In response to finding that prospective science concentrators frequently lack necessary support and abandon the sciences at an alarmingly high rate, the University should create a center on campus to provide academic tutoring, advising and a sense of community for such students, the Undergraduate Science Education Committee recommends in its report, to be released today.
The committee also recommends curricular innovation to enhance the multidisciplinary appeal of introductory science courses, increased funding for undergraduate research and an improved effort to recruit top high school students who plan to concentrate in the so-called "STEM" - science, technology, engineering and math - fields.
An undergraduate science resource center, the committee advises, could serve as a "home base and catalyst" for these planned initiatives. More than just a useful way of centralizing undergraduate science initiatives, the 54-page report says, the center should be "a highly visible University-wide effort that would give science students continuous support" - assistance in finding tutoring, concentration advising, research opportunities and career advice.
Such a center "would be particularly important in their first two years," the report added.
The committee identified the creation of the center as the most pressing need and recommended that it be established and become operational in a temporary campus space as soon as possible - probably this semester.
"I was surprised that it was the number-one priority," Dean of the College Katherine Bergeron told The Herald Friday, "and impressed that it was." She added she thought one of the resource center's goals - to create community - was appropriate because community was one of Brown's strengths.
The committee, comprising predominately faculty in the STEM fields and chaired by Professor of Geological Sciences Karen Fischer, was convened by Bergeron in October 2006 "to look broadly at the quality and effect of our science curriculum," according to the committee's official charge.
Bergeron traced the motivation for creating the committee not to a perception that Brown was especially weak in the STEM fields, but rather to a shared nationwide concern among universities about strength in those areas. She said she saw the prospect of improving Brown's STEM programs as "capitalizing" on a strength, not addressing a weakness.
Bergeron said there has been "interest" in improving the sciences at Brown dating back to a 2005 proposal to create a "cohort" program to recruit top science students, a proposal that failed after sparking strong faculty opposition.
Nevertheless, the committee's charge, written jointly by Bergeron and Provost David Kertzer '69 P'95 P'98, said "the first question has to do with Brown's overall success in attracting and retaining top science students," according to the report.
"Many have expressed concern that Brown is somehow less successful than our peers on this front," the report adds.
Of students who indicate an initial interest in the STEM fields, just 64 percent ultimately complete a STEM concentration, the committee found, citing data collected between 2000 and 2005. The committee's report doesn't address how this figure compares to other schools, but it concludes that "retention in the STEM fields" is a concern and that it was "particularly low for women and underrepresented minority students in the physical sciences."
To address the currently unmet needs of students in STEM fields as quickly as possible, the committee suggests that the center "can begin as a simple open space with several rooms for consultation and group study, and portable white boards," ideally located in the Sciences Library.
The committee also proposes a budget for the center's first two years, recommending an allotment of $255,000 for its first year of operation and $365,000 thereafter, not including the costs of space, renovations and furniture for the center's permanent home.
Those extra costs could be considerable if University officials accept the committee's concept of the resource center, which would be a "well-placed, well-designed" and "attractive" facility that would be "a visible manifestation of our strong commitment to the sciences."
The report suggests, however, that the center could be financed in part by accepting external grants or by offering to name the center for a large donor.
Bergeron told The Herald that she and Kertzer are currently "seeing about funding the main recommendations" of the committee's report, including the science resource center. In addition, some members of the committee will continue to take part in the planning for the center, she said.
In addition to the science resource center, the committee strongly recommends increasing funding for undergraduate research, noting the importance of this "integral part of undergraduate education" in increasing the probability of retaining STEM concentrators. The committee also found that "student demand for research internships exceeds supply."
The report recommends adding 40 Undergraduate Teaching and Research Assistantships each year, with the goal of reaching a total of 400 across all fields - STEM and others - by 2012, assuming "student demand and faculty capacity support continued increases." The committee also recommends increasing the stipends for such research positions, noting that the current stipends for these positions lag behind those for similar programs at peer schools.
A smaller group of committee members, Bergeron said, will stay on to serve as an advising committee for addressing the report's next priority - boosting the multidisciplinary approach to science through curricular development.
"Research in STEM fields is rapidly changing," the report finds, "with an increasing emphasis on multidisciplinary investigations of complex questions."
The committee also expressed concerns about the overall scientific literacy of Brown undergraduates, finding that 30 percent of humanities concentrators complete one or no courses in the sciences and that 7 percent complete one or no courses in the social sciences, according to 2005 data compiled by the Office of Institutional Research.
The committee recommends that the University "modify introductory courses to enhance multidisciplinary understanding" and create a pool of resources to support departments in developing such innovation, making funds available "on a competitive basis" for periods of one to three years.
Though the committee said in its report that Brown was "not widely perceived as a traditional 'science school,' " it argues that the opportunity to do science within a liberal arts curriculum has frequently been a "significant draw" for applicants. It recommends that the Office of Admission "aggressively market Brown's strengths in the STEM fields" and that it devote more time to STEM recruiting.
To increase diversity in STEM fields, the committee also recommends coordinating with local high school outreach programs "to draw qualified students into the Brown admissions process."
The committee's report also includes the findings of an eight-member subcommittee of undergraduates concentrating in the STEM fields. Based on discussions with Department Undergraduate Groups, student surveys and informal conversations with their peers, the students concluded that Brown undergraduates were largely dissatisfied with the STEM fields.
"What immediately came to the fore from these forums was science concentrators' overarching perception that the quality of science education at Brown was often overlooked," the subcommittee writes.
"Students felt," the report adds, "that, while they were prepared to be successful in science beyond Brown, a huge amount could be done to make their classes more inspiring, research funds more accessible and pertinent advice more free-flowing."
One student's survey response, included in the report, typified the feelings of many, the committee argued.
"While it is awesome that the University is making an effort to attract more people for the sciences," he wrote, "I think it ignores the fact that a lot of the concentrator classes are often taught fairly badly."
In the introductory physics sequence PHYS 0070: "Analytical Mechanics" and PHYS 0080: "Introduction to Relativity and Quantum Physics," for example, the student felt that "over half" of those in the class who were potential concentrators were "so unhappy with (their) experiences that they have never taken a physics course again."
Added the same student, "This is so common, there are Facebook groups dedicated to this."
