Reply to comment

I also agree with the Greene's article, that science education has been stripped of its intrinsic sense of wonder. I have always been fascinated by the big picture or the tiniest details that science is able to explain but I have often struggled with the nitty gritty technical aspects. Unfortunately, I am one of those people who have experienced the "cold, distant, and intimidating" side of science education. I enjoy reading the science section in the New York Times, I am fascinated by astronomy, and truly intrigued by the complexity and beauty of the natural world, but when it comes down to sig figs, conversion factors, and genetic problems I tend to loose enthusiasm at a rapid pace. Throughout my educational experience I have focused my energy on my intellectual strengths in the humanities, frightened that if I engaged myself more in science I was doomed to fail. I was forced to confront my perception of science education when I decided that I wanted to be a doctor. This year, I am trying to view science as not simply a means to an end, in my case a career in medicine, but rather as a chance to gain a new perspective on the world around me and better understanding of how things work. And yes, although I will probably still groan inside when I have to calculate the margin of error, I have come to believe that the quantitative and technical skills are simply tools that are necessary to explore the interesting big questions. Just as grammar, sentence structure, word choice, and style are needed to craft an excellent essay, I think that the frustrating details of science are the building blocks on which rich discoveries are based. I do, however, believe that the way science is taught needs to be modified. I think that many students are intimidated by science because they are afraid to be wrong and to make mistakes. If anything in our educational system needs to be changed I think that it is the stigma that if you make a mistake you are automatically stupid. I think that a child's natural interest in science is often shut down by a competitive, grade-orientated system that discourages a child who might not pick up the technical aspects as quickly. Science should be made more approachable, without dumbing it down. Perhaps by first introducing the larger concepts and then the technical tools needed to achieve a solution students would retain their passion and curiosity. Who knows what potential Noble prize winners were "weeded out" by a ridiculous bell-curve!