Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Is our children learning?

The New York Times is that high school students in the US are ranked in the bottom half of developed nations for mathematical ability. Now, regardless of whether this figure is actually significant, and there reasons to believe it isn't, it does back up my oft-repeated complaint that students in this country can't do science. Now, while the cynic inside me would love to say this is because we're a country of idiots, there's gotta be a better reason.

There's a definite imbalance in our education system with respect to the sciences. The whole culture values them much less than, say, History or English classes. The sciences (I'm including math in this group, to be clear), tend to be viewed solely as a chore, as something that must be done, but that isn't really relevant, but which you just have to eke a pass out of before you can get onto the real classes. Someone please correct me if your experience has been different elsewhere, but this is what I've observed.

If this country is going to improve its science education, it needs an entire attitude shift concerning them. Students love to ask why we're taking math, but comparatively few seem to question why reading King Lear is worthwhile. Somehow the attitude needs to change, students need to appreciate learning math, or at least accept it as worthwhile. The question, of course, is how to best encourage such a change in attitude. First, we need to figure out exactly why we're teaching math and science, and change the curriculum appropriately. The canonical justification for English classes is to learn to write, and many classes are even structured towards that goal. We need to learn to think of the sciences with a similar goal, rather than as something we teach just because you ought know them.

Most importantly, I think, we need to somehow get students interested in science. Maybe it's just because I'm a geek, but the idea of science is really cool. It lets you explain how and why the world works. Children are invariably born with an incredible curiosity, offering remarkably insightful questions, but as soon as they hit school, they seem to stop caring. Clearly there's something wrong, and it needs to be addressed. (I can't resist a cynical note: Maybe that's why people like religion - it conveniently explains everything without entailing real thought (I don't completely mean that, but I think it's worth thinking about)). And even without that aspect, the scientific method as we understand it is really the core of how we think as a culture. It needs to be taught, not via rote memorization of stages or steps, but in an understandable way. A way that conveys the simplicity and essential brilliance of the ideas of falsifiablility, repeatability, and the other core ideas of how we formulate hypotheses that should apply to any form of logical argument, whenever at all possible.

Cheater.

Reading an awesome story yesterday started me thinking about what "cheating" really means in the context of a casino.

For those too lazy to read the article, the gamblers in question won over a million pounds in a UK casino by using a laser sensor mounted on a cell phone to measure the speed and rotation of the ball, and predict its end position, with about 1 in 6 accuracy. They were arrested after the casino inspected video footage, but were let go without any charges being pressed, and allowed to keep their money.

In Nevada casinos, however, this would be illegal, I believe - laws prohibit the use of any computer to aid gambling in casinos, as I understand it. But, is there really anything wrong with what they did? I think it's clear that they're not unfairly altering the outcome of the game in any way, so they're OK on that count.

The concept of gaining access to unfair information is another possible form of cheating. But this one seems hazier to me. If you reach across while a dealer's not looking and peek at the next card in the deck (obviously unrealistic, but hey, this is theory), that's, to me at least, not cool. But what if the dealer is a klutz and flashes it at you by accident? And not just you, but the whole table, every time, so that if you're watching carefully you'll see it? That, as I see it, is much closer to what's happening here. The information about the speed and movement of the ball is available to anyone paying close enough attention, just most don't take advantage of it. Does that make it wrong, however?