Not necessarily. In engineering and CS, there may be more than one way to solve a given design problem. The different solutions may have trade-offs compared to each other, so that no one type of solution will be optimal for all possible situations. Examples would be deciding what materials to use for a new pickup truck, or what algorithms to use in a computer program where there may be a trade-off between speed and space.
Even in a subject like pure math, there may be more than one way to prove a given theorem.
That’s not at all what I was saying. Make the test hard, but support students in learning the material and how to analyze it, support study groups and collaboration. Don’t have students compete with each other for the 5 As available, have them compete with their minds and the material. THEN give the tough exam.
Plenty of colleges work this way. Not all, maybe not most, but the idea of “only the top 40% of you are good enough” when perhaps 75% could be if given proper support just seems dumb. It limits the # of STEM grads for no good reason, IMO.
I disagree. There’s more than one way to code (the area I personally have experience with) given a certain goal, and creative thinking is required as well as an understanding of the trade-off in going one way vs another. One app might be faster, the other might have fewer features, one might be harder to update, etc etc…but if you understand what it needs to do you can make those distinctions, and more than one way can be right, in the end.
What’s more, practicing medicine and science are not always the same thing. There may be one right answer, or there may be no right answers and several competing guesses. And no right answer is any good if (a) you are asking the wrong question, or (b) you cannot effectively communicate the answer to your patient. So skill in identifying unique correct answers has never been the sole criterion for determining potential as a physician.
As far as “weeding” goes, some schools “weed” at the admissions gate. Others let everyone have a chance to prove themselves in actual college work, knowing (realistically) that only some will succeed.
Those which find a way to have higher than typical success rates for given inputs (as measured by academic credentials and preparation on entry) without watering-down the curriculum can be worth studying to see how such success is made.
Of course, there may be several answers (courses of action) to a given medical condition, with varying chances of cure, but also varying chances of unwanted effects and varying costs. What one patient may prefer may not be the same as what some other patient wth the same medical condition may prefer.
Yes, that’s partially because their students come in poorer and less well-prepared than students at Harvard and Yale. If you serve poor students, you will get students who have to drop out because they can’t afford the next semester, because they have to care for younger siblings, because they’re struggling and need a break. When half your student body can afford the $60K cost of attendance without financial assistance…you tend not to have the same problems.
Xavier is also still having some struggles from Katrina.
No, this is a reductionist view of STEM and the arts which is really more dependent upon how you ask the question, not the topic itself. You could give a fine arts student a multiple choice exam about which technique a certain artist used or a technique used in a specific piece of art or who made a specific piece of art. There is only one right answer for that. (Or ask a psychologist the physiological mechanism through which we perceive color, or a sociologist the name of the theory that posits that language is intertwined with culture, or a historian about precipitating events for World War I). There’s only one answer for that.
On the other hand, ask a biologist the best way to test some biological theory or construct an experiment to confirm one we already know. Ask a mathematician to produce a proof to show how two established mathematical concepts are related. Heck, ask a physicist how the universe began or whether the multiverse hypothesis is true or false. There are no hard and fast answers to these questions, and different scientists will answer them in different ways.
Personally I think this is part of the problem with the way we teach STEM. We teach that science is rigid and that the humanities/social sciences/arts are wishy-washy/soft/artsy-fartsy. When in reality, those are not inherent qualities of the fields themselves - they reside in the way that we teach the fields. There’s creativity and fluidity in science and the best scientists understand that and see science as method and the field as beautiful and open to interpretation and experimentation and adding. Science got a lot more interesting once professors started talking about the open questions and debates. (And conversely, I’ve seen arts classes get taught in boring, multiple-choice type ways too.)
School Expected 4/5/6 Actual 4/5/6 Reference
Howard 33/52/58 43/57/60 <a href="http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1024">http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1024</a>
Xavier 29/48/57 (with 22 ACT) 28/40/43 <a href="http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=861">http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=861</a>
28/47/53 (with 1005 SAT)
It looks like Howard does better than expected, but Xavier does worse (perhaps due to the transfer out rate?). However, the simple version of the calculator may not take into account all of the factors associated with graduation rates; there is a link to an expanded calculator with more factors to consider.
Regarding the OP’s quote from the article, I think that this statement really has nothing to do with being Black or AA. Any student who is near the bottom of the class will, on average, struggle in the most difficult majors.
Furthermore many black students are not near the bottom at all.
To help URM students, who do have low end scores compete more effectively, better education needs to occur a lot earlier than college. If students are significantly behind when starting college, especially in math, it can be hard to catch up in the most difficult majors.
“There may be different solutions, but there is only one right answer for a given problem. Not so in arts.”
An absolutely mistaken opinion. The glory of American ingenuity is exactly the opposite. Our history of achievement has been fueled by creativity. As in many endeavors, there is not always only one accurate, productive and beneficial answer in STEM. American universities are still relatively ahead of schools in Europe and Asia for a reason.
Perhaps I should explain with an example why there is only one right answer to a problem in STEM. Consider the classic unsolved computer science problem of whether P=NP. There are only 2 potential answers to this problem, Yes, and No. There are many different solutions to proving one of the other (it hasn’t been proved either way yet). But when it does get proven, the answer will either be an Yes or a No, and nothing else.
I think people here are confusing the approach with the solution. For a given set of constraints, in science there is only one optimal solution. There may be many intermediate theories, but in the end only one theory will be proven to be right. This is unlike arts where most theories can neither be proven nor disproven.
Exactly. And the fact is that many/most(?) of those entering highly selective schools have taken Calc in HS. They are strong in math.
While STEM may cover a lot of ‘stuff’, it starts with the M, and requires strong math skills to be successful. Those without the resources in middle school to track into the stronger math classes in HS are at a distinct disadvantage when they matriculate to a highly selective school. That generally includes the vast majority of poor kids, of ALL races/ethnicities.
It can be really difficult to compete in Calc 1 in college when over half the class took Calc BC and scored a 5, but are repeating the college class for the (supposed) easy A (premeds), or in engineering and is concerned about strength of math skills.
Kids w/o AP Calc will naturally drop to the lower end of the grading scale of the first year class. After a few C’s or lower, they move onto the majors where the grades become easier. So the question is not whether the underprepared poor can graduate from highly selective schools at the same rate as the well prepared — they can – but whether they can graduate in their intended major at a similar rate.
I think most of us on this forum – middle/upper-middle class parents who, if not college grads are at the very least focused on getting their kids into college – are clueless just how bad inner city/poverty area schools are like. They don’t have adequate ANYTHING. There’s no one to advise kids, guide them. These kids aren’t just academically behind… they’re behind in the knowledge of what’s possible. Calc in high school? Heck, many of these kids don’t even know what Calc IS!
Colleges provide support services for ADD kids, for kids with emotional problems, for physically disabled kids. Many provide support services for vets. But help for kids who have been disabled by the inadequate educational system they’ve been in all their lives is often lacking. Which is why so many end up leaving school – not to mention their demanding STEM majors.
Unless we change the way we educate them and see to their specific needs (as real and specific as those of physically disabled kids, for example) poor children of color will rarely make the leap to professional adults.
The question shouldn’t be ‘why aren’t there more black scientists?’ The question should be ‘why are schools serving predominantly black populations so limited?’