• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

40 percent or more of the people majoring in STEM curricula switch to other degrees

Status
Not open for further replies.
LAST FALL, President Obama threw what was billed as the first White House Science Fair, a photo op in the gilt-mirrored State Dining Room. He tested a steering wheel designed by middle schoolers to detect distracted driving and peeked inside a robot that plays soccer. It was meant as an inspirational moment: children, science is fun; work harder.

Politicians and educators have been wringing their hands for years over test scores showing American students falling behind their counterparts in Slovenia and Singapore. How will the United States stack up against global rivals in innovation? The president and industry groups have called on colleges to graduate 10,000 more engineers a year and 100,000 new teachers with majors in STEM — science, technology, engineering and math. All the Sputnik-like urgency has put classrooms from kindergarten through 12th grade — the pipeline, as they call it — under a microscope. And there are encouraging signs, with surveys showing the number of college freshmen interested in majoring in a STEM field on the rise.

But, it turns out, middle and high school students are having most of the fun, building their erector sets and dropping eggs into water to test the first law of motion. The excitement quickly fades as students brush up against the reality of what David E. Goldberg, an emeritus engineering professor, calls “the math-science death march.” Freshmen in college wade through a blizzard of calculus, physics and chemistry in lecture halls with hundreds of other students. And then many wash out.

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, are included, according to new data from the University of California at Los Angeles. That is twice the combined attrition rate of all other majors.

For educators, the big question is how to keep the momentum being built in the lower grades from dissipating once the students get to college.

“We’re losing an alarming proportion of our nation’s science talent once the students get to college,” says Mitchell J. Chang, an education professor at U.C.L.A. who has studied the matter. “It’s not just a K-12 preparation issue.”

Professor Chang says that rather than losing mainly students from disadvantaged backgrounds or with lackluster records, the attrition rate can be higher at the most selective schools, where he believes the competition overwhelms even well-qualified students.

“You’d like to think that since these institutions are getting the best students, the students who go there would have the best chances to succeed,” he says. “But if you take two students who have the same high school grade-point average and SAT scores, and you put one in a highly selective school like Berkeley and the other in a school with lower average scores like Cal State, that Berkeley student is at least 13 percent less likely than the one at Cal State to finish a STEM degree.”

The bulk of attrition comes in engineering and among pre-med majors, who typically leave STEM fields if their hopes for medical school fade. There is no doubt that the main majors are difficult and growing more complex. Some students still lack math preparation or aren’t willing to work hard enough.

Other deterrents are the tough freshman classes, typically followed by two years of fairly abstract courses leading to a senior research or design project. “It’s dry and hard to get through, so if you can create an oasis in there, it would be a good thing,” says Dr. Goldberg, who retired last year as an engineering professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is now an education consultant. He thinks the president’s chances of getting his 10,000 engineers is “essentially nil.”

In September, the Association of American Universities, which represents 61 of the largest research institutions, announced a five-year initiative to encourage faculty members in the STEM fields to use more interactive teaching techniques.

“There is a long way to go,” says Hunter R. Rawlings, the association’s president, “and there is an urgent need to accelerate the process of reform.”

The latest research also suggests that there could be more subtle problems at work, like the proliferation of grade inflation in the humanities and social sciences, which provides another incentive for students to leave STEM majors. It is no surprise that grades are lower in math and science, where the answers are clear-cut and there are no bonus points for flair. Professors also say they are strict because science and engineering courses build on one another, and a student who fails to absorb the key lessons in one class will flounder in the next.

After studying nearly a decade of transcripts at one college, Kevin Rask, a professor at Wake Forest University, concluded last year that the grades in the introductory math and science classes were among the lowest on campus. The chemistry department gave the lowest grades over all, averaging 2.78 out of 4, followed by mathematics at 2.90. Education, language and English courses had the highest averages, ranging from 3.33 to 3.36.

Ben Ost, a doctoral student at Cornell, found in a similar study that STEM students are both “pulled away” by high grades in their courses in other fields and “pushed out” by lower grades in their majors.

MATTHEW MONIZ bailed out of engineering at Notre Dame in the fall of his sophomore year. He had been the kind of recruit most engineering departments dream about. He had scored an 800 in math on the SAT and in the 700s in both reading and writing. He also had taken Calculus BC and five other Advanced Placement courses at a prep school in Washington, D.C., and had long planned to major in engineering.

But as Mr. Moniz sat in his mechanics class in 2009, he realized he had already had enough. “I was trying to memorize equations, and engineering’s all about the application, which they really didn’t teach too well,” he says. “It was just like, ‘Do these practice problems, then you’re on your own.’ ” And as he looked ahead at the curriculum, he did not see much relief on the horizon.

So Mr. Moniz, a 21-year-old who likes poetry and had enjoyed introductory psychology, switched to a double major in psychology and English, where the classes are “a lot more discussion based.” He will graduate in May and plans to be a clinical psychologist. Of his four freshman buddies at Notre Dame, one switched to business, another to music. One of the two who is still in engineering plans to work in finance after graduation.

Mr. Moniz’s experience illustrates how some of the best-prepared students find engineering education too narrow and lacking the passion of other fields. They also see easier ways to make money.

Notre Dame’s engineering dean, Peter Kilpatrick, will be the first to concede that sophomore and junior years, which focus mainly on theory, remain a “weak link” in technical education. He says his engineering school has gradually improved its retention rate over the past decade by creating design projects for freshmen and breaking “a deadly lecture” for 400 students into groups of 80. Only 50 to 55 percent of the school’s students stayed through graduation 10 years ago. But that figure now tops 75 percent, he says, and efforts to create more labs in the middle years could help raise it further.

“We’re two years into that experiment and, quite honestly, it’s probably going to take 5 to 10 years before we’re really able to inflesh the whole curriculum with this project-based learning,” Dean Kilpatrick says.

No one doubts that students need a strong theoretical foundation. But what frustrates education experts is how long it has taken for most schools to make changes.

The National Science Board, a public advisory body, warned in the mid-1980s that students were losing sight of why they wanted to be scientists and engineers in the first place. Research confirmed in the 1990s that students learn more by grappling with open-ended problems, like creating a computer game or designing an alternative energy system, than listening to lectures. While the National Science Foundation went on to finance pilot courses that employed interactive projects, when the money dried up, so did most of the courses. Lecture classes are far cheaper to produce, and top professors are focused on bringing in research grants, not teaching undergraduates.

In 2005, the National Academy of Engineering concluded that “scattered interventions” had not resulted in widespread change. “Treating the freshman year as a ‘sink or swim’ experience and accepting attrition as inevitable,” it said, “is both unfair to students and wasteful of resources and faculty time.”

Since becoming Notre Dame’s dean in 2008, Dr. Kilpatrick has revamped and expanded a freshman design course that had gotten “a little bit stale.” The students now do four projects. They build Lego robots and design bridges capable of carrying heavy loads at minimal cost. They also create electronic circuit boards and dream up a project of their own.

“They learn how to work with their hands, how to program the robot and how to work with design constraints,” he says. But he also says it’s inevitable that students will be lost. Some new students do not have a good feel for how deeply technical engineering is. Other bright students may have breezed through high school without developing disciplined habits. By contrast, students in China and India focus relentlessly on math and science from an early age.

“We’re in a worldwide competition, and we’ve got to retain as many of our students as we can,” Dean Kilpatrick says. “But we’re not doing kids a favor if we’re not teaching them good life and study skills.”

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, in Massachusetts, one of the nation’s oldest technological schools, has taken the idea of projects to heart. While it still expects students to push their way through standard engineering and science classes, it ripped up its traditional curriculum in the 1970s to make room for extensive research, design and social-service projects by juniors and seniors, including many conducted on trips with professors overseas. In 2007, it added optional first-year projects — which a quarter of its freshmen do — focused on world problems like hunger or disease.

“That kind of early engagement, and letting them see they can work on something that is interesting and important, is a big deal,” says Arthur C. Heinricher, the dean of undergraduate studies. “That hooks students.”

And so late this past summer, about 90 freshmen received e-mails asking if they typically received flu vaccines. The e-mails were not from the health services office, but from students measuring how widely flu spreads at different rates of vaccination. Two of the students had spent part of their freshmen year researching diseases and devising a survey. Now, as juniors, they were recruiting the newcomers to take part in simulations, using neon wristbands and stickers, to track how many of them became “infected” as they mingled during orientation.

Brenna Pugliese, one of the juniors and a biology major, says the two-day exercise raised awareness on campus of the need for more students to get the vaccine. “I can honestly say that I learned more about various biology topics than I ever learned in any other class,” she says.

Teachers say they have been surprised by the sophistication of some of the freshmen projects, like a device to harvest kinetic energy that is now being patented. But the main goals are to enable students to work closely with faculty members, build confidence and promote teamwork. Studies have shown that women, in particular, want to see their schoolwork is connected to helping people, and the projects help them feel more comfortable in STEM fields, where men far outnumber women everywhere except in biology.

Seventy-four percent of W.P.I. undergraduates earn bachelor’s degrees within four years and 80 percent by six years.

Most of the top state research universities have added at least a splash of design work in the freshman year. The University of Illinois began this fall to require freshmen engineering students to take a course on aspirations for the profession and encourages them to do a design project or take a leadership seminar. Most technical schools push students to seek summer internships and take semesters off to gain practical work experiences. The hope is that the lure of high-paying jobs during an economic downturn will convince more students to stick with it.

Some private schools have also adjusted their grading policies to ease some of the pressure on STEM students. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has long given freshmen only “pass” or “no record” grades in the first half of the year while they get used to the workload. W.P.I. lets undergraduates take up to three classes for which no grade is recorded if they would have received less than a C. Any required courses would have to be repeated.

Ilea Graedel, a 20-year-old junior in aerospace engineering, says that policy provides “a nice buffer if you want to try something new, like a class outside your comfort zone.”

But what really helps Ms. Graedel get through the rigors of STEM, she says, is hanging onto her aspirations. She grew up in a farming area in Washington State, the only student from her high school class of 26 pursuing a technology degree. She has wanted to be an astronaut since she was 3, when her mother took her to Boeing’s Museum of Flight in Seattle and bought her a book called “I Want to Be an Astronaut.”

The space program has been sharply cut back. Still, she says, “I’m going to hold onto that dream very dearly.”

Source: New York Times

Block if bold.
 

entremet

Member
I was also a STEM dropout. Biology to Art. :(

Coupled with our stringent immigration laws, this does not bode will for scientific progress and innovation in America.

We had a good run.
 
entrement said:
I was also a STEM dropout. Biology to Art. :(

Coupled with our stringent immigration laws, this does not bode will for scientific progress and innovation in America.

We had a good run.
Yeah, good times.
 

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Are undergraduate science/math degrees particularly useful for employment? If they're more useful than business-related degrees, is their increased usefulness worth the increased difficulty?

My point is that the problem might lie with the job prospects for these degrees (engineering excepted). It doesn't surprise me that people who can't get into med school switch to non-science stuff, because what else are they going to do? Get a Master's/PhD and slave away as an underpaid lab assistant?
 

entremet

Member
Chairman Yang said:
Are undergraduate science/math degrees particularly useful for employment? If they're more useful than business-related degrees, is their increased usefulness worth the increased difficulty?
Engineering undergraduate degrees are very useful and well paying, which are included in STEM.
 

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
entrement said:
Engineering degrees are very useful and well paying, which are included in STEM.
Yeah I specified science and math in particular. Engineering doesn't count for my criticism.

That said, my understanding is that engineering pays well only up to a certain point, after which it's hard to get salary increases. If someone wants to get richer they have to go into management or another field entirely.
 
Chairman Yang said:
Are undergraduate science/math degrees particularly useful for employment? If they're more useful than business-related degrees, is their increased usefulness worth the increased difficulty?

My point is that the problem might lie with the job prospects for these degrees (engineering excepted). It doesn't surprise me that people who can't get into med school switch to non-science stuff, because what else are they going to do? Get a Master's/PhD and slave away as an underpaid lab assistant?
That's just the way America is set up, man. The upper crust hates innovation, so they make degrees that focus on invention and new ideas harder.


Lololol
 

Sealda

Banned
In my thermodynamics course i just finished. The teacher basically did 1 example question each 2 hour lecture. The rest was him writing up proofs of formulas...

Doing Chemical engineering. Then again, my transport phenomena teacher basically only does examples, i like the latter more.
 

bobbytkc

ADD New Gen Gamer
Chairman Yang said:
Are undergraduate science/math degrees particularly useful for employment? If they're more useful than business-related degrees, is their increased usefulness worth the increased difficulty?

My point is that the problem might lie with the job prospects for these degrees (engineering excepted). It doesn't surprise me that people who can't get into med school switch to non-science stuff, because what else are they going to do? Get a Master's/PhD and slave away as an underpaid lab assistant?

the issue is not alarming at all for sciences and mathematics. there are not enough scientific professions to absorb the current graduates from these courses as is.
 

entremet

Member
Chairman Yang said:
Yeah I specified science and math in particular. Engineering doesn't count for my criticism.
I see your points. Many math whizzes do end up in Wall Street working as Quants,, but I do see what you mean. That's not a career track from everyone.

Even aspiring MD's don't necessarily have to be math or science majors, only fullfil the pre-requisites.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
Quitting because something is hard is nothing new. Too bad crushing debt keeps people from sticking with it and putting in the time necessary to learn and understand.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Chairman Yang said:
Are undergraduate science/math degrees particularly useful for employment? If they're more useful than business-related degrees, is their increased usefulness worth the increased difficulty?

I got a job that was in the wheelhouse of my BSc, but I'd also been working in that field for 6+ years before I got my BSc. Strictly in terms of earning employment, the only thing the BSc did was allow me to pass the initial screening from HR or whatever. That being said, I'm not a fan of looking at education in job terms, and my BSc was definitely enriching.

I also wouldn't call it harder than a BA. It was different.

My BA required a lot more reading, a lot more writing, a lot more research, and a lot more synthesis. All of my BA courses integrated together very well and I had a palpable feeling of needing to draw on my whole degree in order to achieve. To some extent, I think people who can do that will find a lot of material overlap which might make some BA courses easier, but I knew just as many people who struggled with the writing components. Many graduate students still don't have clear, crisp writing. My second BA has been much easier for me because I can bang out a paper very quickly and sift through research very quickly.

Then again, the danger with anecdotal data is that I might not be an average case.
 

Doytch

Member
Pass/no record courses?? Christ.

Reading that gave me appreciation for the constant project courses I had in ECE at UToronto. Broke up the monotony of the first two years somewhat, and the last two years were nice cause you picked all your courses.
 

genjiZERO

Member
I'm a STEM drop in. After I got my Art degree I stayed around and got a Biology degree. Truthfully I think a lot of the dropping (in bio anyway) is naive 1st year "pre meds". When I was in graduate school this was the worst group to teach. Half were painfully lazy and felt strangely entitled. Another quarter simply weren't up to snuff.
 

gwarm01

Member
I was a double major in chemistry and biology and am currently in my third year of pharmacy school. I can testify that what they are saying is absolutely true. I think the idea of the freshmen level science courses was to weed out the people who couldn't hack it early on, so they made the workload needlessly difficult. I managed to get through it, but it took a lot of self-sacrifice. I still have friends who just think I turned into an asshole because they don't realize just how much of my time was (and still is) spent studying. I could really understand why people wouldn't want to stick with that.

The chemistry department in my school was pretty small, but I still saw a lot of people leave the program. I feel like we had at least thirty people in general chemistry, then maybe fifteen in organic. By the time we got to physical chemistry and inorganic the class sizes were all single digit.
 

Gnub

Member
Something brought up in the article is how this puts US students behind students elsewhere. Are higher education programs any easier overseas? I was under the impression that students came from overseas to study here. I'm wondering how much of students who leave US STEM for other curriculum are from outside the US.

EDIT: I stuck with CompSci. My freshmen classes were overflowing with people. Like 40+ students in a class that supposed to cap out at 30. People sitting in laps to get in a full class! Had 11 CompSci majors my graduating class in 2007. :(
 

entremet

Member
Stumpokapow said:
I got a job that was in the wheelhouse of my BSc, but I'd also been working in that field for 6+ years before I got my BSc. Strictly in terms of earning employment, the only thing the BSc did was allow me to pass the initial screening from HR or whatever. That being said, I'm not a fan of looking at education in job terms, and my BSc was definitely enriching.

I also wouldn't call it harder than a BA. It was different.

My BA required a lot more reading, a lot more writing, a lot more research, and a lot more synthesis. All of my BA courses integrated together very well and I had a palpable feeling of needing to draw on my whole degree in order to achieve. To some extent, I think people who can do that will find a lot of material overlap which might make some BA courses easier, but I knew just as many people who struggled with the writing components. Many graduate students still don't have clear, crisp writing. My second BA has been much easier for me because I can bang out a paper very quickly and sift through research very quickly.

Then again, the danger with anecdotal data is that I might not be an average case.
Did you pursue a second bachelor's for pleasure? I would love to do, but I cannot afford to do so.


Dr. Feel Good said:
Is finance/accounting considered STEM?

No.
 

Yoboman

Member
Its all to do with highschool. There is no real emphasis placed on the importance of these fields. Then there is a genuine lack of pathways as a mature age level. So if you weren't into in high school, it is so so hard to change it and learn the fundamentals - so you won't find many switching IN to these degrees to balance it out
 

Bananakin

Member
I know they shouldn't, but articles like this make me feel better about my physics degree. Will it be useful to me? Who knows. But at least I get a smug sense of superiority out of it.
 
One other potential issue, to pursue a career in the sciences is a very long road before you actually get a "real job". If it's not medical school through to residency, its PhD through to postdoc. Each of these paths taking almost another 10 years of training. Not the most attractive proposition for a 20-yr old already with a mountain of debt.
 
BS, Computer Information Systems - STEM degree?

I know it's like the easy mode version of the typical CS degree, but my brother went into it to be able to do more database stuff and more business stuff.
 

Dennis

Banned
BSc in Molecular Biology --> MSc in Molecular Biology --> PhD in Medicine

This was my path and yeah, along the way a lot of people dropped or went for something easier.

To be honest, most of the people I met during my studies would or will make lousy scientists.

Not many really had the potential to go really far. And there aren't that many great jobs in science proper.

You have to be really good, really smart and you have to love it.
 

genjiZERO

Member
DennisK4 said:
BSc in Molecular Biology --> MSc in Molecular Biology --> PhD in Medicine

This was my path and yeah, along the way a lot of people dropped or went for something easier.

To be honest, most of the people I met during my studies would or will make lousy scientists.

Not many really had the potential to go really far. And there aren't that many great jobs in science proper.

You have to be really good, really smart and you have to love it.

in the US? I've never heard of a PhD in Medicine. Only an MD
 

RevDM

Banned
DennisK4 said:
BSc in Molecular Biology --> MSc in Molecular Biology --> PhD in Medicine

This was my path and yeah, along the way a lot of people dropped or went for something easier.

To be honest, most of the people I met during my studies would or will make lousy scientists.

Not many really had the potential to go really far. And there aren't that many great jobs in science proper.

You have to be really good, really smart and you have to love it.

Ya I agree. I'm in med school (MD) but do research in a epigenetics lab because I'm a dork. Anyway, there are only a handful of PhD students and all of them are extremely dedicated and possess a level of intelligence that I never will have. Investigative work is much different than diagnostic/procedural work.
 
As others have already said its because its hard. The weed out classes are there because the shit is hard. We don't want dumbass doctors. Half the kids in my organic class didn't just drop out, they switched majors, because even if they passed organic chemistry.... bam organic 2 right after. Shit is hard. To me this doesn't say that the class needs to be more engaging or fun or whatever. It says that high school needs to challenge kids who will be going to college more. I breezed through high school and practically had to learn from scratch how to study during the bio/chem weed out classes.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
SteveWinwood said:
As others have already said its because its hard. The weed out classes are there because the shit is hard. We don't want dumbass doctors. Half the kids in my organic class didn't just drop out, they switched majors, because even if they passed organic chemistry.... bam organic 2 right after. Shit is hard. To me this doesn't say that the class needs to be more engaging or fun or whatever. It says that high school needs to challenge kids who will be going to college more. I breezed through high school and practically had to learn from scratch how to study during the bio/chem weed out classes.
Sure, but does everyone need that? I think of Germany's system where even at the high-school level you select one of three tracks depending on where you plan to go after.
 

dudeworld

Member
This happens here at my university in canada. Calculus is a mandatory class for almost every degree, including business (and calculus isn't even a required skill for business, like it is for engineering)

After the first calculus midterm my class went from around 60 people to around 25 people. Its considered a weeding-out class and its also considered a money-grab because the majority of students fail the first time and then end up taking it again.
 

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Stumpokapow said:
I got a job that was in the wheelhouse of my BSc, but I'd also been working in that field for 6+ years before I got my BSc. Strictly in terms of earning employment, the only thing the BSc did was allow me to pass the initial screening from HR or whatever. That being said, I'm not a fan of looking at education in job terms, and my BSc was definitely enriching.

I also wouldn't call it harder than a BA. It was different.

My BA required a lot more reading, a lot more writing, a lot more research, and a lot more synthesis. All of my BA courses integrated together very well and I had a palpable feeling of needing to draw on my whole degree in order to achieve. To some extent, I think people who can do that will find a lot of material overlap which might make some BA courses easier, but I knew just as many people who struggled with the writing components. Many graduate students still don't have clear, crisp writing. My second BA has been much easier for me because I can bang out a paper very quickly and sift through research very quickly.

Then again, the danger with anecdotal data is that I might not be an average case.
Regarding difficulty, I want to distinguish between the difficulty of doing well, and the difficulty of just getting by. I agree that by the former metric, a BA can be just as challenging as a BSc. On the other hand, it's much harder to flunk out of a typical BA program.
 
The_Technomancer said:
Sure, but does everyone need that? I think of Germany's system where even at the high-school level you select one of three tracks depending on where you plan to go after.
Oh sure split it up if you want. If the kid wants to be flipping burgers or whatever why should he be challenged. That last sentence sounds sarcastic, but its kinda not. Anyway, if you had to choose one though i'd rather over-challenge our kids than under. It can't hurt them in anything they do.
 

Wilsongt

Member
As a intro level Biology lab TA for the last three years, all I can say is, some of the students who come into my labs don't need to be in a STEM program, or at least Biology. A lot of them want to go to Pharmacy or Med school, yet they do so poorly in the class or they lack basic writing skills that it really makes me worried about the future...

Thankfully, there are upper level weed out courses for those students, but it is really sad sometimes to have a class of bright-eyed Pre-Pharm/Pre-Med majors and watch half of them make Cs/Ds consistently on their lecture exams.
 

Zzoram

Member
Sounds like the real problem is grade inflation in social sciences and humanities, if it's making STEM majors feel stupid and switching to those classes just to get a higher GPA.

All universities should just grade on a curve for the first 2 years, with a pre-determined class average, so that the GPA distribution ends up pretty similar in every major, preventing grade inflation from causing students to change majors. The final 2 years of study can go without a grade curve so if only good students are still around, they all have the opportunity to get good grades if they work hard enough.
 
just ask the amount of work students have to do for a 3 credits engineering course to a non-STEM course.

And eng/sci degree won't get you much after you graduate. A lot of them join banking/business sector where analytical skills are need and the pay is much better. You need to pay back the student loans, etc.
 
Zzoram said:
Sounds like the real problem is grade inflation in social sciences and humanities, if it's making STEM majors feel stupid and switching to those classes just to get a higher GPA.

All universities should just grade on a curve for the first 2 years, with a pre-determined class average, so that the GPA distribution ends up pretty similar in every major, preventing grade inflation from causing students to change majors. The final 2 years of study can go without a grade curve so if only good students are still around, they all have the opportunity to get good grades if they work hard enough.
Curve grading is not a way to fix anything. It's not the grades that are a problem its the curriculum. There is a big difference between learn and understand all these chemical interactions and write a paper on Monet (don't mean to offend art guys in here). My favorite (sarcasm) question that always came up on chem exams was: you've never seen this before but you should be able to figure out how it works. Wtf I can barely follow sn2 reactions and now I have follow electrons around this. Shits just hard.
 

Ultima_5

Member
Sealda said:
In my thermodynamics course i just finished. The teacher basically did 1 example question each 2 hour lecture. The rest was him writing up proofs of formulas...

Doing Chemical engineering. Then again, my transport phenomena teacher basically only does examples, i like the latter more.

Chem eng too, and my classes sound shockingly similar... Throw in a computer aided calculations class where the teacher doesn't know how to run the programs and a chemistry elective and you've got my schedule. I absolutely don't enjoy doing all this math, but I'm hoping that when I get a job in the field i won't mind it... if not, go back to school, get a masters in education and become the weird high school physics teacher
 

Loki

Count of Concision
This problem is directly related to compensation levels in science-related fields as compared to compensation for law/business/finance etc. Since the mid-90's, many of the "best and brightest" have chosen to forgo careers in science for the promise of more lucrative careers in these other sectors. And it makes perfect sense: why would anyone choose a more difficult road for less reward when they can take an easier road for greater reward? Outside of the people who have a true passion for the sciences and would do it regardless of compensation (and thank God that such people exist), many will simply choose the better work/reward combination.

I've been saying this since the early 2000's: if you want to fix the lack of science grads, lack of interest in the sciences in undergrad etc., you need to change the compensation scale. Make it more of an actual meritocracy, where, you know, things that are more difficult are compensated commensurately. There is zero reason that my friends who work in finance and made $75-85K out of college should be earning more than someone who completed an engineering or chemistry degree. Zero. No reason that a 2-year MBA should earn more than a pediatrician or internist who dedicated 7-8 years post-grad to their studies and have a much more specialized (and more objectively valuable) skill-set and knowledge.

One day - hopefully soon - this country will realize that we can't survive by being predominantly a financial services nation. People who push paper and numbers around will never be as important and valuable as people who actually build and create stuff and solve real problems. It's time for compensation to start reflecting that.
 

onken

Member
Interesting. Most people who dropped out of my engineering course changed to computer science. I can't fathom someone that would just change from science to art/literature half way through.
 

Ace 8095

Member
dudeworld said:
This happens here at my university in canada. Calculus is a mandatory class for almost every degree, including business (and calculus isn't even a required skill for business, like it is for engineering)

After the first calculus midterm my class went from around 60 people to around 25 people. Its considered a weeding-out class and its also considered a money-grab because the majority of students fail the first time and then end up taking it again.
As a business statistics and finance tutor I believe most business majors would benefit greatly from two semesters of calculus and a semester of linear algebra. A semester of applied calc just does not prepare students well enough for topics such as linear programming, TVM, and regression analysis.
 

dudeworld

Member
Ace 8095 said:
As a business statistics and finance tutor I believe most business majors would benefit greatly from two semesters of calculus and a semester of linear algebra. A semester of applied calc just does not prepare students well enough for topics such as linear programming, TVM, and regression analysis.

If that were the case, you probably wouldn't have a job as a business statistics and finance tutor because no one would stick around long enough to get to stats and finance classes.
 

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
Loki said:
This problem is directly related to compensation levels in science-related fields as compared to compensation for law/business/finance etc. Since the mid-90's, many of the "best and brightest" have chosen to forgo careers in science for the promise of more lucrative careers in these other sectors. And it makes perfect sense: why would anyone choose a more difficult road for less reward when they can take an easier road for greater reward? Outside of the people who have a true passion for the sciences and would do it regardless of compensation (and thank God that such people exist), many will simply choose the better work/reward combination.

I've been saying this since the early 2000's: if you want to fix the lack of science grads, lack of interest in the sciences in undergrad etc., you need to change the compensation scale. Make it more of an actual meritocracy, where, you know, things that are more difficult are compensated commensurately. There is zero reason that my friends who work in finance and made $75-85K out of college should be earning more than someone who completed an engineering or chemistry degree. Zero. No reason that a 2-year MBA should earn more than a pediatrician or internist who dedicated 7-8 years post-grad to their studies and have a much more specialized (and more objectively valuable) skill-set and knowledge.

One day - hopefully soon - this country will realize that we can't survive by being predominantly a financial services nation. People who push paper and numbers around will never be as important and valuable as people who actually build and create stuff and solve real problems. It's time for compensation to start reflecting that.
All the scientific researches and engineering marvels have to be funded somehow. The finance guys are the ones who get that side done. That's why they get paid a lot of money :p
 

Chairman Yang

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Loki said:
This problem is directly related to compensation levels in science-related fields as compared to compensation for law/business/finance etc. Since the mid-90's, many of the "best and brightest" have chosen to forgo careers in science for the promise of more lucrative careers in these other sectors. And it makes perfect sense: why would anyone choose a more difficult road for less reward when they can take an easier road for greater reward? Outside of the people who have a true passion for the sciences and would do it regardless of compensation (and thank God that such people exist), many will simply choose the better work/reward combination.

I've been saying this since the early 2000's: if you want to fix the lack of science grads, lack of interest in the sciences in undergrad etc., you need to change the compensation scale. Make it more of an actual meritocracy, where, you know, things that are more difficult are compensated commensurately. There is zero reason that my friends who work in finance and made $75-85K out of college should be earning more than someone who completed an engineering or chemistry degree. Zero. No reason that a 2-year MBA should earn more than a pediatrician or internist who dedicated 7-8 years post-grad to their studies and have a much more specialized (and more objectively valuable) skill-set and knowledge.

One day - hopefully soon - this country will realize that we can't survive by being predominantly a financial services nation. People who push paper and numbers around will never be as important and valuable as people who actually build and create stuff and solve real problems. It's time for compensation to start reflecting that.
I partially agree with you (and I say that as a law/MBA guy myself) but how would you propose changing compensation? I can't imagine any sort of government regulation that would work.
 
went the opposite way i think.
From Multimedia(was planning on doing 3D modeling) to computer science.
And dam the first 2 weeks of computer science i learned more then from the shitty multimedia i did(Its called Communication and Multimedia design).
 

Zaptruder

Banned
NetMapel said:
All the scientific researches and engineering marvels have to be funded somehow. The finance guys are the ones who get that side done. That's why they get paid a lot of money :p

Is how we fool ourselves.

More accurately, the finance guys are simply the ones with their hands on the economic spigot, and use all their considerable skill and expertise to siphon as large a portion for themselves as is possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom