Bill Nye thinks Socialization > Science Education

AfterInfinity
I wouldn't be interested in working with you because I've witnessed your aptitude for leaping to assumptions and succumbing to bias. You should work on that.

He doesn't have to work with anyone he doesn't want to work with in creating a science curriculum. He doesn't have to have any relationship with homeschoolers at all. He would just be providing the material. You're pretty funny though in your exaggeration of how far I can jump.

Tried looking at the commoncore.org site to get an idea of what they taught for science but found no mention of it. Nada, zip. Maybe schools have a separate curriculum for science.

Anyway grade / middle / high schools have only ever taught basic level sciences anyway so maybe the home school crowd should just grab some text books from the 60's - 80's, find the required updated info and call it good. Can't imagine common core would even come close to that.

Forget Bill Nye.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Mr. Nye had a debate not long ago with a creationist, which means that he drew considerable attention to himself from both favorable and not-so-favorable parties which may or may not be interested in handpicking selections from his public networks and broadcasting them in any form of campaign for any reason. What we can observe in the screencapped thread is someone's attempt to extract a recommendation that's light on the spiritual and heavy on the scientific, but not in such diplomatic terms. Given that he's still in something of a hot seat from his exchange with such a touted spiritualist as Mr. Ham, it would be poor form for Nye to sit back, relax, think, "Hey, this is my Facebook, I can say what I want," and give a hastily constructed response that could be construed as offensive and potentially discriminatory. This is the sort of trap many professionals have fallen into, thinking they've secured their victory and only finding out after some out-of-context scrap from a blog or Twitter account makes its way into the mass media that the battle was won, but the war was just beginning. Anyway, Bill instead decides to give a relatively neutral response which provides a tongue-in-cheek anecdote about people learning to work together. Anyone with five minutes to devote to sitting and thinking may have the capacity to discern that this is a subtle nudge from an experienced scientist and observationalist encouraging us to set aside our differences and learn with and through one another instead of capitalizing on relatively trivial matters of personal taste in order to drive a wedge where a wedge need not be driven. His attempt to send this between-the-lines message has, regrettably, gone unnoticed in the immediate flood of complaints which evidently claim that our beloved scientist would stoop to such depths as to make political charged suggestions.

Which, if you've read anything I just posted above, is absolutely ridiculous. But you know, people will be people. And they always believe what they want to believe. No good deed, eh?

AfterInfinity
I wouldn't be interested in working with you because I've witnessed your aptitude for leaping to assumptions and succumbing to bias. You should work on that.

Anyways, why do we need an insult fest?
Wasn't this thread about 'Homeschooling curriculum' or something?
How did that happen?

And how can you be so great at working with people if a simple disagreement leads to complete denial of being willing to work with someone? Where did you learn that ? School?

*Looks at AfterInfinity glaringly*

AfterInfinity

muzzleflash
Yeah OP what are you talking about?
Public school is the best, and our corporations are doing great things for our planet and ecosystem!
Don't you know that being part of the herd is what life is all about??

/end Sarcasm

By the way the guy in your OP is a sham, an establishment yes-man.
Few have ego issues worse than I, but this "Science Guy" is for sure one of them.
And he isn't very "Scientific" either, mostly just opinionated and insulting.

When you come out with a television series, books, lectures, and numerous awards as a result of your educational (and scientific) accomplishments, I think we'll all be more inclined to take your knee-jerk criticisms seriously. But for the time being, it's real cheap to talk trash on an internet forum.

His awards don't necessarily make him great or worthy of adoration.
Just look at Obama and his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for an example.
Nye's political affiliations are obviously a big part of how he pushes issues and ideas. He is always thinking about those things and then checking if they are acceptable in his little book of liberal sociology..

I've made my statement on the subject. I've nothing more to say. I also withdraw my previous responses, as quoted in responses from various members. My sincere apologies for my ill-tempered remarks.

eMachine

bigfatfurrytexan
well, anecdotal info is just that.

Indeed it is. There are all kinds of homeschoolers, some more successful than others. There are all kinds of public-schoolers as well, some more successful than others. This thread isn't intended to be an argument about what is better, only that there are families in need of a good science curriculum and Nye totally blew them off. It's his loss and his failure to live up to what he claims to be.

That about sums it up. It isn't his response, really. He has valid points regarding socialization and team work. But a good home schooler works on addressing those educational needs, too (I know some....and it can definitely be done right if a home isn't required to be 2 income).

All he has to do is provide some leadership by making money off of curricula. People are begging him to take their money.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Thank you for taking part! I accept your apology. /hugs

AfterInfinity


When you come out with a television series, books, lectures, and numerous awards as a result of your educational (and scientific) accomplishments, I think we'll all be more inclined to take your knee-jerk criticisms seriously. But for the time being, it's real cheap to talk trash on an internet forum.

That's what is wrong with our society today.
You need to be on TV or have "Awards" from the establishment in order to be considered "legit".
It's lame and it's not valid scientifically speaking.

I believe within the last six or so threads I have written I have offered more to humanity than most ever will.
You can ignore me and deny that but all that matters is that I know inside my heart that it is True and I am doing the right thing.
I know I am just as good and smart as this Nye guy, if not more. I don't need an award to know that.

The fact that almost everything in those threads is 'arcane' information hardly known by anyone proves the point that public school is a complete failure in terms of a serious education in the liberal arts of the mind.

So not being willing to offer others help when they ask specifically for it (like for science pointers from a 'science guy'), is a complete travesty in of itself because it underlines exactly what is wrong.

eMachine

boncho
You can't take full advantage of the sciences with home school education.

Why was Michio Kaku building stuff in his garage, at home? Jeez, he should have been taking more advantage of his school's resources...

edit on 2/11/2014 by eMachine because: garage, not basement

I said you can't take full advantage of the sciences with home school education, I didn't say you can't be interested or learn basic science principles. Eventually though, you will have to get socialized to take full advantage of the field.

And even then there will be hurdles, privatization, politics, government regulation.

Everything in this thread is a straw man argument. Bill Nye promotes science education and interest in science. He did for years in media, trying to reach out kids to make it popular. He might not be a nobel winner, but he's at least made his life trying to promote the subject.

His Q&A was in response to the Ham debate. Which the underlying issue is Ham pushing his 6000 year old Earth view, his cherry picking interpretations of the bible, and his view that either evolution be removed from schools or creationism should be taught along side it.

The woman's comment, was out of place in the Q&A. Since there is an issue of Ham's followers removing them from school to avoid evolution, and controlling curricula.

In any case, he has promoted better science education in public schools. So it fits in line with everything he's done before that as well.

People complain about the state of public schools, but the answer is not homeschooling. While homeschooling is great, and can be much better in many circumstances, for the vast majority of people that don't have the time, intellect, or patience to properly guide their children through learning, a great mind could easily lack resources to learn, guidance and/or opportunity.

Consider people who made it out of poor areas through the school system.

or

The types of people (adults) who jump on every new fad simply because their political view, personal bias, etc affects their decision making process. Are these people the best opportunity for kids learning?

Last time I checked, being a doctor doesn't make you a good police officer.

If public schools are crap, perhaps work on reforming the school system.
-

Bottom line, taking this as "offensive" to home schoolers, is really stupid. And probably shows people offended by it shouldn't be home schooling.

reply to post by eMachine


Bill is a progressive scum bag......He really is. And no I am not a religious person. He is part of the PTB propaganda machine that is trying to brainwash the youth. Progressives have infected every level of schooling and are teaching the children of today to be weak and apathetic so they can be easily ruled later in life.



Look around you next time you are out and ask yourself is this fragmented dependent world ripe for the taking. PTB set this up years ago and it payed off people are dependent simple minded and could care less about anyone but themselves. And no this is not everyone but the majority do fit in this box because of the progressive mindset.

boncho
Bottom line, taking this as "offensive" to home schoolers, is really stupid. And probably shows people offended by it shouldn't be home schooling.

Those offended by it seem to be the ones who had previously held him in high regard. I wouldn't say they were "offended by him" so much as they were "disappointed in him". I'm not one of them, though I do think it would have been wise of him to take the hint from them and reap the benefits.

I'm impressed that you can so keenly discern whether a person is capable of homeschooling or not. Lucky for them, your opinion on the matter doesn't matter (unless you're in the business of creating state-level legislation).

eMachine

boncho
You can't take full advantage of the sciences with home school education.

Why was Michio Kaku building stuff in his garage, at home? Jeez, he should have been taking more advantage of his school's resources...

edit on 2/11/2014 by eMachine because: garage, not basement

So, the full scope of your comment:

Kaku was born in San Jose, California to Japanese immigrant parents (with Tibetan DNA ancestry).[1] His grandfather was in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.[2] His father was born in California but was educated in Japan and spoke little English. Both his parents were put in the Tule Lake War Relocation Center, where they met and where his brother was born.

While attending Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, Kaku assembled a particle accelerator in his parents' garage for a science fair project.

en.wikipedia.org...

Parents that don't speak English, unable to educate their son in the language of the country he was living in. He went to Cubberly High School, and his projects "in his garage", was for a high school science project.

So he wasn't homeschooled, he took advantage of the public school, and his inspiration to "do science in his garage" was for a science fair, not for impressing his mom.

You completely fail with your example.

reply to post by boncho

I didn't say he was homeschooled at all. I know he wasn't. I was using the example because, although he was attending a school, he worked on his project in his garage. Did his school have the resources he needed? Would they have given him access to them? I don't know, but I do think there is alot of "red tape" when it comes to that sort of science project.

Edited to add: To support homeschooling does not mean they want to bring about the end of public schooling. Just thought I should clarify this for you.

Who says you can't do science at home?
It's not like you can purchase a methamphetamine laboratory at Hobby Lobby.

eMachine

boncho
Bottom line, taking this as "offensive" to home schoolers, is really stupid. And probably shows people offended by it shouldn't be home schooling.

Those offended by it seem to be the ones who had previously held him in high regard. I wouldn't say they were "offended by him" so much as they were "disappointed in him".

Why, did they send him a business proposal for creating a science curriculum for homeschooling and he said he wouldn't do it based on his distain of homeschooling? Or are they disappointed because they posted a question on creationism vs scientific facts debate, and he answered in a neutral way, while promoting social education?

I'm not one of them, though I do think it would have been wise of him to take the hint from them and reap the benefits.
.

Reap what benefits? Did you expect him to pull a curriculum out of his ass and link it in the comment section? And sell it for 59.99…

I'm impressed that you can so keenly discern whether a person is capable of homeschooling or not.

I don't think I gave mention of who is or who isn't capable of homeschooling. I simply said that some will be good at it and some wont. Some kids will develop greatly being homeschooled, but the majority won't because the majority does not have the means to either provide time and/or resources, and/or knowledge, for their kids to have the best chance at excelling academically.

Lucky for them, your opinion on the matter doesn't matter (unless you're in the business of creating state-level legislation)

Why, did I say homeschooling should be outlawed? The laws on homeschooling are pretty old are they not? (Besides individual state laws). I said that not everyone is best for home schooling, I didn't say that it should be illegal. I also said that public schools need to improve, and a major effort to do that would far outweigh encouraging people to take their kids out of school.

Part of learning is structure. And home schooling breaks down structured learning.

boncho
Part of learning is structure. And home schooling breaks down structured learning.

This is the structure you're referring to?

When schools were taken over by the state and made compulsory, and directed toward secular ends, the basic structure and methods of schooling remained unchanged. Subsequent attempts at reform have failed because, though they have tinkered some with the structure, they haven’t altered the basic blueprint. The top-down, teach-and-test method, in which learning is motivated by a system of rewards and punishments rather than by curiosity or by any real, felt desire to know, is well designed for indoctrination and obedience training but not much else.

From this thought-provoking Salon.com article, which goes on to say:

Most students — whether A students, C students, or failing ones — have lost their zest for learning by the time they reach middle school or high school. In a recent research study, Mihaly Czikszentmihalyl and Jeremy Hunter fitted more than 800 sixth- through 12th-graders, from 33 different schools across the country, with special wristwatches that provided a signal at random times of day. Whenever the signal appeared, they were to fill out a questionnaire indicating where they were, what they were doing, and how happy or unhappy they were at the moment. The lowest levels of happiness, by far, occurred when they were in school and the highest levels occurred when they were out of school playing or talking with friends. In school, they were often bored, anxious or both. Other researchers have shown that, with each successive grade, students develop increasingly negative attitudes toward the subjects taught, especially math and science.

As a society, we tend to shrug off such findings. We’re not surprised that learning is unpleasant. We think of it as bad-tasting medicine, tough to swallow but good for children in the long run. Some people even think that the very unpleasantness of school is good for children, so they will learn to tolerate unpleasantness, because life after school is unpleasant. Perhaps this sad view of life derives from schooling. Of course, life has its ups and downs, in adulthood and in childhood. But there are plenty of opportunities to learn to tolerate unpleasantness without adding unpleasant schooling to the mix. Research has shown that people of all ages learn best when they are self-motivated, pursuing questions that are their own real questions, and goals that are their own real-life goals. In such conditions, learning is usually joyful.

I recommend reading the entire article. Great read for anyone interested in education theory.

eMachine
reply to post by boncho

 

I didn't say he was homeschooled at all.

No you didn't, which makes the point you were trying to implying by quoting my single sentence, in a paragraph pretty pointless. If he had been homeschooled, you might have a point. For a refresher, you quoted:

Me:You can't take full advantage of the sciences with home school education.

And then you said:

You:Why was Michio Kaku building stuff in his garage, at home? Jeez, he should have been taking more advantage of his school's resources...

Whether he built in the garage is really irrelevant. Since he was doing it for a high school science fair. Which is the "Socialization" part. Encouraging kids to compete against each other, exchanging information and ideas. He wasn't homeschooled, therefore your point does not really have any relevance when I said that closed sciences will not progress as far as open sciences.

I know he wasn't. I was using the example because, although he was attending a school, he worked on his project in his garage. Did his school have the resources he needed? Would they have given him access to them? I don't know, but I do think there is alot of "red tape" when it comes to that sort of science project.

Okay, so in other words you are back peddling.

Edited to add: To support homeschooling does not mean they want to bring about the end of public schooling. Just thought I should clarify this for you.

edit on 2/11/2014 by eMachine because: (no reason given)

I don't think I said that. But apparently promoting public school science programs is akin to saying you want homeschooling outlawed?

reply to post by boncho

There are actually science fairs for homeschoolers all around the country.

Anyway, I brought up Michio Kaku, because you were lamenting the homeschoolers inability to take advantage of public school resources. I thought I should point out that young Michio Kaku chose not to take advantage of those resources and opted to prepare his project at home instead. Pretty simple point I thought I was making there. I don't have to backpedal, I just have to repeat myself using different verbiage since you misunderstood.

reply to post by eMachine

This is the structure you're referring to?

No. Since your are trying to make a non-sensical argument. Structure is structure. Whether it's attending a place everyday, or completing a set amount of tasks.

Home-school can be structured. But this either requires an intense amount of self-discipline, or a parent, teacher or other to ensure the structure is maintained. 1 person can teach more than 1 student, which makes social learning more efficient for one.

Public school, I have already stated has problems. Major problems. I loathe public schools. Private schools on the other hand have great structured learning, and are able to back it up with real world data. (Not anecdotal evidence like the school in the article).

Speaking of structure though, perhaps take a look at confucian principles, understand that Chinese is a language with over 10,000 varying individual characters, multiple tones that denote different words, and explain how it was taught to people for thousands of years without structure.

I will address the article now as I read it entirety and looked at various sides of the argument:

The lowest levels of happiness, by far, occurred when they were in school and the highest levels occurred when they were out of school playing or talking with friends. In school, they were often bored, anxious or both. Other researchers have shown that, with each successive grade, students develop increasingly negative attitudes toward the subjects taught, especially math and science.

Well, this isn't really surprising. I presume if we feed chocolate to kids for 12 hours, give them video games, and let them watch bum fights they will be entertained too, and happy.

The author does make some valid points about the public school system, so much I thought I'd be in agreement with their opinion by the end, except that they go on to plug, Sudbury Valley school.

Unfortunately, SVS does not release any data for an independent confirmation of their success with their students. Everything you find is either provided by them, and entirely anecdotal. And even from a comment supportive of them, they do mention:

Studies like these are *self-selecting*. Only about half of the graduates they contacted responded. Furthermore, it seems that for a school that's been around of 35-40 years, it seems that there weren't that many kids who went there for great lengths of time - never mind from start to finish. And I've read Greenberg say, elsewhere, that his school *has never been full*.

*

If SVS only hears back from 50% of its students that graduate, they cannot claim an 80% rate of those kids entering college. Furthermore, if the school had 100 students, but only 10 actually completed their time there, and only 4 out of 5 they could get a response from went to college, the 80% rate of college graduation doesn't seem that great does it? (4 Based on 100).

So anything from that example is absolutely pointless in a discussion of facts.