Can China ever really compete with the United States?
If you listen to the doomcriers out there currently, they not only can but are and the better question is "can we compete with China?" These senitments tend to come from a look at debt, finances, and national economies based on job creation. But as one of the more interesting pundits on Cable News often says "Its not more jobs, but new jobs" we should be cocerned with. If he's right, we've got far less to worry about.
The arguments against China's ability to keep pace when America is on its game are plentiful. Ideologically, can Communist-states, not matter how capitalist they look, innovate like the free market? According to the rhetoric, no. And if we're being honest here, thats where the economic "juice" is going to come from. At this years State of the Union, the President said that innovations in Science are where the future is. That we need to "win the future." He's right, albeit not very specific.
America's current issue is that we allowed poor managers, drawn down the rabbit trail by greed to make too many financial decisions for the nation. When they were exposed, too many powerful politicians made concessions for their friends in the finanacial districts. So if anything, China is a better manager than we are. As most Authoritarian states would tend to be. If they aren't, they're disposed of fairly quickly and we, in the west, certainly don't talk about them.
So theres the real question. Can the managers ever innovate, or do they just follow suit and run a strong ship? If innovation is the hotbed of economic recovery, then science cannot simply innovate to the height of academic exploration, they also have to innovate how things are done on the day to day. This is where the jobs are. With all due respect, going to Mars isn't putting food on the table.
The fundamental issue with science in this country is that we're pushing are students to be astronauts, and chemical engineers; doctors, and weapons developers. We need those, and thats a great thing, but how can these folks improve public transit if they've never rode on a subway system in their adult lives? How can they drive to solve food shortage solutions, or to create pesticide free groceries when shopping at Whole Foods isn't a decision they need to consider?
Our school systems are democratic but our science is aristocratic. If we're to succeed as a nation in innovation, we need to give a stronger science lesson to the masses. Reforming education is the topic de jure these days. I'll save that for another post. But before we discuss tenure, unions, early retirement, and supply costs for the class room, lets talk about the design of a classroom worth having. Lets be honest with one another. As long as we continue to make science so boring that it continues to appeal to only those with a strong predisposition, we're going to lose the innovation war to a nation of supposed tiger mothers.
Buy-in from parents is probably not at an all time high in America, and its something we should address but its not a war to wage in the classrooms. We need to start appealing to the young men and women in the seats, and see what sparks and holds an interest. When I was in high school, our Physics teacher had a lesson in which he used the principles of physics to create a potato gun. Then he went out and shot a flamming potato over the baseball field. While I was only a freshman then, and they were a senior class, I'll never forget it. I got an A in science that semester because I really wanted to make a potato gun. Maybe thats not the best rationale to love science, but lets not be elitist about this. Science is science and you either love it or you don't.
Somewhere along the line, when Chemistry came around, with all its fractions and its math, I went back to what I was best at. Writing. I never made it to physics. For better or worse, everyones a writer or blogger these days. The outlet is there and I can take innumerate lessons I picked up in High School, and later as an English Major, and apply them to something I do on a regular enough basis. But where is the outlet for science and math? Sudoku? Myth Busters? Its probably too much of a stretch to say we're a nation with an aversion for math and science. But books are what history and english do. Until we build a time machine, its the best we've got (maybe a kindle).
Sometimes you need to take a radical approach. I constantly rant against Baby Boomers and their mantra of "well...we've always done it this way." But lets face facts: The last race we won was to the Moon. So maybe the solution isn't more classroom hours, or more standardized testing, but more potato guns, and more myth busters type adventures. Its not crass to suggest science needs to be more interesting, it should at least hold our interest in a conversation.
Years later, when the craze came about, an ex-girlfriend and I showed a handful of neighborhood kids what happens when you put a mentos into a bottle of diet coke. Maybe they just thought it was kinda cool, but theres a strong possibility that one of them asked "now why does that happen?" Its hard to say, but I can tell you it held them longer than the worksheet they had to do that night.
Thin back to all the science classes you've had and ask yourself what really held your attention, or warranted your holding it as a memory. For me, its practical application. Not just potato guns and quirkey chemical reactions between supermarket-line candy and soda, but the big projects. I'll always remember "Rocket Day" in 8th grade with Mr. Reid in Mulcahey Middle School. We picked out our rocket, we built it, painted it, and in the final weeks of school, we all celebrated their completion by firing them off into the air in the back field.
I don't know if thats considered good enough for the educational policy makers in this country but I can tell you this. I'm pretty sure I can still build a rocket. I still have to cheat when asked about the Krebs Cycle.
