Lately Chad has been pondering the lack of science majors in colleges, paying particular attention to societal factors. The image of scientists as socially inept dweebs who try to find the answers to questions no one asked is certainly a problem, but there are also substantial proximal problems within colleges themselves.
[I am, of course, speaking from my own experience. Still, I propose that what I have gone through is not unique to my own university.]
Many science classes require prerequisites, particularly precalculus and 100-level introductory courses designed to weed out non-science majors (early on in these courses, non-science majors are often referred to "softer" courses to fulfill their science requirement and be done with it). In many institutions, these low-level classes are large and taught by professors who are about as unhappy about teaching as the students are listening. Dominated by mystery-choice exams, these classes do little to inspire students who are not already set on studying science.
Indeed, many introductory science courses provide little attraction to students who are not already interested. While higher-level courses are smaller and often taught by experts and cover a particular area of research (courses in which, I have to admit, I have consistently performed better), 100-level courses are often the sort of class where students are expected to come to class, take notes, fill in little circles twice a semester, and then forget whatever it is they learned over the next break.
No single cause for the lack of interest in science can be identified, but the reason for the lack of enthusiastic science students has as much to do with problems inside colleges as how scientists are generally perceived. It has always seemed strange to me that as interested I am in science, I am often so bored in class that it takes a fair amount of resolve to even show up. There have been a few professors who worked hard to make the science they taught interesting and relevant, but their courses were often several steps beyond the prerequisite boundary, out of reach of most students not already in a science major.
Simply put, a major reason so many students think science is boring is because that is the way it is first presented to them. Rather than being taught by effective communicators of science, introductory science courses are often taught by professors who make lecturing seem like a nearly unbearable chore. Information is dispensed, ingested, regurgitated, and ultimately forgotten. If this is the standard operating procedure for colleges, it is little wonder that so few students find science appealing!
- Log in to post comments
Intro courses must be difficult for professors to teach simply because they require the trasmission of a massive amount of information that is taught out of context.
I'm in an intro bio course right now and we are zipping through things that are NOT simple, because we have to cover an inanely large amount of info. So, the stuff that we're being taught is being taught in little packets of facts that aren't really connected to anything. They're abstract ideas. Makes it very hard to remember.
More focused classes, on the other hand, go into such detail that there ends up being a context for all the little facts and the relationships strengthen the memorization of those facts.
So, in summary, big intro lectures seem useless (though obviously they're important) because the info goes in one ear and out the other. And, consequently, they must be very frustrating to teach because there's not enough time to go into the interesting juicy details.
Our university does an okay job of having the intro classes be 2 semesters long...so there's a lot more depth to the information. But, it's still not enough.
We have (had?) two semester introductory course. The deal was that 80% of the course was departmental mandate and 20% was under the control of the professor. So one could spend more or less time as needed, or wanted, on various aspects. My own thought was to teach less and less about less and less. That it was better for the student to have good understanding of a few concepts than little or no understanding on many concepts.
One thing I did in introductory major courses, and also general education courses, was to spend about 15 minutes of the first lecture on a slide show of who I am and what I do. An attempt to humanize myself to the students. I thought this was particularly important for the general education students, who probably had no clue about what my kind of biologist does.
During my tenure as Chair, '94-'97, our majors increased by 42%. I don't think it was my fault, however.
Yes! This is what I have been pondering as well. I definitely remember rethinking my major dozens of times as I struggled through the chem pre-reqs, not to mention the many times I dozed off in intro. I think many of my professors did try their best, but it's hard to cover so much disconnected information in so little time.
Perhaps students are making reasonable decisions based on the information given them.
I think it's common knowledge that being successful in most science/math fields requires a fairly early commitment to a particular area of study, followed by continued specialization. A person wanting to succeed in engineering, for instance, had better have a good set of classes (calculus, physics, chemistry) under his or her belt even before arriving at college, and then to qualify for the job needs to successfully pursue an "engineering" curriculum for the next 4 years. A student's predilection to pursue this path is largely set, IMHO, between 11th grade and the freshman year of college.
By contrast, many other fields allow the student the freedom to make decisions for many years later. E.g., a person can take an unfocused series of classes in various disciplines like history, writing, literature, accounting until junior year in college, and only then decide to settle in to one of the many majors that permit this sort of background. E.g., "business," finance, pre-med, pre-law, primary education. This lets the student sample different fields to see which suit her best. Of course, it's also a more forgiving approach if the student messes around (e.g., too much beer and to little studying) and needs to get back on the right tack.
This strategy arguably allows the late-bloomer to be a banker, doctor, lawyer, or State Department employee. Many of these jobs seem (and are) glamorous and/or pay reasonably well, so it's not like the student is making an individually "bad" choice in targeting them. I submit that the average 16-19 year old might be behaving rationally in putting off a decision to the last moment when they still retain viable alternatives.
The real 'problem,' IMHO, is what to do when a student arrives at college, ready and interested to pursue a science major, but gets distracted by life or academic alternatives and is "lost" to other fields. Intro courses contribute to the problem as the blog post suggests.
Personally, I can remember arriving at Purdue enrolled in honors freshman engineering only get the snot bored out of me by huge seminars in math/physics/chemistry where I could have keeled over dead in my chair and no one would have noticed. By comparison, the classes I took in other disciplines were much more interactive, more gripping, and overall more rewarding. So here I am today, a lawyer with perhaps more math and science background than the average lawyer, but a lawyer nonetheless.
Seeing as major's are generally built around interest level of students enrolling (i.e. the market) and students enroll based on the job market (availability and wage expectations)-- it makes total sense to me.. I find science fascinating, but will not give up a business path for one that I must get advanced education in order to start out making an hourly salary barely above minimum wage. It's absurd for a student who has one 'chance' at an equity making degree (4-6) to use it for ~science, unless they are top of their class and will be able to easily compete or they have other means in which to access an income.
A career trying to find contract work or the like, or teaching while helping someone else's research for free or pennies, is not conducive of a future in this world of equity (yes, that is the world, as I have little options to go hunting and live in the woods by a stream in a house of my making..) Unless they are invested in the biological sciences in which you may be able to work up to a decent wage in the medical market, but starting would still be half of the income I can pull in doing HR with admin experience and no degree as of yet. That's a huge component.
I have invested much time in evaluating this trade off as I would love to work in science. But, I cannot, as I presume many other young adults also cannot, afford to take such a financial risk. I cannot afford to continue the education, then have to teach or do other low or non paid research work until I build up some sort of profile that you need in science in order to get a job that actually pays reasonably. And then, even that job is a contract.
So, I reason, if we want to understand the failing of science in the US; first we should evaluate the market - the education required, the obscenely tough competition, the low or no wage factor and then the after affects which are as you stated; less than enthralled educators of the 100 courses and little available educational paths etc. It is also a matter of our K-12 educational system that forced me through only TWO semesters of science during the FOUR years of high school. I dropped chemistry after the first regurgitation quiz of the periodic table (NOT my idea of learning ~ how about teaching me about the chemicals themselves and then how and why they are grouped etc.) But, anyways... Astronomy and Oceanography (two very challenging hybrid alternatives to Chemistry) did the trick!
So you go through High School taking many courses on mastering the English language, History, a forced language alternative (chose Latin) math courses and health, and the all important gym class... But, with so little emphasis on what makes our minds form language, or how numbers rule our -everything or about gravity and the gasses we live and breath in? Why did I have reading assignments of fictional literature and not science writing or famous science works?
I could keep going as I didn't take to math's 'memorize this' method of teaching either and only recently am grasping how complex math really works and I also have feelings on the educational structure in that I think it should be topic based (9th grade 1st semester all math, 2nd semester all English etc.) as the bounce all around to try and generally learn does not appear to work.
It's just like our current economic issues in that the economists agree in the sources being the housing market decline because of the housing bubble created by the unregulated financial industry and the faltering job market (and though not mentioned, the burden of huge financial debt and the wars we are fighting as stressors.) The job market is the same in the equation; the unregulated financial industry is the public educational system; the debt and war undercurrents equal a lacking of sufficient educational funding, support and concern for our disastrous situation (you think the ignorance that is voting for Palin is going to diminish in a country in which we cannot educate?) And the housing bubble is our insistence that science is alive, healthy and prospering in a nation where no one is going to school for it...
IMO :)
~KAS
Does anyone have historical information on the number of biology majors? Is there any data which supports the idea that the number of biology majors has decreased over the past few years? My university department is bursting at the seams, but that is a special case. I googled around some and find that courses and programs are being touted as successful and booming, and some programs are limiting enrollment.
Complexity, nuance and a plurality of causes? Egads! Such talk should not be tolerated on ScienceBlogs. . . .
You know me Blake; I'm the young upstart who is ruining teh interwebs for everyone.
Jim; I obviously don't have data, but I would suspect that dealing with biology majors might be a bit tricky. It seems to be different everywhere, and in many cases biology = pre-med (which is the way my courses have been geared). I know some departments, like the evolutionary anthro department hear, have been complaining about a lack of new students, and it would be interesting to see the difference between medical school-track students and those who want to be scientists rather than doctors.
It would also be interesting to see comparative data not only from various US universities, but also from other countries, to see if the trend you describe does exist, and if so, if it's international. It is also important to distinguish between different kinds of sciences. My impression when working at a university in the 90s was that molecular biology and technological sciences were doing fine at attracting students, but that organismal biology, anthropology, and related fields were not. Might be true when looked at in national and international overview, might not.
What KAS says is true in many cases. I don't think many biology majors get rich through biology. My own take on education is that you do it so you don't have to work for a living. Rather, you spend your life doing things you like, and make enough money so you don't spend much of your time scheming about how to have more money.
If your state education requirements are anything like North Carolina's, then the minimum is 3 science classes while the recommended number for those in the college track is 4. In poorer, rural areas (where I came from) this meant a class in environmental science, biology, chemistry, and either an AP class like Bio or Anatomy (if your school is lucky enough to offer AP science classes) or physics or basic anatomy. I really don't see why a criticism that high school students are only required to take 2 science classes is related to the lack of science majors. If you plan on going to a 4 year college, then the minimum requirements aren't what you need to be aiming for anyway. The minimum requirements at any virtually any level of education aren't sufficient for a good career at the next level (high school->undergrad, undergrad->graduate, graduate->private/academia).
Levi,
Obviously, my school requirements were not like NC as I was only required to partake in two courses, as I clearly stated in my comment, though we did have college level alternatives to Bio and Chem. Unfortunately, some of us were not fortunate enough to be born into families where a 'college track' was an option ~~ and some of us actually had to work all the way through high school to assist in keeping the electricity on or food, that some of us had to cook for our five younger siblings every single night, on the table. And some of us, as the result of our very busy, highly responsible and distractive teen lives, did not have the "option" to go to college after high school. Some of us joined the military instead, protecting your life and county, to open such an option in our future.
Some teens have unhealthy home environments or detrimental poverty; some teens are just hormonally challenged or overpowered by their immature senses, dominated by immature reasoning influences or even disturbed by abuse. Some teens are unintelligent, others are more intelligent than they are able to focus for any constructive use yet; some teens are depressed or have physiological issues, some teens are obsessed with artistic past times and not scholastic. To state that "choice" over whether to take classes not required is the source of this issue, is a point only a person who was fortunate enough to not have any overwhelming, distracting issues as a teen, could make. Requirements are and should be the foundation of knowledge as we intend our youth to have prior to exercising choice (of college, career etc.) So, I do not agree with your simplistic assessment that "choice" is the cause. If you were making an assesmnet at all, or are you just building your words around mine with no purpose other than to write words?
"I really don't see why a criticism that high school students are only required to take 2 science courses is related to the lack of science majors"
Really? How could a curriculum in K-12 not influence all paths following? That is such an unreasonable assumption. All things that come before influence all things that come after. If you fail to educate and stimulate youth with particular portions of knowledge, there will invariably be less 19yo individuals interested in pursuing a path that they have not even seen. How could this not be obvious to you? It is much related; just as all the other components I mention are. It's the overall combination that makes the result as it is; along with others that I haven't a clue about. But, you can rest assured, that a low wage and competitive market are absolute factors.
"The minimum requirements at any virtually any level of education aren't sufficient for a good career at the next level (high school->undergrad, undergrad->graduate, graduate->private/academia)."
What? First off, you don't have minimum requirements in college - you have requirements. You must fill all requirements in order to be granted the degree. So, this statement is incorrect in that regard. The only transition I'll agree is the same as the high school>undergrad transition of which the minimum requirements are less than college admittance requirements is the graduate>private as you generally need some real world experience.
Instead of arguing against my thoughts or points, how about coming up with some of your own about the issue? I don't think that it's arguable that the US is lacking or not lacking educationally, I was simply pointing out one such area in which we are definitely lacking -emphasis on science in our fundamental educational system.
Jim,
Yes, that is the other side of the coin. I am sure I wouldn't starve on a Biologist's salary either... (though I might as a physicist) but, it's about that level of security one intends to grasp. Your point is the reason people are in science and other careers such as art, social service etc. It's noble and valued in society and I admit that my view is one that is less noble. I, however, do not want to live off of a failing social security system in my elderly years. I want to live in a home, and as necessary, with a live in nurse; with many years of financial ability and independence. I want to be able to continue my educational path, which is expensive. I want to live on lots of land to exclude myself from ignorant and nosy people. I want to travel to see great finds and history and art and nature. I want to enjoy a retirement in absolute financial freedom. This is different than others who view every day as that type of fulfillment; I just couldn't do it if I had to worry about affording things or my security. Truth be told, if I could grasp, open armed, that view, I would be a writer.
I stand by my point that the job market and salary ranges are part of the cause of the lack of interested students; which is part of the cause of a lack of enrollment in majors and in turn the offered majors themselves; as colleges are a business and provide supply based on demand.
~KAS
I don't quite understand how the first part is at all relevant so I won't spend much time addressing it. The issues aren't unique to science majors. They relate to the issue of ensuring bright students make it to college so I assumed that they weren't relevant to the topic of this post which is about the (possible) lack of science majors.
My point about minimum requirements may have not been clear. If you plan on continuing in your education (and want to have the highest chance of doing well at the next level), then you need to go above and beyond the minimum requirements. If you want to go to a 4-year university out of high school then you'll need to do more than the minimum graduation requirements at your high school. If you want to go to graduate school (in the sciences) then you ought to take as many upper-level classes as possible while also getting research experience. Yes, if you're being pedantic then there are no minimum requirements, but there are de facto minimum requirements if you want to further your education. The same applies to graduate school if you want to have a successful career in academia, although this probably does not apply to private industry to as great a degree.
So your implicit claim is that if you force all high schoolers (hence my point about minimum requirements) to take more science classes then you'll inspire more science majors? I don't think this is a good use of the student's time. Forcing all high schoolers to take more science is going to be a waste of resources. A certain percentage of them are not going to go to college. These kids may be bright enough to succeed in college but are unmotivated/busy with other things or just dumb. Either way they aren't going to college and more of the same classes will not solve anything. If you want to criticize the academic advising/counseling of high schoolers, then by all means, be my guest. I have my own gripes about how pathetic many are. But that issue needs to be made explicit. You could use the money that would be used to hire more science teachers (to teach the increased number of science classes) to hire better science teachers. Rather than forcing students to sit through more boring, uninspired lectures, force them to sit through fun and engaging lectures. And this is the reason why I didn't add any suggestions earlier, because uninformed, idealistic speculation seems like a waste of time. This solution will likely require science teachers be paid more than other teachers in order to attract the best talent. This will need approval of teacher's unions and state governments. Convincing either to pay one class of teachers more will be extremely hard.
Another (entirely uniformed and unjustified, in my mind since I do not have any data to back it up) way to increase science majors is to do something along the lines of what the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is doing with their "First year seminars". These are smaller classes aimed at first-year students (freshmen or transfer students, although I vaguely remember some admitting sophomores) that are on fairly specialized and interesting topics. Here are some topics from the science departments: Biotechnology: Genetically Modified Foods to the Sequence of the Human Genome; The Roots and Flowering of Civilization: A Seminar on Plants and People; Detecting the Future: Human Diseases and Genetic Tests; You Dont Have to Be a Rocket Scientist (a class in the Chem department on analyzing popular science writing); Foundations of Chemistry: A Historical and Modern Perspective; From Imagination to Reality: Idea Entrepreneurism in Science, Business and the Arts; The Copernican Revolution; Catastrophe and Chaos: Unpredictable Physics. These classes seem to be the type that may pique the interest of undecided undergrads. Since they are aimed at young students, the students should have enough time to take the required courses for the major and still graduate on time.
Another suggestion is more flexible scheduling of classes so that students can possibly switch to a science major later in their academic careers while not delaying graduation at all (or at minimum, very little.) I personally ran into this problem and because of it will not be going into biology but instead psychology (with a focus on evolutionary approaches) since there's no way I could have graduated on time and switched from philosophy to biology after I had become dissatisfied with philosophy.
At the high school level, programs like North Carolina and surely other places/states have where you can simultaneously complete your high school degree while attending a local community college are wonderful. But those programs need to be presented as live options to students, whereas advising at my high school actively lied to me about the possibility of taking college level chemistry at a local community college since we did not have AP Chemistry and lied about some of the requirements of attending North Carolina's School of Science and Math. The point of that whining is that programs that look great on paper may be less effective due to issues like advising.
I'm not doing much biology in retirement because I have other interests I want to pursue. However, a number of my colleagues who are retired are still doing science just about like they did before retirement. I have one colleague who published his first reviewed paper at age 12 (a new county record for some snake) who is in his 80's and is not retired. I also know a couple of people who are in business and have biological hobbies. I've named two species of Venezuelan killifishes (which he discovered) for an engineer with Heinz Foods, for example.
There are professional people for whom biology is an obsession, not a job, and others who have a job doing something else so they can have their obsession on the side.
I mentioned everything else to show that choosing the right path in high school is only a choice for a few individuals. Everyone else should still have a chance at a quality, science filled education. If you tell a teen they can choose between Biology and Pie making > 80% will choose pie making. If you make it mandatory, more teens will learn some science that might just plant the bud for later aspirations.
"So your implicit claim is that if you force all high schoolers (hence my point about minimum requirements) to take more science classes then you'll inspire more science majors?"
Yes.
Jim,
:) So, the dream can still be alive then?
Jim,
Lucky for me, it's a good day to be an observer as the world is bursting with scientific progression and people like all of you in these blogs are sharing and discussing that progression; but, wow, how tantalizing it would be, to actually be involved. Thanks for the insight; I shall not forget it.
~KAS
I am a TA for an introductory level class (Intro to Biological Anthropology). Essentially, my position is a response to the insanely large class size found in these introductory courses (well, and a way to keep us grad students employed...and if you only count out TA hours, we make WAY over minimum wage). I teach a discussion/lab section with "only" 25 students. Much smaller than the 300 students enrolled in the whole course (not small enough, but that is another story and I won't get my way on that with my university's current economic climate: they only care about enrollment and the only way to reduce class size is to hire more TAs or lower enrollment. Not gonna happen).
I'm fortunate (as are the students) in that our prof is enthusiastic and shows it...even though he is teaching (for something like the 10th time) an intro course. As a TA, I try to get students interested in the material too and I think I succeed. Both semesters I've taught, I've had students come talk to me because they are interested in the material. The thing is, and this is a flaw in our system, not all TAs care enough to do this. I work with TAs that try to minimize their time investment in teaching...and students can tell.
The other thing I've noticed is the effect of a poor background in the material. Students with background in the basics (biology here) are at a serious disadvantage. We cover all the material, but these students are so busy trying to work out this material for the first time that it can be difficult to get them interested in continuing down this line of study. They're learning what DNA is for the first time (yes, in college!), and they're intimidated and feel like they can't handle it. So, their experience in this class is stressful and frustrating...who in their right mind signs up (intentionally!) for more of that? Of course these students aren't becoming science majors!
Our first lecturer in introductory chemistry was a little old man with a big love of big explosions and fire and lab work, and everyone was amped about science... then we got someone who just talked about the maths the whole time, didn't seem passionate at all about his work (except once when he mentioned casting rubies)... I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only person to change majors after that (9am lectures didn't help)
Sigh. You're right, that's not exclusive to Rutgers. I had the same experience at BU.
Worse, one of the required classes for EEs and Computer Engineers was Mechanics, technically in the "Engineering Core" but really only relevant to Aeromech majors. And worse still, it basically covered the exact same material as the required Physics II course in classical mechanics. I think they threw a tiny bit of linear algebra at us in Mechanics that Physics II didn't, but there was also a separate Linear Algebra class that was also required, soooooooo...
(The Linear Algebra class is a story in itself. It's a 2-credit course that keeps popping in and out of existence more or less at random as the faculty vacillate between making it a standalone class and just trusting professors to teach linear alg in their classes whenever it comes up...)