Bill Nye on America's "Horrible" Science Education

Has this guy ever looked in the mirror?? What moron came up with the concept of having a super-nerd with a bow-tie 'teaching' science on TV? If there was ever an image to drive kids away from science, it's this guy's geeky photo.

I remember Mr. Wizard. Now, he knew how to make science fun with no nerd factor whatever.

Oh, yes Mr. Wizard! (aka Don Herbert when off-duty). Sadly deceased now.

Bill Nye is of a similar vein. Although he did (and still does) come off as "geeky" I think he does so largely tongue-in-cheek. More a careful parody of the stereotype - which I think most kids get. And keep in mind he had to make his now-cancelled "Bill Nye the Science Guy" program much more visually exciting for kids today.

The above also holds true for the also-cancelled kids' program "Beakman's World" with co-host Paul Zaloom as the wonderfully freaky Dr. Beakman.

A current science program older kids might enjoy is NOVA scienceNOW, shown on PBS. Hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who does an excellent job. That show (along with it's originating series NOVA which has been running non-stop for amost 4 decades now) is well worth checking out.

OH OH! You have entered the "Sports Zone".

One thing that would improve an interest in science is to start introducing science at a very young age. I am of the opinion that science could easily be taught in Kindergarten. After raising my three kids, I know they are interested in everything. Its a beautiful world through the eyes of a child. They are already enthusiastic. What we adults have to do is keep them interested. We can't bore them with rote learning even though I think some is essential ( multiplication tables, writing skills). Why hold the kids back in the junior grades only to try to restart the process when they are 11 or 12. The interest is already there, its innate, but we do suppress this natural curiosity to introduce more abstract principles.

I for one think Bill Nye is dead on format for young kids. Never underestimate the ability of a kid to learn nor the desire. My son could format a windows program with the old floppy disc stuff that boggled my capability. This was well before micro soft or mac had windows. Nurture a curiosity and you will get big juicy tomatoes. Start young and the younger the better. The nurturing need not be restricted to science.

I tell my science students (I'm a tutor and Science Fair Judge, but not a classroom, lock-step paid teacher. I volunteer) that being smart isn't near as important for life as being curious; that an absolutely voracious curiosity will keep life from ever being boring, stale, or lonely.

I'm the only one in my family who ever understood much about science, be it biology (did well in school, don't like it as much now), chemistry (like it, but can't seem to get the grasp of it I'd like, so I keep trying), or physic (my favorite, then and now), and as a result of my always being off playing with science, from the time I was in 5th grade on, my father always thought all I did was play with toys (he was a scholar, and an academic, and an author. A brilliant theology teacher and pastor, just pointed in a different direction), with the result that I spent much of my childhood "playing" alone (or hiding from the police, when some of my experiments went more spectacularly wrong). But, because my mother supported me, whether she understood me or not, I don't think I came out "bent, broken, spindled, or mutilated".

I think our kids need the support of their parents more than any other factor when they first start getting curious about science. My parents never knew the answers to a lot of my questions, but they DID provide me the means and encouragement to find them. And that paid off big time!

I agree wholeheartedly; children are naturally curious. It is always a plus to have parents that support the curiosity with attention and nurturing. The schools on the other hand, in my experience with my own kids, seem to forget this curiosity in the earliest grades. That is on big mistake as that is the time when the young are most curious. Teachers are the key when parents slip ( most families have two working parents, they are tired, too late home to pay the attention to what is needed, some may not be capable to teach).

I believe that some sort of formal science needs to be introduced before the sixth grade as appears to be the case where I live (Ontario, Canada). Most grade school teachers seem to come out of arts programs and not science. It would be better to recruit a host of teachers with science or engineering backgrounds to teach the early grades. Teachers are very well paid in this country and I do believe that more of the science teachers could be recruited. Teachers are now earning close to $90K/year plus benefits and a very sweetheart pension fund. Yeah, teachers unions are strong. The other problem I see is that a lot of school boards are top heavy with former teachers (who predominate with their art degrees). And they do the recruiting.

GA to you and Guest #6.

Predominate with their arts degrees.

And we are Philistines.

I am blessed with a wife who is an artist, and teaches art, but REALLY appreciates people who can design, build, engineer, and turn wrenches on intricate stuff.

Best of two worlds, with both an artist AND an engineer in the family. Our kids do art in strange or unique materials, with absolutely nothing escaping their interest. As a result, one is a computer graphics artist, two are nurses, one designs and builds houses AND furniture. And all are happy and productive. Though one IS still finding his niche.

But no arts degreed teachers. Sorry, I guess, need not apply.

Sorry Micahd02. I am not referring to the fine arts teachers. The Arts degree encompasses many subjects and is often broken down as Arts and Science. The Arts courses entered at a university level include things like social geography, political science, history, sociology, math, Phys ed, etc. The job market for these students often leads to a path in a teaching career. And yes, even these arts students have a niche/need to teach. I just think if we are to compare a benefit to contribute to science we will need the teacher schooled in science and engineering. The fine arts, painting, music, sculpting, etc have very positive skills to contribute to young minds. I would never say any arts student need not apply. Rather, I think the hiring of teachers in science and engineering, that are currently lacking for junior grades, are sorely needed. Fine arts students will always be in demand to teach.

My apologies. I jumped to a broad generalization. And you are correct in all you've said. No offense intended to any who might BE fine arts grads, or teachers of fine arts, but if any is taken, the fault is clearly mine alone.

That said, in relooking at my knee-jerk reaction (c'mon, guys, I know some of your are thinking "hey, don't be so hard on yourself", but it is ME I'm being so hard on. And I know my long and hard fought propensity for knee-jerking on certain subjects. So, thanks, bur I need the bruises), I think it is entirely right for an Arts Grad to teach Arts courses. I think the error many education managers make is in assuming that someone with a graduate degree can teach, ergo they can teach ANY subject. The view seems to be that without a degree of some kind, nothing can be taught (I had many a spirited debate with a young Science teacher with whose students I used to work in Science Fair competition. She would come to me for ideas and advice one moment, and the next realize that I wasn't a degreed teacher, and tell me that I wasn't qualified to tutor, nor judge, Science Competition. Then she would dither about whether I was just DIFFERENT than the people she really had in mind, or whether all teachers had to have degrees. Oh,well), but that with a degree, regardless of field, anything is teachable. I think the "hard" sciences (my term for the Math/Bio/Chem/Physics/Applied Science courses, including such things as Electronics, where I got my start with an altruistic Ham operator) should be taught by someone both experienced in the hard sciences, and qualified as a teacher. I count myself among the first, with 45 years in electronic design, fabrication, repair, assembly, etc., but I do not count myself among the second, i.e., I am not a stand-up-in-front-of-a-classroom and teach a group of students, who may or may not have an interest, and may or may not present discipline and disruption problems while I'm teaching. But I can, and do, teach motivated students one-on-one and in small motivated groups.

But I don't teach any of the arts, fine or otherwise. I respect and admire those who do, whether in a classroom or one-on-one, as long as they don't try to teach science and math without proper knowledge of the subjects.

No apology required. There are many contributors to an education of a child. It is quite easy to become a niche expert without any formal education (degrees?). All one has to do is maintain his or her curiosity and be willing to read and learn. Most of the universities teach one to research subjects. They give you a bases but in the long run it is up to the individual to really learn. We learn on the job and sometimes the best raised questions come from having to solve a problem. It is this observed and learned knowledge that needs to be passed on and I commend you for you ability and opportunity that you have created.

My hue and cry is that we suspend the science aspect of teaching in the very critical early grades including kindergarten. You certainly have the right attitude.

Thank you. And I'm in full agreement about the earliest possible start. I'm even now trying to arrange an opportunity to speak to all grades, individually, about what is needed in their grade and group in terms of science fair projects. And I truly believe all ages capable of minimal reading can do a "project" with full documentation. Even the Kindergarteners can do a project, though maybe not well documented. But the intent is to start them early on experimentation as a means of learning, and analysis as a means of understanding their own results. I don't believe that can be started too early.

Look at yourself, you were always into science and technology weren't you?

You've seen the "outsiders" in kindergarten. Little kids more interested in taking things apart than in playing games or talking. It can't be taught, just given an opportunity to grow.

I think it's hardwired into our brains at birth. A sort of low level impairment that presupposes you to life on the fringe of society. We are lucky we live when this affliction can lead to well paying employment.

Me? I like the way I am and I feel a sort of bemused pity for the normal humans. Ffej

It is really interesting to note the education and background of Bill Nye and Cory Doctorow, the author of the article referred to in this discussion.

Mr. Nye has only a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering, but he apparently had scientifically minded parents - a code breaker and sundial manufacturer. He had a good secondary education, was a student of Carl Sagan at Stanford, and is apparently curious and smart in his own right. He has several honorary doctorates, but he has only "earned" a BS degree.

Mr. Doctorow is a sci-fi writer and blogger without a degree, but has been involved in several technical and academic ventures. Maybe it is best to say that he is highly educated but doesn't the degrees to prove it.

Both of these gentlemen display the qualities praised by other contributors to this discussion: innate curiosity, an interest in things scientific and the desire to communicate. They have both gone on to learn more outside the classroom than within it.

I think this is the message they are trying to make: Education should be about enabling the learning process so that it can continue beyond the end of schooling. Isn't that when all of the "great" discoveries were made?

Side note: Humor and danger are intertwined:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/science-guy-bill-nye-killed-in-massive-vinegarbaki,288/

I see the problem as simple. Our education system in the US teaches students what to think and not how to think. Teaching to tests, which is now a government mandate, is part of the problem. No child left behind is another part of the problem because it ensure that even failing students get sent on to the next grade level. The fix?????

some of what needs to be done
Stop the political correctness of the idea of never hurting a student's feelings.
Fail students that don't learn the material.
Get rid of tenure and change over to a merit system.
Get rid of the heavy top end of administration who don't know how to teach themselves.

I am now a teacher and my union hates me. I see "it" as one of the major problem in education.

</rant>

Wait, you didn't open that rant correctly, and it didn't display properly in my browser. I had to go look at the page code to figure out what you were saying.

Try getting the High School kid who passes the test because he was taught to the test to even understand what I just said. The curious one who is motivated to learn because he or she wants to, would, but not the slug the unions love.

I'm with you. And I think your "fixes" are exactly on target.

Sic 'em.