Now that the "Macro vs Micro" thread (concerning the best order
that biological topics should be taught to freshman majors) has dwindled,
let me bring up a related topic:
In my freshman Intro class we start in the fall semester with some 70
majors. Half to two-thirds of them are pre-med or are interested in
some other medical field...many of which are not at all embarrassed to
say that they have no real interest in biology, other than the fact that
it represents their ticket to getting into medical school. Our senior
class ends up with 10-20 biology majors every year, more than half of
which actually do get into medical school. This is a retention of about
20% or so. The other 80% have switched majors (mostly to psychology). Our
college is close to national averages for this.
If the majority of biology majors are not really committed to the hard
work and inquisitiveness that it takes to be a biologist are we
really doing them any great favors by being "namby/pamby" with them the
first semester? I'm not saying that we should purposely make the first
semester difficult just to "screen out" the students who are really
committed from the ones who are just attracted by the salary and prestige
of being surgeons. But I do wonder if starting out with the more
challenging concepts of molecules, cells, metabolism, and genetics
is a better way to let students know if they "have what it takes to get
into medical school" right from the start, rather than encouraging their
delusions for a couple semesters more. Isn't this codependence?
Alternatively, though, maybe we should be more concerned with biology's
generally lousy retention rates by making the courses more relevant and
interesting. Does biology always have to have the worse retention of all
the undergraduate disciplines?
Dave Robinson
