By Aliza Feldman
As a non pre-med biology major at Stern College for Women, I often have to justify my choice for choosing to pursue a STEM education. I usually respond with something like: “I don’t know, maybe I’ll go into research.” But, the real answer is that I’m undecided about my future career path. I chose biology because I enjoy the critical thinking and problem solving involved in science. In other words, I think science is cool. However, throughout my time at Stern, it has become increasingly clear to me that my love and passion for science has no place in the Stern biology department.
During my first year, I kept up with my classes and I had no problem staying on top of my work. But, as I moved on to chemistry the following year, I struggled with the extremely fast pace of the class and the large volume of material covered each lecture. Despite my efforts, I began to fall behind.
I constantly doubted my abilities and intelligence because of my grades, assuming that I had some internal incompetence that made me unfit for the class. But, as I looked around, I realized that I was not the only one who felt this way. When I expressed my frustrations to an older student, she sympathized with me. “Yeah” she agreed. “Chemistry is supposed to be a weed out class.”
It finally hit me why it felt like my success in chemistry class was nearly impossible. Of course I was collapsing under the pressure. That is exactly the intended goal of the course. Foundational STEM classes in colleges throughout the U.S., namely: biology, chemistry, physics and organic chemistry courses are intentionally designed to be extremely demanding of students and are often graded stringently, resulting in much lower GPAs than in other types of courses. These courses aim to isolate the most academically inclined students pursuing a career path in medicine and prepare them for the heavy course load that awaits them in medical school.
The idea of weed out classes in an undergraduate setting disturbs me greatly for a number of reasons. Rather than cultivating a group of strong and smart students, the group of students who are the last standing are not the most intelligent among the class, but rather, those who are able to withstand mass amounts of academic pressure. They are those with good time management skills and determination. They are those who perhaps, gain enjoyment from participating in a kind of self torture.
There is a huge gap between our idea of STEM education for children and STEM education for high school and college level students. As you might remember, learning about science as a kid was fun. You might have been introduced to science by doing explosive chemistry experiments, making lava lamps, or watching caterpillar cocoons turn into butterflies. The message was clear: learning about the world around us is cool. But as we progressed to higher levels of education, science class turned into a hostile and competitive environment. Instead of learning science because it’s interesting or important, science class has become a platform for competition and stress.
Evidently, such classes create toxic learning environments that discourage students from asking insightful questions and engaging meaningfully with the material. Students end up labeling themselves as superior or inferior in relation to their peers. All you need to do is look around to see this trend playing out in Stern. Just ask any of your friends currently taking organic chemistry.
Even if this style of education does successfully produce good, hard working doctors, dentists and nurses, it is entirely medical school-centric. It doesn’t account for students such as myself who might be studying science out of a genuine curiosity and interest for the subject, or more generally, for those who will not be going on to medical school, dental school, or the like. Students who will never need to study for a standardized cumulative test like the MCAT are still forced to keep up with intense workloads and demanding curriculums.
Comparing the standards of STEM courses to the standards of humanities courses, such as English composition or history puts this into an even greater perspective. In my experience, teachers and professors of humanities courses aim to cultivate a true appreciation for the subject. Because the goal is to educate students, each student at their varying level of the subject matter is seen as an inherently valuable member of the class. Teachers are willing to help each one of them reach their subjective potential.
Yes, STEM classes will have an inherently more rigid curriculum and perhaps more difficult material to grasp, but the weed out perspective of the class means that teachers are less willing to help students who are struggling. It would be absurd to measure a student’s writing ability by seeing how fast they can produce an essay, but when it comes to STEM, potential is measured by seeing just how much students can take under immense pressure. STEM classes should be infused with the same sense of idealism and passion as other types of classes, and this needs to come from teachers and more broadly, from our educational institutions.
This rigorous educational style is harmful even to those participating in a medical school track. Besides the fact that these students are similarly impacted by the unhealthy high pressure environment, students in these tracks are so focused on raw grades that they circumvent learning about how and why things work the way they do (ie. the scientific process) by merely memorizing formulas and facts.
I would often study for my biology class with one of my peers; we would go over the material and quiz each other on it. I found that while I was trying to understand the material being taught, the interplay between different biological systems and the roles of each part of the cell, my study partner was looking for the fastest and easiest path to getting an A on the test. When she would get something wrong, I would try to explain the gap in her understanding, but she resisted this, trying to use memory tricks alone to get the facts straight. I see many of my peers using this same approach; many students can’t keep up with the rapid pace of the class and therefore try to shortcut their way to an A.
If the goal of STEM courses is to create student machines who will eventually become dedicated doctors and dentists, they clearly fail at inculcating students with the necessary knowledge of biological systems or chemical processes. Instead, students focus on acing multiple choice exams, prioritizing grades over gaining a deep understanding of the material. The students who survive these weed out classes may emerge with impressive GPAs, but they have bypassed genuine understanding for remote memorization.
As a non-premed science major, my journey through Stern’s science department has been a mix of self doubt and frustration. I chose biology because I love learning about science, not because I want to compete in an academic gladiatorial arena. My experiences have made me realize that our current approach to STEM education is deeply flawed, as it prioritizes endurance over curiosity, competition over collaboration, and stress over excitement and passion.
This isn’t just about making courses easier, it’s about making them more meaningful. It’s about creating an environment where students are encouraged to explore and engage with the material in a way that promotes a deeper understanding and appreciation for science. It’s about recognizing that science is not about weeding out the weak, but about fostering creative minds and critical thinkers.
To create better scientists, doctors, and thinkers, we need to go back to elementary school, when science was about curiosity, exploration and the excitement of discovery. That is when it will be an insightful educational experience, not a relentless race to the top.
Photo Caption: Materials in a Stern science lab
Photo Credit: Ashley Hefner / the YU Observer