I'm a bit late to the party, but there have been discussions lately about the number of undergrad STEM majors, including physics, with some gnashing of teeth about overall difficulty. For example, a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research has been interpreted as saying that the main reason students bail on science majors is poor grades. That is, students go in, knowing that science will require more work than majoring in something fluffy, but when many receive tough grades even though they work hard, that's too much for them and they change fields. Chad Orzel does his usual thorough job looking into what the study really says, and it does seem true that tough grading drives some people out of STEM pursuits.
Similarly, there is a new report from the National Academy of Sciences called "Adapting to a Changing World: Challenges and Opportunities in Undergraduate Physics Education". I found the content rather disappointing, in the sense that it didn't seem to say much new. We all know that some approaches can be better under some circumstances than traditional lecture. However, many of those are very labor intensive, and I'm sure that my 50 person class would benefit if it were instead five ten-person classes. More to the point, though, the report specifically claims that hard grades are a major factor in the low participation of women and underrepresented groups in the physics major.
So, is physics unnaturally harsh in its grading, to its detriment? Or is this a question of high school preparation on the one hand, and grade inflation in nonscience majors on the other? I lean toward the latter.
(Note that the NSF has proven that science is hard. Also, here is the paper featured in that article - it's actually very interesting.)
(One other note: no one commented on my three part post about the physics of contacts, and the hit rate on those posts was very low. At the same time, in one 15 minute interval last week my post about "whiskey stones" got nearly 500 page views after it was mentioned in an argument about whiskey on reddit. Guess I should write about other things besides physics if I want more readership:-).
Posted with Blogsy
10 comments:
As an undergraduate in physics, I can only say that the challenge is what keeps it interesting. If it was easy I would have found something else a long time ago.
I'll second the other anonymous. Physics started kicking my GPAs butt in high school but I haven't looked back since. As an undergrad I realized the struggling and frustration was actually what made it so rewarding, and decided that staying with physics would do me good (like, as a person) even if it kept me from getting some fancy Latin words on my diploma. If I cared about Latin words that much I was more than welcome to major in that instead.
(Side note: the place where I did my undergrad work was not a top physics program, but *was* a CS powerhouse. The top CS students could barely squeak out a B+ average, but somehow the culture of the department was able to instill a "brains over grades" mentality that kept the overachiever personalities from bailing. I really hope administrators don't look at this sort of study and demand grade inflation in the rare places it hasn't infected, but instead challenge themselves to find ways to break talented students of GPA obsession.)
Even the vague Star Trek title reference didn't get you some hits?!
Anon@8:49, nope.
In fact, right now, this post already has more pageviews than Contacts III: The Search for Measurements.
The Contacts series was great! It was up in my browser for 2 days in the "fun reading queue". It could've gone on for many more installments IMHO
Responding to the anonymous responses.
I would guess that at least in the case of underrepresented minorities the students are less well connected which means GPAs are more important. In addition this might just be the case for everyone in a down economy or any economy, many physics bachelors will not work in physics which means that their GPAs will be judged against students with GPAs in other majors. In the case of seeking employment there GPAs will be compared by a computer program. The reason for this relative difference (inflation in other majors or deflation in physics) is not particular important because for the end-user (the student) who is making the choices only the resulting effect matters (lower gpa -> disadvantage at applying to a job). It seems like the irrational/idealistic choice is actually to do physics.
The way things currently are physics is a major that you dont choose because it is rational but because you love it. Physics needs to improve to being a major you choose because it is rational and you also love it.
In the case of seeking employment there GPAs will be compared by a computer program.
was supposed to be
In the case of seeking employment in a large corporation their GPAs will be compared by a computer program.
To be fair on the pageview issue, I didn't feel like I had much to add to what you had said on contacts, and I generally just read the blog posts in full from the front page -- I only click on the posts themselves if I want to comment or see what someone else has said. It may just be that you did too good a job at covering the topic.
This is fantastic!
Post a Comment