Is STEM mostly rote memorization?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

The Physical & Life Sciences forum would probably be better suited for this thread, but I never have any luck in that forum.

From here:


"One of the major components of STEM is rote memorization which can hinder a student’s ability to think freely on subjects. When social sciences and arts are provided, students are able to understand problems rather than simply accepting solutions..."


I had never thought of it that way before, but it sounds right. My experience has been that the way that math, biology, geology, physics, etc. are taught is mechanical and, well, like the above source says, a lot of rote memorization. And a lot of repetition. I always quickly lose interest.

Anyway, I think that an important point is made: the whole brain needs to be developed if people are going to realize their full potential. I have learned a lot from disciplines like Economics and Geography that, by doing things like putting a lot of data on graphs and maps and applying everything to a variety of problems, integrate STEM elements with humanities elements. Some of us might be better able to master and appreciate STEM material if more of it was presented that way instead of in isolation in the form of a lot of repetition and rote memorization.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

STEM fields do have a lot of rote memorization at lower (undergraduate) levels because there is much that is considered "common knowledge" within each field that new students must learn. You see this especially in fields like geology, which generally aren't taught at all at the grade school/high school level - students come in with zero foundation in the subject, and must learn everything from scratch. The payoff comes in your final years of undergraduate work or in graduate school when you start getting into research and applying the knowledge you have learned.

 

[keith99]

No, absolutely no.

STEM has far less rote memorization than other areas.

That is for those majoring in it. For those who do not understand and who are trying to pass a class outside their area and therefore try to pass by memorizing enough to pass the tests, yes, there is a ton on memorization.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Everything involves memorization, but when I took STEM courses, I was taught how to create solutions to problems. I was taught how to think.

No, STEM isn't primarily about memorizing things. That's a charge that would be much more apt for a history class, which is liberal arts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave-W]

STEM has a lot of memorization at the start to get the basic foundation set. But after that is done, thinking skills and creativity come to the fore.

I am an engineer by training and spent 20 years in the tool and die industry as a mechanical designer. There was a new challenge in almost every design job that crossed my desk/drafting table.

 

[Cearbhall]

"One of the major components of STEM is rote memorization which can hinder a student’s ability to think freely on subjects. When social sciences and arts are provided, students are able to understand problems rather than simply accepting solutions..."

I had never thought of it that way before, but it sounds right.

I disagree. I often see this argument used in defense of liberal arts and social sciences, and I usually agree with it, but this particular word choice is poor. "Memorization" vs. "understanding" is an inaccurate and biased description of the difference between STEM and other disciplines. There is a difference, and I do think it's important for all students to be required to take courses on both sides, but this is not how I would describe it.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

None of the instruction that I have received in mathematics or the natural sciences--at the college level or before it--has been the immersion in an intellectual tradition like the instruction that I have received in the social sciences and humanities. It has never been, "Mathematicians worked on issue A for several decades. This person did this work on issue A and wrote this book/paper with this theory/resolution. This other person did that work on issue A and wrote that book/paper with that theory/resolution. Here is where the discipline stands today with respect to issue A". Almost no such intellectual narrative context at all. Overwhelmingly a bunch of facts, exercises, and problems that you the student repetitiously address in isolation.

There are courses in the social sciences and humanities like that too. The linguistics class that I took and the introductory logic class that I took are examples. And economics courses.

But most of the instruction that I have received in the social sciences and humanities has been like a guided tour of the history of ideas and the major figures in the development of those ideas with some instruction and practice in methodology / research thrown in.

That contrast between my experience with STEM fields and the social sciences and the humanities is what the above quote about rote memorization made me conscious of.

It is a difference in the content and degree of being made a part of a community and a tradition.

 

[Cearbhall]

None of the instruction that I have received in mathematics or the natural sciences--at the college level or before it--has been the immersion in an intellectual tradition like the instruction that I have received in the social sciences and humanities. It has never been, "Mathematicians worked on issue A for several decades. This person did this work on issue A and wrote this book/paper with this theory/resolution. This other person did that work on issue A and wrote that book/paper with that theory/resolution. Here is where the discipline stands today with respect to issue A". Almost no such intellectual narrative context at all.

I remember conversations exactly like this in middle school science classes, albeit rarely. It was very common in my high school classes, though (and all of us in AP Calc cursed Newton ). I remember watching a documentary in a high school math class that was all about a single mathematician's journey to complete a proof.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I remember conversations exactly like this in middle school science classes, albeit rarely. It was common in my high school classes, though. I remember watching a documentary in a high school math class that was all about a single mathematician's journey to complete a proof.

I wish that they would teach all of it that way.

I know nothing about, let alone have any appreciation of, the difference between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry or of the predecessors of Darwin in evolutionary theory, even though I have received a lot of instruction in math and biology.

 

[Cearbhall]

I wish that they would teach all of it that way.

Eh, I don't really see the value in prioritizing the history of the theory or subdiscipline rather than the theory itself, until you're in graduate studies and are primarily reading the literature and conducting research. It's good to provide background information at the beginning of each unit about how the information was obtained and where the discipline is headed, but the bulk of STEM curricula up through undergrad should be about absorption, comprehension, and practical application.

 

[SuperCloud]

The Physical & Life Sciences forum would probably be better suited for this thread, but I never have any luck in that forum.

From here:


"One of the major components of STEM is rote memorization which can hinder a student’s ability to think freely on subjects. When social sciences and arts are provided, students are able to understand problems rather than simply accepting solutions..."


I had never thought of it that way before, but it sounds right. My experience has been that the way that math, biology, geology, physics, etc. are taught is mechanical and, well, like the above source says, a lot of rote memorization. And a lot of repetition. I always quickly lose interest.

There is some truth in that proposition. What is termed "critical thinking" is a constant process in English courses. The instructor guides the pupils in this constantly asking question with giving no answers. Often their are a multitude of accepted answers regard as "true" for any given one question. It's possible to have 20 students and each of them give 20 different answers about a chapter in a book, and all 20 different answers be regarded as true.

For for good or ill the STEM subjects are closely related to theology. They differ in certain ways from theology but in other ways they are deterministic like theology. Western Christian theology has been criticized by Eastern Christians (who have even a more "mystical" religious theology than Catholicism) as being to rational. There is truth in that accusation. And reading Western theology, at least Thomas Aquinas, is nerve wracking like logic inspired philosophy. And logic is closely related to math. It is by no accident the natural sciences draw heavily upon math. Biology less so than chemistry and physics and technology, engineering and of course math. Biology is also less deterministic than chemistry or physics.

Take the issue of marriage.

I was reared Catholic. But reading the views of Eastern Orthodoxy on the topic of matrimony and its purpose, the Eastern Orthodox view appeals more to me.

The Catholic explanation for the purpose of marriage is very rational. It aligns more with the science of biology than the take Protestantism or secularism has on marriage. Regardless of what people think this is why most of them hate the Catholic explanation. It's to rational. Logic and math are void of emotions. The other explanations are highly emotive and artsy--also viewed from the lens by legal mumbo jumbo. Johnny Cochran legal defense of OJ and the prosecutors that where after him.

Most people hate math. Consequently most people hate math. Consequently most people hate the Catholic explanation for marriage and its relation to the sexual organs of the parties. Because that view aligns most well with the science of biology which is pretty clear about the evolutionary designed function of the sexual organs (or rectum or throat).

All that said... STEM is not only rote memorization. It tries to develop in pupils a strong rational, problem-solving ability. Overtime this ability is improved. But this ability is applied to the physical world and physical problems or non-physical problems influenced or impacted by physical characteristics (e.g., chemical profile of a brain and a psychiatrist prescribing medication to address the emotional or psychological problem).

 

[Cearbhall]

What is termed "critical thinking" is a constant process in English courses. The instructor guides the pupils in this constantly asking question with giving no answers. Often their are a multitude of accepted answers regard as "true" for any given one question. It's possible to have 20 students and each of them give 20 different answers about a chapter in a book, and all 20 different answers be regarded as true.

In the sort of situation that you're talking about, the value or truth of the argument is based on how well the student can defend it, which is the way it should be. No one is automatically right. Never have I heard anything that gave me the impression that a teacher/professor agreed with what every student said on an essay assignment, or that you're right no matter what you say. A misguided idea is going to be difficult to defend, and it shows. It's not like critical thinking is part of the "Everyone's a winner!" mindset.

 

[SuperCloud]

Everything involves memorization, but when I took STEM courses, I was taught how to create solutions to problems. I was taught how to think.

No, STEM isn't primarily about memorizing things. That's a charge that would be much more apt for a history class, which is liberal arts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

History involves some rote memorization. A lot I guess. But nowhere near as much as STEM do.

History is very subjective but in theory science is very objective.

I think people confuse rote memorization of facts as lacking objectivity. This isn't so. But rote memorization does reduce the likelihood those in a discipline will spot an inaccuracy or error in the doctrines of their discipline. It also reduces the likelihood of trailblazers and mavericks. This happens in science and why Thomas Kuhn (scientist, philosopher, historian of science) coined the term "paradigm shift."

Supposedly the science of biology is currently undergoing one the early stages of a paradigm shift as the castles of genetic determinism fall, and rising in its place the newer, braver doctrine of epigenetics.

The breadth of knowledge accumulated in the STEM disciplines are too expansive for any single human to know everything. Impossible. Added to the problem is the short time frame one is given to learn the material. A single chapter in a science textbook is about half if not all the material size covered in course in the humanities. A student has no choice but to employ rote memorization from that alone. There are other reasons as well. No undergrad in college (or few at least) is going to actually spend a lot of time looking at all the minute ways a cell functions. No, you use rote memorization from text books, lectures, supported by some applied lab time and move on. Move, move, move.

 

[SuperCloud]

In the sort of situation that you're talking about, the value or truth of the argument is based on how well the student can defend it, which is the way it should be. No one is automatically right. Never have I heard anything that gave me the impression that a teacher/professor agreed with what every student said on an essay assignment, or that you're right no matter what you say. A misguided idea is going to be difficult to defend, and it shows. It's not like critical thinking is part of the "Everyone's a winner!" mindset.

Sure, you are right and make a good point. Although, I would argue by nature of passing grades in how well a student can defend or support their thesis statement, everyone is in fact a winner.

Those subjects deal a lot with subjectivity. STEM deals with objectivity (in theory at least). And STEM deals with the concrete physical world. If it deals with non-physical properties like emotions and political views it address the problem from whatever aspect of physical nature impacts those things.

 

[keith99]

If rote memorization is critical to the STEM subjects why is it that for the first 2 years of Physics we were allowed to bring a one page cheat sheet to all exams?

Before some fool says I went to a poor school be aware that with a 3.0 average in Math and Physics and the recommendation of a single Physics Prof one could transfer to either Cal Tech or Columbia after the junior year and spend 2 years there and have degrees from both schools.

Rote memorization was a quick ticket to failing. One learns concepts and tools and how to use them or one washes out. (Comparative anatomy being an exception).

 

[Green Sun]

Can't really add anything that hasn't already been said.

Being in college currently, taking Computer Security, it does involve a good deal of memorization for some subjects. Mathematics especially requires a good base level of memorization. However, as you move further through the curriculum, it becomes much less about memorization and more about thinking and discovering your own solutions.

For example, in my Computer Sciences classes, we first have to have a basic understanding of the language we're coding. We need to know the basic commands, functions, and syntax which can't really be 'explained' in some cases other than just knowing it. Once you start doing problems however, it becomes more up to you on how to utilize the language to accomplish what you want.

 

[SuperCloud]

If rote memorization is critical to the STEM subjects why is it that for the first 2 years of Physics we were allowed to bring a one page cheat sheet to all exams?

Before some fool says I went to a poor school be aware that with a 3.0 average in Math and Physics and the recommendation of a single Physics Prof one could transfer to either Cal Tech or Columbia after the junior year and spend 2 years there and have degrees from both schools.

Rote memorization was a quick ticket to failing. One learns concepts and tools and how to use them or one washes out. (Comparative anatomy being an exception).

You are right that a lot of problem solving is involved in the STEM programs. But in theory these programs are built on bricks of objectivity. Not subjectivity. Especially something like physics is very deterministic. And those concepts and tool can not be questioned--as they can in the humanities or something like history--or one fails the exam because the right answers are contingent on working within the strict limits of those concepts and tools. Not flying outside of them.

 

[Cearbhall]

Although, I would argue by nature of passing grades in how well a student can defend or support their thesis statement, everyone is in fact a winner.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Some students receive a poor grade or fail because they can't do this well enough, as with any other type of assignment.

 

[SuperCloud]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Some students receive a poor grade or fail because they can't do this well enough, as with any other type of assignment.

I'm saying a many students not only get passing grades but receive A's and B's on their papers. Three students in a history course can compose individual papers on the Crusades. One student might come up with a thesis that champions the Christians. Another student might produce a thesis which champions the Muslim side. And the third of the three might types up a thesis which vilifies both the Christians and the Muslims locked in battle. All three can receive A's on their papers.

Such a contradiction as I know it is impossible in science. If a question asks "What is the smallest unit of life?" Three students can't all get the question marked correct when one answers: An atom. Another: A molecule. Another: A cell. Only one will get the question marked correct.

Of course, I guess you could argue history and other non-STEM courses all have exams that parallel that. But the STEM programs are overall less ambiguous.

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm saying a many students not only get passing grades but receive A's and B's on their papers.

What is this assumption based on? It's entirely possible to fail to master the skills that are needed to get these grades in English class. Do you have a source that says that the overall grade breakdown is different among these classes?

Three students in a history course can compose individual papers on the Crusades. One student might come up with a thesis that champions the Christians. Another student might produce a thesis which champions the Muslim side. And the third of the three might types up a thesis which vilifies both the Christians and the Muslims locked in battle. All three can receive A's on their papers.

Indeed they can. I agree with you that history is more subjective.

Such a contradiction as I know it is impossible in science. If a question asks "What is the smallest unit of life?" Three students can't all get the question marked correct when one answers: An atom. Another: A molecule. Another: A cell. Only one will get the question marked correct.

I agree, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. It's important for students to master many types of thinking. Being able to answer an objective multiple choice question is one type.