editoridly /peaking Other Smart Students: An Untapped Resource Most of us are aware of the problems in the science education pipeline, specifically that only about 10,000 of the approx'hawly 4 million high school sophomores will e a r n a PhD in one of the natural sciences or engineering. TWOhasic nroblems have been described with reeard to this oineline. . The number of students entering the pipeline is derreasing, and the oioeline leaks. For examole. the demwraohics indicate th' iize of the college-agefrkshman pipuiation will decrease 25% by the mid 1990's. In addition somewhere between one half and one third of the college freshmen who indicate an interest in science leave science well into their major. Although a number of initiatives have been described that address different aspects of these two general pipeline problems, i t would appear possible to providk almost immediate (at least partial) alleviation in one of these areas-the loss of science maiors a t the colleee " level. ~uccesafulscie&emajors have been typically described as verv talented.. sinele-minded. and hiehlv comoetitive. Thev ~" are, in a sense, teacher-proof, curriculum-proof, and classroom-culture-oroof. Thev will learn no matter how a course is taught. ~ h e i e presuiably, , are the characteristics of the less than 1% of students who "survive" our undereraduate science education curriculum to earn a PhD degree. But what about the remainder, especially those students who started as science majors but switched to other disciplines? Most of these were sufficiently capable to achievea degreein another discipline. Sheila Tobias in her recent book entitled They're Not Dumb, They're Different published by the Research Cor~oration.nresents an interestine and informative analysis o f t h e ch&&teristics of students'who chose not to comolete their studies in science. These students Tobias calls the "second tier". This designation is not meant to suggest they are less able, they are in the other group of smart students in the sense that they arecapable of earninga degree. Students learn in many different ways; teaching methods also vary. It's not surprisinz that mismatches can exist between common learning styles and traditional teaching styles. A variety of factors-a perceived need for "efficiency", a prioritization of resourc& away from the undergraduate effort, etc.-have dictated that, for the most part, the modern system of undergraduate education is to be expressed in one way, the lecture method. This focus, in effect, discriminates aeainst the "nonlecture"-oriented student. or. put another way, increases the likelihood that only the tradi: tional science student who is talented,. sinele-minded. and .. highly competitive will succeed. The problem at. handis to find ways for thenontraditional, potential sciencestudent to
.
~
-
-
succeed. This decision point should not be imagined as an "either-or" situation because the traditional science student can-and will-succeed in virtually any learning situation. Tobias's analysis of the second-tier students provides some insights into the characteristics of students who have the potential to be successful in the sciences. When teaching and learning mismatches occur, these students become bored and inattentive in class, they do poorly on tests, get discouraged about the courses, the curriculum, and themselves, and they change to other curricula or drop out of school. Some second-tier students don't reiect science per ae: rather, in Tobias's words, they reject the "culture of cbmpe: tition" that they perceive as an unavoidable aspect of undergraduate science-study. The environment (the culture) of many entry-level science courses lacks a sense of community. Elimination of most expressions of "love of the subject" and "intrinsic motivation in one's work" has reinforced the perception that such courses are hurdles to overcome (stressing extrinsic rewards like good grades) to get into other, more important courses that will get you into professional schools. Also, the lack of appropriate resources in entw-level science courses leads to the inaccessibility of teachers and to great tension in the classroom. Second-tier students are influenced in their choices bv a "system of advice" that is often remarkably unhelpful. S ~ U dents who have a particular skill or interest in science but have not made an-explicit commitment to science are frequently drawn away from science because no one seems t o care enoueh t o encouraee them. Moreover. eood students often fear;hat they cannot get a well-round& education if thev . maior . in science. a fear that is reinforced bv the realitv olsrience rurricula. These students are concerned that e a r 6 soecialization will lead to narrowness and intellectual infiexibility. Most students perceive an "inherent difference" between the sciences and the nonsciences. The nonsciences are perceived, particularly by students who switch out of science, as more self-expressive, more personal and personally relevant, more creative, more understanding-oiiented, and more "synthetic" than the sciences. Such students often don't stay idscience long enough to experience the creativity of the science disciplines. If second-tier students are to become an important component of the solution to the pipeline problem, they need more attention, they need more information, and they need more support than the present system offers. The sciences must rearrange their priorities and their resources t o engage JJL these students better.
Volume 67
Number 9
September 1990
721
