A recent New York Times article lamented high attrition rates among undergraduates in STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and math ("Why Science Majors Change Their Mind," Nov. 4). Targeted improvements in elementary through high school curricula have received attention and yielded promising results. Yet while plenty of students entering college express interest in majoring in STEM fields, the large number of undergraduates that later switch into non-STEM fields indicates factors at play beyond a stereotypical college student's indecision. Moreover, the disproportionately low number of women and minorities who indicate an intention to choose such a major at the start of their college career is further aggravated when one examines the number of those who actually complete degrees in math and science.
Promising students lose interest in STEM fields by their second or third year of college, undermining national goals of creating a new generation of engineers and STEM educators. What's more, this phenomenon is more pronounced at elite universities.
Many introductory science and math classes at competitive schools have lagged in engaging students in interactive ways. Two months ago, the American Association of Universities, of which Brown is a member, began an initiative aimed at improving undergraduate STEM education, citing a specific goal to evaluate "the extent to which effective teaching methods are being used by academic departments." This may mean a transition from cut-and-dry problem sets to more open-ended, project-based learning that encourages students to apply their knowledge to real-world problems that interest them.
Another serious consideration for students is grading systems in STEM classes. A 2010 study by Kevin Rask at Wake Forest University examined longitudinal data for 5,000 undergraduates at a liberal arts school and found that "absolute grades (not relative to performance in non-STEM classes) are one of the largest and most persistent factors in attrition of undergraduates from STEM departments." Due to disproportionate grade inflation in non-STEM fields, a student is more likely to earn a higher GPA in the humanities and social sciences than if he or she were to major in the physical or life sciences.
Brown, for its part, makes a significant effort to recruit talented applicants interested in scientific disciplines. But we are not exempt from this nationwide trend of attrition and must fully consider how to retain STEM undergraduates. Reassessing the value of traditional teaching methods and moving toward application-based projects in introductory courses is worth immediate consideration. Many science classes already involve laboratory components which could easily be updated to encourage creative learning.
It can also be difficult for a non-STEM concentrator to explore classes in science and math, and we encourage departments in these fields to adapt or create on-ramp courses that allow students to gain experience and understanding in scientific fields without piled-on prerequisites.
We hope that Brown's membership in the AAU leads the University to seriously evaluate the ways in which it can increase its own STEM retention and create replicable methods that can lead to an upturn in nationwide completion of degrees in these disciplines.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
