Posted on 09/28/2022 5:33:33 AM PDT by devane617
A new paper in PNAS Nexus, published by Oxford University Press, indicates that minority students who earn low grades in introductory science, technology, engineering, and math classes are less likely to earn degrees in these subjects than similar white students.
There is a persistent disparity in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education outcomes in the United States. In 2018, women earned 58% of bachelor's degrees, but only 36% of STEM bachelor's degrees. In 2017, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people comprised 30% of the U.S. population, and 34% of STEM-intending incoming college students, yet they earned only 18% of actual undergraduate STEM degrees. This has implications for the diversity of STEM professions as well as for the range of research and innovation in such fields.
Students interested in such subjects typically take introductory courses like calculus or general chemistry during their first semester. Colleges may offer such courses in part with the goal of sending a message to students who receive low grades that they should pursue other fields of study. Previous research has established an association between low performance in these courses and a decreased probability of obtaining a STEM degree. However, this association may not be neutral regarding gender and race. Being assigned a low grade in introductory STEM courses might have a greater negative impact on women and racial/ethnic minorities.
Researchers examined records from 109,070 students from six large, public, research-intensive universities between 2005 and 2012, to assess whether low grades in these introductory courses disproportionately impact underrepresented minority students. The investigators studied the records of student performance in introductory courses in physical sciences, life sciences, mathematical and computational sciences, and engineering to discern the likelihood of students earning degrees in these subjects.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
Anyone getting into a big time university is pretty much required to have a ton of AP classes to get in now. Maybe there are some affirmative action set asides spots for kids that don’t have a great resume.
So most of the truly qualified kids getting in for STEM already have credit for calculus, chemistry and far more. I suspect anyone taking calculus as a freshman is either a) trying to prop up their GPA with a guaranteed A or b) didn’t take the hardest curriculum in high school.
For those in the (b) group, it shouldn’t be a surprise if they struggle.
Also - these are not “weed out” courses. Calculus is the basis for the math required of any engineering student.
“Are we supposed to force women (or any group) into certain areas all for the name of “equity”?”
Not force, but lower standards until “equitable” outcomes are achieved. It’s truly irrational, but that’s the way the social Justice warriors think.
So you can have a program or law that treats everyone the same regardless of sex or race, but if there’s disparate impact, i.e. a difference in outcome, that program must be racist or misogynistic. The only exception is for white males. If they are underrepresented, no one cares.
“How introductory courses deter minority students from STEM degrees”
You mean like...Intro Math and Intro English?
My favorite class.
My favorite class.
I know this sounds like typical leftwing whining, but it’s not.
It’s a common practice to require “gatekeeping” courses, designed to keep students who lack the rigor to succeed in STEM out of STEM programs. (Often, Calculus or Organic Chemistry) OK, fine, you don’t want resources from either the student or the university being wasted on failure. But here’s the thing...
It’s not at all uncommon for students to retake the gatekeeper courses until they pass, or even to go back and retake a gatekeeper course. And frankly, some professors simply try to scare students off with terrible grades.
I’m a white male, but mine is a case study which applies to a LOT of women and minorities:
I took a Calculus class where on my first test, I got the correct answer on all ten questions, and still got a 20%. Three weeks into the course, I could still withdraw and avoid an “F”... or an identically harmful “WF.” I didn’t need the full Calculus sequence for my major (biology), so I took “Survey of Calculus” instead. Turns out all those bad test scores were a bluff by the professor: as long as you got an 80 on the final, you got a B- for the course.
The syllabus did not say this. The kids who were friends or study-buddies with Physics, Chemistry or Comp-Sci majors knew this about the course. I didn’t. I took AP to avoid Chemistry and Physics, so I wasn’t in those study groups.
By implication, I was lied to. According to what was put in the syllabus, I needed a 92 average average to pull my average to what was acceptable for the major (80). And I had just gotten a 20 on the first test, so that seemed unlikely.
The math department’s gatekeeping doesn’t scare off those lacking intelligent, but those lacking confidence, those who weren’t part of the right clique, those with academic-performance-based scholarships, those whose circle of friends tend to not be STEM-type students.
Not for me. Just didn’t seem that way. But then, maybe the community college was so successful in “maturing” me for learning (as well as actually wanting me to learn rather than just counting on gifted individuals to raise THEIR profile) that the university uppers didn’t seem so bad if I just spent the time on them.
That’s my opinion, anyway!
I blame race-baiters like Jesse and Al.
They fill these kids heads with ideas that every setback is because "the Man" is trying to keep the down, so they view everything as racist. Low scores are viewed the same way, so instead of trying harder, they just attribute it to racism and stop trying, or at least stop trying to work harder.
If someone can not pass an introductory course why would you think they will pass courses much harder?
I hate the fact we can’t edit what we wrote.
“The math department’s gatekeeping doesn’t scare off those lacking intelligent”
I meant those lacking intelligence.
This and a few other mistakes undercut my claims.
That’s my point. The intro classes prepare one for the rigor of the upper classes. If you don’t grasp the material at the lower level, the upper level classes will be even harder.
For instance, fluid dynamics is far harder than the first few semesters of calculus.
He doesn't care if:
The plane he is riding on has a design flaw and crashes.
The building he is in collapses.
The bridge he is on collapses.
The electronic device he is using catches on fire.
The car he is in catches on fire and locks him in.
His water and sewer system malfunctions.
His electricity supply is unreliable.
Etc.... Etc..... Etc.
Read post 66. I directly address the very reasonable seeming, yet false presumption underlying your question.
Grading on a curve always seemed wrong to me, even when it was to my advantage. A grade should reflect a student’s mastery of the course material, nothing more. How other students might have performed is irrelevant.
You are right, Cuban leaf, although it (races and sexes have different strengths) must never be said, or you’ll risk being cancelled. It should be obvious (and probably is), that the races and sexes have significantly different physical attributes. You can literally see all sorts of physical differences, yet we are supposed to believe, without any evidence, that those differences are only skin deep, that all minds have equal potential?
Here’s a radical thought: maybe women and minorities are underrepresented in STEM, because they just don’t generally have a knack for it. Lest I offend anyone, I am not saying women and minorities cannot excel at STEM. They most assuredly can and do, but maybe just not in the exact same percentage as white males or Asians.
Of course, in fields where exact answers matter, professors will want to reward exactness, and departments and colleges will want to make their "brand" the best, but the students see things differently.
The generation of engineers that is passing from the scene was tougher and wasn't crushed by getting C's, but the culture has changed and those days aren't going to come back any time soon.
How in the world could an instructor justify that? Penmanship?
I earned my engineering degrees at MIT many decades ago.
I was usually one of the few white persons, and I am more taupe. Mainly East Asian. Smart whites went to law school across the street at that liberal arts college.
Plenty of smart blacks in the classes. Not a one was from the USA, though.
By the time I changed my major to public accounting, I was already behind on the path to graduating in 4 years. That necessitated taking 21 hours 3 of my last 4 semesters. Had I not done that, I would have entered the Army as a Spec 4, instead of being commissioned as a 2nd LT...lol.
For all that hard work, instead of commanding a desk as a Finance Corps officer, the Army assigned me to Air Defense Artillery. Actually, that worked out quite well, had a great assignment in Germany, spent my last year and a half as the Battalion Supply Officer (S-4).
Or, perhaps there is an intellectual deficit on top of plain old laziness
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.