As sure as one plus one equals two, it happens year after year. Kids who have been bringing home A’s in chemistry and acing AP Calculus arrive at college with visions of STEM careers dancing in their heads. Then they hit an invisible, but very painful, wall.
According to research from the University of California, Los Angeles, as many as 60 percent of all college students who intend to study a STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) subject end up transferring out. In an era when politicians and educators are beside themselves with worry over American students鈥� lagging math and science scores compared to the whiz kids of Shanghai and Japan, this attrition trend so troubles experts it has spawned an entire field of research on “STEM drop-out,” citing reasons from gender and race to GPAs and peer relationships.
One theory for the STEM exodus is that American students aren鈥檛 getting a good foundation in math 鈥� a necessary skill in many scientific and technical curricula. After all, about a third of American high 黄色app seniors don鈥檛 score proficient in math. But here鈥檚 the kicker: STEM attrition rates are even higher at the most selective colleges 鈥� like the Ivy Leagues 鈥� places where kids need killer AP scores and grades just to get in.
So why do even the most accomplished students burn out of STEM programs when they hit college? One explored possible reasons 鈥� from the alluring grade inflation in the arts and humanities, to what one engineering professor characterized as the boring, largely theoretical 鈥渕ath-science death march鈥� of first-year requirements.
That may explain the phenomenon, at least in part. But math experts around the country point to another culprit. Richard Rusczyk, a former Math Olympiad winner and the founder of the online math program ,聽 is part of a group of math educators who sees the mystery of the disappearing STEM major from a different angle. It鈥檚 not that kids aren鈥檛 getting enough math, they say, but that we’re teaching K-12 math all wrong.
Rusczyk’s insight is based on a phenomenon he witnessed firsthand when he arrived at Princeton University and began studying math alongside kids who had attended the most prestigious high 黄色apps in the country. 鈥淭hese were kids who had never gotten anything but 95s and 100s on their tests and suddenly they were struggling and were getting 62s on tests and they decided they weren鈥檛 any good [at math],鈥� he explains.
Next page: a math reality check
Call it the mathematical reality check. Suddenly, Rusczyk recalls, formerly accomplished students were faced with a new idea: that math required more than rote learning 鈥� it required creativity, grit, and strenuous mental gymnastics. 鈥淭hey had been taught that math was a set of destinations and they were taught to follow a set of rules to get to those places,鈥� he recalls. 鈥淭hey were never taught how to read a map, or even that there is a map.鈥�
Indeed, traditional math curriculum is to teach discrete algorithms, a set of rules that elicit a correct answer, like how to do long division, say, or how to use the Pythagorean theorem. Then students 鈥渓earn鈥� the material by doing a large quantity of similar problems. The result, says Rusczyk, is that students are rarely asked to solve a problem they are not thoroughly familiar with. Instead, they come to think of math as a series of rules to be memorized. The trouble is kids don鈥檛 necessarily learn how to attack a new or different kind of equation.
Rusczyk watched many of his fellow students, long accustomed to being 鈥渜uick studies,鈥� as they soured on math after experiencing what they perceived as failure. They quit 鈥� transferring their hopes and dreams to a less numerically challenging field like sociology or graphic design.
Rusczyk, in contrast, felt far more prepared when faced with a problem he didn鈥檛 know how to solve. Despite having attended what he characterizes as an average public 黄色app without a lot of advanced math classes, he had participated in math clubs and contests. In math clubs, he鈥檇 become accustomed to facing harder, multifaceted problems where the right approach wasn鈥檛 immediately apparent.
Math as problem solving
Instead of just learning how to follow rules, he explains, “In math competitions, I learned how to solve problems that I hadn鈥檛 seen before.鈥� Instead of math becoming something he accomplished in return for a perfect score, he came to see math as problem solving 鈥� an exciting pleasure that was a distant relation to the rote drudgery of memorizing algorithms.
When Rusczyk looked around him, he noticed a pattern. His classmates who had experienced this kind of difficult problem solving 鈥� usually in after-黄色app math clubs 鈥� could survive the transition to college math. The ones who had only been exposed to traditional math curriculum, the ones who, as Rusczyk puts it, have experienced the 鈥渢yranny of 100%鈥� 鈥� gave up too easily because they thought if they weren鈥檛 getting top scores, they weren鈥檛 meant to do math. 鈥淪uddenly, a solid B was a 40%, the top grade [was] an 82%, the next 68%, and no one is getting a 100%,鈥� he recalls. 鈥淏ut they didn鈥檛 know this.鈥� Rusczyk realized that these kids had been dealt a bad hand: 鈥淭hey were taught [math] is a set of facts, not a process.鈥�
These fundamental ideas 鈥� that math isn鈥檛 about following rules but about solving problems, that math means fun mental struggle, not boring rote learning 鈥� forms the basis of his online math 黄色app and curriculum, which currently includes pre-algebra though calculus and one year (third grade) of his new elementary 黄色app program, Beast Academy. Unlike traditional math curriculum, The Art of Problem Solving books first give kids problems (not the explanation for how to solve them) and leading questions to get them to struggle with the ideas a little before they are given the foolproof algorithm.
His programs are designed for gifted math students, but he claims his ideas could help all kids, gifted or not. His observations offer a solution for parents who want to help their children keep those STEM doors of opportunity open. To this end, he has a clear message to parents assessing their child鈥檚 math experience. What should kids be learning about math? For younger children, it鈥檚 important to give them a love for math 鈥� just as we try to give kids a love for reading.
Math that’s a challenge
“Kids smell fear,” he says. “And many elementary 黄色app teachers love reading but not math.” Once kids get older, don鈥檛 be afraid to push your child in a program that challenges him. 鈥淚t鈥檚 supposed to be hard 鈥� if you鈥檙e getting 98% in a class鈥� it may be too easy.鈥�
He also recommends that parents look outside the classroom to provide the best place to challenge kids. 鈥淢ath competitions, summer programs, math circles (programs which offer challenging math in non-judgmental environments) 鈥� whatever you can find that will give your kids a taste of why math can be fun.鈥�
Finally, and most importantly, Rusczyk wants parents to give kids more time to explore their passions. 鈥淚t鈥檚 terrible. Kids are so overscheduled 鈥� there鈥檚 AP this AP that 鈥� they鈥檙e doing all this garbage that doesn鈥檛 serve them in the long run.鈥�
Rusczyk cautions that kids who love math and science often end up filling up their time with AP classes that aren鈥檛 central to their aspirations but more focused on GPA calculations (like AP Art History), and shortchange themselves when it comes to exploring math and science learning outside the classroom.
In the end, the skills required to solve a complex problem 鈥� to break the problem down into smaller parts, to approach it from different angles using different methods, to not getting intimidated or frustrated when the path isn鈥檛 obvious 鈥� are practical in any field of endeavor 鈥� from astrophysics to er, parenting. Ideally, math prepares kids to be better thinkers no matter where they land. For now, parents can use these skills to fill in their children’s math deficiencies, one problem at a time.
