BTW- Michael… I really think Clay is using a more contemporary alternative definition of the word (not going to use it and risk Clay’s spam filter hell). Think of it less in terms of gametes, fleshbumps and peacock feathers.. and more along the lines of… merely sleek and appealing. No?

@Morgante - “However, students can’t grasp the idea of a career in science since almost nobody they will meet in their life will have such a career.”

I beg to differ here. If this is occurring, then this is teacher error. Seriously. If we can’t provide a vehicle for our kids to interface with professionals at all levels in the field, then we are missing out in a big way.

We must, at the very least, bring our former students back (or better yet- KEEP THEM in the fold via professional uses of social networking) to talk to our current students. Our Ning sites are so young, and yet they are already providing a vehicle for this very thing.

If kids don’t see that relatively “normal” folks can and do perform the work of science, then they will tag everything scientific with Einstein’s face. Charming ol’ lad, but nowhere near the norm.

Wish us luck…

Sean Nashs last blog post..Where are the seeds in an orange?

Sometimes I think it would actually help if the system was made less anonymous. Many students will bad-mouth a good teacher who gave them poor grades in an anonymous survey, but a genuine conversation is much more honest. In some part, I think administrators should work to be more accessible to student complaints about specific teachers.

The administrator evaluation system certainly has its flaws. To start with, most systems give teachers the opportunity to be their best when what teachers really should be assessed on is the average or even worst.

I do think unions can serve a purpose, but the current system in most districts is rather broken. The sad thing is people can be fired for entirely unfair reasons (see Downes), yet it is difficult to fire someone for real reasons.

What it comes down to is that the definition bad teachers is subjective (as other comments pointed out), and very hard to apply. It is easy to prove pornography was on a computer, but very difficult to “prove” a teacher is bad. In that regard, I think unions (and the public) need to give more discretionary power to fire or at least punish teachers. Most of all, periodic reviews should be done which take the students into account. We are the ones who actually know how a teacher is doing.

I will master something, then the creativity will come.

Seems very a propos to the “process/goal” bit we’re wrangling over

(I really must stop the winking. Reminds me of Sarah Palin. *shudder*)

I’ll skip defending CNN (or any media that inspires me with science, applied or theoretical), and mention quickly that my admiration for this man’s work doesn’t imply a lack of consciousness or admiration for more “subtle” examples - though I do want to say that Hodges’ work seems to have its fair share of subtlety.

Re: the “tremendous work” of “getting there,” that’s a given, isn’t it? My point is that, for the brightest and most motivated students, applying themselves to science can be at least as rewarding - both as process and as goal - as applying themselves to a business or finance or basketball career. Grand success in any field requires busting your tail, and my argument here is that students don’t see enough examples of what such tail-busting can lead to in the field of science (scientists themselves bemoan their poor PR skills), while they see all too many Michael Jordans and Donald Trumps in the media to idolize. That’s why I think spotlighting people like Hodges - not as the norm any more than Jordan or Trump are norms, but as the possible exception - isn’t a bad idea, and is a good one. Again, I wasn’t only being flip with that “Telling Students What I Wish My Teachers had Told Me Department” line.

Nietzsche wrote somewhere - I looked for it this morning when writing this post, to no avail - that one of the best uses of biography is to inspire the young with models they may emulate. That’s one function we old folks can perform better than the young. And a CNN clip of 8 multimedia minutes may be a superior form of biography for this ADD era, compared to a book or a (blech) sidebar in a textbook about some dead scientist. I fantasize I’d populate a Ning or wiki with a weekly “sexy scientist” video embed just to pound through the realization that many living, breathing, defecating scientists today are doing remarkable things - whether in labs or on Mexican coastlines - and that they were once freshman knuckleheads just like the students are.

I didn’t say “all” are the result of lousy science programs. I consciously said “partly” and “all-too-often,” as a nod to exceptions and other factors. I’ll take some Hershey’s Kisses with your apology for that one

“Confusing technology with science”? That “lateral thinking” I mention required Hodges to understand the carbon cycle, rising seas, botany (?) (in his knowledge of the crop that would work best in his plan), and much more science. That he applies that scientific knowledge with technology detracts from nothing, as far as I can see. And technology is science too.

I already touched on process and goal, as you (not I) put it. A tinkerer’s love of figuring out how to do cool stuff - to “have fun doing good,” as a blog title I love puts it - is all about process. The goals are byproducts along the path. And thank goodness for them, too.

Alrighty, Doyle, straighten me out. I love it when we tangle. (And I dearly hope one day we can hook up around a fire between a sunset and a sunrise, and talk, joke, shutthehellup, and/or sing the whole night through.)

I don’t think we should privatize public education, but I also think unions have far too much power – especially when it comes to keeping bad teachers in the classroom.