We have been hearing about the problems with providing enough technically qualified people to staff the growing fields of technology in the 21st century for a long time. Much of the discussion has been concerned with the educational system that fails to teach and attract students in the “hard” sciences. Despite the dire warnings about our inability to maintain leadership in new and emerging industries, education has relied on the same basic strategies and is not changing very quickly. To be fair, there are initiatives evolving that include new ways of educating our students; but not at the levels required to meet the present and upcoming demands. Part of the problem is concerned with how we teach, what we teach, and how we tailor the educational goals to meet standards that just do not look at the future in a realistic way. We have long held the belief that rote learning is critical to success in the early educational years of K through 12.
But, we are learning that when the same techniques of using rote and redundancy at the college level, many students wash-out of science and technology aspirations; (STEM, science, technology, engineering, and math). In an article in the New York Times from 2011, “Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)”. Here. The suggestion is that the sciences should be taught differently than the more liberal arts subjects. Is that possible within the current educational system? It seems as if the process is possible but it will take time. And, it may take the time that we do not have.  So, how do we change the learning/teaching paradigm that is so entrenched in our “modern” educational system? Make learning more fun, relevant, and user friendly!

It is clear from the career projection in the chart from USA.gov, that there will be an increasing demand for skills in the STEM areas. So, although there may be any number of ways to create increased interest in children learning the sciences, I would like to mention one that seems pretty easy to implement.  When we look at very early education, for example pre-K, K, and the very early elementary years, learning is accomplished with “hands on” techniques.  Blocks, crayons, toys, and interactive skill- based tools that help motor development, mental agility, and social awareness are utilized. But, these are quickly abandoned and the students sit in organized rows and begin to learn by rote and regurgitation. And, of course, standardized testing! And, in middle school despite the fact that the students are using computers and have cell phones, they have very little understanding of how these technologies function. To me, this looks like a good place to start introducing the STEM subjects in real-world applications. There are so many gadgets and gizmos that can be the source of learning how the sciences relate to everyday life. From telephones to microwave ovens and blenders, we live in a science-rich environment. Let the kids take these things apart in a controlled setting and learn science, technology, engineering, and math with some fun. I think that once you light a fire in a child’s mind, you have some very real possibilities of changing the perception of science as being difficult and dry. The reality is more complicated than my observation but there are attempts to investigate the problems of education. Some of these are from the government, private industry, and learning coalitions. But it is a slow and tedious process to change anything that is so entrenched in antiquity as education and culture. We still dress boy babies in blue and girl babies in pink. And, we all know that girls play with dolls and boys play with trucks. I bet that if you do not define roles and put all of the children in a room full of dolls and trucks, that many girls would play with trucks. That will be a great day! Just an observation…  

It has been widely reported across the internet that the voice of Apple's voice assistant Siri, is  based on Susan Bennett, a voice actress from Atlanta. She has indicated that the voice is hers, and was recorded in 2005 over a period of one month. The report has been seen on CNN, The Verge, USA TODAY, and many others. Most are re-blogs and have been very popular with readers. But this post has very little to do with the report. Whether or not the story is accurate and true is of little consequence. What I find fascinating is that it is news at all.
As an observer of the world around me, I am constantly amazed at  how a story becomes "important" to the general population. One of the methods that I use to test the importance factor is in reader comments. Usually, the responses are a fair indicator of the relative significance of a given report. In this case, the number and broad spectrum of comments seems to indicate that this news is earth shaking! The fact that anyone would take the time to write a comment about what is basically trivial, seems disproportionate compared to the "news".
What I have read so far seems to indicate that the comments are based on personal thought or opinion and very little research into the story. But even Wikipedia says that Siri is based on Ms. Bennett, so it must be true. Arguments both pro and con about the fact that as reported, the recordings made in 2005 pre-date Apple's acquisition of Siri from Siri Inc. in 2010 make the story implausible. There is even a discussion as to who may own the legal rights to her voice. Never mind about Syria, the government shutdown, debt ceiling, and drought and pestilence.
One thing seems clear to this observer; if the internet is the source of the research, there will always be some doubt as to the veracity of any information. Trust and verify seems unlikely! What do you think Siri?