Charles Blow laments the low percentage of African American or women students seeking science degrees:
The Associated Press said in 2011 that “the percentage of African-Americans earning STEM degrees has fallen during the last decade†and that this was very likely a result of “a complex equation of self-doubt, stereotypes, discouragement and economics — and sometimes just wrong perceptions of what math and science are all about.â€
It continued: “Black people are 12 percent of the United States population and 11 percent of all students beyond high school. In 2009, they received just 7 percent of all STEM bachelor’s degrees, 4 percent of master’s degrees and 2 percent of Ph.D.s, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.â€
It doesn’t get better in the workplace. In a 2013 editorial, The New York Times pointed out: “Women make up nearly half the work force but have just 26 percent of science, technology, engineering or math jobs, according to the Census Bureau. Blacks make up 11 percent of the work force but just 6 percent of such jobs and Hispanics make up nearly 15 percent of the work force but hold 7 percent of those positions.â€
I think there are all sorts of reasons for this. Science is hard. If you’ve received a poor preparation for college, college science will be that much harder and people tend not to participate in activities in which they believe they will inevitably fail. Regardless of the advance press other than in healthcare and education there aren’t that many science jobs out there these days and it might be that African American or women students recognize this.
It might be prejudice as Mr. Blow suggests in his column.
It also might be that they just do not see jobs in science as a possibility for themselves. No role models. When most of the adults you’ve seen who have jobs have jobs as teachers, cops, firefighters, in fast food, or as retail clerks it’s not all that surprising that you wouldn’t think of a job in science.
I had one major objection to Mr. Blow’s column. When he writes “minorities” he appears to actually mean blacks. Off-hand I’d guess that if by minorities he meant Asians his conclusions about the proportions of students pursuing STEM degrees might be somewhat different.
When I was in college (and dinosaurs ruled the earth), out of a couple of hundred students in each year in the engineering school you could count the number of black or women students on the fingers of one hand. Apparently, despite all of the other changes that have occurred since then that hasn’t changed that much.
You don’t need the fingers of even one hand to count the number of STEM-savvy justices of SCOTUS and those of less than two hands to count the number of STEM-triained reps in COTUS.
We are ruled and represented by STEM-ignorami. A seldom mentioned disadvantage to pursuit of a STEM-career is that a very percentage of jobs are offered or controlled by that enemy of science–the US gummint. An advantage, however, especially for the nuclear or weapons scientist, is that it’s easy to find a job overseas.
I’ll note that when push came to shove, Blow chose to go as anti-STEM as possible and became a journalist. Most of the people lamenting people not going into STEM have decided to make their money doing other things. (I find it particularly annoying when ultra-wealthy financial types who made their fortunes gambling in the markets lament this trend in between driving up the price of mediocre art for prestige purposes.)
In these courses, the previous material keeps coming back up, and you are expected to know it. If you were struggling with Calculus but passed, you will probably have trouble with Thermodynamics. Nobody is going to hold your hand with the math.
The science is moving fast, and if you cannot keep up with the math, you will never be able to keep up with the science. Many courses have minimal math requirements, and it may take a year before you can start the freshman courses.
It becomes easier to change majors. Most of the courses will satisfy lower credit requirements, and you can get your business degree.
NOTE: This is not addressing anybody’s ability in a STEM curriculum. I am just noting that it is difficult in ways that many people may not realize. Also, start getting your child’s mind right early.
“Also, start getting your child’s mind right early.”
I think this is a potential issue. As a Gen-X parent, it seems like math courses are taught earlier and earlier. Some people are not ready, and if they aren’t ready in 7th grade, they may never get a chance to catch back up. And in some cases, the schools simply dumb down the math so that everybody is taking algebra in 7th grade, using the same book at different speeds. Instead of racing to have a course called “Algebra” for everyone at a set time, many students might better spend the time gaining more comfort and fluency with complex arithmetic.
As to the topic, I listened to a high school senior speak at a presentation on a gifted program, pretty much saying that you won’t make AP Calculus II in high school without enrolling. And then he started giving names of his classmates that had done well after attending the gifted program and they were all obviously Asian names. Is it genes? Is it authoritarian parenting? Culture? Whatever it is, I can understand how that can be off-putting for people of different backgrounds. Fortunately Calculus II isn’t that important.
@PD Shaw
I think that they are rushing a lot of these courses. I suspect that a lot of students will be struggling to keep up with a college physics course (STEM version).
One major component of high school should be learning how to be an adult. In my world, adulthood begins at 18 or graduation whichever comes later. At 18, you can be drafted, vote, go to big people’s prison, and should be able to legally drink.
Instead of Calculus II, they should have “Ethics” first semester and “How Not to Be a Bitch in Prison” second semester. This is one of those feedback mechanisms I am always talking about.
Only 10% of blacks have an IQ greater than 100 (the white average), and only 0.6% have an IQ greater than 115, the minimum needed to succeed in STEM.
Any STEM program with a black enrollment over 1% has a quota system and enrolls many unqualified blacks. You don’t want them in your group, but no one can tell you who the frauds are. Draw the obvious conclusion.
My high school math teacher (the two years of calculus) used to refer to “mathematical maturity”. Some people have it at an early age, some develop it later, some never do. The point is not every kid is ready to take calculus at 16. Even kids who would be ready at 18 might not be ready at 16.
bob sykes:
Adoption studies have suggested that environmental factors may play a part in that.
A point of pride for me in high school was CRUSHING the Asian kids in my geometry class. I was very, very good and exceptionally quick. I’d finish the tests much more quickly than anyone else and always had the best marks. And I slept in class! The teacher allowed that because it was apparent how good I was. (I overheard her tell another teacher that one day.)
Ah, good times!
I found this link interesting from the NEA on trends in higher math and science since 1990. Unsurprisingly, more of students are taking these courses, particularly at the higher level. Students receiving credit for HS calc increased from 7 to 16 percent. Gender racial breakdowns:
Male: 7.6% to 16.1%
Female: 5.6% to 15.7%
White: 6.9% to 17.5%
Black: 2.8% to 6.1%
Hispanic: 3.8% to 8.6%
Asian: 18.4% to 42.2%
That’s a pretty consistent increase with every group more than doubling its prior numbers, with different starting points.
The test scores, however, show gender/racial disparities:
“For graduates who had taken calculus, the average scale score was higher for males than for females (197 vs. 190). Average scale scores were also higher for students who had taken calculus who were Asian/Pacific Islander (203) and White (194) than for their Hispanic (179) and Black (170) peers. Among students who had taken calculus, the average scale score for those who had attended low-poverty schools . . . was 199, compared with a score of 163 for their peers at high-poverty schools .”
Poverty appears to be more important than “race” which is more important than gender.
Unfortunately due to test changes, we cannot do a chronological comparison at the 12th grade, but the 8th grade scores seem to be similar to the first dynamic — everybody is improving but with a different starting point:
Male: 263 to 285 (+1)
Female: 262 to 284 (+1)
White: 270 to 294 (+24)
Black: 237 to 263 (+26)
Latino: 246 to 272 (+26)
Asian: 275 to 309 (+34)
OK, so the Asian kids are improving a bit more, but generally speaking the performance gaps on race and poverty have slightly improved or in the case of gender stayed the same.
Comments:
How many jobs really need calculus? Certainly less than 16%. IIRC, most college degrees required calculus, though it might have a nickname like Calculus for poets. Is this thinning the herd?
If disadvantaged groups are improving, but so are non-disadvantaged groups, are there any palatable public policy options?
Averages can be misleading.
I think that the principles behind it are useful to know. Unfortunately, I’m guessing about 5% of those who study calculus understand the principles behind it.