In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Foreword One of the distinguishing features of higher education in the United States is the frequency with which college students change their major fields of study. While undergraduates in most other countries of the world pretty much stick with their initial courses of study as they prepare for particular types of professions or careers, many American college students earn their degrees in a field other than the one in which they originally intended to major. When we compare the initial major field choices of entering college freshmen in the United States with the fields in which they actually graduate, the big “losers” are what have come to be known as the “STEM” fields (science, technology , engineering, and mathematics). In other words, many fewer students end up earning degrees in STEM fields than initially intended to pursue a course of study in such fields when they started college. This “flight” from science and math actually begins well before college. Studies of middle and high school students have shown a steadily declining interest in math and science as students progress through the grades. As far as sheer numbers of college students are concerned, the biggest “loser” among the various STEM fields is engineering, in part because engineering is such a popular initial career choice among new freshmen. In fact, if it weren’t for all these engineering dropouts, net losses in fields like physics, math, and chemistry would be considerably larger, given that some of those who leave engineering end up majoring in other STEM fields. Most students who leave engineering, however, change to non-STEM fields like business, and since very few students switch into STEM fields from non-STEM fields during college , the large-scale picture is one of substantial overall losses for STEM— something approaching 50 percent. Net losses are even greater for women and for students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. x f o r e w o r d Opinions about the consequences of these trends are highly variable. Some observers believe that the substantial loss of students from the study of science and mathematics is not only inevitable but desirable: “These are very difficult and intellectually challenging fields, and it is important to weed out the less competent students to insure that only the smartest people are allowed to pursue careers in these fields.” Others see these losses as potentially catastrophic for our country’s businesses, industry, and educational system and as a threat to its global economic competitiveness. They also point out that the problems posed by this large-scale defection of students from the study of science are compounded by the fact that students in the United States have consistently performed below students in most other countries on tests of scientific and mathematical knowledge and competence. I happen to believe that these two issues are intimately related, that the failure to acquire scientific knowledge and to master mathematical concepts in the early school years will cause many students to avoid the study of STEM fields during the college years. And even among those students who manage to retain their interest in STEM careers until they begin college, marginal preparation in science and math increases the likelihood that they will become frustrated and discouraged with college-level STEM courses and switch to other fields. At the same time, when so many students abandon the study of science and math, we deplete our resources of STEM talent needed not just for research and development , but also for educating future generations of students in these fields. Why do these STEM losses happen? And why do our students perform so poorly in science and math when compared to students in other countries? Debates about these issues have typically pointed the finger at a dizzying array of “explanations”: poor teaching, poor teacher training, teachers unions, poorly designed curricula, poorly run schools, low teacher pay, tightfisted politicians, inadequate testing, poorly motivated students, inadequate parental supervision, and so on. In this path-breaking book, David Drew looks at all of these theories with a critical eye, drawing together the best evidence from a wide variety of sources into a comprehensive picture of why we find ourselves in this position and what we can and should do about it. Rather than relying on a single favorite explanation or solution, Drew convincingly outlines the full complexity of the problem and articulates a remedy that requires multiple strategies involving students, teachers, institutions, and policymakers. Readers may be surprised by...

Share