Why American College Students Hate Science
I guess I missed this one in my recent post, but it echos similar sentiments.
In an “Editorial Observer” column in the New York Times, titled “Why American College Students Hate Science” Brent Staples talks about UMBC (University of Maryland, Baltimore County).
A study of the university’s science program published in the March 31 issue of the journal Science sets forth an eye-opening recipe for remaking science education in America generally — and in particular, for increasing minority participation… Science education in this country faces two serious problems. The first is that too few Americans perform at the highest level in science, compared with our competitors abroad. The second problem is that large numbers of aspiring science majors, perhaps as many as half, are turned off by unimaginative teaching and migrate to other disciplines before graduating.
For the curious, the Science article is here.
The NYTeditorial summarizes the findings:
The students are encouraged to study in groups and taught to solve complex problems collectively, as teams of scientists do. Most important, they are quickly exposed to cutting-edge science in laboratory settings, which demystifies the profession and gives them early access to work that often leads to early publication in scientific journals. At the same time, however, the students are pushed to perform at the highest level. Those who earn C’s, for example, are encouraged to repeat those courses so they can master basic concepts before moving on.
In short, bring cutting-edge research to beginning students and potentially involve them in research which may lead to early publication.
In my case, I actually began chemical research as part of a high school summer program run at a nearby university. This continued into summer undergraduate research and a senior honors project. Since the high school research involved organic synthesis, when I entered college, organic chemistry class fit very well into context — I knew many reactions already, understood the complicated topic of stereochemistry and chirality.
I don’t think this question is limited to the U.S. either. How can we make science “cool?” I think it’s by bringing actual research and direct hands-on experience into the classroom as much and as early as possible.
5 Responses »
Comments
Subscribe to comments on this post via RSS or TrackBack
Puzzle Maker — 1 year, 10 months ago.
I’ve found it a bit strange that while this country’s youth is becoming more and more focuses on technology, engineering and science degrees are dropping. Not that I question the statistics, just that it’s very strange to me.
Geoff — 1 year, 10 months ago.
Well, I think a clear example is in computer science. Many students may feel that an advanced degree (e.g., Ph.D.) in computer science will not necessarily earn them a better job or provide them with a clear benefit over joining industry or starting their own company. How many “IT” people are users of technology, versus producers and developers of new science and technology?
Anecdotally, I think the question is not necessarily how many science and engineering degrees are awarded, but how many students enter science/engineering/technological careers. Government and industrial research labs are, in many cases, scaling back. Academia is not the best track for everyone.
How do we ensure continuing growth in science, engineering, and technological advances? I think these articles offer some instructive suggestions — show students at an early point how exciting research can be.
lightbulb — 1 year, 10 months ago.
i just finished my 3rd year in chemistry at college and I still couldnt tell you what a cation is but I do know retrosynthetic analysis but I dont understand VSPERT theory why is it all so random, I’m so confused……………I cant even remember what modules I have done……total autopilot
Geoff — 1 year, 10 months ago.
I think my question to you is about “modules.” Why should you care about chapters or modules? The key question is what sorts of ideas you’ve retained. From your comments, it sounds like much of it is a blur.
It’s not all random, actually. It’s a question of organizing ideas.
For example, you mention VSEPR theory. It’s actually pretty reasonable — it’s a method created to explain a range of known experimental molecular structures. So it’s a set of rules that work fairly well, although there are obvious exceptions. The “real theory” underlying VSEPR is quantum chemistry, so sometimes it’s hard to rationalize the exceptions.
Perhaps that’s a good summary for our current knowledge of chemistry. Lots of great rules, some solid theories, plenty of exceptions. I think that’s the point of bringing research into the classroom. Some seemingly random pieces will fit together (because they’re using in research subject X) and a sense that some things may seem random because we just don’t know. It definitely helped for me.
Organic Chemistry — 10 months, 1 week ago.
I think you are on to something when you say to bring cutting-edge research into it. The pitch would be: “Yes, you can work on state-of-art cancer drugs, but you have to learn the basics well first.” Mr. Miyagi would have called it the “Wax On. Wax Off.” way of teaching science.