High drop-out rates from third-level courses in science and technology, as reported by the Irish Times this week, elicited the usual chorus of concern. The implicit suggestion is that those lazy, science-averse kids are endangering our future. We need science graduates - truckloads of them - to take us to the 21st century's version of the promised land - the fabled 'smart economy'.
We will get them, so the chorus of concern goes, by changing our teaching methods. Science and education minister Batt O'Keeffe says that making science more "practical" will help to address the issue. Dublin City University, says president Ferdinand von Prondzynski, has introduced a "new framework of student support", which should lead to significant improvements. IBEC, the employers' lobby, says it has "serious concerns" about the way science and maths are taught at second level.
More tellingly, the same organisation also notes that some students may not be equipped to study science. It would be extremely interesting to hear the individual stories behind the bare statistics - why a particular student opted for science in the first place; whether the course matched his or her expectations; and why she or he decided she or he would not or could not continue.
I wonder whether we are now reaping what we sowed. The current crop of science students has - unlike any previous generation - been on the receiving end of a significant state-supported campaign intended to make science seem sexy. One sponsored TV series gave science the MTV treatment (disclosure: I did a very small amount of work on this). Another, also heavily sponsored, adopted a crisp, urgent tone, somewhat reminiscient of an espionage thriller.
We've spent a lot of time, energy and money telling young people 'science is fun' - and maybe even cool. We've neglected to tell them that science can also be a bit difficult - and maybe, for many, not a whole lot of fun at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment