Being a student and a teacher always thrills me. What is education and how do we actually examine our teaching method, students, even taking it to a bigger picture, our education system?
CS Lewis wrote to Dr. Warfield Firor about grading Scholarship Examinations at the end of the term:
…But there is something about this endless examining, quite apart from the labour, which bothers me. It sets me wondering about the whole system under which you, as well as we, now live. Behind all these closely written sheets which I have to read every year, even behind the worst of them, lie hours of hard, long work. Even the bad candidates are doing their best and have been trained up to this ever since they went to school. And naturally enough: for in the Democracies now, as formerly in China under the mandarin system, success in competitive examinations is the only moyen de parvenir*, the road from elementary school to the better schools, and thence to college, and thence to the professions. (You still have a flourishing alternative route to desirable jobs through business which is largely disappearing with us: but it is at least equally competitive).
This of course is what Democratic education means – give them all an equal start and let the winners show their form. Hence Equality of Opportunity in practice means ruthless competition during those very years which, I can’t help feeling, nature meant to be free and frolicsome. Can it be good, from the age of 10 to the age of 23, to be always preparing for an exam, and always knowing that your whole worldly future depends on it: and not only knowing it, but perpetually reminded of it by your parents and masters? Is this the way to breed a nation of people in psychological, moral, and spiritual health? (N.B. boys are now taught to regard Ambition as a virtue. I think we shall find that up to the XVIIIth Century, and back into Pagan times, all moralists regarded it as a vice and dealt with it accordingly). From: C.S. Lewis, Letter to Warfield M. Firor Dec 3 1950, The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis: Volume III (2007)
New research finds that attractive people in the business world or academia may be at a disadvantage when they’re evaluated by a member of the same sex.
Good-looking people have it easier than the rest of us. Considerable research has come to that conclusion, including a 2009 study that found that personal attractiveness enhances one’s income prospects.
But a newly published paper points out an exception to that rule. An attractive person appears to be at a disadvantage in certain academic or workplace situations: specifically, if he or she is being evaluated by a member of the same sex.
“Although physical attractiveness should have little to do with the way people evaluate scholarship applicants and job candidates, we found that both were affected by their level of physical attractiveness,” writes psychologist Maria Agthe of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. In the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, she contends this bias is “rooted partly in the social threats and opportunities afforded by attractive people.”
In other words, while our conscious minds are considering an applicant’s skills and background, our unconscious minds are sizing him or her up as a romantic competitor. (It’s never too early to contemplate the next company party.)
In a paper titled “Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Beautiful,” Agthe and her co-authors, Matthias Spörrle (Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich) and Jon K. Maner (Florida State University), describe two experiments. In the first, 2,639 students were asked to imagine serving on a scholarship selection committee. They were asked to choose among a group of finalists, using detailed information on their grades and extracurricular activities, as well as a photo.
The images were “extensively pre-tested by an independent sample of 40 students” to determine attractiveness. Participants were asked to rank the three finalists in the order in which they would award the scholarship.
“When men judged women, the most attractive target received the first rank in 49.9 percent of the cases,” Agthe reported. “The least attractive person was chosen only 16.5 percent of the time. A similar pattern was found for female participants: The most attractive man was ranked first 42.5 percent of the time. This pro-attractiveness bias was not found for same-sex selections.”
In the second experiment, 622 students imagined themselves as recruiters and evaluated potential job candidates. The résumés again accompanied by a photo, which showed either a highly attractive or a moderately attractive person. For this test, the participants’ attractiveness was also rated (by an independent panel).
The results: “Women provided more negative attributions for highly attractive female job candidates,” the study reports. “In contrast, those women provided marginally more positive attributions for highly attractive male candidates. Similarly, moderately attractive male participants provided more negative attributions for highly attractive male job candidates.
“However, this bias was not found for those participants who were themselves highly attractive. “The bias held only for average-looking participants, those for whom highly attractive same-sex competitors present a particularly pernicious social challenge,” the study concludes.
Agthe suggests several ways to get around such bias, including consulting opposite-sex colleagues when evaluations are taking place. Indeed, the research suggests evaluations for hiring or promotion should arguably be left to committees featuring both men and women. Attractiveness bias may never be completely eradicated, but perhaps it can at least be evened out.
As Anne pondered the title of this conference, The Rightful Place of Science?, she immediately thought of people in our society who are overlooked in debates and legislation concerning science issues. The subject of evolution in public schools is an old story, dating back to the 1920s Scopes Trial. Although creationism may be out-of-vogue, intelligent design making waves with the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania and with even more recent legislation in Alberta, Canada giving parents the right to have their children opt-out of science class when evolution is taught. Amidst the fights between parents, teachers, school boards and administrators, Anne wonders about the 14-year-old biology students and their rights. She wrote this play with these questions in mind: Who are the real ‘losers’ in this polarized debate? And if we listen to young people, what can we learn from them about a personal reconciliation between faith and science? Anne Negri is an MFA theater of Youth student who is passionate about theater for young audiences and supporting new stories for the stage (by Anne Negri, featuring Courtenay Cholovich, Lee Hanson and Hanna Leister).
Recently, I had the opportunity to attend ‘The Rightful Place of Science?’ (TRPS) conference, organized by Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes (CSPO), in Tempe, Arizona with travel grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim Fonds. As a scientist in training, I used to believe science in its efficiency was an almost-perfect system: self-governing, thinking, and acting as police against badly done science, or intentionally false scientific claims. The discussions from the conference pointed out that no man can be trusted to be the judge in his own dispute. Science is made up of human beings who are capable of making mistakes. Hence, science in its rightful role in providing enlightenment is still need to be overseen by society in the formation of interdisciplinary board to avoid the notion that self-governing equals to self-pleasing – this can be observed in the practice of ‘Ethics Board’ for example.
Not every questions can be answered but I have learnt much about the complexity of the interactions between science and society especially about objectivity in science (read here) and university as economic engine (read here). I also put some of my thoughts from the case study (read here).
You might allso like what Sean Hayes wrote in TRPS blog – I quite agree with his statements which summarize some of the issues during the conference (you can also read it here)
Oh, do not miss what Monsignor Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo from The Pontifical Academy of Science presenting about ‘The Truth of Science for Justice and Peace’ - here. (Yes, you are right, the Pope has Scientific Advisers!)
![e-mail address: hshandoyo[at]gmail[dot]com](/images/email.png){kind=small}
