Are STEM Fields Just Too Hard for Today's Students?
Dear friends of women in science,
I got email from Sonia Pressman Fuentes recently alerting me to a NYT article by Catherine Rampell on January 21 about how little homework today's students do compared to past students...the subtext being how much are they WILLING to do, given that they grew up in digital land with instant sound bites galore? In 1961, a student would spend 40 hours a week studying but by 2003 that average student spent only 27. I'll bet it didn't stabilize in 2003, considering the technology that has dawned since then.
Later on in the article, Rampell said an engineering student today studies 18.5 hours a week while one in social sciences studies 14.2 hours per week, a contrast that might make a business career look good. She also noted that her colleague Christopher Drew had recently reported far less grade inflation in STEM fields. So you really have to love science for itself, since you'll study longer for worse grades! I wonder myself if the long hours of study and the low grades are really necessary, just like I wonder if departments with few young women really need to meet at night or during dinner hour, or if it's just tradition that makes these obnoxious events happen? Sheila Tobias, some years ago in her book They're Not Dumb, They're Different, pointed out that testing on a "low curve" was a point of pride in science departments but there was no data suggesting it was more effective in STEM learning. What she found was evidence suggesting fewer women and minority students would put up with it and stay in the field.
In these days of assessment, I think STEM professors should examine, via experiments in their own teaching, whether or not students NEED low grades and massive problems sets, or if fewer well-selected problems and better grades might work even better.
What do you think?
cheers,
Laura
Hi Laura,
It's usually Chemical Sciences and Physical Sciences that want to make the curves so very low, and we biological scientists, like a bunch of dummies, require our majors to take a ton of their classes. Bio 2010 to the contrary notwithstanding, I am almost ready to incorporate the essentials from those subjects into bio classes and forget sending our students over there to be killed. Only the white males return from their selection filter most of the time. Ugh!
FBP
Hi Dreya,
I am arguing for moving the curve up, not dumbing down the teaching/learning. I don't see why getting a B for making 30 is better than getting a B for making 80, and the latter feels a lot better to students. But I know what you mean, I don't want a poorly trained doctor either!
cheers,
Laura
In addition to being a biology major, I'm a single mother to a 15 year-old daughter. I waited a VERY long time to be able to come back to school and I'm disheartened to see an article supporting the "dumbing down" of STEM studies to make things easier for current students. The real problem lies in the fact that todays' students are very lazy and coddled. I've actually seen my daughter and her friends try to justify all the reasons they are "too tired" to do their homework, but want to text, or go on Facebook for hours. If their test grades are not up to par, they don't take responsibility for not having studied, but get mad and blame it on others as to why they didn't have time to study. In 25 years, I don't want a doctor or a nurse who got a "dumbed-down education" based on laziness and lack of motivation. Do you?
This is a joke, right?
Do we really want our STEM professionals to be underachievers who give up and drop out because they don't want to put in enough hours to get the job done right?
If a journalist, a business analyst, an historian, or an elementary school teacher does a bad job, what's the worst that could happen?
When STEM professionals do their jobs poorly people die. Bridges collapse, trains derail, medical patients get improper treatment, etc.
With all respect, Benita S, I disagree with you. Methodical and persistent are far more valuable qualities in science than "being smart." In fact, recent research has shown that students that are invested in "being smart" are less successful than students who are persistent when faced with failure.
STEM students are very aware that they work harder for fewer accolades than students in other fields. That's why business classes, for example, are called "motivational poster time". They are also aware that high grades in science and engineering classes are inherently more valuable than those earned in other classes because they are harder to earn.
Well, as a high school math teacher, I can tell you that those low grades and massive repetitive homework sets DO cause students to choose another major. Quite a few come back by to talk with me and tell me that, usually among the smartest ones from my classes. So you aren't "weeding out' the ones you think you are by low grades and long homework in college.
i really think students should not over-react to low grades and homework. They should know they're getting more for their money than the Soc Sci students, because the more you put in, the more you take out. We always get a good crop in the intro classes. We just need to make it more interesting so more of them will stick around. KW
Hi Laura,
I don't know. Med schools and grad schools don't want students who only study 18 ( or 14) hours a week. Letting laziness prevail is not going to produce the type of STEM workers we really need, ones that are well-trained and know a lot of alternatives.
M R-F.
