FAIRLY often after I've spoken to a group about American achievement, someone will tell me that America leads the world in Nobel Prizes. I have not written about this because Nobel winners are rare birds, and their success might not reflect anything about the K-12 culture. The recent American Nobel sweep in chemistry, physics, medicine, and economics, though, unleashed a number of comments. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal opened: was a banner week for American science. The Nobel Prizes for medicine, physics, and chemistry all went to Americans. The awards underline the universally acknowledged fact that the U.S. is the world leader not only in its aggregation of talent but in its ability to nurture that talent. First-class universities, along with copious private and federal funding for research, are often cited as key enablers. But few would deny that money can't buy the most important element: a society that encourages independent thinking, open debate, and an unbound spirit of inquiry. The Journal, of course, would never, ever acknowledge what happens in elementary and secondary schools as the foundation for these accomplishments. But in the 16th Report (October 2006), I cited Singaporean and Japanese education officials declaring that American schools encourage questions, creativity, and unconventional thinking. Alas, I also cited Tufts Dean Robert Sternberg, declaring that our massive testing programs are of the most effective, if unintentional, vehicles this country has created for suppressing creativity. Thus it is conceivable that No Child Left Behind (NCLB), if not altered soon, will be a major factor in the destruction of one of our most cherished cultural achievements and our global competitiveness. Of course, no educational success in this country is received with unreserved joy; it must be accompanied by fear and trepidation. So the Los Angeles Times headlined one of its Nobel stories Despite U.S. Sweep of Nobels, Science Teachers Worried and quoted Judith Sandler of the Education Development Center in Newton, Massachusetts, as saying, This is great that we had so much success this year, but I'm actually worried about the future. Worrying about what the future will bring if our schools don't shape up has become our national neurosis. (For proof, enter Believing the Worst plus Bracey into Google to get an essay on this subject that appeared in the July/August 2006 edition of Stanford Magazine.) One person who has urged me to write about Nobels is Dennis Redovich, who runs the Center for the Study of Jobs and Education in Wisconsin and the United States (www.jobseducationwis.org). Redovich recently assembled a chart showing Nobel Prize winners by country over time. Since 1950, and including 2006, the U.S. has won 206 Nobels in science. Great Britain is second with 45, and Germany is third with 28. The U.S. tally constitutes 58% of all prizes doled out in the last 56 years. Japan has garnered six, and all other Asian nations have been shut out. In the period from 1901 to 1949, U.S. scientists received 18% of the Nobels in science, putting them in third place behind Germany (25%) and Great Britain (19%). But this total is a bit misleading. The U.S. won few Nobels prior to 1930, and 20% of all those awarded between 1930 and 1939. Between 1940 and 1949, the U.S. jumped to close to its current level, posting 48% of the winners. Of course, World War II (1939-45) devastated Europe and left most of the continent's scientific enterprise in ashes. Redovich imposed some criteria for determining how a country got credit for a prize. If the work was done in another country by a scientist now living in America, the other country received the credit. Thus Einstein's 1921 prize went to Germany. Redovich assigned prizes to America if the award-winning research was conducted here and if the scientists were listed as residing here. …
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Oct 1, 2007
Gerald W Bracey 