Specialist Science Teachers Send the Wrong Message

Science isn't just people
in white lab coats

There is apparently a push in Australia to put specialist science teachers in every primary school.  On first blush, this sounds like a good way to ensure that students have access to high-quality science education in early grades.  However, Charlotte Pezaro, educator, scientist, and PhD candidate says that this strategy is misguided.  She has a couple of concerns, most notably that this will "perpetuate the myth that science isn’t for everyone; that it’s for 'special', 'smarter', or 'nerdy' people, instead of the diverse group that primary school teachers are."  As she says, the science you learn in primary school is something that every adult should be able to understand, and having generalist primary teachers teach the subject helps demonstrate that fact.

Especially at a young age, the message should be that everyone should learn science, regardless of whether they think they want to be an elementary school teacher or an astrophysicist.  This is, by the way, the same concern I have for many "girls in STEM" programs - that they send the message to girls that it's abnormal to be into STEM subjects.

But wait, you say - we have specialists teaching music, art, and physical education, and those aren't just for "nerds."   True, but it is clear that those subjects are not part of the core curriculum.  And I think even as a child I subconsciously understood that those weren't really things I had to learn, unlike what we did in the normal classroom.  The fact that my teacher may or may not have been good at music, art, or sports probably did send the message that it was OK for me also not to be good at those things; given my lack of artistic abilities, that was probably good for my self esteem.  On the other hand, I don't think we should be giving such an easy-out for science.

But I do think there is a place for science specialists to enhance the regular curriculum.  I remember in 3rd or 4th grade, we had a scientist who was the parent of a kid in another class come in once every two weeks for a special science lesson.  These were highly interactive, visual, and fun. We built electro-magnets, saw chemical reactions, and had other demonstrations of the type you'd see on Mr. Wizard's World (pictured left).   If the purpose of the science specialist is to make science more fun, rather than to teach the core science curriculum, then I think it's a great idea.

#YesAllProfessions

Recently, I've seen an uptick in articles about how people in various non-engineering/science professions should learn to code. From MBA students learning to code to know their business better to law students learning to think like a lawyer by first learning to think like a system designer, the cognitive benefits of learning to code are obvious. Fields such as finance are so heavily tied to data-driven processes that one venture fund actually put an algorithm on its board.  

While simply knowing how to program has myriad benefits even if you never write another line of code in your life, once you know how to code you are more likely to identify ways in which writing code can help you do your (non-tech) job.

You won't find writing software anywhere in my job description, but if I were to list all of the times I've written a computer program to help me better perform my job, I'd be writing all day. Writing code allows me to sift through large amounts of data to help myself and my colleagues make better decisions.   I make maps, graphs, lists, and summaries by writing short programs that we would otherwise either enlist interns to devote time making or would otherwise be unable to do entirely.

These programming tasks are often very small - sometimes taking just minutes to complete, and rarely more than a few hours.  Just to explain the problem to a non-lawyer developer would often take as much time as it takes me to write the program because I have the benefit of having both a complete understanding of the problem and the skills necessary to solve it.

This is, I'm sure, part of why V. David Zvenyach is writing a free online Coding for Lawyers book. While computer science is a complex and challenging field, learning to write simple programs it not hard.  I encourage everyone to take advantage of various free online resources to learn to code, such as the Code Academy or the Hour of Code exercises on code.org.

The Clogged Pipeline

Following up on the last post about why women leave tech, I decided to take a look at my network and see if the leaky pipeline theory holds.  That is - are women who are studying engineering and taking jobs in the field dropping out at a significantly higher rate than men?  I looked at women and men with degrees in either Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) or Computer Science (CS) from my alma mater.  The results?

1. 30% of the women left the tech world, while 8% of the men did.
2. Among those still in the tech world, the men who work at the staff are 50% more likely to have a "senior" title (66%) than the women (42%).
3. The men are also 50% more likely to make it to management roles - of the women still in the tech world, only 25% are in management at any level, while 36% of the men are.
4. While four of the men founded startups, none of the women did.
5. The only place I see parity is that women who stay in tech have essentially the same likelihood of landing a senior management role at a company they didn't found (12.5%) as the men (12%).  But those women took larger steps outside of their field than the men did to get them.

More details and an info-graphic after the jump: