Dakini
23-10-2005, 16:58
I have to do a critique on this article by David Goodstein for a class. It can be found here: http://www.phds.org/reading/elites.html
Here's what I have so far, it's one page maximum but I would like to hear some feedback on it, if anyone would like to provide me with some.
Goodstein’s article discusses how the American education system has failed the majority of the population of the country. How despite being a nation with some of the most educated, brilliant scientists an overwhelming majority of the population is completely ignorant of modern science. He discusses the survival prospects of scientific research in such an environment and concludes that they are indeed poor. He concludes that in order to save science, we must educate the masses, for if the masses understand science, they are more apt to support funding to further scientific progress.
While Goodstein made some excellent points, I found it a bit difficult to find these points as he seemed to ramble a little and bury his arguments in conjecture. For instance, he blames elementary school teachers for the poor showing of women in science because young girls look to their scientifically illiterate elementary school teachers more than boys; however, in many areas of science, women are graduating in roughly equal numbers as their male counterparts. It appears as though much of the decline of women in academia occurs after graduation and is often attributed to the working conditions . He also seems to consider it a bad thing for a large percentage of the population to attend institutes of higher learning, while his final conclusion seems to support education for all, rather than a select few.
I do, however agree with his final conclusion, that it is necessary to give the public a proper education in science, not just a select few. Education is a very important tool and it should be available to all. The article is rather effective in bringing awareness to the plight of scientific education in America and proposes what appears to be a viable solution to the problem. However, it might have been a more effective article if he had condensed it and avoided speaking outside his area of expertise.
I'm not entirely happy with it but I'm not sure what I can do to make things better.
edit: Also, if somebody could help me come up with a witty title, that would be nice too. :)
Here's what I have so far, it's one page maximum but I would like to hear some feedback on it, if anyone would like to provide me with some.
Goodstein’s article discusses how the American education system has failed the majority of the population of the country. How despite being a nation with some of the most educated, brilliant scientists an overwhelming majority of the population is completely ignorant of modern science. He discusses the survival prospects of scientific research in such an environment and concludes that they are indeed poor. He concludes that in order to save science, we must educate the masses, for if the masses understand science, they are more apt to support funding to further scientific progress.
While Goodstein made some excellent points, I found it a bit difficult to find these points as he seemed to ramble a little and bury his arguments in conjecture. For instance, he blames elementary school teachers for the poor showing of women in science because young girls look to their scientifically illiterate elementary school teachers more than boys; however, in many areas of science, women are graduating in roughly equal numbers as their male counterparts. It appears as though much of the decline of women in academia occurs after graduation and is often attributed to the working conditions . He also seems to consider it a bad thing for a large percentage of the population to attend institutes of higher learning, while his final conclusion seems to support education for all, rather than a select few.
I do, however agree with his final conclusion, that it is necessary to give the public a proper education in science, not just a select few. Education is a very important tool and it should be available to all. The article is rather effective in bringing awareness to the plight of scientific education in America and proposes what appears to be a viable solution to the problem. However, it might have been a more effective article if he had condensed it and avoided speaking outside his area of expertise.
I'm not entirely happy with it but I'm not sure what I can do to make things better.
edit: Also, if somebody could help me come up with a witty title, that would be nice too. :)