My only beef is that when discussing the issue of science education Green writes:
It’s much the same story in classes for biology, chemistry and mathematics.
You might notice that once again geology and/or earth science is not given a place on the list of important sciences. I am sure Greene has no problem with geology, that is not what I mean, I just think it is sad how often the "important" sciences are listed off with nary a mention of the science that studies the planet we live on. Other than that, the article is worth a read. He makes the point that science education is "unassailably vertical [paraphrased]" and too often focuses on teaching skills and forgets to involve the grand ideas, the things that might inspire students to want to learn the skills. Or as he writes:
Like a music curriculum that requires its students to practice scales while rarely if ever inspiring them by playing the great masterpieces, this way of teaching science squanders the chance to make students sit up in their chairs and say, “Wow, that’s science?”
This is the second time I've blogged about a prominent scientist somehow appearing in the NY Times and forgetting to include geology as an important science. The first time is here, in an article that quotes nobel laureate Leon Lederman.