I usually don’t blog and beg for people to respond with comments, but I’m now asking all of you to read the following piece from a recent NY Times article, and let me know what you think….because I don’t know what to think and it’s bothering me.
A recent NY Times contains a piece called “Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard).” The article explains that despite our best attempts to emphasize science education at a younger ages in school and our attempts to try to make it more fun and enticing for students, many students go into college planning to major in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), but most switch to other majors or never graduate. Thus we’re building “science momentum” at the grade level, and then it gets blown away in college. The article interviews a number of faculty and students to get at a reason for this STEM degree abandonment and the best explanation for this is that many students feel it’s too hard.
The question for me is what has happened over the last 25 years since I was in college? Science certainly has become more complex, it is hard, but it hasn’t become harder. Science has become richer in detail, but many of the key theories in many fields are still the same. How are students different today than they were in the past – why are they giving up because science in challenging?
I can’t help but now think of one of my favorite scenes from the movie “A League of Their Own”. (Stay with me here – this isn’t completely ridiculous) Dottie Hinson is leaving her team to go back to Oregon with her husband who has just come back from WWII having been injured in battle. Her coach, Jimmy Dugan, knows she loves the game and is telling her she’ll regret going home for the rest of her life if she goes. Play of this clip from the movie and substitute the word Science (or chemistry, biology…you get the idea) for the word baseball and you get to what my colleagues and I feel about what we do. I’ll write transcribe the relevant section below:
Jimmy Dugan: “… quitting, you’ll regret it for the rest of your life. Science is what gets inside you. It’s what lights you up, you can’t deny that.”
Dottie Hinson: “It just got too hard.”
Jimmy Dugan: “It’s supposed to be hard. If it wasn’t hard, everyone would do it. The hard… is what makes it great.”
I know this is what I feel and what my colleagues feel. We do what we do because it is hard, but more importantly because it’s so rewarding. We can’t imagine doing anything else.
So let me know what you think has changed – why do students think “It’s Just Do Damn Hard?”
Carmen Ortiz said:
I feel many students change majors because they realize that many times, a career in science is not as financially rewarding as a career in business.
on January 24, 2012 at 2:31 pm
what is the best super mario game said:
Hi there, simply changed into alert to your blog via Google, and found that it’s really informative. I am gonna be careful for brussels. I’ll be grateful if you happen to continue this in future. Lots of other people will probably be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
on December 31, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Mike Alexander said:
Years ago new scientists would be hired by my old unit to accomodate increased project load; today STEM-graduates are hired as “interns” for one-year non-renewable terms. Apparently, they are considered as technicians. Even amongst those in my unit who were hired as employees around 5 years ago, I see a regular migration from the lab to non-lab jobs in sales, project management etc because the people making the moves see these non-science jobs as career enhancers.
Clearly scientific and technical skills are not as valued by employers as are business skills. These observations are consistent with the trend in American businesses towards outsourcing manufacturing and R&D while keeping business functions like marketing and finance in-house.
What business is saying is that doing science and making stuff (activities requiring a command of hard academic subjects) is something suitable for a lowest-cost bid, while marketing and finance (activities requiring an acadenically less-challenging business education) are so important that we need to spend whatever is necesaary to keep these activities in-house.
So it seems to be me than a technically-adept rational actor surveying this scene would choose to major in business with a technical minor so they can understand science done by others, but don’t have to develop the skills to do it.
The combination of an easier path toward graduation coupled with superior prospects for career advancement should make this a no-brainer.
on November 28, 2011 at 8:32 am
Adam Gilbert said:
Angela -
Great comment – many thanks for posting.
I think your comment goes to the importance of influential teachers that many of us have had in one of more subjects during our education. I just hope that these talented men and women are still out there.
on November 27, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Angela Jenkins said:
Adam,
Thank you for posting this and sparking debate. I find myself torn between generations on this one. I am 27 so have a resonance with the modern student who struggles to adjust from school and university. But I also find myself agreeing totally with the ‘older’ posters.
I graduated in 2005 with a first class honours degree in chemistry. My passion for all things science came from the quaoted “being good at it in school”.
Once at university however, I would not have coped if it was not for 2 very special people; my father and a very wise professor.
My father was a coal miner and I was born in the middle of the 1984 strikes in England. This was a time of great financial (and emotional) hardship. From birth I was being prepared for lifes struggles. Nothing came easy or free. This showed me that I would have to work hard for everything I got.
One of my professors showed us that we should be grateful of modern technology. He was of the generation that learned the logorithm tables by heart and how to calculate sin/tan/cosin in his head. He also embraced gadgetry, buying early smart phones and fancy cameras. He was quite inspirational and saw ways of explaining the complex science without diluting content.
I think a great deal of the students ability to adjust is with learning style. People are correct to say that some/(most?) schools teach to pass exams. I am fortunate that I learn best when I understand the ‘why’.
Ultimately that is all science and maths are; understand the equation or the system or the process and you can then apply the basics to almost everything.
on November 25, 2011 at 4:59 am
Adam Gilbert said:
Joanne -
Had no idea that the concept of Freshman Science and Math Learning Communities existed. Kudos to Rutgers for having them – brilliant idea. This reminds me to my Senior Year Suite at Haverford College – 4 chemistry majors living together. We helped each other out tremendously with our classes/senior year laboratory projects. I would have loved to have done the same for Freshman/Sophomore students.
on November 21, 2011 at 11:08 am
Glenn Auman said:
I heard similar comments that the Chemical Engineering curriculum was too hard during my days at university. I believe that many of the students attempting the field were the top of the class in their highschools, but I know that I was never challenged in primary school. I never studied for a class until sophomore year in ChE. I often wonder what our students could achieve if we pushed them all the way through school instead of teaching them enough to pass the exams.
on November 20, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Joanne Mallory said:
I was struck in the article about students hanging on to their aspirations. Some colleges have formal programs to assist and encourage students to stay with the sciences. My daughter, a recent science major graduate of Rutgers, had a stipended position during her junior and senior years as a peer mentor for Freshman Science and Math Learning Communities. Students interested in majoring in Science, Math, or Technology and considered at risk based on placement scores, are given academic and social support during what can be a difficult transition from high school only made more difficult by the rigorous course load they have compared to their peers in other majors. Students in the program live together in residence halls with upperclassman peer mentors who are having success in their STEM majors. The mentors are there to help them not just with acquiring tutoring and building better study habits, but with the ups and downs of college life. Who better to help and encourage than someone who has been there before. I would like to think other colleges have similar programs to keep students wanting to major in the sciences engaged and on track.
on November 18, 2011 at 11:21 am
Bill Kracke said:
I believe that one of the reasons that “it’s so hard” may be the lack of teaching an understanding of the subject instead of rote memory of equations formulas and constants. I graduated from a well respected engineering school at which I seldom had a closed book exam. The emphasis was not on memorizing formulae but learning when to apply specific formulae and understanding why and how the formulae existed and were derived. And the reason that was given to us? If you pull constants and equations from memory, you may design a pressure vessel or a bridge that fails catastrophically with bad results if your memory isn’t correct. If you know where to go to get the equations and constants it is more likely that they will be accurate and your design will be adequate. And when the memorization is no longer the focus, things become easier to understand (although not simple).
I had the opportunity in a previous career to teach a bunch of high school graduates, who were about 8 years out of high school, a refresher course in math which included a section on logarithms. They froze up until I explained to them that they had already been doing logarithms when they were working with exponents. When they got over the fact that there really wasn’t much of a difference they did great and made comments such as “this is the first time I’ve really understood it!” Another time I was helping my daughter’s boyfriend ( a music major) with a required Algebra course. He had frozen up – couldn’t get by the x and the y. I told him forget about the x and y, use a smiley face and a frowny face instead – lo and behold he could solve the problem. When he finally made it to the point where he could equate the x and y to symbols instead of letters he did great.
It’s all in how it is presented – you can require rote memory which doesn’t promote understanding or you can show students how this is actually influencing their lives every day. How many kids realize that their brains are solving quadratic equations every time they catch a baseball?
Unfortunately, I think that we have a generation of teachers now who never really gained that understanding and cannot pass that on to their students. It’s not easy, but let me tell you that there is nothing more rewarding to an instructor than to see the light go on when the students really understand – it is truly amazing.
on November 17, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Adam Gilbert said:
Thank you all for the recent comments on the blog. Many of you, Tan, Science Professor, and Laura, point to today’s students being in need of faster gratification and a perceived easier path to success. As I’ve noted before, chemistry was challenging for me at first, but I loved it enough to make it through my early courses and the rough transitions from high school to college, college to graduate school to eventually find a rewarding career. Thus I’m having a hard time understanding the choice of following an easier career path studying something you only like vs. a harder career path studying something you love.
If students today are truly different than students of yesterday, what can we do to make them follow more challenging career paths? Is there anything we can do?
on November 14, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Tan Kee Leng said:
Resilience.
This generation grew up in a world of plenty. Their parents have probably gone through tough times and made sure that their children are well fed, well clothed, and well taken care of. In addition, this generation lives in a wired world, with everything they wanted within a click or a few clicks. Everything comes easy and fast.
Our young do not have the natural environment to build and instil the fighting spirit, the drive and perserverance. They have evolved to be “soft” as compared to our fathers or grandfathers who have had to fight for survival or for the next meal.
We need to build the next generation to be more resilient, to encourage them to pursue their passion and to motivate them to perserve in what they are doing.
Most importantly, they must have the right attitude. Thomas Edison said, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”
on November 13, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Science Professor said:
What is missing from the NYT article and the comments I have read is the horrible disservice done to students in American high schools in which they are 1) never challenged in math or science classes and 2) led to believe that they are “good at” these subjects. Science majors change their minds because they realize they are not adequately prepared (hence it really IS too damn hard) and they are unwilling to accept low grades as they adjust to college (as are their parents who are footing the bill and medical schools that are looking for a way to weed out applicants). An A or A- in high school is a C in college for most students unless they can adjust quickly to a level and pace far beyond anything they have done before. We know the transition is difficult and tell our freshmen that they should expect put in 20 hours a week in addition to lectures, labs, discussion meetings. All that for a C? It’s not for everyone.
on November 11, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Laura Harmon said:
Adam: When I was a kid, class assignments involved reading a book all the way through and writing a detailed book report, taking a closed book math test without a calculator, and taking history and science tests which required both multiple choice and essay questions. I have a step-daughter who is about to graduate from high-school and was recently inducted into the National Honors Society – so she’s no dummy. But, when I ask her to describe her homework or coursework, most of it is fill-in-the blank type assignments, open book tests and lots of calculators. I’m currently studying for my Master’s in a science-related discipline, and yes, it’s tough. You have to know how to study and how to commit facts to memory. Most of all, you have to have a disciplined mind and pay attention. It is “hard”, but sometimes, I wonder if we’re really preparing high school kids for the work required to seriously study science in college. I agree with Albert, who stated that teachers need to make the information more accessible to new college students. But, I also believe we need to toughen our standards in high schools in order to cultivate students who can handle studying difficult subjects….Just my opinion.
on November 11, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Desiree Cika said:
Adam, thanks for a thought provoking topic. It is timely for me, as my oldest daughter just entered a STEM degree at UCONN. As a UCONN engineering grad, I have to think it was just as hard then as it is now; in fact, we didn’t have computers, internet, etc, and we had to go to the actual library to look at books and papers! But I think there are other challenges and distractions for the current generation. I think the lure of instant gratification is much greater now, and we definitely have seen that the bigger salaries don’t go to the scientists. I agree that there has to be passion for your field and that resilience and determination is key. Check back with me in 2 years…
on November 11, 2011 at 10:44 am
Adam Gilbert said:
Judy -
Thanks very much for your post. I love you passion for astronomy. I remember when I was little, the only books I read where astronomy books and book about weather – I’m glad that I got to channel my love of stars and storms into a science career. I wonder if people like myself and yourself still exist – people that follow a science passion whether for a career or a hobby? This is what I’ve been thinking about since reading the NYTimes article.
PS I still remember my parents waking me up in the middle of the night when I was 4 to see Neil Armtrong step on the moon – cool stuff!
on November 10, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Adam Gilbert said:
Many thanks for your insightful comment. I agree with your comments on good teachers making challenging material accessible to students. I was fortunate to have amazing college professors who taught me chemistry. Chemistry was hard for me at first, but my professors somehow got me to the point where it started to make sense. The more I learned, the more I loved it.
on November 10, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Judy Moon said:
Adam I did read the article and your comments, both prompting thoughts.
First I want to say; when I saw the words “so damn hard” I also thought about Dugan’s statement, which I often quote.
I am not a scientist, professionally. I am an amateur astronomer, which leads to almost all areas of science. I don’t think I could have been a professional scientist, due to cognitive deficiencies, truly. I am not smart enough. While reading the article I thought about the apparent absence of contemporary operas or composition of symphonies. Why did the creation of this music flourish during a 150-200 year period and then diminish tremendously? Well, it didn’t to the obvious extent. The composition of symphonic music shifted to the motion picture industry. The soundtracks to motion pictures have been the medium where this music is expressed. It really didn’t disappear. By the way, I am also passionate about opera.
Perhaps the scenario for would-be scientist has changed a bit. I could be challenged in my thinking that Steven Jobs was one of the foremost scientist/engineer of his day. In some way, I think he was. Then again, the computer age has not only altered our everyday life, it has influenced the capacity for brilliant individuals to sit before a Petri dish for weeks. We have become the microwave society. Or maybe we just don’t have as many brilliant minds coupled with patience, and the ability to be wrong more often than correct.
Personally, I find it very sad that our heroes today are ballplayers, rock stars or Kardashian. I am discouraged by the importance science is given by our government. I went to, what was to be, the last launch of Atlantis in May 2010. My excitement and gratitude were tempered by the knowledge of an end to human space exploration.
President Obama wants 10,000 scientist from the US. Our government could value the sciences with budgets as testimony. I will gladly pay an additional tax, designated for research. Instead, I may have to settle for some incredible new app I can download in 18.4 seconds.
Thank you again for your article.
Regards,
Judy Moon
Btw: yesterday was Carl Sagan’s birthday
on November 10, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Albert M. Kennedy, RPh said:
I don’t think this phenomenon is new. I graduated high school in the mid-sixties, made A’s and B’s in all my subjects, including math and science, and started college as a pre-med major right after high school. By the end of my first semester, I changed my major to social studies (which I actually liked a little better) because I was getting straight F’s in calculus and chemistry. I was totally intimidated by the speed and complexity of the material presented in class, as well as by the attitude of the professors and graduate assistants (“This is a weed-out course; if you’re not doing well, it’s because you don’t belong here”).
Twenty years after my college graduation, I returned to college and took a degree in pharmacy. This time, I graduated magna cum laude. The course work wasn’t any easier and the faculty and staff had the same callous and condescending attitudes as before, but I was a lot tougher after 20 years in the working world.
My conclusion is that we either need to train college math and science teachers in non-Darwinian instructional methods or find ways to build emotional resilience in our 18-year-olds. I will also say that I think that the hallmark of a good teacher (including college teachers) is the ability to make challenging material accessible to the average student. To do otherwise is both unjust and wasteful.
on November 10, 2011 at 4:52 pm