Experts: 'Weed Out' Classes Are Killing STEM Achievement

Reader Comments
Back to blog

As a STEM professor, I wonder what this spurious opinion is based on. Yes, when I was an undergraduate, I felt there were "weed-out" courses. From the other side, I see that I, as professor, am trying to insure that students learn the materials they need for the next step in their careers. I am not trying to weed anyone out.
I do feel compassion for students who are not doing well, but often attempts to help, like suggesting new study strategies or curtailing extracurricular activities, are rebuffed because the students externalize their shortcomings by blaming the professors. "Not being capable" can often mean not wanting to work hard enough, which is a valid student choice.
Do you really want your children to go to school every day, crossing a bridge built by someone who missed key concepts in structural design because they didn't get learn the essential tools in the calculus prerequisite?
Since my institution is a "Big Sports" school, I cannot help making contrasts. We expect lots of people to not make the team, even if they love the game and tried hard in practice. Trying hard is not the same as scoring points or making tackles. Coaches who played third string quarterbacks just because "it is not fair for the first string QB to get all the playing time" would not last long. Why should we ask STEM educators to do so?

Al of NE 9:49AM April 20, 2012

Placing the blame for the failure of students in STEM fields on the shoulders of instructors is yet another symptom of the larger societal issue of avoiding personal responsibility for one's actions and performance -- the "it is not my fault" mentality. Certainly there are 'bad eggs' among the instructors in STEM fields; however, there are also thousands of dedicated educators who care about the QUALITY of education -- not just increasing the number of degrees to prop up some statistic. I must agree with the post by "ED": if the student demonstrates mastery of the material, he or she moves on. It makes no sense to move a student along to a follow-on course without mastery of basic principles. Furthermore, in my experience, all too often 'group work' degenerates into the aggressive, motivated student(s) doing the work, and other student(s) simply coasting along. For many fundamental courses, EACH student should show mastery of the concepts. I have been a STEM instructor (engineering) for about 20 years now. Regardless of the latest fad in instructional techniques, bridges still either stand or fall; water systems still either deliver safe water or fail; etc. -- the point being that there are very fundamental concepts and a body of knowledge that each engineer should possess. We should not be willing to trust our very lives to scientists and engineers who are not sufficiently educated.

KDH of AR 9:24AM April 20, 2012

As a STEM instructor, I'm happy to pass everyone in the class that learns the material. The reality is that every semester, several students don't learn the necessary material. Unlike most other majors STEM courses build on previous courses extensively, so if students don't understand the basic material, they will usually do worse or slow down the progress of future courses in the curriculum. Moving students along instills mediocrity. The students that graduate will go on to work in jobs where many lives are at stake. They will be responsible for city power grids and preventing chemical plant explosions. They need to be held to the same standards as doctors. Why is it ok to have a hyper-competitive system there but not for STEM careers? What we need to teach students is that failing is not the end of the world and that they should just take the introductory courses over. The problem is that students would rather change majors than to keep working at it because the salaries and job security isn't there. Pay engineers the same salaries as doctors and there won't be a shortage.

Ed of MA 9:01AM April 20, 2012

My wife had to take her chemistry class 1 quarter than the normal and the instructor said "what anyone who could pass it on the first try wasn't capable" (even though this was the first time she was taking the class) and went on to flunk all but 1 student. he then made the exams impossibly hard. Her mentor, a biology instructor, said he could not pass the exams.
There are a few bad apples out there.

John of WA 11:41PM April 19, 2012

I think there is always the opportunity to retake a course. Therefore curving is not the culprit. More is the fact people commonly find what they're true interests are after their freshman year. Therefore we cannot associate people changingajors because of the system.

Wong 8:24PM April 19, 2012

I think this is true. I was a science major and in classes where there was a curve I felt like I was competing with others as far as the whole curve situation. I am now a liberal arts major because I couldn't pass one of the 'weed out' classes but I really think it was unpreparedness and adjusting to freshman year versus not being cut out for that type course work.

kapria of MD 8:06PM April 19, 2012