Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To get kids into science, just do it

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#101

Post by hahaxdxd123 »

granshaw wrote: post #94
scotty79 wrote: post #19

> As many other studies have shown, when children hear descriptions of categories, whether “apples are red” or “scientists are smart,” they infer that members of those categories have special, exclusive characteristics. My friend in college had a mannerism that when he was about to give up on understanding something he was saying "it's for smart people to figure out". It always elicited visceral reaction from me "No,…

This is so common in the current anti-intellectual American mindset... other forms it takes: - I wouldn't know, X person is way smarter than me - (Try to discuss how something might work...) This was made by really smart people, I'll leave it to them! - (learns you're doing an Engineering degree) Wow, you must be really smart! - The "for science!!" trope

Interesting. My impression of American anti-intellectualism is that it more often takes the opposite form:

"X person is by all measures more educated than me on this topic, but I did own research! (on Youtube and Facebook)"

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#102

Post by onos »

pjbeam wrote: post #100
onos wrote: post #98

My hot take: early science classes are almost completely useless, infotainment-type courses. Much better to engage the interested young with math. Then they can get into real science courses when in highschool.

A little bit of wow factor from infotainment at an impressionable age can lead to lifetime interest that is far, far more impactful than the "educational" quality or content of these classes. Not always of course but this kind of thing can definitely be valuable.

I suppose you are right. I didn’t get any of that in any of my science classes before highschool, but I guess it’s possible.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#103

Post by JamesianP »

hahaxdxd123 wrote: post #101
granshaw wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so common in the current anti-intellectual American mindset... other forms it takes: - I wouldn't know, X person is way smarter than me - (Try to discuss how something might work...) This was made by really smart people, I'll leave it to them! - (learns you're doing an Engineering degree) Wow, you must be really smart! - The "for science!!" trope

Interesting. My impression of American anti-intellectualism is that it more often takes the opposite form: "X person is by all measures more educated than me on this topic, but I did own research! (on Youtube and Facebook)"

I'd say it's a suspicion of the values and political agendas/biases of intellectuals as a social class.

I know professionals living in other countries who believe every silly conspiracy theory they see on youtube too. That part is a universal problem.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#104

Post by sfpotter »

onos wrote: post #98

My hot take: early science classes are almost completely useless, infotainment-type courses. Much better to engage the interested young with math. Then they can get into real science courses when in highschool.

You can easily get kids engaged with both math and science. They aren't mutually exclusive.

There's nothing wrong with "infotainment". Some of the things which I experienced in elementary school which stuck with me the longest were when our gym teacher would play educational videos about human anatomy. A lot of these videos featured "Osmosis Jones"-style flythroughs of different organs. "Here's the stomach, it's filled with acid, etc." Netflix has The Magic Schoolbus right now. My wife and I were amusing ourselves by watching it for a few minutes last night, and I realized that the first episode (they visit each planet in the solar system on their bus, which had transformed into a space ship) had stuck with me almost verbatim, even though I haven't seen it in over 20 years. There are basic concepts that are quickly and easily imparted in this form (the sun is huge, the planets are very far apart, etc.) because of the visual format. Nothing wrong with this.

All this "infotainment" really helped develop my imagination and powers of visualization, both of which have paid dividends for me in the long run.

How "useful" a class is has as much to do with the instructor and the resources available to them as it does the particular pedagogical style. Should also be kept in mind that not everyone is going to become a scientist or use math on the job. The solution here isn't to eliminate "useless" subjects from school, but to focus on how to give people a broad education so that they can become informed and critical thinkers.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#105

Post by deskamess »

toddm wrote: post #88
selimthegrim wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do now?

I'm trying to get back into my chosen field, specifically in computational chemistry and drug design. It's rough sledding as they say, since I am an older candidate who is hardly up to speed on where things are now vs. circa 2005. For the past 18 years - since I left academia - I've been bouncing around as a "data scientist," working in many fields but not what I really want to do and/or am actually good at doing.

What are the requirements (degree, etc) for computational chemistry and drug design? I have a young one who is looking at medicine in general.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#106

Post by granshaw »

hahaxdxd123 wrote: post #101
granshaw wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so common in the current anti-intellectual American mindset... other forms it takes: - I wouldn't know, X person is way smarter than me - (Try to discuss how something might work...) This was made by really smart people, I'll leave it to them! - (learns you're doing an Engineering degree) Wow, you must be really smart! - The "for science!!" trope

Interesting. My impression of American anti-intellectualism is that it more often takes the opposite form: "X person is by all measures more educated than me on this topic, but I did own research! (on Youtube and Facebook)"

That's a separate, more recent problem IMO. Mistrust of experts and lazy self-affirmation

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#107

Post by fuzzfactor »

hnews_account_1 wrote: post #50
n0tth3dro1ds wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever hear Kary Mullis (PCR inventor / Nobel prize) talk about his childhood? He could basically buy whatever chemical he wanted. Definitely did dangerous stuff and got into trouble, but it’s hard to imagine children today having similar ability to hone skills with brains still spungey and time still abundant.

Are .. are you saying it’s a bad thing children can’t handle dangerous chemicals anymore? Wut?!

>are you saying it’s a bad thing children can’t handle dangerous chemicals anymore?

well, yes.

I think it was much safer when kids in general were more well qualified across-the-board.

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#108

Post by toddm »

anpat wrote: post #91
toddm wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to get back into my chosen field, specifically in computational chemistry and drug design. It's rough sledding as they say, since I am an older candidate who is hardly up to speed on where things are now vs. circa 2005. For the past 18 years - since I left academia - I've been bouncing around as a "data scientist," working in many fields but not what I really want to do and/or am actually good at doing.

Not exactly same fields but folks over at https://citrine.io might interest you given your interest + background.

@anpat - Thank you for that, looks interesting!

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#109

Post by lordnacho »

fastneutron wrote: post #32

To the people posting about having good chemistry sets as a kid: what were these sets and where did you/your parents get them? Where are the good sources today? Everything I remember growing up in the 90s was pretty dumbed down at best, and if you wanted to order any of the interesting chemicals or equipment, you needed a company or school letterhead with a PO account. Things got better in the 00s when eBay was still…

How about a virtual chemistry set? Saves me from cleaning up. Plus the kid can do dangerous stuff.

Does it exist?

Re: To get kids into science, just do it

#110

Post by toddm »

deskamess wrote: post #105
toddm wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to get back into my chosen field, specifically in computational chemistry and drug design. It's rough sledding as they say, since I am an older candidate who is hardly up to speed on where things are now vs. circa 2005. For the past 18 years - since I left academia - I've been bouncing around as a "data scientist," working in many fields but not what I really want to do and/or am actually good at doing.

What are the requirements (degree, etc) for computational chemistry and drug design? I have a young one who is looking at medicine in general.

@deskamess - I believe a Master's is the minimum buy-in, and Ph.D. is preferred. My Ph.D. area is quite narrowly in theoretical chemical physics, but was all heavy computation and focused on quantum and classical dynamics.

The areas of study are going to be computational chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry, cheminformatics, or something closely related to those. Whether you work in a lab or in front of a computer depends on what you study and whose lab you study it in. You can't go wrong with a Ph.D. from UCSF, I can tell you that (I was a postdoc there), so browse the faculty pages.

Have a look at some of the open positions at, say, Roche/Genentech. There are some great open source resources and some industry-dominant ones with which you'll be expected to have some experience in (Schrodinger's software is one of them). Domain knowledge, of course. QSAR/ADME and similar acronyms. Docking, free energy perturbation, bioinformatics. Python/R/SQL.

AI/ML is of course hot in pharma but not necessarily useful for all situations - I happen to not be much of an AI/ML guy and won't be penalized for that, which I cannot say about almost every job I've had or applied for.

What got my foot in the door with drug design was postdoctoral work on molecular dynamics simulations of large systems that are physiologically relevant - motor proteins - and I was teamed-up with experimentalists who were studying the same systems.

More than happy to share more, my contact info is in my profile.

Post reply on HN