More STEM higher ed. discussion!!

[memphispeg]

There is a great article about STEM education in college in the Education Life section of the NYT today. All you veteran STEM educators and students will like this. I know my oldest dd left math for some of the reasons (she likes a social component to her academics). STEM college educators need to get more inspirational. Science should never be too hard or too boring if kids of these days are to be retained as students. I wish I had more time as a homeschool Mom to tackle these issues. I despair that dd #2 may abandon her STEM dreams.

On the other hand, both my dh and I have had STEM careers and all our courses were tedious and boring. I survived b/c of the challenge and being able to find like-minded study companions. Dh is just wired that way, but he did change majors several times.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I have no problem with it being hard. We don't want our scientists and engineers to shy from a problem that is "too hard." Where will the next great discovery come from? But, they definitely need to be capturing the imagination and encouraging community. I am hoping my son will find that at the smaller schools he is applying to.

[lmrich]

My son is in a STEM program. There is challenging and then there is just plain difficult. His biology teacher also teaches AP biology and will often use the same handouts for her intro class. It is too hard and she has to curve the grades in her classes. She is teaching above them not to them. His other STEM class is perfect; he is inspired to learn more on his own. He is conversing with his classmates about how to make their project better and how to calculate or tabulate the pond water anyalis (just an example). It would be nice for STEM classes to be inspiring.

[regentrude]

Science should never be too hard or too boring if kids of these days are to be retained as students.

 

Actually, I disagree about the being hard. There is a certain amount and level of knowledge a scientist or engineer needs to have, and the student needs to be taught this stuff. And yes, some concepts are difficult to understand, doing enough practice problems for mastery can be boring - but so is practicing exercises on an instrument to become a pianist. There is no way around the sometimes boring practice, and there is no way around hard courses.

I see no benefit in a watered down course of study that caters to the unprepared and unfocused students, makes it "easy" so that the poor students don't have to work hard, and graduates scientists and engineers who are not prepared for their jobs.

When I went to university to study physics, it was hard. 60 hour work weeks. That's what it took to learn the stuff. There is no magic bullet. Some students will not succeed; of these, most because they do not have the work ethics and simply do not put in enough time and effort; some because they are not prepared (especially in math); and a very small number because they do not have the intellectual capability.

But some things in science will always be hard. And some practice will always be boring. I would like to have graduates who are capable to mastering hard concepts and who do not give up if they have to do boring work. I do not see a need for scientists and engineers who do not manage these things.

 

ETA: The sad thing to see is that many courses are actually catering to this trend. I can not, in the introductory physics courses I teach, cover the same material I myself was taught during my first semester, because the students are not prepared for that level of work.

 

ETA2: On the topic of retention: there is a large push at the universities for student retention. Schools offer all kinds of tools to assist struggling students: free tutoring, learning centers, early warning systems (because, you know, a student can not be expected to realize that he is failing just because he got an F in his test and missed six assignments- his professor needs to send him an email through the automated system and tell him and remind him that he needs to come to class and do assignments. I am not joking; we are required to do this.). For intro physics at our school, there are twenty hours of free learning assistance available every single week. Every semester it is the same: the B and C students use this and it helps them improve; the ones who are failing and should come, do not.

If all this hand holding and helping does not make a student successful, he is in the wrong major, or may not be suited to college at all. A student who is taking intro physics for the fourth time needs to examine whether he chose the subject that is right for his strengths.

Edited November 4, 2011 by regentrude

[Capt_Uhura]

Can someone please provide a direct link to the article as I can't find it. :confused:

 

Thanks,

Capt Uhura :001_smile:

[memphispeg]

Regentrude;

I guess I meant "too hard" from a student's motivational stand point as in "here I am doing yet another messy org. chem. problem at 2AM but, this stuff is just so cool". That's what kept me in the game. Can there be a way to keep things fascinating?

When I got to a higher level of study, I realized what all those chem. classes "meant". I developed a great love for biophysics, of all things. In order to really understand those concepts I had to rely on all that hithertofore "meaningless stuff" from inorg. and org. chem. I kind of wish we had done some problems and lessons to show how applying elementary techniques farther down the knowledge path would eventually happen.

 

I am horrible with links - I got to the article via the Huffington Post College page.

Edited November 4, 2011 by memphispeg
More info.

[Jane in NC]

Can someone please provide a direct link to the article as I can't find it. :confused:

 

Thanks,

Capt Uhura :001_smile:

 

Here it is.

[jennynd]

Regentrude;

I guess I meant "too hard" from a student's motivational stand point as in "here I am doing yet another messy org. chem. problem at 2AM but, this stuff is just so cool". That's what kept me in the game. Can there be a way to keep things fascinating?

.

 

What you find fascinating, might be boring to others. I find chemistry totally boring, Same rule that I find physics fascinating which might be boring to others.

That's why people have different choice career. If a person don't have passion in the subject, making the "easy" is not the way to gain passion

[Jane in NC]

Having taught the Calculus sequence at a well known public engineering university, I'll weigh in...

 

Math is hard. American students often come to the subject with the notion that they were born with a math gene or not. Those with the gene are supposed to "get it". The rest are forgiven. The best engineering students that I have had (including the boy who went on to earn a PhD in Physics from Stanford) worked their tails off! They were the ones in my office asking questions on small details and were always attempting to fit the puzzle pieces together.

 

There is a trend toward experiential education that is worth noting. Dickinson College has experiential physics classes which look like fun to me. But hands on is not necessarily enough. With physics, one still has to do those practice problems. There is no way around it.

 

People often tell me that they might like math if it could be made relevant. I usually cringe at this because I see the world as an extremely complicated place. The examples in math books are simplified. If students think these examples are complex, reality will blow their minds!

 

Secondly, it is not productive to reinvent the wheel. I think that experiential classes need to be well organized to allow students discovery and yet still teach mastery of basic concepts.

 

My solution to the STEM problem in the US is to raise the bar earlier. I think that elementary and middle school students could be exposed to more math and science. This would require that Elementary Education majors be steeped in greater math and science education. Having taught a two semester sequence of Math for Elementary Teachers at one of the state Us here in NC, I was appalled at the level of mathematical ignorance and discomfort. I can't help but believe that this is transmitted to students who are forced to learn dreary algorithms not real math.

[Kathy in Richmond]

Interesting article about a topic that's been on my mind a lot lately. Thanks for the heads-up, memphispeg.

 

One small discrepancy: MIT is nearly 50% women now, not the "lopsided" 37% figure stated in the article.

 

Memphispeg - Your daughter's comment about leaving her math major because of social component is striking a chord here today with me. My daughter says the same sort of thing. She's not enjoying her math major nearly as much as her Classics major. It's not because it's too difficult (she loves a challenge) or too boring (she finds math fascinating). She's an extremely social extroverted girl. The math people aren't as friendly and social or- a huge deal to her - supportive as the folks she's meeting in the Classics department.

 

My dd was in the honors freshman math track at Stanford last year. How it was set up made me scratch my head. Over two-third of the (very smart, capable, eager) students dropped the class after the first midterm. More than 3/4 were gone by the end of the academic year. My daughter found herself one of four women left in the course (and the only non-Asian or Russian female student). It became more of an endurance test than an exercise in learning challenging material. Does that appeal more generally to boys? I know that my kid struggled with it; she often felt like a fish out of water. She's much more collaborative than competitive by nature. Maybe that's something we need to address in STEM fields in order to keep more women?

 

I was reading Countdown by Steve Olson last night. One chapter described the experiences of Melanie Wood, the first woman on the USA math olympiad team. Her comments about competition versus collaboration were extrememly interesting. She single handedly changed how the math olympiad training camp was run when she attended. The extreme competitive environment was making her physically sick, so she introduced more collaborative team efforts. Note that this didn't water down the training of the team in the least.

 

Of course we don't want to make the STEM undergraduate course work easier in order to attract smart women. But we do need to think sometimes.

 

We're encouraging our daughter to stay the course and do both her STEM and her humanities majors. In addition, she's dabbling in applied math and computer science to see if she finds that a better fit; it's a different department and group of people at her college than theoretical math.

[regentrude]

Regentrude;

I guess I meant "too hard" from a student's motivational stand point as in "here I am doing yet another messy org. chem. problem at 2AM but, this stuff is just so cool". That's what kept me in the game. Can there be a way to keep things fascinating?

When I got to a higher level of study, I realized what all those chem. classes "meant". I developed a great love for biophysics, of all things. In order to really understand those concepts I had to rely on all that hithertofore "meaningless stuff" from inorg. and org. chem. I kind of wish we had done some problems and lessons to show how applying elementary techniques farther down the knowledge path would eventually happen.

.

 

The problem is with the nature of the subjects: it is very difficult to show the application of a concept in a higher level situation until the concept has been mastered for a simple case.

I teach physics. The first semester is mechanics and not terribly exciting. It is hard to get excited about boxes sliding down inclined planes. But without the general concepts of energy and momentum we can not even begin to discuss quantum mechanics and the "cool" stuff. If a student has not grasped the concept in a simple, easy to visualize, situation such as mechanics, he will not be able to use it in a highly abstract situation that escapes all conventional visualization.

I try to point out where introductory concepts will be used later, but that is, at that point, not an efficient motivator for the student - because they are not really interested in "later", they want to just get through the class now.

 

I also found that because of the students being so used to compartmentalized education, it is hard to excite them by pointing out connections to their majors. I have one class that consists solely of biology majors. For them, I have selected homework problems that relate physics to biological systems, thinking this might make it more interesting. Yet when I ask them, they all say they do not care - they would rather have an -in-the-box boringly formulated problem than a biology problem where they have to think about how the physics applies. I find this extremely sad. Every semester I am surprised that they are not interested in physics explanations for biological processes and that they are not thrilled about understanding these things. They have used microscopes in the lab for years and don't care how a microscope actually works.

I don't get it.

[Gwen in VA]

The problem is with the nature of the subjects: it is very difficult to show the application of a concept in a higher level situation until the concept has been mastered for a simple case.

 

I had one of those great tear-jerking phone calls last night -- my dd wanted to thank me for the great background we gave her in math! :D

 

She is in grad school in engineering, and she said that she is finally appreciating why we had her learn matrices and polar coordinates and a few other topics that came up in our algebra 2 program. She said that while she never saw the use of the subjects until late in college, she now appreciates how genuinely cool and beautiful they are and how they make really cool equations and derivations possible.

 

She also said that throughout college some kids had a lot of trouble with the topics because they never studied to the end of the math text in high school, where all the really cool goodies are hidden. She was able to easily understand her profs' quick explanations in college because she had seen it before and it made sense to her. Some kids were hitting some of this math for the first time in physics -- YUCK!

 

But that thank you came SEVEN YEARS after she actually took algebra 2. She needed to learn the basics of the math long before she could see how it actually applied to quantum mechanics! (She did cover the topics in other math classes -- but she had a head start due to algebra 2)

 

As an engineer, I certainly hope we don't simplify math and sciences. And adding in applications that are over the students' heads won't help. Students need to persevere.

 

And yes, the stereotype of math majors as antisocial geeks exists for a reason! (I love my math geeks!)

[memphispeg]

I am trying v. desperately to motivate my daughter as we plough thru Physics this year. What I would have liked to do would be to set up a kind of story line that accompanied each chapter and work out problems that contributed to the story somehow. I did not have time to plan this out but, so far I've pieced together some NASA, CSI and Miss Marple, and the "Biggest Losers" scenarios. We work through some simple problems and then, as the work becomes increasingly complex, add more wrinkles. Then, I am trying for a nice conceptual conclusion based on the thought experiments we have performed. So far, she enjoys doing the problems much more, seeing that there is a "creative" end in sight. I just finished a "work chapter" that had some intriguing fun. What I hate about this approach is that I've had to relearn some physics as well, it would have been so much easier to hand her the books with a list of problem sets due. But, such is education.

I would say though that it may be that a lot of the students in the beginning science classes are just there to get through it. A pity really. In my college, we had a calc. class that was exactly the opposite (we wrote computer models for all the math). We had to demonstrate an interest in trying out this new sort of course. It was really fun and not at all tedious. Of course, there were just 9 of us and we had a fab. professor.....

I experienced the "get 'er done" attitude in my own college teaching. But, every year there were a few students that were really interested. They kept me going.

[FaithManor]

Actually, I disagree about the being hard. There is a certain amount and level of knowledge a scientist or engineer needs to have, and the student needs to be taught this stuff. And yes, some concepts are difficult to understand, doing enough practice problems for mastery can be boring - but so is practicing exercises on an instrument to become a pianist. There is no way around the sometimes boring practice, and there is no way around hard courses.

I see no benefit in a watered down course of study that caters to the unprepared and unfocused students, makes it "easy" so that the poor students don't have to work hard, and graduates scientists and engineers who are not prepared for their jobs.

 

 

 

I am 100% with Regentrude on this! SOOOOOOOOOOO many of the STEM related fields end up relating back to public safety in some tangible way and I for one, do not want someone making decisions about how to design a road or bridge, or evaluate research on a new drug, new chemical, etc. or working in pathology, or writing the software used in the Air Traffic Control Tower or ................... that has graduated from a watered down program. I cannot justify, in any way shape or form, that science and math classes should be entertaining or fun in order to hold the student's interest nor pressure placed on educators to make it so. Honestly, at 18, kids need to understand, just like the workplace, there can be a lot of tedium, time consuming, NOT fun work that must be completed in order to achieve the end goal...that next piece of elegant computer code, that great diagnosis, catching that error in the chemical formula that's going to make the drug dangerous or ineffective, that gorgeous state-of-the art building or bridge, that rare disease peeking at them through a few tiny cells in someone's blood work....nope, I don't WANT anyone in those fields who doesn't possess the passion, which produces the perseverance, to push through the tough stuff.

 

I never would have survived what was thrown at me in my music major without that passion. It wasn't pretty and sometimes it seemed a bit torturous, but I am the better for it, my music is better for it, the students that I have taught are better for it. It's the same with STEM related careers.

 

That said, the application of science and mathematics is beautiful, elegant, and yes, FUN. I don't think that students should be educated in such a bubble that they can never see the end result of all of that perseverance. This is one reason our science labs are kind of amazing around here...we want the kids to "shoot for the moon", so to speak. But, these experiences NEVER occur at the expense of content and hardwork...if anything, they are an outgrowth of the former.

 

Faith

[regentrude]

"The latest research also suggests that there could be more subtle problems at work, like the proliferation of grade inflation in the humanities and social sciences, which provides another incentive for students to leave STEM majors. It is no surprise that grades are lower in math and science, where the answers are clear-cut and there are no bonus points for flair. Professors also say they are strict because science and engineering courses build on one another, and a student who fails to absorb the key lessons in one class will flounder in the next."

 

This I would be ready to believe. Students come from high school with inflated expectation what kind of grade they should receive. Then they hit classes like math and physics where the average is a C, and not an A-.

 

But the answer can not be to lower expectations in STEM subjects. If anything, grade inflation in high school (and humanities) needs to stop: if everybody is capable of producing "A" work, the bar is set too low.

 

 

"W.P.I. lets undergraduates take up to three classes for which no grade is recorded if they would have received less than a C. Any required courses would have to be repeated."

This is no different from what many schools are doing: if you have a D or F in a required class, you have to retake it and your new grade replaces the D or F. (If you fail twice, the grade stays on your transcript)

[Capt_Uhura]

Interesting article about a topic that's been on my mind a lot lately. Thanks

I was reading Countdown by Steve Olson last night. One chapter described the experiences of Melanie Wood, the first woman on the USA math olympiad team. Her comments about competition versus collaboration were extrememly interesting. She single handedly changed how the math olympiad training camp was run when she attended. The extreme competitive environment was making her physically sick, so she introduced more collaborative team efforts. Note that this didn't water down the training of the team in the least.

 

 

I read an article written about using LEGO Mindstorms in the classroom and the difference between the way boys and girls interact. The author said the boys enjoy/thrive on the competition. However, the girls wanted nothing to do w/ robotics in that atmosphere. So for the girls, they designed a more collaborative exercise such as rescuing some animal, princess, from some place where the girls got to work together. The girls blossomed and loved robotics and learned/retained/programmed/built as well as the boys.

[Capt_Uhura]

I also found that because of the students being so used to compartmentalized education, it is hard to excite them by pointing out connections to their majors. I have one class that consists solely of biology majors. For them, I have selected homework problems that relate physics to biological systems, thinking this might make it more interesting. Yet when I ask them, they all say they do not care - they would rather have an -in-the-box boringly formulated problem than a biology problem where they have to think about how the physics applies. I find this extremely sad. Every semester I am surprised that they are not interested in physics explanations for biological processes and that they are not thrilled about understanding these things. They have used microscopes in the lab for years and don't care how a microscope actually works.

I don't get it.

 

I would have loved your class Regentrude! I hate physics. Now, while re-learning it to teach it to my boys, I am really enjoying physics. I would have loved to have something in my physics courses which tied into biology.

 

Sad indeed....

[Capt_Uhura]

I am trying v. desperately to motivate my daughter as we plough thru Physics this year. What I would have liked to do would be to set up a kind of story line that accompanied each chapter and work out problems that contributed to the story somehow. I did not have time to plan this out but, so far I've pieced together some NASA, CSI and Miss Marple, and the "Biggest Losers" scenarios. We work through some simple problems and then, as the work becomes increasingly complex, add more wrinkles. Then, I am trying for a nice conceptual conclusion based on the thought experiments we have performed. So far, she enjoys doing the problems much more, seeing that there is a "creative" end in sight. I just finished a "work chapter" that had some intriguing fun. What I hate about this approach is that I've had to relearn some physics as well, it would have been so much easier to hand her the books with a list of problem sets due. But, such is education.

 

You are writing all this out so you can publish it, aren't you???? :001_smile:

[beaners]

I can think of so many opportunities for introducing elegance to students that are skipped. I would have loved to see this in my calculus class, but I didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_22/7_exceeds_%CF%80 It's "real world" and it's cool.

 

I received an A for Calc 1 and for Calc 2. One instructor was phenomenal. I was unimpressed by the teaching of the other instructor. Although he understood the material and was very friendly, he didn't inspire any enthusiasm. He basically worked a few problems from start to finish with minimal explanation. My preferred instructor paused to see where the class would go next. Did people understand why we used a method? Would a different technique be useful? It was great, and we actually covered far more ground in that class.

 

Either way it's my responsibility to learn the material. Most people wouldn't see any problem in the second instructor's style. I received the same grade in each class. I learned a lot more and did a lot more math with the instructor who used more of a Socratic method. Unfortunately both classes were severely limited by the majority's inability to do anything involving trig. I think there could be some huge improvements in the style of many courses, but I think having a better foundation would make the biggest difference.

[MIch elle]

There as several problems:

 

1. High school science and math are too easy; thus freshman STEM majors are not prepared

 

2. College freshman core STEM class are TOO large; it's easy to be overwhelmed being a freshman never mind those LARGE lectures

 

3. The students expect higher grades; high schools are grade inflating and thus STEM majors get discouraged when they have low grades

 

4. Top schools focus on research - NOT teaching; this is across the board in all majors

 

At EVERY college we've visited, I asked the average size of the biology and chemistry classes because I know from experience that they are usually the largest classes at a university. They should NOT be so large.

 

At UNH during the chemE talk, a 2.0 is required to continue in the major (it was in bold on the overhead slide along with the core courses for 4 yrs). YES, a 2.0; that low because it's REALLY hard!

 

At UMass Lowell (a large engineering school), the dean of the engineering dept.(during our visit) said Lowell loves accepting engineering freshman because even though many will drop out of engineering, they will most likely still stay at Lowell and be strong students.

 

We'll be visiting Wentworth Institute this weekend. They are known as a more hands on engineering/technology college.

Edited November 4, 2011 by MIch elle

[regentrude]

At EVERY college we've visited, I asked the average size of the biology and chemistry classes because I know from experience that they are usually the largest classes at a university. They should NOT be so large.

 

 

There are ways to deal with that. Some schools split the four hour intro class into two lectures and two recitations per week; the recitations have 30-35 students each and allow for more personal interactions. Also, a class of 500 students does not necessarily mean that they are all in one room together; often there will be multiple sections taught by different instructors.

This said, there are constraints that force classes to be large which would cost a lot of money to remedy: classroom space and manpower.

If a lecture hall seats 150 students, it would require five times as many instructors and five times as many rooms to split them up into groups of thirty - which would be a lot more expensive. The classroom situation at public universities is dire because there is no money for new buildings.

"should" is always nice, but somebody would have to pay for more instructors and buildings.

[memphispeg]

Scarily "should" could mean that we end up homeschooling college as well!

[MIch elle]

 

My solution to the STEM problem in the US is to raise the bar earlier. I think that elementary and middle school students could be exposed to more math and science. This would require that Elementary Education majors be steeped in greater math and science education. Having taught a two semester sequence of Math for Elementary Teachers at one of the state Us here in NC, I was appalled at the level of mathematical ignorance and discomfort. I can't help but believe that this is transmitted to students who are forced to learn dreary algorithms not real math.

 

:iagree:

[Deniseibase]

This is really interesting. My DD age 11 has been saying she wants to be an engineer for three years now, and although I'm pretty sure that I can, between home and community college classes, provide a rigorous middle school and high school education for her, I have been concerned about what I've heard about STEM majors and dropout rates. We live in Indiana, and the story here is, the Purdue engineering school gets all the freshman students together in an auditorium. They then tell them to stand up, turn and look at the person on their left, then the person on their right. Then they say "Only one of you will graduate." They supposedly lose half their engineering students the freshman year. This seems like crazy to me. (For the record, I am COMPLETELY behind the idea that STEM courses should not be dumbed down!)

 

But Rose Hulman is also here in state, and they are just as good a school as Purdue, but they have an 80% retention rate for four years. They have a LOT of systems in place, not to make the work easier, but to support the student so they can DO the hard work. There are a lot of opportunities for everything from tutoring to the ability to get a sack lunch to take with you so you aren't hungry in class if you have a tight schedule. Now I know as a private institution, Rose Hulman has the ability to do some things that a lot of public colleges can't. But it seems like a general attitude of trying to support the students rather than this 'only the strong survive' attitude would do a lot in and of itself.

[memphispeg]

 

Memphispeg - Your daughter's comment about leaving her math major because of social component is striking a chord here today with me.

 

The dd is a Philosophy major. She enjoys the intellectual rigor that is similar to math. Dd is taking linguistics and logic now and loves them both. The classes are extremely discussion oriented so, she has her social component.

She is good at math, picks things up easily, does well with computer work. I think she could bring a lot to wherever she ends up working with those talents. Her 2nd major is Art History and she will do a thesis that somehow connects the 2 subjects. Whether she will get a "job" after she graduates, we don't know. Her campus job is in the art museum and she did her first "arts internship" this summer (that's where her computer and data savviness came into play).

[MIch elle]

 

They have a LOT of systems in place, not to make the work easier, but to support the student so they can DO the hard work. There are a lot of opportunities for everything from tutoring to the ability to get a sack lunch to take with you so you aren't hungry in class if you have a tight schedule. Now I know as a private institution, Rose Hulman has the ability to do some things that a lot of public colleges can't. But it seems like a general attitude of trying to support the students rather than this 'only the strong survive' attitude would do a lot in and of itself.

 

:iagree:

 

Learning communities and tutoring centers are all the rage at many colleges we visited, even large public ones. I think it's a GREAT thing for students to have access to.

[MIch elle]

) She's an extremely social extroverted girl. The math people aren't as friendly and social or- a huge deal to her - supportive as the folks she's meeting in the Classics department.

 

She's much more collaborative than competitive by nature. Maybe that's something we need to address in STEM fields in order to keep more women?

 

 

 

 

I think those statements tends to be true - women are more collaborative and men are more competitive; women are more social and men less so.

 

STEM majors need more women professors, not just students! I know, we'll get there, :D

[Kathy in Richmond]

The dd is a Philosophy major. She enjoys the intellectual rigor that is similar to math. Dd is taking linguistics and logic now and loves them both. The classes are extremely discussion oriented so, she has her social component.

She is good at math, picks things up easily, does well with computer work. I think she could bring a lot to wherever she ends up working with those talents. Her 2nd major is Art History and she will do a thesis that somehow connects the 2 subjects. Whether she will get a "job" after she graduates, we don't know. Her campus job is in the art museum and she did her first "arts internship" this summer (that's where her computer and data savviness came into play).

 

My dd's boyfriend is double majoring in math and philosophy; there's definitely a connection between the two fields. Dd gets an intellectual fix from Latin literature as much as from mathematics. She's a discussion-oriented girl, too, like your daughter (she's a Sociable Sue a la Cathy Duffy or an ENFJ a la Myers-Briggs). That's one reason she likes her Classics courses so much. It's much more enjoyable for her to have the discussion format in class rather than lecture & take notes & do p-sets.

 

I tried to convince my daughter to look at some LACs in addition to research universities, because I know her personality. I particularly loved Swarthmore's discussion-based honors seminars in all majors, including math. Alas, they were the only school to not accept her outright (waitlisted there).

 

That's interesting about the thesis. My dd wants an honors diploma, and one requirement is to write a senior thesis where she must connect her majors, too. It'll be interesting to see! She's minoring in Education on top of the other subjects; I have no idea what she'll end up doing with it all. In her ideal world, she'd like to open a school of her own some day.

[Kathy in Richmond]

STEM majors need more women professors, not just students! I know, we'll get there, :D

 

Yes, I totally agree! For the first time this quarter, my daughter has a female math professor. I'm thrilled.:)

 

Melanie Woods (the math olympiad star I mentioned in a previous post) is currently a professor at Stanford. My daughter hasn't even seen her in the hallways of the math building yet, let alone heard her talk about math, after over a year on campus.

[Julie in MN]

Actually, I disagree about the being hard. There is a certain amount and level of knowledge a scientist or engineer needs to have, and the student needs to be taught this stuff. And yes, some concepts are difficult to understand, doing enough practice problems for mastery can be boring - but so is practicing exercises on an instrument to become a pianist. There is no way around the sometimes boring practice, and there is no way around hard courses.

I see no benefit in a watered down course of study that caters to the unprepared and unfocused students, makes it "easy" so that the poor students don't have to work hard, and graduates scientists and engineers who are not prepared for their jobs.

When I went to university to study physics, it was hard. 60 hour work weeks. That's what it took to learn the stuff. There is no magic bullet. Some students will not succeed; of these, most because they do not have the work ethics and simply do not put in enough time and effort; some because they are not prepared (especially in math); and a very small number because they do not have the intellectual capability.

But some things in science will always be hard. And some practice will always be boring. I would like to have graduates who are capable to mastering hard concepts and who do not give up if they have to do boring work. I do not see a need for scientists and engineers who do not manage these things.

 

You know, I think the conversation about "hard" verses "easy" is missing something in between. At least for some of us human beings.

 

I mean, I know the discipline of enduring rigorous academic work day after day can create a good worker and maybe a brain that doesn't tire as easily or something. My oldest son did that. He knows he's an engineer now because he did the hard work. And there's a place for that in our world.

 

But there have been a ton of discoveries that have *not* been based on folks willing to sit in a chair for endless hours and do problem after problem until their brain can do it mindlessly. From early discoveries all the way through current discoveries, it isn't always that kind of person who really leads the way into new frontiers in the sciences and maths. Sometimes, but absolutely not always.

 

Yet when I ask them, they all say they do not care - they would rather have an -in-the-box boringly formulated problem than a biology problem where they have to think about how the physics applies. I find this extremely sad. Every semester I am surprised that they are not interested in physics explanations for biological processes and that they are not thrilled about understanding these things. They have used microscopes in the lab for years and don't care how a microscope actually works.

I don't get it.

But I think this is at least partially the fallout from trying to press the academic world into memorization and seatwork. Maybe because the science world is getting more complex (I'm sure engineers 50 years ago didn't have to learn about RNA sequencing), or because of the complicated economics of education nowadays, or perhaps the sheer size of our society becoming unmanageable, but really I don't think science education of the past was quite what it looks like today. And those kids who have been funneled into it today are often the ones most willing to be pragmatic and sit down and do what they're ordered to do, and not try to do much more, because they have to go to the next class, sit down, and do what they're ordered to do.

 

I know at my oldest's college, they wanted candidates who were not just reading the textbooks and spitting out the answers. They wanted kids who could work in a team environment and brainstorm new ideas. However, when it really came down to it, the kids who did well at the textbooks were hired in kneejerk fashion, and now someone has to try to get things done with them. There's a big difference between knowing the answer in an equation and figuring out what to do in an unexpected situation. And I'd even venture to say that the kids who could have been the real powerhouses had been weeded out long before the hiring process, because they couldn't bear all those textbook equations.

 

It's a hard problem, and I can't offer a solution. But somehow I think the best education used to be in smaller schools, with more active teaching, and perhaps a more narrow body of knowledge since kids didn't also have to spend school time on things like cultural holidays, or how to be safe on the schoolbus, or waiting in line until everyone decided to pay attention.

 

I think what you say here is correct but it's also part of the problem with true "education," IMHO:

 

This said, there are constraints that force classes to be large which would cost a lot of money to remedy: classroom space and manpower.

 

Just something I've been thinking about.

Julie

[creekland]

My solution to the STEM problem in the US is to raise the bar earlier. I think that elementary and middle school students could be exposed to more math and science. This would require that Elementary Education majors be steeped in greater math and science education. Having taught a two semester sequence of Math for Elementary Teachers at one of the state Us here in NC, I was appalled at the level of mathematical ignorance and discomfort. I can't help but believe that this is transmitted to students who are forced to learn dreary algorithms not real math.

 

:iagree:

 

"Professors also say they are strict because science and engineering courses build on one another, and a student who fails to absorb the key lessons in one class will flounder in the next."

 

This I would be ready to believe. Students come from high school with inflated expectation what kind of grade they should receive. Then they hit classes like math and physics where the average is a C, and not an A-.

 

But the answer can not be to lower expectations in STEM subjects. If anything, grade inflation in high school (and humanities) needs to stop: if everybody is capable of producing "A" work, the bar is set too low.

 

 

As I've been starting essentially long term subbing for my friend (who's hubby had the heart attack), I'm seeing even more of this than I saw before. She has 2 College Alg classes (for which students get college credit) and one Math Standards class (for juniors and seniors who didn't test proficient on our state test).

 

Last week I got to grade a test for each class. Way too many College Alg kids are woefully unprepared for the class. They have not yet grasped that one can NOT cancel the 2x in (2x-7)/(2x+5) and other such algebra BASICS. I stayed up way too late looking through several "creative" algebra "solutions" to inverses and more (on the tests). The kids had the concept of how to find an inverse, but missed the algebra badly. These weren't "stupid" errors - they were flaws in knowledge.

 

What happens to get them into the College Algebra class? They go into Alg 1 and fall behind, yet pass because we have team tests and give credit for homework completion. Then they are passed on to Geometry, Alg 2, and Pre-Calc, each time with the same results. They "pass" so they move up, but they don't KNOW the material. Several will even flat out tell you this. Each teacher is "assessed" based upon how many students get what grades in their class, so few fail. They actually have to try hard to fail. The book we use (CPM Math) is horrid IMO. Many kids don't learn well from it and they won't put in any effort to try to learn it from other sources.

 

Now they're here (College Alg), and if they didn't get it before they need to really work their tails off to catch all of the Alg they should know plus the new things. A few try. Most muddle along. (A few also "got it" before and are fine.) All but a couple will end up passing, then Regentrude (or another professor) will get them - woefully underprepared. I can't slow down to catch any up because we have to stick with the college syllabus. We do offer free tutoring twice a week, but that would require effort on the part of the students, and it's difficult to catch up on ALL of algebra while still pressing on.

 

The low level class? Yesterday we were working on graphing. Some still had to be reminded which axis was x and which was y. Many had to remember which way slope went (y/x or x/y). A few knew how to graph. Only a couple care about math at this point. Some "made it" through our Pre-Calc class... and are only in this one because they didn't score high enough on our state test.

 

The day before some were working on systems of equations on a computer based practice site. Rather than teach them how to actually solve these, we're to teach them to plug in the answers and see which one fits. :confused: It fits their capabilities better (to be honest) and our only "goal" at this point is to get them to pass the state test this spring.

 

IF their lack of math ability had been caught and addressed BEFORE they were pushed on it would be FAR better. I feel for many of these kids, but few will put in the work needed to catch up or even try anymore. Some will be heading to college, but these won't choose math heavy fields.

 

This is where homeschoolers can do so much better. Students can work at their own pace and be certain they know what they are doing before they move on to more.

[Janice in NJ]

This I would be ready to believe. Students come from high school with inflated expectation what kind of grade they should receive. Then they hit classes like math and physics where the average is a C, and not an A-.

 

But the answer can not be to lower expectations in STEM subjects. If anything, grade inflation in high school (and humanities) needs to stop: if everybody is capable of producing "A" work, the bar is set too low.

 

Ah, yes. BUT here's the rub. If the kid doesn't keep a 3.2 GPA, the scholarship disappears. The kid in the business major has to keep a 3.2; the kid in the engineering dept has to retain the same number.

 

NO WIGGLE room for ramping up. Anyone who can do arithmetic KNOWS what the "C" is going to do to an average. :001_smile:

 

So in a world where Obama begs for 10,000 more engineers per year, what do YOU think is going to happen? Hmmm?

The simple answer is coming: Lower the expectation or lose the federal money. Just a prediction: federal grant money will soon be tied to the outcome the politicians will probably be promising in the next election. (For some reason, the media has been pushing this one. Someone is standing in the wings pushing this debate into the spotlight. Someone is looking to make some fast $$$. ;) Not sure who. We'll find out when it happens. I doubt this is all over the media because anyone is looking for a long term, this-will-be-tough-but-we-can-get-there-if-we-all-work-together solution. Is this the end of Eli Broad's long reach? I love a conspiracy..... :D)

 

Anyway. Where was I? The simple answer? Lower the expectation or lose the federal grant.

The hard answer? Get these kids into a hands-on environment with teachers who thrive on Socratic, problem-solving modeling? Inspire them to hit the books? Dang - give them an INKLING of a reason to care instead of dumping 100 of them into a lecture hall, dimming the lights, and shuffling through endless PowerPoint slides! Come on, I GET that they bundled them with the instructor's materials. But they were put together by a DRONE who doesn't even understand the subject. The book and the slides represent a starting point. Now that the car is running, GO somewhere. You can't just sit in the driveway endlessly discussing all the places you could go now that the engine is running. The car was designed to GO places. GO! Really! Cars weren't designed to RUN, they were designed to take people places! (But if you're going to cripple the instructor by dumping 100+ kids on her, she has no choice. And I'm not saying it's the college's fault. If it had the resources, the college would probably do this thing differently. BUT if we reform the system and give it more $$, it isn't going to go to the folks who will use it well. Naive left the building a LONG time ago.)

 

Grow an engineer? (psst. Engineers solve real problems by connecting theory to reality.) Naw. Too much work. Too expensive. Too much insurance liability.

 

Someone else's problem.

 

This isn't going to end well.

 

Frustrated,

Janice

 

Article in Time magazine. "I went through the Asian educational system, which is now so admired. It gave me an impressive base of knowledge and taught me how to study hard and fast. But when I got to the U.S. for college, I found that it had not trained me that well to think. American education at its best teaches you how to solve problems, truly understand the material, question authority, think for yourself and be creative. It teaches you to learn what you love and to love learning." - Fareed Zakaria

 

P.S. If you do this with your kid in high school - teach them to ride the number line and love what they do - they may not make it in college. They may not adjust to doing nothing but endless bookwork fast. Little of what Fareed poetically fawns over is valued during the fall of freshman year. It's more about the "hard and fast" business. After all, that 3.2 looms large. And innovation is not on the menu.

 

Just saying....

[creekland]

Ah, yes. BUT here's the rub. If the kid doesn't keep a 3.2 GPA, the scholarship disappears.

 

This is similar in high school too. If the teacher doesn't have a certain number of As, then they are a bad teacher. If our school doesn't have enough kids with a high GPA, then we are a bad school. We aren't allowed to have different "levels" of classes in Alg - Pre-Calc, so all kids in those classes get the same stuff - the future engineer and the future non-college bound student. To get the required grades, the tests are dumbed down horribly and half the tests are team tests. To add to that we give homework grades (completion only).

 

So, we can get students who graduate with a 3.5 or higher - who "know" all the material we present - and still test into remedial classes at a college due to our bar being set so low. Our SAT scores are far lower than our GPA... and I feel for the kids who could do more, but don't get it here. They often have to learn quickly in college.

[memphispeg]

It is early, so this rambles -

Should we be "requiring" math and science for kids who have no aptitude or interest? Really, wouldn't it be better to get the kids who are taking calc. and physics in order to fill some requirement into science that would really interest them, e.g. applied math for financial stuff, statistics, applied math for everyday life, everyday physics and electronics? Many of the kids I talk to have no idea why they are taking any math after Alg. 2. It's just on the college checklist that they have to take an "advanced math class". This should hold true for college as well, and does at some schools (e. g. calc. for math and engineering majors vs. calc. for liberal arts majors). It would go a long way towards decreasing class size and providing a more nurturing environment.

Speaking of girls in science and their spirit of cooperation - cooperation and team work are really what gets things done. The lone scientist in the lab is a rather sad myth, labs can be fun and social and spirited places where ideas are shared and creativity is encouraged. Competitiveness should not be an option, especially in college and high school.

[beaners]

It is early, so this rambles -

Should we be "requiring" math and science for kids who have no aptitude or interest? Really, wouldn't it be better to get the kids who are taking calc. and physics in order to fill some requirement into science that would really interest them, e.g. applied math for financial stuff, statistics, applied math for everyday life, everyday physics and electronics? Many of the kids I talk to have no idea why they are taking any math after Alg. 2. It's just on the college checklist that they have to take an "advanced math class". This should hold true for college as well, and does at some schools (e. g. calc. for math and engineering majors vs. calc. for liberal arts majors). It would go a long way towards decreasing class size and providing a more nurturing environment.

Speaking of girls in science and their spirit of cooperation - cooperation and team work are really what gets things done. The lone scientist in the lab is a rather sad myth, labs can be fun and social and spirited places where ideas are shared and creativity is encouraged. Competitiveness should not be an option, especially in college and high school.

 

 

I think there is a long term benefit to going beyond algebra in math. I've read a few sources saying that you don't lose your algebra skills as easily if you've gone through calculus, but most people will regress to only using arithmetic if they have only completed algebra. I think working at a high level of math solidifies and internalizes the lower levels, assuming you actually know what is going on in the class.

 

I see that foundation as the real sticking point. I heard the good instructor I mentioned earlier say over and over again, "Calculus isn't the reason most people have trouble with calculus. It's algebra. It's trig. It's geometry." And likewise, physics concepts aren't what I've seen people struggle with in physics. It's applying those concepts with formulas. It's doing math. It's hard without that foundation.

 

I don't think it matters for many of the top students in these fields, but I think it's a problem for more of them than we would expect. I think it's an enormous problem once you move outside of the math, physics, engineering bubble.

[elegantlion]

It is early, so this rambles -

Should we be "requiring" math and science for kids who have no aptitude or interest? Really, wouldn't it be better to get the kids who are taking calc. and physics in order to fill some requirement into science that would really interest them, e.g. applied math for financial stuff, statistics, applied math for everyday life, everyday physics and electronics? Many of the kids I talk to have no idea why they are taking any math after Alg. 2. It's just on the college checklist that they have to take an "advanced math class". This should hold true for college as well, and does at some schools (e. g. calc. for math and engineering majors vs. calc. for liberal arts majors). It would go a long way towards decreasing class size and providing a more nurturing environment.

Speaking of girls in science and their spirit of cooperation - cooperation and team work are really what gets things done. The lone scientist in the lab is a rather sad myth, labs can be fun and social and spirited places where ideas are shared and creativity is encouraged. Competitiveness should not be an option, especially in college and high school.

 

 

In my rather non-expert opinion, I think up to Alg II is fine for some. Is the problem becoming that 4 years of math is required in some states? So even the child who took algebra in 9th, still has to decide where to go in 12th. Many states I've looked at require a level beyond algebra, consumer math not counting.

 

I'd like to see the math education widen. I had no interest to go beyond Alg II in school, but I might have been interested in number theory or probability, but are school offering these classes at an introduction level?

[creekland]

 

Consider this...NYC Public routinely hires teachers from overseas. Simultaneously, Lou Gerstner tried to get his laid off M.S. and PhDs in as math and science teachers. Who has the jobs? Not the engineers and scientists L.G. laid off...many of whom are moms at home now. Their local districts are happy to pay them minimally, some districts will pay for their M.S. in teaching. But do they even need that much coursework to teach math or science? Obviously not if they can have the job while they go to night school to get the ticket punched. Just another money-raking in scheme.

 

 

The problem with teaching in US public schools is that one needs an education degree - not a "subject" degree. Technically, I can't teach in my own public high school as a "real" teacher because I'm not certified as a teacher. I'd need more education classes (about 2 years worth) to get it - AND - I'd have to student teach. ;) (I think I've been told there's a way around that last part since I have experience subbing for so long, but I'm not 100% positive). The fact that I have a physics degree with math and psychology minors doesn't matter (though some level of degree is needed to be a substitute). It also doesn't matter that the admin and departments where I've been working since '99 would vouch for my ability.

 

Chances are, these teachers from overseas have the "proper" credentials while those who got laid off with higher degrees do not - therefore - one group can legally take the jobs and the other can't.

 

(To be fair to my school, they've been after me to get the certification since my first year with them. I'm the stubborn one who doesn't particularly want a full time job anyway. ;) They do what they can to get me in on long term math positions, but there's still a definite limit to my working time with the state. I like my colleagues a lot. I wish the school would improve their educational level, etc, but it's not the people I have issues with.)

[regentrude]

Should we be "requiring" math and science for kids who have no aptitude or interest? .

 

In my home country, every student who wants to attend a university has calculus in high school. And three sciences. And two foreign languages (for ten and seven years, respectively). Whether the student wants to study math or English. They will specialize at the university, but come to the university prepared for all subjects.

So yes, it can be done.

(Students whose general academic aptitude is such that they will not attend a university do not take calculus)

[MIch elle]

The problem with teaching in US public schools is that one needs an education degree - not a "subject" degree. Technically, I can't teach in my own public high school as a "real" teacher because I'm not certified as a teacher. I'd need more education classes (about 2 years worth) to get it - AND - I'd have to student teach. ;) (I think I've been told there's a way around that last part since I have experience subbing for so long, but I'm not 100% positive). The fact that I have a physics degree with math and psychology minors doesn't matter (though some level of degree is needed to be a substitute). It also doesn't matter that the admin and departments where I've been working since '99 would vouch for my ability.

 

 

There are plenty of B.S. math and science "subject" degree people that teach in MA. In order to teach in MA you must pass the MA teacher's tests - a minimum of 3 tests: reading, writing(communication and literacy) and YOUR subject test. I just did this and now have a MA prel. teacher's license in middle school science. To teach in biology, chemistry or physics in high school, I would have to take those individual subject tests. Yes, I would be required to take some additional course work if I wanted to teach (min. of 5 classes) but that can be done in some school districts while you teach. It's getting the job now that is hard. My friend did just this with her engineering degree from Boston College (grad. of many yrs ago). She's a MA licensed middle school math teacher with NO teacher's degree. Not all undergrad. degrees can do this; it must be related to the subject you will teach (i.e. history degrees can teach high school history, science degrees teach science, etc. as long as you pass the state's teacher tests).

[regentrude]

I see that foundation as the real sticking point. I heard the good instructor I mentioned earlier say over and over again, "Calculus isn't the reason most people have trouble with calculus. It's algebra. It's trig. It's geometry." And likewise, physics concepts aren't what I've seen people struggle with in physics. It's applying those concepts with formulas. It's doing math. It's hard without that foundation.

 

I don't think it matters for many of the top students in these fields, but I think it's a problem for more of them than we would expect. I think it's an enormous problem once you move outside of the math, physics, engineering bubble.

:iagree:Yes, yes yes. See this every single semester.

And not just once you move outside STEM subjects - many of the STEM majors themselves (OK, maybe not the mathematicians, but certainly the engineers) lack a solid algebra foundation.

 

My most bizarre experience in this respect was a student I encountered who, when asked why she chose the calculus based physic class which was not required for her major, responded: "because I am bad at algebra". (For those of you not in the field: the amount of algebra required is, of course, the same for both; if anything you need more algebra in a calc based class). But the whole notion that math can be compartmentalized this way and that you "can do calculus" without being able to "do algebra" was just shocking.

[Dana]

 

Now they're here (College Alg), and if they didn't get it before they need to really work their tails off to catch all of the Alg they should know plus the new things. A few try. Most muddle along. (A few also "got it" before and are fine.) All but a couple will end up passing, then Regentrude (or another professor) will get them - woefully underprepared. I can't slow down to catch any up because we have to stick with the college syllabus. We do offer free tutoring twice a week, but that would require effort on the part of the students, and it's difficult to catch up on ALL of algebra while still pressing on.

 

They end up in my developmental classes at the cc.

Some are fresh out of high school (graduated hs in spring, start at cc in fall, testing into Algebra I or below).

 

I do what I can and some of them really learn a lot, but it's so frustrating to deal with the students who think that the same "study skills" they used in high school will let them pass at the cc. I'm lucky and am at a place where we don't get in trouble for pass rates. I can toss out disruptive students and if most of the class drops or fails, I don't get in any trouble.

 

I would LOVE to see major restructuring done at the high school level. I can't imagine not having tracking, but I also know at the schools in our districts, we do have tracking but parents can override test scores. It's become a form of segregation. :glare: Friends who have taught at the hs say most of the students in the higher courses really shouldn't be there. An English instructor said that in her classes only about 3-4 students in each advanced class were actually advanced students & a friend who taught AB Calculus had such a difficult time with unprepared students, he said he'd never teach it again.

[FaithManor]

In my home country, every student who wants to attend a university has calculus in high school. And three sciences. And two foreign languages (for ten and seven years, respectively). Whether the student wants to study math or English. They will specialize at the university, but come to the university prepared for all subjects.

So yes, it can be done.

(Students whose general academic aptitude is such that they will not attend a university do not take calculus)

 

 

This is the rub. We have a college prep track and funnel EVERYONE into it except special ed students. :001_huh:

 

I've known a lot of brilliant people who were not cut out for college. Not for lack of intelligence or perseverance, but because acadamia and that kind of hoop jumping just did not mesh with their personalities. We've got plenty of skills that can be learned outside of the hallowed walls of college and yet we've carved out a crazy system in which we try to funnel everyone into college and have made college the new high school diploma such that pretty much anyone who wants a decent job in the future will have to possess a degree even if it is for a job in which the degree is meaningless!

 

Our whole educational culture is so messed up that it is ridiculous. My dad's gpa from high school was around 2.7 (if he wasn't interested in the class, he didn't show up until exam time and then ACED all of the exams - frustrating to many of his teachers). He aced the exam for admission to the Air Force Missle Design/Engineering program back in the early 60's. So, with his paltry GPA he went straight from high school into engineering! However, he would have been a terrible candidate for college. Terrible! The Air Force program was a much better fit for him. I see many kids who would benefit from educational formats that are not traditional post-high school, but we funnel them into that "one sizes fits all" educational mentality and expect the "clothes" to fit well. :glare:

 

We need more options for kids. I also firmly believe that there are a lot of kids who would be more likely to apply themselves and really learn the material if they have found a passion, natural talent, niche, etc. But, our current system does not help them find that. They need a reason other than, "I told you so" and they need help seeing that this skill learned now will help you gain this skill, which will help you gain that skill, which will lead to this.... like sheep being herded to the barn, they have no idea what is supposed to happen to them when they get there. They can't imagine the possibilities.

 

I've even seen a change in my own high schooler. He is my only child who has hit the teen years and not already found his passion. His interests lie in ancient languages, history, geology, art history, and foreign cultures. So we spent August together researching, "How can these interests come together into a meaningful career of the future?" He's settled on Archaeology and Anthropology. He is so focused now that the mega whining, complaining, general upset about math and science has subsided and instead he is applying himself with abandon...he's doing so much better in math...he's flying through AP biology. But, now he sees why he will need to learn this, that, and the other thing. He has a reason to jump college hoops and check things off the list. He has an avenue to apply his knowledge and a goal for his future. It's made all the difference in the world. He wants to learn so that he can become a part of this amazing field in the future.

 

I'm blessed to be able to homeschool him and help him find his path. So many kids have no one helping them with that and I've found that most school guidance counselors are a joke.

 

As a matter of fact, I've started a guidance group for local juniors and seniors in my home. I have eight kids, whose parents don't even think about these things,who attend schools that hand out some of the worst advice and grade inflations imaginable. All of these kids have a passion and goal, but most of them will fail without guidance, which they are not getting. So, we've been meeting regularly, researching schools, options, class planning, etc. I tutor them in science when they need it, math if I have time or find them a math tutor they can afford, and generally, am "mommying" them through high school. One wants to major in astronomy and this kid has the drive and passion to do it. His school told him to not take any math higher then algebra 2, and only three sciences...no AP's. Their advice, "Have an easy senior year and enjoy yourself." Yes, that's what they said...TO A BUDDING ASTRONOMER!!!!! He's in pre-calc and advanced chemistry now as a junior based on my advice. He's slated for advanced biology and intro to physics for his senior year and no social studies electives which he was told to take.

 

Another wants to major in biology and get a master's as well. He was told the same thing. Take physical science, biology, and one year of chemistry and not have a science for senior year! Algebra 2, that's all you need to get into school. Apparently, the guidance counselor is so ignorant he's never heard of the difference between general admission to the university and admission to a specific department/major. GRRRRR.... plus, how are these kids going to get ACT's and SAT's high enough to qualify for desperately needed scholarships????? Nope, just have an easy senior year. I called the school principal and told him that the guidance counselor is an ignoramous. Not my most politically correct moment in life, but these 8 teens who have taken the initiative to find someone to help them because they want to realize their goals and passions that desperately, need someone to speak for them.

 

I can tell you that our local school district does NOTHING to prepare students for STEM related fields. Not.one.thing. :glare:

 

Faith

[memphispeg]

Friends who have taught at the hs say most of the students in the higher courses really shouldn't be there. An English instructor said that in her classes only about 3-4 students in each advanced class were actually advanced students & a friend who taught AB Calculus had such a difficult time with unprepared students, he said he'd never teach it again.

And I would add that some of those students do not really want to be there. Colleges continually press for AP and advanced coursework from applicants - We want students who have taken the most challenging curriculum offered in their school - and many students just take the most AP classes that they're allowed to by their school. Taking so many means that many of them will do sub-standard work in most of them. My dd's AP classes were the only way she could get a "quality" education in a subject. I think she would have been better off in non-AP classes, and would have learned more, had the "quality" been the same.

The dd that I am homeschooling was completely adverse to this competitive nonsense. We have developed our own "quality" curriculum, advanced when possible, but always deep and thorough.

[creekland]

There are plenty of B.S. math and science "subject" degree people that teach in MA. In order to teach in MA you must pass the MA teacher's tests - a minimum of 3 tests: reading, writing(communication and literacy) and YOUR subject test. I just did this and now have a MA prel. teacher's license in middle school science. To teach in biology, chemistry or physics in high school, I would have to take those individual subject tests. Yes, I would be required to take some additional course work if I wanted to teach (min. of 5 classes) but that can be done in some school districts while you teach. It's getting the job now that is hard. My friend did just this with her engineering degree from Boston College (grad. of many yrs ago). She's a MA licensed middle school math teacher with NO teacher's degree. Not all undergrad. degrees can do this; it must be related to the subject you will teach (i.e. history degrees can teach high school history, science degrees teach science, etc. as long as you pass the state's teacher tests).

 

Perhaps PA will learn from MA? Who knows. All I know is that here I would need a Master's in Education and teacher certification (passing the test) to teach. I could have just gotten an undergrad degree in secondary education had I thought I wanted to teach back in college, but I went into industry (after the Air Force) instead. In reality, I've had many more science and math classes than other science/math teachers with just a bachelor's degree - but PA doesn't feel I'd be qualified in the classroom full time. ;)

 

While I could earn the Masters while working full time (this is an option), I don't want night classes that would take away family time. As my boys are aging out of being "boys" I cherish what little time we have together. Before that I also spent more time homeschooling after the work day. What hubby and I choose to do when we have an empty nest remains to be seen.

[creekland]

 

I do what I can and some of them really learn a lot, but it's so frustrating to deal with the students who think that the same "study skills" they used in high school will let them pass at the cc. I'm lucky and am at a place where we don't get in trouble for pass rates. I can toss out disruptive students and if most of the class drops or fails, I don't get in any trouble.

 

I would LOVE to see major restructuring done at the high school level. I can't imagine not having tracking, but I also know at the schools in our districts, we do have tracking but parents can override test scores. It's become a form of segregation. :glare: Friends who have taught at the hs say most of the students in the higher courses really shouldn't be there. An English instructor said that in her classes only about 3-4 students in each advanced class were actually advanced students & a friend who taught AB Calculus had such a difficult time with unprepared students, he said he'd never teach it again.

 

I don't think we do our kids any favors by being so easy on them and training them that As come easily with minimal effort.

 

Our school has very limited tracking and it's all in the middle school based upon who starts Alg in 7th grade. Once they hit 10th grade, we put the talented kids (in Alg 2 at that point) with the 12th graders who are trying to pass Alg 2 for the 2nd time. It's not a good mix.

[Teachin'Mine]

I don't think we do our kids any favors by being so easy on them and training them that As come easily with minimal effort.

 

Our school has very limited tracking and it's all in the middle school based upon who starts Alg in 7th grade. Once they hit 10th grade, we put the talented kids (in Alg 2 at that point) with the 12th graders who are trying to pass Alg 2 for the 2nd time. It's not a good mix.

 

I'm curious how they schedule the math classes. If they're in Algebra 1 in 7th, what are they doing besides that and geometry to end up in Algebra 2 in 10th? I agree that their classes should remain separate from the other track as they're learning on a different level.

[creekland]

I'm curious how they schedule the math classes. If they're in Algebra 1 in 7th' date=' what are they doing besides that and geometry to end up in Algebra 2 in 10th? I agree that their classes should remain separate from the other track as they're learning on a different level.[/quote']

 

Our school has now decided that ALL students need 2 years of Alg 1 to progress on. They call them Alg 1A and Alg1B. This is due to a combo of the book we are using (ineffective at presenting Alg 1) and being on block scheduling with oodles of testing and fun days that take away from educational time. No credits count from middle school anyway, but students who start Alg 1A in 9th grade get 2 math credits for Alg 1 on their transcript assuming they pass both the A and B classes.

 

It's a crock if you ask me. Top math kids shouldn't need 2 years to learn Alg 1. However, I think it's a nice idea for non-top math kids. This way they don't need to go beyond Alg 2 and still have 4 math credits (needed to graduate). Once again, the top kids get slowed down to keep everyone even.

 

We absolutely do need to cover the 2nd half of the book in Alg 1 (that which we didn't have time for before). That's where the true Alg 1 info is being presented. I'd eliminate almost all of the beginning of the book personally. Actually, I'd change books personally, but that's not my call.

[Teachin'Mine]

Our school has now decided that ALL students need 2 years of Alg 1 to progress on. They call them Alg 1A and Alg1B. This is due to a combo of the book we are using (ineffective at presenting Alg 1) and being on block scheduling with oodles of testing and fun days that take away from educational time. No credits count from middle school anyway, but students who start Alg 1A in 9th grade get 2 math credits for Alg 1 on their transcript assuming they pass both the A and B classes.

 

It's a crock if you ask me. Top math kids shouldn't need 2 years to learn Alg 1. However, I think it's a nice idea for non-top math kids. This way they don't need to go beyond Alg 2 and still have 4 math credits (needed to graduate). Once again, the top kids get slowed down to keep everyone even.

 

We absolutely do need to cover the 2nd half of the book in Alg 1 (that which we didn't have time for before). That's where the true Alg 1 info is being presented. I'd eliminate almost all of the beginning of the book personally. Actually, I'd change books personally, but that's not my call.

 

Wow. Your posts are eye opening. Hopefully your school is an exception overall. What surprises me is that there isn't any push to get it all changed - whether from the teachers, the parents or even the students. They must realize, after graduation, how much they've missed and how ill prepared they are for college courses. I can't imagine how difficult it is for a graduate from there to manage in a STEM major. NCLB at it's finest. Ugh.

[MIch elle]

Private schools don't require MA teacher tests. Could you teach at a Catholic or other private school?

 

If I did become a MA teacher, eventually I would have to get a Masters degree. I could potentially put that off for 10 yrs (usually you have 5 yrs).

[MIch elle]

The public school in our town has 3 options for freshman. The ones that placed into algebra 1 in grade 8 go onto alg. 2 in gr. 9. Those that took pre-alg. in gr. 8 that did well go to alg. 1 in gr. 9. Those that did poorly in pre-alg. take alg. 1A in gr. 9 and alg. 1B in gr. 10 (minority).

 

That is VERY strange to have ALL freshman take alg. 1A & 1B. :confused: