allowed to push those beliefs in the science classroom. I am not exaggerating when I say that our standing as a nation invested in scientific and medical research depends upon it.

Our duty now awaits us.

The right to an opinion

This is a corollary entry to yesterday’s, in which I wondered about what sort of legacy we leave behind.

As I continued to read some old entries, I came across one in which it was said that I don’t have any right to an opinion on kids or their education because I don’t have children of my own. This is obviously absurd, but I’m going to explain why.

First of all, one does not have to experience something directly in order to have an opinion on it. This is why we have books and articles about things, and why it is possible to take a class and actually learn about a subject like archaeology, despite never having been on a dig. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.

Secondly, as a taxpayer, I think I have a perfect right to let my legislators know how I feel about certain things concerning our public schools. This is why I wrote letters to my state Representative, my state Senator, and our Governor when Indiana was considering the idiotic bill that would allow the teaching of creationism in public science classrooms.

Thirdly—and this is related to the second point—as an American, I have a vested interest in our school system and what is being taught to American kids. As a microbiologist, I very much want our future leaders and researchers to be strongly grounded in science, rationality, and critical thinking.

As a woman, I am sick and tired of the attitude from some that not having children somehow makes me less of a person, one who is not entitled to speak her mind when it comes to education or what messages are being conveyed in our public schools. I am certainly not an expert when it comes to what one experiences when pregnant or when giving birth, or the day-to-day details of raising a child, and I have never pretended to be one; but when it comes to what goes on concerning the education of America’s students, I have just as much a right as anyone to voice my opinion.

Renaissance Woman

Check it out! That's me on Mona Lisa's face!

Well, that didn't sound quite right, but you know what I meant.

I was a little bothered and bewildered tonight (not bewitched, though) to see someone post about not needing extraneous classes like art or history, because math and science is all that really matters.

*gasp* No. No no no. I got a Bachelor of Science degree and worked in a laboratory for my entire career, and I can tell you without any reservation whatsoever that math and science is most certainly not all that matters. When it comes to theories and scientific matters, of course; that should go without saying. I don't accept things on faith, and know that anyone espousing a theory must subject that theory to scrutiny and risk it being disproven. It happens all the time in science. That's part of the process! You can't just make things up and expect people to believe it. Well, some people can, but that's a topic for another entry.

One of the things I value the most in my life is my four year degree. Although I got a Bachelor of Science, I had to take a fair amount of elective courses outside of my core science classes. I tested out of a lot, including 20 credit hours of German and 8 of English (so I never took a single English class in college...I guess I turned out okay), but I still had to take a few electives. I had a personal finance course that taught me some basics about filing taxes, investing, and money management; I had Psychology and Sociology classes that I really enjoyed, and I've retained an amateur's interest in psychology; I loved the Archaeology class I took, because the first thing I remember wanting to be was an archaeologist; I didn't care for my Anthropology class, but that's because the prof was uninspiring and antagonistic; I took a couple more German classes that I really enjoyed. I signed up for an art class on a whim, but realized that the supplies would cost my folks much more than my passing interest warranted, so I dropped that.

I think my Dad must have given me my insatiable curiosity about so many things, because my desire to learn didn't stop with my chosen profession. I remember Dad telling me about being in Italy during the occupation in WWII, seeing the picture of him doing the obligatory I'm-propping-up-the-Tower-of-Pisa pose, and him telling me about how he felt walking along the streets in the ruts he knew were made by carts a couple of thousand years ago. (It's a sad weekend coming up for me...Father's Day on Sunday, and Dad's birthday on Monday. Although it made me a little teary to write that, I have a big smile on my face as I remember Dad's love of history and the curiosity that he imparted to me. Thanks, Dad!)

Even after I got out of college, I remained curious about various things, including art. My sister Diana is also fascinated by it, and we talked about it a lot, and went to the Art Institute in Chicago several times. We share a love of modern art, and I still remember going to Chicago to see the Andy Warhol exhibit at the Institute. I'm no expert, by any means, but I still have a great appreciation and love of going to galleries. It was quite a revelation to turn a corner and walk into a room to see the El Greco at the Institute. It was so BIG, and so vibrant! They also have "American Gothic," and Seurat's pointillist masterpiece. I still love Edward Hopper and Jackson Pollack and Renoir and Kandinsky and Maxfield Parrish. I suppose many of my tastes are puerile, but I won't make apologies for that. I enjoy what I do, and isn't art there to be interpreted and enjoyed by the viewer?

My musical tastes are far from highbrow, more along the lines of the bizarre and profane, but I'm not unfamiliar with classical. When I play the piano, I play classical. I love everything from the Sex Pistols to Dean Martin. As with art, beauty in music is subjective.

Of course, you know that I love to read, and I run the gamut from the latest Stephen King novel to books about architecture.

I guess I'm just trying to say that getting a degree in science and making that your career does not mean that you should exclude other interests and pursuits. In fact, my personal experience has shown me that being interested in art, literature, and anything removed from science is a pleasant diversion from the usual facts and figures, and it has enriched my life. I've also found that it can result in a connection with others that goes beyond any surface similarities. Most of us know how it feels to have someone get our obscure references about pop culture or art or movies, and debates are all the richer when we have the perspective of history and a sense of knowledge beyond our own tiny little sphere.

It's important to remember that it's a big world out there. A narrow world view limits us not only as individuals, but as citizens of the world. I suppose there are some that say they don't give a rat's ass about being a citizen of the world. I would say to you that you have no choice. You're already here.

Teacher teacher

Ken heard from his Cousin Ros today, and it was great to hear that she's doing well. She lives in California, and she is that woman you think about when you think "California Blonde." Tall and beautiful! But the best thing about Ros is that she has an incredibly good heart. I'm so happy to call her family now, because she is a real peach.

Ros is a teacher in the San Bernardino area, and I was saddened to hear that she has decided to stop teaching. This year she had 32 kids, 20 of them with discipline problems, and with the continued lack of support from administration, she just couldn't take it anymore. When we've been out to visit in the past, she's told us stories about some of the problems she encounters, and the uphill battle that she faces every day. Like every other teacher I've known or spoken to, she spends plenty of her own money on school supplies, and often spends long hours working on projects after she gets home. (I'm sure this is sounding all too familiar, Miss A.) In hearing her speak of her kids, I could always tell that she loved them and wanted to help them, and wanted to teach them. But it got to the point where the stress was affecting her health, raising her blood pressure and causing a 20-pound weight loss (and she didn't need to lose any weight at all). I'm happy for her that she has decided to get out of it, purely for her own health, but it dismays me to see that dedicated, wonderful teachers like Ros are getting out because of what they have to deal with in our school systems.

You all know that I'm a big fan of education, and not just the School of Rock! I'm grateful for the wonderful teachers that I had in grade school, high school, and college. I was fortunate in that I had teachers who encouraged and challenged me. In grade school, they saw that I was a reader, and pushed me to read more, read "up," and to continue to develop that aptitude. In high school, there were some who recognized that I liked to write, and tried to teach me to let it flow, increase my vocabulary, and think about things beyond my comfort zone, as well as the science teachers who set me on the path to my eventual career in Microbiology. In college, it was a lot more science (Including Dr. Young, my Immunology professor, who was doing amazing things with cancer research--she taught me the relationship between the immune system, cancer, and potential cancer treatments. It's still fascinating to me.), with plenty of electives to round me out.

I'm willing to bet that each and every teacher I ever had would thank my parents for instilling a love of learning in me. My parents still have that love themselves, and even 25 years after college, that enjoyment of learning just for the sake of learning has never left me. So I find it upsetting and disheartening to see our schools lagging behind, and to see amazing teachers like Ros have to get out because of the horrible stress and lack of support. The situation seems especially dire in public schools, although it depends on the area. In areas like Ros's in San Bernardino, or like Miss A's in Detroit (although she doesn't teach in the DPS), it is not good. Not good at all. I got a great education in public schools, but in a rural area, we didn't have many of the problems that plague inner city schools. I got a great education from a state university, too. Public schools can work and can provide a quality education, but what are we doing wrong?

[pause]

Oh...were you waiting for me to answer that question? Sorry, 'cause I got nothin'. I really don't know what the answers are.

I do have a thought, though. It seems to me that the underlying problem is a mindset among so many that discourages education rather than encouraging it. It's the "don't get above your place, kid" attitude. Neither of my parents went to college, but it was pretty much an expectation that I would go. They wouldn't have been mad at me if I didn't, but it was just a given that I would go. I never thought of doing anything else. Even among those who on the surface seem to encourage education, I've seen an ugly attitude of "anti-elitism." (I'm not sure when getting an education meant that you were a member of the "elite.") Call it the Uppity Argument. Writing about various and varied interests is uppity. Using big words is uppity. Having a grasp of issues and wanting to learn more about them is uppity. When did it become acceptable for people to look down on others for having a degree or continuing to learn? When did writing above grade-school level mean that someone is a "know-it-all?"

It's a pervasive attitude among many, whether it's a parent discouraging their child from being "too smart for their own good," or those who would ridicule others because of their education. I believe it's a fundamental problem, and if we can get past that and get people to respect education and realize the importance of it, maybe teachers like Ros will find the support they need to continue with the good work that they do.

Here's Rockpile singing "Teacher Teacher." (Isn't Nick Lowe cute?) This one goes out to all the great teachers that I've had over the years, and all those who continue to do good things for students everywhere, including people like me who never get tired of learning.