15 ms·

Math, Science Popular Until Students Realize They’re Hard

195 points by patmcguire 13y ago

schrodingersCat 13y ago
This is so true. Not many students who are used to getting straight 'A's are okay with getting that 'B-' in organic chemistry after working their asses off studying. Its just a fact. Learning basic science takes dedication and discipline. The inspiring words of Michio Kaku do not make free-body diagrams any less mind numbing.
gfodor 13y ago
Hah, I like the part how students have a hard time accepting that even if they work hard, they won't do well. Where I went to school, the classes were curved to a B-. So generally speaking, if you consider say a A- or above to be doing "well", most people were not doing well by a large margin. The truth is though that it's when you are sitting just below average, but not so far below that you're genuinely lost, but still genuinely struggling that you are probably at your optimal challenge level.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Indeed. This seems to be the main problem. One running joke around my family / friends is that a hardworking B/C student does best in Engineering majors, because they work hard and are used to getting poor grades anyway. They've already come across that problem in their life. On the other hand, students who got straight A's throughout high school become surprised at the difficulty, get their first B in their lifetime, and feel bad about themselves... possibly even switching majors.
  - nrivadeneira 13y ago
    I suppose I was fortunate that the time that I started my Mechanical Engineering degree had coincided with a transition to a general "idgaf" attitude about my grades.
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      Lol, ditto, except with Computer Engineering. I managed to get an "F" in High School History, which was a low point for me frankly, but the C's that came later in Engineering were no big sweat :-). Focusing on learning, instead of getting decent grades, seems to have been a good thing... definitely contributed to my sanity through college IMO.
  - mathattack 13y ago
    Similar. I was wired to take hard courses for the challenge, and just didn't care about the grades. But a lot of people are coddled and fear failure.
  - eshvk 13y ago
    The first time I came to India, I sucked at their grading system and it broke my bubble of being a precious snowflake who always did well. I think that was a good thing really; it got me used to the idea that grades could go fuck themselves. Much later, when I changed careers and started doing more math here in the U.S., it helped a lot because the whole idea of getting a B+ didn't matter so much. I knew a lot who were in my math classes who were probably smarter than me but dropped out because they couldn't handle the idea of struggling.
- djKianoosh 13y ago
  To this day I cherish the C's and B's I got at RPI and high school a whole heck of a lot more than any A. Struggling/pressure is a good thing.
- Dewie 13y ago
  > So generally speaking, if you consider say a A- or above to be doing "well", This is so silly. With this scheme, only A- or above is good, while all of E, D, C, B and their various variations are just shades of suckiness, I guess. My university courses have seemed to be curved towards C (looking at the distribution of the grades), and for a good reason - it is right in the middle of the collection of passing grades.
Osmium 13y ago
Title could almost be from The Onion. But it's true. It is hard, but that's okay. The whole point of the grading system was to acknowledge subtlety; that it's okay if you don't have an A, because it doesn't mean you haven't learnt anything, it just means you haven't learnt everything [in that course]. But somehow many students seem to take it as the end of the world not to achieve that A, when really that isn't the important thing at all. This is my own bias talking, but I think that tests were people routinely get above ~80% are badly designed tests, because set up the wrong expectations in students. If students expect 90-100% scores are possible, and then they start a subject where all of a sudden that's not true, then they're not going to deal with that well. Whereas if everyone's getting results in the 60-80% range, it sets up an attitude that "this is hard, but that's okay -- it's meant to be, and there's no shame in realising that there's a lot left to learn." Which I think is altogether more helpful...
- WalterSear 13y ago
  >But somehow many students seem to take it as the end of the world not to achieve that A, when really that isn't the important thing at all. They are, quite rightly, taking cues from the rest of the world. There is a difference in how we treat straight a students and everyone else.
- npsimons 13y ago
  This kind of discussion fascinates me; along with regularly participating in online "tests" that flat out claim you've mastered something after demonstrating minimal proficiency, I've also been contemplating depth of understanding, provoked by reading such things as "How to Read a Book". Should test scores be curved? Or does that defeat the whole point of tests (ie, to verify proficiency)? What even denotes proficiency? Getting the answer right once? Ten times in a row? 100 times separated by other different questions? I guess it ultimately comes down to measuring what you care about, but I think that tests and teaching in general could use a lot more discussion and analysis, and at least to me it's fascinating, from many angles (eg, as you mention, student attitudes and the best way to motivate people to truly learn).
  - antitrust 13y ago
feverishaaron 13y ago
This article seemed to point out a problem with perception of "the value of a letter grade" rather than a lack of motivation to do hard work. It indicated to me that grades, rather than the outcome from learning, are dangerously overvalued in our education and employment systems.
- antitrust 13y ago
  " One of the things we’ve seen from all our data crunching is that G.P.A.’s are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless — no correlation at all except for brand-new college grads, where there’s a slight correlation. Google famously used to ask everyone for a transcript and G.P.A.’s and test scores, but we don’t anymore, unless you’re just a few years out of school. We found that they don’t predict anything. " http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&partner=socialflow http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-b...
banachtarski 13y ago
I grew up in the American public school system (and a decent one at that). One thing I could never understand was the purpose of summer break. I understand that to many kids, summer break was a sacred multi-month period but to me, the opportunity cost seems significant. In those summers, I learned geometry, physics, biology, multivariable calculus, and read tons of books while other kids had "traditional" vacations that did nothing to reinforce what they had learned the year before. I know that rest and relaxation are also important to fostering a child's creativity and independence, but there is certainly a tradeoff, and I am wondering if we are nowhere near the correct balance.
- Daishiman 13y ago
  Studying should not be the most important part of childhood, and knowing how to enjoy time off is a life skill that a lot of "high achievers" are sorely missing.
  - banachtarski 13y ago
    Oh I completely agree. This is still something that I struggle with 20-25 years after elementary school. Again, I'm questioning the balance. There probably is something to be said for more frequent but shorter breaks too, which I am taking a liking towards.
- xyzzyz 13y ago
  The system isn't particularly designed with focus on kids learning things.
- psbp 13y ago
  If I could hazard a guess, I think the popularity of abolishing the summer break started around the time when the sunbelt started to see a huge migration influx. Energy costs skyrocket for large buildings (like public schools) during the summer months, plus outdoor sports are untenable because of the extreme heat, so it would be a huge obstacle for many organized sports. Just a guess. I agree otherwise. Public schools could have a more rigorous curriculum while being much more relaxed if the semesters weren't condensed into 4-5 months.
polemic 13y ago
> "Math, Science Popular Until Students Realize They’re Hard" Well, if that's not "begging the question" then I don't know what is. If math & science is so hard, the real question should be: why the hell is everything else so 'easy'?
- psbp 13y ago
  I think the problem is skill related. Most U.S students just don't have the proper foundation in math to do well in physics, engineering, or even bio and chemistry. I don't think majors like philosophy or english are implicitly any easier (I went to a school where they were seemingly pretty difficult majors), but they're much easier in comparison to subjects where you many students lack years of fundamental work.
  - eshvk 13y ago
    I have spent time in educational systems outside the U.S., I don't think it is a U.S. centric problem. Math and the sciences are extremely cumulative, this means that you have to keep at it. That in turn either requires passion or a system much like exists in China/India where you have an entire nation designed to put as much pressure on kids to make sure they get good grades on one silly exam or the other. This shit is hard, which is why not a lot of people survive at it. I don't see how America can move to the Asian system of training without a lot of people here rebelling against that. Maybe an alternative would be to expose kids to the idea that life is actually hard in the real world sooner.
  - auctiontheory 13y ago
    In my experience, it was quite easy to take and even do well in upper-division humanities classes (specifically philosophy) without any lower-division work in the major. Jumping from high school to upper-division STEM classes would be tough.
- com2kid 13y ago
  > If math & science is so hard, the real question should be: why the hell is everything else so 'easy'? Look at usage. I majored in CS, minored in Mathematics, yet as a programmer, I do more communicating in English than anything resembling math, and about an even amount communicating ideas and coding. Growing up, everyday we speak, talk, write. We live history all around us, we see TV specials about WW2, parents and grandparents tell stories about their childhoods. When is math truly used? On occasion, sure, it serves its purpose quite well. But in day to day life? One does not go around taking the derivative of arbitrary objects, but one may very well be called upon to present a persuasive argument or find a moment to whisper poetry in a loved one's ear. It may very well be a case that our daily living does more to reinforce materials learned aside from the math and sciences.
yid 13y ago
Thought I'd share my experience initially majoring in Physics (I ended up going with the "easier" (for me) computer science). I wanted to be a physicist really bad. However, I did not have any advanced placement credit in math. I started college taking Calculus I along with the basic intro physics courses. The first year was fine. The second year was largely devoted to quantum mechanics, which is where the trouble started. Semester 1 of my sophomore year, I was taking Calculus III and Differential Equations. Unfortunately, a few weeks into the curriculum, we started using partial differential equations everywhere -- I barely even knew how to solve basic differential equations! Even more unfortunate was the fact that every other student in the dwindling Physics class had advanced placement credit and already had the prerequisite math. It totally killed the joy I initially found in Physics. I found that I just couldn't make up the lost ground myself, and ended up dropping out of Physics.
- guelo 13y ago
  Sounds like a badly designed curriculum if the prereqs weren't required before they were needed.
  - thebooktocome 13y ago
    I'm not entirely sure how knowing a standard undergrad PDE course would help in understanding the various physicist-specific techniques that go into solving the Schroedinger equation. I don't really understand why OP thought they needed to grok ODEs before being able to solve PDEs; the two fields have relatively small intersection.
    - dalke 13y ago
      Physics has more than just the Schrödinger equation. My undergrad PDE course helped immensely in my graduate level physics qualifying example. One question was on the heat equation and the other an E&M problem, both in a rectilinear coordinate system. With a solid foundation in second-order PDEs, it's a matter of setting up the boundary conditions and solving for the Fourier series. The boundary conditions were superimposeable combinations of simpler forms, so it was mostly a matter of determining the correct Fourier series for those forms, then simplifying. The OP probably didn't understand the distinction between ODEs and PDEs because of a lack of experience.
antitrust 13y ago
Hard, or just detail-oriented?
pge 13y ago
One of the other issues is lack of adequate high school preparation. One of the factors I saw in college (15 years ago) as a Physics major was that a lot of students that wanted to study physics (or other sciences) just didnt have adequate foundational knowledge coming out of HS. If a year of remedial courses is required just to get to the point where you can take freshman level classes, it becomes very difficult to complete the coursework required for the major, because many of the courses have to be taken sequentially. You can't just load up on a bunch and take classes in parallel to catch up. If you start a year (or more behind) or try to switch into the major late, you can't finish in four years. Humanities major fields seemed more tolerant of lack of preparation - one could switch into them late or do some remedial work before diving in deep and still get the required coursework done because courses did not depend as much on one another and could be taken in parallel.
- lmartel 13y ago
  It's very upsetting, though, to be told you can't study or have a career in the subject you're interested in because you lived in the wrong district when you were 13 years old. I don't know if this is a problem with high schools, colleges, or both, but it was a large factor in choosing my own major.
Daishiman 13y ago
Hard? Hell in the public university system in many countries lots of courses are downright impossible to nail; even a passing grade is worthy of honor (and we're not talking about first-year filter courses, just solid, important subjects). Degrees would be much more valuable if they required more than mere competence to pass. I'm not claiming this should be the modus operandum, but it's certainly something to ponder about, instead of believing that a difference of a few hundredths of points in a test have any real-life meaning.
dropdownmenu 13y ago
It is important to note the sample set of the survey: "The researchers surveyed 655 students entering Berea College, a private liberal arts college located in Kentucky, in the falls of 2000 and 2001." I have a feeling that the results of the survey would be different at a public university with strong science and engineering programs. My personal experience has been that many people will change their intended degrees, but rarely have I seen someone completely withdraw from science or engineering programs
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  Agreed. A few hundred kids at one atypical college does not a full pattern make. Also, does it bug nobody else that this "news" is from research done a dozen years ago?
- newbie12 13y ago
  Yeah, this study is a joke-- Berea is really atypical, I've visited. The town is charming with a serious mountain artistic vibe. The school has a religious mission and outreach to non-traditional students in Appalachia.
mathattack 13y ago
It seems like a strange methodology to get at what's an obvious truism. Berea college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berea_College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berea_College) is very atypical. It's a small school, with a mission of helping poor Appalachian students get an education. 100% of the students are on scholarship. 100% have paid jobs while in school. It's hard to extrapolate from this to a national poll. It would be better to include Penn State, Michigan and University of Texas to understand national trends. That said, this is a truism. The fields pay well because they are hard enough to scare away many students, and they have good jobs. Other fields are difficult too (say Philosophy?) but they don't have good jobs on the other side so people are less tempted.
dvt 13y ago
First of all, I don't think math/science is harder than history or art. I consider both Newton and Shakespeare to be geniuses; same with Bach and Leibniz. I think it's an established empirical fact (maybe not -- see NYT article) that to become an expert at anything, it will take you upwards of 10,000 hours -- be it playing violin, studying history, or doing number theory. So I don't think the effort is any differentiating factor. But I do think that in math/engineering classes there is a disproportional amount of trickery. There are numerous memes that exemplify this: http://www.thefunnyblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/funny-engineering-class-homework-exam-have-fan.jpg http://www.thefunnyblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/funny... You'd be surprised how often this happens. In my calculus classes it was virtually rampant. We'd get some material that was non-trivial to figure out on an exam. That's just bad teaching. Sure, some people will argue that it separates those a better grasp of the material from those with a worse one (maybe it does), but to me it seems unfair. Say I'm not a bright student but I understand the homework very well; the exam, however, uses a non-trivial combination of the elements found in the homework. I personally think that's bullshit. Why not go over the most mind-numbingly difficult problems in class? Often times, there are only a limited number of tricks that can trip you up; if professors would go over these, everyone would pass. But I guess we don't want that (why not?). Consider an analogy: I decide to prepare for a running competition. My trainer shows me how to keep my heart-rate up, how to jog briskly, etc. All this is done on a treadmill on the low setting. Come competition day, it turns out that it's a 25k through the Australian outback. I'm not sure how anyone in their right mind would think the trainer did a good job if he knew exactly what I was getting into.
- Afforess 13y ago
  On a tangent: >to become an expert at anything, it will take you upwards of 10,000 hours Wrong. 10,000 hours will make a unskilled person moderately skilled, but if they lack the innate talent or intellectual capacity, it won't make them an expert. This sort of meritocracy where people just need to try harder is completely wrong, and dangerous to encourage. [1] http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/20/10000-hours-may-not-make-a-master-after-all/ http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/20/10000-hours-may-not-ma... I agree with your overall point though.
zalambar 13y ago
Oddly I don't see any mention in the article or linked paper of financial aid as a contributing factor to these decisions. I recall my college social circle being intently aware of GPA requirements for continued merit based financial aid. Planning course schedules to try to keep quarterly grades above our individual cutoffs was a common practice. That same pressure influenced willingness to pursue minors, preparation for masters programs, or double majors. Students in danger of losing their financing absolutely considered which related majors they might transfer into which might offer better odds of a successful degree. Sadly I think this lead to several students who literally could not afford to risk pursuing their preferred subjects.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Damn right! When I was in college everyone knew that despite Commonwealth College (the honors program) offering merit scholarships, you didn't want to join if you were in STEM. Why? Because they imposed a minimum GPA requirement (which started at 3.2/4.0 and went up over the years), also additional coursework requirements (you had to take a certain number of "honors courses") and a thesis requirement. Now, maintaining good grades and doing an undergrad thesis isn't that bad. Maintaining good grades and doing an undergrad thesis while also filling your honors coursework when your department's cooperation with the honors program is in its infancy and the honors college thinks only humanities subjects should count for the Special Honors Sequence, THAT was the problem. Please note that yes, you had to do a Special Honors Sequence and an Honors Gen Ed. The result was predictable: people would try to "dodge out" by doing the easiest Honors courses they could get, because Honors courses usually had nothing to do with your actual degree focus. Thus, I have been through a seminar about a neurologist working on African baboons, and another one about Judaic bioethics. My honors thesis had to be classified as an Independent Study, along with much of the undergrad research work I did, and without that stuff I would never have filled my honors requirements without screwing over my Computer Science requirements. The "merit aid" bureaucrats are often not only complete idiots, but operating on a basic assumption that Merit Means Humanities.
skierscott 13y ago
Is it true in general? A small case study (Berea College, 655 students) absolutely does not represent the whole case. It'd be better to look at a school that has strong science/math/engineering programs. The university I'm at now, the University of ___ has all of it's 15 odd programs rated in the top 25 programs. Berea College doesn't even make the list[1], that I can find (for math, but I would guess it's true in general). [1]:http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/mathematics/rank/basic http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/mathematics/rank/ba...
beloch 13y ago
As far as I can tell, I was drawn to Physics out of sheer masochism. In highschool I excelled in history and English without putting any effort in, but had to work on my math and physics to do well. This trend only intensified in university. I found quantum mechanics to be the most challenging sub-field of physics (except, perhaps, solid state), and guess what I wound up doing in grad school! Maybe there just aren't enough masochists willing to embrace the pain out there.
- mdm_ 13y ago
  I'm currently doing a double major in Philosophy and Mathematics part-time while working a full-time job and caring for a house and 5-month old daughter with my wife. I think one of the things that initially drew me to those subjects and keeps me plugging away is that I find both of them confounding, infuriating, confusing, and hard as shit. I have a couple tech-related college diplomas that I really didn't have too work too hard to get, but in 8 to 10 years when I'm being presented with my degree, I'm going to really feel like I accomplished something.
jackmaney 13y ago
And in other news: water is wet, and there is a large yellow-orange ball in the sky that heats up the land.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
scragg 13y ago
To those that heard kids say they want to make video games. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cWkkWjZtU6Q/UMBEhVxINRI/AAAAAAACL6I/AHqV3qUM7hE/w460-h477-no/class.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cWkkWjZtU6Q/UMBEhVxINRI/A...
cnorgate 13y ago
I think the bigger problem lies in how they are taught. They can be extremely 'hard' when taught in an unintuitive, abstract way. There are some people who are drawn to the sort of raw problem sets that typify science and engineering courses - But I believe there is a much larger set of people fully capable of success in those courses, but dissuaded by lack of engaging content and clear path to a future impact on the world (i.e. applicability) When learning something new, it's important to help the learner see progress and applicability of what they're learning - two things I believe are sadly absent in most entry-level STEM courses... too much focus on theory, too early on.
6d0debc071 13y ago
I wonder how much of this is a consequence of attempting to sell science as something cool, rather than trying to sell the interesting puzzles. We've spent all this money trying to get more people to take science without any concern for the fact that very few people have been raised and encouraged in the actual learning process. I'd frankly be rather surprised if something like this didn't happen.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>"If more science graduates are desired, the findings suggest the importance of policies at younger ages that lead students to enter college better prepared to study science,” the researchers write in the paper. Ironic to find this in the wsj. As a college instructor who has spent a lot of his productive time working in fundamental science research, I can say this: If more science graduates are desired, pay them more. Many people you see in engineering and science, although they are making a living, and some may even be well off, could make a lot more money applying their critical thinking skills in other fields. I can't even count the number of former colleagues and classmates who are doing much better financially than their former peers after leaving the sciences and joining another field, like finance.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Money is only one aspect of lifestyle. I doubt there are many jobs in finance that let you maintain a "west-coast tech company" lifestyle. Not all of us are cut out to be quants anyway.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    How is the West Coast tech-company lifestyle that different from the East Coast financial-company lifestyle, other than the difference between flip-flops and a suit? Both seem to involve working hideously long hours in an unstable job in an expensive city.
- yen223 13y ago
  I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Research scientists are woefully underpaid, for the type of expertise they have and the contribution they make to society.
fatjokes 13y ago
I love this. Finally, someone said it! I'm proud of barely passing my classes for theoretical math!
jwoah12 13y ago
Something I noticed as an undergrad Comp Sci major was the disparity in the grade curves for my classes and those of my friends in other majors (cough business school cough). If you look at the business classes' historical grade distributions, they would look something like: a few Fs and Ds, and then a sharp upward linear curve from C to A. The computer science, math, engineering classes always had a more classic bell curve with most of the grades in the C range. Unless you're really interested in the subject matter, who would want to take the classes where they'll have to work harder, and generally get a lower GPA? I lost one of my partial scholarships because it required I keep a 3.5 GPA, regardless of my major. Want to take bets on whether I would have kept that scholarship had I been a finance major?
qntmfred 13y ago
> The researchers surveyed 655 students entering Berea College, a private liberal arts college located in Kentucky, in the falls of 2000 and 2001. /closes tab
hawkw 13y ago
...at Berea College.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Science and math are taught extremely poorly in K-12 public school, almost criminally so. Most education focuses on rote memorization of often questionably useful facts and eschews the more abstract concepts that are at the core of the subject. Science and math are fascinating subjects, and kids often have a natural interest in them, but that interest gets squashed by the punishingly boring way the subjects get taught. Most kids end up thinking that math and science are just a lot of boring routine, like intellectual factory work. Who would blame them for avoiding what seems to be a dismal waste of time?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  This may have changed post "no child left behind" and the wave of standardization, but I think the quality of science and math education in K-12 public schools varies greatly. My school district was pretty awesome for science, while the one down the street would latter make national news by getting their pants sued off for teaching creationism in science classrooms.
- derekp7 13y ago
  That's simply because memorization is about the only technique that can be taught reliably across a wide range of learning styles. Anything that involves deep though has to be individually tailored to each student. Case in point -- one of my step kids did real well in math in grade school, until the teacher started mixing in art to make it more fun (one project was to make a "math cube", and decorated it -- he failed that project). The other kid was out the week that fractions were taught. She heard from her friends how hard it was, and was terrified of going back to school. So her mom taught it to her (known her learning style), and she aced the test when she got back. All other students in the class failed miserably. (And the teacher was extremely upset -- how dare a parent actually teach their kid -- that's the teachers job).
- acheron 13y ago
  <em>Science and math are fascinating subjects, and kids often have a natural interest in them, but that interest gets squashed by the punishingly boring way the subjects get taught.</em> Yes, absolutely true, but not just of science and math. This applies to all subjects. In the spirit of hoping for a better life for my son than I had, I hope I can help him to hold off that interest-squashing better than I could.
aaron695 13y ago
Yes, Math, Science is hard. It's not for everyone. People it's not suited to leave. So? More the issue is smart people who do other degrees(Or no degrees) that contribute less to society. We need them to do more Maths, Science. (From a herd point of view)
kenster07 13y ago
The question is, how much do exams reflect real world work scenarios?
bicknergseng 13y ago
In my experience, it's less that STEM is difficult and more that many other majors are increasingly easy. Seriously... do you even have to go to class to graduate in 3 years with a polisci degree? Might explain some other things as well.
Datsundere 13y ago
I think what feynman says in this kind of matter is very important. Understanding is more important than just knowing information. Once you understand things, it's not hard. You just need to invest time. For example, if you can't explain relativity to a 3rd grader you don't really understand it either. I really recommend watching "What do you care what other people think" series on youtube (side note: he does talk a bit about his love life but things that are said there have their meaning). He explains that for example our languages like english is just a human convention. This really hit me. Math notations are used so extensively (I understand the importance of them) but when you want an understanding, you have to interpret it in your own way. If you know the formal definition of derivative but cannot understand why and how it's applicable (for example to derive equations you once had to remember in high school!) then it's not very useful. The one who has an open mind to think of all the posibilities of why things are the way they are (by eliminating the wrong choices) is the one who masters the topic and possibly even discover new things. [Twist: Everything we know is just an approximation, they're not accurate; But that's for another day, also by Feynman btw].
enupten 13y ago
What surprised me after coming from India to the US for grad school in Engineering, was the mad emphasis put on grades here. Back home, I either cared enough to do coursework extremely well, or give up on it (the consequences were usually harmless career wise). Here though, its an entirely different ball game (I was surprised how anxious students here are about assignments and exams). Then again, I did get I into a very good grad school despite having awful grades; so fret not. I guess employers in India care far more about which college one graduated from more than one's grades.
racl101 13y ago
Funny how some people in this world want something for nothing. I'm glad some find math and science difficult. That way it weeds out those who are serious and determined from those who aren't. Makes life easier to sort out later.
goggles99 13y ago
Is this is because movies and media such as "popular science" magazine sex them up? They sound so cool, then reality hits. Probably kids are a lot lazier now days also...
aphelion 13y ago
It's not so much that the liberal arts are easier that the sciences, it's that you can be lousy at them without realizing it. It's very hard to be bad at math and not know it.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
So increase the in school value of taking those classes - more free periods, special lunches, non uniform days Basically incentivise
walshemj 13y ago
Which is why the UK system of specializing in 3/4 areas in your last 2 years at school as prep for Uni works better. If you have A leves in Maths and the sciences your probably have worked out if you want to do a STEM degree.
- dalke 13y ago
  This is an old debate. Is it better to focus early on a specialization or to provide a "well-rounded" person with a broader but less deep understanding? In either case, university education is not the end of learning, so which is most helpful for the future? I remember in my 20s visiting the UK from the US and talking with other researchers there my age. I was surprised that I knew more about European history than actual Europeans. This is solely due to taking a European history course my last year of high school, while they specialized early in science. I took a course in psychology, and college one in sociology. These have helped inform my understanding of group dynamics in software project teams. If you believe that people can and even should change careers in their life, then a diverse education may make more sense. (In the US parlance, "reinventing yourself.") If you think people should stay in the same field, then focused, specialized training may make more sense. Personally, I prefer a diversified education more than a focused one, but as someone raised in the US system, that's perhaps to be expected. Finally, and only to highlight the humorousness, it's "A levels" instead of "A leves" and "you" instead of "your." A STEM course of course doesn't focus as much on writing as, say, a history or literature course. ;)
  - walshemj 13y ago
    You expect me to take your argument seriously when your dissing me because of my dyslexia? And whohoo psychology and sociology the soft and easy choice for schools gaming the OFSTEAD system.
    - dalke 13y ago
      What I know about you is only what you have written. In my experience, most people who misspell are not dyslexic, so no, I was not dissing you because of your dyslexia. I know nothing about your country's internal politics and cannot comment about the last. I was talking about 'school as prep for Uni works better.' It appears that you want a different discussion than what I can provide.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

195 points by patmcguire 13y ago

This is so true. Not many students who are used to getting straight 'A's are okay with getting that 'B-' in organic chemistry after working their asses off studying. Its just a fact. Learning basic science takes dedication and discipline. The inspiring words of Michio Kaku do not make free-body diagrams any less mind numbing.

gfodor 13y ago

Hah, I like the part how students have a hard time accepting that even if they work hard, they won't do well. Where I went to school, the classes were curved to a B-. So generally speaking, if you consider say a A- or above to be doing "well", most people were not doing well by a large margin. The truth is though that it's when you are sitting just below average, but not so far below that you're genuinely lost, but still genuinely struggling that you are probably at your optimal challenge level.

dragontamer 13y ago
Indeed. This seems to be the main problem. One running joke around my family / friends is that a hardworking B/C student does best in Engineering majors, because they work hard and are used to getting poor grades anyway. They've already come across that problem in their life. On the other hand, students who got straight A's throughout high school become surprised at the difficulty, get their first B in their lifetime, and feel bad about themselves... possibly even switching majors.
- nrivadeneira 13y ago
  I suppose I was fortunate that the time that I started my Mechanical Engineering degree had coincided with a transition to a general "idgaf" attitude about my grades.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Lol, ditto, except with Computer Engineering. I managed to get an "F" in High School History, which was a low point for me frankly, but the C's that came later in Engineering were no big sweat :-). Focusing on learning, instead of getting decent grades, seems to have been a good thing... definitely contributed to my sanity through college IMO.
- mathattack 13y ago
  Similar. I was wired to take hard courses for the challenge, and just didn't care about the grades. But a lot of people are coddled and fear failure.
- eshvk 13y ago
  The first time I came to India, I sucked at their grading system and it broke my bubble of being a precious snowflake who always did well. I think that was a good thing really; it got me used to the idea that grades could go fuck themselves. Much later, when I changed careers and started doing more math here in the U.S., it helped a lot because the whole idea of getting a B+ didn't matter so much. I knew a lot who were in my math classes who were probably smarter than me but dropped out because they couldn't handle the idea of struggling.
djKianoosh 13y ago
To this day I cherish the C's and B's I got at RPI and high school a whole heck of a lot more than any A. Struggling/pressure is a good thing.
Dewie 13y ago
> So generally speaking, if you consider say a A- or above to be doing "well", This is so silly. With this scheme, only A- or above is good, while all of E, D, C, B and their various variations are just shades of suckiness, I guess. My university courses have seemed to be curved towards C (looking at the distribution of the grades), and for a good reason - it is right in the middle of the collection of passing grades.

Osmium 13y ago

Title could almost be from The Onion. But it's true. It is hard, but that's okay. The whole point of the grading system was to acknowledge subtlety; that it's okay if you don't have an A, because it doesn't mean you haven't learnt anything, it just means you haven't learnt everything [in that course]. But somehow many students seem to take it as the end of the world not to achieve that A, when really that isn't the important thing at all. This is my own bias talking, but I think that tests were people routinely get above ~80% are badly designed tests, because set up the wrong expectations in students. If students expect 90-100% scores are possible, and then they start a subject where all of a sudden that's not true, then they're not going to deal with that well. Whereas if everyone's getting results in the 60-80% range, it sets up an attitude that "this is hard, but that's okay -- it's meant to be, and there's no shame in realising that there's a lot left to learn." Which I think is altogether more helpful...

WalterSear 13y ago
>But somehow many students seem to take it as the end of the world not to achieve that A, when really that isn't the important thing at all. They are, quite rightly, taking cues from the rest of the world. There is a difference in how we treat straight a students and everyone else.
npsimons 13y ago
This kind of discussion fascinates me; along with regularly participating in online "tests" that flat out claim you've mastered something after demonstrating minimal proficiency, I've also been contemplating depth of understanding, provoked by reading such things as "How to Read a Book". Should test scores be curved? Or does that defeat the whole point of tests (ie, to verify proficiency)? What even denotes proficiency? Getting the answer right once? Ten times in a row? 100 times separated by other different questions? I guess it ultimately comes down to measuring what you care about, but I think that tests and teaching in general could use a lot more discussion and analysis, and at least to me it's fascinating, from many angles (eg, as you mention, student attitudes and the best way to motivate people to truly learn).
- antitrust 13y ago

feverishaaron 13y ago

This article seemed to point out a problem with perception of "the value of a letter grade" rather than a lack of motivation to do hard work. It indicated to me that grades, rather than the outcome from learning, are dangerously overvalued in our education and employment systems.

antitrust 13y ago
" One of the things we’ve seen from all our data crunching is that G.P.A.’s are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless — no correlation at all except for brand-new college grads, where there’s a slight correlation. Google famously used to ask everyone for a transcript and G.P.A.’s and test scores, but we don’t anymore, unless you’re just a few years out of school. We found that they don’t predict anything. " http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&partner=socialflow http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-b...

banachtarski 13y ago

I grew up in the American public school system (and a decent one at that). One thing I could never understand was the purpose of summer break. I understand that to many kids, summer break was a sacred multi-month period but to me, the opportunity cost seems significant. In those summers, I learned geometry, physics, biology, multivariable calculus, and read tons of books while other kids had "traditional" vacations that did nothing to reinforce what they had learned the year before. I know that rest and relaxation are also important to fostering a child's creativity and independence, but there is certainly a tradeoff, and I am wondering if we are nowhere near the correct balance.

Daishiman 13y ago
Studying should not be the most important part of childhood, and knowing how to enjoy time off is a life skill that a lot of "high achievers" are sorely missing.
- banachtarski 13y ago
  Oh I completely agree. This is still something that I struggle with 20-25 years after elementary school. Again, I'm questioning the balance. There probably is something to be said for more frequent but shorter breaks too, which I am taking a liking towards.
xyzzyz 13y ago
The system isn't particularly designed with focus on kids learning things.
psbp 13y ago
If I could hazard a guess, I think the popularity of abolishing the summer break started around the time when the sunbelt started to see a huge migration influx. Energy costs skyrocket for large buildings (like public schools) during the summer months, plus outdoor sports are untenable because of the extreme heat, so it would be a huge obstacle for many organized sports. Just a guess. I agree otherwise. Public schools could have a more rigorous curriculum while being much more relaxed if the semesters weren't condensed into 4-5 months.

polemic 13y ago

> "Math, Science Popular Until Students Realize They’re Hard" Well, if that's not "begging the question" then I don't know what is. If math & science is so hard, the real question should be: why the hell is everything else so 'easy'?

psbp 13y ago
I think the problem is skill related. Most U.S students just don't have the proper foundation in math to do well in physics, engineering, or even bio and chemistry. I don't think majors like philosophy or english are implicitly any easier (I went to a school where they were seemingly pretty difficult majors), but they're much easier in comparison to subjects where you many students lack years of fundamental work.
- eshvk 13y ago
  I have spent time in educational systems outside the U.S., I don't think it is a U.S. centric problem. Math and the sciences are extremely cumulative, this means that you have to keep at it. That in turn either requires passion or a system much like exists in China/India where you have an entire nation designed to put as much pressure on kids to make sure they get good grades on one silly exam or the other. This shit is hard, which is why not a lot of people survive at it. I don't see how America can move to the Asian system of training without a lot of people here rebelling against that. Maybe an alternative would be to expose kids to the idea that life is actually hard in the real world sooner.
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  In my experience, it was quite easy to take and even do well in upper-division humanities classes (specifically philosophy) without any lower-division work in the major. Jumping from high school to upper-division STEM classes would be tough.
com2kid 13y ago
> If math & science is so hard, the real question should be: why the hell is everything else so 'easy'? Look at usage. I majored in CS, minored in Mathematics, yet as a programmer, I do more communicating in English than anything resembling math, and about an even amount communicating ideas and coding. Growing up, everyday we speak, talk, write. We live history all around us, we see TV specials about WW2, parents and grandparents tell stories about their childhoods. When is math truly used? On occasion, sure, it serves its purpose quite well. But in day to day life? One does not go around taking the derivative of arbitrary objects, but one may very well be called upon to present a persuasive argument or find a moment to whisper poetry in a loved one's ear. It may very well be a case that our daily living does more to reinforce materials learned aside from the math and sciences.

yid 13y ago

Thought I'd share my experience initially majoring in Physics (I ended up going with the "easier" (for me) computer science). I wanted to be a physicist really bad. However, I did not have any advanced placement credit in math. I started college taking Calculus I along with the basic intro physics courses. The first year was fine. The second year was largely devoted to quantum mechanics, which is where the trouble started. Semester 1 of my sophomore year, I was taking Calculus III and Differential Equations. Unfortunately, a few weeks into the curriculum, we started using partial differential equations everywhere -- I barely even knew how to solve basic differential equations! Even more unfortunate was the fact that every other student in the dwindling Physics class had advanced placement credit and already had the prerequisite math. It totally killed the joy I initially found in Physics. I found that I just couldn't make up the lost ground myself, and ended up dropping out of Physics.

guelo 13y ago
Sounds like a badly designed curriculum if the prereqs weren't required before they were needed.
- thebooktocome 13y ago
  I'm not entirely sure how knowing a standard undergrad PDE course would help in understanding the various physicist-specific techniques that go into solving the Schroedinger equation. I don't really understand why OP thought they needed to grok ODEs before being able to solve PDEs; the two fields have relatively small intersection.
  - dalke 13y ago
    Physics has more than just the Schrödinger equation. My undergrad PDE course helped immensely in my graduate level physics qualifying example. One question was on the heat equation and the other an E&M problem, both in a rectilinear coordinate system. With a solid foundation in second-order PDEs, it's a matter of setting up the boundary conditions and solving for the Fourier series. The boundary conditions were superimposeable combinations of simpler forms, so it was mostly a matter of determining the correct Fourier series for those forms, then simplifying. The OP probably didn't understand the distinction between ODEs and PDEs because of a lack of experience.

antitrust 13y ago

Hard, or just detail-oriented?

pge 13y ago

One of the other issues is lack of adequate high school preparation. One of the factors I saw in college (15 years ago) as a Physics major was that a lot of students that wanted to study physics (or other sciences) just didnt have adequate foundational knowledge coming out of HS. If a year of remedial courses is required just to get to the point where you can take freshman level classes, it becomes very difficult to complete the coursework required for the major, because many of the courses have to be taken sequentially. You can't just load up on a bunch and take classes in parallel to catch up. If you start a year (or more behind) or try to switch into the major late, you can't finish in four years. Humanities major fields seemed more tolerant of lack of preparation - one could switch into them late or do some remedial work before diving in deep and still get the required coursework done because courses did not depend as much on one another and could be taken in parallel.

lmartel 13y ago
It's very upsetting, though, to be told you can't study or have a career in the subject you're interested in because you lived in the wrong district when you were 13 years old. I don't know if this is a problem with high schools, colleges, or both, but it was a large factor in choosing my own major.

Daishiman 13y ago

Hard? Hell in the public university system in many countries lots of courses are downright impossible to nail; even a passing grade is worthy of honor (and we're not talking about first-year filter courses, just solid, important subjects). Degrees would be much more valuable if they required more than mere competence to pass. I'm not claiming this should be the modus operandum, but it's certainly something to ponder about, instead of believing that a difference of a few hundredths of points in a test have any real-life meaning.

dropdownmenu 13y ago

It is important to note the sample set of the survey: "The researchers surveyed 655 students entering Berea College, a private liberal arts college located in Kentucky, in the falls of 2000 and 2001." I have a feeling that the results of the survey would be different at a public university with strong science and engineering programs. My personal experience has been that many people will change their intended degrees, but rarely have I seen someone completely withdraw from science or engineering programs

BrandonMarc 13y ago
Agreed. A few hundred kids at one atypical college does not a full pattern make. Also, does it bug nobody else that this "news" is from research done a dozen years ago?
newbie12 13y ago
Yeah, this study is a joke-- Berea is really atypical, I've visited. The town is charming with a serious mountain artistic vibe. The school has a religious mission and outreach to non-traditional students in Appalachia.

mathattack 13y ago

It seems like a strange methodology to get at what's an obvious truism. Berea college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berea_College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berea_College) is very atypical. It's a small school, with a mission of helping poor Appalachian students get an education. 100% of the students are on scholarship. 100% have paid jobs while in school. It's hard to extrapolate from this to a national poll. It would be better to include Penn State, Michigan and University of Texas to understand national trends. That said, this is a truism. The fields pay well because they are hard enough to scare away many students, and they have good jobs. Other fields are difficult too (say Philosophy?) but they don't have good jobs on the other side so people are less tempted.

dvt 13y ago

First of all, I don't think math/science is harder than history or art. I consider both Newton and Shakespeare to be geniuses; same with Bach and Leibniz. I think it's an established empirical fact (maybe not -- see NYT article) that to become an expert at anything, it will take you upwards of 10,000 hours -- be it playing violin, studying history, or doing number theory. So I don't think the effort is any differentiating factor. But I do think that in math/engineering classes there is a disproportional amount of trickery. There are numerous memes that exemplify this: http://www.thefunnyblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/funny-engineering-class-homework-exam-have-fan.jpg http://www.thefunnyblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/funny... You'd be surprised how often this happens. In my calculus classes it was virtually rampant. We'd get some material that was non-trivial to figure out on an exam. That's just bad teaching. Sure, some people will argue that it separates those a better grasp of the material from those with a worse one (maybe it does), but to me it seems unfair. Say I'm not a bright student but I understand the homework very well; the exam, however, uses a non-trivial combination of the elements found in the homework. I personally think that's bullshit. Why not go over the most mind-numbingly difficult problems in class? Often times, there are only a limited number of tricks that can trip you up; if professors would go over these, everyone would pass. But I guess we don't want that (why not?). Consider an analogy: I decide to prepare for a running competition. My trainer shows me how to keep my heart-rate up, how to jog briskly, etc. All this is done on a treadmill on the low setting. Come competition day, it turns out that it's a 25k through the Australian outback. I'm not sure how anyone in their right mind would think the trainer did a good job if he knew exactly what I was getting into.

Afforess 13y ago
On a tangent: >to become an expert at anything, it will take you upwards of 10,000 hours Wrong. 10,000 hours will make a unskilled person moderately skilled, but if they lack the innate talent or intellectual capacity, it won't make them an expert. This sort of meritocracy where people just need to try harder is completely wrong, and dangerous to encourage. [1] http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/20/10000-hours-may-not-make-a-master-after-all/ http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/20/10000-hours-may-not-ma... I agree with your overall point though.

zalambar 13y ago

Oddly I don't see any mention in the article or linked paper of financial aid as a contributing factor to these decisions. I recall my college social circle being intently aware of GPA requirements for continued merit based financial aid. Planning course schedules to try to keep quarterly grades above our individual cutoffs was a common practice. That same pressure influenced willingness to pursue minors, preparation for masters programs, or double majors. Students in danger of losing their financing absolutely considered which related majors they might transfer into which might offer better odds of a successful degree. Sadly I think this lead to several students who literally could not afford to risk pursuing their preferred subjects.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Damn right! When I was in college everyone knew that despite Commonwealth College (the honors program) offering merit scholarships, you didn't want to join if you were in STEM. Why? Because they imposed a minimum GPA requirement (which started at 3.2/4.0 and went up over the years), also additional coursework requirements (you had to take a certain number of "honors courses") and a thesis requirement. Now, maintaining good grades and doing an undergrad thesis isn't that bad. Maintaining good grades and doing an undergrad thesis while also filling your honors coursework when your department's cooperation with the honors program is in its infancy and the honors college thinks only humanities subjects should count for the Special Honors Sequence, THAT was the problem. Please note that yes, you had to do a Special Honors Sequence and an Honors Gen Ed. The result was predictable: people would try to "dodge out" by doing the easiest Honors courses they could get, because Honors courses usually had nothing to do with your actual degree focus. Thus, I have been through a seminar about a neurologist working on African baboons, and another one about Judaic bioethics. My honors thesis had to be classified as an Independent Study, along with much of the undergrad research work I did, and without that stuff I would never have filled my honors requirements without screwing over my Computer Science requirements. The "merit aid" bureaucrats are often not only complete idiots, but operating on a basic assumption that Merit Means Humanities.

skierscott 13y ago

Is it true in general? A small case study (Berea College, 655 students) absolutely does not represent the whole case. It'd be better to look at a school that has strong science/math/engineering programs. The university I'm at now, the University of ___ has all of it's 15 odd programs rated in the top 25 programs. Berea College doesn't even make the list[1], that I can find (for math, but I would guess it's true in general). [1]:http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/mathematics/rank/basic http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/mathematics/rank/ba...

beloch 13y ago

As far as I can tell, I was drawn to Physics out of sheer masochism. In highschool I excelled in history and English without putting any effort in, but had to work on my math and physics to do well. This trend only intensified in university. I found quantum mechanics to be the most challenging sub-field of physics (except, perhaps, solid state), and guess what I wound up doing in grad school! Maybe there just aren't enough masochists willing to embrace the pain out there.

mdm_ 13y ago
I'm currently doing a double major in Philosophy and Mathematics part-time while working a full-time job and caring for a house and 5-month old daughter with my wife. I think one of the things that initially drew me to those subjects and keeps me plugging away is that I find both of them confounding, infuriating, confusing, and hard as shit. I have a couple tech-related college diplomas that I really didn't have too work too hard to get, but in 8 to 10 years when I'm being presented with my degree, I'm going to really feel like I accomplished something.

jackmaney 13y ago

And in other news: water is wet, and there is a large yellow-orange ball in the sky that heats up the land.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

scragg 13y ago

To those that heard kids say they want to make video games. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cWkkWjZtU6Q/UMBEhVxINRI/AAAAAAACL6I/AHqV3qUM7hE/w460-h477-no/class.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cWkkWjZtU6Q/UMBEhVxINRI/A...

cnorgate 13y ago

I think the bigger problem lies in how they are taught. They can be extremely 'hard' when taught in an unintuitive, abstract way. There are some people who are drawn to the sort of raw problem sets that typify science and engineering courses - But I believe there is a much larger set of people fully capable of success in those courses, but dissuaded by lack of engaging content and clear path to a future impact on the world (i.e. applicability) When learning something new, it's important to help the learner see progress and applicability of what they're learning - two things I believe are sadly absent in most entry-level STEM courses... too much focus on theory, too early on.

6d0debc071 13y ago

I wonder how much of this is a consequence of attempting to sell science as something cool, rather than trying to sell the interesting puzzles. We've spent all this money trying to get more people to take science without any concern for the fact that very few people have been raised and encouraged in the actual learning process. I'd frankly be rather surprised if something like this didn't happen.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>"If more science graduates are desired, the findings suggest the importance of policies at younger ages that lead students to enter college better prepared to study science,” the researchers write in the paper. Ironic to find this in the wsj. As a college instructor who has spent a lot of his productive time working in fundamental science research, I can say this: If more science graduates are desired, pay them more. Many people you see in engineering and science, although they are making a living, and some may even be well off, could make a lot more money applying their critical thinking skills in other fields. I can't even count the number of former colleagues and classmates who are doing much better financially than their former peers after leaving the sciences and joining another field, like finance.

jlgreco 13y ago
Money is only one aspect of lifestyle. I doubt there are many jobs in finance that let you maintain a "west-coast tech company" lifestyle. Not all of us are cut out to be quants anyway.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  How is the West Coast tech-company lifestyle that different from the East Coast financial-company lifestyle, other than the difference between flip-flops and a suit? Both seem to involve working hideously long hours in an unstable job in an expensive city.
yen223 13y ago
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Research scientists are woefully underpaid, for the type of expertise they have and the contribution they make to society.

fatjokes 13y ago

I love this. Finally, someone said it! I'm proud of barely passing my classes for theoretical math!

jwoah12 13y ago

Something I noticed as an undergrad Comp Sci major was the disparity in the grade curves for my classes and those of my friends in other majors (cough business school cough). If you look at the business classes' historical grade distributions, they would look something like: a few Fs and Ds, and then a sharp upward linear curve from C to A. The computer science, math, engineering classes always had a more classic bell curve with most of the grades in the C range. Unless you're really interested in the subject matter, who would want to take the classes where they'll have to work harder, and generally get a lower GPA? I lost one of my partial scholarships because it required I keep a 3.5 GPA, regardless of my major. Want to take bets on whether I would have kept that scholarship had I been a finance major?

qntmfred 13y ago

> The researchers surveyed 655 students entering Berea College, a private liberal arts college located in Kentucky, in the falls of 2000 and 2001. /closes tab

hawkw 13y ago

...at Berea College.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Science and math are taught extremely poorly in K-12 public school, almost criminally so. Most education focuses on rote memorization of often questionably useful facts and eschews the more abstract concepts that are at the core of the subject. Science and math are fascinating subjects, and kids often have a natural interest in them, but that interest gets squashed by the punishingly boring way the subjects get taught. Most kids end up thinking that math and science are just a lot of boring routine, like intellectual factory work. Who would blame them for avoiding what seems to be a dismal waste of time?

jlgreco 13y ago
This may have changed post "no child left behind" and the wave of standardization, but I think the quality of science and math education in K-12 public schools varies greatly. My school district was pretty awesome for science, while the one down the street would latter make national news by getting their pants sued off for teaching creationism in science classrooms.
derekp7 13y ago
That's simply because memorization is about the only technique that can be taught reliably across a wide range of learning styles. Anything that involves deep though has to be individually tailored to each student. Case in point -- one of my step kids did real well in math in grade school, until the teacher started mixing in art to make it more fun (one project was to make a "math cube", and decorated it -- he failed that project). The other kid was out the week that fractions were taught. She heard from her friends how hard it was, and was terrified of going back to school. So her mom taught it to her (known her learning style), and she aced the test when she got back. All other students in the class failed miserably. (And the teacher was extremely upset -- how dare a parent actually teach their kid -- that's the teachers job).
acheron 13y ago
<em>Science and math are fascinating subjects, and kids often have a natural interest in them, but that interest gets squashed by the punishingly boring way the subjects get taught.</em> Yes, absolutely true, but not just of science and math. This applies to all subjects. In the spirit of hoping for a better life for my son than I had, I hope I can help him to hold off that interest-squashing better than I could.

aaron695 13y ago

Yes, Math, Science is hard. It's not for everyone. People it's not suited to leave. So? More the issue is smart people who do other degrees(Or no degrees) that contribute less to society. We need them to do more Maths, Science. (From a herd point of view)

kenster07 13y ago

The question is, how much do exams reflect real world work scenarios?

bicknergseng 13y ago

In my experience, it's less that STEM is difficult and more that many other majors are increasingly easy. Seriously... do you even have to go to class to graduate in 3 years with a polisci degree? Might explain some other things as well.

Datsundere 13y ago

I think what feynman says in this kind of matter is very important. Understanding is more important than just knowing information. Once you understand things, it's not hard. You just need to invest time. For example, if you can't explain relativity to a 3rd grader you don't really understand it either. I really recommend watching "What do you care what other people think" series on youtube (side note: he does talk a bit about his love life but things that are said there have their meaning). He explains that for example our languages like english is just a human convention. This really hit me. Math notations are used so extensively (I understand the importance of them) but when you want an understanding, you have to interpret it in your own way. If you know the formal definition of derivative but cannot understand why and how it's applicable (for example to derive equations you once had to remember in high school!) then it's not very useful. The one who has an open mind to think of all the posibilities of why things are the way they are (by eliminating the wrong choices) is the one who masters the topic and possibly even discover new things. [Twist: Everything we know is just an approximation, they're not accurate; But that's for another day, also by Feynman btw].

enupten 13y ago

What surprised me after coming from India to the US for grad school in Engineering, was the mad emphasis put on grades here. Back home, I either cared enough to do coursework extremely well, or give up on it (the consequences were usually harmless career wise). Here though, its an entirely different ball game (I was surprised how anxious students here are about assignments and exams). Then again, I did get I into a very good grad school despite having awful grades; so fret not. I guess employers in India care far more about which college one graduated from more than one's grades.

racl101 13y ago

Funny how some people in this world want something for nothing. I'm glad some find math and science difficult. That way it weeds out those who are serious and determined from those who aren't. Makes life easier to sort out later.

goggles99 13y ago

Is this is because movies and media such as "popular science" magazine sex them up? They sound so cool, then reality hits. Probably kids are a lot lazier now days also...

aphelion 13y ago

It's not so much that the liberal arts are easier that the sciences, it's that you can be lousy at them without realizing it. It's very hard to be bad at math and not know it.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

So increase the in school value of taking those classes - more free periods, special lunches, non uniform days Basically incentivise

walshemj 13y ago

Which is why the UK system of specializing in 3/4 areas in your last 2 years at school as prep for Uni works better. If you have A leves in Maths and the sciences your probably have worked out if you want to do a STEM degree.

dalke 13y ago
This is an old debate. Is it better to focus early on a specialization or to provide a "well-rounded" person with a broader but less deep understanding? In either case, university education is not the end of learning, so which is most helpful for the future? I remember in my 20s visiting the UK from the US and talking with other researchers there my age. I was surprised that I knew more about European history than actual Europeans. This is solely due to taking a European history course my last year of high school, while they specialized early in science. I took a course in psychology, and college one in sociology. These have helped inform my understanding of group dynamics in software project teams. If you believe that people can and even should change careers in their life, then a diverse education may make more sense. (In the US parlance, "reinventing yourself.") If you think people should stay in the same field, then focused, specialized training may make more sense. Personally, I prefer a diversified education more than a focused one, but as someone raised in the US system, that's perhaps to be expected. Finally, and only to highlight the humorousness, it's "A levels" instead of "A leves" and "you" instead of "your." A STEM course of course doesn't focus as much on writing as, say, a history or literature course. ;)
- walshemj 13y ago
  You expect me to take your argument seriously when your dissing me because of my dyslexia? And whohoo psychology and sociology the soft and easy choice for schools gaming the OFSTEAD system.
  - dalke 13y ago
    What I know about you is only what you have written. In my experience, most people who misspell are not dyslexic, so no, I was not dissing you because of your dyslexia. I know nothing about your country's internal politics and cannot comment about the last. I was talking about 'school as prep for Uni works better.' It appears that you want a different discussion than what I can provide.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]