Why do STEM initiatives fail?

Studies have found that roughly 40 percent of students planning engineering and science majors end up switching to other subjects or failing to get any degree. That increases to as much as 60 percent when pre-medical students, who typically have the strongest SAT scores and high school science preparation

The preceding quote is from a NYTimes article “Why science majors change their minds“. Despite all of the emphasis on STEM the attrition rate for college STEM programs is very high.

With the importance of STEM careers and all of the effort in K12 to create settings that interest and encourage students to pursue these careers, why do so many students move on to something else. This is the question the NYTimes article examines. Are STEM careers simply too difficult? Is there something wrong with the approach that throws all interested students into large lecture introductory courses that are both difficult and graded in a rigorous and objective manner? Are students not dedicated to the amount of work that is required?

Looking back, I may be an example. I enrolled in university with an initial major in biochemistry and biophysics. My goal was to become a high school biology teacher so the initial advice I received regarding a major was definitely misguided. One hypothesis proposed by some is that students are pulled away by early success in other introductory courses. When I read this, I wondered about own life story. The only A I received in the first quarter of college was in the Introduction to Psychology and I eventually did earn a doctorate in Psychology. I did finally also get some help on how to major in biology and acquired a second major in this discipline. Grading was different, but for me anyway, I agree that Psychology courses were easier. My two brothers who ended up with engineering degrees struggled in the lower level psychology courses they took to meet general education requirements.

Looking back and based on my own experience as a college professor, introductory courses in the social sciences are also surprisingly difficult for students who you might think would have little difficulty. Such courses are primarily heavy on reading and some “science types” may not necessarily be great in processing large amounts of text. The courses also tend to rely on “objective testing” (multiple choice testing). Like STEM courses there are assumed correct answers and the scores on such exams are easy to compare. When scores are objective and distributed, profs award different grades. It is not surprising and for multiple reasons that no matter the eventual major that grades in introductory courses are often lower than in more advanced courses.

To be clear, my remarks are based on experiences in institutions that must rely on large introductory courses and experiences in smaller courses may lead to different outcomes. As the Times article also notes, some institutions are attempting to go to smaller introductory classes and to include “design projects” for majors. This might be described as abandoning the “sink or swim” and let’s get the “theory courses out of the way approach. Taking this approach when introductory courses have tended to serve multiple functions (general education, introduction to the major) introduces financial and values challenges. What happens when the Intro to Physics course must be large enough to accommodate physics majors, all engineering students, pre-meds, and the future secondary science teachers who need the course? An argument could be made that the introductory course in any discipline would be improved if taught to fewer students and differentiated depending on the goals of those enrolled. If funds are available, should STEM areas be prioritized for special treatment over social sciences or other disciplines which also rely on large, undifferentiated introductory courses?

What are states, parents, and students willing to pay for?

I have a personal perspective that I will share for what it is worth. I think we all carry personal theories of aptitude and also of the difficulty of specific disciplines. A mismatch between our theories and what we experience leads to problems. For example, I think many assume the capacity for math and science are primarily aptitude-based. I think many assume that aptitude equates to quick learning in general. What happens when you don’t understand calculus if you assume you get it or you don’t? What happens when you must read 50 pages a week in Introductory Psychology and this takes a long time when you assume smart is equivalent to quick?

I admit that I believe in aptitude differences and I believe that STEM majors are more difficult. However, I also believe that the degree is just the beginning and career success or just being employed in a desired field can be a very different manner. Any bets on the employment rate of psychology majors as psychologists versus the employment rate of civil engineering majors as civil engineers?

If this topic interests you, take the time to read the Times article. The piece reviews some of the ideas different institutions are exploring.