Whoever has heard of Azim Premji?
For starters, he was listed as the richest man in India several times on the Forbe's list. He is the founder/chairman of Wipro, one of the largest software companies in the world, employing about 100,000 techies. And he is a minority Muslim in a predominantly Hindu India. He made his fortune with owner's stock in one of the world's largest software companies. I guess he could have taken his billions and retired comfortably. He is a very international person, with a fluent command of the english language. One of his interviews with Charlie Rose can be seen here:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10328
Instead, Mr. Premji has decided to invest a good part of his fortune to start the first private university dedicated to train K-12 teachers. This seems like overkill in a country obsessed with education, where the movie "2 Million Minutes" chronicled high school kids studying up to 50% longer than their American counterparts. Wonder why he has taken this step?
For starters, my guess is that it is because the Indian education system, in spite of its tremendous accomplishments of turning out millions of college graduates a year, is comparatively low tech. Very few classrooms have computers, and teachers are not very comfortable using technology. Use of technology can make the Indian youth more at home working in the highly competitive 21st century business environment. More important, the teachers themselves need to be comfortable with technology in order to be effective. If the teachers cannot teach, student's won't learn. There is always this "guru", the "master who knows everything", image of a teacher so ingrained in Indian minds, that not knowing technology is a surefire way for a teacher to lose credibility with and respect of their students. Enter Mr. Premji with his education university idea.
This idea is by no means a done deal, it is awaiting an expected legislative approval from the state government. But it is akin to Bill Gates saying that he will build a $1 Billion university just to train K-12 teachers. All classrooms would be equipped with the latest Microsoft technology, and the teachers who graduate will be knowledgeable in their field, productive in their classrooms, and will turn out world class minds out of their schools. They would all get high paying jobs and pay down our national debt, and still have money left over to pay into social security and medicare. But.but....hey, who woke me up?! I was having a heck of a daydream!!
Check out the whole article here:
http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=broadcast&broadcastid=130610
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Book Review: Why Don't Students Like School?
Rarely do I use my blog for a book review. As a matter of fact, this is the first time. But once in a while, a rare gem comes along that just screams "please tell others about it - it may save them in the future". This book is one of them.
It is authored not by a teacher or principal or a district official, although the title kind of implies it. It is written by Daniel Willingham, who has a doctorate from Harvard University in cognitive psychology. Why is this relevant? Simply because cognitive psychologists are true scientists, and their work is peer reviewed by other scientists before it gets published. Education schools are notorious for their lack of respect by the scientific community. Indeed, the recently published National Math Advisory Panel report observed that out of 17,000 education publications, less than 1% met the criteria for scientific validity. Enough said.
The book has a simple format. First, it is easily understood by an average reader. Each chapter introduces an assertion, followed by simple explanations and experimental evidence, followed by a Q&A section that has FAQs for teachers to modify their teaching techniques based on the assertion. What is novel here is that most of the assertions are exactly opposite of what the popular education school literature claims. I have listed a few nuggets below:
1. People are naturally curious, but they are not good thinkers: Why is this relevant? Because schools of education have focused on building "critical thinking" as one of their missions. However, if the brain is not designed well for thinking, it is good information to know. One needs to go to the following chapters to understand what is the secret of good critical thinkers.
2. Factual knowledge MUST precede skill: This is a corollary to the first assertion. Critical thinking needs factual knowledge first. Mathematical skills require mastery of multiplication facts. Throwing facts out just to concentrate on critical thinking is just not possible, because critical thinking is dependent on preceding factual knowledge. Indeed, critical thinkers tend to be only good in their narrow field of expertise (read - where they possess a lot of factual knowledge), and take a long time to gain the proficiency in a brand new field.
3. Memory is the residue of thought: This is a "duh" observation for me. What the mind dwells on the most, it tends to remember. This explains a lot, for example, why a few days after the test, those who cram for a test tend not to remember much of what they crammed. It may work to get a good grade on a test, but does not help retain what was learned.
4. New things are understood in the context of what we already know: This is the knowledge equivalent of "the rich getting richer". I had a boss once, a very smart fellow, who used to say "the brain is a difference engine". What he meant was that the brain internalizes what it knows with almost no effort, and leaves room to think about and interpret only the new information. So, those students who have been exposed to rich knowledge content early in their life tend to peel away from the rest of the pack very early. The author correlates this to the higher academic performance by those who come from families with educated parents, or higher socioeconomic background.
5. Proficiency requires practice: Another "duh" assertion. The author emphasizes that "It is virtually impossible to become proficient at a mental task without extended practice". Even experts need practice in basic skills sometimes, he says. I have observed that some mathematics curricula do not require extended practice, which is probably why they fail to produce results.
6. Cognition is fundamentally different in early and late training: Probably a corollary to assertion #4, although the author does not present it that way. A novice perceives new information in fundamentally different way than someone who is an expert. So, for example, emulating how scientists or mathematicians perform their jobs and trying to implement it in a classroom is bound to fail.
7. Children are more alike than different in terms of learning: This assertion completely refutes one of the axioms used by curriculum designers, based on the theory of multiple intelligences, and multiple learning styles. The author does not deny that there are multiple abilities, but "intelligence" is a term he reserves for how quickly the brain can process information. This fundamental difference between the author and many of the theories based on which our schools are designed, is tremendously significant. The author has one big thing going for him - results. Math curricula designed for direct instruction (a certain type of pedagogy) have consistently outperformed curricula designed around the theory of multiple intelligences and multiple learning styles.
8. Intelligence can be changed with sustained hard work: And you thought heavy lifting was only good for building six-pack abs. This assertion refutes another assumption prevalent in education schools - that intelligence is static. One is either born to be good in math or not. This has a huge implication of how students get rewarded. In a simple experiment, students who were praised for how hard they worked performed better in the long run than students who were praised for being "smart".
9. Teaching is a complex cognitive skill, and can be improved: In other words, follow the first eight rules, and one can be a good teacher. This assertion leaves a glimmer of hope for those who had subject knowledge in math, science or another area of specialty, but convinced themselves that they "just ain't got it" when it comes to teaching.
All in all, the book, at a short 165 pages, was very much worth the read. Highly recommended. Five stars! (out of five)
It is authored not by a teacher or principal or a district official, although the title kind of implies it. It is written by Daniel Willingham, who has a doctorate from Harvard University in cognitive psychology. Why is this relevant? Simply because cognitive psychologists are true scientists, and their work is peer reviewed by other scientists before it gets published. Education schools are notorious for their lack of respect by the scientific community. Indeed, the recently published National Math Advisory Panel report observed that out of 17,000 education publications, less than 1% met the criteria for scientific validity. Enough said.
The book has a simple format. First, it is easily understood by an average reader. Each chapter introduces an assertion, followed by simple explanations and experimental evidence, followed by a Q&A section that has FAQs for teachers to modify their teaching techniques based on the assertion. What is novel here is that most of the assertions are exactly opposite of what the popular education school literature claims. I have listed a few nuggets below:
1. People are naturally curious, but they are not good thinkers: Why is this relevant? Because schools of education have focused on building "critical thinking" as one of their missions. However, if the brain is not designed well for thinking, it is good information to know. One needs to go to the following chapters to understand what is the secret of good critical thinkers.
2. Factual knowledge MUST precede skill: This is a corollary to the first assertion. Critical thinking needs factual knowledge first. Mathematical skills require mastery of multiplication facts. Throwing facts out just to concentrate on critical thinking is just not possible, because critical thinking is dependent on preceding factual knowledge. Indeed, critical thinkers tend to be only good in their narrow field of expertise (read - where they possess a lot of factual knowledge), and take a long time to gain the proficiency in a brand new field.
3. Memory is the residue of thought: This is a "duh" observation for me. What the mind dwells on the most, it tends to remember. This explains a lot, for example, why a few days after the test, those who cram for a test tend not to remember much of what they crammed. It may work to get a good grade on a test, but does not help retain what was learned.
4. New things are understood in the context of what we already know: This is the knowledge equivalent of "the rich getting richer". I had a boss once, a very smart fellow, who used to say "the brain is a difference engine". What he meant was that the brain internalizes what it knows with almost no effort, and leaves room to think about and interpret only the new information. So, those students who have been exposed to rich knowledge content early in their life tend to peel away from the rest of the pack very early. The author correlates this to the higher academic performance by those who come from families with educated parents, or higher socioeconomic background.
5. Proficiency requires practice: Another "duh" assertion. The author emphasizes that "It is virtually impossible to become proficient at a mental task without extended practice". Even experts need practice in basic skills sometimes, he says. I have observed that some mathematics curricula do not require extended practice, which is probably why they fail to produce results.
6. Cognition is fundamentally different in early and late training: Probably a corollary to assertion #4, although the author does not present it that way. A novice perceives new information in fundamentally different way than someone who is an expert. So, for example, emulating how scientists or mathematicians perform their jobs and trying to implement it in a classroom is bound to fail.
7. Children are more alike than different in terms of learning: This assertion completely refutes one of the axioms used by curriculum designers, based on the theory of multiple intelligences, and multiple learning styles. The author does not deny that there are multiple abilities, but "intelligence" is a term he reserves for how quickly the brain can process information. This fundamental difference between the author and many of the theories based on which our schools are designed, is tremendously significant. The author has one big thing going for him - results. Math curricula designed for direct instruction (a certain type of pedagogy) have consistently outperformed curricula designed around the theory of multiple intelligences and multiple learning styles.
8. Intelligence can be changed with sustained hard work: And you thought heavy lifting was only good for building six-pack abs. This assertion refutes another assumption prevalent in education schools - that intelligence is static. One is either born to be good in math or not. This has a huge implication of how students get rewarded. In a simple experiment, students who were praised for how hard they worked performed better in the long run than students who were praised for being "smart".
9. Teaching is a complex cognitive skill, and can be improved: In other words, follow the first eight rules, and one can be a good teacher. This assertion leaves a glimmer of hope for those who had subject knowledge in math, science or another area of specialty, but convinced themselves that they "just ain't got it" when it comes to teaching.
All in all, the book, at a short 165 pages, was very much worth the read. Highly recommended. Five stars! (out of five)
Saturday, May 9, 2009
When you are being chased by a bear...
When I look at the nationwide education scene, I often get reminded of this old joke:
Two buddies were hiking bare feet on a hiking trail, when a huge bear spotted them and started running towards them.
One of the buddies quickly grabbed his backpack, took his sneakers out and started putting them on.
The other one, now panicking, was puzzled. He said "Are you crazy? You can't outrun the bear in those sneakers!"
The first one replied "I don't HAVE to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun YOU!"
Unlike many developed or developing countries, the US has a decentralized education system. Almost all decisions were made at a local level at one time, until the state governments started funding schools. That has led to some interesting developments. Some states have realized, like the smart one in the story, that they just have to outrun the rest of the states in education in order to attract new businesses and promote economic growth. In these tough economic times, that rings true more than ever. Here are just a few examples of what different states have done, or are in the process of doing.
* Massachusetts, Indiana and California were some of the early pioneers in toughening up their math standards so that everyone gets college ready by graduation. They have realized that just because there are jobs for high school dropouts today, they will soon vanish. The future belongs to those who have the fundamentals in reading, writing, and math honed enough to switch to another field mid career. Career changes will be a necessity, not a luxury according to experts. So, let's say in 2020, when RoboX corporation wants to convert the old GM assembly plant in Fremont and build robots instead, they will be looking for technicians and programmers, not a high school dropout who puts bolts on nuts.
* Texas has made four years of Math and Science mandatory for all their high school graduates. When one thinks of high tech, Texas is unlikely to pop first into anyone's head, but I think they too realize that the days of big oil are limited, and the future belongs to those who understand technology. This makes their economy virtually future proof, because their graduates will most likely be CREATING the future we will all live in.
* Massachusetts and Minnesota have now asked to be separated out of the national pack in the TIMSS international study, which measures achievement in Math and Science over several grades. In the latest study, Massachusetts came in favorably compared to the top achieving nations in the world, such as Hong Kong and Finland. This pretty much validated their decision to set very high standards for all their students.
* New Hampshire, the tiny state which goes back into hibernation after the presidential primaries, has eliminated the 11th and 12th grades from their schools. Instead, the students go directly into community colleges, either to learn a trade or as freshmen in a 2 or 4 year college track. This has pretty much compressed what is taught in 12 years in 13 years of a typical K-12 curriculum into 11 years. Given that most curricula used in schools these days are thoroughly unchallenging even for an average student, this move is a bold but sensible one.
When I look at these examples, I pity the rest of the states that are scrambling to catch up. Many other states are now scrambling to catch up, and there is even talk of national standards. However, in my opinion, these attempts are only one small part of what is needed to compete. Obama and his education secretary Arne Duncan have been very eloquent in their support of education reform. However, they do not have direct control over what happens in schools. Each state, each district, each school, and each classroom has challenges that will need to be identified and worked out. In my home state of Washington, when I look at what is being done, it is clear to me that we will lag the rest of the states by a long shot. The big bear of international economic competition is merciless and relentless. Even when the US economy recovers, it appears that other states will have a jump on it before us, in terms of a well trained workforce.
Something better get done quickly before the kids in Washington state become (economic) bear fodder.
Two buddies were hiking bare feet on a hiking trail, when a huge bear spotted them and started running towards them.
One of the buddies quickly grabbed his backpack, took his sneakers out and started putting them on.
The other one, now panicking, was puzzled. He said "Are you crazy? You can't outrun the bear in those sneakers!"
The first one replied "I don't HAVE to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun YOU!"
Unlike many developed or developing countries, the US has a decentralized education system. Almost all decisions were made at a local level at one time, until the state governments started funding schools. That has led to some interesting developments. Some states have realized, like the smart one in the story, that they just have to outrun the rest of the states in education in order to attract new businesses and promote economic growth. In these tough economic times, that rings true more than ever. Here are just a few examples of what different states have done, or are in the process of doing.
* Massachusetts, Indiana and California were some of the early pioneers in toughening up their math standards so that everyone gets college ready by graduation. They have realized that just because there are jobs for high school dropouts today, they will soon vanish. The future belongs to those who have the fundamentals in reading, writing, and math honed enough to switch to another field mid career. Career changes will be a necessity, not a luxury according to experts. So, let's say in 2020, when RoboX corporation wants to convert the old GM assembly plant in Fremont and build robots instead, they will be looking for technicians and programmers, not a high school dropout who puts bolts on nuts.
* Texas has made four years of Math and Science mandatory for all their high school graduates. When one thinks of high tech, Texas is unlikely to pop first into anyone's head, but I think they too realize that the days of big oil are limited, and the future belongs to those who understand technology. This makes their economy virtually future proof, because their graduates will most likely be CREATING the future we will all live in.
* Massachusetts and Minnesota have now asked to be separated out of the national pack in the TIMSS international study, which measures achievement in Math and Science over several grades. In the latest study, Massachusetts came in favorably compared to the top achieving nations in the world, such as Hong Kong and Finland. This pretty much validated their decision to set very high standards for all their students.
* New Hampshire, the tiny state which goes back into hibernation after the presidential primaries, has eliminated the 11th and 12th grades from their schools. Instead, the students go directly into community colleges, either to learn a trade or as freshmen in a 2 or 4 year college track. This has pretty much compressed what is taught in 12 years in 13 years of a typical K-12 curriculum into 11 years. Given that most curricula used in schools these days are thoroughly unchallenging even for an average student, this move is a bold but sensible one.
When I look at these examples, I pity the rest of the states that are scrambling to catch up. Many other states are now scrambling to catch up, and there is even talk of national standards. However, in my opinion, these attempts are only one small part of what is needed to compete. Obama and his education secretary Arne Duncan have been very eloquent in their support of education reform. However, they do not have direct control over what happens in schools. Each state, each district, each school, and each classroom has challenges that will need to be identified and worked out. In my home state of Washington, when I look at what is being done, it is clear to me that we will lag the rest of the states by a long shot. The big bear of international economic competition is merciless and relentless. Even when the US economy recovers, it appears that other states will have a jump on it before us, in terms of a well trained workforce.
Something better get done quickly before the kids in Washington state become (economic) bear fodder.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Obama - The Captain of the Economic Ship
Obama survived the first 100 days. And with record approval ratings to boot.
Hooray! Who'd have thunk, right?
Bank defaults, no problem. Obama the CEO to the rescue. GM and Chrysler going under? No sweat, Obama the Chairman of the Board is there to fire the CEO of GM, and order Chrysler to go bankrupt. Millions in the nation needing health care? No problem. Obama the healer is there to help. Bring peace and prosperity to the world? Obama the conciliator is there to bring long lost respect to the US in international arena. So, Obama the miracle worker should be able to get Americans healthy, wealthy and wise once more, and bring the good old days back, right?
I think "not so fast".
This economic ship called the US of A, captained by our own Barak H Obama, has at least three boat anchors that need to be dealt with before it can be turned around, and set sail into clear waters.
Let me elaborate.
The first boat anchor is the demographics. America is aging. There are more and more people reaching retirement age, with fewer and fewer people feeding into the social security system. If it was not for immigration, we would have gone into negative population growth. But a large portion of the immigrants barely make minimum wage. And therein lies the rub. No matter how hard we try, the math of getting more taxpayers paying into the social security trust fund is not going to work, unless they increase the retirement age, cut benefits, or both. So there goes the historical standard of living. Both the young and the old, rich or poor, will have to pay more to keep even bare bones benefits alive. This is a structural issue - which means there are no feasible solutions in sight under the current legal and economic structure, without burning a huge hole into people's wallets.
The second boat anchor is the total debt in the system. I have blogged about his before, but I strongly feel it needs to be stated again. The total debt, which is the combined debt of local, state and federal governments, individuals, and businesses, is now over 50 trillion dollars. Even with 1 trillion dollar government bailout, which is a drop in the bucket, the debt is about 3.5 times the GDP. In comparison, the total debt was about 2.5 times GDP during the height of the great depression. A healthy, self sustaining economy can handle a debt load of 1.5 times GDP. So, we have about 2.0 times GDP's worth of debt to work out. That is like saying a person's maximum tolerable weight is 220 pounds, but the current weight is 500 pounds, and he needs to lose 280 pounds pronto! Those who have lost weight know, this ain't gonna happen overnight. Maybe over years, if we are lucky. And the agony will come when the governments will tax us more just to service debt, companies will charge more for their products and services, and individuals will cut down spending just to survive.
The third boat anchor is our public education system, especially the K-12. Much has been said, correctly I might add, by Obama and his ed sec Arne Duncan, on how dire the issue is. After all, it has been proven beyond doubt that a well educated workforce is more productive, and a more productive workforce can outproduce the competition and bring prosperity and wealth back to this country. But by many accounts, the system is so stuck in its own little world, blissfully oblivious of the raging storm, that any meaningful change will take more than an act of Congress to occur. I have heard archived speeches of every president of the United States, starting in the 1960's that the US will be #1 in education in the world. I have yet to see objective data that show that the goal has been achieved. If anything, in many ways, we have fallen behind more nations in the rest of the world. The worst indictment, I think, is that we are yet to officially convert to the metric system. We are not the only one, we have a banana republic (Myanmar) and a ship licensing republic (Liberia) to keep us company. The rest of the world has moved on...
I wish President Obama the best of luck as he navigates through his next 100 days!
Hooray! Who'd have thunk, right?
Bank defaults, no problem. Obama the CEO to the rescue. GM and Chrysler going under? No sweat, Obama the Chairman of the Board is there to fire the CEO of GM, and order Chrysler to go bankrupt. Millions in the nation needing health care? No problem. Obama the healer is there to help. Bring peace and prosperity to the world? Obama the conciliator is there to bring long lost respect to the US in international arena. So, Obama the miracle worker should be able to get Americans healthy, wealthy and wise once more, and bring the good old days back, right?
I think "not so fast".
This economic ship called the US of A, captained by our own Barak H Obama, has at least three boat anchors that need to be dealt with before it can be turned around, and set sail into clear waters.
Let me elaborate.
The first boat anchor is the demographics. America is aging. There are more and more people reaching retirement age, with fewer and fewer people feeding into the social security system. If it was not for immigration, we would have gone into negative population growth. But a large portion of the immigrants barely make minimum wage. And therein lies the rub. No matter how hard we try, the math of getting more taxpayers paying into the social security trust fund is not going to work, unless they increase the retirement age, cut benefits, or both. So there goes the historical standard of living. Both the young and the old, rich or poor, will have to pay more to keep even bare bones benefits alive. This is a structural issue - which means there are no feasible solutions in sight under the current legal and economic structure, without burning a huge hole into people's wallets.
The second boat anchor is the total debt in the system. I have blogged about his before, but I strongly feel it needs to be stated again. The total debt, which is the combined debt of local, state and federal governments, individuals, and businesses, is now over 50 trillion dollars. Even with 1 trillion dollar government bailout, which is a drop in the bucket, the debt is about 3.5 times the GDP. In comparison, the total debt was about 2.5 times GDP during the height of the great depression. A healthy, self sustaining economy can handle a debt load of 1.5 times GDP. So, we have about 2.0 times GDP's worth of debt to work out. That is like saying a person's maximum tolerable weight is 220 pounds, but the current weight is 500 pounds, and he needs to lose 280 pounds pronto! Those who have lost weight know, this ain't gonna happen overnight. Maybe over years, if we are lucky. And the agony will come when the governments will tax us more just to service debt, companies will charge more for their products and services, and individuals will cut down spending just to survive.
The third boat anchor is our public education system, especially the K-12. Much has been said, correctly I might add, by Obama and his ed sec Arne Duncan, on how dire the issue is. After all, it has been proven beyond doubt that a well educated workforce is more productive, and a more productive workforce can outproduce the competition and bring prosperity and wealth back to this country. But by many accounts, the system is so stuck in its own little world, blissfully oblivious of the raging storm, that any meaningful change will take more than an act of Congress to occur. I have heard archived speeches of every president of the United States, starting in the 1960's that the US will be #1 in education in the world. I have yet to see objective data that show that the goal has been achieved. If anything, in many ways, we have fallen behind more nations in the rest of the world. The worst indictment, I think, is that we are yet to officially convert to the metric system. We are not the only one, we have a banana republic (Myanmar) and a ship licensing republic (Liberia) to keep us company. The rest of the world has moved on...
I wish President Obama the best of luck as he navigates through his next 100 days!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Friedman Nails It - Again
Thomas Friedman is one of my favorite columnists. His columns continue to shed new light on the issues he brought up in his groundbreaking book "The World Is Flat". (It is now one of the required reading books for students of International Economics course at local Clark College.) In his most recent op-ed article, published in the New York Times, he sheds new light on how the lack of progress in K-12 education has hurt the US economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/opinion/22friedman.html
Headlined "Swimming Without a Suit", it has some shocking numbers. One of the estimates of the cost of poor showing in our K-12 system is summed up here: "If America had closed the international achievement gap between 1983 and 1998 and had raised its performance to the level of such nations as Finland and South Korea, United States G.D.P. in 2008 would have been between $1.3 trillion and $2.3 trillion higher." In percentage terms, the GDP would have been roughly 10 to 18 percent higher. Which in turn would have meant we did not have to have the recession we are going through now, because the economy would still be growing, instead of shrinking.
If there is a bright spot, the article mentions that more and more top Ivy league graduates are signing up for "Teach For America", an organization that provides college scholarships in exchange for two years of teaching in inner city schools. It has produced produced such distinguished alumni as Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of Washington DC schools. For many years, they have attracted top graduates from various fields, with an average college GPA above 3.5. Apparently their applications are up 40 percent this year, and most of them are graduates of top schools such as Yale, Princeton, and Harvard.
One small problem for those living in the Pacific Northwest. Teach For America does not operate here. Wonder why?
Thanks to Charles Hoff for sending me the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/opinion/22friedman.html
Headlined "Swimming Without a Suit", it has some shocking numbers. One of the estimates of the cost of poor showing in our K-12 system is summed up here: "If America had closed the international achievement gap between 1983 and 1998 and had raised its performance to the level of such nations as Finland and South Korea, United States G.D.P. in 2008 would have been between $1.3 trillion and $2.3 trillion higher." In percentage terms, the GDP would have been roughly 10 to 18 percent higher. Which in turn would have meant we did not have to have the recession we are going through now, because the economy would still be growing, instead of shrinking.
If there is a bright spot, the article mentions that more and more top Ivy league graduates are signing up for "Teach For America", an organization that provides college scholarships in exchange for two years of teaching in inner city schools. It has produced produced such distinguished alumni as Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of Washington DC schools. For many years, they have attracted top graduates from various fields, with an average college GPA above 3.5. Apparently their applications are up 40 percent this year, and most of them are graduates of top schools such as Yale, Princeton, and Harvard.
One small problem for those living in the Pacific Northwest. Teach For America does not operate here. Wonder why?
Thanks to Charles Hoff for sending me the link.
Monday, April 20, 2009
College Freshmen Still Struggle with Basic Algebra
I found this on another web group on math. It quotes an article from the campus newspaper at Oregon State University, the premier state "tech", known for its strong engineering department. Now, you need to realize that this is a student run paper, with a staff made up entirely of students. Even they are now sensing that something is fishy. Maybe they are not so naive as we think. Another thing to note is that Math 111 is college algebra, which is a remedial math course, about the same level as a rigorous high school Algebra 2 course, for those who do not pass the college math placement test. Here is the headline:
"Math 111 continues to be slippery slope for OSU students
Problems with Math 111 are believed to stem from students' inadequate grade school teaching in math"
The article goes on to say "Math 111 has been rumored throughout campus to be one of the most failed classes at Oregon State. Many students go into class with that expectation."
and an observation from a freshman math professor "After 10 years of teaching the course, Argyres said he felt that many students go into the course feeling they can just memorize things, but he said it's really all about understanding concepts. He said he feels that this issue originates in elementary school." "When students never learned the basic information appropriately in high school, or earlier, it is significantly more difficult for them to succeed when they get to college algebra."
I was aware that the school district that my kids attended in Oregon used "Mathland" for elementary schools in the early 2000's, and switched to "Investigations" around 2005. Now they are moving to "Everyday Math". In other words, they have hopped from one reform curriculum to another, without really making a substantial move towards what I consider real math. Here is a quote from the OSU professor which pretty much sums it up:
"Mathematics is densely a foreign language with a foreign spelling routine with all these different symbols," Argyres said. "Part of [understanding the language] is understanding what we mean by the symbols."
Read the full article here:
http://media.barometer.orst.edu/media/storage/paper854/news/2009/04/20/News/Math-111.Continues.To.Be.Slippery.Slope.For.Osu.Students-3717089.shtml
"Math 111 continues to be slippery slope for OSU students
Problems with Math 111 are believed to stem from students' inadequate grade school teaching in math"
The article goes on to say "Math 111 has been rumored throughout campus to be one of the most failed classes at Oregon State. Many students go into class with that expectation."
and an observation from a freshman math professor "After 10 years of teaching the course, Argyres said he felt that many students go into the course feeling they can just memorize things, but he said it's really all about understanding concepts. He said he feels that this issue originates in elementary school." "When students never learned the basic information appropriately in high school, or earlier, it is significantly more difficult for them to succeed when they get to college algebra."
I was aware that the school district that my kids attended in Oregon used "Mathland" for elementary schools in the early 2000's, and switched to "Investigations" around 2005. Now they are moving to "Everyday Math". In other words, they have hopped from one reform curriculum to another, without really making a substantial move towards what I consider real math. Here is a quote from the OSU professor which pretty much sums it up:
"Mathematics is densely a foreign language with a foreign spelling routine with all these different symbols," Argyres said. "Part of [understanding the language] is understanding what we mean by the symbols."
Read the full article here:
http://media.barometer.orst.edu/media/storage/paper854/news/2009/04/20/News/Math-111.Continues.To.Be.Slippery.Slope.For.Osu.Students-3717089.shtml
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Boeing Opens R&D Center in Bangalore
Here is a new article that came over the newswires. The link below is for a local on line newspaper in India.
http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=broadcast&broadcastid=118670#
Here are some exerpts that caught my eye:
Bangalore, March 31 (IANS) Global aerospace major Boeing has set up a research and technology lab here to develop advanced aerospace technologies and solutions for its next-generation products and services, a senior official said Tuesday.
The India lab, Boeing's third of its kind outside the US, will initially have 30 aerospace engineers working on multiple projects that include advanced aircraft and spacecraft designs and new structure and materials technologies.
"Another 100 engineers will collaborate with our various projects being carried out with Indian academia, research and development (R&D) institutions and private and public enterprises," Boeing chief technology officer John J. Tracy told reporters at the unveiling of the lab here.
"The investments are in millions of dollars from our global R&D budget, which runs into billions of dollars per annum," Tracy added.
Boeing has six advanced R&D labs across the US, and one overseas lab each in Australia and Spain - which together employ about 4,100 engineers.
Clarifying that Boeing was not downsizing its operations in the recession-hit US or shipping projects to this country, Tracy said India's exceptional talent pool with high math quotient and analysis skill was the prime reason for locating its third overseas R&D lab in Bangalore.
"Core technologies are vital for global aerospace eco-system comprising R&D, engineering and IT (software). The criteria is to develop cutting-edge technologies to ensure affordability, breakthrough performance, sustainability and eco-friendly products and services to our customers worldwide," Tracy affirmed.
It is interesting to note that Boeing has specifically called out the "high math quotient and analysis skill" of Engineers trained in India.
The question in my mind - why go halfway across the world just to hire 130 engineers? Can't we get them here in Seattle? Don't our engineers have high math quotients and analysis skills?
What am I missing?
http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=broadcast&broadcastid=118670#
Here are some exerpts that caught my eye:
Bangalore, March 31 (IANS) Global aerospace major Boeing has set up a research and technology lab here to develop advanced aerospace technologies and solutions for its next-generation products and services, a senior official said Tuesday.
The India lab, Boeing's third of its kind outside the US, will initially have 30 aerospace engineers working on multiple projects that include advanced aircraft and spacecraft designs and new structure and materials technologies.
"Another 100 engineers will collaborate with our various projects being carried out with Indian academia, research and development (R&D) institutions and private and public enterprises," Boeing chief technology officer John J. Tracy told reporters at the unveiling of the lab here.
"The investments are in millions of dollars from our global R&D budget, which runs into billions of dollars per annum," Tracy added.
Boeing has six advanced R&D labs across the US, and one overseas lab each in Australia and Spain - which together employ about 4,100 engineers.
Clarifying that Boeing was not downsizing its operations in the recession-hit US or shipping projects to this country, Tracy said India's exceptional talent pool with high math quotient and analysis skill was the prime reason for locating its third overseas R&D lab in Bangalore.
"Core technologies are vital for global aerospace eco-system comprising R&D, engineering and IT (software). The criteria is to develop cutting-edge technologies to ensure affordability, breakthrough performance, sustainability and eco-friendly products and services to our customers worldwide," Tracy affirmed.
It is interesting to note that Boeing has specifically called out the "high math quotient and analysis skill" of Engineers trained in India.
The question in my mind - why go halfway across the world just to hire 130 engineers? Can't we get them here in Seattle? Don't our engineers have high math quotients and analysis skills?
What am I missing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)