DOCSLIB.ORG

Graduate STEM Education for the 21St Century

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Graduate STEM Education for the 21St Century THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25038 SHARE Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century DETAILS 174 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK ISBN 978-0-309-47273-9 | DOI 10.17226/25038 CONTRIBUTORS GET THIS BOOK Alan Leshner and Layne Scherer, Editors; Committee on Revitalizing Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century; Board on Higher Education and Workforce; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine FIND RELATED TITLES Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get: – Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports – 10% off the price of print titles – Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests – Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. (Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century Alan Leshner and Layne Scherer, Editors Committee on Revitalizing Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century Board on Higher Education and Workforce Policy and Global Affairs A Consensus Study Report of PREPUBLICATION COPY – UNEDITED PROOFS Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund (103932-4031), the Institute of Education Sciences (R305U160001), the National Science Foundation (1642408), and the Spencer Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25038 Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Graduate STEM Education in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25038. PREPUBLICATION COPY – UNEDITED PROOFS Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY – UNEDITED PROOFS Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY – UNEDITED PROOFS Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century COMMITTEE ON REVITALIZING GRADUATE STEM EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Members ALAN LESHNER (Chair) [NAM], Chief Executive Officer, Emeritus, American Association for the Advancement of Science SHERILYNN BLACK, Assistant Professor of the Practice, Medical Education; Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement; and Co-Principal Investigator, Duke University BioCoRE Program, Duke University MARY SUE COLEMAN [NAM], President, Association of American Universities JAIME CURTIS-FISK, Scientist and STEM Education Advocate, Dow Chemical Company KENNETH GIBBS, JR., Program Director, National Institute of General Medical Sciences MAUREEN GRASSO, Professor of Textile Sciences and Former Graduate School Dean, North Carolina State University SALLY MASON, President Emerita, University of Iowa MARY MAXON, Associate Laboratory Director for Biosciences, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory SUZANNE ORTEGA, President, Council of Graduate Schools CHRISTINE ORTIZ, Morris Cohen Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Founder, Station1 MELANIE ROBERTS, Director of State and Regional Affairs, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory HENRY SAUERMANN, Associate Professor of Strategy and Peter Pühringer Chair in Entrepreneurship, European School of Management and Technology, Berlin; Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research BARBARA ANNA SCHAAL [NAS], Dean of Arts and Sciences and Professor, Washington University in St. Louis SUBHASH SINGHAL [NAE], Battelle Fellow and Fuel Cells Director, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory KATE STOLL, Senior Policy Advisor, MIT Washington Office JAMES M. TIEN [NAE], Distinguished Professor and Dean Emeritus, University of Miami College of Engineering KEITH R. YAMAMOTO [NAM, NAS], Vice Chancellor for Science Policy and Strategy, Director of Precision Medicine, and, Professor of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco Study Staff LAYNE SCHERER, Study Director AUSTEN APPLEGATE, Senior Program Assistant TOM ARRISON, Program Director, Policy and Global Affairs ALLISON L. BERGER, Senior Program Assistant JAIME COLMAN, Senior Program Assistant (through November 2017) v PREPUBLICATION COPY – UNEDITED PROOFS Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century ADRIANA NAVIA COUREMBIS, Financial Officer MARIA LUND DAHLBERG, Program Officer, Board on Higher Education and Workforce ELIZABETH GARBEE, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow, Board on Higher Education and Workforce (January to April 2018) YASMEEN HUSSAIN, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow and Associate Program Officer, Board on Higher Education and Workforce (January to July 2017) JAY LABOV, Senior Advisor for Education and Communication FREDERIC LESTINA, Senior Program Assistant BARBARA NATALIZIO, Program Officer, Board on Higher Education and Workforce IRENE NGUN, Research Associate THOMAS RUDIN, Director, Board on Higher Education and Workforce Consultants JOSEPH ALPER, Writer MARGARET BLUME-KOHOUT, Visiting Professor in Economics, Colgate University JENNIFER LEBRÓN, Doctoral Student, Higher Education and International Education, George Mason University JESSICA ROBLES, Senior Research Associate, Research Triangle International ROBIN WISNIEWSKI, Director of Education Systems Improvement, Research Triangle International vi PREPUBLICATION COPY – UNEDITED PROOFS Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century BOARD ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE Members RICHARD K. MILLER, Chair [NAE], President, Olin College of Engineering LAWRENCE D. BOBO [NAS], W.E.B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, Harvard University ANGELA BYARS-WINSTON, Professor of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison JAIME CURTIS-FISK, Scientist and STEM Education Advocate, Dow Chemical Company
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Speculative Geology
    15 Speculative Geology DALE E. SNOW We are not at peace with nature now. Whether it is the record-setting rain on the east coast or the raging wildfires in the west, distant news of melting permafrost or bleaching coral reefs, or the unexpected eruption of Mount Kilauea a few miles from here, things seem increasingly, and increasingly violently, out of control. I would like to suggest that there are resources in Schelling’s Naturphilosophie we can use in the twenty-first century to help us think differently about both the power of nature and our own relationship to it. Although Schelling saw himself, and was seen by many, as antagonistic toward the mechanical science of his own time, it would be a mistake—and a missed opportunity—to see his view as a mere Romantic reaction. It is a speculative rethinking of the idea of nature itself that finds a place for even those phenomena which seem most distant and alien. Schelling described his philosophy of nature as “speculative physics” both to distinguish it from what he calls the dogmatic or mechanistic model of nature, and to announce a new approach to natural science, concerned with the original causes of motion in nature (SW III: 275). Since every “natural phenomenon … stands in connection with the last conditions of nature” (SW III: 279), speculative physics can bring us to an understanding of nature as a system. Geology presents an illuminating case of this approach, as can be seen from Schelling’s characteristically enthusiastic introduction to a paper published by Henrik Steffens in Schelling’sJournal of Speculative Physics (Zeitschrift für speculative Physik) on the oxidization and deoxidization of the earth.1 After praising Steffens’ work on a new and better founded science of geology, Schelling reflects darkly on the too long dominant mechanical approach to geology.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Files; Folder: 11/22/77; Container 52
    11/22/77 Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: Presidential Files; Folder: 11/22/77; Container 52 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf TIIE PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULE Tuesday - November 22,1977 8:15 Dr. Zbigniew Brz.ezinski The Oval Office . 8:45 .Hr . Frank Moore The Oval Office. 10:00 Medal of Science Awards. (Dr. Frank Press). ·Room 450, EOB. I \ 10:30 Mr. Jody Powell The Oval Office. 11:00 Presentation of Diplomatic Credentials. (Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski} - The Oval Office. 11:45 Vice President Walter F. Mondale, Admiral Stansfield Turner, and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski. The Oval Office. 12:30 Lunch \..,-::_ th Hrs. Rosalynn Carter ·- The Ovctl Office. 2:00 Budget Review Meeting. (Mr. James Mcintyre). ( 2 hrs.) The Cabinet Room. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON \"~ Date: November 22, 1977 l\ vo\ \'~ MEMORANDUM t)lDifll FOR ACTION: '" FOR INFORMATION: Stu Eizenstat ~t""'"' Frank Moore (Les Francis)~ The Vice President Jack Watson Bob Lipshutz Jim Mcintyre FROM: Rick Hutcheson, Staff Secretary SUBJECT: Adams memo dated 11/22/77 re Response to the Boston Plan and Location of Rail Maintenance Facilit.y in the Northeast Corridor YOUR RESPONSE MUST BE DELIVERED TO THE STAFF SECRETARY BY: TIME: 11:00 AM DAY: Monday DATE: November 28, 1977 ACTION REQUESTED: _x_ Your comments Other: STAFF RESPONSE: __ I concur. __ No comment: Please note other comments below: PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED. If you have any questions or if you anticipate a delay in submitting the required material, please telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
    [Show full text]
  • SKA-Athena Synergy White Paper
    SKA-Athena Synergy White Paper SKA-Athena Synergy Team July 2018. Edited by: Francisco J. Carrera and Silvia Martínez-Núñez on behalf of the Athena Community Office. Revisions provided by: Judith Croston, Andrew C. Fabian, Robert Laing, Didier Barret, Robert Braun, Kirpal Nandra Authorship Authors Rossella Cassano (INAF-Istituto di Radioastronomia, Italy). • Rob Fender (University of Oxford, United Kingdom). • Chiara Ferrari (Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, France). • Andrea Merloni (Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Germany). • Contributors Takuya Akahori (Kagoshima University, Japan). • Hiroki Akamatsu (SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, The Netherlands). • Yago Ascasibar (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain). • David Ballantyne (Georgia Institute of Technology, United States). • Gianfranco Brunetti (INAF-Istituto di Radioastronomia, Italy) and Maxim Markevitch (NASA-Goddard • Space Flight Center, United States). Judith Croston (The Open University, United Kingdom). • Imma Donnarumma (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, Italy) and E. M. Rossi (Leiden Observatory, The • Netherlands). Robert Ferdman (University of East Anglia, United Kingdom) on behalf of the SKA Pulsar Science • Working Group. Luigina Feretti (INAF-Istituto di Radioastronomia, Italy) and Federica Govoni (INAF Osservatorio • Astronomico,Italy). Jan Forbrich (University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom). • Giancarlo Ghirlanda (INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera and University Milano Bicocca, Italy). • Adriano Ingallinera (INAF-Osservatorio Astrofisico di Catania, Italy). • Andrei Mesinger (Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy). • Vanessa Moss and Elaine Sadler (Sydney Institute for Astronomy/CAASTRO and University of Sydney, • Australia). Fabrizio Nicastro (Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma,Italy), Edvige Corbelli (INAF-Osservatorio As- • trofisico di Arcetri, Italy) and Luigi Piro (INAF, Istituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali, Italy). Paolo Padovani (European Southern Observatory, Germany). • Francesca Panessa (INAF/Istituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali, Italy).
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through
    THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25008 SHARE The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through DETAILS 162 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK ISBN 978-0-309-47137-4 | DOI 10.17226/25008 CONTRIBUTORS GET THIS BOOK Committee on the Next Generation Initiative; Board on Higher Education and Workforce; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine FIND RELATED TITLES Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get: – Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports – 10% off the price of print titles – Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests – Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. (Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through THE NEXT GENERATION OF BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES RESEARCHERS: BREAKING THROUGH Committee on the Next Generation Initiative Board on Higher Education and Workforce Policy and Global Affairs A Consensus Study Report of PREPUBLICATION COPY—UNEDITED PROOFS Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and The National Institutes of Health (#HHSN263201200074I, Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • Deptbiochemistry00ruttrich.Pdf
    'Berkeley University o'f California Regional Oral History Office UCSF Oral History Program The Bancroft Library Department of the History of Health Sciences University of California, Berkeley University of California, San Francisco The UCSF Oral History Program and The Program in the History of the Biological Sciences and Biotechnology William J. Rutter, Ph.D. THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND THE MOLECULAR APPROACH TO BIOMEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO VOLUME I With an Introduction by Lloyd H. Smith, Jr., M.D. Interviews by Sally Smith Hughes, Ph.D. in 1992 Copyright O 1998 by the Regents of the University of California Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the Nation. Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well- informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is indexed, bound with photographs and illustrative materials, and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons Technology 101 for Policy Wonks Bruce T
    NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY FOR POLICY WONKS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 101 FOR POLICY WONKS BRUCE T. GOODWIN BRUCE T. GOODWIN BRUCE T. Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory August 2021 NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 101 FOR POLICY WONKS BRUCE T. GOODWIN Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory August 2021 NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 101 FOR POLICY WONKS | 1 This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in part under Contract W-7405-Eng-48 and in part under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. ISBN-978-1-952565-11-3 LCCN-2021907474 LLNL-MI-823628 TID-61681 2 | BRUCE T. GOODWIN Table of Contents About the Author. 2 Introduction . .3 The Revolution in Physics That Led to the Bomb . 4 The Nuclear Arms Race Begins. 6 Fission and Fusion are "Natural" Processes . 7 The Basics of the Operation of Nuclear Explosives. 8 The Atom . .9 Isotopes . .9 Half-life . 10 Fission . 10 Chain Reaction . 11 Critical Mass . 11 Fusion . 14 Types of Nuclear Weapons . 16 Finally, How Nuclear Weapons Work . 19 Fission Explosives . 19 Fusion Explosives . 22 Staged Thermonuclear Explosives: the H-bomb . 23 The Modern, Miniature Hydrogen Bomb . 25 Intrinsically Safe Nuclear Weapons . 32 Underground Testing . 35 The End of Nuclear Testing and the Advent of Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship . 39 Stockpile Stewardship Today . 41 Appendix 1: The Nuclear Weapons Complex .
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Oral History Office University of California the Bancroft Library Berkeley, California
    Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California Daniel Koshland, Jr. Retrospective Oral History Project: Bruce Alberts Interviews conducted by Sally Smith Hughes in 2012 Copyright © 2014 by The Regents of the University of California ii Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and Bruce Alberts on March 21, 2014. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. Excerpts up to 1000 words from this interview may be quoted for publication without seeking permission as long as the use is non-commercial and properly cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Achievement of 15-Year-Olds in England: PISA 2006 National Report.’ (OECD Programme for International Student Assessment)
    Achievement of 15-Year- Olds in England: PISA 2015 National Report December 2016 John Jerrim and Nikki Shure. UCL Institute of Education. Contents Acknowledgements 3 Executive summary 4 Chapter 1. Introduction 11 Chapter 2. Achievement in science 23 Chapter 3. Achievement in different aspects of scientific literacy 47 Chapter 4. Achievement in mathematics 64 Chapter 5. Achievement in reading 83 Chapter 6. Variation in PISA scores by pupil characteristics 101 Chapter 7. Differences in achievement between schools 117 Chapter 8. School management and resources 129 Chapter 9. Pupils’ experiences of their time in science classes at school 146 Chapter 11. PISA across the UK 181 Appendix A. Background to the PISA study 207 Appendix B. Sample design and response rates 218 Appendix C. Testing statistical significance in PISA across cycles 224 Appendix D. The conversion of PISA scores into years of schooling 227 Appendix E. PISA 2015 mean scores 228 Appendix F. Long-term trends in PISA scores 231 Appendix G. Mean scores in the science sub-domains 236 Appendix H. List of figures 239 Appendix I. List of tables 243 2 Acknowledgements This report represents a multi-team effort. We are grateful to the teams at Educational Testing Service (ETS), Westat, cApStAn Linguistic Control, Pearson and the German Institute for International Education Research (DIPF) for their support and guidance throughout the project. In England we are grateful to the team at the Department for Education that oversaw the work, in particular Adrian Higginbotham, Emily Knowles, Bethan Knight, Joe Delafield and David Charlton. The team at RM Education (RM) managed the research consortium and the process of collecting and checking the data as well as the production of reports for participating schools; we are grateful to Dawn Pollard, Daryl Brown and Sam Smith for overseeing that.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Students' Interest in STEM Across Science Standard
    1 A COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ INTEREST IN STEM ACROSS SCIENCE STANDARD TYPES by Brienne Kylie May Liberty University A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University 2021 2 A COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ INTEREST IN STEM ACROSS SCIENCE STANDARD TYPES by Brienne Kylie May A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA 2021 APPROVED BY: Jillian L. Wendt, Ed.D., Committee Chair and Methodologist Michelle Barthlow, Ed.D., Committee Member 3 Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my biggest cheerleader, my husband Steve, who never let me lose sight of my goal and to my daughter, Fiana, who was born right in the middle of my doctoral journey and held the position of my greatest motivator from day one. 4 Acknowledgments I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Jillian Wendt for her patience, feedback, and endless encouragement and my committee member Dr. Michelle Barthlow for her guidance and expertise. I would also like to thank the students, teachers, principals, and superintendents who contributed to my data collection during a very difficult school year. 5 Abstract The purpose of this study is to determine whether students enrolled in ninth and 10th grade science classes implementing the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have significantly different interests in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) compared to students enrolled in classes structured around alternate state standards unrelated to the NGSS. The study also investigates how such interests may differ among genders. No research has been conducted to date to determine the potential effects of the NGSS on student interest in STEM or whether these standards impact student interest at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Rep Beyer Factcheck Project Bi
    Response to Congressional Hearing Naomi Oreskes Professor Departments of the History of Science and Earth and Planetary Sciences Harvard University 10 April 2017 Among climate scientists, “refutation fatigue” has set in. Over the past two decades, scientists have spent so much time and effort refuting the misperceptions, misrepresentations and in some cases outright lies that they scarcely have the energy to do so yet again.1 The persistence of climate change denial in the face of the efforts of the scientific community to explain both what we know and how we know it is a clear demonstration that this denial represents the willful rejection of the findings of modern science. It is, as I have argued elsewhere, implicatory denial.2 Representative Smith and his colleagues reject the reality of anthropogenic climate change because they dislike its implications for their economic interests (or those of their political allies), their ideology, and/or their world-view. They refuse to accept that we have a problem that needs to be fixed, so they reject the science that revealed the problem. Denial makes a poor basis for public policy. In the mid-century, denial of the Nazi threat played a key role in the policy of appeasement that emboldened Adolf Hitler. Denial also played a role in the neglect of intelligence information which, if heeded, could have enabled military officers to defend the Pacific Fleet against Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. And denial played a major role in the long delay between when scientists demonstrated that tobacco use caused a variety of serious illnesses, including emphysema, heart disease, and lung cancer, and when Congress finally acted to protect the American people from a deadly but legal product.
    [Show full text]
  • 1968 Commencement Program
    UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA - Two Hundred and Twelfth Commencement for the Conferring of Degrees PHILADELPHIA CIVIC CENTER Monday, May 20, 1968 10:00 A.M. jJ STAGE (1, ......II ,........I " Official Guests Medicine College for Women Graduate Medicine Wharton Law College Nursing Graduate Allied Fine Arts Medical Professions Dental Medicine Veterinary Medicine Wharton Graduate Graduate Arts& Sciences Civil& Mechanical Engineering Chemical Graduate Engineering Education Electrical Engineering Social Work Metallurgy Annenberg Guests will find this diagram helpful in locating the opposite page under Degrees in Course. Reference approximate seating of the degree candidates. The to the paragraph on page seven describing the seating and the order of march in the student pro­ colors of the candidates' hoods according to their cession correspond closely to the order by school fields of study may further assist guests in placing in which the candidates for degrees are presented. the locations of the various schools. This sequence is shown in the Contents on the Contents Page Seating Diagram of the Graduating Students .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 The Commencement Ceremony . 4 Background of the Ceremonies . .. .. .. 6 Degrees in Course . .. .. .. 8 The College of Arts and Sciences . 8 The Engineering Schools . .. .. .. 14 The Towne School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering ... ........ ......... 14 The School of Chemical Engineering . .. .. .. 15 The Moore School of Electrical Engineering . .. 16 The School of Metallurgy and Materials Science . .. .. 18 The Wharton School of Finance and Commerce . 19 The College of Liberal Arts for Women ....... .. ... ...... .. .. .... ............ ..... .. ......... 26 The School of Nursing ... ........................... .... ................ ... ................... ........ 31 The School of Allied Medical Professions . .. .. 3 3 The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences . .. .. .. 34 The School of Medicine .
    [Show full text]
  • Neoliberal Science
    SSS0010.1177/0306312716655501Social Studies of ScienceGreenhalgh 655501research-article2016 Article Social Studies of Science 2016, Vol. 46(4) 485 –510 Neoliberal science, Chinese © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: style: Making and managing sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0306312716655501 the ‘obesity epidemic’ sss.sagepub.com Susan Greenhalgh Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA Abstract Science and Technology Studies has seen a growing interest in the commercialization of science. In this article, I track the role of corporations in the construction of the obesity epidemic, deemed one of the major public health threats of the century. Focusing on China, a rising superpower in the midst of rampant, state-directed neoliberalization, I unravel the process, mechanisms, and broad effects of the corporate invention of an obesity epidemic. Largely hidden from view, Western firms were central actors at every stage in the creation, definition, and governmental management of obesity as a Chinese disease. Two industry-funded global health entities and the exploitation of personal ties enabled actors to nudge the development of obesity science and policy along lines beneficial to large firms, while obscuring the nudging. From Big Pharma to Big Food and Big Soda, transnational companies have been profiting from the ‘epidemic of Chinese obesity’, while doing little to effectively treat or prevent it. The China case suggests how obesity might have been constituted an ‘epidemic threat’ in other parts of the world and underscores the need for global frameworks to guide the study of neoliberal science and policymaking. Keywords Big Food, Big Pharma, China, chronic disease, healthy lifestyles, neoliberal science, obesity epidemic, policymaking The global spread of neoliberal thought and practice in recent decades has brought tec- tonic shifts in the political economy of science.
    [Show full text]