3 ms·

I completely agree with this: > That learning curve is often too steep given our secondary education system . . . we need to redesign our education system taki

I completely agree with this: > That learning curve is often too steep given our secondary education system . . . we need to redesign our education system taking this objective and the preparation of our students into account. However, I vehemently disagree with this: > If we want to increase graduation into STEM fields . . . I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on STEM departments No, no, no, no, no! This would be a microcosm of the very issue we're talking about. "Graduation rate" is meaningless. We want to increase the population who are STEM-literate. Like it or not, physics is calculus-based. Thermodynamics is important. And, certainly, by the time people are adults and have gone through over a decade of education, it should be within reach. I don't blame the STEM departments at all, and would be aghast if they started churning out STEM-lite graduates as the result of some misguided new policy to increase graduation rates.

Hyena 15y ago
You quote me inaccurately where you disagree, I actually said: >If we have a STEM graduation problem, I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on STEM departments. And then proceed to state that we need a redesign. The comment was already too long, so I left out any detail about what that would be. I have in mind a long-cycle plan that culminates in a master's in 5-6 years, using early semesters to bring people up to the workload level and spending the additional time gained getting fundamentals (calculus, thermo, statistics, structure of computer programs, etc.) right. We can then proceed with the 4+2 or 5 year models often used in architecture.
- losvedir 15y ago
  I apologize for misquoting you. I think your solution sounds like a reasonable way for universities to allow students to recover from a poor high school education. As I type that, I realize that's important. My concern is it draws out the education period of someone's life even further. I'm looking at this from the perspective that people should have a solid grasp of calculus and the other fundamentals you mention in high school. Currently many do not. One solution is to fix the problem at the university by giving students extra time to learn the fundamentals there. The other solution is to find a way for students to learn them back in high school. What happens in your plan if someone still doesn't learn the fundamentals when they're given the extra semesters in your long-cycle plan? Are they dropped from the program? Are they given extra tutoring? Why can't these things happen earlier, and if so, isn't that similar to the system we have now?
  - Hyena 15y ago
    Why would anyone ever be dropped from a program? If they want to withdraw, they can. What this system does is it flattens the learning curve by drawing it out some but using its still substantial late trajectory to grant master's degrees without a loss of quality.
Apocryphon 15y ago
I think a quote from the thread on the article about physics education applies here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3187609 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3187609 "there's a significant difference between "weeder" classes and later classes that actually focus on understanding. Calculus courses are the worst offender I can think of. They're not about imparting you with a complete understanding of the relevant mathematics, but much more about whether you can stomach being made to memorize lots of pattern-matching heuristics to do endless reams of tedious problems. Contrast this with an upper division or graduate course: they're much more focused on concepts, patterns, and understanding. The curriculum even admits this: they have the "advanced calculus" upper-division courses for actually teaching the underlying math." Weeder classes for the sake of weeding students is not a good thing. Teaching rigorous material and expecting students to know it is not the same thing as weeding. The problem is that too many STEM departments use weeder courses.
mikecarlucci 15y ago
I don't think anyone is talking about creating "STEM-lite" grads but maybe there are qualified people who for one reason or another can't pick up calculus as fast as the school wants. Or didn't get a complete enough background in high school. Or is 18 years old and living away from home for the first time and just made a few bad decisions. Failing a class first semester really puts pressure on changing majors. Students go into he program hearing that a lot of people will drop, do poorly, and are encouraged to drop. Someone earlier said schools should try and "weed in" students rather than weed out. Departments need to take their fair share of blame in creating an environment that can be miserable for even the successful students. Not all the blame, but some.
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  I have to wonder if STEM courses that have routinely have tests that set the curve at 40% is really a good thing or not.

Hyena 15y ago

You quote me inaccurately where you disagree, I actually said: >If we have a STEM graduation problem, I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on STEM departments. And then proceed to state that we need a redesign. The comment was already too long, so I left out any detail about what that would be. I have in mind a long-cycle plan that culminates in a master's in 5-6 years, using early semesters to bring people up to the workload level and spending the additional time gained getting fundamentals (calculus, thermo, statistics, structure of computer programs, etc.) right. We can then proceed with the 4+2 or 5 year models often used in architecture.

losvedir 15y ago
I apologize for misquoting you. I think your solution sounds like a reasonable way for universities to allow students to recover from a poor high school education. As I type that, I realize that's important. My concern is it draws out the education period of someone's life even further. I'm looking at this from the perspective that people should have a solid grasp of calculus and the other fundamentals you mention in high school. Currently many do not. One solution is to fix the problem at the university by giving students extra time to learn the fundamentals there. The other solution is to find a way for students to learn them back in high school. What happens in your plan if someone still doesn't learn the fundamentals when they're given the extra semesters in your long-cycle plan? Are they dropped from the program? Are they given extra tutoring? Why can't these things happen earlier, and if so, isn't that similar to the system we have now?
- Hyena 15y ago
  Why would anyone ever be dropped from a program? If they want to withdraw, they can. What this system does is it flattens the learning curve by drawing it out some but using its still substantial late trajectory to grant master's degrees without a loss of quality.

Apocryphon 15y ago

I think a quote from the thread on the article about physics education applies here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3187609 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3187609 "there's a significant difference between "weeder" classes and later classes that actually focus on understanding. Calculus courses are the worst offender I can think of. They're not about imparting you with a complete understanding of the relevant mathematics, but much more about whether you can stomach being made to memorize lots of pattern-matching heuristics to do endless reams of tedious problems. Contrast this with an upper division or graduate course: they're much more focused on concepts, patterns, and understanding. The curriculum even admits this: they have the "advanced calculus" upper-division courses for actually teaching the underlying math." Weeder classes for the sake of weeding students is not a good thing. Teaching rigorous material and expecting students to know it is not the same thing as weeding. The problem is that too many STEM departments use weeder courses.

mikecarlucci 15y ago

I don't think anyone is talking about creating "STEM-lite" grads but maybe there are qualified people who for one reason or another can't pick up calculus as fast as the school wants. Or didn't get a complete enough background in high school. Or is 18 years old and living away from home for the first time and just made a few bad decisions. Failing a class first semester really puts pressure on changing majors. Students go into he program hearing that a lot of people will drop, do poorly, and are encouraged to drop. Someone earlier said schools should try and "weed in" students rather than weed out. Departments need to take their fair share of blame in creating an environment that can be miserable for even the successful students. Not all the blame, but some.

Apocryphon 15y ago
I have to wonder if STEM courses that have routinely have tests that set the curve at 40% is really a good thing or not.