Tag Archives: STEM

Eliminating STEM majors in the name of efficiency?

Missouri State University

Image via Wikipedia

Thanks for bearing with me during a little hiatus on this blog. I’ll be back into semiregular posting habits starting now.

Problem: There’s not enough qualified candidates with degrees in the STEM disciplines for the STEM jobs that are coming on the horizon, particularly those that require US citizenship such as government jobs. So you would think that the solution would be to try to drum up more students to go into, and stay in, those disciplines. But Missouri State University has chosen to take a different track: Start eliminating STEM majors because they are “low producing programs”. From the article:

Gov. Jay Nixon directed the agency to review academic programs that do not appear to meet the Coordinating Board for Higher Education’s productivity criteria.

“Low-producing programs” are defined by CBHE policy as those producing fewer than 10 graduates per year at the baccalaureate level, five majors per year at the master’s degree level, and three majors per year at the doctoral degree level, calculated over a three-year average.

As a result of the program review, which began in September 2010, colleges and universities will terminate a total of 119 programs, or 20 percent of all programs identified for review. Institutions will move 24 programs to inactive status, and 175 programs were flagged for follow-up review in three years.

The four-year institutions will end 73 degree programs, and two-year institutions will end 46 programs. The majors will be phased out over time so students currently enrolled in the degree programs can graduate.

Among the majors being eliminated at MSU are Emerging Technologies Management, Engineering Physics, Technology Education, and the master’s program in Engineering Management. This is all being done in the name of “efficiency”.

I think you could make an argument that while these degree programs are not “core” STEM subjects like Chemistry or Engineering, they are still valuable as second-level STEM subjects that can, if cultivated, produce trained professionals who either produce the STEM practitioners of the future (in the case of Technology Education) or create work environments in which STEM practitioners can do their best work (in the case of the management majors). Therefore these programs have value for the STEM community, and they could be especially good landing spots for university students who like science and technology but also like the business side of things and would rather not double-major. The elimination of the Technology Education major is particularly painful, because this is an area of extreme need in American high schools today.

So if you’ve got these majors that are of clear value to society, and that society suffers from not enough people going into these disciplines, exactly how are we helping ourselves by eliminating the programs? Unless there is some plan in place to grow these programs in a different and more efficient format (say, as an academic minor or certification program) then wouldn’t it make more sense to try to ramp up recruitment efforts first?

Enhanced by Zemanta


Filed under Education, High school, Higher ed, Life in academia, Technology

Active learning is essential, not optional, for STEM students

This article (1.2 MB, PDF)  by three computer science professors at Miami University (Ohio) is an excellent overview of the concept of the inverted classroom and why it could be the future of all classrooms given the techno-centric nature of Millenials. (I will not say “digital natives”.) The article focuses on using inverted classroom models in software engineering courses. This quote seemed particularly important:

Software engineering is, at its essence, an applied discipline that involves interaction with customers, collaboration with globally distributed developers, and hands-on production of software artifacts. The education of future software engineers is, by necessity, an endeavor that requires students to be active learners. That is, students must gain experience, not in isolation, but in the presence of other learners and under the mentorship of instructors and practitioners.  [my emphasis]

That is, in the case of training future software engineers, active learning is not an option or a fad; it is essential, and failure to train software engineers in an active learning setting is withholding from them the essential mindset they will need for survival in their careers. If a software engineer isn’t an active learner, they won’t make it — the field is too fast-moving, too global, too collaborative in its nature to support those who can only learn passively. Lectures and other passive teaching techniques may not be obsolete, but to center students’ education around this kind of teaching sets the students up for failure later on.

One could argue the same thing for any kind of engineer, or any of the STEM disciplines in general, since careers in those disciplines tend to adhere to the same description as software engineering — a tendency toward applications (many of which don’t even exist yet), centered on interaction and collaboration with people, and focused on the production of usable products.

Comments Off on Active learning is essential, not optional, for STEM students

Filed under Critical thinking, Education, Engineering, Higher ed, Liberal arts, Teaching

Culture vs. science education

Peter Wood has a tour de force editorial today in the Chronicle, titled “How Culture Keeps Our Students Out of Science”. Snippet:

Students respond more profoundly to cultural imperatives than to market forces. In the United States, students are insulated from the commercial market’s demand for their knowledge and skills. That market lies a long way off — often too far to see. But they are not insulated one bit from the worldview promoted by their teachers, textbooks, and entertainment. From those sources, students pick up attitudes, motivations, and a lively sense of what life is about. School has always been as much about learning the ropes as it is about learning the rotes. We do, however, have some new ropes, and they aren’t very science-friendly. Rather, they lead students who look upon the difficulties of pursuing science to ask, “Why bother?”

[…] A century ago, Max Weber wrote of “Science as a Vocation,” and, indeed, students need to feel something like a calling for science to surmount the numerous obstacles on the way to an advanced degree.

At least on the emotional level, contemporary American education sides with the obstacles. It begins by treating children as psychologically fragile beings who will fail to learn — and worse, fail to develop as “whole persons” — if not constantly praised. The self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for arduous intellectual ascents aren’t among them. What the movement most commonly yields is a surfeit of college freshmen who “feel good” about themselves for no discernible reason and who grossly overrate their meager attainments.

Wood goes on to trace the failings of postmodernism and relativism for preparing our kids for science and math. Go read the whole thing. I believe he is dead-on, and the article is full of money quotes such as:

Talk to recent college graduates and you are likely to hear something like: “Asian students are just better at science and math.” That is a verbal shrug, not a lament. The reward of 16 years of diversiphilic indoctrination turns out to be a comfort zone of rationalizations.

Wood does make a serious omission in his article, and that is the effect of popular culture on students. This is something I have blogged about over and over again. Kids are immersed in a culture that trains them for laziness and entertainment and deprives them of opportunities for hard, sustained efforts of the mind that are eventually rewarded. They are constantly bombarded by messages that say math and science are uncool, too hard, lame, etc. and nobody is systematically fighting that cultural flow. Elementary school teachers have a chance to inculcate the math and science “bug” in young kids and train them up with good basic skills, but many fail to do so because they themselves are ill-prepared in, and ill-disposed towards, science and math. (Note that this is not all elementary teachers — but certainly too many of them.)


Filed under Early education, Education, High school, Higher ed, Math, Student culture, Teaching