Category Archives: education

The mathematicians of Surathkal

http://thewire.in/62631/women-in-mathematics-surathkal/

all emphases mine

Family influence and/or patriarchal power over their children’s education and career paths and aspirations:

“Sabari […] wanted to study medicine. “My grandmother and several others at home, practise home medicine.””

““At teen ages, we do whatever parents tell us to,” she said candidly. “They said take science in 11th and 12th standards so I did.”

“Manasa was lucky because her father was the math teacher. Only one other student at her old school continued to 11th standard.”

“If they [students] join a B.Sc. in maths because they were forced to, then they will soon know the reality, that what they were taught till then is not enough.”

Parental power sustains and reproduces unequal gender roles

Parents don’t want to send their daughters out of the state. I’m in NIT-Surathkal because I come from Karnataka itself. There are constraints.”

“In a society like ours, doing a PhD. is not always encouraged, especially for women as there is an opinion among families that the man must be more qualified. The women agree that they have heard people say things like “who will search for a boy now (now that she’s a PhD.)”.

Managing the dual face of patriarchal power through humour. Family poses both an “enablement” and “constraints” (Sen); parents exercise their freedom to translate their own experiences into shaping your children’s future (“he wasn’t able to finish 10th standard”). Feeling “grateful” and “lucky” for being allowed to flourish against the odds of one’s birth gender!

“Manasa B. counts herself lucky to have a father who is very particular that all his three children be well educated. “He wasn’t able to finish his 10th standard and he was determined that we do.” While she’s grateful for that, she knows that marriage will eventually come into the picture. “They’ve told us that in between studies if we ask you to get married, you can’t say things like ‘no, only after I finish’.” In her case, Manasa joked that she is off the hook until her elder sister gets married.”

Defying family:

“Sabari says that she had to fight a lot before she was allowed to come to NITK for her PhD.“Right before I joined here, one prospective groom came asking for marriage. My parents asked me to stay back and get married. I said, no I will go to Surathkal. If he agrees to let me, then good.”However, he didn’t, and Sabari proceeded with her plans.”

Willpower – but curbed by “adaptive preferences” (Sen):

“Manasa B. realised early on that she had a penchant for mathematics but her only ambition then was to become a teacher.”

Enablements and constraints, tradition:

The intersection of gender and class opens some future avenues and closes others. However this isn’t as black and white as the concept of “discrimination” may suggest: it is overt discrimination, but also internalised beliefs that lead people to put brakes on themselves and those others whom they love and over whom they have power (their children).

“Tenth standard is the highest education students were allowed to reach, especially girls. For the boys, it is better now but back then nobody sent their children out of the village to continue studies and there was no science college nearby.”

Where you go to school matters,” says Manasa. This becomes even more evident, she says, when they interact with their contemporaries from the IITs, IISERs – India’s top research institutes. “That’s when we realise how much we know and how our background and school education plays a role.”

Some constraints are self-restrictions: 

“Manasa said that the will to learn beyond what is considered ‘necessary’ is not something everyone has.”

“From basic education itself, students are hating mathematics a lot.”

“Conversion factors” (Sen) are initiatives, institutions, spaces, “arenas” that help level the playing field for people who have had different starts in life BUT these conversion factors can only ever begin to solve the problem:

“It always helps to collaborate with peers and arenas where they can do this are at government-funded training programmes for mathematicians – specifically the ATM schools (Advanced Training in Mathematics Schools) for teachers and Ph.D. students; and MTTS (Mathematics Training and Talent Search) for B.Sc. and M.Sc. students. […]“These really help. We learn a lot,” says Manasa. At these camps, though, women remain a minority. 

Locked in, or “having a family while female”. Family situation determines professional choices, identity, delineates freedoms. Babies are “not easy to manage” but they are also “our strength”. Female time itself is different: marriage serves even as an anchoring point in time.: “I started my Ph.D. in my sixth year of marriage” rather than “I got married right after I got my undergraduate degree”. To continue with other pursuits, such as a profession, or a passion, women have no other choice but to pass on care and household labour to other women, sometimes across generations (in other cases across nationalities). Unsurprisingly, very few women continue into marriage (in this micro-unrepresentative sample 1 in 5, but this is a very similar optimistic round-up of the actual overall proportion of women with children in science).

Only Kumudakshi is married among the five. She got married right after B.Sc. and has a baby now. “I started my PhD. in my sixth year of marriage. It’s not easy to manage with a baby but they are our strength.” She admits that she is able to do this because her mother lives with them. “Otherwise, managing this would have been a bit difficult. Someone should be there to take care of the house and things.

The generative and motivational belief in the dominance of personal willpower and tenaticy – but intertwined with a false consciousness

The hope? Willpower to discover and pursue your own grains of talents, develop personal tenacity:

“actually, I don’t think it’s true that students will do better in private schools. If they want to study, they will study anywhere.”

Yet, with the above statement – which I’m sure she sincerely believes, not least because I notice the same contradictory tendence in my own thinking and that of many people I’ve talked to –  the same mathematician actually contradicts her own experience when she compares her own educational journey to that of her colleague, the maths’ teacher daughter:

“had told me [the journalist] earlier that her experience studying at a government school was not as challenging as Manasa K.J.’s.”

 

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Talking to crackpots, or how can we communicate science better?

It is widely acknowledged – by scientists at least – that today’s science has become so complex that it is no longer possible to be an encyclopaedic autodidact like it still was in the 17- 19 centuries. While there are still (very, very) few research scientists who have always worked outside academia, none of them are more active than scientists who are at least sometimes working within academia. Today almost all fields in 21st century physics and mathematics are very much community efforts. This does not only have to do with the need for laboratories, but with the sheer complexity of the knowledge accumulated to date even in the most theoretical fields. The stereotypical lone thinker is not only not the norm, but pretty much structurally impossible due to the complexity of what today counts as cutting-edge science.
Thanks to a friend, I came across a wonderful article about science communication written by Sabine Hossenfelder (Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Germany). She offers a sympathetic, sociological view on what many scientists tend to immediately dismiss as “big theory of everything science crackpots”, from the viewpoint of a professional physicist. 

“Sociologists have long tried and failed to draw a line between science and pseudoscience. In physics, though, that ‘demarcation problem’ is a non-problem, solved by the pragmatic observation that we can reliably tell an outsider when we see one. During a decade of education, we physicists learn more than the tools of the trade; we also learn the walk and talk of the community, shared through countless seminars and conferences, meetings, lectures and papers. After exchanging a few sentences, we can tell if you’re one of us. You can’t fake our community slang any more than you can fake a local accent in a foreign country.”

The problem is, she says, that science enthusiasts (both the “crazy” and the “non-crazy” varieties – though Foucault would tell you that the label “madness” reveals at least as much about the rules and structures of the society which surrounds a person, as about that person’s personality)

“know so little about current research in physics, they aren’t even aware they’re in a foreign country”.

So why do some [men] still persist in trying to offer their grand theories to society – from outside the “not-so-ivory towers” of contemporary universities?

 As for why they are (in Hossenfelder’s sample at least) all men: there is undoubtedly a link between what society thinks a scientist is, and does, a sort of warped folk-theoretical image of lone male geniuses in white lab coats. This is something that researchers of scientific masculity would be better able to analyse.

But I’d turn the question on its head and instead ask: why are we surprised that anybody else is interested in science? As scientists [I always use the word scientist to denote all fields of knowlege in English, like I would in Bulgarian or German, including the humanities] we know only too well that science is one of the most interesting things. So then the difference between “us” and then becomes one of access to the “right” kind of knowledge, which sociologically means access to the “right” kind of knowledge spaces and knowledge institutions. It is important to realise that not all crackpots are crackpots. Some, perhaps many, are curious minds who might have become scientists, had they taken another career track.

This has to do with the different possible purposes of the university: is it a Humboldtian institution aimed at creating public good and educating critical thinkers, or a factory producing skilled workers and commodified knowledge for the market? Of course, neither of these ideological forms exists in a pure way, but German universities are still closer to the form, and American ones to the latter. 

And indeed, as my autodidact friend commented, in Germany they don’t have such “crackpots” and his hypothesis as to why, is that Germany has widely available science libraries and a culture of using them. This should be changing with the advent of online science spaces, but hasn’t. Clearly, cultural change is lagging behind technological change, and there are still people interested in (and obsessed by) science who do not use the multiple and very useful online science forums.

 (Just to make it clear: I’m not at all claiming that German universities are intrinsically better, only that they are more public than market-oriented: they have a whole zoo of other interesting and frustrating problems, such as chronic underfunding, badly functioning internal stratification, inefficient bureaucracy, rigid professorial apparatus, no jobs between postdoc and professor, etc.)

Hossenfelder makes a pertinent observation about ways in which science communication can go wrong: 

“… in the absence of equations, they project literal meanings onto words such as ‘grains’ of space-time or particles ‘popping’ in and out of existence. Science writers should be more careful to point out when we are using metaphors. My clients read way too much into pictures, measuring every angle, scrutinising every colour, counting every dash. Illustrators should be more careful to point out what is relevant information and what is artistic freedom.

Her next point is a much less popular one but possible even more important. In my conversations with mathematicians, I’ve heard many frustrated mathematicians say similar things:

“…journalists are so successful at making physics seem not so complicated that many readers come away with the impression that they can easily do it themselves. How can we blame them for not knowing what it takes if we never tell them?”

So how should we communicate science better? 

First of all, we should communicate science much more. The public deserves to know if not the ins and outs of cutting-edge science, then at least be aware about its existence, and its significance. We must know where to get a map for the “countries” which we may one day (or never) want to visit in person.

Second, the public deserves to know that there are many different valuable types of knowledge, including very abstract or inapplicable fields. This cannot happen while even scientists on the same campus don’t know anything (or don’t even respect) the work done in other university departments.

Third, science must appear real, done by real humans of different genders, colours, classes, ages, voices, faces, talents, interests, family situations, bodily capacities, demeanours, etc. – as it really is, and not as it used to be in some imagined 18th century.

Fourth, science must be presented not simply as a ready product, but as the process and a journey that it is. If the public knew more about the blind alleys, difficulties and disputes along the way, people would not only see science as more real, but also would perhaps appreciate its value more. (Thanks to Marion for adding this point in the comments!) 

Fifth, science must appear fascinating,yet not easy: because it isn’t. It is damn difficult. And you need a group to do it with.

Sixth, and this will counterbalance some of the negative effects of number 4 above: we must get away with the pernicious ideas that difficult = undoable, or that failure = stupidity. In school, kids must learn to learn and to fall many times but never to give up; but also to be smart about finding the right sources to learn from. 

Then there will be more appreciation of science – and perhaps fewer “crackpots” who are curious but lost in the wilderness of unattained knowledge and seeking it in all the wrong places.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Calculus is key for STEM gender gap: new research 

The pipeline that funnels women into careers in math and science is leaky all the way along along, but if one particular leak could be plugged, it might make a dramatic difference. Researchers have identified one change that would increase the number of women in so-called STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math) by 75 percent.

http://www.vocativ.com/347023/the-calculus-confidence-gap-affects-women-in-stem-more/
(Cartoon: New Yorker)

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The Spectre of Maths Anxiety

What an anger-inducing report for a Monday morning. It is a good report, but the subject made me angry. Reading a full historical account of why there is such a thing as maths anxiety at all, and why it persists into the 21st century, and why it is especially more prevalent among women, is so depressing. Besides, I’m certain that things are better (or at least less bad) in countries other than the UK, especially in ex-state socialist education systems. The gender imbalance exists, but is far less horrible – and this is linked, I believe, with the far less rigid “class” structure of the societies. Also in places like Italy and Portugal. How come nobody bothers to look and steal the good ideas. 
 
The full report (very readable):
The Fear Factor: Maths Anxiety in girls and women, 2015, by Samantha Callan, a report commissioned by Maths Action.
Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Money for nothing, research grants for free

This really is not some value-neutral fascinating social phenomenon such as the currently  en vogue “academic acceleration“: it is a bad use of academic time! Sure, some of the literature discussing “acceleration” is good, but I have a feeling it dance s around the subject a bit too much. Thanks to Jan Blommaert for calling the spade a spade (and apologies for the distasteful crib of Dire Straits lyrics in the title):

After submitting, we heard that a total of 147 applications had been received by the EU. And that the EU will eventually grant 2 – two – projects. In a rough calculation, this means that the chance of success in this funding line is 1,3%; it also means that 98,7% of the applications – 145 of them, to be accurate – will be rejected. And here is the problem.

[M]any millions’ worth of (usually) taxpayers’ money will have been used – wasted – in this massive and mass grantwriting effort. Several hundreds of researchers will have been involved, each spending dozens if not hundreds of their salaried working hours on preparing the application, and hundreds of university administrators will have been involved as well, also spending salaried working hours on the applications. These millions of Euros have not been used in creative and innovative research – they weren’t spent on doing fieldwork, experiments or tests, nor on writing papers and holding presentations in workshops and symposiums. They were spent on – nothing.”

Jan Blommaert, “Rationalizing the unreasonable: there are no good academics in the EU”, 10 June 2015, https://alternative-democracy-research.org/2015/06/10/rationalizing-the-unreasonable-there-are-no-good-academics-in-the-eu/


(Image: Milena Kremakova ®2007)

Tagged , , , , , ,

The disposable academic

An old article in the Economist about what happens after PhD (spoiler: not so good things)… still true.

http://www.economist.com/node/17723223

Tagged , , , ,

The Factory Academy (poem by John Kinane)

When they step out to the other side

Make sure they are the models described

Obedient and clean, just as prescribed

Trust in the academy production line

Value added and progressed tracked

Fit for purpose, packaged and stacked

Teacher……………“Stick to the template”

No matter what

Don’t motivate or deviate

Remember the plot

No individuality

Charisma or flair

Cut out the humour

Pretend you care

It’s a grand parade of inane individuals

Processed and classified with positive residuals

Ready for use in our brave new worlds

Trust in the academy production line

Institutionalised bullying stereotyped lies

Dehumanised products no light in their eyes

Teacher……………“Stick to the template”

No matter what

Don’t motivate or deviate

Remember the plot

No individuality

Charisma or flair

Cut out the humour

Pretend you care

If the factories performance shows invention

They will come under scrutiny through inspection

If inspiration is used you will get intervention

Trust in the academy production line

A new linear structure uniform on time

Schooled factory primed and sublime

Teacher……………“Stick to the template”

No matter what

Don’t motivate or deviate

Remember the plot

No individuality

Charisma or flair

Cut out the humour

Pretend you care

So here we are at the factory gates

Select and synthesise your class awaits

A generation of clones produced by the state

Trust in the academy production line

For you knew it would always be fine

When you sell your autonomy right on time

Teacher……………“Stick to the template”

No matter what

Don’t motivate or deviate

Remember the plot

No individuality

Charisma or flair

Cut out the humour

Pretend you care

 (Reposted from http://www.leere.co.uk/#!in-the-poetry-pipeline/crw7)

Tagged , , , , , ,

Let’s reclaim the fun of maths!

Merry Christmas, everyone! Here is a fittingly optimistic read about how to make maths fun and exciting for the new generations to come:

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/5-year-olds-can-learn-calculus/284124/

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: