On the eve of America's 230th, the New York Times steps to the plate with a short, sweet editorial calling for more and better science education:
Some universities have already realized the need for better ways of teaching. But this means revising an incentive system that has historically rewarded scientists for making discoveries and publishing academic papers, not for nurturing the next generation of great minds.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
And by "it", I don't mean the good stuff. Harvard dean Theda Skocpol has announced a new initiative to improve undergraduate teaching at Harvard. I'll believe it when I see it--which means it will never happen. Here's why.
The short version is that every year (give or take), some prestigious…
Brian C. Martinson has written an excellent commentary that appears in the 13 September issue of Nature. The topic of "Universities and The Money Fix" is the discordance between the goals of NIH and research universities in conducting biomedical research and, as a result, generating research…
The "slow movement" is a vast beast: there's Slow Food, Slow Travel, Slow Money, and even, I kid you not, Slow Reading. These movements all begin with the premise that modern culture emphasizes ever increasing speed and convenience (cue the Eagle's: "Listen, baby. You can hear the engine ring. We'…
Welcome to the latest installment in my very occasional series of interviews with people in the scitech world. This time around the subject is Michael Nielsen, author of the recently published Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science and prolific speaker on the Open Science lecture…
All good ideas.
However, care must be taken to be sure that big-industry/big money doesn't step in, to provide much-needed "help" (financial assistance), but ends up shaping what can and cannot be taught, instead.
Heh heh. Check your spelling of "education".