CCBC-Net Archives
Biological versus Physical Science
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Victoria Wells <wells_nyc>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:22:42 -0400
I was very interested in Sneed's earlier comments about females and science, so forwarded the post to my sister, a scientist and organic farmer at Cornell. I asked her if she thought any books had affected her in going toward science, or was it that we
lived in the woods and she could be outside all the time. I thought I'd share her comments with the group:
From: Marguerite Wells mw38 at cornell.edu
To: "Victoria Wells" wells_nyc at hotmail.com < BR> Subject: Re: FW: [ccbc-net] Science Books and Gender
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:54:51 -0400
very interesting. and LOVE the writer's name. wow. his website-
probably not a URL that was already taken!
well, a few thoughts. first, that it's a shame that math keeps
women
out of science, if his impression is correct, because in reality
you
need virtually no hard math to do a lot of kinds of science.
because the stats required to do goo d science are way beyond
anyone's ken, there are programs and specialists to whom everyone
sends their data, and gets back results. no one around here
knows
much more about math than i
do. though that's certainly more true
in
the applied sciences (involving life-size real things) than in
basic science, which really is all about chemistry and math.
a nd no, i don't think any one book changed my outlook, being
outside
was certainly a primary interest, especially when tiny. i
certainly
fit his woman-scientist paradigm of outdoor experience, self
esteem
and support, and avoidance of math. only when i was 8+ yrs old
did
books start to matter. but gerald durrell was certainly a major
influence on me, even though his style of 19th century naturalism
is
no longer practiced by any 'real' scientists today. but ha ving
his
wonderful pile of books, both autobiographical and instructional,
were a lifeline to me that I wasn't the only nature lover on
earth,
which i might have otherwise thought.<BR anyone but school libraries buy them? eight women in
science,
each in 20 pages or less? seemed like there were lots of those in
the library, but they always seemed so stilted to me.. a shallow,
l inear progression of what the author thinks is interesting about
a
life. never seems relevant to oneself. but maybe that's just
me..could they be done in a more imaginative way somehow? what
& gt;was
so fun about durrell is that he wrote for any audience,
accessible
to a child, but because it was autobiographical and he's really
funny, it was much richer in interesting details. i could
relate
it
to my own life (which is of course the whole point) much better
than
the usual kid-oriented biographies which seemed to talk down to
the
reader by filtering out the realness.
anyway, just my random biased ideas. i'll ask around the dept if
i
&g t; remember, see what others have to say...
love, beez
At 7/12/2005, you wrote:
an interesting emai l i thought i'd run by you for your thoughts
as
a female scientist--do you think any book had any influence on
you?
my instinct is not specifically, esp while you were tiny, it was
>
; just your being able to be outside. and that it was books later
on.
yes? xx
From: "Sneed B. Collard III" collard at bigsky.net
Reply-To: "Sneed B. Collard III" collard at bigsky.net
& gt; To: ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu (Subscribers of ccbc-net)
Subject: [ccbc-net] Science Books and Gender
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:54:40 -0600
I've been enjoying the various discussions about science books
the past
week. All are interesting and the topic of girls and science
seems of
special concern. I find
that many of the elementary-age girls
I
speak to
during school visits love science and nature. Yet, many older
girls who
loved nature as children seem to reject science as teenagers
and
women.
Something is definitely going on. I n an effort to figure out
what, I've been
thinking about women scientists I know. For some reason, most
of
the
scientists I focus on in my books happen t o be women. In fact,
I
have a new
series with Benchmark just coming out that I originally
pitched
as a series
of biographies about women scie ntists (the publisher didn't
like
that idea
and renamed it "Science Adventures" but it still focuses
primarily on
women).
When I ask myself "What do all of these women scientists have
in
common?"
the only answer I come up with is that they all had important
personal
experiences with the natural world as children. Either their
parents were
>
; scientists or, in one case, the scientist's father was a
fisherman who used
to take her out on his boat. Perhaps the direct experiences
that
these women
>
; had as children are a key to their continuing pursuit of
science
as adults?
Another key is self-esteem, which seems to get hammered out of
so
many girls
through adolescents. All of the women scientists I wrote about
had very
strong family acceptance and support. Perhaps girls who don't
receive this
support often believe they will not be accepted by their peers
and potential
ma tes if they pursue something as "nerdy" and academic as
science?
If the last point is the case, then the availability of
additional role
mo dels through books and other sources certainly ought to
help.
One other
note is that I actually do meet a lot of women who would like
to
pursue
science, but don't because of one common shortcoming: math. I
tell every
young person I meet "If you want to be a biologist, take as
much
math as you
can." Yet, girls in particular often drop math at the first
opportunity.
Science and math
really cannot be separated. If I felt I could
do
it, I'd be
writing math books as well as science books. I certainly hope
there's a crop
of new authors out there who can push math books in new
directions.
I am eager to hear other thoughts on this subject.
Sneed B. Collard III
526 East Pine Street
Missoula, MT 59802
>
; (406) 721-2783
email: collard at bigsky.net
Website: http://www.sneedbcollardiii.com/
From: "Sneed B. Collard III" collard at bigsky.net
Reply-To: "Sneed B. Collard III" collard at bigsky.net
To: ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu (Subscribers of ccbc-net)
Subject: [ccbc-net] Biological versus Physical Science
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:02:24 -0600
<BR brown and furry or loaded
with fangs, claws, and scales. I also think, however, that there are more
difficult problems here. One is that is there are many more people competent
to write about biological sciences than physical sciences
. Being primarily a
life sciences writer myself, I am loathe to admit this, but it's true. It's
much easier to understand predation and camouflage than it is to understand
geosynchronous orbits and radioactive decay.
A second problem, though, is that writers find it much more challenging to
bring physical sciences to life. Humans relate much better to other animals
than to rocks without personalities. Even a lot of our interest in space is
generated
by the possibility that LIFE exists elsewhere, not on the inherent
fascination of planet formation, string theory, and pulsars. Many times, I
have toyed with writing about physical sciences--and I greatly admire
everyone who does?but I have a hard time coming up with a story that I think
kids will fall in love with. I'm guessing other writers run into the same
problem.
I would love to see some special grants or awards available for people
willing to tackle the physical sciences--and more incentive for teachers to
learn more about them. Which raises a third problem: if teache rs are not
trained and motivated to teach physical sciences, book sales will directly
reflect that and eliminate the incentive for writers to pursue physical
science books. Science in general is woefully underutilized in most
c lassrooms, not only because of the lopsided mandatory testing in language
arts, but because most teachers are afraid of it. This problem has to be ten
times worse in physical than in life sciences. I do sense that this is
changing slowly, but we've got a long way to go before science is treated as
a core subject?one that is essential to our society's survival?i nstead of
the elective it is now.
Sneed B. Collard III
526 East Pine Street
Missoula, MT 59802
(406) 721-2783
email: collard at bigsky.net
Website: http://www.sneedbcollardiii.com/< BR>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To post to the list, send the message to...
ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu
To leave the list, open this web page and submit your email address...
Received on Fri 15 Jul 2005 08:22:42 PM CDT
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:22:42 -0400
I was very interested in Sneed's earlier comments about females and science, so forwarded the post to my sister, a scientist and organic farmer at Cornell. I asked her if she thought any books had affected her in going toward science, or was it that we
lived in the woods and she could be outside all the time. I thought I'd share her comments with the group:
From: Marguerite Wells mw38 at cornell.edu
To: "Victoria Wells" wells_nyc at hotmail.com < BR> Subject: Re: FW: [ccbc-net] Science Books and Gender
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:54:51 -0400
very interesting. and LOVE the writer's name. wow. his website-
probably not a URL that was already taken!
well, a few thoughts. first, that it's a shame that math keeps
women
out of science, if his impression is correct, because in reality
you
need virtually no hard math to do a lot of kinds of science.
because the stats required to do goo d science are way beyond
anyone's ken, there are programs and specialists to whom everyone
sends their data, and gets back results. no one around here
knows
much more about math than i
do. though that's certainly more true
in
the applied sciences (involving life-size real things) than in
basic science, which really is all about chemistry and math.
a nd no, i don't think any one book changed my outlook, being
outside
was certainly a primary interest, especially when tiny. i
certainly
fit his woman-scientist paradigm of outdoor experience, self
esteem
and support, and avoidance of math. only when i was 8+ yrs old
did
books start to matter. but gerald durrell was certainly a major
influence on me, even though his style of 19th century naturalism
is
no longer practiced by any 'real' scientists today. but ha ving
his
wonderful pile of books, both autobiographical and instructional,
were a lifeline to me that I wasn't the only nature lover on
earth,
which i might have otherwise thought.<BR anyone but school libraries buy them? eight women in
science,
each in 20 pages or less? seemed like there were lots of those in
the library, but they always seemed so stilted to me.. a shallow,
l inear progression of what the author thinks is interesting about
a
life. never seems relevant to oneself. but maybe that's just
me..could they be done in a more imaginative way somehow? what
& gt;was
so fun about durrell is that he wrote for any audience,
accessible
to a child, but because it was autobiographical and he's really
funny, it was much richer in interesting details. i could
relate
it
to my own life (which is of course the whole point) much better
than
the usual kid-oriented biographies which seemed to talk down to
the
reader by filtering out the realness.
anyway, just my random biased ideas. i'll ask around the dept if
i
&g t; remember, see what others have to say...
love, beez
At 7/12/2005, you wrote:
an interesting emai l i thought i'd run by you for your thoughts
as
a female scientist--do you think any book had any influence on
you?
my instinct is not specifically, esp while you were tiny, it was
>
; just your being able to be outside. and that it was books later
on.
yes? xx
From: "Sneed B. Collard III" collard at bigsky.net
Reply-To: "Sneed B. Collard III" collard at bigsky.net
& gt; To: ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu (Subscribers of ccbc-net)
Subject: [ccbc-net] Science Books and Gender
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:54:40 -0600
I've been enjoying the various discussions about science books
the past
week. All are interesting and the topic of girls and science
seems of
special concern. I find
that many of the elementary-age girls
I
speak to
during school visits love science and nature. Yet, many older
girls who
loved nature as children seem to reject science as teenagers
and
women.
Something is definitely going on. I n an effort to figure out
what, I've been
thinking about women scientists I know. For some reason, most
of
the
scientists I focus on in my books happen t o be women. In fact,
I
have a new
series with Benchmark just coming out that I originally
pitched
as a series
of biographies about women scie ntists (the publisher didn't
like
that idea
and renamed it "Science Adventures" but it still focuses
primarily on
women).
When I ask myself "What do all of these women scientists have
in
common?"
the only answer I come up with is that they all had important
personal
experiences with the natural world as children. Either their
parents were
>
; scientists or, in one case, the scientist's father was a
fisherman who used
to take her out on his boat. Perhaps the direct experiences
that
these women
>
; had as children are a key to their continuing pursuit of
science
as adults?
Another key is self-esteem, which seems to get hammered out of
so
many girls
through adolescents. All of the women scientists I wrote about
had very
strong family acceptance and support. Perhaps girls who don't
receive this
support often believe they will not be accepted by their peers
and potential
ma tes if they pursue something as "nerdy" and academic as
science?
If the last point is the case, then the availability of
additional role
mo dels through books and other sources certainly ought to
help.
One other
note is that I actually do meet a lot of women who would like
to
pursue
science, but don't because of one common shortcoming: math. I
tell every
young person I meet "If you want to be a biologist, take as
much
math as you
can." Yet, girls in particular often drop math at the first
opportunity.
Science and math
really cannot be separated. If I felt I could
do
it, I'd be
writing math books as well as science books. I certainly hope
there's a crop
of new authors out there who can push math books in new
directions.
I am eager to hear other thoughts on this subject.
Sneed B. Collard III
526 East Pine Street
Missoula, MT 59802
>
; (406) 721-2783
email: collard at bigsky.net
Website: http://www.sneedbcollardiii.com/
From: "Sneed B. Collard III" collard at bigsky.net
Reply-To: "Sneed B. Collard III" collard at bigsky.net
To: ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu (Subscribers of ccbc-net)
Subject: [ccbc-net] Biological versus Physical Science
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:02:24 -0600
<BR brown and furry or loaded
with fangs, claws, and scales. I also think, however, that there are more
difficult problems here. One is that is there are many more people competent
to write about biological sciences than physical sciences
. Being primarily a
life sciences writer myself, I am loathe to admit this, but it's true. It's
much easier to understand predation and camouflage than it is to understand
geosynchronous orbits and radioactive decay.
A second problem, though, is that writers find it much more challenging to
bring physical sciences to life. Humans relate much better to other animals
than to rocks without personalities. Even a lot of our interest in space is
generated
by the possibility that LIFE exists elsewhere, not on the inherent
fascination of planet formation, string theory, and pulsars. Many times, I
have toyed with writing about physical sciences--and I greatly admire
everyone who does?but I have a hard time coming up with a story that I think
kids will fall in love with. I'm guessing other writers run into the same
problem.
I would love to see some special grants or awards available for people
willing to tackle the physical sciences--and more incentive for teachers to
learn more about them. Which raises a third problem: if teache rs are not
trained and motivated to teach physical sciences, book sales will directly
reflect that and eliminate the incentive for writers to pursue physical
science books. Science in general is woefully underutilized in most
c lassrooms, not only because of the lopsided mandatory testing in language
arts, but because most teachers are afraid of it. This problem has to be ten
times worse in physical than in life sciences. I do sense that this is
changing slowly, but we've got a long way to go before science is treated as
a core subject?one that is essential to our society's survival?i nstead of
the elective it is now.
Sneed B. Collard III
526 East Pine Street
Missoula, MT 59802
(406) 721-2783
email: collard at bigsky.net
Website: http://www.sneedbcollardiii.com/< BR>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To post to the list, send the message to...
ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu
To leave the list, open this web page and submit your email address...
Received on Fri 15 Jul 2005 08:22:42 PM CDT
