Get Rid of Calculus and Organic Chemistry
Abstract: Removing calculus and organic chemistry as requirements for scientific and science related fields would not make those academic programs less rigorous nor should their removal be perceived as making the academics less rigorous for minorities.
Robert Thornett says that Darwin is a classic example of a genius naturalist who was not a natural at math. Darwin found mathematics repugnant. Edison didn't like mathematics either. He said, “I can always hire a mathematician but they can’t hire me.” According to Thornett, “Math and science are distinctly different fields, and a talent for one does not imply a talent for the other.”
This counter-intuitive idea that mathematics has nothing to do with science shouldn't be something new to teachers who have reflected upon their classroom experience. It's long been understood in the study of learning styles, personality, and cognition that the skills and personality traits required to study and be successful at Mathematics are closer to the cognitive skills required to study and be successful at History than they are to Science; and that the cognitive skills required to study and be successful at Science are more closely related to the cognitive skills required to study and be successful at "English," that is, the Arts and Communication, than they are to Mathematics. In other words, if we were to make an analogy Math : History :: Science : English.
It also does not follow that those who do well in arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and statistics also do well in trigonometry and calculus. Even within the field of mathematics there are obvious differences in the way to approach the subjects intellectually. In my own experience, I was very successful at algebra and geometry where I was an A student but much less successful at trigonometry where I barely managed a C. I switched to statistics my senior year and again was an A student. I had statistics my freshman year in college and pulled two Ds first and second semester but that had to do with my altered cognition and bad habits.
Organic Chemistry is another subject that is an obstacle to students in the field of science. My son majored in Biology with a minor in Chemistry. Of the thirty students who took the Organic Chemistry class with him that semester, fifty-percent, fifteen students had dropped out after the first two weeks; another fifty-percent had dropped out by midterm leaving eight students. Of those eight students, four failed, one got a D (my son), one a B, and one an A. My son retook the class and got a C+. His wife, took the class three times before she passed the fourth time with a C.
As for the extreme lack of success of students in organic chemistry, it could be said that the student's performance in class was more related to how closely he/she resembled the professor than how much of the class content was learned. My son has worked for an international lab and for an international pharmaceutical company; my daughter-in-law works for a lab. Neither have ever used calculus or organic chemistry in their work and if they have, their applications are deeply embedded in the hardware and software systems they are using.
It was understood by all involved, teachers, administrators, and students that organic chemistry was simply a right-of-passage. It was an exclusive ticket to the club. It filtered out students who were creative, inferential, and extroverted. It favored students who were more concrete, deductive, and introverted. These were the personality and learning style characteristics that matched well with those of the professors who taught the course. The geeks were the gatekeepers to geek-dom.
I think there are filters in other degree areas outside the sciences. For example, I enrolled in Temple's University's Landscape Design Program back in the early 80s. My studies hit a road block with a required course called Landscape Drawing. I couldn't draw a stick figure if my life depended on it. I had to drop out of the program. Today the rendering of a design is done with software. I believe whoever designed Temple's Landscape Design program had the idea that a person had to be artistic to be successful in the Landscape Design Program. That a person needs to be artistic is important but I think the committee who sat down to design the program had a person on their committee who had a very narrow view creativity. He/she mistook creativity for the ability to draw.
There is a direct correlation between the similarity of the learning style of the students and the learning style of the professor and the success of students. Much of the research in this area came from studies involving teachers making accommodations for special education students. It is believed that successful teachers have always accommodated and adapted lessons for their students long before it was mandated by law.
I am hesitant about bringing up this point because I've had people tell me that I write too much about race but a reference here cannot be averted. The one good thing about Critical Race Theory in education (and in my opinion, the only good thing as applied to education) is the attention CRT has brought to how Black and Brown kids learn, that is, how different their learning styles are from White kids. Now of course, there are outliers like Benjamin Carson who with his personality would fit right in an organic chemistry class. In my view, making courses like organic chemistry and calculus requirements for science careers only filters out Black and Brown kids. It is filtering out White kids as well. Who do well in these courses? Asian kids. Not because they are smarter but because of their personality types and learning styles. The nature-nurture argument need not even be broached if we focus on personality and learning style. Why do Black boys do so well in all Black male schools? Simple. Their learning style matches the learning style of their Black male teachers.
Source
Thornett, R. C. (2022, September 15). Math for Future Scientists: Require Statistics, Not Calculus. Quillette. http://shorturl.at/hqT34