editorially speaking
Evidence continues to accumulate sumesting that the weak link in undergraduate science education i s the faculty, the adrni~stration,and the collection of *principles" under which our current svstem of hieher education ooerates. The latest evidence is contamed in a preliminary reoort bv Nancv Hewitt and Elaine Sevmour. who attemot to iddress the question of why college students who havesufficient interest to enroll in basic. entrv-level courses in science, mathematics, or engineering ISME) switch out of these curricula (Science. October 18.1991). In their preliminary study, ~ewitt'andSeymour, who are from the University of Colorado's Bureau of Sociological Research, have followed 149 students who wereenrolled in entrv-level SME courses at four different colleees and universkies. They found that 61 members of this Fohort (41%) switched to the studv of other disciolines bv the end of their first year. lnte"restingly, this kgure is within the ranee (25-55%) reoorted earlier bv Kenneth Green a t UC~A based on his continuing studies of entering freshman, and it also approaches the NSF's estimate of 60% attrition. Since the NSF "pipeline-data" became available in the late 1980's, numerous commentators have suggested a variety of reasons for this high attrition rate. Faculty are prone to blame the students, arguing that educational weaknesses cause students to switch. Some faculty blame the attrition on factors over which they have little control-large classes and inadequate, and oRen badly outdated, laboratory facilities. Based on interviews with students in their study cohort, Hewitt and Sennour found that "the switchers and nonswitchers are essentially not two different kindsof people." They also found that the dension to switch or not to switch does not appear to result from differences between talented and untalented students, or between lazy and hardworking students. Hewitt and Seymour point out the obvious. Both switchers and non-switchers have a t least one factor common-the science faculty at their institutions. Several complaints common to the switchers emereed in the interviews: ooor teachine and the lack of approachability on the part'of faculty, who don't seem to have much time for undereraduates. The main difference between the two gmups, according to the preliminary analysis, appears to be related to thew ability tocope with "sys-
-
tem problems", The non-switchers managed to cope, while the kitehers did not appear able to copcor to acquire the necessary skills sufficiently rapidly to do so. Indeed, system problems were of sufficient magnitude that 40% of the non-switchers were reported as "turned-off'to science by the experiences they had in their basic, entry-level SME courses. Perceived facultv attitudes about undereraduate teaching led 25% of the ion-switchers to believe that that courses in other majors were intrinsically more interesting than science, mathemathics, and engineering. A significant percentage of non-switchers also seemed to acquGe an aversion to the life styles associated with careers in SME. On the other hand, some problems frequently mentioned bv academic institutions and professional associations as c&es for students dropping out of SME were not cited by switchers. For examole. teachine bv teachine assis. . ooor & tants, language difficulty on the part-of"foreign-b& faculty and teaching assistants, large class size, and poor laboratory or mmputer facilities were not cited. The Hewitt and Seymour study contains echoes of Sheila Tobias' wmmentaw on the "second tier" students (see this column, volume 67, p 721, September 1990). More and more evidence is accumulating that there really is a serious problem with the current system of undergraduate education in the basic sciences, and that the attitudes of the people involved-faculty and administration-are the core of the oroblem. In other words. the facultv and the administration are emerging as the culprits. It is surely dimcult for all concerned to accept this conclusion, hut the sooner we do, the sooner we can engage constructivelp in developing the many options available to start solving these problems. Putting a very fine point on the argument focuses on the actions and attitudes of the faculty. A permissive faculty has allowed itself to be captured by its (legitimate) interest in research. It has allowed itself to be seduced by the administration. which finds an increasinglv local need for overhead funds to service operations that probably should be the responsibility of other, perhaps less easily obtained, funding sources. Somewhere the pattern that has developed over the past several decades must stop. If it can't, or won't, stop at the administration, it must stop a t the faculty. JJL
Volume 69 Number 3 March 1992
173
