"Math and physics professors are atrocious," someone had written. The ink was bold and red. There were four exclamation points.
In their official findings, student members of USEC admitted that the disgruntled response was "the most powerful statement" they received. But the subcommittee, whose report was included as an appendix to the official report of the faculty-composed USEC, released Sept. 18, said they had found widespread concern about "the antipathy that currently passes as teaching in many STEM disciplines."
Teaching was just part of the problem in these courses, the students found. There were also recurring complaints about disjointed curricula, poorly integrated laboratory components and - perhaps worst of all - students unaware of ways to get help.
The picture that has emerged from the USEC and the student subcommittee's reports is one of a sometimes frustrating and - for some - unsupportive environment in many STEM fields. Problems with introductory courses have resulted in noticeable attrition among prospective concentrators in their first and second years at Brown. Many students seem to report taking one introductory course in physics, math or chemistry, then never taking a class in that department again.
The degree to which the University and the STEM departments are directly responsible for problems with retention is an area of disagreement, according to conversations with students, faculty and administrators. Skeptics cite strong evidence that growing STEM attrition at Brown is part of a nationwide issue - one that has attracted the attention of the federal government. Believers point to introductory courses that students always seem to complain about, arguing that there are things departments could and should be doing better. But the matter's importance is without question.
Two of USEC's main conclusions were that advising and undergraduate research funding are currently inadequate. The committee's main recommendation was the immediate creation of a physical space on campus to serve as a science resource center, a central location where students - especially those in their first or second years - could easily find advising, learn about research opportunities and get academic support.
It would also help "catalyze" the responses to the committee's other recommendations. Chief among them would be increasing the number of - and stipend for - Undergraduate Teaching and Research Assistantships, developing interdisciplinary science courses and more aggressively pursuing students interested in STEM fields in the admission process.
To be sure, there is a sizable group of students who successfully complete a STEM concentration at Brown without encountering any major hurdles or who aren't especially affected by the problems they do encounter. There is also a sizable group of students who report entirely positive experiences in some of the fields most heavily criticized by their detractors.
Brenda Rubenstein '07, one of USEC's student members, said most survey respondents fit into one of two camps: those who were content with STEM fields and those who were "completely unhappy."
The first camp comprised students who were very determined to complete a STEM concentration and were mostly insulated from the kinds of things - lackluster teaching and uninteresting labs, for example - that might push others away. The second group included students who had taken introductory physics or math, as well as many pre-medical students.
Most of the discontent, Rubenstein said, was in the math, chemistry and the physical sciences. Students generally reported positive experiences with biological sciences, computer science and geological sciences, while engineering was somewhere in between.
Having been herself a determined science student - Rubenstein graduated this past spring with a degree in chemical physics and applied mathematics and is about to begin graduate work at the University of Cambridge - Rubenstein admitted that not all students had the experience that she did.
"Across the board, intro classes were rated pretty poorly," she said. The problems students cited were "primarily" related to poor teaching, she said.
"None of the professors want to teach these courses," she said. She said departments have in the past tried to improve some aspects of the introductory courses, but that "frankly, they're at the point where they don't care anymore."
Marc Mayes '09, another of USEC's student members and a Herald contributing writer, said he had himself been "a little dissatisfied with teaching quality" as a freshman, which had inspired him to apply to be on the committee.
Mayes said the curriculum of MATH 0190: "Advanced Placement Calculus (Physics/Engineering)" - one of the courses he took as a freshman when he thought he might want to concentrate in engineering - was a sort of "parts bin" that seemed like a jumble of individual, disconnected topics.
"Studying sequences and series next to vectors is like trying to study 18th-century literature and Camus in the same class," Mayes said.
Now a geochemistry concentrator, Mayes said the most important evidence speaks for itself. "I haven't taken another engin class," he said. "I haven't taken another math class."
Kevin Liou '10 said he has similar feelings about CHEM 0330: "Equilibrium, Rate and Structure," a course he was required to take as a student in the Program in Liberal Medical Education.
"All the material just seemed random," he said. "You could know all the material in one chapter and never see it again."
He added he was in line with "90 percent" of his peers in finding the laboratory component of that course not to be valuable and that it made him not want to pursue science research.
Now, Liou said, he takes "basically no science." This semester he is taking courses in psychology, Chinese, public policy and history of art and architecture.
But, he said, "I was a bio person in high school."
Dean of the College Katherine Bergeron, who assembled USEC in October 2006 "to look broadly at the quality and effect of our science curriculum," according to the committee's charge, said she understood the importance of introductory courses in retaining students in those fields.
"Entry-level courses in any discipline have an incredible gateway power," she said. But she hesitated to say whether it was a possibility that current introductory STEM courses had a negative effect on retention. She said increased efforts to recruit STEM-inclined students and convince them to matriculate at Brown could be productive and emphasized that STEM retention is a broad and complicated national issue.
But Karen Fischer, professor of geological sciences and chair of USEC, said the committee had determined from surveys of one-time prospective science concentrators that they were motivated to leave STEM fields in part by factors other than the subject matter itself.
"Part of their lack of interest in the material came not from the intrinsic merit of the material," Fischer said, "but from their experiences (in the course)."
Chung-I Tan, professor of physics and chair of the department, agreed with Bergeron that there seemed to be broader reasons for STEM attrition that were not necessarily specific to Brown. He said fewer students seemed to be attracted to physics now than in the past.
"At some point, the pipeline seemed to - not dry up, but decrease," he said.
But, he said, he doesn't think his department's teaching is at fault for the smaller numbers.
"We have always put emphasis on teaching introductory physics, to do the best we can," he said.
He added that PHYS 0070: "Analytical Mechanics" and PHYS 0080: "Introduction to Relativity and Quantum Physics," the department's highest-level introductory sequence, have recently been rated well in intra-departmental surveys and that he has "yet to hear somebody say something negative." The professors now even teach conferences themselves, he said.
Tan said most introductory physics courses were "a lot of work" but said there was a "mature body of knowledge" in physics that "any serious student" needs to learn.
Most physics courses rotate to a different professor about every three years so that no course becomes "stale," he said, adding that the faculty worked hard at teaching despite their many other responsibilities.
"Some are natural teachers," he said. "(For) most, it's a result of effort."
Fischer cautioned against focusing too much on the negative responses of many students toward introductory courses, saying there were in fact "a whole variety of curricular issues" cited in survey responses and that there are ideas for fixing them. She added that "departments in general are cognizant that good teaching isn't static."
She cited as a success story ENGN 0030: "Introduction to Engineering," which had replaced various laboratory experiments with design projects. Students found them to be "tremendous learning experiences," she said, and also "just fun."
As a result, she said, retention went up, as measured by enrollment in intermediate-level engineering courses.
"I think it's important not to take away too negative an impression," she said. "Certainly the (USEC) report overall doesn't want to make it seem like there's a dire problem."
Mayes said improving introductory courses was important and that asking faculty "what they want to teach" might improve course offerings overall.
"The challenge is to not make the grunt classes 'pills,' " he said, meaning courses which are forcibly swallowed to fulfill a requirement. "Or horrendous experiences," he added.
Tan was humble but optimistic about the state of introductory STEM courses.
"I think we all recognize there are probably things we can do better," he said.
