On the issue of kids not pursuing engineering/science/math these days

[Klockan3]

People in my classes calls me a genius. But you are probably right, it is most likely because they don't want to compete. But on the other hand, when I can take twice the course load without studying at all outside of classes and still get better grades than most of them it wouldn't be fair for them having to compete with me.

It isn't about genius or not, it is about small differences stacking up. If it takes them twice as long to understand things than it takes for you, it means that the scheduled classes are just half as effective for them at best, worthless at worst since it might go so fast that they don't have time to comprehend anything. Since lectures are extremely valuable in learning subjects like this it will lose them a ton of time outside of class, after a while it will get impossible to keep up.

Just because you still have to work a lot do not mean that you aren't smart. That one is important to not forget. I constantly have moments when I feel like an idiot, when some things just seems intangible and the second time everything seems obvious so it feels like I was stupid for not realizing it sooner. It is hard to not feel stupid when studying maths/physics.

Maths is not promiscuous.

Edit: Also about computational vs theoretical maths, have you ever seen what happens if you try to incorporate real maths into a standard computational class? Chaos, people understands less when they walk away from the lecture than when they went there since it is not made to be understood easily by intuition like casaul maths. So all that happens is that everyone stops going to the lectures and your course fails. It isn't that pure maths is hidden from them, it is that to most pure maths is their biggest nightmare so it is more to protect their minds than anything else.

Of course when you have gotten a firm grasp of the basics of computational then the real thing can be quite a sight, but until then it is just a chaotic mess of horrible intangible theorems which are seemingly worthless for everything.

 

[DukeofDuke]

People in my classes calls me a genius. But you are probably right, it is most likely because they don't want to compete. But on the other hand, when I can take twice the course load without studying at all outside of classes and still get better grades than most of them it wouldn't be fair for them having to compete with me.

It isn't about genius or not, it is about small differences stacking up. If it takes them twice as long to understand things than it takes for you, it means that the scheduled classes are just half as effective for them at best, worthless at worst since it might go so fast that they don't have time to comprehend anything. Since lectures are extremely valuable in learning subjects like this it will lose them a ton of time outside of class, after a while it will get impossible to keep up.

Just because you still have to work a lot do not mean that you aren't smart. That one is important to not forget. I constantly have moments when I feel like an idiot, when some things just seems intangible and the second time everything seems obvious so it feels like I was stupid for not realizing it sooner. It is hard to not feel stupid when studying maths/physics.

Maths is not promiscuous.

Agreed, outside of the physics building people are shocked at my schedule, and it commands respect even within. But that's a property of intelligence and hard work, not of genius. While you can't put a sociology major next to me and expect him to compete, its also not fair to call me a genius because of my higher ability relative to the other guy. A genius would break the scale. You can't really even compare, because genius thinks differently (as opposed to being relatively good at thinking normally like I am).

 

[Klockan3]

Understand that when sportsstar used the word "genius" he probably meant something like the best few percents, not a world changing genius like the ones you learn about when studying.

 

[DukeofDuke]

Understand that when sportsstar used the word "genius" he probably meant something like the best few percents, not a world changing genius like the ones you learn about when studying.

Yeah, at root we're having an argument over semantics. Nonetheless, in an age when every other child is "gifted" and everyone a standard deviation ahead of the population mean is called a "genius", we need to be precise about our terms. Otherwise we risk creating a generation of over-satisfied "geniuses" who are really not that far off from mediocre (I know more than one kid with genius syndrome, and a lot of them take some severe hits to their egos when they come here the first time).

 

[sportsstar469]

i did not mean geniuses like world changing. i meant that you guys are to smart to see how it feels for an average student. believe it or not people struggle before calc...some people never pass precalc..hell i haven't taken precalc ever/.//

anyway, you know what's funny. i worked really hard for my A in that summer course i took, however this semester I am not working hard at all in my chem class, bio class, or this class. i go to the teachers for some extra help, and ask the tutors some questions etc, but i do NO homework, and take 10 minutes to study for the tests and quizzes. i did the review sheet halfway, and then didnt try to figure out why some problems were wrong...but i think on todays quiz for math i got an A, it seems like when i don't ''give a ****'' about keeping my 4.0 gpa, i actually do close to as well because I am not as stressed out about getting an A. like i literally don't care anymore and i think that's kind of a help to me if that makes sense to you guys. ijust thought that was interesting hahas. i mean half of my chem class got a 70 or below on the test (which was pretty damn tricky, all free response and critical thinking problerms) but only 5 people got over a 90 and i got a 95, and i studied maybe 10 minutes at 3 am because i was procrastinating it...HAHA. however i actually am studying for biology, and i have like a high b or a low a which is bad for me since biology is supposed to be my strong point.

 

[irises28]

Nah man, Calculus is mainly just new forms of computation. That's hardly math. If your textbook doesn't have more than a total of 10 proofs, its certainly not mathematics (and calculus books mainly have definitions that you merely execute).

Don't get me wrong, computation courses can be hard. But I think one major reason why so many people shy away from "math" is because they've been taught computation their whole lives, so they don't know how interesting mathematics can actually be.

And a smart kid once told me that people usually throw around the term "genius" so they don't have to admit the other person is just normal- that the other person is actually in our league, and they had to work for their knowledge. We say they are a "genius" so we never have to compete with them, so we can acknowledge and dismiss their success without engaging our sense of competition, so we can avoid having to compare to them. But its not because they are actually geniuses. I am a physics math double major at a pretty rigorous school, and I am not sure if I know a single genius.

Sorry this is so late, I was just reading this thread now, but I agree completely with everything said here.

 

[Sankaku]

...people usually throw around the term "genius" so they don't have to admit the other person is just normal- that the other person is actually in our league, and they had to work for their knowledge. We say they are a "genius" so we never have to compete with them, so we can acknowledge and dismiss their success without engaging our sense of competition, so we can avoid having to compare to them. But its not because they are actually geniuses.

I want to quote this too. Really well said.

 

[MissSilvy]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.

 

[Tiger99]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.

This strikes a chord for me in a way. But the funny thing is I still have trouble convincing me of its truth (is it true?). Even though I have a PhD in math I still worry that I can't actually be any good at it and I'll never be good at it because I didn't do those math competitions and stuff in high school and didn't advance through high school at a faster pace like most people in my university classes.

It's really hard to overcome my self-doubt and I find it quite distracting. At the very least it means I have to think about things for three months before I'm willing to ask questions because I figure about three months of my time is worth ten minutes of someone who's actually good at math. (To this day I've only asked two questions in a math lecture and both times I felt like my heart was going to fall out of my chest I got so nervous.)

But maybe I am just not very good at it. I wish I could be good at it with effort and desire for understanding and so forth. I guess my problem might not be a lack of mathematical ability specifically but just a lack of general intelligence.

 

[symbolipoint]

Tiger99, what you say is strange, or maybe you just exaggerated what you meant. How likely can a student repeat different courses (more than one course, each taken twice) before the school expells him? Yes, some people really need to repeat more than one course of Mathematics in college just to receive a successful letter grade. This would indicate the need to change major field. What happened with you on your way through college through entrance to your PhD program, and finally earning your PhD?

 

[sportsstar469]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.

i agree that it doesn't matter whether a person has done math early or late. but that's where my agreement with your post comes to an end. if someone does poorly in math all of their life because of laziness ,or just not being exposed to it, but then later goes on to ace a class such as calc3 -abstract algebra. i WOULD consider them to ''have it'' all their life. they obviously had the aptitude once they at least stopped being lazy, or they were exposed to the material.
now ill admit I am probably slightly better at math than I am making myself out to be. i mean i literally do not care at all this semester, and don't study or do the homework for math,or chem. bio i study though cause its easy(messed up thinking it should be the opposite). but i still have around a b plus in math, a low a in chem, and maybe a b plus or a in bio.

now i would not classify myself as an intelligent person, because i know I am only in college algebra/trigonometry, and a general chem lab course, and a second semester gen bio course. however it would be unfair to compare the kids who study way more than i do, and still only barely scrape by with a c to myself.

in the same way it would be unfair to compare someone like me who has no chance of ever getting higher than a C in calculus 1, when my time comes to take it, to GENIUSES like yourselves here, who can do abstract algebra to b level or maybe even a levels. (i understand not everyone ehre could do that but i mjust saying) there might be people here who view abstract algebra as kindergardens. but yeah its not fair to compare you guys who have not struggled with math at a high school level and who excel in PURE maths and PURE sciences and PURE LOGICS to me.

i do agree that math is hard for everyone though. i told my math teacher i have great respect for her, to be as good in math as she is. isaid what is the hardest math class. she said there is none. you can get as deep into math as youd like. even one of my math tutors said he was struggling in his abstract algebra masters elvel corse.( i thought abstract algebra was bachelors?) anyways my point is, sure they have some math level where they STARTED to struggle but things like algebra, trrig, pre calc, calc 1, calc 2 were not part of what they were struggling with. they did struggle yes, but they struggled when they got up to the higher maths.

 

[Tiger99]

Tiger99, what you say is strange, or maybe you just exaggerated what you meant. How likely can a student repeat different courses (more than one course, each taken twice) before the school expells him? Yes, some people really need to repeat more than one course of Mathematics in college just to receive a successful letter grade. This would indicate the need to change major field. What happened with you on your way through college through entrance to your PhD program, and finally earning your PhD?

I don't really understand, so perhaps I commented out of context. I never repeated any courses. I always did okay, but there were always people doing better so I never overcame my sense of inferiority.

 

[clope023]

Tiger99, what you say is strange, or maybe you just exaggerated what you meant. How likely can a student repeat different courses (more than one course, each taken twice) before the school expells him? Yes, some people really need to repeat more than one course of Mathematics in college just to receive a successful letter grade. This would indicate the need to change major field. What happened with you on your way through college through entrance to your PhD program, and finally earning your PhD?

I had to repeat calc 1 and 2 more than once, again laziness (not realizing how much studying was needed to do well) I've only changed to a different field within engineering/sci/math (in my case electrical engineering)

tiger99 - though I'm just an undergrad I can definately relate, I have a somewhat competitive mindset and when I just can't compete I tend to get depresses about things like that, I would be standing tall and proud with a PhD in math though!

misssilvy - time of the month ended eh? I tend to agree basing everything soley on the genetic factor is defeatist and should be not be the be all end all of your career making decisions; there are different types of talent out there however and things will come easier to people with those talents, I don't have any studies I just speak of it from personal experience (in my case it was with athletics but I believe the trend can still apply to academics)

 

[Klockan3]

I agree but what people also don't realize is that the reason people dismiss someone as a 'genius' is the same as the reason people explain their lack of mathematical talent is due to not taking calculus in elementary school, or not having a 'biological advantage' for math or any other number of excuses that shifts the blame for their lack of understanding or progress off of them and onto someone or something else beyond their control. After all, which sounds better; 'I'm not excelling at math because I'm not putting the time, effort, and desire into understanding it,' or 'I'm not excelling at math because I started learning math too late and that makes me 'not a math person'.

Some may disagree, but I don't believe in 'math/physics/whatever person' arguments that usually say that if you don't do math or science when you're really young or your parents weren't very good at math, then you'll be doomed to have a difficult and uphill battle with it for the rest of your life. There are plenty of examples of people who were not math people or physics people before they knuckled down and decided they would be good at it. The problem is that once/if these types of people succeed, people dismiss it as 'ah, surely he was a math person this entire time!' as has just happened earlier in this thread. It's harmful and defeatist thinking based on scarce and conflicting psychological 'studies'.

This is the important part of your post. For the individual it doesn't matter if there exist talent or not. What matters is you. Then if you believe that you can through hard work get to the top of anything it will allow you to dedicate yourself better towards your goals than if you believe that there exist a possibility that what you want to do is doomed from the start.

 

[sportsstar469]

i agree that it doesn't matter whether a person has done math early or late. but that's where my agreement with your post comes to an end. if someone does poorly in math all of their life because of laziness ,or just not being exposed to it, but then later goes on to ace a class such as calc3 -abstract algebra. i WOULD consider them to ''have it'' all their life. they obviously had the aptitude once they at least stopped being lazy, or they were exposed to the material.
now ill admit I am probably slightly better at math than I am making myself out to be. i mean i literally do not care at all this semester, and don't study or do the homework for math,or chem. bio i study though cause its easy(messed up thinking it should be the opposite). but i still have around a b plus in math, a low a in chem, and maybe a b plus or a in bio.

now i would not classify myself as an intelligent person, because i know I am only in college algebra/trigonometry, and a general chem lab course, and a second semester gen bio course. however it would be unfair to compare the kids who study way more than i do, and still only barely scrape by with a c to myself.

in the same way it would be unfair to compare someone like me who has no chance of ever getting higher than a C in calculus 1, when my time comes to take it, to GENIUSES like yourselves here, who can do abstract algebra to b level or maybe even a levels. (i understand not everyone ehre could do that but i mjust saying) there might be people here who view abstract algebra as kindergardens. but yeah its not fair to compare you guys who have not struggled with math at a high school level and who excel in PURE maths and PURE sciences and PURE LOGICS to me.

i do agree that math is hard for everyone though. i told my math teacher i have great respect for her, to be as good in math as she is. isaid what is the hardest math class. she said there is none. you can get as deep into math as youd like. even one of my math tutors said he was struggling in his abstract algebra masters elvel corse.( i thought abstract algebra was bachelors?) anyways my point is, sure they have some math level where they STARTED to struggle but things like algebra, trrig, pre calc, calc 1, calc 2 were not part of what they were struggling with. they did struggle yes, but they struggled when they got up to the higher maths.

bumped to page 8./

 

[Moonbear]

I think biology is one of those "standard" majors you pick if you don't know what to do. And then there are the premeds too. Also, a lot of people around where I live go into biotech jobs, synthesizing biochemicals and such. Its actually a pretty big job presence around here (I live in the Research Triangle Park, the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area that has the most PhD's per unit area in the world).

I have to wonder where people keep getting these weird ideas about biology from? "Standard major" when you "don't know what to do?" And too easy? Really? If that's someone's attitude going into a bio major, they are NOT going to survive their freshman classes, let alone any advanced classes. And for those who think you don't need to know physics or chemistry to study biology, try taking an advanced physiology course.

This thread is seriously lacking in evidence that there are less students going into the sciences, or that those with an interest are being deterred to go elsewhere. It's interesting that people keep bringing up the point of low salaries being a deterrent from going into the sciences. When were salaries higher in the sciences? When there wasn't a glut of too many applicants to drive down base salaries. There's always someone more desperate for a job and willing to take the lower salary. If there weren't enough people to fill the jobs, salaries would be going up to entice people into those positions.

There are some exceptions, but those have nothing to do with lack of interest, but instead lack of programs to train people. For example, there is a nationwide shortage of anatomists right now as all the old-timers are retiring, and very few young faculty are available to take over their teaching positions. Why? Because research funding has driven universities to shut down graduate programs in pure anatomy (there really isn't much research left to be done in the field), and very few people other than those going into health professions take human anatomy courses to be able to teach them later. What's the up-side? Med schools are scrambling to entice the young anatomy faculty to teach at their institutions, so salaries for positions teaching anatomy are climbing rapidly, and somewhat out of proportion from other departments in med schools.

 

[Klockan3]

I think that one reason is that you have more options nowadays. 50 years ago if you were a nerd you would study maths or physics or something like that, today most gets trapped in a lot of IT stuff long before that.

 

[PhantomOort]

I only recently found this thread (and this site) and a few questions pop into my mind as I read. Well, actually just one. If we replaced the word "math" in the last eight pages with words or phrases like "singing", "foreign language acquisition", "painting", "(good) creative writing", or "shooting hoops", how many posters would maintain the same position they've been holding until now?

My own conclusion is that people have some level of innate capacity to learn in different fields of knowledge, but that these vary with fields and with people. I do believe anyone can make themselves better at any skill than they currently are, but at some point we have to acknowledge diminishing marginal returns on the effort. You can make your legs muscles strong running in molasses, but you're still going to go nowhere fast.

 

[sportsstar469]

I only recently found this thread (and this site) and a few questions pop into my mind as I read. Well, actually just one. If we replaced the word "math" in the last eight pages with words or phrases like "singing", "foreign language acquisition", "painting", "(good) creative writing", or "shooting hoops", how many posters would maintain the same position they've been holding until now?

My own conclusion is that people have some level of innate capacity to learn in different fields of knowledge, but that these vary with fields and with people. I do believe anyone can make themselves better at any skill than they currently are, but at some point we have to acknowledge diminishing marginal returns on the effort. You can make your legs muscles strong running in molasses, but you're still going to go nowhere fast.

if you substituted the word math with words such as those aformentioned by yourself, i am positive the attitude would be of a much more positive connotation. HOWEVER, even with singing, shooting hoops etc, it is still the same principle. EVERYONE can play basketball, but not everyone can play it well. i can't even dribble a ball to save my life. I am 6'2 and can't dunk, or palm a basketball.i can get my wrist above the rim though but that's all I've got going for me as far as basketball skills. i can most likely be instructed on how to perform these skills, and with practice may become a great dribbler, and dunker! i will probably not be great at basketball as a whole however.

i am a great singer though. nbut i don't take music classes, or take coaching for singing. i have good genetics for singing but don't tap into that. so i am wasting it.



long story short. have a math test that's worth 25 percent of my grade tomorrow at 12 am. it's 10 pm now. i haven't even opened the book to look over the material LMFAO. actually i haven't opened the book at all this semester, however i have a b or so i think, maybe a b plus.

but yeah I am planning on playing some games and watching fringe online and not studying. i care about my grades a lot, and every semester up until now, i was the grade freak with a 4.0 gpa. i think all that caring got me to a melting point, in which i still care but all that studying i did caused me to now be a dead animal that does nothing to ensure he gets good grades and does not fail for the class i am screwed.

 

[DukeofDuke]

I have to wonder where people keep getting these weird ideas about biology from? "Standard major" when you "don't know what to do?" And too easy? Really? If that's someone's attitude going into a bio major, they are NOT going to survive their freshman classes, let alone any advanced classes. And for those who think you don't need to know physics or chemistry to study biology, try taking an advanced physiology course.

Er...I'm in university right now, so I can definitely tell you that people who don't really know what they want to do pick a couple of default majors such as bio, psych, or econ/business. And yeah, they definitely survive beyond freshmen classes. I know this because I have many friends that take these paths, and biology is one of the largest/most popular majors out there.

I'm on the ground here, so I know what I'm talking about in this case.
And yes, biology majors have it significantly easier than physics/chem majors. Take a look at their mean gpa's if you don't believe me. Physics, maths, and chem round out the lowest gpa averages, and are generally acknowledged on campus as the hardest majors by far.

 

[symbolipoint]

Er...I'm in university right now, so I can definitely tell you that people who don't really know what they want to do pick a couple of default majors such as bio, psych, or econ/business. And yeah, they definitely survive beyond freshmen classes. I know this because I have many friends that take these paths, and biology is one of the largest/most popular majors out there.

That trend about Biology exists; but how much is this trend we do not know without a thorough survey. Some people KNOW what they want and it is Biology, or a few of the other majors you mention; and other people pick Biology or such while they learn about what they want.

I'm on the ground here, so I know what I'm talking about in this case.
And yes, biology majors have it significantly easier than physics/chem majors. Take a look at their mean gpa's if you don't believe me. Physics, maths, and chem round out the lowest gpa averages, and are generally acknowledged on campus as the hardest majors by far.

Not so. The physical sciences let you use Mathematics to support a theory of a mechanism (I wish I knew how to say this more the way I intend). Biology is messy conceptually, and has some messy techniques which in some cases must be applied in a non-messy way. Some scientific-interested people find this messiness about Biology intolerable and switch major fields to the nice, neat, mathematical physical sciences or Engineering.

 

[DukeofDuke]

Not so. The physical sciences let you use Mathematics to support a theory of a mechanism (I wish I knew how to say this more the way I intend). Biology is messy conceptually, and has some messy techniques which in some cases must be applied in a non-messy way. Some scientific-interested people find this messiness about Biology intolerable and switch major fields to the nice, neat, mathematical physical sciences or Engineering.

I don't mean that the SUBJECT itself is inherently easier. I mean that the level at which it is taught within a university yields higher grades for less effort than physics, chemistry, and mathematics.

I doubt anybody really understands much of human psychology- its a very hard task, to discover the workings of the mind. But the major is ridiculously easy...

In the same way, the bio major is definitely more mainstream and less difficult than say physics or chem. Now, within the set of all bio majors, there are bunch of premeds and a few serious future biologists who probably toughen up their schedules considerably, but the mean biology gpa is significantly lower than the mean gpa for physics or math kids, and grade inflation is significantly higher.

 

[sportsstar469]

i see the terms pure math and pure science thrown around here a lot. i asked one of the tutors in the math lab if he's familiar with thee terms, and he had no idea what i was talking about. he has a masters in business and engineering, and just finished an abstract algebra class, and is taking a prob and statistics class now, so id assume hed know this term. just thought that was interestng./ lols.

 

[Klockan3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

 

[sportsstar469]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

THANKS KLOCKAN! but going back to why people don't pursue math, and that anybody can do math. we just started trigonometry lat week. and i am struggling graphing simple radians like 7pie over 5 or -pie/4. i have gone to my teacher 4 different days and asked her the same questions, and still don't understand it that well. i have even tried asking several other professors for help to vary the approach taken to learn it, and i still can't do it./

i know for a lot of you guys graphing radians is a piece of cake, and that's my point. i mstruggling with beginning tri./

 

[arildno]

THANKS KLOCKAN! but going back to why people don't pursue math, and that anybody can do math. we just started trigonometry lat week. and i am struggling graphing simple radians like 7pie over 5 or -pie/4. i have gone to my teacher 4 different days and asked her the same questions, and still don't understand it that well. i have even tried asking several other professors for help to vary the approach taken to learn it, and i still can't do it./

i know for a lot of you guys graphing radians is a piece of cake, and that's my point. i mstruggling with beginning tri./

Why don't you make a thread in the maths forums on this?

Anyways, a few points:

1. Draw a circle.
2. Remember that counter-clockwise angular measurement (beginning at the positive x-axis) is positive, clockwise measurement negative.
3. The full circle represents an angle of 2pi, as measured counterclockwise (agreed?)
4. So, given a particular angle, how big part of the full circle does it represent?

i) 7pi/5:
Of the full circle, this represent a part: (7pi/5)/(2pi)=7/10.
Can you find the angle so that 7/10th of the full circle is represented by it? There you have it!

ii) -pi/4:
Here, again, we get the part of the full circle:
(-pi/4)/(2pi)=-1/8 of the full circle.

Clearly, you are to trace out 1/8 of the full circle, in the CLOCKWISE direction (that's what the minus sign means)

Did this help?

 

[sportsstar469]

Why don't you make a thread in the maths forums on this?

Anyways, a few points:

1. Draw a circle.
2. Remember that counter-clockwise angular measurement (beginning at the positive x-axis) is positive, clockwise measurement negative.
3. The full circle represents an angle of 2pi, as measured counterclockwise (agreed?)
4. So, given a particular angle, how big part of the full circle does it represent?

i) 7pi/5:
Of the full circle, this represent a part: (7pi/5)/(2pi)=7/10.
Can you find the angle so that 7/10th of the full circle is represented by it? There you have it!

ii) -pi/4:
Here, again, we get the part of the full circle:
(-pi/4)/(2pi)=-1/8 of the full circle.

Clearly, you are to trace out 1/8 of the full circle, in the CLOCKWISE direction (that's what the minus sign means)

Did this help?

thanks for the pointers. its weird though, i ddint look at this until now, but in my math class this morning, i had no problem graphing most of the problems (we moved one step forward. we had to find the sin, cosine, etc of say 230 degrees or so or 5 pie/6 or so) but i didnt study at home so idk./

 

[Tiger99]

THANKS KLOCKAN! but going back to why people don't pursue math, and that anybody can do math. we just started trigonometry lat week. and i am struggling graphing simple radians like 7pie over 5 or -pie/4. i have gone to my teacher 4 different days and asked her the same questions, and still don't understand it that well. i have even tried asking several other professors for help to vary the approach taken to learn it, and i still can't do it./

i know for a lot of you guys graphing radians is a piece of cake, and that's my point. i mstruggling with beginning tri./

To be honest, this doesn't really sound like what I think of as math anyway. You're learning how to describe the size of angles. It's part of the language people use to communicate mathematics. It's a barrier that you get through before you can start learning about connections between different mathematical entities and prove things using deductive reasoning - and that's the bit that's mathematics.

Of course, I think a person will find it easier to understand mathematics if they have a facility for picking up different notations, and understanding what people are saying when the message isn't communicated very clearly, but I don't think that's the same as math.
It's interesting that you found it easier once you started making genuine statements - i.e., calculating sine and cosine.

 

[sportsstar469]

To be honest, this doesn't really sound like what I think of as math anyway. You're learning how to describe the size of angles. It's part of the language people use to communicate mathematics. It's a barrier that you get through before you can start learning about connections between different mathematical entities and prove things using deductive reasoning - and that's the bit that's mathematics.

Of course, I think a person will find it easier to understand mathematics if they have a facility for picking up different notations, and understanding what people are saying when the message isn't communicated very clearly, but I don't think that's the same as math.
It's interesting that you found it easier once you started making genuine statements - i.e., calculating sine and cosine.

yeah its strange. i mean a few days ago, i was struggling to graph pie over 3. but then again today i was bored in chemistry class, so i tried finding the sin of 210 degrees, and i blasted through it in ten seconds, then the tan of pie over 4 still did it in ten seconds. graphed it no problem, then found the reference angles no problem, then looked in the quadrant to determine whether sign and tangent were positive in those quadrants. then found the sin/tan of the given ref angle using my triangles and made it either positive or negative upon completing this problem.

its weird, but for some reason, i just grasped onto that lesson. if youre wondering why i typed out all of the steps since I am sure you all know this easily, i just wanted to see if i could explain the steps. i heard that if you explain how to do something to someone, it shows youve mastered the material, and also as youre explaining the material you also retain 90 percent of what you said.

ill go back and actually do the homework, and evaluate whether or not i am truly a bad math student, or just a wimp loser ;).

but either way, trig is considered math even if as a person who's done pure maths you feel its not. when most people say i struggle in math, they are talking about alg-calc.

 

[DrClapeyron]

I think the issue is made up in order to allow foreign scientist and engineers to come to the US, work for low salaries and lower the salaries of US born workers. Cost effeciency.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Agreed, outside of the physics building people are shocked at my schedule, and it commands respect even within. But that's a property of intelligence and hard work, not of genius. While you can't put a sociology major next to me and expect him to compete, its also not fair to call me a genius because of my higher ability relative to the other guy. A genius would break the scale. You can't really even compare, because genius thinks differently (as opposed to being relatively good at thinking normally like I am).

Some people think out of the box, sometimes way out of the box. If they're right, they're geniuses. If they're wrong, they're idiots.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think the issue is made up in order to allow foreign scientist and engineers to come to the US, work for low salaries and lower the salaries of US born workers. Cost effeciency.

If non-US workers are willing to do the same job at P% of the US pay, then the choice of US companies is to increase efficiency by (100/P - 1)%, decrease wages by (100 - P)%, or shut down. Bringing in foreign workers is a way of avoiding #3 and easing into #2.

 

[sportsstar469]

i think i may have been a little harsh in my reasons why students may not choose math, but i stil stand by the issue, that a lot of people here don't realize the struggles that the average population deals with with math. from my posts on here, you have all figured out i am not very good at math, and i am convinced i won't succeed in it. when i go for extra help the teacher needs to explain it around 6 times for me to get it. its weird though, that i have a b plus or A, in my trig class, and i haven't done the homework, or really opened the book at all. i don't really study for the quizzes or tests either. only thing i do, is make sure to go for extra help after the lectures (because i get overwhelmed in lectures at how everyone else in the room seems to grasp every step she's doing, and although she's not going to fast she actually goes slow..shes going to fast for me) and even though that's all i do i am still doing well in this course.
it is for this reason, i think my comments were a tad ti harsh, although i still do think some people are not capable of even algebra.

 

[Nev3rDie]

In this world it's all about the drive to learn. Few are conditioned from an early age to have the desire to learn and read. It's just that simple. Those that weren't conditioned at an early age to crave learning, will almost never have that desire. Hence why we have a big gap in intelligence. Most don't have a real burning desire to learn more and more just for the sake of learning. Most people learn what they have to in order to get what they want, and not just for the pleasure of learning itself.

 

[quarkonium]

I wonder if I'm bumping a dying thread but what I think is that,

The social sciences and humanities as a whole are relatively underdeveloped fields. There are few, if any, theories in there that can explain human phenomena with the same explanatory power the natural sciences have.

What this means for students is that they get involved and can get involved in the cutting edge of social scientific debate relatively early. Unlike the natural sciences where to get involved in the cutting edge involves a degree of intimacy with pretty sophisticated math and other more-than-elementary principles in that particular science.

Moreover, students of the social sciences get to (and are expected to) come up with original ideas and analyses. And these various ideas probe the limits of social scientific knowledge/research at a very early stage in their education. Conversely, chances for a student of the natural sciences to "invent" are relatively few.

 

[Ulagatin]

I know this is old, so apologies for bumping this thread, but I'd like to give some advice to Sportsstar (which could by extension be applicable for others in a similar position).

I'm an Australian Year 12 student currently studying the highest level of mathematics I can possibly take (formally) prior to university. It involves such material as sequences and series, complex numbers, advanced differential and integral calculus and matrices/linear transformations. I have thus far completed the sequences and series unit with nice rounded A's (forgive me for saying so, in a lack of modesty). Before you (possibly) regard this with some contempt or cynicism at how I could help, I'd like to explain my own mathematical background.

When I was going through year 7 - 10 I was not particularly motivated by mathematics - I was not the best student either, far from it. When I started grade 9 I had my first algebra test which was on simple factorisation, such things as expanding binomials. Guess what!? I failed it with a dismal 32%. As I had an interest in pursuing physics, I knew I had to drastically improve my motivation and ability in mathematics. I was able to get some help at that stage and so I came through that year with not too much difficulty, because I found a motivating factor to do so. I was able to put in some effort and while I did not achieve as highly as I would have liked to, reflecting back, mathematics is very much a subject for many people where the conceptual understanding falls together later in the year rather than in the time learning that particular topic. This is because of a different approach to thinking, or a deeper understanding of various other topics which may make an earlier topic more intuitive or have a firmer logical/rational footing in your mind.

So while I definitely agree that mathematics can be very challenging to many people (and it certainly is), there will always be high and low points as with any other subject you encounter. I have demonstrated that I have found it very challenging at one point, but continued determination allowed me to push forwards. The crucial element is that you are awakened to realisations at those low points, and that you then find motivation if you wish to continue. Consider the subject from a more objective point of view, to understand how the improved effort and dedication will benefit you, and then let the feel of the subject wash over you. It is much easier then to gain motivation for a subject if you have particular goals you wish to achieve with it and you then let it flow in its own way. I'm sorry if that's a little too abstract or arcane.

I have a friend who did the same level of mathematics as I did last year but he dropped out because of a lack of understanding (which was related to a degree of laziness and not a particularly high motivation for the subject). He had certain gaps in his algebraic understanding which compounded problems dramatically. At one point, he enjoyed mathematics, so it was sad to see that happen. So, don't be caught in the trap of laziness, of taking the easy route, if you have particular motivation for achieving a goal.

It's very admirable that you are understanding the trigonometry, although, as this was an old post, I am not sure what stage you are at currently. I found I started to enjoy maths once I started to do calculus (at the very end of grade 10 and onwards), and I have enjoyed it immensely this year, with sequences and series so far. Such elegance in my opinion. And I love proofs by mathematical induction - they are fun! Complex numbers I would guess will make my appreciation for mathematics be improved even further.

I have started to enjoy maths so much it now rivals my interest in physics, if not beats it outright, but then who am I to judge this early on in the journey? Yet I once had a weak mathematical background, thought I'd never cut it, but came through and have found great rewards for doing so.

All the best with your endeavours - I hope this has been somewhat illuminating/motivating.

Davin

 

[Wellesley]

I know this is old, so apologies for bumping this thread, but I'd like to give some advice to Sportsstar (which could by extension be applicable for others in a similar position).
...
I found I started to enjoy maths once I started to do calculus (at the very end of grade 10 and onwards), and I have enjoyed it immensely this year, with sequences and series so far. Such elegance in my opinion. And I love proofs by mathematical induction - they are fun! Complex numbers I would guess will make my appreciation for mathematics be improved even further.
...
All the best with your endeavours - I hope this has been somewhat illuminating/motivating.

Davin

I'm glad you wrote this Davin, it reminds me a lot of what I felt. Calculus was amazing for me after struggling through Trig. I'm glad you found a passion that you can pursue.

 

[Ulagatin]

Hi Wellesley,

I feel a little proud that you enjoyed reading my post.

I can completely understand your sentiments, and thank you. I hope I (and you!) continue to enjoy mathematics long into the future.

Cheers

 

[lisab]

I know this is old, so apologies for bumping this thread, but I'd like to give some advice to Sportsstar (which could by extension be applicable for others in a similar position).

I'm an Australian Year 12 student currently studying the highest level of mathematics I can possibly take (formally) prior to university. It involves such material as sequences and series, complex numbers, advanced differential and integral calculus and matrices/linear transformations. I have thus far completed the sequences and series unit with nice rounded A's (forgive me for saying so, in a lack of modesty). Before you (possibly) regard this with some contempt or cynicism at how I could help, I'd like to explain my own mathematical background.

When I was going through year 7 - 10 I was not particularly motivated by mathematics - I was not the best student either, far from it. When I started grade 9 I had my first algebra test which was on simple factorisation, such things as expanding binomials. Guess what!? I failed it with a dismal 32%. As I had an interest in pursuing physics, I knew I had to drastically improve my motivation and ability in mathematics. I was able to get some help at that stage and so I came through that year with not too much difficulty, because I found a motivating factor to do so. I was able to put in some effort and while I did not achieve as highly as I would have liked to, reflecting back, mathematics is very much a subject for many people where the conceptual understanding falls together later in the year rather than in the time learning that particular topic. This is because of a different approach to thinking, or a deeper understanding of various other topics which may make an earlier topic more intuitive or have a firmer logical/rational footing in your mind.

So while I definitely agree that mathematics can be very challenging to many people (and it certainly is), there will always be high and low points as with any other subject you encounter. I have demonstrated that I have found it very challenging at one point, but continued determination allowed me to push forwards. The crucial element is that you are awakened to realisations at those low points, and that you then find motivation if you wish to continue. Consider the subject from a more objective point of view, to understand how the improved effort and dedication will benefit you, and then let the feel of the subject wash over you. It is much easier then to gain motivation for a subject if you have particular goals you wish to achieve with it and you then let it flow in its own way. I'm sorry if that's a little too abstract or arcane.

I have a friend who did the same level of mathematics as I did last year but he dropped out because of a lack of understanding (which was related to a degree of laziness and not a particularly high motivation for the subject). He had certain gaps in his algebraic understanding which compounded problems dramatically. At one point, he enjoyed mathematics, so it was sad to see that happen. So, don't be caught in the trap of laziness, of taking the easy route, if you have particular motivation for achieving a goal.

It's very admirable that you are understanding the trigonometry, although, as this was an old post, I am not sure what stage you are at currently. I found I started to enjoy maths once I started to do calculus (at the very end of grade 10 and onwards), and I have enjoyed it immensely this year, with sequences and series so far. Such elegance in my opinion. And I love proofs by mathematical induction - they are fun! Complex numbers I would guess will make my appreciation for mathematics be improved even further.

I have started to enjoy maths so much it now rivals my interest in physics, if not beats it outright, but then who am I to judge this early on in the journey? Yet I once had a weak mathematical background, thought I'd never cut it, but came through and have found great rewards for doing so.

All the best with your endeavours - I hope this has been somewhat illuminating/motivating.

Davin

I had a similar evolution of attitude and ability in math. I bet many people who find it difficult at age ~13 would be surprised at their abilities four or five years later.

In my case, I always assumed it was simply that I wasn't developmentally ready until my late teens. Sort of like trying to teach a 3-year-old to read.

 

[Count Iblis]

I think that math educatation is fundamentally flawed. In primary school you are bored with stupid Kindergarten level arithmetic exercises. This causes the kids there to be dumbed down and remain at Kindergarten level right until they get into high school.

Then at high school you will see big differences in the speed at which some kids can pick up things. It is a bit like not learning to read and write until the age of 12. Most people attempting to learn to read and write at age 12 would find it very challenging, but a few would do well. The best of the best will typically be those seemingly exceptional talents who mastered reading and writing at the age of six.

 

[EvilKermit]

If anyone has a problem with any of my statements below, I'll look for resources to back it up. But I really don't feel like taking the effort to find the resources to information I learned several years back, forgot where I heard it from, and don't feel like taking the effort to find it's location over an internet discussion.

The top two professions that teenagers aspire to be are: actors, professional athletes and musicians.

Why do you think this is? Do you this is completely due to intrinsic factor', that they enjoy it. That might be part of the reasons. But there are also external factors that play an important part as well. These people obtain respect, fame, money, but most importantly for males, access to virtually any women. It's no secret that these professionals are well known for 'getting the girls'.

However, male engineers, scientists, and mathematicians are not portrayed as having any 'game' by popular culture. Even though the characters in "The Big Bang Theory" are funny and likable, they are also portrayed as having terrible skills with the ladies. The only example of popular culture I can think of an engineering as 'cool' is Tony Stark from Iron Man. If mathematics, science, and engineering were seen as 'cool' then a lot more people would go into the field.

Even the financial reward of going into the field might not even be worth it. Engineers are compensated well, in fact the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim) is an engineer. The top salaries based on bachelor degrees are mostly engineering degrees. However perhaps being judged as a 'geek' or 'nerd' and the hard work that mathematicians, scientists, and engineers have to do isn't worth it. Honestly, sometimes I feel like changing my major to another degree because my parents constantly criticize my low grades.

I honestly do believe that there is varying skill in mathematical ability though. Yes, it does take effort. Nobody wakes up one day and suddenly knows how to do calculus or abstract algebra. However, there are various amounts of effort and time one needs to put into the subject to understand the concept. While it is possible for somebody who struggles with mathematics to understand the concepts with more effort, it can lead to frustration and one might give up on it if all your friends are going out and you are stuck studying.
There are more than just three classes of people: average, genius, and retard, and most people fall in the 'average' range, but a spectrum of potential ability in subjects. I don't think its a safe to assume that most people have relatively similar abilities and the amount of effort one devotes is the only variable.

There's a reason that most people drift away from fields they feel they are 'bad' at and enter fields they are 'good' at. There's a higher trade-off and a feeling of esteem learning a skill that one can progress quicker in, than waste energy for a lower trade off. This can be another reason why STEM fields are not pursued. It feels good to get all As in your class, and therefore people enter the fields where one obtains a higher gpa. I found it quite ironic that my parents were proud of me for doing well in my EMT-basic class while scolded me for doing poorly in my engineering class, despite the latter class being much more valuable.
It can be difficult to get As in STEM fields, and one might feel unintelligent for obtaining low grades. In fact, majors where there are more people then jobs in the field should have more rigorous standards, so he/she will not have a false sense of accomplishment.

 

[Galteeth]

If anyone has a problem with any of my statements below, I'll look for resources to back it up. But I really don't feel like taking the effort to find the resources to information I learned several years back, forgot where I heard it from, and don't feel like taking the effort to find it's location over an internet discussion.

The top two professions that teenagers aspire to be are: actors, professional athletes and musicians.

Why do you think this is? Do you this is completely due to intrinsic factor', that they enjoy it. That might be part of the reasons. But there are also external factors that play an important part as well. These people obtain respect, fame, money, but most importantly for males, access to virtually any women. It's no secret that these professionals are well known for 'getting the girls'.

However, male engineers, scientists, and mathematicians are not portrayed as having any 'game' by popular culture. Even though the characters in "The Big Bang Theory" are funny and likable, they are also portrayed as having terrible skills with the ladies. The only example of popular culture I can think of an engineering as 'cool' is Tony Stark from Iron Man. If mathematics, science, and engineering were seen as 'cool' then a lot more people would go into the field.

Even the financial reward of going into the field might not even be worth it. Engineers are compensated well, in fact the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim) is an engineer. The top salaries based on bachelor degrees are mostly engineering degrees. However perhaps being judged as a 'geek' or 'nerd' and the hard work that mathematicians, scientists, and engineers have to do isn't worth it. Honestly, sometimes I feel like changing my major to another degree because my parents constantly criticize my low grades.

I honestly do believe that there is varying skill in mathematical ability though. Yes, it does take effort. Nobody wakes up one day and suddenly knows how to do calculus or abstract algebra. However, there are various amounts of effort and time one needs to put into the subject to understand the concept. While it is possible for somebody who struggles with mathematics to understand the concepts with more effort, it can lead to frustration and one might give up on it if all your friends are going out and you are stuck studying.
There are more than just three classes of people: average, genius, and retard, and most people fall in the 'average' range, but a spectrum of potential ability in subjects. I don't think its a safe to assume that most people have relatively similar abilities and the amount of effort one devotes is the only variable.

There's a reason that most people drift away from fields they feel they are 'bad' at and enter fields they are 'good' at. There's a higher trade-off and a feeling of esteem learning a skill that one can progress quicker in, than waste energy for a lower trade off. This can be another reason why STEM fields are not pursued. It feels good to get all As in your class, and therefore people enter the fields where one obtains a higher gpa. I found it quite ironic that my parents were proud of me for doing well in my EMT-basic class while scolded me for doing poorly in my engineering class, despite the latter class being much more valuable.
It can be difficult to get As in STEM fields, and one might feel unintelligent for obtaining low grades. In fact, majors where there are more people then jobs in the field should have more rigorous standards, so he/she will not have a false sense of accomplishment.

With regards to the teenagers (or younger, really preteens and younger in my experience), this has more or less always been true (firemen, astronauts, whatever).

If anything, I think the "sexiness" of being a scientist, or an intellectual, has increased recently. Even the Big Bang Theory, which you mention, someone subverts the stereotypes of nerds from say, the 80's.
Honestly, I think it has much more to do with economics then anything else. Becoming a scientist or engineer is not only work intensive, it is also time intensive and capital intensive. There is college, grad scool, and internships. Even after all this, there is still a risk of failure. It is not surprising from an economic viepoint why not many people would choose this path.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I'm not a kid though I did do the woman thing today. I bought a purse and a new pair of shoes then painted my toes and fingernails. Worked on my tan too. After that I did some research as I normally must do and low and behold I found something that may be of interest to those discussing this topic:The National Science Board’s newly released SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICTORS 2010. It's 566 pages. ( I love to read.) Here are excerpts from a few chapters.

Chapter 7. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding
7-4
Information Sources, Interest, and Involvement

Television and the Internet are the primary sources

Americans use for science and technology (S&T) information.
The Internet is the main source of information for learning about specific scientific issues such as global climate change or biotechnology.

-More Americans select television as their primary source of S&T information than any other medium.
-The Internet ranks second among sources of S&T information, and its margin over other sources is large and has been growing.
-Internet users do not always assume that online S&T information is accurate. About four out of five have checked on the reliability of information at least once.

Continuing a long-standing pattern, Americans consistently express high levels of interest in S&T in surveys. However, other indicators, such as the types of news they follow closely, suggest a lower level of interest.
-High levels of interest in S&T are part of a long-standing trend, with more than 80% of Americans reporting they were “very” or “moderately” interested in new scientific
discoveries. But relative to other news topics, interest in S&T is not particularly high.
-As with many news topics, the percentage of Americans who say they follow “science and technology” news “closely” has declined over the last 10 years.
-Recent surveys in other countries, including South Korea, China, and much of Europe, indicate that the overall level of public interest in “new scientific discoveries” and “use
of new inventions and technologies” tends to be higher in the United States.
-Interest in “environmental pollution” or “the environment” is similarly high in the U.S., Europe, South Korea, and Brazil. About 9 in 10 respondents in each country expressed interest in this topic.

In 2008, a majority of Americans said they had visited an informal science institution such as a zoo or a natural history museum within the past year. This proportion is generally consistent with results from surveys conducted since 1979, but slightly lower than the proportion recorded in 2001.
-Americans with more formal education are much more likely to engage in informal science activities.
-Compared with the United States, visits to informal science institutions tend to be less common in Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and Brazil.

Public Knowledge About S&T

Many Americans do not give correct answers to questions about basic factual knowledge of science or the scientific inquiry process.
-Americans’ factual knowledge about science is positively related to their formal education level, income level, the number of science and math courses they have taken, and
their verbal ability.
-People who score well on long-standing knowledge measures that test for information typically learned in school also appear to know more about new science related topics
such as nanotechnology.

Levels of factual knowledge of science in the United States are comparable to those in Europe and appear to be higher than in Japan, China, or Russia.
-In the United States, levels of factual knowledge of science have been stable; Europe shows evidence of recent improvement in factual knowledge of science.
-In European countries, China, and Korea demographic variations in factual knowledge are similar to those in the United States.

Compared to the mid-1990s, Americans show a modest improvement in understanding the process of scientific inquiry in recent years.
-Americans’ understanding of scientific inquiry is strongly associated with their factual knowledge of science and level of education.
-Americans’ scores on questions measuring their understanding of the logic of experimentation and controlling variables do not differ by sex. In contrast, men tend to
score higher than women on factual knowledge questions in the physical sciences.

Public Attitudes About S&T in General

Americans in all demographic groups consistently endorse the past achievements and future promise of S&T.
-In 2008, 68% of Americans said that the benefits of scientific research have strongly outweighed the harmful results, and only 10% said harmful results slightly or strongly outweighed the benefits.
-Nearly 9 in 10 Americans agree with the statement “because of science and technology, there will be more opportunities for the next generation.”
-Americans also express some reservations about science. Nearly half of Americans agree that “science makes our way of life change too fast.”


7-15


International Comparisons
Using identical questions, recent surveys conducted in other countries indicate that the overall level of self-reported public interest in S&T is lower than in the United States. Between 75% and 80% of survey respondents in South Korea, China, and Europe said they were “very” or “moderately” interested in “new scientific discoveries” and “use of new
inventions and technologies” compared to 86% and 88% respectively of Americans in the 2008 GSS, respectively (appendix table 7-4) (KOFAC 2009; CRISP 2008; EC 2005).
Using slightly different questions, about three-quarters of Brazilians said they were “very interested” or “a little interested” in “science and technology” (MCT of Brazil 2006).
In Malaysia, 58% of the respondents said they were “interested” or “very interested” in the “latest inventions in new technology” and 51% in the “latest inventions in science”
(MASTIC 2004).

In the 2005 European survey (called the 2005 “Eurobarometer”), there was considerable variation among different countries in self-reported interest in S&T-related issues, and
the overall level of interest was down from the most recent survey in 1992. In both the United States and in Europe, men showed more interest in S&T than women. For more recent European data on interest in scientific research in general, see sidebar “Scientific Research in the Media in Europe.”5 Interest in environmental issues is similarly high in the
United States, Europe, South Korea, and Brazil—about 9 in 10 respondents in each country or region expressed interest in this topic, although slight variations in survey terminology should be taken into account.6 In Malaysia, interest in “environmental pollution” was lower (61% said they were “interested” or “very interested” in this issue).

Like Americans, Europeans and Brazilians are more interested in medicine than in S&T in general. In the United States, nearly everyone was interested in new medical discoveries
(94%); in Brazil, most people (91%) were interested in “medicine and health” issues. In Europe, South Korea, and China, interest in new medical discoveries seemed to
be lower—between 77% and 83% said they were “very” or “moderately” interested in this issue. In Malaysia, 59% indicated they were “interested” or “very interested” in the “latest
inventions in the field of medicine.”7
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf

Be sure to read within that pdf the following topics:
Chapter 1. Elementary and Secondary Mathematics and Science Chapter 2. Higher Education in Science and Engineering
Chapter 3. Science and Engineering Labor
Chapter 4. Research and Development: National Trends and International Linkages
Chapter 5. Academic Research and Development
Chapter 6. Industry, Technology, and the Global Marketplace
Chapter 7. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding

 

[brainstorm]

Math classes are used as filters to relegate all students but the elite to auxiliary professions. I think many students are aware of this and they don't want to strive for a goal and end up with a different one in its place because they didn't make the selection criteria.

Students want to aim for and work toward goals that are realizable. If science and technology are really values that are good for everyone, the technologies and other practical application of such fields needs to be more democratized.

Students want a vision for what they can expect from their lives and the economy they're going have to work with.

 

[Wellesley]

Math classes are used as filters to relegate all students but the elite to auxiliary professions. I think many students are aware of this and they don't want to strive for a goal and end up with a different one in its place because they didn't make the selection criteria.

Students want to aim for and work toward goals that are realizable.

Students want a vision for what they can expect from their lives and the economy they're going have to work with.

What do you mean by auxiliary professions? Is engineering an auxiliary profession?

If science and technology are really values that are good for everyone, the technologies and other practical application of such fields needs to be more democratized.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand this. Science and technology is the future.

 

[brainstorm]

What do you mean by auxiliary professions? Is engineering an auxiliary profession?

Professions that pay less and act as support services for scientists and technology designers. Engineering would be a support service in many cases, I think, although it's a pretty high paid one with a lot of creativity involved. The professions I really mean as auxiliary are things like insurance adjuster, accounts manager, payroll clerk, etc.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand this. Science and technology is the future.

It's the future for a relatively small elite of people as long as science and technology are relatively elite industries. If they became as common as, say, fast food restaurants - then everyone could be participating in constructing the future instead of serving fries to those that do during their lunch breaks.

 

[Wellesley]

Professions that pay less and act as support services for scientists and technology designers. Engineering would be a support service in many cases, I think, although it's a pretty high paid one with a lot of creativity involved. The professions I really mean as auxiliary are things like insurance adjuster, accounts manager, payroll clerk, etc.


It's the future for a relatively small elite of people as long as science and technology are relatively elite industries. If they became as common as, say, fast food restaurants - then everyone could be participating in constructing the future instead of serving fries to those that do during their lunch breaks.

Thanks for the clarification! I know see what you meant.