Science gap

A recent Princeton Review survey of the top-ten most-popular college majors produced fairly unsurprising results: 1. Business Administration and Management, 2. Psychology, 3. Elementary Education, 4. Biology, 5. Nursing, 6. Education, 7. English, 8. Communications, 9. Computer Science and 10. Political Science (go poli-sci!). And just as predictable is the absence of mathematics, engineering and most of the hard sciences.\nEvery year, we fret about American students falling behind in math and science. Every year, we suggest throwing more public and private money at this problem -- and, don't get me wrong, I support that. But, I don't think that this gets at the heart of the issue. Why do we see a glut of students in English, history and the arts, but a shortage of students in the hard sciences -- despite the well-known fact that the latter have higher average incomes? We hear about a lack in the quantity and quality of primary- and secondary-level science teachers -- but, then, where does this lack come from? So, here's my guess: The way we're teaching science runs counter to American cultural tendencies -- an idea most strongly revealed in comparison to our rising competitors: China and India.\nFirst off, according to political scientist Ronald Inglehart, societies undergo a "values shift" as their economies move from developing to advanced. In developing countries, the survival of oneself and one's family are not assured -- personal concerns take a backseat to the pursuit of wealth: i.e. people are more willing to put up with miserable jobs because they put food on the table. For advanced economies, survival is assured -- even our poorest usually have the basic means for survival -- so, we are more likely to forego income for other types of personal fulfillment. In China and India, one's math grades can be the difference between poverty and success -- in the United States, they merely determine whether you'll have to take remedial classes.\nSo, how do the sciences stack up regarding other sources of personal fulfillment? Americans are the most individualistic society in the world -- but how do we teach science? Mostly by mass lecturing, then having all students work on the same experiment at once -- the grade for which is determined by how close their results are to the teacher's. Americans are famously pragmatic, so what do we teach them? The memorization of theories and things easily looked up (say, the periodic table) -- with a vague assurance that they'll be able to do something cool with it someday ... after they get tenure. Then, for the sake of safety, we set up regulations to keep all but the most dedicated from tinkering on their own ("kids, don't try this at home!").\nWith no opportunity for personal expression, for individual recognition or, even, for danger, what else is left? To quote "The Simpsons'" Principal Skinner: "Ah, there's nothing more exciting than science. You get all the fun of ... sitting still, being quiet, writing down numbers, paying attention ... Science has it all"