What are your thoughts on STEM education in schools? Good, bad and ugly? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: laureng
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 15, 2020, 06:27:45 am
content: Hi all! Long time EEVblog viewer, first time forum posterI'm interested to know your thoughts about STEM education in schools - both the good (what you think works well), the bad (what's missing, and what we're not doing), and the ugly (teaches kids the wrong thing or just wastes money). Also, why you think it's important (or not) that kids learn STEM subjects (Get a job? Become a future electronics YouTuber? Hack the planet?). If you were a teacher, how would you go about things?A little about me, so you can see where I'm coming from. I graduated Computer Science in 2006, and since then have been working mainly in software engineering, at all levels but typically lower down in the stack (firmware, motion control, network protocols and industrial automation). I'm also an electronics hobbyist, and have hung out in the hacker/maker movement and done a bit of ham radio. I've always been interested in teaching, though (and have done some University tutoring), and I'm thinking of getting into STEM teaching, either as a school teacher, in curriculum development, or in a University or vocational training centre to look at how we get high school students into computing and engineering courses (women and girls in particular, although there's a worry about an overall decline in STEM graduations).Anyway, a LOT has been written about this in academic and teaching circles, it's something of a political hot topic, and there are plenty of people and gadgets in this space. I figure those of us who have worked in industry, though, may have a different/additional perspective. What better place than here to find it?I'm also happy to hear from any current/former teachers, or people who have kids in school and might have seen how their local teacher/school does things.

author: smorriso3
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 15, 2020, 06:44:04 am
content: I'm enrolled in one of the top engineering schools in the USA. I'm a Post-Bac student who already has a background in management. Here's my input lets start with the worst and build up to the good.The Ugly:Students who focus on nothing but good grades. I'm a senior officer in our campus IEEE chapter and I'm mentoring several students, some of which are EXCELLENT academically but poor when it comes to networking and career building. Yeah! Some (I don't want to call them kids) students are phenomenally good with maths but just don't care when it comes to networking and/or soft skills. Thats hard because as a mentor I really... want... them... to... care... thats not something thats easy to instill in somebodyThe Bad:Shitty bureaucracy. I personally mentor several students who have been absolutely f'd up by registration policies. IE they got cut out from enrolling in classes that they absolutely needed to because (for example) their last name started with an M instead of an A. Sound dumb? Yeah it is! One of these cases is currently steamrolling into a buddy losing his marriage because he's been delayed graduation a whole half year.The Good:Really excellent teachers. I don't know if there's too much I can quantify here. I had a Greybeard in my house yesterday. Can you guess who he was? He was one of the folks who designed the Atari and was mentioned one the Amp Hour a couple months ago!

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 02:41:28 am
content: If for no other reason STEM forces the student to perform analysis and critical thinking if it’s done properly to achieve knowledge in the subject.That’s why STEM subjects fell out of favour... they require the teacher toknowandunderstandthe subject (which is more expensive/difficult) for the institution. And, they require the student to engage and commit to the process. Too hard.Same with computers and tablets... they’re great for ‘delivery’, but useless to impartunderstanding. There’s that darn word again. How inconvenient.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 04:43:41 am
content: At the college level it's generally good (except for the issues explained above), but at high school or below, depending on where you are, it's usually pretty bad. Generally bad teaching/teachers (even smart teachers can suck at teaching) and lack of equipment/resources. Not just lack of or crappy lab equipment either, even with computers some schools still have XP era machines (probably running on Windows 7) everywhere with a sprinkling of more modern computers in select rooms.

author: steve30
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 10:28:52 am
content: The Ugly: The fact the people feel the need to lump various subjects together to create unnecessary acronyms like 'STEM'. Though having said that, 'STEM' is probably more of an appropriate combination of subjects than the 'XAS' department that we briefly had at my comprehensive school.I have wondered if schools and colleges are gradually reducing the availability of engineering courses. When I was at comprehensive school in the 2000s, we did some electronics as part of Design & Technology lessons, and later on, I chose it as a GCSE subject. To the best of my knowledge, they don't do it anymore.I also did electronics at college. Electronics courses were a bit lacking when I did them, but I was fortunate to have some of the older teachers who were very enthusiastic about the subject. Said teachers have pretty much all retired now and I gather there are fewer electronics courses at local colleges now than there were 10 years ago.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 10:52:01 am
content: Understand completely!Even here, where there are a number of knowledgeable types on many subjects, getting a single straight answer can be like herding(cats)students.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 11:31:00 am
content: Quote from: smorriso3 on February 15, 2020, 06:44:04 amYou are describing the character of the majority of people with an interest and talent for STEM subjects. Its not ugly. Its just something you need to help students to mitigate if they are going to have a successful career.

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 11:46:13 am
content: In principle there is nothing wrong with STEM but it will still suffer from poor teaching methods. For example, trying to teach control theory using page upon page of incomprehensible mathematics doesn't really work, it just leaves a student without a mathematical aptitude struggling with the mathematics and gaining very little understand of control theory.Poor lecturers don't help either. I had an electronics lecture who insisted that a common emitter transistor stage would give 180 degrees phase shift, I tried to explain that an inverting CE stage inverts the signal and that is not necessarily the same as phase shift but he wouldn't have it.Perhaps I had a better understanding of what was really going on, so that's one example of ugly.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 12:20:14 pm
content: What is STEM?

author: jeremy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 12:39:24 pm
content: STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics if I remember correctly.laureng, if you are located in or near Brisbane and are interested in taking something like this further, please send me a PM. I know some university outreach people who specifically deal in this area (helping school teachers teach STEM, etc).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 12:42:20 pm
content: Quote from: laureng on February 15, 2020, 06:27:45 amI was invited to give a talk a few months back at a school to Year 7 kids for a STEM week project thing they had. Apparently they were to spend the entire week designing and building a solar air heater.That's a good thing IMO, it might pick up a few kids who might not have been previously interested in the fields.The problem always is that only a small percentage of kids are ever going to be interested in STEM stuff regardless of what you do.The entire year 7 group didn't seem all that engaged, which I expected, but I think it would have been more effective with a smaller group of kids who had already self-selected with an interest in the field.BTW, I gave them all a lump of coal and went though the calcs of how long that would power their mobile phones, and how much energy it takes to watch PewDiePie on Youtube (trying to keep it relevant)And it didn't help when I was told to prepare a talk just on renewable energy (because of their project), and only moments before I went on did I realise it was really a week focusing on careers in STEM

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 12:46:04 pm
content: I'm not sure teaching is a very rewarding job unless you see it as a calling. Maybe taking some time off from the day job and giving STEM workshops at various schools / universities is more rewarding. You get to interact with the kids but don't have the drama of grades and school politics.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 12:56:59 pm
content: Quote from: steve30 on February 16, 2020, 10:28:52 amThat can be infuriating sometimes. For example, the first year of engineering my university was deliberately "generic" across electrical, mechanical, and civil for the benefit of the students who had no clue what they wanted to do. Those field trips inspecting civil engineering sites was a real productive use of time for someone who wanted to do electronicsSo yeah, don't teach "STEM", teach the specific subject. If you build it they will come.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 01:39:35 pm
content: Quote from: steve30 on February 16, 2020, 10:28:52 amMany acronyms are dumb and annoying, but STEM is better than most. People are of a similar character across most science and engineering disciplines. Most of those are also mathematically inclined, except perhaps for a lot of the life science people (a lot of biology seems to be held back by an appalling lack of understanding of statistical processes by the average biologist). Technology should essentially be a synonym for engineering, but the word has been corrupted to describe an oddball mix of things that often swings far away from the kinds of things a scientist or engineer is typically attracted to. Nonetheless, as a grouping of similar people and work types STEM is a lot better than most.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 01:48:10 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 16, 2020, 12:56:59 pmI think its good not to specialise an engineering course too early. Electronics doesn't operate in isolation from mechanics, chemistry and other disciplines, and a broad understanding of the mechanics and chemistry of the electronics itself is important for understanding how to put stuff together well. A lot of electronics would be a lot more reliable if electronics engineers had a better understanding of how their products will behave mechanically and chemically as they encounter the real world and age. What I find odd about what you said is that ANY first year university engineering student would be taking field trips of any kind.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 01:58:42 pm
content: I hope we can make this into more than another complaining thread. How about some more of what's good?

author: steve30
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 02:17:23 pm
content: I agree that a variety of subjects is needed. I did a couple of mechanical engineering units, and while not directly related to electronics, it was interesting, and was generally useful.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 10:59:36 pm
content: Quote from: steve30 on February 16, 2020, 02:17:23 pmSure, and I don't disagree, mechanical is actually a big part of electronics. But can you say the same about civil engineering? Should I have spent my time going on site looking at construction sites and learning about theodolites?By all means, have a generic engineering degree option path if that's what people who have no clue what they want. But an Electrical Engineering degree should not be wasting already precious time teaching civil engineering.To bring it back onto STEM, I'd say that the best results are going to be obtained by selecting the students based on interest and then focusing more on that topic.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 11:10:41 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 16, 2020, 10:59:36 pmI agree. My youngest son definitely has an interest in mechanical engineering but having to go through one or two (I forgot) years of combined electrical / mechanical engineering put him off. Now he is studying software engineering which is not shared with other unrelated courses. When I went to electrical engineering school at the same level I got what I came for: electrical engineering. We got some mechanical engineering too but that was always related to electronics since everything needs to be built into a casing. Up to this day I have no interest and aptitude at all in mechanical CAD.But budget cuts in at least the 'western' part of the world seem to have hollowed out education.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 11:23:00 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 16, 2020, 10:59:36 pmMost children or young adults that age don't have a clue what they want to do. When they do it's often for the wrong reasons or due to a lack of information. It's not a bad idea to expose people to a broader engineering landscape and whatever the outcome you'll be a more diverse engineer. Look at you. All that looking at civil works for the public at large turned you into a YouTubing engineer producing videos for that very same public!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 16, 2020, 11:33:04 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 16, 2020, 11:23:00 pmSure, I'm not saying that's not a good idea. I'm saying that the best results will likely be obtained when you offer more focused options for those thatdoknow what they want to do.You can have STEM subjects in schools up to the wazoo, but that's not necessarily going to translate into a huge number of more people going in to STEM.Again, I'm not saying STEM in school is a bad idea, it's good, last year I proposed a STEM maker space to Sagan's school, they bought me in the consult on it, and it's just opened. But it's not going to be magic and lead to an order of magnitude more kids going into STEM.QuoteErr, EEV=ElectronicsEngineering Video blog.A 30 year career in the industry doing nothing but electronics.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 12:11:17 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 16, 2020, 11:23:00 pmBut who says they can't switch to a different education? It is not forbidden to change to something else. I took my kids to all kinds of schools so they can see what is what and told them if it turns out they don't like it they won't get any objections from me. School is like a job once it gets carreer specific. Don't like it; change it.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 12:28:53 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 17, 2020, 12:11:17 amI don't think anyone here is saying that they can't. It doesn't hurt to expose kids to a broader view and is very likely to help them. The very point of school is learning about things they don't know about and that includes other disciplines. It's good for Dave that he knew what he wanted to do early on and that worked out but I don't think that's that representative. Most kids and even adults don't have a clue what they want and more importantly don't know what they don't know. Even if you do know what you want there's a fair bit of evidence that a broad view and knowledge is beneficial in the long term. No discipline in science or engineering works in a vacuum except maybe in the literal sense.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 12:32:39 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 16, 2020, 11:33:04 pmIt was a joke about how your experience with civil engineering has lead you to make works for the public, although I can't call content creation or running a platform or mechanical engineering "nothing but electronics". That's not a bad thing either. Your work is much more diverse than you give yourself credit for.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 12:43:44 am
content: What worries me is the fact that most of those loving science minds are sunk into the software industry."Programmer" is a very time consuming specialization, vast yet very narrow. I mean, once a mind is "tuned" for software, it will be very hard to make it view the world other than in terms of software. Then, the software industry is an endless sprout of software technologies that need to be tasted and studied and tackled to stay competitive, and that will consume all the time that otherwise could have went to some other science.Also, acquired knowledge in software technologies is very "perishable", in the sense that software technologies are obsoleted, or simply discarded, in just a couple of years, so it's an endless training then discarding.All these will force those already into software to never live the software bubble. Only a very few will manage to break the bubble and develop an interest for some other science. Even then, old software habits like unbaked designs based on brake things often and fix later, or test driven design, will stay in the way of going into something else other than software, where mistakes may have physical consequences, and there is no undo button.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 06:24:47 am
content: Back in high school I remember being in the CAD class (wasn't taking it, we were in there to see their newfangled massive fridge sized 3D printer) and I spotted a thick textbook on CAD design on a table (not sure if it was the actual course book or if it was just there). I leafed through it and it was absulutelyPREACHINGAmerican "standards" and pointlessly strict methods. I don't remember much (nor want to) but an example was in their electronics section they had a table of "proper" schematic symbols where you where were only supposed to use their "correct" symbols, showing a bunch of "wrong" examples regardless of whether they were technically correct or not. Can't have any of those European schematic symbols, those are bad, and better make sure your dimensions are perfect as well as all your arrows on variable components are facing the right way, lines better not cross without a dot: loop over or bust, exc. (all dumb shit like that)This is more of an example on the other end of the extreme but still leading to the same result. Just blindly following some arbitrary, not realisic or practical methods again without any real understanding or core thinking (cause whoever wrote that book clearly had none). I'd love to see their reaction to a relay logic schematic, oh dear, how dare they use the parallel line symbol for a capacitor as switches.

author: laureng
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 11:24:34 pm
content: Plenty of great comments. Thanks! Dave's point about having disengaged students in Year 7 is interesting. I suppose at that level all students need to be learning science, but it's not like we expect all students to be interested in it, or see themselves having a career as a scientist or engineer. What I worry about is that we might lose kids right back in Primary, not because they don't have an interest and an aptitude, but because we just didn't engage them properly, or they only saw stereotypes they didn't fit into. Without getting into the complex arguments around the gender imbalance in computing and engineering, I think that kids to pick up on gender expectations really early on. Some people are always going to lean toward theoretical computer science, others will be more hands-on and like designing and building things, and yet others will be more into the creative and social side of the field. My research area was Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), and if you've ever struggled with a badly designed user interface, you might realise that the skills needed to design really fast, clean code don't necessarily overlap with those needed to make something that looks visually good and is really responsive to the humans who are using it (with all their social and emotional complexities).RoGeorge's point on software is also an interesting one. So much of "STEM in schools" does seem to be around "coding" (whatever happened to "programming"?). Specifically in terms of electronics, though, I worry that Australia is fast becoming a nation that doesn't build anything (goodbye Holden!). I think we really can't afford to lose those skills, though, as otherwise we'll become a country where we're left just writing software for whatever hardware they decide to produce for us in Asia. Innovation demands that we're still able to imagine and design new devices and platforms.And good point ntcnico - I'm still trying to work out whether teaching is really what I'd like to do full-time. I'm thinking I might land a job at a university developing and delivering programs in schools and training to teachers, which might give me the teaching without the paperwork and bureaucracy (and keep me at the cutting edge of the field).

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 11:37:35 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 16, 2020, 01:39:35 pmMADA!

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2020, 11:45:54 pm
content: Quote from: laureng on February 17, 2020, 11:24:34 pmHmm, I believe that China are massively into STEM as well. And as they can, there are state level plans to get everything made in China, and the state funds it by investing in venture capital funds. They have learned that micro-management is not practical, so basically they use "the invisible hand" to give things a good shove in the right direction, but let entrepreneurs do their thing. Chinese tech startups spring up everywhere, and their owners become million/billionaires.So unfortunately, in the future I think China will be doing all the hardware and software in house. I don't think teaching STEM in our schools will do much to reverse the trend of kids setting career goal no higher than wanting to be social media stars.

author: I wanted a rude username
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 01:18:38 am
content: Quote from: laureng on February 17, 2020, 11:24:34 pmThis goes well beyond gender stereotypes. In year 8 or so I remember hearing a radio ad for engineering ... the message was something along the lines of "engineers make things happen" ... but my response was, who would want to be an engineer, they're nerds.It's telling that we have a higher than usual proportion of commenters from the Anglosphere in this thread. Our culture doesn't respect engineering. It's notHerr Ingenieuror equivalent as on the Continent. Scientists are nerds. Mathematicians are autists. In my opinion, any educator who wants to inspire children in STEM will have a lot of ground work to show them the societal benefits of it, the prestige in it, the fun and coolness to be had. And that's a big ask from teachers who, especially in earlier years, generally aren't STEM types themselves.A worthy challenge though.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 05:35:00 am
content: Quote from: I wanted a rude username on February 18, 2020, 01:18:38 amI see it in a much more sinister light. The craft of learning to teach has been replaced by a study of PC, P's & Q's and crisis management. The bar of entry is so low now that anyone who can be bothered to stick around long enough for the entire course will indeed get placed in the education system somewhere.Many of these people have pretty lousy self esteem. What they learn in UNI is how to perfect the art of destroying things. Contrast that a potential engineer of primary school age, who wants to build things. The system is against that person, all the way. Killed in the crib.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 02:26:03 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on February 18, 2020, 05:35:00 amA key thing that separates most engineers from most non-engineers is the non-engineers see the world as a zero sum game. That "A" can only get something by taking it from "B". Engineers see everything beyond land and raw materials as the elements from which to create something greater. I'm using engineer in a broad sense here. A chef has an engineer's mind set. Give them some ingredients, and their immediate thought is how to create something greater from them. You can't teach this. Its an innate part of their character.You see this starkly in things like the climate debate. Engineers look for ways to create solutions, while non-engineers think they can only improve things by cutting back.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 02:37:29 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 18, 2020, 02:26:03 pmThat's an interesting partitioning. That may not exactly map to engineers vs. non-engineers, but that's definitely the partitioning between cooperative/constructive people vs. non-cooperative/destructive people, and I agree that the former tend to take engineering or creative jobs in general more so than the latter.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2020, 05:58:51 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on February 18, 2020, 02:37:29 pmI think all of us encounter this in our professional lives too. Because people and companies are trying to reduce risk or cost in their little area they overlook the bigger picture and everyone benefitting from going ahead. This often even happens when it's pointed out.

author: smorriso3
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 21, 2020, 06:00:38 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 16, 2020, 11:31:00 amHi! 'Ugly' is a bad word. Do any of you have tips on how to encourage participation from young STEM professionals? What frustrates me the most is having to anchor a meeting/event because students who I care very much about aren't engaged in participating. Most of the tips from professionals 10-yrs my senior is order pizza. Is there any hope for getting young engineers to get more engaged and/or prioritize group-work more seriously?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2020, 02:41:56 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on February 21, 2020, 06:27:53 amSo, China is like everywhere else in this regard.Quote from: blueskull on February 21, 2020, 06:27:53 amMost Asian people, not just the Chinese, recognise that their education systems have far too much emphasis on rote learning, and not enough emphasis on developing a person's creative problem solving skills. They tend to think the west is better in this regard. They are wrong. The west used to be better, but most western countries have now trashed their education systems. Over the last 40 to 50 years they have been trying to fix things perceived as deficiencies, and they've done such a poor job they've destroyed what used to work well. This is why we see top universities running remedial classes for the most capable of their incoming cohort - they just didn't cover stuff in school that was standard curriculum in the 60s.Quote from: blueskull on February 21, 2020, 06:27:53 amI see quite a few young Chinese without much education doing well for themselves by putting in the effort. I see plenty of highly educated young Chinese who think that having put in some effort up to graduation day, they are entitled to an easy ride from them on. There's plenty of that in western countries too. Its depressingly common to interview graduates from top engineering schools who think they should never have to do any real engineering, and are entitled to a direct route to an easy time in management.Quote from: blueskull on February 21, 2020, 06:27:53 amImporting people? Who? Chinese going abroad to study are far more likely to return to China to work than in the past, although there are complexities there. 20 years ago a Chinese youngster returning with a foreign education was revered. Now they are treated with some suspicion. Too many people have gone abroad because they couldn't get a place at a top Chinese university, and their families have money. It turns out that in itself a foreign education is no indicator of anything interesting to an employer. Quite often it doesn't even mean they will speak English or German to a high standard (there is a cheap route to a University education in Germany, if you can pass a German language exam).Right now China has become very unwelcoming to foreigners who are not ethnically Chinese, and lots of them seem to have left in the last couple of years. Many highly placed people in the west, of Chinese origin, do get regular contact from recruiters who want to place them in research jobs in China. However, if you talk to people of Korean origin in Europe or America you'll find much stronger tales of this. I have talked with a couple of Korean-Americans who get calls at least once a week from someone trying to place them in a job in Samsung or LG in Korea.Quote from: blueskull on February 21, 2020, 06:27:53 amForeign governments keep changing their minds on this. I know several wealthy Chinese who intended to send their children to US universities in the early 2000s who couldn't because 9/11 made it hard for a Chinese teenager to get a study visa for the US. I have never heard an explanation for how Muslim terrorism and Chinese students are connected, but the US certainly cut back on the students it allowed in. This gave opportunity for the UK and Australia to increase its Chinese student cohort. The UK, keen on getting people's money, seems to see this as an unreserved positive. Australia can't make up its mind.Quote from: blueskull on February 21, 2020, 06:27:53 amI don't know of a country which does not have a strong need right now to take a hard pragmatic look at its education system.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 02:09:18 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on February 21, 2020, 06:27:53 amExcept foreigner (with no Chinese parents) will never get Chinese citizenship. In theory it's possible, in practice it is not unless you are Nobel prize laureate or something sort of. There are like a thousand of naturalized citizens in China, it'a goddamn 1ppm. And in general foreigner should not expect getting something better than "white monkey" job.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 02:23:29 am
content: Quote from: wraper on February 22, 2020, 02:09:18 amThere is no particular reason why a country should offer citizenship to foreigners, so what is your point?Quote from: wraper on February 22, 2020, 02:09:18 amThere are many foreigners in China doing highly skilled professional work. There are probably less now than a few years ago, as they now demand a minimum of a masters degree, and they are generally making the place much less attractive to foreigners. The white monkey jobs are for those without professional skills who do little more for the company than present a white face, and possibly better English than the Chinese staff. Those without a masters degree no longer need apply, although there are plenty of humanities masters who would find a white monkey job a step up from their current employment at McDonalds.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 02:30:24 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 22, 2020, 02:23:29 amThat it is not welcoming anyone in practice. What you should expect is being thrown out once you become old.QuoteEven if you have education and skills, your chances getting proper job are very low unless they are very specific in some demanded area..

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 02:36:33 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 22, 2020, 02:23:29 amOften it's so bad that you could talk in English about pizza delivery at meeting about medicine. Nobody would understand or give a damn anyway.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 02:49:51 am
content: Quote from: wraper on February 22, 2020, 02:30:24 amThere are enough people wishing to go there. I have yet to meet a foreigner who wants to settle there until they die, unless they have married a local. People who have married a local have no real problem staying.Quote from: wraper on February 22, 2020, 02:30:24 amWow, what a surprise. If they don't need you, you aren't welcome. Whoda thought?China graduates people on a scale its hard to grasp until you spend time there. They have entire universities which teach a single course, such as electronics. They graduate over 300k people in electronics each year. Their priority is to ensure those people have decent careers. They only need foreigners to fill skills gaps, and they won't need them forever. They have to do a lot to accommodate most foreigners, because few of them learn to speak or write. If you want to work in China you have to realise and accept that.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 03:00:16 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 22, 2020, 02:49:51 amEmphasis on "stay". With no work permit. Spouse visa does not allow you to work. And they can refuse giving you a separate work visa at any moment.QuoteAnd that's why I say that you are not welcomed. Your narrow specialization might be in demand now but but may become not in 5 years. In the nutshell, you better not dream about settling there long term.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 08:39:56 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 22, 2020, 02:49:51 amBeing in Europe you ought to know better why this can be considered "surprising"

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 11:14:46 am
content: Stop the politics Ed.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 02:24:45 pm
content: IMO the worst thing about modern education is micromanagement and standardized testing. It was roughly during my time at school when Polish universities switched from entrance exams to admissions based on a common, country-wide end-of-highschool exam. Predictably, the highschools reacted with every effort to game the standard exam. Mock exams: first once, then twice, then twice every month. Hours of preparatory courses (during normal lesson time), solving tasks from every past exams, solving tasks similar to those from past exam, etc. It seems you don't go to school to learn anything anymore but to learn how to pass the final exams, how the answers are graded, what scores you points, blah blah blahI suppose it also has a demoralizing effect on teachers, turning their work into repetitively boring chore. I wonder what sort of people might be choosing to work in such an environment from now on.Other than that, business as usual. Some schools were better, some were worse, some teachers were competent, others struggled solving our homework themselves. There were times when I learned a lot at school, there were times when I learned less.One thing I would have killed for back in the day is waivers for kids bored out of their mind during lessons on selected subjects

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 02:43:27 pm
content: Quote from: magic on February 22, 2020, 02:24:45 pmStandardized testing is not a problem. The problem is that the tests have too much predictability, so you can train for them. Until they started trashing the UK A-levels (pre-university exams) some examination boards had extremely consistent exam papers from year to year. In some, like the London University board's maths papers, each question in each paper was on a consistent topic for about 30 years. However, the actual questions varied so much that people complained a lot about how hard those particular exams were. So much so, that many people who asked which board's papers I sat tried to sympathise when I said London.

author: coldfiremc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2020, 04:27:27 pm
content: I think that STEM is bad in the same amount that does not stimulate creativity or creates "Tiers" of students. School knowledge must be considered "the basics" and everyone have to have solid education on it. The problem is that STEM education focuses too much in memorize procedures and evaluate formulae, without any sort of creative, descriptive or practical focus. Also, in some parts of this world, STEM is being put as the opposite of the arts/literature/philosophy. Something that is at least scary for me (in my country at least), is the aversion of University STEM-leaning students to read (i.e. If there is a 200 page manual to do it directly or a bunch of loosely related sheets, they prefer the sheets). Most of STEM related stuff, are languages itselves, with many concepts and models, to describe phoenomena, and there isn't only numbers, and if someone doesn't grasp this, it lost the whole point.The another thing, previously mentioned, is the "Grade Mania", "Pass-course Frenzy" and "Results Now" from lots of STEM students. This, in my opinion, is the byproduct of a Good Graded, but bad quality education, that castrated creativity, Critical thinking, and ultimately omited any concept of epistemology. And the irony: Most of these people, because of these attitude, are the worst teachers/reasearchers/developers(because lack of carreer building or practical skills) even conceivable, and also tend to be brute and rude, but because of their high grades, tend to land in teaching, reasearch chairs, because the metric/grades fetish of Universities (And also maintaining a vicious loop).Some people say that standarized tests are a problem. I think that they are only in the case that they try to select students. They are trying to put determinism where it isn't any. Those tests work better when try to check if someone is "able" to be in the next level or not (this condition is more loose than the another). Select students is something that Universities/Technical have to do, in the course of their programs.I'm about to graduate in Electronics Engineering, but prior to Uni I never had pretty good grades in math(I had some times very good grades in physics). In the national test I was 2 questions far of the top score of reading test (this is like get a 99 of 100) and in the 60% upper points of math (this is like getting a 52-53 in a 1 to 100 scale). However in uni, every time that math's get more advanced(Complex variables, Differential equations, Numerical Analysis), I got better grades. Could be an exception, but this shows that there's no perfect correlation between school STEM and STEM in a "more serious" environment, and I don't understand why there's not enough stress in this.

author: synsis
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 03:52:07 am
content: Quote from: coldfiremc on February 22, 2020, 04:27:27 pmYou have made the point that STEM is too narrowly focused, but is this a problem with STEM education?Mathematics is a kind of literature, used in Science, Engineering and Technology. People use it to communicate right? Scientists communicate primarily using numerical data. They draw conclusions with simple logical predicates, i.e. if the coefficient of x is below 3, then y will occur as a result. Nobody uses artistic prose.We are electronic engineers. Engineers design, develop and apply technology to solve problems. Problem descriptions should be provided in subject, verb, predicate form, without artistic prose. Solutions should be provided in abstract forms such as mathematics and high-level specifications, or in discrete forms such as blueprints or binaries.An engineer will use advanced prose in two circumstances: persuading a customer to use their solution or sign their contract and persuading a non-technical colleague to make a decision. A Boeing engineer was concerned about the 737 Max prior to the unfortunate accidents. If this engineer had been capable of forming a convincing argument, then perhaps they could have saved lives. Clearly, senior engineers should possess a higher level of English proficiency.Quote from: coldfiremc on February 22, 2020, 04:27:27 pmThis is an interesting point, but so irrelevant to STEM education. Make a thread titled "our society is overly pessimistic and culture is dying".

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 08:32:04 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 22, 2020, 02:43:27 pmAnd that's the problem, because standardized testing has to be like thatCase in point, it is like that. They did trash those A-levels for whatever reason, go figure.It has to suck for many reason. Firstly, the dynamic range. Any test which is to be taken nation-wide by almost everyone leaving high school (which is the case in Poland at any rate) needs to not only discover those with "critical thinking skill" but also sort all the average mass into higher and lower tiers of averageThere are two levels of this test here and the lower is mandatory in certain subjects for everyone while the upper is voluntary but typically the only one considered by universities. Still, even the higher level has to cater to diploma mills as much as to elite universities, so it can't be too hard. Part of the problem is that almost everybody wants / is expected to have higher education these days, even if it makes no sense.Another thing is that the moment something starts to depend on the outcome of the exam (such as uni admission), you bet your ass that students will demand that the exam is "fair" and will also flood you with disputes of their grades and demand to justify every damn point you have awarded or not awarded them. You also better be consistent, even though the tests are graded by thousands of random teachers, because it has to be fair again. So you write tons of grading guidelines trying to cover every possible answer you may get and the students respond by memorizing the guidelines and trying to target them. Grading turns into lawyering, because the stakes are impractically high for that kind of exam at that kind of scale.Then you may have policies like AFAIK in America, where schools are supposedly required to track their "progress" over years, so the tests presumably can't be too varied or their outcomes would show high year-to-year noise and would be useless for this purpose. Also there are other pragmatic concerns originating from politics, such as a desire by whatever minister for education to demonstrate that test results have improved during his tenure or whatever. Life is always much more nuanced than idealists anticipate

author: R4T
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 09:54:44 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 22, 2020, 02:43:27 pmHi Coppice,When do you feel they trashed A-levels? And how?Are they too easy?My A-levels (1983) were a walk in the park compared to my Dad's. The ones I teach have ranged from more challenging than those I did to significantly easier. I would say that the Physics I teach is currently marginally tougher in terms of content and volume than my own A-level.Do they not discriminate adequately?This depends on your point of view: is an A-level a selection tool or a measure of knowledge and competence? Many teachers would argue that 'criterion referencing' - a measure of knowledge and competence - is fairest for the students, though 'norm referencing' has a role in maintaining the standards year on year. The effect of criterion referencing is that students believe that working hard gets good grades, so many of them work hard... and get good grades. A-levels aren't and should not be an intelligence test, though it seems to me that the harder students work at them, the more intelligent they get.In the end, I would argue that the problem here is not one dimensional:In the UK, the prospects for people with STEM qualifications are a hard sell in an economy that is 80% service based - where is the draw into science and engineering?We also operate in a political culture were senior politicians can say 'I am rubbish at maths' and people laughingly accept that rather than feeling sorry for their embarrassment.Show students the excitement and they will do STEM.Time I stopped and got back to fixing a school DSO-1062D that has never worked

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 10:52:38 am
content: Quote from: R4T on February 23, 2020, 09:54:44 amApercentageof them will do STEM. That's just human nature.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 02:16:12 pm
content: Quote from: R4T on February 23, 2020, 09:54:44 amI took my A-levels in 1973. The first A-levels were (I think) in 1948. In preparing for the exams we went through past papers back to 1948, and the standard was very consistent. Maths hadn't changes at all. There were separate modern maths A-levels then, so there had been no reason to alter the traditional maths course. Physics was pretty much the same. The chemistry course had changed quite a bit, to reflect the massive changes in organic chemistry (both life sciences an polymers) over that period. I think the breadth and depth were about the same, though. When I looked at A-level papers a decade later (about the time you took your A-levels) the curriculum had changed quite a lot, and the depth of the questions asked had greatly reduced. Changing the curriculum was probably a good thing, but they had taken out a lot more than they put in, so the overall courses had been dumbed down.Recently, in helping my son prepare for A-levels, I was shocked at how little real understanding is needed to answer most of the questions. There are certainly questions where you need to break something down, and apply 2 or 3 separate pieces of knowledge to solve the parts of the problem (i.e. do real problem solving), but too many of the answers merely require recitation. The maths papers feel more like the O-level papers of my day. With the huge expansion of education up to 18, its understandable that A-levels had to change to accomodate a broader range of abilities, but where are the courses to challenge and develop the brightest students?Quote from: R4T on February 23, 2020, 09:54:44 amI'm not sure what you mean by that?Quote from: R4T on February 23, 2020, 09:54:44 amThe current A-levels seem to be exams for the people who merely do OK in the GCSE exams to take 2 years later. They aren't suitable for the brightest students, as they provide no challenge for them, and leave them poorly educated as they move to university. Several university staff from the UK have told me of remedial classes for the brightest students,t to cover material which has been dropped from the school curriculum in recent years.Quote from: R4T on February 23, 2020, 09:54:44 amMost people in the UK have always been proud of their inability. Its a weird national trait. However, we used to have a parallel strand of people who just got on with doing valuable things. This idea of the economy being 80% service based is made to sound like the UK has adapted to change, and now has a solid service base. It hasn't. Its still on a path of rapid decline, with the 20% of the economy that is not services still fading away. In the 80s US politicians used to love telling the populous that it wasn't worth saving low value jobs in the US, and how the US would keep the high value ones. That worked out brilliantly. The young people in Asia who got most of those low value jobs are now the majority of the world's highly experienced middle aged people capable of doing the high value jobs.I agree that its hard to attract people in the UK to STEM subjects, and we probably shouldn't. There are too few jobs needing those skills, and its hard to go to countries where STEM prospects are better if you don't have some years of industrial experience in your home country first. However, whatever areas the country tries to participate in need people who have been challenged and stretched by their education to be the best they can be.

author: frogg
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 02:37:53 pm
content: I will say one thing: I think it was a mistake to name it STEM. Sure, it's catchy marketing, but it's out of order. It should be MSET (in terms of academic foundationalism.)In fact, I would go so far as to say, it should just be MSE. 'Technology' or 'Tech' is of dubious academic value, in my humble opinion.

author: R4T
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 07:00:06 pm
content: Hi Coppice,I use 'discrimination' in the technical sense of 'revealing different levels of skill/knowledge'. There is a faction who seem to believe that the only role of an exam is to separate the 'wheat from the chaff' - I would take a more positive spin and say the role of the exams is to recognise a level of attainment.I would suggest that good students get a richer diet than just the A-level textbook/specification in most A-level teacher's classrooms. I certainly have students who get good grades but do not sound like they have a sound grasp when you talk to them. I also have students who genuinely link ideas and come to a deeper insight. They can write about it and talk about it. The A-level results seem to me to reflect that better understanding, in the end.I suspect you and I would be singing from the same sheet on the 80% services thing. If the economy is to serve the people rather than vice-versa, the UK model is completely out of balance.I will still work on encouraging people into STEM. But where I work, the demand is still high.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 08:33:11 pm
content: Quote from: R4T on February 23, 2020, 07:00:06 pmThe pass/fail idea is appropriate, even mandatory, for many tests - a simple case being a driving test. These tests are purely a gating function, and breaking down results any further may not be in anyone's interests. Pass/fail is really inappropriate for something like A-levels, because they have many uses, with different gating thresholds. A pass for getting into a technician course is rather different from a pass to get into a top university, but A-level results are the basis for both these things.Quote from: R4T on February 23, 2020, 07:00:06 pmOf course the brightest students quickly master material that doesn't push them very much. and have plenty of time to do additional things. The problem is that without being driven by tough goals few people develop their own. When they finally come face to face with the best and brightest in the world, they will be poorly prepared. I've seen many people who were convinced by people around them that they were top notch be really crushed by meeting people who truly excel. People who might be no more inherently capable, but whose practical capabilities have been better nurtured.Quote from: R4T on February 23, 2020, 07:00:06 pm

author: synsis
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 10:08:33 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 23, 2020, 08:33:11 pmAre you referring to these qualities:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConscientiousnessThis is interesting:QuoteSource:https://web.archive.org/web/20141223141658/http://uk.psytech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Conscientiousness-and-Intelligence-2004.pdf

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2020, 10:19:42 pm
content: Quote from: synsis on February 23, 2020, 10:08:33 pmNope. High achievers are mostly people who score well on both the general intelligence and conscientiousness traits. However most of them don't know what they are capable of until they are pushed to compete with other intelligent and conscientious people. Its mostly competition which drives us to excellence, whether its in sports or more intellectual activities.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 24, 2020, 08:31:47 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 23, 2020, 08:33:11 pmThat's why the scheme cannot possibly do anything good.Another line to the standard testing hater's handbook: if you screw up the national test by bad luck or dumb mistake, you can go to a sub-par school or twiddle your thumbs for a year if you think you deserve better.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 24, 2020, 06:31:51 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 23, 2020, 10:19:42 pmThat's the American approach, which has its flaws. It doesn't address that some highly competent people crumble when they have to compete directly or that strengths and weaknesses can be complemented. Science isn't a game competing isn't an intrinsic part of it. Some people thrive cooperating instead of making it all about themselves.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 24, 2020, 06:43:10 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 24, 2020, 06:31:51 pmThis is nonsense. If you look at the story of most major scientific achievements there was a race to get to the answer ahead of someone else, to win either money or prestige. If you look at engineering, competition is an inherent part of the activity. The only engineering free of competition is when its being protected, and cosseted projects seldom end well.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 24, 2020, 07:02:49 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 24, 2020, 06:43:10 pmYou seem eager to make the exception the rule. Competition can create a valuable dynamic but it can be disastrous too. Skirting danger or ignoring proper procedure in an attempt to gain an advantage or keeping results to yourself when others could have advanced the subject. Some people are brilliant in some areas and not so brilliant in others and when it's a competition that brilliance is likely lost. Science is as about exchange of knowledge and working towards a goal together instead of just competition. Not to mention science isn't about winning Nobel prizes. It's about advancing knowledge and hopefully making the world a tiny bit better. If everyone wants to be top dog it all goes to shit.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 24, 2020, 07:14:59 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 24, 2020, 07:02:49 pmYou make a point, but you seem to be considering competition almost on an individual level.People can be cooperative in groups, but still compete with other groups - this is very frequent IMO, and exhibits both behaviors.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 24, 2020, 07:23:09 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on February 24, 2020, 07:14:59 pmSure, but the discussion was about individuals. I don't think anyone can deny competition is part of the human condition but cooperation definitely is as well. Being human is largely defined by cooperative attributes and behaviours. The whole standing on the shoulders of giants bit recognizes that our individual achievements are minor and depend on the many that came before us.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 29, 2020, 02:23:53 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on February 24, 2020, 07:23:09 pmYou seem to see cooperation as the opposite of competition. It isn't. The opposite of competing is simply accepting defeat. For any task too big for one person a high level of cooperation is essential to be competitive. Do you think the highly cooperative behaviour in a team sport is any less competitive than the behaviour of a player in an individual sport?

author: synsis
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 29, 2020, 05:03:25 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 29, 2020, 02:23:53 amFor example, in 'Parasite', the lower-class family use guile to survive. They are competing as a group against families in the same predicament.