Re: [Edu-sig] Low Enrollments
I noticed a profound shift occur at Glencoe High School in Hillsboro, Oregon between 1985 (when I graduated from there) and 1995-1998 when I visited there to give talks for national engineering week. In one memorable experience, I spoke to the Biochemistry students, in the same classroom where I had taken that same class a decade earlier. These were the top 20 math and science students in the school. I asked how many of them wanted to become engineers. I got zero responses. I was floored. Based on my experience of the past, I had expected least a handful! I said "engineering is a good career, it pays good money, why are you not interested?" One kid raised his hand and said "It's too hard." Another volunteered, "Yeah, I have a friend who is an engineering student and he has to work all the time." I was dumbfounded. It appeared as if these kids thought there was a hard road to success and an easy road to the same success, so planned to take the easy road.
Hmm, is this just the "kids today are lazy and didn't work as hard as I did in my day" argument? I don't buy that one. Kids today are no less lazy than at any other time in history. Perhaps they have more opportunity for leisure, but many still say they want to become doctors or nurses or lawyers --- careers that require lots of education and hard work. I think when a kid says "engineering is too hard", they are also saying that they don't see the rewards of engineering as very significant. I really don't see kids as being afraid to work hard; quite the opposite, I am often amazed at how hard students will work on something that is interesting and valuable to them. Doctors and nurses make a difference every day. This is why they put up with grueling work schedules. They love their jobs, and they see first-hand the difference they make. The rewards are tangible and obvious ("for every death a birth, for every sickness a cure"). Do programmers make a difference? Not according to the typical CS PR: programming is something that is "fun", "cool", and so easy to do that anyone can master it. You know, like bowling. A fun, rewarding activity that anyone can get good at with a little practice. I think the rhetoric of "cool" and "fun" is a fine way to get younger kids interested in programming, but it depresses me to see university CS programs advertise the same way. It's like a medical school enticing students to take their program by showing you how cool it is to be a Beverley Hills plastic surgeon. I think CS is a field that makes a difference; I just don't think CS educators (such as myself) communicate this very well. Or maybe the answer is simply that the 50-year bubble that CS has been riding has finally popped? Maybe we are just in the middle of an inevitable "correction"? It's not like CS saw the web coming! Toby
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:35:36PM -0700, Toby Donaldson wrote:
It appeared as if these kids thought there was a hard road to success and an easy road to the same success, so planned to take the easy road.
Hmm, is this just the "kids today are lazy and didn't work as hard as I did in my day" argument? I don't buy that one. Kids today are no less lazy than at any other time in history. Perhaps they have more opportunity for leisure, but many still say they want to become doctors or nurses or lawyers --- careers that require lots of education and hard work.
I wasn't speaking about all kids everywhere in the world. But unfortunately I have several more data points to show there really was a problem among American kids in Oregon in the 1990's. I read reported statistics that said Oregon was one of the bottom states of the US in terms of kids wanting to go into *any* technical profession. I saw reports in the media of scholarship programs and training programs with seats going empty for lack of interest. The programming and electronics classes at Glencoe High were both canceled for lack of interest. Kirby is in better touch with the pulse of things back in Oregon now than I am. Hopefully he has witnessed a rebound, hopefully things have gotten better. But I believe there really was a dip in the 1990's.
I think when a kid says "engineering is too hard", they are also saying that they don't see the rewards of engineering as very significant. I really don't see kids as being afraid to work hard; quite the opposite, I am often amazed at how hard students will work on something that is interesting and valuable to them.
Yes it is true that people find ways to work hard at things that interest them; somehow many have a hard time finding something that is interesting and valuable to them! Unfortunately, the majority of this group told me that they were "undecided" on what they wanted to major in. In particular I don't remember any saying they wanted to become doctors, etc. It seemed like we had a group of kids who were college-bound because their parents had money, but they were unmotivated. Hopefully they became "late-bloomers" and "found themselves" later on. I didn't want to come across as saying "kids today are lazy" so much as to emphasize that I've seen the correlation between a willingness to work -- including physical labor -- and entering and succeeding in technical fields of study. Good parents take note and prepare your children accordingly. On a related note, I have also noticed a lack of confidence, a fear of failure, contributing to people being unwilling to try difficult technical studies. Somehow someone has to convince them they can do it. In my case it was my father who boosted my confidence. The parents' attitude makes a big difference. I remember teaching a programming seminar to a group of 12-year-olds as part of a Boy Scouts activity. One young man kept saying over and over "I'm just no good at this stuff" even though (1) he had never tried before, so how did he know he wasn't good at it? and (2) he understood and followed all the directions perfectly. But I know why he said he was "no good at this stuff" -- I had overheard his father saying that exact same thing. David H
-----Original Message----- From: edu-sig-bounces@python.org [mailto:edu-sig-bounces@python.org] On Behalf Of David Handy Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 11:48 AM To: Toby Donaldson Cc: edu-sig@python.org Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] Low Enrollments
It seemed like we had a group of kids who were college-bound because their parents had money, but they were unmotivated. Hopefully they became "late-bloomers" and "found themselves" later on.
Which is consistent with the point of my previous post - once they might bloom a bit, technical subjects no longer seem like an option. They just reconcile to the "fact" that they have missed the boat, unless they are unusual enough to be willing to in some sense "start over". Can't help thinking that a program geared to older students, on a graduate school level, that assumed little in the way of accomplished pre-requisites, would help the cause. I don't think this is totally unrealistic since, on the graduate school level, a degree of commitment and maturity of the students can be assumed that is not so at the undergraduate level. So the intensiveness of what might need to be accomplished to get somewhere substantial in, say, a 3 year program is not necessarily be pie-in-the-sky. Law School tends to be intense in that way. But my sense that those schools are filled with late-bloomers looking/wanting to get intensive - but with no particular commitment to the study of Law. Its just that, as things are, that seems to be a path accepting of their previous educational background, whatever that might happen to be. Though it is certainly true that folks at this stage are quite career oriented, and that if the root problem is connected to off-shoring, maybe nothing will help. One of the founders of Intel gave an long interview on public television last night, and spoke extensively on this subject. He considers himself a pessimist on this subject, at least as to where the US is going. Though I felt his ire was quite misdirected, seeming to be pointing the finger at the religionists influence on the respect for science. I guess only those of us truly unaffiliated can wonder out loud how much of the disrespect for science is a (certainly unintended) side effect of the efforts to engineer gender fairness. Art
-----Original Message----- From: edu-sig-bounces@python.org [mailto:edu-sig-bounces@python.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:26 PM To: 'David Handy'; 'Toby Donaldson'
Though I felt his ire was quite misdirected, seeming to be pointing the finger at the religionists influence on the respect for science.
The sense of him be off-base here not totally uninfluenced by having recently browsed a book of Donald Knuth's MIT lectures on Christian belief. Art
Kirby is in better touch with the pulse of things back in Oregon now than I am. Hopefully he has witnessed a rebound, hopefully things have gotten better. But I believe there really was a dip in the 1990's.
Not sure about a rebound yet. Free Geek (freegeek.org) has been an important influence in Greater Portland, in getting a lot of kids through the Build Program and onto Linux. I think that's a good route, as the Build Program is also about recycling and community service. Plus it's very hands on and Free Geek has way of making technology accessible -- lots of interesting junk to play with, friendly people to answer questions. I often see lots of kids there (including last Tuesday -- for our Portland Python Interest Group meeting). More NGOs like Free Geek are sorely needed IMO if only to cut down on recyclable stuff going to landfills. I have two blog entries of possible interest on this theme (each fairly short). This very recent entry re Saturday Academy summarizes a 20 year attempt to recruit more native engineering talent in Oregon (mentions "work ethic"): http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2005/10/saturday-academy.html And then there's this older one about a visit from Dr. Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering (about creativity): http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2005/04/last-isepp-lecture-2005.html howtoons.org and Make: Magazine (O'Reilly) represent attempts to counter technophobia among the young. Probably another factor behind technophobia is fewer teens work on their own cars anymore (engines have gotten more complicated), plus we don't fix so much as replace electronic components (there's less to repair). Another take: http://chronicle.com/forums/colloquy/read.php?f=1&i=5123&t=5092 That's me replying to Chris Stephenson, head of Computer Science Teachers Association, his post being here: http://chronicle.com/forums/colloquy/read.php?f=1&i=5109&t=5092 (The article we're referring to is I think only available to subscribers) Kirby
participants (4)
-
Arthur -
David Handy -
Kirby Urner -
Toby Donaldson