<p>“Don’t they have someone recent to quote?”</p>
<p>All the BEST things occurred before automobiles, antibiotics and universal suffrage. (At least that’s what I hear on talk radio.)</p>
<p>So now we want to determine whether the goals of those getting an education are “worthy” of that education?</p>
<p>Honestly, some people here are in some rarified air. I know plenty of people who went to these schools, both from when I was young, and since I’ve been an adult. Some of them are really amazing people. Some? Not so much. </p>
<p>I know plenty of people who went to state universities. Some of them are really amazing people. Some? Not so much.</p>
<p>How the heck do you know what is valuable in an education? I mean, honestly. The education system is so far behind the times, they are still emphasizing writing over technology. By the time they realize that computer literacy is AS important as written language fluency and should be required for graduation, it will be too late and they will be needing to teach how to live on distant planets. Education is questionable, to some extent, as a tool of change. I mean, how many of our world’s dictators went to school in the West? </p>
<p>How many changed their minds and became George Washington’s? None.</p>
<p>[No</a>. 204: Millikan](<a href=“http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi204.htm]No”>No. 204: Millikan)</p>
<p>Covers the story of Millikan who was forced to become a physicist because “Anyone who can understand Greek can teach physics” and went onto win the Nobel Prize. In the good old days, all the philosophers were interested in every topic. These days, the colleges are turning out experts in some areas making them useless for anything else?</p>
<p>I happened upon this article while surfing the net. I thought it was approriate to the discusssion of mismatch. Many posters continuously state that urms drop out of STEM fields at elite colleges because of mismatch. The Yale News states…</p>
<p>The current retention rate in the sciences at U.S. colleges is less than 40 percent, said Jo Handelsman, a molecular, cellular and developmental biology professor who co-authored a White House report on improving undergraduate STEM education. Handelsman estimated in February that the rate at Yale is approximately the same.</p>
<p>For the record mismatch is occuring across all races, as minorities probably makeup a small percentage of overall STEM majors. </p>
<p>[Freshmen</a> show record interest in STEM fields | Yale Daily News](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/sep/06/freshmen-show-record-interest-in-stem-fields/]Freshmen”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/sep/06/freshmen-show-record-interest-in-stem-fields/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if the person doesn’t “do anything” more with the added-value of the elite education versus just enjoy it for self-enjoyment or self-improvement? Here’s an example - I took a phenomental Asian art history class in college. Let’s say for the sake of argument that it was a class that you could never find at an “average” school. But I haven’t used it other than for my own personal enjoyment, when traveling, when visiting museums and the like. Is that “wasted” since I haven’t produced some kind of treatise on Asian art that has revolutionized the art world?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t answer whether that’s a good or a bad number in isolation; that 40% is just a number. Maybe it’s good because the people without true science skills are being weeded out and only the strongest survive. Maybe it’s good because there are really a bunch of kids pushed into STEM who don’t want to be there and by the time they are in college, they’re able to stand up to their parents and head towards other majors. Maybe it’s bad because a lot of raw talent is being left on the table because there’s too much of a hazing philosophy at entry level courses that doesn’t need to be there. Point is, this isn’t a statement that is good or bad without diagnostics.</p>
<p>It seems this very excellent point by Quantmech was missed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>My point was that all races drop from STEM fields. Let’s not single out minorities. I agree there are many reasons why a student leaves the stem field. College is the opportunity to explore and hopefully find your passion.</p>
<p>I wasn’t singling out minorities at all. I was just saying that indeed, “dropping” from STEM isn’t a good or a bad thing without more context. If talented kids are dropping out because there’s too much harsh weeding going on, that’s bad. If kids are dropping out because they find other passions and only the most-interested are left, that’s a great thing.</p>
<p>It is impossible to predict the final outcome of for each student. The nurse starting out at Harvard College may find her passion in research. Who is to know. The journalist starting out may find community service to be the passion and end up running the Red Cross.</p>
<p>Right. Which gets back to – since you really can’t predict any one person’s actual life trajectory or impact, are elite schools obligated to try to suss that out to determine “worthiness” of admission? No, but that’s part of why they use holistic admissions – to try to identify people who have a spark of some sort, not just can-do-the-work-as-evidenced-by-2400-SAT’s.</p>
<p>^^Agree wholeheartedly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The drop-out rates differ substantially, consistent with what substantial differences in average SAT or ACT scores would predict:</p>
<p>[Degrees</a> of Success: Bachelors Degree Completion Rates among Initial STEM Majors](<a href=“http://www.heri.ucla.edu/nih/downloads/2010%20-%20Hurtado,%20Eagan,%20Chang%20-%20Degrees%20of%20Success.pdf]Degrees”>http://www.heri.ucla.edu/nih/downloads/2010%20-%20Hurtado,%20Eagan,%20Chang%20-%20Degrees%20of%20Success.pdf)</p>
<p>"White and Asian American students who started as STEM majors have four-year STEM degree completion rates of 24.5% and 32.4% respectively. In comparison, Latino, Black, and Native American students who initially began college as a STEM major had four-year STEM degree completion rates of 15.9%, 13.2%, and 14.0%, respectively.</p>
<p>I also think compassion/determination can not be determined by an SAT/ACT score. Those aspiring to serve the community can have a huge affect on society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because whites and Asians have completion rates of 25% and 32% respectively doesn’t mean that those are the “right” rates that other races should shoot for. Given the cultural pressures on many Asians to major in STEM (even when the student does not particularly want to), for all you know, 32% isn’t really a good number - it could reflect unhappy students slogging it away in STEM majors, which isn’t a good outcome either.</p>
<p>Beliavsky,</p>
<p>A 24.5% White completion compared to 15.9% Latino completion is not significant enough to deny Latino students an admission. Sorry, I just don’t see your point.</p>
<p>The real question…</p>
<p>Why are the completion rates so low for all races?</p>
<p>“A 24.5% White completion compared to 15.9% Latino completion is not significant enough to deny Latino students an admission. Sorry, I just don’t see your point.”</p>
<p>His point is that educating Latino’s to be doctors is less important than increasing the number of slots for racial groups that are already over- represented (from a population standpoint). Contorted logic I know, but there it is.</p>
<p>So now we want to determine whether the goals of those getting an education are “worthy” of that education?</p>
<p>Something right there, in that question, rings so close to what I value in education. The education/knowedge, the increased reasoning skills, the ability to analyze, even a tolerance for the lag time to understand to one’s satisfaction. And more. </p>
<p>PG’s example of the art class- my clearly non-math/sci oriented kid took astronomy from a genius sort. Her stories about the class (and her mistakes) are very funny and she barely passed. Darn it, she learned something and has, on numerous occasions, shared the knowledge, perspectve or some way of analyzing a science-related situation based on that. As far as I am concerned, effort well invested. Yay for that core “lab sci” requirement.</p>
<p>“turning out experts in some areas making them useless for anything else?”
I have to ask whose fault this is. The colleges for not insisting on enough “core” explortion or the kids primed to have tunnel vision?</p>
<p>Btw, the Yale quote goes further.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It makes me wonder if there is sort of a hazing that goes on – prove your tough stuff.</p>