Do we have a broken STEM pipeline?

[maize]

I found this article interesting, what do you think? Is our STEM pipeline broken? If so how do we fix it?

 

One thing I hadn't thought of is college needing to rebalance their departments to make room for more STEM classes.

 

But I wonder--are there really more kids ready and willing to study engineering, math and computer science than there are student slots?

 

http://cerasis.com/2015/04/29/stem-jobs/

[Matryoshka]

Link to article?

[maize]

Link to article?

 

Sorry, I forgot to paste it in! 

 

I fixed that :)

[maize]

The bit about high schools not preparing students for STEM seems to be too true for a lot of highschools/students, though I think the problem starts before high school.

[regentrude]

 

But I wonder--are there really more kids ready and willing to study engineering, math and computer science than there are student slots?

 

I don't think so.

The STEM university where I teach is continuously increasing enrollment, which defies the trend of decreasing overall enrollment at many other colleges.

There are definitely problems with resources, i.e. instructor manpower and rooms, but we make do with the same resources and educate significantly more students than 10 years ago. The admission rate has not decreased, so no, we are not turning away students who want to major in STEM.

 

ETA: I don't buy the claim of suddenly instated weeder gatekeeper classes to cope with increased enrollment. Introductory math and science courses have always been hard courses in which students who lack aptitude or drive washed out. If anything, these courses have gotten easier over the past decades, because students are, on average, less prepared.

 

 

The biggest issue with the STEM pipeline is in middle school where math education is inadequate. Many problems with math preparation can be traced back to an insufficient mastery of basic prealgebra. This haunts students even after they have completed high school level courses and is the biggest factor contributing to failure. the other is lack of work ethic.

 

Btw, there is also an abundance of spots in grad school. We would love to admit qualified American applicants, but don't get any. Almost all our grad students in physics are foreigners.

[JanetC]

University of Washington Computer Science has had this problem for at least 20 years -- they have been successfully lobbying (and, enlisting Amazon and Microsoft to both donate and lobby) for more undergraduate slots from the legislature and it's getting better, but they could fill still more classes if allowed. The Washington legislature has a lot of control over UW and how many majors each department can admit, so this may be an unusual case. 

 

They went from 100 Computer science majors to 300 about 10 years ago, and just got permission to go to 600.  (Can you imagine 100 CS majors at a school the size of UW???)  http://www.geekwire.com/2014/meet-student-demand-university-washington-submits-design-request-new-computer-science-building/ 

 

Yale also has also had this problem... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-26/yale-will-bolster-computer-science-faculty-after-student-outcry

 

 

Re: Regentrude's wanting more American grad students: American students are scared off by the statistics of what happens after graduation.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-americas-awful-market-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339/

 

My sister has a PhD (engineering). None of her friends with PhD's (biochem, physics) got jobs as professors. One is teaching high school, one made it to a corporate lab after years as a postdoc. She is in industry and ended up going into management.

[raptor_dad]

Yet if you look at Harvard with their rejiggered CS50 or Harvey Mudd and their revised CS intro curriculum they have both increased enrollment and later male and *female* major enrollment.

 

This seems like a model for engineering in general.

[regentrude]

 

Re: Regentrude's wanting more American grad students: American students are scared off by the statistics of what happens after graduation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-americas-awful-market-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339/

 

That's employment upon graduation. As the article remarks later, most find eventually employment, and the unemployment rate for science PhDs is 1.5%:

 

 

in 2008, science and engineering doctorate holders up to three years out of school had just 1.5 percent unemployment.

What alternate qualification would have such a  low unemployment rate?

 

The way the article speaks about post doc appointments

 

or stuck in a post-doc appointment, which often turns into a years-long ordeal as a lowly-paid research assistant.

 

is weird. With 40k+ a typical salary, post docs are not exactly "lowly-paid", and it is a great phase for transitioning from grad school to independent scientific work.

 

None of her friends with PhD's (biochem, physics) got jobs as professors

 

Of course not all grads can become professors (first, there are only few openings, and second, getting a PhD does not mean one is qualified to be a professor - most of our dept's grad students don't have what it takes). But even so: during the past 15 years, not a single hire in our department has been an American. In most of the searches, no American even made the short list of 5 best candidates who were invited to interview, because the foreign applicants were simply stronger.

[raptor_dad]

University of Washington Computer Science has had this problem for at least 20 years -- they have been successfully lobbying (and, enlisting Amazon and Microsoft to both donate and lobby) for more undergraduate slots from the legislature and it's getting better, but they could fill still more classes if allowed. The Washington legislature has a lot of control over UW and how many majors each department can admit, so this may be an unusual case. 

 

UW is a world class top 10 CS program and a fabulous example of how to run your intro curriculum, they have fabulous masters teaching only faculty for the intro course, however it is a terrible example of how to manage an engineering funnel... the intro course accounts for 50% of all academic dishonesty cases at UW. There aren't enough major slots so there is extreme pressure based on intro course, college and high school GPA after freshman year... The department knows this but there is no way admit more kids and screen or select at a latter point...

 

[dirty ethel rackham]

 

Of course not all grads can become professors (first, there are only few openings, and second, getting a PhD does not mean one is qualified to be a professor - most of our dept's grad students don't have what it takes). But even so: during the past 15 years, not a single hire in our department has been an American. In most of the searches, no American even made the short list of 5 best candidates who were invited to interview, because the foreign applicants were simply stronger.

 

What, in your opinion, makes a strong candidate?  I have a freshman majoring in physics right now.  I see this kid as the "research" type and want to help them take steps to be one of those short list candidates someday.

 

[regentrude]

What, in your opinion, makes a strong candidate?  I have a freshman majoring in physics right now.  I see this kid as the "research" type and want to help them take steps to be one of those short list candidates someday.

 

I'll be happy to run this by my DH who has served on a number of search committees, but let me take a stab at this:

 

We can already see in grad school who has the potential for a later faculty position at a research university and who does not.

The big difference between solid grad students who get good grades and do well in their classes and outstanding grad students is being an independent, creative thinker. Besides the obvious good class performance and strong work ethic, these students do not just follow their research advisor's orders, but they go above and beyond and try things out. They come up with their own ideas, pursue their own questions.

 

There are grad students who plod through their research, do what the advisor asked them to do, in a more or less timely manner, and eventually produce a thesis and pass their PhD defense. They are employable and will do fine, but they lack vision and drive required to be a research professor in this country. At our institution, these students are in the majority.

And then there are grad students who are bursting with questions, who, when working on their research projects, come up with new avenues to explore; who come and show their advisor what they have tried to do independently without being asked or prompted; who take a leading role when discussing and collaborating with other grad students. They have passion for their research and go above and beyond. They live to research, not research to live. Those are the potential professors, and those are the ones getting great recommendation letters for post docs at good institutions or with renowned researchers (who not necessarily have to reside at big name schools)

This drive, passion and creativity will then, years later, when the young researcher applies for a faculty position, become tangible through a strong list of scientific publications (strong means a substantial number, but also in prestigious journals), and through glowing letters of recommendation from their post doc advisors and collaborators.

 

And yes, there is always some aspect of luck, because there has to be a position in the very field of specialization available at the time the post doc applies for faculty jobs. It may take a few cycles, and there is no guarantee. But the things I outlined above are necessary to have a shot.

 

ETA: And to be honest: I am not sure to much degree one can become such a person, and to what degree this is intrinsic. The only things I could recommend to a student would be to work hard at classes, get into research as soon as possible, be proactive, acquire communication and presentation skills -  but passion and scientific creativity have to come from within. You either have it or you don't.

 

 

[Frances]

I think there are a variety of factors involved. First, I agree that the problem with adequate math preparation starts well before high school. I would even say elementary school. Compared to many other countries where the majority of students attain strong math skills, we generally don't have math teachers teaching math until middle school or later. So many students don't hit the ground running when they enter college and can't make it through the difficult first year courses required of engineering or computer science. And it's virtually impossible to switch to these majors without adding time and tuition due to the sequential nature of the required coursework.

 

However, some schools do not have enough slots for qualified applicants. I know our state school has limited enrollment slots for some of the engineering areas. And pharmacy, one of the fields with high starting pay shown on a graph in the article, generally now requires more than a bachelor's degree and is very competitive to enter. Although as the number of grads have increased, job prospects are decreasing. I would guess that there are probably not enough slots for everyone who wants to pursue petroleum engineering, but who knows how long those job prospects will remain hot.

 

The most common reason I've heard for qualified students not pursuing computer science or engineering degrees is that they've been warned away by parents or relatives in those fields and directed toward more secure and flexible healthcare jobs or more high paying areas like finance. Some people in Computer science and engineering have endured numerous lay-offs, relatively low pay for very long hours, and high stress, and they don't want that for their children.

[Arcadia]

I have a freshman majoring in physics right now. I see this kid as the "research" type and want to help them take steps to be one of those short list candidates someday.

 

My hubby wasn't interested in research until he met a university professor that has in depth knowledge and was a good mentor. That prof wrote the letter of recommendation for his PhD scholarship. So not everyone develop that spark before college/university.

He had been working in the private sector as a research engineer (semiconductor) since finishing his PhD.

 

I used to work in Tech and had seen plenty of layoffs including a company going bankrupt. Hubby's former company had retrenched a few times too. If my kids go into STEM careers, I'll tell them to build up a bigger emergency fund and be prepared to relocate to other countries.

 

ETA:

My mom was a nurse and my dad is a retired teacher. Both had stable employment. They are also savers but they could dump their emergency funds to pay off mortgage without worries while we have more than two years worth of expenses including mortgage and tax in emergency funds. We could dump that amount and pay off our mortgage but it is scary to wipe out most of the emergency fund.

[regentrude]

I just want to add another thought to the entire "STEM" debate:

"STEM" is a pretty useless grouping of unrelated disciplines. I don't find that it makes any sense to group subjects like petroleum engineering, wildlife biology, and nursing under one umbrella and make pronouncements for the future of a STEM job market or of STEM education. The term encompasses so many, and so vastly different, fields http://www.act.org/stemcondition/13/majors.html that it is useless for all practical purposes.

[In The Great White North]

 

 

Btw, there is also an abundance of spots in grad school. We would love to admit qualified American applicants, but don't get any. Almost all our grad students in physics are foreigners.

 

Where are the American physics grad students going?  And what is considered "qualified"?

 

 

We can already see in grad school who has the potential for a later faculty position at a research university and who does not.

The big difference between solid grad students who get good grades and do well in their classes and outstanding grad students is being anindependent, creative thinker. Besides the obvious good class performance and strong work ethic, these students do not just follow their research advisor's orders, but they go above and beyond and try things out. They come up with their own ideas, pursue their own questions.

 

There are grad students who plod through their research, do what the advisor asked them to do, in a more or less timely manner, and eventually produce a thesis and pass their PhD defense. They are employable and will do fine, but they lack vision and drive required to be a research professor in this country. At our institution, these students are in the majority.

And then there are grad students who are bursting with questions, who, when working on their research projects, come up with new avenues to explore; who come and show their advisor what they have tried to do independently without being asked or prompted; who take a leading role when discussing and collaborating with other grad students. They have passion for their research and go above and beyond. They live to research, not research to live. Those are the potential professors, and those are the ones getting great recommendation letters for post docs at good institutions or with renowned researchers (who not necessarily have to reside at big name schools)

This drive, passion and creativity will then, years later, when the young researcher applies for a faculty position, become tangible through a strong list of scientific publications (strong means a substantial number, but also in prestigious journals), and through glowing letters of recommendation from their post doc advisors and collaborators.

 

 

Drive, creative thinking and passion are not taught in STEM courses at any level.  They are taught through the classics (Greek, Latin, mythology, Caesar, etc), classical literature, poetry memorization, art and music - all things that have been removed from or seriously limited in modern education.

[regentrude]

Drive, creative thinking and passion are not taught in STEM courses at any level.  They are taught through the classics (Greek, Latin, mythology, Caesar, etc), classical literature, poetry memorization, art and music - all things that have been removed from or seriously limited in modern education.

 

I disagree with the bolded. Without drive and creative thinking, no chance to do well in quantum mechanics or advanced lab. My DD's homework in her honors physics course can't be solved without either. The kind of creative thinking necessary to succeed in physics research is not learned from studying the classics, art or music - it is trained by wrestling with challenging math problems and thinking about science questions. There are countries that have little educational focus on the classics and create extremely strong mathematicians and scientists, because they have a strong math and science education. Russian kids don't study Greek and Latin, but they take algebra in 6th grade from teachers who have subject expertise.

Passion cannot be taught in ANY course. You don't become passionate about physics from reading Cesar or playing the violin.

[FaithManor]

In our area the "pipeline" is broken because math and science education is abysmal from kindergarten forward. The state of Michigan allows students to apply for the K-6 teacher education major with a score of 72% on the test of basic skills....a test that only covers math through the lowest level of algebraic problems. Teacher education students can fail it several times and continue trying to get the 72% in order to be accepted into the major. Once accepted nearly ALL of the elementary education teachers take an English and social studies or English and reading emphasis, and in many of our regional universities can escape college with their degrees having never taken a higher level math class. One school, an infamously awful one that supplies many of our local elementary teachers, the only math requirement is a math "methods" class and for most of that they played with manipulatives and designed "teaching bulletin boards".

 

To be honest, I've spent time in CCU courses and seminars with a good number of them back when I was trying to keep my teaching license current (music ed and was generally taking anything locally offered and reasonably priced since it was hoop jumping for me thus being lumped in with elementary ed teachers) and often we would shop, eat out together, etc. after the seminars. Sad to say that several of them could not estimate a 15% tip, 30% off a sale item, or any other basic consumer math problems, and when I worked at the quilt store a good number of them bought fabric there and could not wrap their brains around 1/8 of a yard nor figure even the simplest fabric requirements. It was a real eye opener and as my boss said, "Wow, they teach math in school and yet I would not be able to employ them to cut fabric or run the cash register here much less do ANY ordering or accounting." Yup.

 

So my two friends that then get their students later for algebra 2 and geometry find they cannot do any basic pre-geometry much less algebra because the middle school spent most of its time trying to teach the students arithmetic and never got to anything more difficult leaving the algebra teacher with kids who simply could not do the work.

 

As for science, most of the elementary teachers run out of time each day - as per their admission - and skip it, not that the curriculum makes any sense anyway but they give the impression to the students that it just isn't important, expendable and unnecessary. Most of the math they attempt to teach past 3rd grade they do concede is multiple choice test prep, calculator usage, and such so that the kids will be good at guessing the right answers on bubble tests. I tutored the boy next door - currently 10 years old for a while - and for every one homework math problem he was supposed to actually work, there were four more multiple choice problems with calculator hints! Calculator use now starts in second grade.

 

We have one, exactly one, district in the county that is working hard at math and science education. They have some talented, math and science loving teachers who have banded together to change the district's approach to these subjects. It is working. Standardized test prep was tossed out the window. Elementary teachers were sent to take algebra 1, 2, and Pre-calc in college by order of the superintendent and paid for by the district. High school teachers collaborated with middle school teachers on how to make 7th and 8th grade meaningful in math and science preparation. They put tons of carrots out there for the kids - get a B or better and you can join the robotics team, the science Olympiad, the math team, the chess club, practical drafting, metalworking, the rocket team, the kite flyers (this one is a cool middle school club run by one of the teachers in which the students learn principles of kite flying - study heavily the research of the Wright Brothers - and custom design and sew kites which they sell to hobby shops in the city)  etc. They created lots of interesting carrots and all agreed that they would be the face of enthusiasm and encouragement in math and science in every grade. They also ended the issuing of unearned grades to the sports players in order to maintain eligibility. So if you want to be on the basketball team, you will absolutely do the work and study. On top of which, they pushed the district for more testing for math learning disabilities at earlier ages so intervention is provided sooner. Then they tossed their textbooks to the curb and said "we don't care about the standards" lets get something that works. They use Singapore in the early grades and college textbooks for 7th grade onward. No bells and whistles, no pretty pages jammed with busy work, just old fashioned, decent college books. One of the reasons they were able to make the switch is that all fundraising for the school goes through a parent board. The parents raise the money, many local businesses and small corporations back the programs since the parents became quite proactive in this regard, and the teachers and coaches have to ask for money. It is split evenly amongst academic pursuits, music and art, and sports. No more top heavy sports only approach. The rocket team never wants for funds, and frankly, as a 4-H club that scrapes for every cent, sometimes we are a bit jealous! :) The added bonus is that the students see that the adults in their community care about their math and science education, their music education, and their extracurricular activities not just sports. Believe it or not, this hasn't really hurt the sport program at all. It just seems to have turned the community into one big pro-education village with lovely ripple effects. There is also a K-8 Lutheran school in town, and it works cooperatively with the public school in numerous pursuits, no animosity amongst the faculty.

 

Interestingly enough, when you take the risk of thumbing your nose at the Federal and State Boards of Education, Common Core, and test prep and focus on solid learning at whatever level the student is functioning it's kind of amazing how the test scores climb! This Podunk rural school district in the middle of no where has a high graduation rate, better scores, and more students succeeding right out of the bucket in adulthood in whatever career path they choose than any other in this county and comparing their numbers, they are pretty much beating the socks off the counties around them even those with charter and magnet schools. But it took a vision and some teachers and administrators willing to take extreme professional risks to buck the system and make a difference. The high school AP physics and Chemistry teacher - the one that has been mentoring TARC rocket teams since 2003 - also has an introduction to aerospace engineering class, and numerous students have come through his program and gained admission to Kettering U, U of MI, Georgia Tech, U of Alabama Huntsville, Virginia Tech, U of Chicago, Embry Riddle, Purdue, Michigan Tech, and other well known science/engineering schools. One of the boys I met this year when I conducted their official NAR evaluations for their participation in TARC was an abysmal student when he entered middle school but became interested in the kite program and then hoped to get on the high school rocket team. Since the rocket team is comprised of students only from the top 15%, he begged his parents for tutoring, often lingering around after school to see if any of the teachers had office hours and could help him. He is now a high school junior, scored a 33 on the ACT, has a 3.9 GPA, is taking every AP he can get in math and science (this is one of the last districts in the county that also still offers several AP's plus DE at University of Michigan in Flint) and hopes to get into aerospace engineering. We talked at length about things like ABET certification and U of A at Huntsville due to his need for merit aid.

 

He is one of MANY success stories from that particular school. Another interesting outcome is that at the middle school level in which behavior and attitude was becoming a major issue causing lots of disciplinary problems, the change in outlook, attitude by faculty and staff, and programming has caused them to have the least number of students incurring disciplinary action and they've been recognized by the county commissioners for it too. Role modeling from the top down works, and once students understand that the faculty cares not about test scores and jumping hoops but about the very real problems of the students, most of the kids get on board. They also reported that the attitude of parents towards math and science improved as well as their treatment of the faculty as a whole. Interestingly enough, this is not a high income area. Median salary is $31,000 and probably half the school or more qualify for free or reduced lunches.

 

It is ONE success in a sea of failure, and one not likely to be replicated because to quote a line from the movie "The American President", "I was so busy trying to keep my job, I forgot to do my job." I think that is the state of K-12 education in America. So many, many K-8 teachers are so busy jumping ridiculous hoops, dealing with crazy policies and mounds of paperwork that they are mired in trying to keep their jobs preventing them from really doing their jobs.

 

Regentrude, one of the reasons that I also think that you do not see strong candidates from America applying to become professors is because of this nation's attitude towards teaching at all levels. Kids are raised with the notion that, "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach." I hear it all the time, and it goes around the halls of colleges and universities at the undergrad level. Employers say it, parents say it, etc. Most of the PH.D's I know believe this. The American ideal of what makes one successful is usually some practical application of this or that in the private sector that makes MONEY or brings popularity and prestige. The perception is there is no real value in teaching. It shows in our approach to teacher preparation, the working environment, cultural treatment, and pay scale of those placed in our classrooms to teach from K-12 then oozes into the mindset of our university system. My cousin, a PH.D researcher at U of Minnesota sees this all the time and though she is the TOP of her niche area of research, her colleagues outside academia really look down on her for teaching. Thus, to be honest, I think that the ones that would be ideal candidates in physics, chemistry, astrophysics, engineering, medicine, etc. refuse to even consider this as a career option because they've been conditioned to believe that teaching is the "back up plan" when you can't get a "real job". It is highly unfortunate and very frustrating, but it is the cultural attitude.

 

And let me say this, as frustrated as I am with the general mathematics incompetence of the teaching staff at my local elementary school, I still consider them heroes for taking a job no one else wants, and working in one the crappiest environments anyone will ever have to endure, for a superintendent and school board with their heads so deep in the sand one wonders how they breathe, and yet trying hard to make a difference in their students' lives. They are underprepared for the challenges they face and most certainly should have been held to higher standards but hey, they are there, and I am not. I gave up a long time ago and said, "I'll never go back", and they are still in the trenches. I give them much respect and credit for that!

 If my kids go into STEM careers, I'll tell them to build up a bigger emergency fund

 

I think this is good advice no matter what our kids' career path may be.

[TechWife]

 

Re: Regentrude's wanting more American grad students: American students are scared off by the statistics of what happens after graduation.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-americas-awful-market-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339/

 

My sister has a PhD (engineering). None of her friends with PhD's (biochem, physics) got jobs as professors. One is teaching high school, one made it to a corporate lab after years as a postdoc. She is in industry and ended up going into management.

 

I think it is shortsighted to see the job market for PhD graduates limited to academia. I know a PhD in math who works for Lenovo, several PhD's with computer sciences who work for IBM, biology PhD's that work for drug companies in R&D - the possibilities in the private sector are broad, the type of work they do is deep and the financial compensation is greater than that in academia. My husband will be working on his PhD soon because he needs it to get his next promotion with his company. It is a side benefit that he could perhaps do some adjunct work after he retires. 

[shawthorne44]

The article seemed to take a dim view of weed-out courses.  Seems to me that a problem we have is weak college graduates in majors that don't have weed-out classes.  Seems to me that if you have what it takes for a career that would benefit from a literature degree, and to major in literature at University, you should thrive in a weed-out class.  I remember the Physics weed-out class was one of the most fun classes I've ever had.  Yet, the weed-out C.S.E. class that I accidentally took was dreadful.  If you aren't able to hack it long term, it is a benefit to find out as early as possible.  

[Teachin'Mine]

Regentrude I agree about STEM when people include biology sciences and anything in the medical field.  Most STEM initiatives and scholarship programs specifically do not include those fields when specifying what defines a STEM major.

 

As for qualified American students applying to physics graduate programs, I'm sure that where your daughter attends they receive many highly qualified American applicants.  Just as top students tend to pursue top undergraduate programs, within financial limitations, the top graduate school applicants tend to apply to the top graduate programs.  They may have even fewer limitations regarding finances as most will receive free tuition and often a stipend as well.  I would imagine that they also look for the professors who are doing research in their particular area of interest.  Students who haven't been exceptional in their undergraduate work might not be offered free tuition or TA or research positions, so may have to consider the cost of the program and would be more likely to apply to lower cost options.  These lower cost universities may still have great research and graduate programs.  The foreign students recognize that these programs are a bargain for them, so even top students will apply there.

 

I think there is a shortage of spaces in many colleges/universities in some fields.  Computer science comes to mind as many are drawn by the starting salaries.  While many students want in to the introductory courses, few of them will have the math ability to remain and graduate with a degree in cs.  I agree that the problem with math education goes way back and in my opinion it begins in elementary school.  Math tends to progress at the same rate for all students regardless of their ability and desire to move on.  It would be similar to forcing fluent readers to circle pictures of words beginning with d for their reading lesson.  There are schools which do both, but usually there are at least different reading levels.

[maize]

I just want to add another thought to the entire "STEM" debate:

"STEM" is a pretty useless grouping of unrelated disciplines. I don't find that it makes any sense to group subjects like petroleum engineering, wildlife biology, and nursing under one umbrella and make pronouncements for the future of a STEM job market or of STEM education. The term encompasses so many, and so vastly different, fields http://www.act.org/stemcondition/13/majors.html that it is useless for all practical purposes.

 

What I see that these fields generally have in common is a strong math background. Not all of them require higher level maths, but someone who never understood basic arithmetic, algebra, and statistics will struggle in any of these fields.

[TechWife]

I think the pipeline is clogged in all disciplines. Not only do I hear about students who aren't prepared for rigorous math and science courses, I hear about students making it into college who cannot form a coherent argument nor write a coherent paper. There is much talk about students who are not creative in their approach to solving a wide variety of problems, whether it be science, economics, business, history or political science. All fields require creativity in problem solving in this day and age. The world is a complicated place (and always has been). 

 

So what is contributing to this? I think several things. First, there is the devaluing of education by reducing it to a series of tests. The goal of the tests isn't so much to measure student performance (some of them do this better than others), but it is too often used as a tool to evaluate teachers. Teachers must teach to the test because their job depends on it. Regurgitation of facts is valued over truly understanding the facts to the extent that the student can apply them to solve problems. The teachers cannot risk the students getting the wrong answers, so they concentrate on formulas of some type (be it math, writing or history) rather than working to make sure that the students know why the formula works. Unfortunately, young teachers in this country have now been raised in this atmosphere of standardized testing and they themselves have not developed their creative thinking skills, so it is even harder for them to teach and appreciate creative approaches to life and it's plethora of difficulties. 

 

Second, I think we have overly relied on experts when raising our children - experts who do not know and have never met us or our little ones. Parents now question their ability to raise their children to be well rounded, healthy people. We do not apply our own creative problem solving abilities to parenting choices and decisions. Instead, we consult the supposed experts, or even just google the problem instead of thinking through it.  Parents spend less and less time with their children (much of that is driven by economics) and then don't have a well developed bank of knowledge about their children or how they interact with others to draw on. When coupled with the over reliance on experts, it often has the effect of making parents feel as if they have no idea how to really raise their children to be capable adults. 

 

Third, I think we have over-programmed our world. Organized competitive sports have replaced neighborhood play. Scheduled volunteer work has replaced helping family and neighbors. Story time at the library too often replaces consistently reading at home, working out at the gym has replaced the pick up sports games of past years. The need to have a college bound student complete a certain number of AP courses/exams has replaced the years when teens were allowed to explore a wider variety of subjects (we have sacrificed breadth for depth at too young of an age). Organized outdoor adventure groups and sports teams for adults have replaced the time when we had to actively seek out people with shared interests and instead has replaced the casual teams and outings with programmed activities that have stated goals (we must make it down this river by 5:00 pm, that's when the van will be there, instead of going at our own pace and arranging your own transportation at the end of the line). Children's extra curricular activities drive the priorities, schedule and atmosphere of the home instead of the other way around. We as a society are becoming rusty with our ability to determine what we will do and when we will do it, instead, giving ourselves over to the schedules of others. 

 

Fourth, patience and self control are hard to teach, they are best learned in a hands on environment. Running scientific experiments and building elegant computer programs takes time, thinking about and developing ideas (about any subject) into coherent arguments and being able to articulate them clearly takes time and practice. In order to have time to do these things, the easy, fast and fun tasks must be placed on the back burner. Our culture teaches that easier and faster are the better options (how often have you been told that technology makes something easier, faster, more fun), without bothering to consider all of the work that someone else did so that we could have these things. The overall message ends up devaluing the character traits of patience and self control. 

 

 

[creekland]

Having seen the difference a good public school can make with my own experiences, I'm laying the blame on public education at the less than stellar public schools.  Anyone wanting more info on the math part of an average public school should read the recent math thread on the General board if they haven't.  I posted a bit there.

 

With each individual there is a level of talent and drive, but in whole groups of people, our public schools aren't where they need to be to assist those who could do well.

 

We occasionally get a successful Engineer or Physics student from our public school, but they've either done more to supplement their own education in their school years or they worked hard to overcome a steep learning/knowledge curve when they reached those weeder courses (which have always been there, just most who signed up for them had the education to do them before recent times).

 

Most students we have here don't want to put forth the work it would take to tackle a difficult major or any that require years (more than 4) of school.

 

 

Drive, creative thinking and passion are not taught in STEM courses at any level.  They are taught through the classics (Greek, Latin, mythology, Caesar, etc), classical literature, poetry memorization, art and music - all things that have been removed from or seriously limited in modern education.

 

 

I've not sure that drive and passion are taught in any course.  However, there's nothing like a Science Olympiad competition, Science Fair project or the like, to reveal one's drive and passion.

[Teachin'Mine]

To me, drive and passion are never taught, but they can be quite contagious.  Texts and interesting content can be the start, but amazing professors with passion about the subject they're teaching are the best for spreading it to their students.  As for the skills students need to master difficult material, I think that those skills can be learned from an early age or acquired later depending on the student.  Some students are focused, hardworking and persistent from before ever setting foot in a classroom and others develop those skills in high school or even college.  But for tough STEM majors, the skills and the desire have to be there because the work itself is hard.  If the student is in the right field for them, it will also be lots of fun.

[creekland]

To me, drive and passion are never taught, but they can be quite contagious.  Texts and interesting content can be the start, but amazing professors with passion about the subject they're teaching are the best for spreading it to their students.  As for the skills students need to master difficult material, I think that those skills can be learned from an early age or acquired later depending on the student.  Some students are focused, hardworking and persistent from before ever setting foot in a classroom and others develop those skills in high school or even college.  But for tough STEM majors, the skills and the desire have to be there because the work itself is hard.  If the student is in the right field for them, it will also be lots of fun.

 

Drive and passion can be awakened in some (many?).  It was always there, but has usually gone dormant due to boredom and repression.  But show someone with that drive a viable path and give them some encouragement and great things can happen.

 

Any age is definitely true.  We had one young lad who tested gifted, but he just couldn't handle the boredom of school and ended up in our lowest level classes because of it (and still wouldn't do the work).  When in school he outright told me of his boredom.

 

I saw him in a mall a few years after graduation  (actually, he saw me, but that's beside the point).  He came over and told me what he'd been up to.  He was very enthusiastic at this point... studying Physics at one of our state colleges (after having done some cc classes to get accepted).  It was wonderful seeing the difference and reminded me to NEVER write off any student.

 

He had what it took in ability and the drive was there hiding.  It just took some maturity to hack "life" and an opening.

[Guest]

I don't think so.

The STEM university where I teach is continuously increasing enrollment, which defies the trend of decreasing overall enrollment at many other colleges.

There are definitely problems with resources, i.e. instructor manpower and rooms, but we make do with the same resources and educate significantly more students than 10 years ago. The admission rate has not decreased, so no, we are not turning away students who want to major in STEM.

 

ETA: I don't buy the claim of suddenly instated weeder gatekeeper classes to cope with increased enrollment. Introductory math and science courses have always been hard courses in which students who lack aptitude or drive washed out. If anything, these courses have gotten easier over the past decades, because students are, on average, less prepared.

 

 

The biggest issue with the STEM pipeline is in middle school where math education is inadequate. Many problems with math preparation can be traced back to an insufficient mastery of basic prealgebra. This haunts students even after they have completed high school level courses and is the biggest factor contributing to failure. the other is lack of work ethic.

 

Btw, there is also an abundance of spots in grad school. We would love to admit qualified American applicants, but don't get any. Almost all our grad students in physics are foreigners.

That's exactly what my husband says. Most of the students can't hack it at multiple levels, tracing back to inadequate preparation on the younger grades. And even fifteen years ago the grad schools were filled with foreign attendees.

 

There are plenty of applicants at the college level, but far fewer who are actually suited in their thinking and problem solving skills to flourish in these fields.

[Guest]

The article seemed to take a dim view of weed-out courses. Seems to me that a problem we have is weak college graduates in majors that don't have weed-out classes. Seems to me that if you have what it takes for a career that would benefit from a literature degree, and to major in literature at University, you should thrive in a weed-out class. I remember the Physics weed-out class was one of the most fun classes I've ever had. Yet, the weed-out C.S.E. class that I accidentally took was dreadful. If you aren't able to hack it long term, it is a benefit to find out as early as possible.

That's always been my perspective, too. This isn't to ruin dreams, but to help people find suitable courses of study for their skills as soon as possible. If you can't hack it in organic chemistry, I really don't want you operating on me. If you cannot understand or derive formulas on a theoretical level, please don't load rate my bridges. Etc etc.

[FaithManor]

Grade inflation does no one any favors. No one. In dd's paramedic class, all test and clinical scores had to be 85% in order to pass. Half the class failed out in the first four weeks and the complaints were HUGE. But honestly folks, no one wants someone intubating or traeching, starting an osteo IV, and running the code that may save your life who was a C student! There are many science/math oriented fields that involve public safety. We have to have stringent standards. However students aren't prepped for this in our "no one can fail" schools.

 

I am with Arctic Mamma on this one, I am in favor of weeder courses. Some professions end with dead people and grave public danger when slack is cut for those that are not capable of the work.

[kiana]

Yes. And it doesn't do anyone any good to do two years of a major in something and then fail out because they couldn't hack it -- better to find out as a freshman when there's more time to change to something else.

 

Honestly I think we should also have more job-shadowing for freshman who have a declared major, especially a vocational one -- or for anyone else in their first semester as a major.

You wanna major in elementary education? Let's get you exposed to some real kids ASAP. 

You wanna major in accounting? Let's go out and see what an accountant does during the day. 

You wanna major in nursing? Let's get out in a hospital. 

 

I know a few people in all of the above who majored in it because it led to a defined career path -- then HATED it when they got out. 

[Teachin'Mine]

Drive and passion can be awakened in some (many?).  It was always there, but has usually gone dormant due to boredom and repression.  But show someone with that drive a viable path and give them some encouragement and great things can happen.

 

Any age is definitely true.  We had one young lad who tested gifted, but he just couldn't handle the boredom of school and ended up in our lowest level classes because of it (and still wouldn't do the work).  When in school he outright told me of his boredom.

 

I saw him in a mall a few years after graduation  (actually, he saw me, but that's beside the point).  He came over and told me what he'd been up to.  He was very enthusiastic at this point... studying Physics at one of our state colleges (after having done some cc classes to get accepted).  It was wonderful seeing the difference and reminded me to NEVER write off any student.

 

He had what it took in ability and the drive was there hiding.  It just took some maturity to hack "life" and an opening.

 

Creekland he was bored because he was gifted and the teaching was geared to students who were probably several grades below his own level.   If he had the opportunity to learn things at an appropriate level, he wouldn't have been bored but interested and engaged.  Students who are stuck in a classroom which doesn't meet their academic needs usually goes one of three ways - bored and tunes out, compliant and becomes the teacher's helper, or bored and becomes the class clown.  Great to hear that he found his way eventually. 

 

I didn't mean to say that passion can't be awakened in students in many ways.  That's why I think it's an important for us in our role as educators to give our students exposure to as many different things as we can.  Passions can remain hidden until the opportunity comes along to pursue a particular area.  I still don't think it can be taught.

 

[creekland]

Creekland he was bored because he was gifted and the teaching was geared to students who were probably several grades below his own level.   If he had the opportunity to learn things at an appropriate level, he wouldn't have been bored but interested and engaged.  

 

 

I agree totally.  I talked with him about it and tried my darnedest to get him to at least accept some sort of compliance for his future.  He'd always do it for me, but as a sub, I wasn't in his classes enough to make a difference as what he would do for me he wouldn't do for his other teachers.  He never could internalize the reason to do it for himself instead of doing it for me (someone he liked who wouldn't judge him or yell at him).  It frustrated me as I "knew" what his end would be (many of these end up on drugs to escape).

 

I learned never to write off any student as some can/do figure it out later - when the rules aren't quite as draconian as in our ps.  Hearing about his success not only made my day, it gave me hope.

 

And still I wonder what he could have become if he'd been appropriately challenged in his youth.

[MIch elle]

How do we fix it?  MONEY! 

 

Stop overfunding the military and start bringing the U.S. R&D funding to where it used to be.

 

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP_0.jpg

http://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd

[Frances]

 

 

As for qualified American students applying to physics graduate programs, I'm sure that where your daughter attends they receive many highly qualified American applicants.  Just as top students tend to pursue top undergraduate programs, within financial limitations, the top graduate school applicants tend to apply to the top graduate programs.  They may have even fewer limitations regarding finances as most will receive free tuition and often a stipend as well.  I would imagine that they also look for the professors who are doing research in their particular area of interest.  Students who haven't been exceptional in their undergraduate work might not be offered free tuition or TA or research positions, so may have to consider the cost of the program and would be more likely to apply to lower cost options.  These lower cost universities may still have great research and graduate programs.  The foreign students recognize that these programs are a bargain for them, so even top students will apply there.

 

 

 

Are there really PhD STEM programs in the US that don't offer free tuition and a TA or RA stipend for every grad student whether foreign or American? I've never heard of any and my husband was in academia for many years. But if there are, I can certainly understand why no American student would apply. 

[regentrude]

Are there really PhD STEM programs in the US that don't offer free tuition and a TA or RA stipend for every grad student whether foreign or American? I've never heard of any and my husband was in academia for many years. But if there are, I can certainly understand why no American student would apply. 

 

I am not aware of any either. At least in physics, every grad student is supported by the department.

[Teachin'Mine]

Are there really PhD STEM programs in the US that don't offer free tuition and a TA or RA stipend for every grad student whether foreign or American? I've never heard of any and my husband was in academia for many years. But if there are, I can certainly understand why no American student would apply. 

 

I don't know any programs and that's why I used the word "may".  I know that in some fields it's almost considered a graduate school rejection if the student isn't given free tuition or TA/RA positions to support themselves.   I have read elsewhere that this can happen with foreign students.  Regentrude and others have far more knowledge of this than I do.

[Laura in CA]

What, in your opinion, makes a strong candidate?  I have a freshman majoring in physics right now.  I see this kid as the "research" type and want to help them take steps to be one of those short list candidates someday.

 

 

Ellen, I wish your child success in their studies. I also have a child who (I think) would make an awesome professor. But I agree with the PPs who said that some of it is innate; some is luck (what is in demand that year; who's retiring & where; etc.). My brother (who worked hard & received tenure at an Ivy League college) says that every year there are a few "star" students in each field who are snapped up and may receive multiple professorship offers, while others may receive one or none; he says he was "lucky" to be that year's star. My husband (a PhD physicist) is now at a national lab and is involved with recruiting, interviewing, and hiring PhD physicists. Many, many of their hires are amazingly talented physicists who are leaving academia or who are choosing a research lab over academia for, among other reasons, less stress/higher "quality of life" (no sitting on committees, writing grant proposals, trying to get tenure, grading papers, etc.) and, contrary to the common perception, more academic freedom (often a university dept is looking to hire someone in a very specific area of research; also, once you write a grant proposal and get that funding, you are committed to studying that particular problem, for a while at least!). And of course some of these physicists, despite being top-notch, did not get any academic offers. (My husband applied for one assistant professorship that had over 700 applicants!)

 

It seems, in our experience (having been at several universities, and several research labs), that a truly outstanding candidate may be able to get an academic position somewhere; however, it may involve a trade-off or compromise -- in terms of geography, tier of school, level of school (uni, college, CC, high school ...), etc. In other words, it may not be a tenure-track position at a four-year institution, in a part of the country (or world) where you want to live. My brother was in New England for more than a decade, despite hating snow (and that despite - or because of - growing up in Buffalo!); my best friend is a professor at a second- or third-tier school in the Midwest, although she would much prefer to live in NYC; my high-school boyfriend is a professor on the East Coast, although he's a real California boy; a friend of my husband's from grad school is a professor at a Catholic college, despite being an avowed atheist (and although brilliant, he first did a postdoc and then taught at a bilingual French-American high school, before getting that professorship); etc. My husband was offered a research professorship in Europe, and although we love living overseas, this was after we had returned to the U.S., with kids now, after an extended post-doc. 

 

Of the six students his year in my husband's grad-school program (a physics subfield) at Princeton, three are now at national research labs, two are professors, and one went into financial analysis (as mentioned in the s/o thread, physicists are highly valued in the financial sector).

 

 

I just want to add another thought to the entire "STEM" debate:

"STEM" is a pretty useless grouping of unrelated disciplines. I don't find that it makes any sense to group subjects like petroleum engineering, wildlife biology, and nursing under one umbrella and make pronouncements for the future of a STEM job market or of STEM education. The term encompasses so many, and so vastly different, fields http://www.act.org/stemcondition/13/majors.html that it is useless for all practical purposes.

 

I have always refused to use the term "STEM" (for several reasons). And now some people are calling for it to be expanded to include the arts, medicine, etc. I kid you not -- the education department where my son works (at his on-campus job at a major university) is using the acronym STEAAMM. :glare: