There is an interesting SciBlog back-and-forth going on about the "pipeline" problem and retention of underrepresented subset of physical sciencists.
The discussion raises some interesting points, but I want to pick on one small item: the question of intro classes and entry into major.
Does anyone see significant intake into physical science majors from the large non-major oriented intro classes?
Seriously.
I can not think of a single student in our major in the last decade that I know came to us through an intro class. They were either pre-committed to the major, or were in a related field and transferred or double-majored. These are mostly physics or engineering majors.
We get a lot of transfers out of the major, and we study the reasons why intensely.
I know people who were english majors and then went on to a physics PhD (two now).
I know there are people who enter university undeclared or with some general humanities major declared who get an epiphany and switch to physics suddenly, but those seem very rare. Transfers from the bio sciences into physics do happen, but also seem fairly rare.
The reasons we lose majors tends to be for one of several reasons, in rough order of volume: the people who leave promptly, because they had no idea what was involved and quickly realise they do not have the interest or aptitude; people who lack the mathematical background or can not pick up the math skills fast enough; people driven out by intermediate level physics classes - we lose some promising astro majors because they need the physics, basically to the same depth as a physics major, but they trip up on advanced E&M or quantum, or occasionally one of the first two years of intro physics-for-majors; we also lose a few people at late stage because they've had enough, they want to go do something else. eg we've had some very good journalism majors come out of astro; we also have a steady dribble of hard core bio people who either want the intellectual compliment of an astro minor or double major, or who have their eye on astrobio.
But, our intro class is not a magnet for our majors. We do not treat it that way, we do no expect to acquire additional astro majors through our intro class, and quite frankly very few students would have the background or aptitude to pick up a astro/physics major as "walk-ins".
Now, it may be different in smaller, more select universities; and certainly there are pre-meds and engineers who have the background to jump into a physics or astronomy major.
However, the average university student has too little mathematics background and too little science background to catch up to a physical science major in a finite time, and with the exception of the very small number of "scary smart" people who could literally do anything, I just do not perceive there to be a pool of physical science prospects in the general undergrad population.
Is anyone picking up significant number of new major from walk-ins to intro classes who are "trying it", not coming in already with a drive to take the major, and some idea of what is involved?
Am I wrong?
I needs to know... Hard numbers would be useful if anyone has them.
Oh, and don't get me wrong - we want the students who take our intro classes to come away liking our subject, if nothing else we want them to take the advanced "not-for-majors" classes! Plus there is the whole issue of general education and having a public with appreciation of and support for science, we do not try to drive people away. But my experience tells me the fraction of new students we'll pick up is vanishingly small, and the absolute numbers are small compared to even our small overall student pool.
- Log in to post comments
I agree with you that the vast majority of physics majors come into it from the get-go and are not recruited. There are only a few small side steppers from eng, bio, astro, etc.
But I still try to recruit by pointing out that a student can do almost anything with a physics degree. Want a real challenge before your MBA, med school, or consulting job? You will be way ahead of your compitition in analytical skills. That fact should be able to receruit some ambitious students who would have not otherwise considered it.
I got the impression that the question was whether or not the lack of students coming in from introductory classes was because the students, by that time, already don't want to do science, or if it was because there was something wrong with the way they were taught (or in Azuska's case, because the teachers drive away women specifically)...
Maybe the more important question in this context is whether or not instructors are actually trying to draw in non-majors to the sciences, or if it's generally assumed not to be worth trying (not necessarily an invalid stance - if you've gotten all the way to college and you're still not interested in science, what are the odds that someone's going to have a sudden epiphany and change their mind? And if they do, how many of those will end up being good scientists?)
P.S. Dagnabbit! Now I'm doing it! (conflating "science" with the specific field of "physics"...though in this case I think the question really does apply to all science rather than just physics.)
Yeah, I think there is a distinction between the physical sciences specifically and the sciences in general, which is that the level of math preparation you need for the former is much higher, and generally considered harder to pick up by the time you enter university, if you're not there already.
But, I also think there is a broad issue, which is that a lot of places don't try to pick up majors from their general intro classes, because they don't see the interest or preparation needed in that student pool. Uni Colorado may be an exception (from what I heard anecdotally about their course structure), and there may be other places that use their intro classes as attractors to the major, but my sense is that, if anything, they are used as filters to reject students. More generally, in the US, the intro classes have an orthogonal purpose to the classes required for the majors.
The distinction is simple in most cases. Real classes require calculus, the ones that don't are fluffy intro classes that do not progress you to the major.
"Gateway classes?!" In school these were called WEED classes, whose intention was to get rid of people. Somehow they end up weeding out most female people.
Well, my attempt to make a point on this, is that the "intro" classes are NOT gateways into the major, by the time someone takes those, it is too late.
As I perceive it, I'd like to hear if there are places which use the intros as gateways to majors.
Weed classes exist, in our department it is the second year "for majors" class.
Some places use the calculus heavy first year "for major" classes, but those classes are not designed to attract new students to the major. Almost by definition.
How weed classes are used is a "pipeline" issue; I saw more than enough blatant discrimination as a student to know that.
I like to think the situation is better now, the statistics and anecdoted seem to indicate that there has been some improvement. There is room for more.
I think there is also an issue, which is where the current largest leaks in the pipeline are;
that doesn't mean we don't want to plug the other leaks, but we also need to know where the situation is proportionately worst.
At the University of Chicago, not a single student to my knowledge signed up for physics or astro as an undergrad after taking the intro to astro series. Exactly one student talked about it, in my three+ years of TAing, but in the end did economics. The huge course load required for a physical science degree is one of the many things that discourage people. Why add a fifth year, especially at $25k+ a year, when you can get an econ degree, or another math heavy but not course heavy degree, and still graduate in four years?
I took the intro Astro for non-majors at Penn (Astro 001) and ended up majoring in Physics (with a concentration in astrophysics). But I was considering the major when I took it. I was also taking the intro physics for majors classes.
I thought that it would be a useful peek inside the major/concentration to see if it was what I really wanted. It was useless as such. The intro for majors would have been valuable in that respect.
The intro for majors at Penn fulfilled some requirements for the engineering students. This meant that every three years or so, one engineering student would become an physics/astro major. But since physics was in the school of arts and sciences, this involved a transfer of colleges within the University and a loss of ground since the requirements were different. This meant that it didn't happen much.
I think that the intro for majors could be a very good Gateway class if the math, natural sciences, and engineering had common requirements.
What is the case at schools like MIT and Caltech?
1st semester: astro major only. 2nd-3rd semesters: art major only. 4th-10th semesters (plus a couple summer sessions): astro and art double-major. Finished art degree in the 10th and, after a year and a half away from school, came back and finished astro with the 11th. Racked up 197 hours in all that. Spent maybe 5 minutes considering adding on some random interesting 3-credit-er for an even 200, before the "no~ooo! please, no more!" kicked in.
You're right on about the higher quantum mech's and the burn-out level I'd hit by that time.
Amusingly enough I took Astro 001 during that 3rd semester - honors section and a prof I liked was teaching it. Maybe you could say that was part of what returned me to the major...