Only 20% of the 71 thousand fresh graduates in universities and colleges studied natural sciences, mathematics and engineering

15 תגובות

1. Science courses at school do not teach science at all!

   When educators discuss the "basic things" that should be taught to all students in school, there is no subject that receives greater support than the subject of science. We are told that of all the important things for the young people who will become adults in the 21st century, knowledge of science ranks first. This is the standard justification for the extensive program of science studies, from elementary school to high school, a program supported by expensive equipment and textbooks, and staffed by an army of teachers.

   Therefore, it may come as a surprise to most readers, that in fact everything we have been told on the subject is pure myth. Today we do not have a school where science is taught. Throwing sand in our eyes.

   Here is the sensational news. Science, as an enterprise of the human mind, is characterized by certain basic properties. Let me name the most important of them:

   1. Scientists must first and foremost be careful observers, and must observe very carefully the behavior of the subject of their investigation, whatever it may be. In any case, they must not confuse or deny the data.

   2. Scientists must learn to extract from the subjects of their investigation more information than appears at first glance. They must learn to plan such experiments, which ask questions capable of producing meaningful answers, answers that interest them. And they must write down the answers strictly and honestly, regardless of whether the answers that are received are the ones that the researchers expected and waited for, or not.

   3. Scientists - especially good and creative scientists, the kind we long to have in abundance - must learn to use their imagination freely, to give new and meaningful explanations for new observations. To do this effectively, they must maintain an open and unbiased view of things as much as possible, and reduce to a minimum the load of prejudices and preconceptions.

   Therefore, good scientists must be extremely curious, careful, honest, imaginative, and flexible in their thinking.

   To make these points even clearer, let's compare science with a field of study that is usually considered the polar opposite: religion. The differences are really noticeable. The starting point of religion is faith, which is necessarily beyond (though not necessarily opposed to) rational analysis. Religion is based on a set of truths (dogmas), which are generally believed to derive from divine inspiration, and of course are not derived simply from some action of the human mind. Great theologians must be well versed in complicated customs that are passed down from generation to generation, sometimes for thousands of years, and elaborated by hundreds of great thinkers before them. Renewal in religion, to the extent that it takes place, happens by divine intervention, not by human action.

   Now, let us look at what is considered today as the teaching of science in schools. Look and see, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing! Science presented in the form of religion everywhere!

   The main activity, in fact the only significant activity that is engaged in in all science classes is the teaching of the latest scientific theories in the form of truths. The textbooks are the repositories of these truths. The children are taught from the books how things look. They study the dictionary of science ("the scientific alphabet"!), the "laws" of science, about the heroes of science (the equivalent of science to priests or saints). The very use of the word "law" is a silent betrayal: regardless of what real scientists might mean when they use the word, science teachers and school students accept the word in the sense of a meticulous description of how and why something happens. Laws of science are seen as real and unchangeable reality. Few people notice that in fact every "law" written in today's textbooks is completely different from the "laws" that were written in the textbooks a hundred years ago; And these, in their time, resembled a little what was known as "laws" two hundred years ago; And few scientists would disagree that the "laws" that will be valid in the future in a hundred years will have little, if anything, in common with what the schools teach today as scientific truth.

   The purpose of the science courses as they are delivered in schools is to "feed" the children's heads as much as possible with information about the latest thinking of the scientists. The students are not given the option to accept or reject even a little bit of this material: it is presented as the truth, and when they are tested, the students are expected to repeat it, and vomit it up in the same form it was given to them. In fact, one of the main features of the national standards which are flamboyant propaganda and which the president and governors are pushing, is the introduction of a series of tests in science which will be given to all students, in order to promote as much as possible the broadest absorption of the latest scientific truths.

   Even worse than the classroom lectures and textbooks are the various science lab courses and fieldwork. It is true that every laboratory manual emphasizes over and over again the importance of observations, of careful recording, etc., but the fact is that all laboratory experiments are imperatives in which the correct "result" is known in advance - a result that the students are expected to receive, or reach in this way or Other. Therefore, a student who carefully measures everything he is told to measure (already a sad departure from true science) and finds that the acceleration of gravity, according to his experiment, is 35ft/sec/sec, we do not commend him for having discovered a new fact, but rather tell him that he has confused the experiment, since the correct answer is 32ft/sec/sec. Not only is the lab not science, it's even worse than that: it leaves exactly the wrong impression of what science is, by leading students to believe that even before they start, there is some kind of "correct" answer that is dictated in advance. How far this way is from discovering the truth by unbiased observation!

   The last thing, which a science class is built to contain, is a group of students who are really curious about their environment and who want to engage in their own initiative, learning things that really interest them. Likewise, a science class cannot deal with students who have their own ideas on how to explain things, and who want to play with these ideas, discuss them, test them. These activities will not produce good test scores, will not prepare students for achievement tests or for gifted classes—in other words, will not produce any of the results that schools are most interested in. The simple fact is that students who would do things that would actually train them to be good scientists would not fit into mass school science programs at all.

   All these arguments of the educators, about the importance of science in the curriculum, are pretentious nonsense - expensive pretentious nonsense; And they produce the opposite of what they promise. They produce tolerable students who do what they are told to do, learn by heart what they are supposed to learn by heart, work hard to get the results they are told are the right results, and completely subdue their curiosity, their imagination and their ability to criticize. The scientific enterprise in this country might have been much further ahead in the race, if they had completely abolished the teaching of science at the pre-university level that exists today.

2. I don't like football or any other sports profession. Do you think it would be okay to complain that there aren't enough sports fans in the world? Or will you simply be able to understand that people follow the inclinations of their hearts, and probably most people have no inclination to the sciences?

3. And maybe these are the sum of market tendencies plus or minus
   Those who want to study a scientific field will go study it
   In any case, studying at the Technion requires a student to have prior knowledge
   Statistically, most of the population does not have it
   On the other hand, the humanities can be registered and studied

4. To all those who think they are religious or who take their faith to the extreme. I have a quote from a very wise man named Danny Sanderson. sell right? In his book "Cardiff's Eardrum". He says: "The problem with God is that he becomes hard of hearing when you need him"

5. Israel S
   Ahhh... that's why he doesn't answer. The rabbi is too busy...

6. Nissim there is no way he will understand you without instruction from his rabbi 🙂

7. Chronic prayer
   I see you are not intelligent enough to understand what I said. Do you see the result of a lack of core studies? 🙂

   I am ready to risk my life in military activity to protect others (and I happen to have certificates to prove it...).

   I am not ready to pray to anyone, even if they pay me because I have ideals of honesty. I am not ready to lie to the boys' parents about some pagan act that has been scientifically proven to be harmful and not beneficial. I've heard enough settlers say that they hitchhike without fear because they trust God (just don't understand that I'm accusing these boys of something - you're such a fool that you might get confused).

   now you understand??

8. Miracles
   "Fire like me? Those who ask questions, and don't believe stupid lies? Those who are willing to sacrifice my life so that they can live without fear?”

   It is clear from your words that creatures like you are willing to sacrifice their lives so that they can live without fear... it sounds like a paradox...

   In any case, that is not what is meant. Creatures like you never sacrifice anything. (In order to sacrifice your life for a cause you have to be an ideologue or religious. And you are neither here nor there)

   And why the hell are you, like a disciplined Jew, answering a question with a question? I understand that you are ashamed (or maybe afraid) to answer, but still drink courage and answer the question I asked you and don't shy away! 🙂

9. Chronic prayer

   So you're actually asking whether, in the event that the families of the three abductees ask Nisim not to do anything for the safety of their children, does he do nothing, or does he do nothing.

   What exactly happened to the prayers of the members of these families for the peace of their family that caused their sons to be kidnapped? Didn't they pray for it? Did they forget to pray for it? Is there a specific prayer to prevent your child from being abducted that they forgot to perform? Did they make a mistake during their prayer so it didn't work?

10. Chronic prayer
    Creatures like me? Those who ask questions, and don't believe stupid lies? Those who are willing to sacrifice my life so they can live without fear?

    What is better? (a) Should I continue to risk my life to find these boys - or (b) should I sit and pray?
    "(No details and reasons on your part. It's not really interesting to anyone. Only one of the two answers. Please)."

11. "Free world" alak...
    Nissim, the reason the ultra-Orthodox don't send their children to the army is because they don't want their children to be exposed to creatures like you.

    anyways... as usual you don't answer the question. I will give you a chance to answer the matter:

    The families of the three abductees ask you to pray for the safety of their children.

    Will you pray for their safety?

    A: Yes
    B: No

    (No details and reasons on your part. It's not really interesting to anyone. Only one of the two answers. Please).

12. Mirom Golan
    What does Haredim have to do with the matter? The hatred, as you say, for the ultra-Orthodox stems, in my opinion, from non-military service. An engineering degree and a philosophy degree cost exactly the same. Part of this virtue subsidizes the groups of Israeli refugees - the hatred, again in your language, in my opinion is completely appropriate.

    And I will emphasize again - the problem with the ultra-Orthodox is that their children's lives are worth more than my children's lives - and the only reason why their lives are worth more is that certain people are willing to sell my children's blood so that they can have a comfortable seat in the Knesset.

    And the only reason that the ultra-Orthodox are not ready for their children to serve in the army is that they are afraid of exposing their children to the free world.

13. This is how it is when the state subsidizes the wind and grass professions, on a budgetary scale that makes the Yeshivas laugh.
    But who cares, let's just gather in a choir and hate ultra-Orthodox...

14. Thanks for the post.
    The box "only", which refers to the proportion (in percentages, for that matter) of the recipients of the engineering and scientific degrees out of all the recipients of the degrees, needs reference. Does "only" mean that there is a decrease in this rate over time? Does he "only" mean that it was appropriate for this rate to be greater? Is it possible that someone else, referring to the same data, will report them in a positive tone, as if a high proportion of recent graduates received a degree in natural sciences and engineering. Of course, this is if in his opinion the external reference to the new data is a different reference. But there is no reference in this information that would justify the "only" box.
    Thank you for your clarification,
    Best regards

15. Friends, this is a building in Sami Shimon, the college, of course, in the university and not in the university 🙂

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.