Monolithic 3D Inc., the Next Generation 3D-IC Company
  • Home
  • Technology
    • Technology
    • Papers, Presentations and Patents
    • Overview >
      • Background
      • Why Monolithic 3D?
      • Paths to Monolithic 3D
      • Applications
    • Ion-Cut: The Building Block
    • Monolithic 3D Logic >
      • RCAT
      • HKMG
      • Laser Annealing
      • RCJLT
      • 3D Embedded RAM
      • 3D Gate Array
      • FPGA
      • Ultra Large Integration - Redundancy and Repair
    • Monolithic 3D Memory >
      • 3D DRAM
      • 3D Resistive Memories
      • 3D Flash
    • Monolithic 3D Electro-Optics >
      • 3D Image Sensors
      • 3D Micro-Displays
  • 3D-IC Edge
    • 3D-IC Edge
  • News & Events
    • News & Events
    • S3S15 Game Change 2.0 Video/P
    • Webcast
    • Webinar
    • Press Releases
    • In the News
    • Upcoming Events
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • History
    • Team
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • Simulators

Education to Raise Technology Consumers instead of Technology Creators

8/4/2011

18 Comments

 
Picture
We have a guest contribution today from Ze'ev Wurman, the Chief Software Architect of MonolithIC 3D Inc. In this blog-post, Ze'ev discusses some industry implications of recent events relating to science education. Ze'ev has participated in developing California’s education standards and assessments in mathematics since the mid-1990s. Between 2007 and 2009, he served as a senior policy adviser at the U.S. Department of Education. Throughout their development Wurman analyzed the Common Core mathematics standards drafts for the Pioneer Institute. In the summer of 2010 he served on the California Academic Content Standards Commission that reviewed the adoption of Common Core for California. Wurman earned his BSEE and MSEE degrees from the Technion in Israel, and he is a recipient of the Eliyahu Golomb Israel Security Award.


MonolithIC 3D is not unlike many other Silicon Valley startups. Around the table you find engineers from India, East Asia, Israel, and Europe. All received their primary education overseas, and a few their college education in the United States. But it is only few and far between that we find an engineer who was raised and educated here. This has been my experience for more than 25 years, and over that time the fraction of young, American-educated engineers continued to dwindle. I was reminded of this state of affairs reading Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal about several initiatives, launched by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, designed to attract and retain foreign entrepreneurs, particularly those in the high-tech sector who wish to launch start-up companies in the United States.

One could well ask why in the midst of a recession (“recovery” in some circles) the U.S. would try to attract more foreign, highly educated scientists and engineers to our shores. Yet we, who live in the Silicon Valley, know the answer: fewer and fewer American students are interested, or able, to enter demanding science and engineering programs. In 2006 the fraction of foreign undergraduate students in engineering reached 45%, in computer science 44%, and in physical sciences 40%. In 2007, the fraction of foreign students receiving doctorates in science and engineering was even larger: 62% in engineering overall, 73% in electrical engineering, and 57% in computer science. (NSF S&E Indicators, 2010)

Consequently, I was excited when the National Research Council recently published its new Framework for K-12 Science Education, in which it outlines its vision for improving teaching science in America in the 21st century. The framework has prestigious authors in science and science education and they promise us a

coherent and consistent approach throughout grades K-12 [that] is key to realizing the vision for science and engineering education embodied in the framework: [where] students, over multiple years of school, actively engage in science and engineering practices and apply crosscutting concepts to deepen their understanding of each fields’ disciplinary core ideas.[p. ES-2]

The National Academies, this framework’s publisher, stresses promoting American competitiveness as an important goal:

Science, engineering, and technology permeate nearly every facet of modern life and hold the key to meeting many of humanity's most pressing challenges, both present and future. To address the critical issues of U.S. competitiveness and to better prepare the workforce, Framework for K-12 Science Education proposes a new approach to K-12 science education that will capture students' interest and provide them with the necessary foundational knowledge in the field.

This certainly looks promising, particularly because the framework for the first time introduces engineering as a subject of study for our K-12 students. Yet as I kept reading the document’s 280 pages of lofty prose, I noticed something odd: The framework does not expect students to use any kind of analytical mathematics while studying science.

For example, the framework promotes a practice called Using Mathematics, Information and Computer Technology, and Computational Thinking (p. 3-13). Yet one observes that after singing paeans to the importance of mathematics, it only expects students by grade 12 to be competent in "recognizing," "expressing," and "using simple … mathematical expressions … to see if they make sense," but not in actually solving science problems using mathematics. Its other suggestions include the use of computer programs and simulations, ability to analyze data using computer tools and spreadsheets, modeling, and describing systems using charts and graphs. But there is nothing about actually being able to model a system by its equations, or solve it using mathematical techniques. The framework also includes as one of its Cross Cutting Concepts something it calls Systems and System Models (p. 4-7), but there, yet again, it does not expect students to use mathematics for that modeling. Its models "can range in complexity from lists and simple sketches to detailed computer simulations or functioning prototypes," but mathematics is left behind.

Picture
One searches in vain for words like “algebra” in the text. Instead one finds only one(!) instance of something called algebraic symbolism, which allows taking “relationships [that] are expressed using equalities first in words” and changing them into “algebraic symbols—for example, shifting from distance traveled =  velocity multiplied by time elapsed to s = vt.” Incidentally, this is the single equation in the whole 280 pages of the science framework. One should not even bother to search for mentions of calculus or trigonometry. Only statistics and computer applications seem to have a place in this strange document.

All of this made me think. Before Lavoisier’s quantitative approach there was no chemistry, only Alchemy. Before Newton’s invention of calculus, physics was more a craft than a science. Mathematics has been inseparable from science for the last 300 years, and has been largely responsible for the world we live in. Yet here we have a “21st century” science framework for our students that effectively ignores mathematics.

I went back and re-read the document to make sure I didn’t miss anything. And, indeed, I did not. Turns out it was staring at me right there on the first page:

The overarching goal of our framework for K-12 science education is to ensure that by the end of 12th grade, all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science; possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues; are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives; are able to continue to learn about science outside school; and have the skills to enter careers of their choice, including (but not limited to) careers in science, engineering, and technology. [p. ES-1, emphasis added]


Picture
Suddenly it all became clear. This framework does not expect our students to be able to do any science, or to be able to solve any science problem. This framework simply teaches our students science appreciation, rather than science. It expects our students to become good consumers of science and technology, rather than prepare them to be the discoverers of science and creators of technology.

Now I finally understood the wisdom of our government in easing the immigration of skilled professionals even in the midst of the largest unemployment in almost a century. When even our congressionally-chartered National Academies, and their most prestigious National Research Council, have lost their belief that American students can compete with their foreign peers, what else can a lowly government department do?

Or, perhaps, someone ought to shake those prestigious scientists and science educators and bring them to their senses?

submit to reddit
18 Comments
Barry Garelick link
8/4/2011 01:15:27 am

Well said. The education establishment continues to believe that the quantitative aspect of math and science is "inauthentic" and teaching students the procedures is just "rote learning". They don't learn critical thinking or how to solve problems; just do exercises and become little adding machines. Regarding Ze'ev's last line, unfortunately such shaking has been going on for years to no avail. The standard response has been "What do mathematicians and scientists know about how kids learn?" Maybe they don't know about pedagogy but they sure know what content students should be learning--and the fact that students aren't learning it.

Reply
Michael McKeown
8/4/2011 04:55:37 am

Only one formula or equation in 280 pages?!

So much for physics at even the simplest level. Chemistry is out. Imagine making solutions, doing dilutions, doing pH changes with out basic math skills.

One hopes that this is the bottom run in the framework, but it seems that this is level the authors want to use to start our new engineers and other technically trained people to a productive careers for them and the country. What a travesty.

Reply
Jerome Dancis link
8/5/2011 11:41:06 am

VERY GOOD Zeev!.

Physics is physical concepts and mathematics and (most important) the interplay of the two. Just concepts from physics may be trivial pursuit physics, but it is NOT physics. Students without a rigorous (math-based) high school physics course will be at-risk if they attempt to major in engineering or physics in college. Taking the Framework for K-12 Science Education science courses will not suffice; it will set up students to be at-risk in many stem majors in college.

Similarly, chemistry and chemical engineering is chemistry concepts, physical concepts and mathematics and (most important) the interplay of the three.

“The framework organizes science education around three dimensions:
...
* Crosscutting concepts. The framework also specifies seven concepts students should learn --such as “cause and effect” and “patterns” -- that have explanatory value across much of science and engineering.”
[http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html]

Of course, neither “cause and effect” or “patterns” is a scientific concept.

WORK is a crucial scientific concept, which does have explanatory value across much of science and engineering. Work is the physical concept, which is the basis for energy and power. BUT, work is missing from the physics chapter. Energy is mentioned frequently, but energy is a vague concept unless it is defined in terms of work.

[Definition: Work = Force x Distance. A foot-pound of energy is the energy needed to lift a pound one foot skyward. One hundred foot-pounds of energy is the energy needed to lift ten pounds ten feet skyward. For electrical energy, 1 kilowatt-hour = 2,655,223 foot-pounds and for food, 1 calorie = 3 foot-pounds (approximately).

Unfortunately, the writers were unaware of my report:
“Arithmetic-based Science and Algebra-based Science ”
which is Appendix A. at
www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/5th-meeting/presentations/dancis-jerome.pdf

Reply
Ray
8/6/2011 11:56:54 pm

Try to understand that these standards are meant for all K-12 students, not just those who are likely to go into the STEM careers. A student with an IQ of 85 is unlikely to be able to do science at the level you are suggesting.

Reply
Lisa Jones
8/7/2011 12:16:48 am

Just to reiterate: The National Academies claim "To address the critical issues of U.S. competitiveness and to better prepare the workforce, Framework for K-12 Science Education proposes a new approach to K-12 science education that will capture students' interest and provide them with the necessary foundational knowledge in the field."

THIS WILL NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MISLEADING THE PUBLIC LOFTY STATEMENTS WHILE FOCUSING ON LOW LEVEL CONTENT.

NECESSARY FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE SHOULD MEAN CONTENT THAT WILL PREPARE STUDENTS TO SUCCEED IN THE FIELD.

http://www.k12innovation.com/Manifesto/_V2_Home.html

Reply
Cal
8/7/2011 01:07:24 am

The curriculum is very interested in eliminating the achievement gap, and the best way to do that is eliminate or minimize math.

Besides, it's a bit absurd to pretend that most low skilled kids are actually learning anything about the biology, chemistry, or physics on their transcripts.

Finally, the immigrants coming here to study science are doing much to drive down the income provided to other science students--and really, do we have to hear the "oh, these poor, poor companies just need more scientists" line again? Immigrants mean cheaper labor. Full stop. If you want more qualified Americans to do the job, you have to pay them more and reduce the competition.

So there are two different issues here:

1) The curriculum wants to reduce the difficulty in order to minimize the achievement gap--at least in science.

2) The reason why companies want to import immigrants is because there's a problem with the flow of American science students. It's *not* that American schools aren't educating the top students well enough.

The solution is to create a tiered high school curriculum, acknowledging that not all students can achieve. And stop importing immigrant students.

Reply
Darren link
8/7/2011 03:29:45 am

Definitely had to <a href="http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2011/08/poor-science-instruction-and-its.html">link</a> to this!

Reply
Jerome Dancis link
8/7/2011 04:14:16 am

Consistency of Algebra Avoidance in HS Sci & Math Under-education.
Hard to have students solving simple Algebraic equations in science classes if they rarely do it in math class. Hard to have students solving simple Algebraic equations in Algebra classes considering the marginalization of Arithmetic in K-8.

This review notes:
“For example, the framework promotes a practice called Using Mathematics, Information and Computer Technology, and Computational Thinking (p. 3-13). Yet one observes that after singing paeans to the importance of mathematics, it only expects students by grade 12 to be competent in "recognizing," "expressing," and "using simple … mathematical expressions … to see if they make sense," but not in actually solving science problems using mathematics. ... . But there is nothing about actually being able to model a system by its equations, or solve it using mathematical techniques.”

This is consistent with:
1. “We found ... a deliberate avoidance of symbolic manipulation in algebra ... [in high school math textbooks].” [ See: “The State of High School [Math] Textbooks” By Guershon Harel and W. Stephen Wilson
http://www.ams.org/notices/201106/rtx110600823p.pdf]
and with:
2. Barely half the Finnish students, who passed the Advanced college matriculation examination in mathematics could calculate: (1/3 - 1/7)/4, [Answer: 4/84 = 1/21] and only two of three could:
Find R from the formula U = E – IR. (Answer: R = (E–U)/I)
“LONG TERM EFFECTS IN LEARNING MATHEMATICS IN FINLAND --CURRICULUM CHANGES AND CALCULATORS”
http://elib.mi.sanu.ac.rs/files/journals/tm/23/tm1221.pdf
[The formula U = E – IR is a simple equation from physics, where I is electrical current (in amps) ; R is resistance (in ohms) and E is voltage of a battery (in volts).]
and with:
3. “Endless Algebra—the Deadly Pathway from High School Mathematics to College Mathematics” by NCTM President J. Michael Shaughnessy
www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=28195

Of course, this Algebraic equation avoidance in HS Sci & Math Under-education is consistent with the marginalization of Arithmetic in K-8.

Reply
Dean Baird link
8/8/2011 05:31:42 am

You are overstating the problem you perceive. To get a sense of this, ponder a few questions.

1. What percent of working adults work in the math/science/tech sectors?

2. Given that value, to what extent do we need to prepare 100% of high school graduates to be technology creators?

3. Do you imagine those involved in language arts are sanguine about our expectations re language arts or do you imagine they hope for greater rigor in national frameworks?

4. Is there a place for a course like Freshman Physics at colleges/universities? What would they teach that you wouldn't want high school physics teachers to teach?

My points? Not everyone is going into science or engineering. Everyone imagines his own area is slighted in national standards. And high school is not anyone's final exposure to math/science content is they hope to be technology creators; there is a role for college and university coursework.

Reply
Kristy
4/22/2013 12:33:06 pm

Some say that educating a mother is worthless because she will not enter the workforce. However Benjamin Franklin pioneered schools for women because they are the teachers of our leaders. Wouldn't it be wise to have parents who can assist their children who do happen to be natural engineers? I'm grateful for my mathematical education, even though I am a Licensed Massage Therapist and mother, for I happen to have a child who was a born engineer.

Reply
Leia
3/6/2014 05:51:53 am

You are absolutely correct Kristy! If parents aren't educated, who's gonna correct the kids when they get something wrong? I'm sick of the relativism society is embracing, both moral & knowledge-wise ("3x4=11 is "OK" if you can show how you got it!"). We are (or used to be) given a good foundation in all subjects so we were well-rounded & able to choose between any number of careers, or so we could know enough to teach/correct our children. Knowledge is power--and the Powers That Be know that, so they have to dumb us down to the point that we'll be unable to topple their chosen successor from the throne of power.

kht
8/8/2011 08:00:59 am

As an American-born and educated engineer, I know quite a lot of other American born and educated engineers... including good ones who ended up leaving the field for better opportunities.

What I notice - and I say this not with any particular point other than to provide a different point of view - is that there are some companies whose engineers are mostly immigrants and others that hire mostly Americans. I don't think this is necessarily nefarious, but possibly due to the networks people have and the particular qualities they value in their hiring. (I know excellent engineers from all over the world, of course.)

I say this only to say that your anecdotal experience is not data, and to point out that for talented American-born kids, science is not necessarily their best option in terms of job security nor compensation.

Anyway, that is a side point.

I am not as concerned with the use of rigorous math in science as you are, especially not in the K-10 grades. It's not really until 11th and 12th grade that they have the math maturity to make it valuable, and I think there's much to science that's not about math that all students would benefit from.

Reply
Ze'ev Wurman
8/8/2011 10:46:29 am

Couple of quickies.

Dean Baird: You are correct that we do not need to try and make 100% into technology creators. But that does not mean that we therefore can dumb down 100% of our science teaching in K-12, as we will end up with close to 0% of such. One needs to use algebra to understand the balancing of chemical equations, or apply the laws of gases. One needs algebra to use Kirchhoff's law. One needs trig to use Snell's law. One needs both for basic Newtonian mechanics. One needs to understand logarithms for calculating the acidity of solutions. All this is basic stuff that should be taught in regular HS classes if one wants to be accepted into a serious science or engineering college program. It is not AP material.

KHT: You are correct that my experience is anecdotal, although widely shared in the Valley. However, close to 75% PhD EE students on non-resident visas is not anecdotal -- it is hard NSF data. With increasing numbers returning to the growing economies of their homelands in Asia after getting their degrees.

Reply
kht
8/8/2011 04:25:16 pm

Oh yes, of course there are large percentages of foreign students in science and technology programs in the US. I'm sure more of them would stay here to work if they could get jobs that would allow them to do so.

We have been lucky in the US for years to lure the best and brightest science students in the world to our shores. It's bizarre that we no longer seem to want to encourage that with policy.

I believe in a strong science and math education for everyone: they're critical subjects in their own right. I am less of a believer in the alleged shortage of American talent. I suspect that friction in the labor market is a bigger factor in technical hires than a true lack of skilled workers.

The best and brightest in India become engineers. The best and brightest in America go to Wall Street. Not necessarily because they can't do the math - Wall Street soaks up quite a lot of mathematical talent - but because that's where the 'best' jobs are.

Reply
Joe
8/26/2011 11:17:23 pm

As a high school physics teacher I agree with the gist of the argument. My students will learn the mathematical models that describe the physics, and will be prepared to move into careers in Engineering if they so choose.

However, I cannot advise them to do so when I see so much outsourcing of engineering jobs overseas. My son was studying calculus in the 7th grade at the university. He graduated from Grinnell college with a degree in physics. He has a brilliant mind for conceptualizing in 3D. Yet he has been trying unsuccessfully to get a job for the last two years.

Maybe he should have majored in finance?

Reply
vivien link
8/10/2012 02:29:01 pm

Comment deleted

Reply
Jeremy
11/27/2012 08:54:47 am

You are not comparing apples to apples here. You are comparing the minimum standards to goals of the top achievers. The new minimum goes far beyond the level of scientific ability and understanding of the average 30 year old in the US right now.

Reply
Zeev Wurman
11/27/2012 01:10:52 pm

I believe you are wrong. These are not minimum standards, nor do they describe themselves as such. Further, you make a basic error when you compare "standards" (i.e., aspirations) with the actual knowledge level in the population, particularly many years after the learning occurred. These standards will dictate the ceiling, rather than the floor, for the overwhelming majority of HS graduates.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Search Blog


    Meet the Bloggers


    Follow us


    To get email updates subscribe here:


    Recommended Links

    3D IC Community
    3D IC LinkedIn Discussion Group

    Recommended Blogs

    • 3D InCites by Francoise von Trapp
    • EDA360 Insider by Steve Leibson
    • Insights From the Leading Edge by Phil Garrou
    • SemiWiki by Daniel Nenni, Paul Mc Lellan, et al.

    Archives

    March 2022
    December 2021
    August 2021
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    December 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011

    Categories

    All
    3d Design And Cad
    3dic
    3d Ic
    3d Nand
    3d Stacking
    3d Technology
    Brian Cronquist
    Dean Stevens
    Deepak Sekar
    Dram
    Education
    Heat Removal And Power Delivery
    Industry News
    Israel Beinglass
    Iulia Morariu
    Iulia Tomut
    Monolithic3d
    Monolithic 3d
    MonolithIC 3D Inc.
    Monolithic 3d Inc.
    Monolithic 3d Technology
    Moore Law
    Outsourcing
    Paul Lim
    Repair
    Sandisk
    Semiconductor
    Semiconductor Business
    Tsv
    Zeev Wurman
    Zvi Or Bach
    Zvi Or-Bach

    RSS Feed

© Copyright MonolithIC 3D Inc. , the Next-Generation 3D-IC Company, 2012 - All Rights Reserved, Patents Pending