Science standards by state

Cali is understandable...lots of technology folks in Silicon Valley to contribute to the gene pool.

Originally Posted by enbloc

Cali is understandable...lots of technology folks in Silicon Valley to contribute to the gene pool.

Perfect example. California, a state in terrible economic condition. The place is bankrupt and getting worse. But they score an A here? Sure, according to this article they get an A. But, it doesn't mean crap. If anything, it points to the inverse.

Maybe instead of pushing this type of economy, or suggesting that this type of economy is good, the people who write this type of article or agree with it should get their heads on straight and look at what the data is really telling you. Or, is the data telling us anything at all? It might not be a direct correlation to anything. People love statistics and pretty graphs and charts and they love to run in any direction that they please. But, I think we need to ask if the data is really suggesting anything at all, before we go down that path.

The article tells us that there is a problem and then points to some of the states with the best economies in the nation and tells us that they're a problem. Well, wait a minute. How is that a problem?

It reminds me of the socialists that have all of the evidence that socialism is a complete failure and try to tell the rest of us that socialism isn't to blame, and they tell us that the problem is that we actually didn't have enough socialism. I'm not buying it.

The map also depicts those states and regions that the inhabitants are better suited for self-reliance and will survive the upcoming apocolypse.

A grade of "C" or lower is a "WIN"

Massachusetts should be an A.

They really help out biotechnology companies. Too bad they ddint help out manufacturing the same way.

NJ, CT and NY are full of biotechonlogies also. It is sually the entire North East, CA, Texas, and some (few) in Florida.

Now, by science, I am talking about Bio-Technology companie, pharmaceuticals. Not software development.

...

The ranking is based only on the perceived (by the people who conducted the study) quality of the established standards for teaching science in each of the states. That obviously has nothing to do with whether a state helps out a particular sector of the economy. I'm also not sure that it tells us a great deal about the quality of the actual science education students receive in each state, and likely tells us even less about how well-equipped the graduating students in each state are to compete in an increasingly technology-based economy.

That said, it's been pretty well established that students coming out of our public schools are not, to say the least, at the top of the world-wide heap in math and science and we need to do better. I'm just not sure that writing better science standards, as opposed to, say, merit pay for teachers, standardized testing, charter schools, or any of the other ideas floating around for improving public education, is an important part of doing better.

Edit: I see PaulD made the same point about the economy while I was typing.