It’s been a little frustrating to watch over the years how slowly things in math and science education have been evolving. Back when Mathematica first came out nearly 24 years ago, people started doing things with it in education. And a lot of very nice work has been done.
But I can’t help but think there’s a lot more that can be done.
Given the current curriculum (e.g. in math) we can do much better at letting individual students move forward at their own pace, e.g. using Mathematica and Wolfram|Alpha as computational engines.
But one thing to realize is that most of the current math curriculum was set up a century ago, when the world was very different. And I strongly believe that it’s worth rethinking it, given our current tools, and the current uses that math has in the world.
We have an initiative called “Computer-Based Math” (http://www.computerbasedmath.org ) that’s exploring this.
One thing that’s really nice given Mathematica and Wolfram|Alpha is that people can much more immediately do “real-world” math and science, exploring genuine questions, not toy ones.
Another educational “experiment” of ours is the Wolfram Science Summer School ( http://www.wolframscience.com/summerschool/2012/ ) which we’ve been running for 9 years. The idea there is that people come and do an original research project. (One of my roles there is a piece of “extreme professoring” … trying to figure out an appropriate project for each person, given their interests and experience.)
I always start the summer school by doing a “live experiment” with Mathematica, and trying to discover something new in a couple of hours. (So far, it’s never failed.) I think it’s great for people to see that it’s possible to discover new things—-and that’s then reinforced in the projects they do themselves.
I don’t think every teacher is going to be able to pull off making discoveries with live experiments, but I think there are ways to get closer to that.
I’ve developed quite a few opinions about what the future of at least “high achieving education” should be … mostly centered on the idea of people being helped in doing “their own projects”, rather than being fed standardized courses and curricula.
Gosh … there’s a lot more to say about this. E.g. about treating NKS as a “pre computer science” subject; about teaching Mathematica as a language to young kids (small inputs -> exciting outputs); etc. etc.
The problem, often not discovered until late in life, is that when you look for things like love, meaning, motivation, it implies they are sitting behind a tree or under a rock. The most successful people recognize, that in life they create their own love, they manufacture their own meaning, they generate their own motivation.
For me, I am driven by two main philosophies, know more today about the world than I knew yesterday. And along the way, lessen the suffering of others. You’d be surprised how far that gets you.
…I work for the government and every year we get hundreds of internship applications from people who attend some of the best schools in the United States. Our internships are very, very prestigious and highly sought after. Some are even paid positions.
Different sections have different criteria, but Department wide we fill maybe five hundred slots a year. I have control over three or four jobs and I purposely seek out people with fast food and other “real” customer service experience.
Fast food experience tells me that an applicant is willing to work hard, that they know how to put up with an inordinate amount of bullshit and that they are serious about the opportunity to move up. This is a job that can open doors for you in the future, attack it with all your strength and intellect. People are watching and judging all the time.
—‘Reading fiction hardly interests me enough to pick up a book these days.’
This is probably the crux of the issue. For people who love books, this seems like something unfathomable. I love reading because a well crafted piece of fiction can genuinely carry you away to a different time and place; intensely written stories can scare you or make you cry or experience any number of strong emotions.
Additionally, there’s a general association of culture with books. There’s certain books you “should have” read to appear smart. A lot of people like making literary references to books they’ve read and if you haven’t read those books, you won’t get it.
Ultimately, I don’t think you should be judged for not reading. Some of my friends are the same way; they just don’t enjoy fiction. The sort of people who say stuff like “If you go home to someone who doesn’t own books, don’t fuck them” are just having an intellectual circlejerk and are on the same level as “You don’t watch sports? GAAAAAAAY”.
I’d definitely recommend you consider reading a couple of books, though. I recently reread Lolita, which I thought was a brilliant book and one of my favourite books is Kitchen. In terms of non-fiction, sometimes non-fiction books do offer insights you don’t get just from the internet; usually personal anecdotes. I really liked Underground which is about the Tokyo sarin attacks, And The Band Played On about the rise of AIDS in America and The Selfish Gene which offers a mind blowing explanation of the selfish gene theory.
Ultimately I wouldn’t judge you for not reading - it might just not be your thing. If someone tries to make you feel bad for not reading, go ahead and make them feel bad about something you’re knowledgeable about.
Playing Portal 2 on co-op is the truest relationship test there is.
I spent 3 months road tripping, and camping, around America with my fiance. But that? That’s nothing, next to Portal 2.
… Batman beats up the bad guys instead of obtaining a search warrant and then processing them.
Vigilante style justice is fast, but if the government began to imitate the tactics things would get out of control very quickly.
Loosely banded is actually an overstatement. There’s no club; there’s no requirements to “get in”. You don’t “join” it. All Anonymous is is a name for hackers to go under when they do things they feel is right for the web.
The idea that you can judge a person’s character by his physical attractiveness (or lack of it) is stupid and unworthy of people who claim to be rational.
I count Abraham Lincoln as my greatest hero, and he was no Adonis.
