Is technical education getting too...technical?

[Aimless]

In essence making them learn how to identify the abstract problem from the example, but not by giving them dumbed down examples that don't require much thinking.

[Wraith]

I seriously think the reward mechanisms in video games have a lot to teach business and academia about motivating people. If you could some how cause numbers to float towards the ceiling an satisfying sound to play everytime a student solves a maths or physics problem then the problems with engaging students would be over.

I heard about some teacher who did something like that, setting up their grading like an RPG game, modelling specifically on WoW. It apparently did pretty well. But I imagine it'd be hard to convince many people in academia to take an idea like that seriously. Even students may have an issue - having a class like that would seem condescending to me, even though it'd probably work on me.

[Aimless]

Yeah, we try that with students from time to time. They suck at it. It's almost as if you need some base level of understanding and, far more importantly, a hefty tool-box of problem-solving skills, before you can tackle free-form exercises. I'm not trying to be blithe here, this is just how it looks like right now.

It's not surprising, it's an approach that is extraordinarily unnatural for most people who've gone through a regular education from age 6 and up. It would be nice to see an assessment of an actual "maths through PBL" concept. I must admit I've mostly seen PBL properly used in disciplines such as medicine and law and the like.

[Nessus]

It's not surprising, it's an approach that is extraordinarily unnatural for most people who've gone through a regular education from age 6 and up. It would be nice to see an assessment of an actual "maths through PBL" concept. I must admit I've mostly seen PBL properly used in disciplines such as medicine and law and the like.

Again, most of the problems I'd offer require a mathematical vernacular that includes things not taught until 2nd year in university here. We strive to provide interesting problems students can solve with SS math alone in freshman courses, but they still struggle. Both because the math is unfamiliar and because they lack confidence. I grant that you could improve their confidence, but you still have to slog through the awful math at some point. I am not sure how to make utterly alien mathematical concepts enthralling via clever question-posing, given that you also have to teach the new concepts. Some of the work ends up being mechanical, unintuitive or both.

[Loki]

I remember you talking about this before, and I thought it was very interesting. Certainly there are aspects of maths learning that may need precisely that approach. However, you're contrasting the purely abstract/theoretical approach with a different method from what I'm suggesting, or what Dan Meyer's suggesting, or that is at the heart of a problem based approach. The idea isn't to teach by giving people example problems. It's to help them learn by making them manage the whole process--from identifying a problem through the development of a strategy right through to the solution. It's certainly not a substitute for theoretical learning, but rather a complement.

A) That still entails teaching them the technical details, which many students find "boring".
B) It takes far more time, which means less material gets covered.

Hell, I've been trying to teach the class I'm TAing some basic stats (really basic) for the last several weeks through numerous examples they can relate to. It's been a massive time sink. I finally get most of them to understand the most basic concepts in the time I could have taken to teach 2-3 weeks worth of material.

[Ominous Gamer]

I seriously think the reward mechanisms in video games have a lot to teach business and academia about motivating people. If you could some how cause numbers to float towards the ceiling an satisfying sound to play everytime a student solves a maths or physics problem then the problems with engaging students would be over.

achievements, how do they work?

seriously, they are everywhere now. From shit like foursquare to news websites like slashdot (reddit too). They are starting to make their way into the school, but with a more direct reward system from what I've seen from Ocean's kindergarten class.

[Khendraja'aro]

I heard about some teacher who did something like that, setting up their grading like an RPG game, modelling specifically on WoW. It apparently did pretty well. But I imagine it'd be hard to convince many people in academia to take an idea like that seriously. Even students may have an issue - having a class like that would seem condescending to me, even though it'd probably work on me.

Any and all MMORPGs are basically Skinner Boxes. I wouldn't see it as condescending but rather as a pragmatic acknowledgment of how our psyche works.

But it's actually an interesting idea. Will have to see if it's worthwhile to set up something like this for my classes. Do you have some more info at hand?

Again, most of the problems I'd offer require a mathematical vernacular that includes things not taught until 2nd year in university here. We strive to provide interesting problems students can solve with SS math alone in freshman courses, but they still struggle. Both because the math is unfamiliar and because they lack confidence. I grant that you could improve their confidence, but you still have to slog through the awful math at some point. I am not sure how to make utterly alien mathematical concepts enthralling via clever question-posing, given that you also have to teach the new concepts. Some of the work ends up being mechanical, unintuitive or both.

Some aspects simply are difficult to provide good applications for you can easily relate to - I'd have to think hard to find a non-abstract application for the Taylor Series, for example.

[Nessus]

Do your own homework

[Khendraja'aro]

Do your own homework

Spoilsport!

[Wraith]

Any and all MMORPGs are basically Skinner Boxes. I wouldn't see it as condescending but rather as a pragmatic acknowledgment of how our psyche works.

But it's actually an interesting idea. Will have to see if it's worthwhile to set up something like this for my classes. Do you have some more info at hand?

I'll see if I can find an article about it later. I think he mostly did the same things in evaluation teachers typically did, it was mostly just changes in phrasing and presentation to make the whole thing more appealing to the students. I think this was done with kids too, high school or elementary.

[CitizenCain]

How do you teach Calculus in a way that's more engaging?

Relate it something (anything). Maybe consider going down the applications side of things instead of expecting students to give a shit about a bunch of abstract lines and confusing formulas. Give that shit a context that the geeky SETM students are likely to find appealing. As in, now that you know how to calculate an integral (etc), here are some of the nifty things you can use that to help do. Because, again, that's ultimately what science and engineering is about - practical applications of abstract knowledge. Any moron can calculate an integral, or learn to do so by rote (and ditto with every other concept in every SETM class I had to suffer through), but the difference between an engineer and a bunch of trivia is that the engineer can find practical uses for those various factoids, and that's something I never any attention given to as an undergrad (and never even saw on the horizon in the CS curriculum through my College of Engineering).

That's why students get into SETM disciplines in the first place - they want to know how things work, make their own things, geek out on what they can do with their math and science aptitudes. Nothing kills that desire and enthusiasm like a few years of cramming abstract concepts into the brain and memorizing all the useless shit you need to get through the lower level classes while having no chance to actually apply all that knowledge.

Maybe my experience is atypical, but I didn't know anyone who transferred out of SETM because it was hard (it's no harder than other disciplines, IMHO), but because every other discipline lets you get hands-on and apply your knowledge a lot sooner and more often. Closest we got to applied knowledge in CS was shitty "labs" that involved recreating the wheel. Or more accurately, useless versions of a wheel - make a bubble sort algorithm or a Java string tokenizer (etc)... yeah, fuck you too. Same deal with the first couple years of chem or physics - so much bullshit "hands on" repeating of trite old experiments that were old and boring a century ago too. No one in a humanities discipline would say to an English student "now that you know the mechanics of the English language, rewrite Catcher in the Rye," but that's the first couple years (at least) of SETM disciplines. Well, no wonder most people who are smart enough to handle the material aren't willing to endure years of that crap, when they can switch disciplines and then actually get to use their brains as more than a high capacity hard drive. Or, so I see it anyway.

[Flixy]

We do offer some fun, "look at us blow shit up" courses

We had a decently sized tesla coil presentation for Electromagnetics 1

We've spent the past few years trying to make freshmen courses more accessible mostly by improving the TA sessions; we spend more time showing examples and trying to encourage students to solve problems within the session over blithely prattling the correct answers to the previous set of home-work exercises. But that's simply shifting the focus of the more hands-on teaching, the kids still have to learn what the fuck it is we're trying to show them, and that explicitly involves having them do it by themselves, no matter how dry or boring it is. I can't make an integral sign blow students no matter how hard I try.

That's what they do here. It helps a lot of students, but there's still a high number of people who simply didn't expect that studying physics means 20+ hours a week of dry math.

For what it's worth, they are quite honest about it at my university, if you do poorly you get a talk from someone explaining how tough it is, and that if you're really not up for it, quitting may not be a bad idea. They also offer help on how to tackle the courses and pass them, of course, but if you don't do well at all in your first year they strongly recommend dropping out. And the student recruiting has a weird schism - on the one hand they want as many students to come to their university as possible, because that's good for them - but at the same time you do not want to encourage people who will drop out anyway.

There's plenty of cool shit you can do with calculus, why not give students a taste of it? The article is basically talking about giving students a chance to apply what they've learned as they're learning it. It seems to me that this would a) remind them why they're putting themselves through this stuff b) function as a reward mechanism c) reinforce what they've learned.

Alternatively, you could just make it into a MMORPG.

When the math gets abstract, there's not much of the plenty of cool shit you can do with it, as far as I know. It may have very useful and interesting applications, but those are usually a bit beyond the grasp of freshmen and would only make it even more complicated... I honestly wouldn't know how to make our freshmen year math any more interesting than they made it now.

[Aimless]

A) That still entails teaching them the technical details, which many students find "boring".

Of course, like I said it's not a substitute (although you may perhaps put some of the responsibility on the students to learn the boring stuff in order to solve the problem).

B) It takes far more time, which means less material gets covered.

I agree that it takes more resources such as time (both from teachers and from students), but why does that necessarily mean less material gets covered? Pick a sufficiently complex problem that necessitates covering the material you want covered, shape the discussion to cover the deeper understanding and reflection or what have you.

For the record, there are some unis that manage to use the PBL concept to teach eg parts of their physics curriculum, eg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHhWWhl1Zd8

Hell, I've been trying to teach the class I'm TAing some basic stats (really basic) for the last several weeks through numerous examples they can relate to. It's been a massive time sink. I finally get most of them to understand the most basic concepts in the time I could have taken to teach 2-3 weeks worth of material.

I gotta admit, this (to me) doesn't sound like PBL. I'm not trying to pull some sort of "no true scotsman", I'm just saying it doesn't sound like we're talking about the same things. I did google "PBL statistics" and there seems to be some material on it at least, although I couldn't find examples of unis that have committed to a PBL approach in that area.

[LittleFuzzy]

How do you teach Calculus in a way that's more engaging? And if you try, would you cover as much information?

The traditional way, which I know some programs do, is teach courses tailored to their content. So there's a "practical calculus for biology," a 2-semester sequence on economic analysis tools which is pretty much just teaching calculus, the math department's own offering, etc.

[Loki]

Of course, like I said it's not a substitute (although you may perhaps put some of the responsibility on the students to learn the boring stuff in order to solve the problem).

And what do you do when most of them come to class woefully unprepared to do just that?

I agree that it takes more resources such as time (both from teachers and from students), but why does that necessarily mean less material gets covered? Pick a sufficiently complex problem that necessitates covering the material you want covered, shape the discussion to cover the deeper understanding and reflection or what have you.

That presupposes a lot of basic knowledge. Getting students to grasp that basic information is the hard part. It simply isn't possible to do a complex problem unless there's a solid understanding of the basics. In your video, the students are expected to go home, do the readings, and know how to relate that reading to the problem being given. What do you do when your students don't do the reading? Or don't have the ability or willingness to apply that reading to your problem? In order for this method to work, you already need people who are motivated and interested in the subject matter.

The traditional way, which I know some programs do, is teach courses tailored to their content. So there's a "practical calculus for biology," a 2-semester sequence on economic analysis tools which is pretty much just teaching calculus, the math department's own offering, etc.

It still requires you to learn some Calculus before it could be applied to biology. Someone who's willing and able to learn the "some" isn't the one who's going to have much of a problem learning the rest. We have an undergrad poli sci methods class here, and there is simply no way to get to the application until the students grasp the basics. And from what I've heard, the latter simply doesn't happen for most students.

[Aimless]

And what do you do when most of them come to class woefully unprepared to do just that?

Well, we have lectures, time set aside for group-work, time with supervisors and TAs, a final discussion of the case or problem being focused on, and, finally, an exam. And we don't get to continue until we pass. It's not as elegant a solution as stressing students out until they quit but it has a similar flavour I suppose.

If the faculty and the students aren't committed to the approach then of course it's going to fail. The objections you raise against PBL in this post can be raised against pretty much any approach to teaching and examination. They are challenges, not a knock-down arguments.

That presupposes a lot of basic knowledge. Getting students to grasp that basic information is the hard part. It simply isn't possible to do a complex problem unless there's a solid understanding of the basics. In your video, the students are expected to go home, do the readings, and know how to relate that reading to the problem being given. What do you do when your students don't do the reading? Or don't have the ability or willingness to apply that reading to your problem? In order for this method to work, you already need people who are motivated and interested in the subject matter.

This is true and no doubt much of PBL's popularity comes from a strong selection. Another important aspect of PBL is helping students become proficient at PBL. As for motivation, there are limits to how much faculty can do, but motivation isn't exactly a static, monolithic and untouchable thing!

Re. solving problems without the basics, the idea is of course to use the problem to learn and understand the concepts and vice versa. You can have lectures alongside the group-work and self-study. Students who just can't cut it, well, perhaps you'll have to fail them.

[Aimless]

Btw, iirc you're forced to teach a lot of students things they really don't want (or possibly need?) to learn, aren't you? I imagine this makes your situation a pretty difficult one with few fantastic solutions.

[Loki]

If the faculty and the students aren't committed to the approach then of course it's going to fail. The objections you raise against PBL in this post can be raised against pretty much any approach to teaching and examination. They are challenges, not a knock-down arguments.

Except if you apply this method in average situations, you not only fail to get any of the benefits, but you're also paying all of the costs.

This is true and no doubt much of PBL's popularity comes from a strong selection. Another important aspect of PBL is helping students become proficient at PBL. As for motivation, there are limits to how much faculty can do, but motivation isn't exactly a static, monolithic and untouchable thing!

It also seems to entail having a class of 10 people, whom the instructor can help individually. Good luck doing that when you have 30.

Re. solving problems without the basics, the idea is of course to use the problem to learn and understand the concepts and vice versa. You can have lectures alongside the group-work and self-study. Students who just can't cut it, well, perhaps you'll have to fail them.

That's not how the American university system works. The median grade in the social sciences is a B+ (it's B in the hard sciences). The only consistent method of getting students to do their readings is to quiz them on those readings (or require brief assignments) every week, and the students absolutely loathe doing that. Being incapable of helping your group during group-work doesn't seem to deter people from being lazy.

Btw, iirc you're forced to teach a lot of students things they really don't want (or possibly need?) to learn, aren't you? I imagine this makes your situation a pretty difficult one with few fantastic solutions.

Is there anything that students really need or want to learn? *shrug* It's probably easier to get people interested in war than in difference equations. And we do bring up moral questions, because the median student finds it easier to relate to those. But then those same students are incapable of applying the things they just read or heard to those "interesting" moral questions. I've actually ran some regressions to see if the problem comes from people being unfamiliar with the information or not knowing how to approach the readings, but being a poli sci major or a junior/senior had no effect on test scores.

[Dreadnaught]

God fucking damn it Loki, I get a dirty, tingly feeling when I agree with you and you're doing it again

Dread, given the opener you gave to the thread I'm struggling to think of a response that isn't offensive to you! These things are meant to be hard. You have to be able to do it, and the only way to learn is by sweating it out. Alternatively, be born highly gifted. The latter option is available to a smaller percentage of the population than the one holding the vast majority of US wealth atm.

Given that no one (sane) does just a bachelor's in science here, I feel like I can venture into personal land as well: Do you know how fucking awfully frustrating it is to talk to someone who's ostensibly either your peer or something close, but they just don't have a fucking clue? I am not exceptionally gifted and yet all too often I run into people who've braided their cerebral ass-hole shut. And I'm not including the freshmen students into this calculation!

It's too bad the US doesn't have a functioning vocational schooling system, with their own higher equivalents who could absorb some of the fuck-nuts trying to become a lab tech with a bachelor's in STEM, or whatever the fuck these kids think they're doing (from what I hear, good luck getting to be a tech without a master's). But I doubt the ideal solution is dumbing everything down for Jimmy-too-dumb-or-lazy to learn the indefinite integral!

We do offer some fun, "look at us blow shit up" courses, but certainly you understand that these can't be the majority or even the plurality of one's mid-level higher education. And at some point you have to make the student go through all the "dry, tough" stuff.

Except I already sorta pre-agreed with Loki in the opening.

But I have two issues, one of which you address-

1) Students are being denied basic technical knowledge that they could and should get from a university. Any college student can take a intermediate-level history course. While they won't have some foundational knowledge, they will learn something and be able to pass. The same can't be said for many technical and science courses.

Obviously there's a reason for this. The study of history shares very little with the study of biology except copious amounts of reading. Still, I think it's incumbent on educators to find ways to make certain technical subjects more accessible.

Everyone benefits from some level of technical education. Call it vocational courses if you will (well, you did). Those kinds of vocational courses should be part of a university curriculum. It's crazy that students can get high-falutin degrees but not know how a cellphone or internal combustion engine works.

2) As I said, in general I agree the difficulty of science courses helps weed out people who may not be fit for the sciences. But that potentially excludes people who may simply be great at various aspects of the sciences, yet doesn't have the best instincts in certain areas.

Personally, I was great at biology up to a point. I did lab work with professors that they used for the publication machine. I was like a sponge for some information. But I hit a crippling stumbling block when it came to the kind of memorization and abstractions of organic chemistry. And perhaps that stuff is crucial, except sometimes I think it seems silly to assume a common stumbling block means a biology curriculum is doing the right thing.

The Einstein medical school here in NY actually has a program which specifically admits non-science/humanities majors into medical school. I've heard most end up doing quite well, and the program is highly competitive.

This doesn't mean the current model is fundamentally broken. But I think it does mean our academic structure may be too rigid.

[Khendraja'aro]

Except if you apply this method in average situations, you not only fail to get any of the benefits, but you're also paying all of the costs.
It also seems to entail having a class of 10 people, whom the instructor can help individually. Good luck doing that when you have 30.

There are several methods to do problem based learning - and the point of PBL is that it creates a "hands off"-approach for the teacher who is relegated to moderator status.

While PBL is not the end-it-all, it has been shown that a change of learning methods is a good thing. A teacher who has four to five different methods under his belt is more efficient than one who does only one or two - it works in the other direction, too, though. Too many methods become detrimental again (for whatever reason).

So, please don't scoff against teaching methods until you've tried them for yourself. And tried them honestly, not with an attitude of "this will never work".

[earthJoker]

Some aspects simply are difficult to provide good applications for you can easily relate to - I'd have to think hard to find a non-abstract application for the Taylor Series, for example.

Well, to be able to calculate a sinus value (within a certain area) without actually having to use a sinus is non-abstract enough for me. Of course, then you have to teach first, why it is a good thing if you don't have to use trigonometric functions in your calculations.

[CitizenCain]

And what do you do when most of them come to class woefully unprepared to do just that?

That presupposes a lot of basic knowledge. Getting students to grasp that basic information is the hard part. It simply isn't possible to do a complex problem unless there's a solid understanding of the basics. In your video, the students are expected to go home, do the readings, and know how to relate that reading to the problem being given. What do you do when your students don't do the reading? Or don't have the ability or willingness to apply that reading to your problem? In order for this method to work, you already need people who are motivated and interested in the subject matter.

Well, maybe the problem is that you're getting dumdums who go to college because daddy pays for it and not out of any aptitude or desire. With practically everyone going to college these days, you're bound to see a lot of that, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily the case with SETM students - those geeky subjects tend to appeal to geeks (weird), who are generally well above average in terms of both aptitude and desire for knowledge.

[Loki]

Well, maybe the problem is that you're getting dumdums who go to college because daddy pays for it and not out of any aptitude or desire. With practically everyone going to college these days, you're bound to see a lot of that, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily the case with SETM students - those geeky subjects tend to appeal to geeks (weird), who are generally well above average in terms of both aptitude and desire for knowledge.

While that might certainly apply to some, I do teach at a public college, one that also happens to be in the top 50 of the country. This is also a college with an engineering specialty, so the people here aren't exactly dumb. As I mentioned earlier, people have a warped idea of what the subject entails, and many get disappointed when they find out that it actually requires work and isn't just about BSing. It doesn't seem the poli sci majors are any more interested in the subject matter either.

[Nessus]

Everyone benefits from some level of technical education. Call it vocational courses if you will (well, you did). Those kinds of vocational courses should be part of a university curriculum. It's crazy that students can get high-falutin degrees but not know how a cellphone or internal combustion engine works.

I'm not really convinced it's the job of universities to do this, but I suppose this is a cultural difference.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm not really convinced it's the job of universities to do this, but I suppose this is a cultural difference.

No, I don't think it's cultural. I don't know that I really agree with Dread either, though I suppose his view and my take on the importance of a generally well-rounded education *achieved by general education requirements or something else* might overlap. By the same token, the fact that you and Illusions both see one of the purposes of university programs to be driving out "unsuitable" students, something which strikes me as incredibly counter to the prime purpose of education and teaching is plainly not a cultural difference between us but rising from some other set of expectations and conceptions. Or maybe it is cultural, in a sense I don't really think of or use when I see the word.

[earthJoker]

Well I think it depends on the alternatives you provide to universities how selective you can be there. In my course only 30% of the starting students made it over the second year. And this doesn't include those that found out that they joined the wrong study by themselves. But I knew I can always join a Fachhochschule (University of Applied Sciences) if I drop out.

[Ominous Gamer]

No, I don't think it's cultural. I don't know that I really agree with Dread either, though I suppose his view and my take on the importance of a generally well-rounded education *achieved by general education requirements or something else* might overlap. By the same token, the fact that you and Illusions both see one of the purposes of university programs to be driving out "unsuitable" students, something which strikes me as incredibly counter to the prime purpose of education and teaching is plainly not a cultural difference between us but rising from some other set of expectations and conceptions. Or maybe it is cultural, in a sense I don't really think of or use when I see the word.

While in college, Calculus (not sure about 2 anymore) was a required class for just about every student. It was well known, between the students and teachers, that the main purpose it served was to weed out the students who did not have the self control, the discipline, to manage under the heavier, or more focused, workloads of the later classes.

I don't think thats the best way to go about things (especially the sink or swim without corrective support), but it is something that needs done at one point, and sooner rather than later.

[Flixy]

No, I don't think it's cultural. I don't know that I really agree with Dread either, though I suppose his view and my take on the importance of a generally well-rounded education *achieved by general education requirements or something else* might overlap. By the same token, the fact that you and Illusions both see one of the purposes of university programs to be driving out "unsuitable" students, something which strikes me as incredibly counter to the prime purpose of education and teaching is plainly not a cultural difference between us but rising from some other set of expectations and conceptions. Or maybe it is cultural, in a sense I don't really think of or use when I see the word.

Over here we have 'coleges' that are higher education, but not universities. Less scientific, more vocational. Also less boring in the dry maths area for physics, a lot of people who drop out finish physics there. You still get a Bachelor's there, it's just valued differently from a university one (because ours are scientific, theirs are applied). it's maybe a bit hard to explain, but for example, the researchers here have the university degrees, the lab techs have the vocational college degree. Their maths classes are more practical, ours are more abstract. etc., etc. They end up, for physics, with a Bachelor in Engineering (B Eng), or possibly Bachelor in Applied Science (BASc), we end up with a Bachelor of Science (BSc), which are different. Academic bachelor's are also more aimed at preparation to a Master's degree, professional bachelor's are aimed at getting a job. Universities are aimed at top students, so they'd rather have a lot of dropouts (possibly by weeding them out) than to lower the curriculum. Which is presumably also why our degrees are valued highly, abroad as well.

..I hope this makes somewhat sense.

[Nessus]

No, I don't think it's cultural. I don't know that I really agree with Dread either, though I suppose his view and my take on the importance of a generally well-rounded education *achieved by general education requirements or something else* might overlap. By the same token, the fact that you and Illusions both see one of the purposes of university programs to be driving out "unsuitable" students, something which strikes me as incredibly counter to the prime purpose of education and teaching is plainly not a cultural difference between us but rising from some other set of expectations and conceptions. Or maybe it is cultural, in a sense I don't really think of or use when I see the word.

The only reason someone (sensible) would take even an undergrad course in physics in a Finnish university would be their desire to work in a field that does research or development in the natural sciences. I doubt we have a single humanities major in our freshman class right now, but I'm not certain enough to propose a wager to you. (I could find out, though) This is kind of what I mean by the cultural difference, our educational systems are designed and built rather differently. If one wants to be a journalist, they go to a vocational, I guess "college" could be an acceptable term?, for a journalism degree. They don't go to uni to faff off getting a "rounded education", majoring in English lit or what have you. And so on.

The "culling" that so alarmed you is exactly because we want, out of our freshmen, the people we're interested in training into experts in their field of choice within the faculty.

[Dreadnaught]

I believe in well-rounded educations, and that includes technical knowledge for those who may not pursue technical fields. Scientists aren't expected to be totally ignorant of history.

If a well-rounded education is the goal, it's incumbent on educators to figure out a way to put more technical education into a university curriculum that is accessible to people who aren't dedicated to those particular fields of study. I don't think education should be an insiders game. Though I see what you mean, this may in fact be a cultural thing to some extent.

On a related note...

EDUCATION | NOVEMBER 9, 2011

Generation Jobless: Students Pick Easier Majors Despite Less Pay

By JOE LIGHT And RACHEL EMMA SILVERMAN

Biyan Zhou wanted to major in engineering. Her mother and her academic adviser also wanted her to major in it, given the apparent career opportunities for engineers in a tough job market.

But during her sophomore year at Carnegie Mellon University, Ms. Zhou switched her major from electrical and computer engineering to a double major in psychology and policy management. Workers who majored in psychology have median earnings that are $38,000 below those of computer engineering majors, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data by Georgetown University.

"My ability level was just not there," says Ms. Zhou of her decision. She now plans to look for jobs in public relations or human resources.

Ms. Zhou's dilemma is one that educators, politicians and companies have been trying to solve for decades amid fears that U.S. science and technology training may be trailing other countries. The weak economy is putting those fears into deeper relief.

Time will tell if the poor job market persuaded more students to push into disciplines such as engineering and science. Although the number of college graduates increased about 29% between 2001 and 2009, the number graduating with engineering degrees only increased 19%, according to the most recent statistics from the U.S. Dept. of Education. The number with computer and information-sciences degrees decreased 14%. Since students typically set their majors during their sophomore year, the first class that chose their major in the midst of the recession graduated this year.

Research has shown that graduating with these majors provides a good foundation not just for so-called STEM jobs, or those in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields, but a whole range of industries where earnings expectations are high. Business, finance and consulting firms, as well as most health-care professions, are keen to hire those who bring quantitative skills and can help them stay competitive.

For 22-year-old Ms. Zhou, from Miami, the last straw was a project for one of her second-year courses that kept her and her partner in the lab well past midnight for several days. Their task was to program a soda machine. Though she and her partner managed to make it dispense the right items, they couldn't get it to give the correct change.

To avoid getting an "incomplete" for the course, Ms. Zhou withdrew before the lab ended. Since switching majors she has earned almost straight A's instead of the B's and C's she took home in engineering.

Students who drop out of science majors and professors who study the phenomenon say that introductory courses are often difficult and abstract. Some students, like Ms. Zhou, say their high schools didn't prepare them for the level of rigor in the introductory courses.

Overall, only 45% of 2011 U.S. high-school graduates who took the ACT test were prepared for college-level math and only 30% of ACT-tested high-school graduates were ready for college-level science, according to a 2011 report by ACT Inc.

"If you haven't been given the proper foundation early on, you fall farther and farther behind as the material gets more difficult. It's discouraging, demoralizing," says Claus von Zastrow, the chief operating officer and director of research at Change the Equation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit group that seeks to improve science and math education. It has led professors to anticipate the high levels of attrition.

"I get direct emails from a handful of students who say, 'I struggled in this class. I realize that I'm not cut out to be a [computer science] major,' " says professor Adam Klivans, who teaches an introductory math and computer science class at the University of Texas, Austin.

Science classes may also require more time—something U.S. college students may not be willing to commit. In a recent study, sociologists Richard Arum of New York University and Josipa Roksa of the University of Virginia found that the average U.S. student in their sample spent only about 12 to 13 hours a week studying, about half the time spent by students in 1960. They found that math and science—though not engineering—students study on average about three hours more per week than their non-science-major counterparts.

Educators have tried to tackle the attrition problem with new programs that they say make engineering more accessible. In 2003, Georgia Institute of Technology split its introductory computer-science class into three separate courses. One was geared toward computer science majors, another to engineering majors, and a third to liberal arts, architecture and management majors. The liberal arts course cut down on computer-science theory in favor of practical tasks like using programming to manipulate photographs, says computer science professor Mark Guzdial. Since the switch, about 85% of students pass, he says.

Meanwhile, only a third of science and engineering college graduates actually take jobs in science and tech fields, according to a 2007 study by Georgetown University professor B. Lindsay Lowell and Rutgers University professor Hal Salzman.

That may partly be because the jobs don't pay enough to attract or retain top graduates. Science, technology, engineering and math majors who stay in a related profession had average annual earnings of $78,550 in 2009, but those who decided to go into managerial and professional positions made more than $102,000, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

"If you're a high math student in America, from a purely economic point of view, it's crazy to go into STEM," says Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown center.

Some science and math graduates also say they would rather channel their analytical skills into fields that pay higher and seem less tedious. Charles Mokuolu, 23, graduated from Georgia Tech in 2010 with a civil-engineering degree, and now heads the finance club at Duke University's master of engineering management program. He recently secured a business-strategy job in the commercial leadership program of a large global manufacturing company.

After interning at an engineering firm, "I realized that although I did enjoy learning about all this cool stuff and doing math problems that no one else could solve, it's not something I wanted long term as a career," he says.

Write to Rachel Emma Silverman at rachel.silverman@wsj.com and Joe Light at Joe.Light@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...798573518.html