Experts: 'Weed Out' Classes Are Killing STEM Achievement

Reader Comments
Back to blog

That is really sad. I love science. I am majoring in Geology and minoring in Biology. Science can be difficult, but it doesn't have to be. I am not advocating classes that are so easy, that there is hardly learning or work involved. However I think they should make a difference between what is resonable and what is not, when it comes to challenging classes. I have taken a few courses which seem to be weeders, and I have ideas to make them better.
I am taking a third class in a series or core corses in Biology. This stuff is basic, but it is challenging. That in itself is alright. What really irritates me is that we had to read scientific articles. It is extreamly difficult to do for nonexperts, because there is too much jargon. This does not belong in a low level class where we are barely learning the basics. Removing the article reading is enough to make the class reasonable. It would be better to replace it with assignments that reinforces the main things we were learning.
Calculus II was a terrible class for me. I did very well in Calculus I and III. So there is nothing unreasonable about the material. One problem was that the teacher was terrible at lecturing and explaining. I had to learn the material by studying the book and teaching it to myself. The real trouble was the tests. I could do the homework problems just fine. However the test problems were so much harder than that. It just was not fair. A way to make the class resonable is to just make the test problems about as easy as the homework problems.
Organic Chemistry was terrible as a weeder class. It is a shame because I like Chemistry, and learning about it is a lot of fun. I wanted to follow the teacher's advice and do many of the problems in the book for practice. The main downside is that it takes me two days to cover a chapter. Unfortunatly we go through a chapter a week, which is way too fast. I stoppped doing that right away, because I didn't have time. I had other classes to take care of. I felt like I hardly learned a thing. My Organic Chemistry book is as big as my Biology book and my Calculus book. The other courses go at a resonable pace, and the books are good for four semesters. It seems like the Organic classes are trying to squeeze the whole book in two semesters. It is an unreasonable burden to the students. A reasonable approach would be to spread the material out over more courses. The first few chapters are a great overview of the basic concepts. It would be great for the first semester to be limited to those.
I had several classes curved. The intention is good, but it is just bad in practice. I hate doing poorly and worrying whether I am going to be okay. How well other students do is none of my buisness. But with a curve, it does become my buissness. If the material is too hard, it is better to make it easier and don't curve the class. Students can learn by studying together. Curving the class just ruins it.

Chanel of NM 5:21PM December 07, 2012

Cut throat is right! If you've been accepted to a STEM oriented school like Caltech, Purdue, GT, etc., rigorous hard-core freshman math and science courses are fine, they will survive.
But if you take a more modest student, who is not particularly STEM oriented and throw them into rigourous freshman math and science courses, their GPA is blown. They are gone shortly after.
So is "dumbing down" the rigorous STEM stuff the answer? No. It's keeping the more modest students who will not major in STEM "away from" STEM courses. And that's what the majority of them do--that's smart strategy; not dumb strategy.
Let's work with these students in federal/ state and corporate training programs "after" they graduate to train them for specific industries or jobs.
That's the smart strategy which uses the human resources we have, not the human resources we "wish" we had.
The Sage of Wake Forest

George DeMarse of NC 1:46PM October 13, 2012

Interest in a subject != ability to master a subject

ESR of RI 7:20PM August 17, 2012

@David
I am currently attending a UC and all of the Math and Chemistry classes are depends on curve.
The test average of the class is usually 40%-50%
Unfortunately, the University already set how the distribution will work out. The curve will make sure that there are so many percent of F,D,C,B, and A
To do well, I literally have to wish that everyone else in that class do bad.

Mark James of CA 7:26PM July 19, 2012

Thanks so much for this article! I hear these problems too often from students who didn't go to high performing schools.
Another problem is that students from low-income backgrounds also don't know about different careers, so switching majors, isn't always a good solution until the student is aware of what academic requirements AND careers are available to them...other than the students' common choice of doctor, as was stated in one of the comments.
It's time to do things differently!
Marjorie
UC Berkeley SAGE Scholars

Marjorie Weingrow of CA 4:58PM May 28, 2012

Bad for America, Bad for Students, Bad for Universities
Purdue University was evil in this respect in the early 1980s; perhaps they still are. I did stick it out in engineering, but the sophomore "flunk-out" year was devastating to so many, who had previously been A students (even as college freshman at Purdue) and suddenly found they were earning Ds or Fs.
Physics 251 (Prof. Klontz, 1981) was the most poorly taught, inadequately resourced course I've ever taken (and I've taken a lot of courses--I have a Masters from University of Chicago in addition to my Purdue degree). You simply did not talk to the professor...ever, not even to ask questions in class. The text book was unintelligible. Teaching assistants were as ill-equipped to answer questions as the students who were asking them. Help simply was not available. As I recall, I scored an 18/100 points on an exam; however, due to the curve grading, I “earned” a B! What kind of education was that?
I learned nearly nothing. I thought about changing majors. And as an alum of 20+ years, I give generously to University of Chicago, but haven’t sent Purdue a dime.

Mav Ainflui of IL 6:21PM May 25, 2012

This article reflects attitudes that are probably twenty years out of date. Perhaps there are some places where intro science classes are "cutthroat" but I don't see it. I know very few faculty who grade on a specific "curve". Most science departments have simplified the introductory courses to contain the absolute minimum required as the foundational material for the upper division classes. The larger problem is the poor preparation of students coming out of high school.
Many students claim to be interested in science and engineering, but their interest is based on media reports of a favorable employment outlook for "STEM" majors.
I can tell you from personal experience that many of these students refuse to do even two hours a week of work outside of class in order to learn the material in these so-called weed-out courses.
Many of these students are incapable of doing basic algebra and unwilling to do the extra work needed to remediate their deficiencies.
It doesn't serve anyone to create scientist who are incapable of doing science.

David of MA 3:27PM May 17, 2012

I don't see how this is a revelation. I was a top student until college. I studied STEM subjects for two years until throwing in the towel. I changed majors to avoid failing out. I graduated with a C+ after thinking about dropping out.
I studied many hours to make up for a lack of college preparation. I went to poor public schools. I knew that I would have to work hard. But the bar to clear was ridiculous with kids from magnet schools, AP, and IB programs competing on a curve.
After being a bright college prospect, I was thrown to the wolves during my first semester. I had scholarships for an engineering degree but quit to study pre-med. In the beginning, I told my advisers that I needed to start in lower level math classes because I didn't have a pre-calcalus or calculus background.
They looked at my test scores and told me I would be okay. I almost failed Honors Calculus but I dropped it. I wanted to study more math before going to college but a high school teacher threatened to fail me if I didn't go to a summer abroad program "after" graduation.
I barely passed algebra, something I was solid in, and calculus. My calculus teacher said that if I didn't know this math by now then I would never know it. It was my "second" time studying calculus without any pre-college instruction or trigonometry background.
My biology and chemistry professors didn't have anything to say when I told them I didn't understand anything. I was doing okay until I got into advanced courses. I was studying but the pace of the class was too fast. I was forgetting things and getting frustrated by being unable to keep up with complex subject areas being covered in a single lecture. I didn't have anything to practice with answers, so I could learn from my mistakes before exams. I ended up failing organic chemistry and genetics before eventually passing both with a C and D respectively.
I am a hard worker. I study. I take notes. I seek resources. I try to practice when exams are available. Some people do not get the proper preparation prior to entering college. It is a real problem and it is difficult for some people to teach themselves everything. I feel it is a bit much to expect a child to self-teach themselves everything and then limit their opportunities as an adult when they don't get all A's in college.
I barely graduated college and got into a low ranked professional school. I have lost a lot of income and opportunities because I attempted to study something rigorous and did not succeed in it. I was capable in science until I got to college.
I have been unemployed and disappointed about how my failure to finish my STEM degree has changed my life. At least, I should have studied something easier and gotten into a better professional school to have a chance at having some semblance of an adult life.
We talk about accountability but no one is successful on their own. Unfortunately, some people don't get help and miss life altering opportunities.

paul of NC 2:09PM May 16, 2012

I am not a US citizen. However I have some agreement with Tammy. Schools try to make everything "fun". Fair enough! After all that students in secondary schools must come to grips with the "rigour" (US spelling rigor) of mathematics and science.
True enough some executives want to pay less. the point may be that those they can pay less might just be better because in the countries they come from they are not "coddle' in secondary schools

Glyne Drakes 12:11PM May 16, 2012

I agree with the spirit of this article, but not the conclusion. I am a licensed civil engineer who works as a pipeline engineer. I wanted to provide a little background so that readers know where my comments are coming from. Yes, it is true that our nation needs engineers more than ever. We are graduating about 30% fewer engineers today than we were in 1985, which is amazing considering how many more college students there are today. However, we also need more doctors. This doesn't mean that medical schools should relax their standards to graduate more doctors. You can't ever relax standards. There are standards for a reason. What needs to happen is that schools need to do everything they can to aid students in performing up to those standards. That is what makes a good school. Engineering a high level profession, like medicine and law. I know people like to make fun of lawyers, but they are actually well educated professionals with a great deal of responsibility. I also want to state that it is not the fault of k-12 education. People need to stop blaming public education on everything. It is immature and ignorant. If high school students are deficient it is because a lot of children are spoiled and lazy with overindulging parents. High school will never really prepare students for engineering. It is not their job. They are doing as good of a job as they can. I believe as the deficit of engineers grows, the pay will rise, and that will attract more talent. During the 90's the pay for engineers was not high enough to attract enough smart people. They chose medicine and law. Now that salaries are climbing, I believe this will change. Money always attracts talent. If engineers are making 150k a year the shortage will disappear.

Adam of CO 8:48PM May 14, 2012