Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Trent B

I guess to try and clarify that point. The material is hard, no way around that it is what it is. But it seems like many of the gen ed professors are more apathetic than the ones teaching courses that are in a particular major. Because of this they often aren't as clear on what they are trying to teach, as a result kids get confused do poorly on the exams and start to give up. When this happens and the prof sees people dropping left and right or just not trying anymore, why should they try so hard to teach. Thus we enter the vicious cycle.

I am not sure what the best way out is.

And hey Akash, let me know next time you need a material for your engineering project. Oh wait, everything is made of materials isn't it? (sarcasm)

Your issue might be with the course itself. Our school doesn't run Statics & Mechanics as a gen ed class whereas Fundamentals of Materials is gen ed for all engineering students. I love my statics class, loathe materials.

It really just depends where you are, if you enjoy the material in class in the first place, and who your teachers are.

I thin its also really important that kids from FRC have some idea of real world applications of what they are learning in class. In my case, I absolutely love statics and dynamics because I know where I can apply it to a robot. Lots of things come into play.

[Trent B]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Your issue might be with the course itself. Our school doesn't run Statics & Mechanics as a gen ed class whereas Fundamentals of Materials is gen ed for all engineering students. I love my statics class, loathe materials.

It really just depends where you are.

Statics is in "Engineering Mechanics" pretty much all engineering majors take it.

[tsaksa]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Trent,

For the statics problem you mention in terms of material difficulty, there really isn't a good solution. I had a great statics teacher, many of the class did well, yet the average was still incredibly low for what I had been used to.

It's maybe 10% as difficult as higher level engineering classes (possibly not even that difficult), so making it easier or grading on a more substantial curve isn't an option.

I'm not saying this is what you proposed, but we can't solve the problem of fewer engineers by making engineering easier.

No, don’t make the content or grading any easier. None of us want to drive over a bridge that was designed by and approved by engineers that did not understand statics, but passed because most everyone else in their class was equally incompetent. However, we do want to provide an environment where that same difficult content is easier to learn.

The success rate for students in a particular class is not determined solely by the difficulty of the content. I have seen a lot of students do poorly in classes where the concepts and technical content were trivial compared to most engineering courses. I once had to take a class in cost accounting that seemed incredibly simple on the surface, but was so boring that I just could not focus. And it did not help that I could not see how I would ever want to apply any of what I was learning. I really struggled with that class. On the other hand I breezed through some classes that by comparison were much more technically challenging simply because I saw the value in understanding and applying what was being taught, and was highly motivated.

When students are motivated, difficult topics seem less challenging and doing the work required to do well is much less tedious. For some students, the challenge of taking a difficult class is motivation enough, and anyone would do well to learn a bit from these highly self motivated individuals. But for many of us there needs to be more. Perhaps they need a clear link to the real world, or a bit of fun. That is why I think FIRST is so great. It offers the kind of real world hands-on experience that often is exactly the thing many students need to encourage them over some of the difficult hurtles that exist in any STEMS program.

Today’s technology teachers have a difficult task before them. How do you motivate students who cannot see how what they are learning applies to the real world. And how do you even make those connections when the world itself is so much more complex and abstract today.

When I went to engineering school building and repairing things was already in my blood. I took things apart and repaired them or built them into new devices. I saw engineering skills as just another way to expand my skills. Being able to see the value of what I was learning is what I think helped me through some of the very challenging classes, and perhaps is why I never gave up.

But many students today do not have as much of those hands on skills. Building and repairing almost anything seems a bit like a lost art. In our throw away world there are fewer opportunities to learn those skills on your own. And with the complexity of many consumer devices today there are fewer role models for that type of behavior. Not too long ago, almost everyone I knew did some amount of appliance repair, electrical wiring, auto repair, or at least kit building at home. But, today most people do not bother to try, and many homes do not even have adequate tools and equipment to do so.

That is why I think FIRST has such resonance with many students and teachers today. Science can be fun. Difficult classes can be made more appealing. And boring topics can be made interesting by finding the right vehicle to bring the concepts to life. And, it would be hard to find a better vehicle than FIRST to do that for most STEMS courses.

[ebarker]

A big part of the problem is the lack of really good engineering professors.

It is hard to produce an engineer. It is exceptionally difficult to produce an engineer, that has experience doing engineering AND is a good TEACHER.

IMHO Georgia Tech is great research university and great for going to grad school. I'm not so sure that it is so hot in undergraduate teaching. Many universities have this problem.

I spent nearly a week this summer at MIT. Before I went I had the impression that they were only for "theorists". I left impressed at the breadth and depth of undergraduate lab and research opportunities. These opportunities are fantastic ways to help students learn and to keep them motivated.

Rose Hulman is noted to be an undergraduate teaching university. They don't do research. Just great teaching. Ditto for the Air Force Academy.

A second part of the problem is career guidance. Some people should not choose an ABET engineering career, they possibly should be choosing an ABET engineering technologist career.

FYI, Professor Woodie Flowers is a recovering member of BTA bad teachers anonymous.

A lack of great teachers, and a dearth of good guidance counseling, formal or informal, is a big part of the problem.

[smurfgirl]

I think the problem is a cultural one, in two senses. First, not enough value is placed on the STEM fields in our society, though people are slowly becoming aware of that and working to change it. It's difficult for people to initially become motivated to go into the STEM fields, and when they then experience how difficult it is, it often doesn't seem worth it to stick with it. Second, internally to STEM departments at universities, there seems to be a culture of valuing insane workloads and little sleep. This occurs to different extents at different schools, but it seems to exist everywhere in some form or another. Professors have insane expectations (I once had a class that assigned four, 20-page minimum lab reports to be due on the same day, several times throughout the semester), and students seem to add to it by frequently comparing how much work they have, how little sleep they've gotten and how many hours they've been awake - those who are most overworked and sleep-deprived are worshiped. This is obviously not healthy. If you're in a field you're excited about, working on things you love, then there isn't so much of a problem with staying motivated to continue. Overall, I love my school and my major, and I have some great memories from all-hours problem set sessions with my friends, but it's easy to see how a lot of people can get discouraged by four plus years of that type of lifestyle.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by smurfgirl

but it's easy to see how a lot of people can get discouraged by four plus years of that type of lifestyle.

I'd also suggest that some people consider taking 5 years to get the 4 year degree. Manage how you take courses.

Another thing to consider is co-op. It will take 5 or 6 years but they do better also..... And you will make money and not have as much debt when graduating.

[Trent B]

I was going to try and get a masters, 3 specializations (only need 2) and a minor in 4 years, I decided to extend it to 4.5, drop my credits from 18+ to about 16 a semester and add study abroad. Worth it to me.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Trent B

As a current college Freshman/Sophomore/Junior (came in with a lot of credits) some of this does hold true.

A lot of the general courses that hundreds of students take each semester are just awful. For example I am in statics and I don't blame anyone for dropping that class. Our book explains almost nothing you have to interpret what the equations mean and the professor only teaches to half of the class. I have seen juniors drop the course left and right because they simply can't learn the material. Additionally the course is graded on a 90+ A 80-89 B etc system, which becomes problematic when the average exam grade is 65 for the class. Many students simply won't pass the class, and a lot will be discouraged to try again.

I came in a similar situation to you. Statics is I think the only engineering class I've taken in my college career that was not curved, and RPI is known for not inflating grades. It looks awful for the professor if they fail half a class.

Originally Posted by Trent B

Additionally, the article touched on the application of all this engineering knowledge. ...

There is only so much they can teach you in four years, and engineering requires a lot of theory. The current policy of teaching students a little bit of everything is a good one, I think. When you consider what it takes to apply every class, there simply isn't time. I think hands on application is great, but ultimately it is up to the student to find these opportunities. If you don't do something hands on getting an engineering degree, you're definitely doing it wrong. It puts you head and shoulders above the kids who don't. Real hardware has problems that just don't show up in the math, and often times don't show up in the CAD. Those unforseen problems are often the annoying kind that you have to solve on an engineering team like Formula Hybrid or Design/Build/Fly. You also get a healthy dose of grace under pressure and real teamwork experience. Colleges often like to tout their project based classes, but I found my working relationships during my internship to be much closer to the relationships I have with my friends on intercollegiate design teams than the ones I had in my group projects.

Mentoring is a huge deal in industry, and I think many college students miss out on this. Fraternities and Sororities are pretty good at this, I think there may be some good things to be gleaned from that model. I definitely benefited from having my DBF friends, in terms of schoolwork help and general life advice. That general life advice bit can be really important in college too.

Originally Posted by TrentB

Other majors think we are insane for doing materials engineering with how difficult many of them find the intro to materials engineering for non materials engineers course. One of my friends called me a masochist for going into it, I told him he is correct. I think to follow it through to the end you really have to want the end result and know that you want it.

I don't think engineers are masochists. I don't like it when things hurt, and I love engineering. I think that is part of the 'problem' and I really have no idea what the solution is. A lot of people just really never learned how to work hard, and they aren't willing to work hard. I play hard, but I work even harder. (And if you want to talk about laughing at mistakes, you can watch the wing fall off the r/c airplane I spent waaaaaaayyyyyyy too many hours on for Design/Build/Fly in my signature by clicking on 'whoops')

Originally Posted by ebarker

I'd also suggest that some people consider taking 5 years to get the 4 year degree. Manage how you take courses.

Another thing to consider is co-op. It will take 5 or 6 years but they do better also..... And you will make money and not have as much debt when graduating.

One of the annoying things about taking semester(s) off is that many of your friends will leave, which can be kind of annoying. I think you get just as much benefit out of interning, and that lets you graduate on time.

[Karibou]

One more thing to consider is the language barrier that seems to be a popular issue in math and science classes with foreign professors. In high school, I had people telling me "yes, you will have foreign professors, you won't be able to understand them, and you will still be expected to pass the class." My engineering fundamentals professor speaks English very well, but he still has an accent and there is still a slight barrier to overcome in understanding him. My classes with American-born professors and TAs are significantly easier to pay attention in because I can understand them clearly. I was fortunate to only get one professor with an accent, but some of my friends absolutely cannot understand their lab assistants or calc professors and are incredibly frustrated by the classes. Many first-year engineering students take the same sets of classes, and they are almost all weeder classes. While other people have posted about how bad those are, not being able to understand the professor makes a class that much harder.

[Trent B]

Ian to further elaborate, I realize the classroom has its limitations on what you can cram in and often theory takes precedent over application. I guess where I think it may be lacking in some areas is the department and college's push for students to get opportunities to apply their theories in the real world.

The honors program at ISU tries to get freshman into research opportunities their second semester. And I can say for the Mat E department I get at least 1 email a day that was forwarded from a faculty member because someone sent them an email looking for students to employ. I have a folder of at least 100 potential employers because there is such a push in my department and the university to apply your knowledge and do research or internships or co-ops.

Also I wasn't implying engineers are masochists (it is sorta my way of joking it, one of the ways to stay sane when you spend 10 hours on a lab report every weekend), he is a mechanical engineer taking a materials course because it is required, it is similar to Akash liking statics and hating materials. There is that gradient of difficulty in similar courses when you compare the gen-ed vs the required one (eg Mat E for Engineers and Mat E for Mat Es) My friend is taking a materials engineering for non materials engineers or more of a "gen-ed" style course and finds it awful, difficult and thinks I am a masochist for wanting to go into it. Comparatively my Materials Engineering professor in my intro course is one of the greatest instructors I have ever had. So again it comes down to that gen-ed's seem to be harder than the actual courses in my experience.

As for the accent part that has huge variation, I am used to first or second generation immigrants as they made up a lot of my friends so accents don't phase me. But I know people who went to 100% white high schools in 100% white towns. As far as they knew, minorities could have been a myth/propaganda and here they are in a university where many professors received their degrees in other countries and possibly other languages. It doesn't hinder me at all but I can understand why some may have trouble.

[davidthefat]

I am just curious. Does anyone have the statistic for FIRST alumni that successfully graduate from college with a degree in STEM compared to student who have not gone through FIRST. Or the drop/transfer out rate also?

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by Karibou

One more thing to consider is the language barrier that seems to be a popular issue in math and science classes with foreign professors. In high school, I had people telling me "yes, you will have foreign professors, you won't be able to understand them, and you will still be expected to pass the class." My engineering fundamentals professor speaks English very well, but he still has an accent and there is still a slight barrier to overcome in understanding him.



and they are almost all weeder classes.

#2 and #1 reasons that classes are hard and students drop.

They are hard because your teacher is not always ideal (did you ever think that professors aren't really trained to teach?).

They are hard because they were meant to be hard. Not everyone was meant to be an engineer.

[Tom Ore]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

Statics is I think the only engineering class I've taken in my college career that was not curved, and RPI is known for not inflating grades. It looks awful for the professor if they fail half a class.

I got my masters degree from RPI in 1985 while working at GE in Pittsfield, MA. I had one more class to take to finish and I didn't really care what it was so I picked a class that had no tests. The first day of class, the professor said the reason he doesn't give tests is that no-one can even do the homework so there wouldn't be any point. I survived with a C, but to this day I don't understand why they would structure a course like that...

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

(did you ever think that professors aren't really trained to teach?).

Neither are teachers

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by Ether

Neither are teachers

That may be true but I was always led to believe otherwise. I heard the opinion that I had stated from my teacher-mother, and I was always under the impression that many teachers took classes on learning theories and other classroom processes. I don't know, as I'm not a teaching student.