kujebak wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:24 am, Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I am forwarding an interesting article that appeared in the latest
issue of
>> HPCwire.
>>
>> Here it is:
>>
>> FROM THE EDITOR
===============================================================
>> [ ] M2306529 ) High-Tech in an Anti-Intellectual
>> Culture....................8.1K
>>
>> "Over 75 percent of Americans don't know they're alive." I half
expect
>> to see such a headline someday as yet another example of how poorly
>> educated the U.S. citizenry has become. It's not quite that bad yet,
>> but research has consistently shown us how uneducated students and
>> working adults are in this country. The data reflects not just a
lack
>> of education, but a lack of commitment to intellectual pursuits.
>>
>> Therein lies a problem for the U.S. high-tech industry. Although the
>> nation remains the leader in information technology, it has become
>> increasingly dependent upon the scientists and engineers in other
>> countries to feed its high-tech habit. Recent studies released by
the
>> Council on Competitiveness (which I cover in this issue) concludes
one
>> of the three major barriers to greater use of high performance
>> computing is lack of human talent and expertise in the U.S. A number
>> of other re****ts, including the landmark Educational Testing Service
>> study, "America's Perfect Storm," also point to the disconnect
between
>> our tech-dependent economy and the lack of math and science
education.
>>
>> Why should this be so? The hard truth is that, in the U.S., there's
a
>> cultural contempt for education that underlies our seemingly modern
>> society. Its origins can be traced back to the birth of the nation
>> when we broke away from our "elite" European forbearers. The modern
>> version of this contempt is apparent in our political and religious
>> institutions, many of which have become not just anti-science, but
>> also, more generally, anti-intellectual.
>>
>> Exhibit number one is the Bush regime, with its antipathy towards
>> science and its embrace of religious fundamentalism. The federal "No
>> Child Left Behind" educational policy is based on rote learning, not
>> critical thinking. This approach has been promoted on the right side
>> of the political spectrum for a while. Intellectuals are derided as
>> "liberals" or "elitists" -- which are synonymous in
>> conservative-speak. Essentially, it's the sin of knowledge, where a
>> certain level of education or even a progressive attitude towards
>> learning is disdained.
>>
>> In a Wall Street Journal blog post
>> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120873309012529689.html>
this week,
>> Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas," explains:
>>
>> "It is a stereotype you have heard many times before: Besotted with
>> latte-fueled arrogance, the liberal looks down on average people,
>> confident that he is a superior being. He scoffs at religion because
>> he finds it to be a form of false consciousness. He believes in
>> regulation because he thinks he knows better than the
>> market...."Elitism" is thus a crime not of society's actual elite,
but
>> of its intellectuals."
>>
>> Fifty-plus years ago, Adlai Stevenson was the prototypical
Democratic
>> "egghead" who was relentlessly punished for his intellect by his
>> political adversaries. During one of his presidential campaigns, a
>> sup****ter assured Stevenson that he was certain to "get the vote of
>> every thinking man." Stevenson allegedly replied: "Thank you, but I
>> need a majority to win." He lost both his presidential bids, the
first
>> in 1952, and then in 1956.
>>
>> Ironically, it is often Ivy League-educated conservatives who
promote
>> this elitism meme. More disconcerting though, is that the left is
>> beginning to play into this intellectual bigotry. The recent
>> Democratic battle for the President is turning into a kind of
reality
>> show popularity contest for relating to the common folk, where
>> drinking whiskey and bowling have become essential campaign
>> activities. The conventional wisdom for pols: hide your intellect
from
>> the citizenry, lest you make them feel inferior.
>>
>> That might help explain why the 2008 Science Debate was replaced
with
>> the Compassion Forum right before the Pennsylvania Democratic
primary.
>> The Forum was basically a discussion about the religious views of
the
>> candidates. While I'm up for a good conversation about morals and
>> spiritual beliefs as much as the next guy, it was unfortunate that
one
>> of the moderators felt compelled to ask Senator Obama if he
"believed
>> the Earth was created in six days." What good is that little nugget
of
>> information for qualifying the next leader of the Free World? It's
>> depressing enough that we aren't allowed to have a presidential
>> candidate who doesn't profess his or her belief in a supernatural
>> being, but why do we feel the need to embarrass them with
unanswerable
>> theological questions?
>>
>> It would be great if the aforementioned Science Debate was
>> rescheduled. (There is talk of it being moved to Oregon for its
>> upcoming primary in May.) I'd be interested to hear the candidates'
>> views on where science and technology fit into their world view. I'd
>> love for some candidate to make a case for putting science and
>> education at the front of the discretionary federal budget rather
than
>> at the rear. It also might be a good venue to suggest to the
>> electorate that the pursuit of knowledge is more patriotic than
>> wearing a flag pin and more fulfilling than watching America's Next
>> Top Model.
>>
>> In an op-ed piece
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/opinion/22herbert.html?hp>
this
>> week, Bob Herbert of the New York Times wonders why there is not an
>> education discussion in the presidential campaign. At a time when
>> globalization is bringing increased competition and U.S. educational
>> performance is nose-diving, Herbert laments that "no one seems to
have
>> the will to engage any of the most serious challenges facing the
U.S."
>> Summing up, he concludes:
>>
>> "While we're effectively standing in place, other nations are
catching
>> up and passing us when it comes to educational achievement. You have
>> to be pretty dopey not to see the implications of that."
>>
>> So far, we've managed to delay the worst effects on our economy by
>> im****ting technological talent at a record clip. If you look at the
>> personnel roster of any U.S.-based technology firm, you'll quickly
>> grasp how thoroughly internationalized these companies have become.
>> But if the majority of the natives fail to keep up educationally and
>> economically, the whole model will likely collapse.
>>
>> Without a fundamental change in the culture, the U.S. science and
>> technology community will be relegated to pursuing its agenda as a
>> special-interest lobbyist, against the backdrop of a disinterested
>> citizenry. This is pretty much the case today. Broad sup****t for a
>> technology society, as is the case in much of Eastern Asia, India
and
>> Europe, will require us to change our attitudes. Political leaders
can
>> help, but we can't rely on them alone to reshape values. If we
expect
>> to have our plasma TVs, iPods and cancer drugs, but are not willing
to
>> participate in their development, we'll end living in the
second-class
>> nation we deserve.
>> --
>>
>> <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Let me offer a condensed form of the article:
>
> “Although the nation remains the leader in information
> technology” … “Contempt for education (spurred) by re-
> ligious fundamentalism and the Bush regime”… “Cultu-
> ral elitism”… (which really is the way) “the liberal
> looks down on ordinary people”… (but) “it is the ivy-
> league conservatives, who promote this elitism”…(and)
> “intellectual bigotry”…“Science debate was replaced
> with the compassion forum”…”a discussion about the
> religious views of the candidates”… “Without a funda-
> mental change in our culture the U.S. science and
> technology will be relegated to pursuing its agenda
> (what agenda, may I ask???) as a special interest
> lobbyist”…”If we expect to have out pasma TVs, iPods,
> (do these things really represent cutting edge techno-
> logies?) and cancer drugs (last time I checked 80% of
> all pharmaceutical research still happens in this
> country, and is, BTW, financed primarily by the U.S.
> health care consumer), we need to participate in their
> development”…
>
> I’m surprised you find this oped piece interesting,
> since I’m sure (I hope) you realize where this guy
> is coming from.
No doubt. His rhetoric and the compulsory spitting on Bush and
conservatives aside - he's got a point.
> I know, perhaps better than anyone
> else here, what it means for a high tech enterprise
> to depend almost exclusively on foreign educated
> human resources,
Well, coming from academia, I see it as well. What's more, I see what
high
schools are sending us and it is NOT a cheerful picture. After 20 years
at
the UofT I would say that current graduate students are perhaps at the
level my classmates were in the first year of CVUT. Bachelor degree
degraded to the level of what used to be a high school diploma.
And fact is, the enrolment in computer sciences and engineering is going
down and down and down while we produce more and more unemployable Wymin
Studies and Political Sciences and Eglish major graduates.
And in the middle of this malaise, the Toronto School Board comes with the
official LIMIT on the amount of home work given to students. Hold on to
your hats guys, high school students cannot be legally given more than an
hour a day of home work from now on (!!!!).
> but I also understand the flip
> side of this relation****p, which significantly dam-
> pens any feelings of alarmism concerning America’s
> future in global technological competition. Abso-
> lutely no difference between this kind of political
> scaremongering, and the current populist debate
> among the Democrats to include revamping
> NAFTA as part of their presidential platform.
> When I see educated Asians dumping properties
> around me, and leaving in droves for their native
> lands, then, I suppose, I will have reasons to be
> worried about this coutry’s technological and
> economic future. Until then, the best thing for
> me to do is to try and keep up with them ;-)
When it happens (and there is no guarantee it won't) it will be too late,
I'm afraid.
> And that, I think is very good, not only for me
> personally, but also for the U.S. economy as
> a whole.
I do not share your optimism.
Cheers
Frank
--
<feeb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
