Big fish in a small pond or small fish in a big pond? Something to think about.

[creekland]

I haven't read other replies but watched the whole video. I do not agree with him. I have an EE degree from the top university in South Korea. Yes, I went through a painful transition from being a big fish to a small fish, but the academically rigorous and competitive atmosphere at my univ also motivated me to push myself beyond the level I though I could do. I survived there with an average GPA but the STEM degree from the top school have brought me tremendous benefits including my early employment into Samsung Electronics (one year before my graduation) and acceptance into the top engineering grad school in the U.S., not to mention the network I've built and the opportunities I had to see the world. I ended up giving up my career due to my personal situation (DH's military job) but I greatly value all experiences I had in those "Big Ponds." I do not think I could have enjoyed those same benefits and opportunities if I chose to be a big fish in a local "no-name" univ. To me, the atmosphere and peer pressure are a motivation factor so there's even no guarantee that I could have graduated with a perfect GPA from this local univ and gotten a job at Samsung or accepted into the top Ph.D program. So, I do not regret a bit about my college decision.

 

From a foreigner's perspective, I think the reason why the STEM is failing in the U.S. is, not because the students choose the top Ivies, but because the overall expectations and standards are simply much lower than the ones in other better-performing countries. For example, all high school students are expected to master the differential and integral calculus by 11th grade. No exceptions. (The school curriculum is nationally standardized and homeschooling is very rare.) We also learn statistics and probability theory in math and other science subjects in depth in high school and they all appear in the Korean version of SAT. I'm currently teaching Singapore Primary 1A to my DS and he is breezing through it, but even with IP and CWP, while it is a good way to teach the concepts, I do not think this curriculum offers enough practice for mastery, so I'm going to add the Korean-style daily math drills to it like every Korean student does, which is similar to the Kumon's repetitive way. I think the different expectation on workload is what resulted in the different overall status of STEM education between the U.S. and other countries. 

 

Top schools definitely have their advantages and are the "right" place to be for the "right fit" student.  I'm glad my middle son ended up in one as it's the perfect fit for him.

 

BUT... I disagree that ALL high school students need to master Calculus at all.  There are many who are talented in other fields beyond STEM and the way our country needs "college degrees" for practically all fields, expecting ALL to master Calc just to graduate from high school would leave many shorted in life.  I do NOT want class separation based on something as "simple" as math ability.  There are many, many intelligent kids who simply do not get abstract math.  That makes them no less able to handle many, many (good) jobs using the talent they do have.

 

 

Creekland I agree that many college students change their major for a variety of reasons, including what you experienced.   But the stats he lists aren't even about how many intended STEM majors graduated with a STEM degree, it's about where the STEM degree graduates had tested on the math SAT.  For only fifteen percent of the STEM graduates to have gotten the lower scores while 53 percent got the highest scores makes perfect sense.

 

I was curious about his own education, so I looked it up.  Wiki offers some interesting insights.  His father was a mathematics professor and his mother a psychotherapist who served as a writing role model.  He graduated from the University of Toronto with a degree in history.  According to Wiki "Gladwell's grades were not good enough for graduate school (as Gladwell puts it, "college was not an... intellectually fruitful time for me") ... "

 

The University of Toronto is rated as the top university in Canada.   I think this, together with his admission that he didn't get good grades and couldn't get into grad school, has heavily influenced his research and findings based on his "interpretation" of the statistics.   I've never read his books and I have no idea if he works stats in the same way he did in this limited sample.   I have no doubt that there are students who attend schools which are really beyond their academic abilities or not a good fit, but to use irrelevant data to "prove" that point is ridiculous.  I'm sure there's pertinent data out there, or he could have conducted his own study.

 

Thanks for more explanation.  I definitely wish I could watch the video, but there's no hope for that here.

 

To be fair, I think MANY of us (humans) base our interpretations of all of reality on our own experiences.  I know a big huge door to seeing more of life opened up to me when I started teaching in ps and saw (first hand) the experiences of others.  Another door opened up when I joined here and was able to read about the experiences - and perceptions of them - of others.

 

 

With such poor methodology, is anyone else curious as to why the heck google invited him to speak?

 

Most people don't understand how stats work (and that they NEVER apply to the individual).  I doubt google is an exception.  If he's a charming speaker, that's mainly what they were looking for.

That [in 1985] was before the SAT was re-normed.  There probably were kids at Harvard with 581 Math scores then.  

 

I doubt 30 percent of the stem majors at Harvard in 1985 had 581 or below.  I can't find any data, but wikipedia says: "The score ranges of the middle 50% of admitted applicants to Princeton University in 1985 were 660 to 750 (math)".  So, the bottom 25% of Princeton's 1985 admissions class would be substantially better than Harvard, and we're not even talking about the stem cohort.

[Ad astra]

creekland, like I said, the different academic expectations and standards. Math was not the only subject I was required to go deep in high school. I do not think every high school student should master caculus, either. But if you wonder why Asian students do better in STEM, the answer is the hard work. It's much more difficult to overcome the language barrier in other major fields.

[Teachin'Mine]

While I also don't think every student needs to master calculus, I agree that a strong math foundation is important to preparation for a STEM major.  One of the things I loved about Saxon was that it included mental math and basic facts practice sheets with the goal towards working accurately but quickly.   I also liked that the lessons took time and made for a smooth transition to college math work, both in difficulty and volume.   I know that other programs also prepare students, but I think that in general our high schools do not challenge the students enough.

 

Creekland I agree that we all bring our own experiences to our perception of stats.  The difference is that he's publishing books and using stats to support his theories.  If he just wrote anecdotally, then no problem, but if he's presenting himself as a social researcher, then he should understand statistics and use them accurately.  Even working within the general rules, there are so many ways to get statistics to say what you want them to say, so there's no need to go to the extent he has.

[creekland]

 I agree that a strong math foundation is important to preparation for a STEM major. 

 

I agree totally on this.  I'm just pointing out that not all students are cut out to be STEM majors and it shouldn't be a general high school requirement IMO.  I think any country that requires all high school grads to master Calc is short shifting too large of a segment of their population and doing more harm in that process than good.

 

Requiring it of all future potential STEM majors is an entirely different deal, but STEM is not the "be all, end all."

 

[Teachin'Mine]

I agree totally on this.  I'm just pointing out that not all students are cut out to be STEM majors and it shouldn't be a general high school requirement IMO.  I think any country that requires all high school grads to master Calc is short shifting too large of a segment of their population and doing more harm in that process than good.

 

Requiring it of all future potential STEM majors is an entirely different deal, but STEM is not the "be all, end all."

 

 

Totally agree!

[Ad astra]

I agree totally on this.  I'm just pointing out that not all students are cut out to be STEM majors and it shouldn't be a general high school requirement IMO.  I think any country that requires all high school grads to master Calc is short shifting too large of a segment of their population and doing more harm in that process than good.

 

Requiring it of all future potential STEM majors is an entirely different deal, but STEM is not the "be all, end all."

 

 

I do not understand what kind of harm you are talking about that is caused by other countries expecting their students to reach a higher level of understanding in math and science than the U.S. does since IMO most average 17-18yo are totally capable of mastering the single variable calculus if they have diligently worked on math since elementary school and are willing to put effort and time into learning it. You'll be surprised if you see how much time and effort Korean students in general put into learning English and other subjects as well. But like I said earlier, I do agree with you that not everyone needs this much push for academics or does well in every subject.

 

To clarify, calculus is mandatory for all high school students in Korea but the ones who choose the Science Track (not the Literary Track) in order to apply for STEM or medical majors are required to study math even deeper in calculus and discrete math during high school so that they can start from multi-variable calculus in the first semester of college. If I must guess the harm it does... well, many students in Korea who have not diligently worked on math from elementary school fall behind, do not perform well on monthly national standardized tests and, in worse cases, give up on math in high school. For my entire life, I have not met any single parent who does homeschooling in Korea because the school doesn't provide enough challenge; in most cases, it's the other way around that many parents seek private tutors or afterschool classes to help their children catch up with the academic requirements of the school.

[creekland]

I do not understand what kind of harm you are talking about that is caused by other countries expecting their students to reach a higher level of understanding in math and science than the U.S. does since IMO most average 17-18yo are totally capable of mastering the single variable calculus if they have diligently worked on math since elementary school and are willing to put effort and time into learning it. You'll be surprised if you see how much time and effort Korean students in general put into learning English and other subjects as well. But like I said earlier, I do agree with you that not everyone needs this much push for academics or does well in every subject.

 

To clarify, calculus is mandatory for all high school students in Korea but the ones who choose the Science Track (not the Literary Track) in order to apply for STEM or medical majors are required to study math even deeper in calculus and discrete math during high school so that they can start from multi-variable calculus in the first semester of college. If I must guess the harm it does... well, many students in Korea who have not diligently worked on math from elementary school fall behind, do not perform well on monthly national standardized tests and, in worse cases, give up on math in high school. For my entire life, I have not met any single parent who does homeschooling in Korea because the school doesn't provide enough challenge; in most cases, it's the other way around that many parents seek private tutors or afterschool classes to help their children catch up with the academic requirements of the school.

 

I don't doubt that those who are capable of doing the math are provided enough challenge, that's for sure.  I also think that is one area where many US high schools (or schools in general) fall desperately short.  It's why I opted to homeschool my own once the oldest reached high school actually (not JUST math, but English and other subjects too).  

 

I went to what I now consider a really good - practically great - high school.  We had classes offered that prepared students for success of all types.  Some of my peers (from my year and kids I was in class with) are now doctors teaching at places like Yale or UC.  Others are involved in higher level private stuff (lawyers, etc).  I likely disappointed everyone in that I more or less dropped out of the work force when I got married and now thoroughly enjoy part time and can't imagine rejoining the rat race with anything full time unless absolutely necessary.

 

I'm pretty sure kids from my graduating class could keep up with any students - worldwide.

 

But what my school also offered were options.  Students who couldn't do Calc didn't have to - and were still successful.  Many also got college degrees, but those degrees might be in History, Agriculture, English, or whatever.  Not everyone even in my class did Calc in high school - that was an optional class.  One of the higher up lawyers didn't take it.  They might have in college - who knows?  I didn't even take Calc in high school... because I wanted to fit in a third science class (Physics, AP Bio, and Microbio/Astronomy - half year each).  I still succeeded in getting a Physics degree in college.  ;)

 

So... the harm?  The stress of knowing you MUST do this or not succeed.  It's not true (in this country).  How many fall through the cracks because they are on the lower end of the math bell curve?  How many fall through the cracks because their families can't afford the extra tutoring?

 

I'm a math person.  I see all levels of capability.  I also know that some develop the capability later than others.  Right now I'm specifically thinking of one gal who really didn't "get" math at all until half way through her 9th grade year.  At that point she wasn't even in Alg 1.  But then it clicked... and she finished through Pre-Calc by doubling up on Alg 2 and Geom.  Then she went on to college and was... a math major.  She's from a lower socio-economic family.  I strongly suspect she'd have fallen through the cracks elsewhere.  I see others who never really do "get" the math and who struggle in Pre-Calc having hit a wall.  They often do much better in other subjects, and many go on to college - not top schools - but schools where they certainly can succeed and get a degree.

 

To me... a GREAT school offers opportunities for everyone - the really quick, talented academic types, the average kids, the kids good at one area of academics, but not so good at the "all-around," and the late bloomers.  In our country they also need to be good at giving a basic education to those who really aren't the academic type.  We had those at my high school too.  All of us were introduced to musicals (our school had traveling shows come in several times per year), decent works of literature (read at a slower pace for kids who weren't quite as quick), math (at all levels), and more.

 

NOW... the "state" has more or less ruined what used to exist when kids could be "tracked" academically as we were starting in about 4th grade.  NOW education has been more dumbed down so "everyone" can (and has to) do a minimum level.  (I see this as the opposite as in Asian countries where things are elevated to where some really can't do it and get shafted.)

 

There's harm in both systems to be honest.  I like the way my school was when I used to be there.  I like to see everyone getting the opportunity that best fits them.

[Ad astra]

So... the harm?  The stress of knowing you MUST do this or not succeed.  It's not true (in this country).  How many fall through the cracks because they are on the lower end of the math bell curve?  How many fall through the cracks because their families can't afford the extra tutoring?

 

 

There's harm in both systems to be honest.  I like the way my school was when I used to be there.  I like to see everyone getting the opportunity that best fits them.

 

You're absolutely right. In a recent survey below, Korean students were voted as having the best test scores but being the most unhappy students in the world, LOL.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jakel11/where-in-the-world-you-can-find-the-best-schools-and-the-hap

 

Yes, I wish I had more options during my high school instead of enduring the pressure to do well in every 12+ subject all my 50+ classmates and I had to take during each semester of high school.

[creekland]

You're absolutely right. In a recent survey below, Korean students were voted as having the best test scores but being the most unhappy students in the world, LOL.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jakel11/where-in-the-world-you-can-find-the-best-schools-and-the-hap

 

Yes, I wish I had more options during my high school instead of enduring the pressure to do well in every 12+ subject all my classmates and I had to take during each semester of high school.

 

I wish we could take the pros of each system (US, Euro, Asian) and incorporate them into a system that would work for all.

 

From the US I would keep choice and opportunity as well as art, sports, and music.  

 

From the Euro I would keep the ability to "drop out" (hate using those words) with head held high and go into a different, more suitable track with dignity.  

 

From the Asian (and a bit of Euro, but Asian does it better based upon our exchange students) I'd like to keep the challenge and expectations - just couple it with the choice mentioned before and NOT having to be good in all subjects.

 

That's my ideal educational opportunity for all to find their niche.

[madteaparty]

His theory makes sense only if the data was static, in that the same (say) 5 students that were the top scorers ended up being the very same 5 with the stem degrees or howevered he quantified success. If there was movement in and out of the "top" sample between enrollment and graduation, that's a pretty big hole in the theory IMO.

I do agree that getting into a good school for undergrad should not be the highlight of anyone's academic career.

And I am the student he speaks of: embarrassing undergrad, top grad school. (Albeit humanities). If anything, it made for a more stressful life: no one from my undergrad had been previously admitted to the grad program I was accepted to. And I'm not even that smart.

Other things that bug me about this talk:

 

He implies that a STEM degree is the only one worth getting from Harvard, and that if you graduate with a non-STEM degree from Harvard, you are doomed to a life of minimum wage jobs.  While I accept, all other things being equal, that it is probably easier to get a job for a stem major than a humanities major, if your dream is to study history for a living, and you are admitted into Harvard, a Harvard degree in History is probably a darn good place to start.

 

Also, all of these SAT based statistics in his talk only cover nine small private LACs.  When I think about good schools for STEM people, especially for the Engineers, the technical schools really come to mind first:  places like MIT, CalTech, Harvey Mudd, etc.  These places don't offer much in the way of non-stem majors, so you can't switch majors from stem to non-stem mid-stream.  These schools don't have 50% transfer rates, so how does his theory hold up here?  Many of the big state Universities also have excellent engineering programs -- what about them, does the theory hold there?

 

For the statistics about the Economics PhD students, there's a huge hole in the argument:  He claims that the top Economics student at any "bad" university has better publishing output than the second best student at the best University.  Be that as it may, the second best student at the best University is still going to have a much better shot at the elusive tenure-track faculty positions, because brand recognition is a significant part of hiring.  I don't think this arguments are going to sway hiring decisions at major institutions, unfair though that may be.  Given how few tenure-track faculty positions are open now, I suspect there are vanishingly few offered to PhD graduates from "not top-30 schools".

 

Finally, while I agree that "fit" between student and college is very important, I think it is a huge mistake to think that you can line up all colleges on one linear line and rate them from best to worst, and judge fit to the student based on this one dimension alone. There are all kinds of dimensions of fit, from size to location to faith to extra-curriculars offered, etc. etc. etc.  It is vital to find a good fit, but there are all kinds of things to consider beyond just the school's average Math SAT score.

[creekland]

 

He implies that a STEM degree is the only one worth getting from Harvard, and that if you graduate with a non-STEM degree from Harvard, you are doomed to a life of minimum wage jobs.  

 

It bugs me when people feel that STEM degrees are the only ones worth getting - period.  And both hubby and I are STEM majors, but I've just seen too many other successful people IRL to agree with that thought.

 

The degree ought to fit the student's talent as much as the school ought to fit them for them to have their best shot at life...

[Teachin'Mine]

Other things that bug me about this talk:

 

He implies that a STEM degree is the only one worth getting from Harvard, and that if you graduate with a non-STEM degree from Harvard, you are doomed to a life of minimum wage jobs.  While I accept, all other things being equal, that it is probably easier to get a job for a stem major than a humanities major, if your dream is to study history for a living, and you are admitted into Harvard, a Harvard degree in History is probably a darn good place to start.

 

Also, all of these SAT based statistics in his talk only cover nine small private LACs.  When I think about good schools for STEM people, especially for the Engineers, the technical schools really come to mind first:  places like MIT, CalTech, Harvey Mudd, etc.  These places don't offer much in the way of non-stem majors, so you can't switch majors from stem to non-stem mid-stream.  These schools don't have 50% transfer rates, so how does his theory hold up here?  Many of the big state Universities also have excellent engineering programs -- what about them, does the theory hold there?

 

For the statistics about the Economics PhD students, there's a huge hole in the argument:  He claims that the top Economics student at any "bad" university has better publishing output than the second best student at the best University.  Be that as it may, the second best student at the best University is still going to have a much better shot at the elusive tenure-track faculty positions, because brand recognition is a significant part of hiring.  I don't think this arguments are going to sway hiring decisions at major institutions, unfair though that may be.  Given how few tenure-track faculty positions are open now, I suspect there are vanishingly few offered to PhD graduates from "not top-30 schools".

 

Finally, while I agree that "fit" between student and college is very important, I think it is a huge mistake to think that you can line up all colleges on one linear line and rate them from best to worst, and judge fit to the student based on this one dimension alone. There are all kinds of dimensions of fit, from size to location to faith to extra-curriculars offered, etc. etc. etc.  It is vital to find a good fit, but there are all kinds of things to consider beyond just the school's average Math SAT score.

 

Yes, MIT and CalTech and Harvey Mudd don't have 50% transfer rates out of STEM majors into non-STEM majors.  But likely neither does Harvard, but we have no way of knowing what the percent is from the stats the speaker presented.  The stats he gave showed where the STEM grads placedl on the scale at their school as far as their math SAT score.  That's all.   I know little about CalTech, but Harvey Mudd is part of the Claremont Consortium and MIT has cross registration with Harvard and others, so there is some flexibility with coursework. 

 

From the bit I read in Wiki about this speaker, I'm shocked that he's been so influential with his ideas.  I think that the thinking may change in a few years as more "results" are seen, or as someone actually does some fact checking on his supporting "evidence" and looks at the logic.

 

That said, he's absolutely right that some students would do better being in the top of their class than in the bottom or even the middle.  He must feel strongly that he made a poor choice for himself when he chose U of Toronto.  I think that sharing his experience and letting others decide if they relate would be better than using misleading stats to say that his opinions are true for many.   If you look at the stats for the top private universities and liberal arts colleges, they have high retention and graduation rates.  (The same may be true for the public ones, I'm just not familiar with those stats.)  It doesn't mean that they stayed with their initial major, and I'm sure many did change for a variety of reasons, but few transferred out or didn't graduate within 4 or 6 years.