... and we teach it wrong. That's the conclusion of a NYT op ed, titled 'why science majors change their minds (it's just so darn hard)'. Aimee Stem (here at Science2.0) argues that it's in part a diversity issue, that we're focusing our effort on the wrong age group. I'd argue that the core is how we teach.
Make no mistake, science is hard. So is finance, and come to think of it, history wasn't a cake-walk either. English majors have to read and write copious amounts of text. Law school difficulty was made famous in 'the Paper Chase'. Put simply, any well-executed major is and should be hard.
I agree with the article that discusses the perils of 400-student lectures, the grind of Junior/Sophomore year physics theory, and the difficulty in connecting academic learning to real-world problems. We need more simulation, problem solving, and experimentation over rote lecture-and-scribe techniques.
However, I find the article rather... stale. Issues with college as it stands today seem to be mired in the way the current crop of op Ed writers learned. College today is different. A huge number of students are taking different approaches.
Students are doing college part-time while working. They're taking community college courses before finishing up at a traditional college. They're doing the 5-year plan as they balance out life and school. And, in some cases, they're being smart consumers and intentionally going for the majors where they don't have to sit in 400+ lecture halls.
How do you fix science education at the college and university level? Apparently, economic forces and student/customer choices are providing some of the fixes the institutions fail to recognize. People don't finish a major because it's hard, only because it might be poorly taught, and the system corrects itself, slowly.
The real lesson these days is to not accept a college at face value, but look at what you can get out of it.
teaching physics these days, and still writing at Science2.0
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Why This New "Planet X" Is No Threat To Earth :).
- Quantum mechanics in 1834?
- Would New Planet X Clear Its Orbit? - And Any Better Name Than "Planet Nine"?
- Top Secret: On Confidentiality On Scientific Issues, Across The Ring And Across The Bedroom
- Double Dose Of Bad Earthquake News
- The Greenhouse Effect Fallacy
- From The Great Wall To The Great Collider
- "My sloppiness. That’s a good point; it should read net energy retention in the system. Thanks...."
- "Agree with most of what you say, except for the phraseIt’s things like that which cause the confusion..."
- "The percentage of CO2 in the atm is irrelevant; it is the total mass of a given gas in the atm..."
- "We have less cancer than ever, it is more manageable than ever - there has been progress. This..."
- "There have historically been recorded catastrophic impacts from meteors: And as they fled before..."
- California to Follow UK Lead on Embryonic Gene Editing
- (Most) Docs Listening To Task Force Recs Against PSAs: Not Urologists Though
- Spice of Life Can, Literally, Lead to Longer Life
- Keeping Babies Safe from ‘Tourniquet’ Hair
- Magnesium Matters, But You’re Already Getting Enough
- Here’s Why Surge in Hepatitis B Cases is No Surprise
- Study compares outcomes at VA hospitals vs. non-VA hospitals
- Effectiveness of behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing
- Task-oriented rehab program does not result in greater recovery from stroke
- Injury deaths and life-expectancy gap between US and other high-income countries
- Superconductivity: Footballs with no resistance