<p>
</p>
<p>They probably are not thinking of students’ medical school chances. They are probably thinking that if students did not master the introductory courses’ material, they would be completely lost when they had to apply that material in later courses. Most STEM majors have fairly dense graphs of prerequisites, while most H/SS majors have much sparser graphs of prerequisites. So there is much less pressure to ensure rigor in introductory H/SS courses than there is in STEM courses.</p>
<p>^^Hadn’t thought of that specifically but very true. There is only attrition out of STEM, not into STEM. You can’t decide as a junior that art history just ain’t it and decide to switch to physics (and graduate in anything like 4 years). </p>
<p>The attrition out of Biology may be that processing large amounts of material is difficult for many, even if it is ‘just memorization.’</p>
<p>I almost feel that I read a different article than everyone else - at least I took away a different message. (I only scanned the previous comments, so perhaps I missed someone else with a similar reaction.)</p>
<p>My son was going to study math/physics, but decided at the last minute that he wanted to study engineering. His reasoning was based on his participation in Science Olympiad and Siemens competitions - he liked the hands-on aspects of his experiences in both. He does well in math and the more “theoretical” side of STEM, so this is a personal preference, not an ability issue (at least, he is doing fine in his program so far).</p>
<p>The comment in the article about engineering not being what the engineering students expected, all classwork and little hands-on work, was what caught my eye. There are programs that integrate project work with classwork (I remembe Olin being particular strong at that). At my son’s school, the project opportunities seem to be more optional, and extracurricular, though there are still lots of opportunities. There is also a required senior project.</p>
<p>So, it still seems to me that the article was commenting more on how the material was taught rather than on the level of rigor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the question is WHY only STEM majors? Why do other majors not have “dense” prereqs? Why do other majors not have dense courses? Why does college make some majors dense on purpose, while others are not? Why do some majors purposely flunk kids out, while many others are more accommodating? Why do STEM majors purposely cap A’s which forces greater competition among classmates?</p>
<p>^^ Much of STEM classes build upon what is learned before in pre-requisites. One cannot take/understand Biochem until one has had organic Chem which cannot be understood until one has had Chemistry. It’s the nature of the beast. You need Calculus before you can do Multivariable calculus which is used in advanced physics classes etc. It’s a vertically integrated knowledge. If calculus is hard for you, there is no point in planning on, or possibility of being, a physics major. So the kids get ‘weeded’ out.</p>
<p>In contrast, take Art History which I know. Once you’ve had Art History 101, you can pretty much take any Art History course in the dept with the probable exception of upper level seminar courses. So you can do Japanese art, Renaissance art, Roman art etc. as they do not build upon each other. The knowledge structure is horizontal, not vertical. Much more flexibility in curriculum. And getting a ‘C’ in Japanese Art won’t mean that you won’t necessarily do well in Renaissance Art, and so less of a need to ‘weed’ out. </p>
<p>FWIW, I don’t think they cap 'A’s in DS’s school, at least in math/physics. They may for Biology/Pre-med to differentiate students for Med School apps etc. And truthfully, after having gone through med school and being in practice for 20 years, sometimes I think the med school bar is not high enough. I’ve seen plenty of doctors that should not be.</p>
<p>I agree with whimsy. The article talked at length about the presentation of the material at college.</p>
<p>Students dropped out of Engineering because they lost touch with the reasons they decided to study Engineering.</p>
<p>ihs:</p>
<p>I get all that, but the question is Why? Why is Art History different? Why do upper division Art History courses not build on a solid foundation of Art History 1? Why are only STEM curriculums vertical? Why aren’t all college majors vertical? Why does Art History 1 award A’s liberally, why Chem 1 purposely does not? </p>
<p>It would seem to me that it would be easy for a college to design a horizontal bio major: courses in geology (rocks for jocks?), courses in enviro, courses in astro, courses in zoology, courses in botany, and a few true bio courses, etc. Ten horizontal courses = B.A., just like in Art History. (Yes, somewhat facetious, but perhaps if all college majors had vertical rigor, students wouldn’t be bailing from STEM for horizontal ‘rigor’.)</p>
<p>It gets back to my point pages ago-- it ain’t the math knowledge, or lack thereof, that hinders STEM development, it’s the rigor (and the forced competition).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They curve; it’s the same thing. A prof can make a test as easy or as hard as s/he wants to obtain the grade distribution that s/he wants. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps, but is it really the function of undergrad bio departments to weed out 18-year-old premeds in Gen Bio? Shouldn’t that be the grad/professional school’s responsibility?</p>
<p>deleting duplicate post, sorry.</p>
<p>So, I noticed that someone pointed out how in the humanities, students tend to have it a lot easier…yes and no. I’m getting Bs at best in my art at a community college, and I’m the best artist in the class. For most of the first half of the semester, I had Cs. The difference, I guess, is that artists are VERY passionate, and don’t focus on grades as much for academic success? </p>
<p>I’m definitely not saying that Art is harder, by the way. I just feel like it’s unjust to lump them in with the others…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Shows how much you know. Renaissance art could almost be thought of to BE Roman art.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I abhor your kind of world view that one must have that inborn…“aptitude,” as you called it, in order to succeed in STEM. The brain is flexible and can be trained to do most anything, as long as the desire is strong enough. You would have all who got less than 800s on math exams (&c.) be weeded out into humanities courses, when really if you can just buck up, any reasonably intelligent person could succeed.</p>
<p>* The real question, IMO, is why to STEM faculty feel the need to weed kids out of science professional schools? Why do not other college faculty do the same for pre-law types? *</p>
<p>Those who take science courses for science majors (Gen Chem, the harder OChem, the harder Bio, etc) are generally only STEM majors and pre-med students. Other majors tend to take the “easier science” courses (like Bio for non-science majors). </p>
<p>Therefore the STEM profs pretty much know that essentially everyone in those harder science courses are in STEM majors (or pre-med)…and some students really don’t have what it takes to continue, hence the need to weed. </p>
<p>I also think that those STEM profs know that their grades shouldn’t be inflated because these students need to have GPAs that more honestly reflect their mastery of a subject.</p>
<p>As for the “pre-law” types: Rarely would a prof know that he has pre-law students in his class. Pre-law students don’t have “pre-reqs” like the pre-med students do. Which courses could have a weeding element???</p>
<p>From what I’ve observed, part of the reason why engineering requires such a heavy courseload is that not only do engineering classes build on each other, but engineering draws on so many other subjects. At my school, I know that my major, Mechanical Engineering, has one of the largest required number of units (if not the largest). </p>
<p>To elaborate, before one can even delve into an engineering curriculum, one must go through rigorous sequences of calculus, physics, programming, and chemistry (more so for ChemEs, of course; I only need one chem class). That might not look like a lot written out like that, but it is a huge number of courses! To have to go through all of those before really getting into one’s major can be a big obstacle for some students.</p>
<p>It would be very easy for me to switch to being a physics major right now because I have really taken almost all the courses sophomore physics majors have taken except one, between taking all my physics classes needed for engineering and fulfilling a lab science req with a physics class. Of course, I am not implying in any way that a physics major is easy (far from it!), but just pointing out that the number of pre-reqs needed for engineering is just huge. </p>
<p>On a related note, it would be unfair to state that humanities/social sciences courses don’t build on each other, but they really don’t do so in the same way as many STEM topics. I am currently taken a 200-level psychology course, and I have never taken any other psychology course before. Could one do the same with a 200-level math or physics course? I am, of course, positive that psychology courses do build on each other, but I think there is a little more leeway there than in STEM, for example.</p>
<p>California Dancer - </p>
<p>As an example of humanities courses building on each other - Asian language courses are often recognized as among the most difficult and time-consuming classes an undergrad can take. I cannot imagine attempting second year Mandarin without prior exposure (generally in the form of one or more years of instuction at a high school or college level), and sometimes even a few years of high school Mandarin are not enough to get out of more than perhaps the first semester of Mandarin 101.</p>
<p>And, while hard work can get most people through the first few years, just like in math and science, it seems to take extra drive and a bit of what some might call “inborn talent for foreign languages” to get through the advanced levels.</p>
<p>OTOH, in stark contrast to what happens in weeder classes in sciences and math, students with lots of prior experience, are NOT permitted to take intro classes along with students who will need much more instruction and practice, at least at the elite schools, for easy A’s. Students take placement tests prior to being assigned to a class - a high school grade or an AP or SAT II score is not enough. Heritage students, needing to catch up primarily in reading and writing for the first few years, get assigned to their own classes, which meet for fewer credits. </p>
<p>The system does not work perfectly, but students found to have lied about their levels of proficiency to get into the “easy A” class tend to get smoked out early on and unceremoniously booted, rather than setting expectations for the entire class and congratulating themselves on having a “natural knack” for languages or superior study skills. (I am told that students who attempt to hide their real levels of proficiency get caught when they respond to conversation that would be way over the heads of the most talented beginners, or consistently answer questions on material that has not yet been taught.)</p>
<p>If large numbers of students fail tests in spite of attending class and spending adequate time on homework, it is the teachers rather than the students who are deemed accountable. Exams are regarded as difficult but are not curved up or down in order to keep grade distributions the way professors want to see them. (I am told that at most of these schools if too many students in a STEM intro class get high grades, either the next exam is deliberately made more difficult or the curve is compressed so that making a couple of wrong guesses on multiple choice questions means a lower letter grade.)</p>
<p>This system is not perfect, either, but could provide some ideas for improvement in the way introductory math and science courses are taught to students coming from a wide variety of backgrounds, who have nonetheless demonstrated aptitude and motivation for learning the material.</p>
<p>Some of it being described here sounds like hazing to me – make it tough to prove how studly we all are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t agree, for two reasons.</p>
<p>The first is, whether or not we are all born with the aptitude to do anything (a questionable proposition, at best), our early life experiences wire our brains in certain ways, and that determines our aptitude in later life.</p>
<p>I think of my father, a gifted teacher and a well-regarded historian, who struggled with math all through school and who as an adult could not do even the simplest household repair tasks without screwing them up. (My mother actually hid the family toolbox from him!) </p>
<p>The second is, particularly as regards technical disciplines, those in entry-level courses in college are expected to have a certain level of academic preparation. If someone does not have that preparation, it is unlikely he or she will be able to keep up with the pace of a challenging freshman physics (or math or chemistry or biology or strength of materials) course, no matter how determined the effort.</p>
<p>^^For the record, I don’t mean to assert in any way that engineering is harder than other science disciplines, or other humanities disciplines. I think that all are extremely demanding. I was just suggesting that it is sometimes possible to jump into a 200-level humanities course for certain subjects, while it is rarely, if ever, possible to do so for STEM courses. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I am well aware of this, having placed out entirely of first-year Mandarin here at CMU and having continued my study of Mandarin in the intermediate and advanced levels.</p>
<p>I really enjoy studying Mandarin and other foreign languages, have great respect for them, and I would obviously never suggest that one could jump into a 200-level course with no prior experience. I doubt anyone would, frankly. </p>
<p>As I clearly stated in my previous post, I have no doubt that for many humanities subjects, one must start at the first level. I was just suggesting that it is sometimes possible to jump into advanced beginner or intermediate level humanities without previous knowledge, while it is rarely, if ever, possible to do so for STEM.</p>
<p>Frazzled, I don’t know if your post was supposed to have a belittling tone, but that is certainly how it came off to me. FWIW, I have taken several semesters of Mandarin Chinese in classes filled with native speakers (I am not a heritage speaker), and have done quite well. I know how challenging languages can be, and I have the utmost respect for those who study them. I was not trying to knock the humanities, and I am sorry if it came off that way.</p>
<p>California Dancer - My post was not supposed to have a bellitling tone at all. </p>
<p>I was just trying to make an analogy, and I am glad your experiences in taking Mandarin alongside native speakers have been positive. Presumably, you have not been tested and evaluated at the same level, though, on material that you have seen only briefly if at all, the level of instruction has not been way over your head, and the native speakers in your classes have been helpful.</p>
<p>My children have taken intro STEM courses alongside others who could have aced the final(or gotten at least a B) before even taking the course. In a few instances, they turned out to BE the student who could have aced the final before taking the course - but they were not permitted to demonstrate this or move on to the next level. </p>
<p>From either perspective, this does not seem at all fair to me. I do not think this is an effective way of teaching, either, or of distinguishing students who have potential if properly taught and willing to work hard, from students who are coasting by on prior instruction (my children have also been in the latter category at times), although it IS an effective way of whittling down the numbers of students in the major.</p>
<p>I have long noted that among top STEM grads from our high school (uncoached math SAT’s in the 750-800 range, 5’s on math and science AP’s) but probably not the tippy top who have won national and international awards, students who attend elite schools seem a good bit less likely to hold on to their STEM or medical school dreams than similar students who attend tech schools or schools a rung or two down in prestige. They may be even less likely to hold on to these dreams than students who enter college less prepared (650 to 750 coached math SAT’s, no AP courses or lackluster performance in AP math and science classes) who attend schools that are considerably less selective, but where they enter at the top of the curve.</p>
<p>I do not think that this is necessarily because students lack opportunities for hands-on experience at elite schools, so much as because of the way intro classes are taught and curved. I think it is too bad when students with potential and desire are turned away from majors because they are made to feel that they lack ability, when this is clearly not the case - when the real problem is one of accurate placement and effective instruction for those willing to put in the work. </p>
<p>I also think that this practice not only leads to the loss of many potentially outstanding scientists and engineers, but also leads to too many lawyers, MBA’s, politicians, and other citizens with elite school pedigrees who lack enough basic understanding of technical issues to make truly informed decisions on matters that impact society or even the industry in which they find themselves employed. </p>
<p>But getting back to the Vandy student in the NYT article who changed his major - I have to wonder how he will advise future clients, assuming he becomes a psychologist, should they come to him wondering if they have the talent to pursue a career in science or engineering, if they are having trouble with a weed-out class or two, or find themselves disengaged from a theoretical course of studies because they really crave opportunities to solve hands-on problems. When my own children have had these doubts, they seem to have gotten the best feed-back not from psychologists or counselors, likely to suggest that “maybe they aren’t that smart after all”, but from working scientists and engineers.</p>
<p>^Thank you for clarifying, and I do understand and appreciate the analogy you were trying to make. And yes, foreign language classes don’t seem to be taught/treated in the same way the “weeder” intro STEM courses are.</p>
<p>D’s roommate recently told her that she was lucky to be a math major because she doesn’t have to write as many papers. ;)</p>
<p>I am reading this thread with a great deal of personal interest. I have been weighing going back to school to study science (either heliophysics or some branch of biology). What I have realized as an adult is that those are some of the most fascinating lines of work, and I probably gave up too soon on that type of coursework in college. It would have been worth it to “get over the hump” of those college classes for the career I could have had afterwards. I came from a family where science was not considered a serious course of study (long story), and didn’t have good high school prep (lousy public high school). I took intro calc in college – worked my tail off and did well. Bombed intro chem in a class full of pre-med majors (huge lectures, TA who spoke almost no English, no answer book available for the recently published textbook – I didn’t even know what I didn’t know to ask for help). I bailed on a science major I had been considering; have had a sucessful career in business, but spend a lot of time reading about and thinking about science these days. I’m gearing myself up mentally to dive in again to start taking some of the core science classes after youngest leaves for college in 2 years. It will be interesting to see how it goes!</p>
<p>Also sent the article to D2, who is weighing a science research career. I want her to know that a few poor grades or difficult classes are to be expected along the way, and gear her up mentally to not give up too soon. It will be up to her to decide, of course. But I hope she can be better prepared for the workload and bumps in the road than I was.</p>