Nothing bad about remedial

This dilemma is even more complicated at Princeton, where the vast majority of students have demonstrated pronounced math and science capability in the past. If you were to ask a non-STEM Princeton student about math or science, you’d likely receive some variation of: “Oh, I used to be really good at math in high school, but I just can’t do it here,” or “I would major in a science, but it’s too intense at Princeton.” Naturally, this is not the case for everyone — there are myriad reasons why students select their field of study — but I am convinced there are a good number of Princetonians who enjoy the “hard” sciences but are intimidated by their rigor.

This should not be happening. We should not have students enter Princeton with STEM-field aspirations only to be dissuaded from their path by the difficulty of introductory courses. In a day and age where the demand for STEM majors is ever increasing, it behooves Princeton to consider whether its introductory course structure excessively discourages potential concentrators. It is my belief, therefore, that Princeton should offer remedial math and science courses aimed at students lacking rigorous high school preparation.

I know that for many readers the word “remedial” carries some baggage, conjuring images of failing high school delinquents hustling drugs on the street corner. There is a cavernous gap in ability between the highest-achieving students at Princeton and the lowest-achieving students, a gap that we sometimes pretend does not exist. Dumping everyone into the same introductory classes, especially when those classes are quantitative in nature, does a disservice to many of those taking the course.

At Princeton, the “lowest-achieving” students in an introductory math course would be acing tests at other institutions. These students, discouraged by their poor test results, decide to switch to a field where they can receive more positive reinforcement. We lose these undergrads, many of whom have found and could continue to find joy and fulfillment in the STEM fields, because of the severe standard expected in some introductory courses.

If there were remedial classes available for those students who love numbers but may not have taken AP Calculus in high school, we could halt some of the attrition that we see. The same goes for subjects like physics and computer science. In many cases, there are “easier” courses available in these departments, such as PHY 101 and 102. Too often, though, these courses are intended for non-majors, and students taking these courses are not encouraged to pursue the subject any further.

In the long run, interest and passion for a subject are what will sustain and contribute to your academic success in a field. Our present system of introductory courses in the STEM fields sometimes siphons off that passion through negative reinforcement and discouragement. There are many paths to a successful academic career, and not all students who want to major in a subject should necessarily need to be stellar at it when they’re 18 or 19 years old.

By offering catch-up courses in math and science, we would be better able to even the playing field among students from disparate educational backgrounds and to encourage students to follow their interests.

Princeton is full of a lot of truly smart individuals, and to have many of those individuals turned away from math and sciences simply because they aren’t the best students here doesn’t make sense. We have a massive intellectual reservoir here that we can leverage to increase involvement in STEM fields for our nation’s sharpest minds.