So far I haven’t seen any direct evidence that Diversity played much of a role in the NYU Organic Chemistry Professor Whoop-tee-doo, which makes it a rare event for the 2020s. But, from the New York Times opinion section, a sociology professor leaps in anyway to explain that Equity demands that majoring in pre-med be more like majoring in sociology.
After all what’s the worst that could happen if we end up with lousier doctors? Thousands die? Well, heck, us sociologists just helped kill thousands with the Floyd Effect on homicides and car crashes and we don’t even know it.
The N.Y.U. Chemistry Students Shouldn’t Have Needed That Petition
Oct. 7, 2022By Jessica Calarco
Dr. Calarco is a professor of sociology at Indiana University. She is the author of two books on social class and inequalities in schooling, “Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School” and “A Field Guide to Grad School: Uncovering the Hidden Curriculum.”
New York University fired Prof. Maitland Jones Jr. this summer after 82 of the 350 students in his organic chemistry class signed a petition expressing concern about the effectiveness of his teaching. Large numbers of students were receiving low scores on exams, and some had withdrawn from the course.
The stakes were high. Organic chemistry is typically taught as a weed-out class, an introductory-level class that is designed to be so difficult or so intensive that only the most serious students can advance — in this case, to medical school.
… Another [factor] is the increasing diversity of student bodies, which casts many higher education traditions in a new light. One of those traditions is the weed-out mentality. Courses that are meant to distinguish between serious and unserious students, it has become clear, often do a better job distinguishing between students who have ample resources and those who don’t.
… Instead, universities should focus on the broader goal of teaching for equity and with empathy, which means ensuring that students get the support they need to learn and succeed, without petitions and even without having to ask.
That approach has the potential to reduce longstanding inequities in student outcomes. It also requires that universities rethink their attachment to gatekeeping and focus more on the social benefits of building knowledge.
Changing institutions isn’t easy, but abandoning weed-out culture could have measurable benefits for students and for society as a whole. The nation is currently facing a shortage of doctors, especially Black and Latino doctors, and research suggests that academic gatekeeping is a big reason. The weed-out approach used in fields like chemistry, biology, engineering and other STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) exacerbates inequalities in student performance and discourages students from completing STEM majors and pursuing opportunities like graduate and medical school.
Affirmative action in college admissions, affirmative action in med school, affirmative action in residencies, affirmative action forever!
… Weed-out classes have deep roots in how colleges have historically viewed their mission. Today’s elite universities began as bastions of privilege — essentially finishing schools for wealthy white families and their sons, not all of whom were suited for rigorous graduate study.
Uh… I’m not following this line of logic.
In general, the Great Awokening/Racial Reckoning has turbocharged the lowering of standards that goes back to the invention of affirmative action in 1969. A whole lot of people are looking for ways to implement Kendiism. That’s going to increasingly get people killed.
