I always thought that middle school science classes should be ecologically based - have kids learn the names of their neighborhood trees, then discuss gravity in regards to transpirational pull. At least that way a generation of students have the opportunity to see the world not as undifferentiated green, but as distinct living things.
Similarly, I have noticed that many ecology classes, particularly at my current institution, deemphasize the hands-on field component to emphasize quantitative methods and topical lectures. Touching, seeing, and learning the names of living things in organismal-based field classes can be such a powerful wondrous experience (beyond the imagination of many!), which surely recruits students who would have no interest otherwise. Furthermore, I think replacing these classes with population modeling, R and GIS classes leaves ecology undergraduates ill-prepared to be field technicians and woefully ignorant of actual biodiversity. Best, Erick On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:16 PM Jonathan Giacomini <jonjgiacom...@gmail.com> wrote: > We are all welcome to our own opinions and I guess my experiences with > high school history guide my choice. However, while you bring up a great > example of US history, I still think a subject, such as ecology, that > provides an understanding of life that is applicable to every human being > across the globe, greatly trumps a subject that applies solely to a single > society. That is not to say that the latter subject need not be a > significant part of the curriculum, but rather that ecology may be more > important. While I do believe that it's important to understand how the > government works and the history behind why, I find my ever growing > knowledge of the interactions between living creatures, their environments > and their peers, to be far more valuable. > > Best, > Jonathan > > On Tuesday, February 2, 2016, David Mellor <mellor.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I like your gumption Jonathan, but I think your point that outdated and >> superficial history curricula are a reason to toss it aside in favor of >> more eco/evo is way off base! Even though I think that many core concepts >> in eco/evo are really necessary for an MD, or for any reasonably informed >> citizen, I think that history trumps that more often than not. As a example >> (US focused, my apologies), there is virtually no understanding of how the >> lessons of the fall of the Roman republic and the rise of the empire shaped >> the framing of the US constitution. This was the basis of the education >> system for those who wrote the constitution, and it shows up in the >> electoral college, the roles and responsibilities of the executive and >> legislative branches, and in the requirements for office holders. This >> ignorance is painfully obvious in the social and traditional media during >> any reasonably sized political news story: major pieces of legislation, >> supreme court decisions, and of course, elections. >> >> There is so much that a reasonable person *should* know, but it is very >> hard to translate that into a reasonable sized curriculum that helps every >> student grow into a healthy and conscientious adult. >> >> Best, >> David >> >> David Mellor <https://osf.io/qthsf/> >> Center for Open Science <http://centerforopenscience.org/> >> > @EvoMellor <https://twitter.com/EvoMellor> >> mobile: (703) 967-4512 >> > >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Giacomini < >> jonjgiacom...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I've never understood why ecology isn't a core requirement during high >>> school (9 - 12th grade). To be honest, I think history should be swapped >>> with ecology. That's not to say that history isn't an extremely important >>> topic, it most certainly is important. However, in my opinion, much of the >>> standard history curriculum is out dated and too narrowly focused, often on >>> false representations. >>> >>> Regardless of which classes should be swapped, perhaps it's time that we >>> start the conversation of ecology as a core high school requirement. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> J >>> >>> >>> On Monday, February 1, 2016, Kay Shenoy <kay.yellowt...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Does anybody have ideas on how to promote Ecology among Biology >>>> undergraduates? We are finding that Biology majors are increasingly >>>> focused on health-care fields; many students consider Ecology >>>> “unimportant” for their future careers, and it is not addressed in the >>>> MCAT exams, so they give it a low priority. How does one increase >>>> enrollment in Ecology courses, and particularly in schools that do not >>>> have dedicated Ecology departments? Any thoughts would be welcome! >>>> >>> >>
