So with us wanting kids to do more critical thinking and not memorizing, is it a good thing that my 2nd grader says "I don't understand why 2+2=4?" and can't seem to memorize the basic facts? He seems to think to hard as to why/how things work. Maybe he is just a critical thinking genius, ha ha!
So with us wanting kids to do more critical thinking and not memorizing, is it a good thing that my 2nd grader says "I don't understand why 2+2=4?" and can't seem to memorize the basic facts? He seems to think to hard as to why/how things work. Maybe he is just a critical thinking genius, ha ha!
He is being taught how to approach simple math problems from a variety of angles, rather than merely memorize because there is a long game here - learn *how* to solve math problems in a variety of ways and thus possess the building blocks for more advanced math later on.
I am completely onboard with education for the sake of education, and maintaining environments in which students and others can discuss ideas, and not just "practical life skills." I agree that our culture will lose a huge part of itself if we focus narrowly on skills versus ideas.
I would also like to send Rick Scott a bag of dicks.
But I can see a benefit to encouraging people who like creativity and non-definitive answers to enter STEM fields. I do not think defunding the humanities or requiring practical technical education is the way to go about that.
So with us wanting kids to do more critical thinking and not memorizing, is it a good thing that my 2nd grader says "I don't understand why 2+2=4?" and can't seem to memorize the basic facts? He seems to think to hard as to why/how things work. Maybe he is just a critical thinking genius, ha ha!
He is being taught how to approach simple math problems from a variety of angles, rather than merely memorize because there is a long game here - learn *how* to solve math problems in a variety of ways and thus possess the building blocks for more advanced math later on.
True, however he is now behind in class and has to go to a tutor. It is almost the end of 2nd grade and since he keeps getting 1+0 incorrect, it is becoming a problem. We have been working on basic math facts everyday.
An interesting thing to me is that I actually did a lot more memorizing in my humanities classes than in my science classes. I don't know if that is because of how I was taught or because science came more naturally to me. It always seemed more efficient to learn concepts in science and not bother with memorizing, but I still had to remember who did what when in history, etc.
I always felt like history should be taught backwards. i remembered nothing from history class nor was I interested at the time.....until I got to the Civil War, civil rights, women's rights and the Holocaust. Then I wanted to know everything. It should grab you where you are and then work backwards to show how it came to be, imo.
Like, learning about Mesopotamian history is dry as dust, but if we talk about Iraq now and start answering current questions and work backwards, maybe you'd retain students' attention more? It's at least how it worked for me.
As someone who teaches non-modern history, I have to disagree. There is certainly a value in knowing history to understand how things ended up where we are today, and I was always frustrated in high school when we ran out of time to cover much of the 20th century.
But there's also a huge value in understanding that societies have been organized differently in the past, and questioning the assumptions that we make about what is "natural" or "normal" about today's society. For example, I structure my world history class around proving that you cannot attribute European colonialism to the (still very common) idea that Europeans were the "best" or "smartest" people. I've also had multiple college students assume that in ancient Greece women were allowed to vote. There's so much wrong with that from the POV of ancient and modern history, but they tended to assume that since women vote now they just somehow always voted.
Similarly, learning about the rise of scientific racism (and the earlier model of environmental influence on race) demonstrates the plasticity of things we tend to see today as permanent. Thinking about gender and sexuality historically shows that our current way of doing things isn't the only way. Or that our current scientific truths might someday be completely overturned.
I see teaching non-modern history as an important way to push students to question society today, but also appreciate the cultural and social diversity not just of the past but also of today. So instead of going "ew, gross" when they read about 9th century medical remedies, they might think "huh, maybe this could cure MRSA." Or at least see the logic behind strange or foreign-looking ideas.
So with us wanting kids to do more critical thinking and not memorizing, is it a good thing that my 2nd grader says "I don't understand why 2+2=4?" and can't seem to memorize the basic facts? He seems to think to hard as to why/how things work. Maybe he is just a critical thinking genius, ha ha!
He is being taught how to approach simple math problems from a variety of angles, rather than merely memorize because there is a long game here - learn *how* to solve math problems in a variety of ways and thus possess the building blocks for more advanced math later on.
Yet people complain about Common Core standards expecting kids to do this very thing.
He is being taught how to approach simple math problems from a variety of angles, rather than merely memorize because there is a long game here - learn *how* to solve math problems in a variety of ways and thus possess the building blocks for more advanced math later on.
True, however he is now behind in class and has to go to a tutor. It is almost the end of 2nd grade and since he keeps getting 1+0 incorrect, it is becoming a problem. We have been working on basic math facts everyday.
Well, he should also have a grasp of basic math facts. My kids are in 3rd and 2nd grades and while some of the methods are certainly different from what I learned, they shouldn't be beyond age-appropriate comprehension. You may have a teacher who is struggling to convey the lesson or it may be that your son in fact needs a little bit more time to grasp the concepts.
Even though I am obviously very supportive of STEM education, I definitely agree the humanities are also very important. When I chose my college within my university (my school had a weird system where college determined your GE requirements but was unrelated to major). I specifically chose the one that was based off a liberal arts system. I do think though that humanities majors need STEM subjects too though and there is a benefit in making these subjects accessible, in a non-memorizing way, to students that are going to pursue other paths.
He is being taught how to approach simple math problems from a variety of angles, rather than merely memorize because there is a long game here - learn *how* to solve math problems in a variety of ways and thus possess the building blocks for more advanced math later on.
Yet people complain about Common Core standards expecting kids to do this very thing.
I used to let the math complaints on FB slide but I've kind of gone full frontal asshole about knee-jerk CC hate because I need a better reason than just "this isn't how I was taught." There are valid complaints about CC* but that isn't one of them.
*and I do think communication with parents about methods is important
Even though I am obviously very supportive of STEM education, I definitely agree the humanities are also very important. When I chose my college within my university (my school had a weird system where college determined your GE requirements but was unrelated to major). I specifically chose the one that was based off a liberal arts system. I do think though that humanities majors need STEM subjects too though and there is a benefit in making these subjects accessible, in a non-memorizing way, to students that are going to pursue other paths.
I'm so glad that I took STEM classes at the college level even though I was a humanities major. It reminds me of our conversation last week about the UK class on bio for non-majors that focused on evolution. If Congress has taught us one thing, it's that science education is critical even for non-scientists.
Even though I am obviously very supportive of STEM education, I definitely agree the humanities are also very important. When I chose my college within my university (my school had a weird system where college determined your GE requirements but was unrelated to major). I specifically chose the one that was based off a liberal arts system. I do think though that humanities majors need STEM subjects too though and there is a benefit in making these subjects accessible, in a non-memorizing way, to students that are going to pursue other paths.
I'm so glad that I took STEM classes at the college level even though I was a humanities major. It reminds me of our conversation last week about the UK class on bio for non-majors that focused on evolution. If Congress has taught us one thing, it's that science education is critical even for non-scientists.
I wish I'd taken more science/math in college.
I think I fell trap to gender norms and thinking I wasn't good at math. I wasn't BAD at math; I was just BETTER at writing. But in my hyper-competitive high school environment, I was convinced I was terrible at anything I wasn't acing.
I tried to take a science course in college, but the first class basically put me to sleep.
I also don't think that history is dry at all. My attention is easily captured in history and literature courses. I find math and science much more dry, and I need a little more creativity injected into their instruction. It's probably why I tolerated physics class the best of all my high school science classes - all of our instructions about force, for example, involved cars. We got to use accelerometers on a roller coaster. (Side note: is there anything nerdier than a bunch of kids holding up accelerometers while riding a roller coaster? NOPE.)
I wonder if part of the problem or need is that society has pretty much reversed what children are exposed to in the home.
Once upon a time, there was a lot of science and tech (of the times anyway) going on at home. Living on a farm or just daily chores and shit but little exposure to the arts in the home.
Now you have little exposure to mechanics, pulleys, engines, simple machines etc at home but you media pumps all sorts of arts into the home and far more people read for leisure and expose their children to those discussions.
I don't think this means we no longer need the arts and humanities in school or anything. I just wonder if perhaps this is why the emphasis on STEM seems new and novel.
I'm so glad that I took STEM classes at the college level even though I was a humanities major. It reminds me of our conversation last week about the UK class on bio for non-majors that focused on evolution. If Congress has taught us one thing, it's that science education is critical even for non-scientists.
I wish I'd taken more science/math in college.
I think I fell trap to gender norms and thinking I wasn't good at math. I wasn't BAD at math; I was just BETTER at writing. But in my hyper-competitive high school environment, I was convinced I was terrible at anything I wasn't acing.
I tried to take a science course in college, but the first class basically put me to sleep.
I also don't think that history is dry at all. My attention is easily captured in history and literature courses. I find math and science much more dry, and I need a little more creativity injected into their instruction. It's probably why I tolerated physics class the best of all my high school science classes - all of our instructions about force, for example, involved cars. We got to use accelerometers on a roller coaster. (Side note: is there anything nerdier than a bunch of kids holding up accelerometers while riding a roller coaster? NOPE.)
I think this is probably fairly typical. In some ways teaching students who are not as interested in science is more challenging. With the students who are naturally interested in the subject and theory test class is a lot more straightforward. When you have students that aren't interested or struggle to understand you have to be (or should be) more creative and approach the same concepts from more directions. There is probably just as much value to the instructor in a successful science class taught to non-science students as there is to students. It can be good to be forced to see something you are very familiar with in different ways, and have to challenge yourself to alternative ways of thinking.
Eta: if you can't tell I am pretty big on interdisciplinary learning.
Even though I am obviously very supportive of STEM education, I definitely agree the humanities are also very important. When I chose my college within my university (my school had a weird system where college determined your GE requirements but was unrelated to major). I specifically chose the one that was based off a liberal arts system. I do think though that humanities majors need STEM subjects too though and there is a benefit in making these subjects accessible, in a non-memorizing way, to students that are going to pursue other paths.
I'm so glad that I took STEM classes at the college level even though I was a humanities major. It reminds me of our conversation last week about the UK class on bio for non-majors that focused on evolution. If Congress has taught us one thing, it's that science education is critical even for non-scientists.
And to your field, it's been fascinating to learn more about the history of science and engineering in my professional life (major shortcoming in my education). What are the historical reasons my professional norms are what they are, and how have they evolved? What is the impact of these evolutions of even just my profession on society? I have some great colleagues who have helped to open my eyes here, though I admit there's still nothing in the curriculum as a whole.
I actually wanted to ask my student assistant what she knew about Tiananmen Square (I worked with her right around the 25th anniversary) but I thought that might be too invasive or something.
I didn't have the guts to ask my guides but I know people who did and their guides either had no idea or pretended to have no idea. I'm sure you'd get a better response outside the PRC, but I probably wouldn't have the guts to ask either.
When I was visiting China and was in Tiananmen Square back in the early 90s, I mentioned something to my mom how it looked smaller in person than it did while we were watching events unfold on TV and our main government provided minder gave me such a look. It was a look that I pretty much understood to be "don't talk about that anymore."
I'm so glad that I took STEM classes at the college level even though I was a humanities major. It reminds me of our conversation last week about the UK class on bio for non-majors that focused on evolution. If Congress has taught us one thing, it's that science education is critical even for non-scientists.
I wish I'd taken more science/math in college.
I think I fell trap to gender norms and thinking I wasn't good at math. I wasn't BAD at math; I was just BETTER at writing. But in my hyper-competitive high school environment, I was convinced I was terrible at anything I wasn't acing.
I tried to take a science course in college, but the first class basically put me to sleep.
I also don't think that history is dry at all. My attention is easily captured in history and literature courses. I find math and science much more dry, and I need a little more creativity injected into their instruction. It's probably why I tolerated physics class the best of all my high school science classes - all of our instructions about force, for example, involved cars. We got to use accelerometers on a roller coaster. (Side note: is there anything nerdier than a bunch of kids holding up accelerometers while riding a roller coaster? NOPE.)
I could have written this word for word. Physics was my favorite of all sciences if I had to choose. I wasn't bad at math, I was just not interested in math. I find history and literature - i.e. things without perfect answers and that seem to require more critical thinking and writing - to be really interesting.
That's why I think that the goal shouldn't be to shuttle more and more kids into pure technology/STEM fields. It should be to figure out how to teach people like me in a way that makes us interested in those STEM topics we find to be dry. I actually did consider studying architecture. Maybe I COULD have made a good engineer!
I think I fell trap to gender norms and thinking I wasn't good at math. I wasn't BAD at math; I was just BETTER at writing. But in my hyper-competitive high school environment, I was convinced I was terrible at anything I wasn't acing.
I tried to take a science course in college, but the first class basically put me to sleep.
I also don't think that history is dry at all. My attention is easily captured in history and literature courses. I find math and science much more dry, and I need a little more creativity injected into their instruction. It's probably why I tolerated physics class the best of all my high school science classes - all of our instructions about force, for example, involved cars. We got to use accelerometers on a roller coaster. (Side note: is there anything nerdier than a bunch of kids holding up accelerometers while riding a roller coaster? NOPE.)
I could have written this word for word. Physics was my favorite of all sciences if I had to choose. I wasn't bad at math, I was just not interested in math. I find history and literature - i.e. things without perfect answers and that seem to require more critical thinking and writing - to be really interesting.
That's why I think that the goal shouldn't be to shuttle more and more kids into pure technology/STEM fields. It should be to figure out how to teach people like me in a way that makes us interested in those STEM topics we find to be dry. I actually did consider studying architecture. Maybe I COULD have made a good engineer!
And I think a lot of this comes back to how we treat girls at a young age.
My brothers built model rockets as kids. I wanted to, but I was told it was the boys' activity. What the fuck is that about?
I think this is probably fairly typical. In some ways teaching students who are not as interested in science is more challenging. With the students who are naturally interested in the subject and theory test class is a lot more straightforward. When you have students that aren't interested or struggle to understand you have to be (or should be) more creative and approach the same concepts from more directions. There is probably just as much value to the instructor in a successful science class taught to non-science students as there is to students. It can be good to be forced to see something you are very familiar with in different ways, and have to challenge yourself to alternative ways of thinking.
Eta: if you can't tell I am pretty big on interdisciplinary learning.
I think this is kind of a red herring for STEM teaching. Students flounder in science classes not for a lack of interest. How many times have you, as a chemist, heard "I always thought science was cool, but I was never any good at it!"?
Making a distinction between the enjoyment and the learning of science is a problem. As others have said in this thread, we shouldn't view science as something to "learn" or "memorize", but it's purpose is also not entertainment. It should be taught as a tool for explaining lived experiences. If you can use science to explain and predict WHY things are happening around you, it provides a level of power that makes the question of interest moot. Enjoyment can come through understanding and USING science.
I agree, especially with the last sentence, but I have had many people tell me they think chemistry is boring. A lot of students I have had treat it as a subject to be suffered through and then forgotten. I guess I feel like part of making science accessible includes feel like it's not a waste of time because they won't be working in a lab.
Admittedly, some of my desire to make science more enjoyable/ interesting is because that is how it is for me and I want other people to see how cool it is.
Eta: I see lack of interest and struggling with the subject as different issues.
Post by cattledogkisses on Mar 30, 2015 10:09:02 GMT -5
I'm wondering where the notion that there's no critical thinking involved in STEM came from. Is it just that that's how it's taught now? IMO, you can't have science without critical thinking. Science is all about observing the world, asking why and how questions, coming up with possible explanations for those questions, and then systematically testing those explanations to ultimately obtain new knowledge. A good scientist absolutely needs both creative and critical thinking skills and if those aren't being taught in the sciences then we're doing everyone a huge disservice. When we don't teach people critical scientific thinking skills, they get sucked in by pseudoscience (see: essential oils).
(None of this is intended to dismiss the importance of humanities, which I agree are also an essential component to a good education.)
That said, I agree that the main problem is the focus on test scores and memorization rather than STEM itself. Memorizing facts has never been the US's competitive advantage and it never will be. Where we excel is our culture of innovation and creativity and that it's okay to fail a bunch of times before you succeed (this is also evidenced in how easy it is to start businesses here, even if you've failed multiple times before, something that is not true everywhere). This is what we need to foster and encourage rather than trying to compete with China and SK and Singapore on test scores.
I heard a piece on NPR a while back about the top university in India, which had an acceptance rate something like half that of Harvard and MIT. It talked about how their graduates were brilliant, incredible technically and had these amazing skills, how impressed this one employer had been with them. But whenever he gave them an open-ended question or problem to solve, it was like "......." They just had no idea what to do with something that didn't have a right/wrong answer. That was totally outside the way they had been taught their entire education.
There was an older Indian woman in my previous nursing program. Her husband was a doctor and back in India she had a MA or PhD in something, can't remember, possibly biology. She was very very good on exams that required memorization, such as multiple choice exams, and would pass those classes with As, while the rest of us struggled. On the exams that required more flushing out of answers, essay type, short answer, etc., she did very poorly, struggling to get a C or a B.
During clinical she couldn't flush out an answer of why something was happening in the body, such as the kidneys secrete erythropoietin which generates red blood cell production. In chronic kidney disease, the kidneys don't secrete the same level of erythropoietin as healthy kidneys and therefore hemoglobin levels drop. She couldn't do that.
It was strange but made complete sense when looking at the type of education received in India.
I'm wondering where the notion that there's no critical thinking involved in STEM came from. Is it just that that's how it's taught now? IMO, you can't have science without critical thinking. Science is all about observing the world, asking why and how questions, coming up with possible explanations for those questions, and then systematically testing those explanations to ultimately obtain new knowledge. A good scientist absolutely needs both creative and critical thinking skills and if those aren't being taught in the sciences then we're doing everyone a huge disservice. When we don't teach people critical scientific thinking skills, they get sucked in by pseudoscience (see: essential oils).
(None of this is intended to dismiss the importance of humanities, which I agree are also an essential component to a good education.)
Unfortunately, it's really difficult to give students this experience. There are myriad reasons, but some of the biggies:
Schools might not have the budget or resources to allow that level of inquiry-- not just because teachers need supplies or lab classrooms (because you can absolutely teach science without it) but with class sizes of 30-40, it becomes more and more difficult from a management perspective
Elementary teachers often have little to no background in science, which means it takes more time, resources, and courage for them to plan that type of lesson. This places a greater burden on middle and high school teachers.
Teachers tend to teach how they were taught. Historically, science has been taught as memorizing facts. It's difficult to break that cycle.
It is difficult to create standardized tests that measure the kind of skills you've described. Most standardized tests deal with algorithms or memorization. If you were a teacher and your performance was measured by your students' test scores, how willing would you be to deviate from that kind of algorithmic teaching?
Well then it sounds like we need to seriously overhaul the way we teach and evaluate students in the sciences (I know, pie in the sky... sigh).
I could have written this word for word. Physics was my favorite of all sciences if I had to choose. I wasn't bad at math, I was just not interested in math. I find history and literature - i.e. things without perfect answers and that seem to require more critical thinking and writing - to be really interesting.
That's why I think that the goal shouldn't be to shuttle more and more kids into pure technology/STEM fields. It should be to figure out how to teach people like me in a way that makes us interested in those STEM topics we find to be dry. I actually did consider studying architecture. Maybe I COULD have made a good engineer!
And I think a lot of this comes back to how we treat girls at a young age.
My brothers built model rockets as kids. I wanted to, but I was told it was the boys' activity. What the fuck is that about?
I was never told that explicitly, but I do often wonder if I was steered to more female-oriented pursuits in a more subtle way.
I'm wondering where the notion that there's no critical thinking involved in STEM came from. Is it just that that's how it's taught now? IMO, you can't have science without critical thinking. Science is all about observing the world, asking why and how questions, coming up with possible explanations for those questions, and then systematically testing those explanations to ultimately obtain new knowledge. A good scientist absolutely needs both creative and critical thinking skills and if those aren't being taught in the sciences then we're doing everyone a huge disservice. When we don't teach people critical scientific thinking skills, they get sucked in by pseudoscience (see: essential oils).
(None of this is intended to dismiss the importance of humanities, which I agree are also an essential component to a good education.)
I 100% agree. I think there are two issues being discussed in this thread.
People like me saying that math and science is approached differently than history and language, and therefore you usually have people who like one or the other because of perhaps differences in brain chemistry, socialization, sexism, or how the subjects are taught. Trying to find the cohesive link between those subjects in order to expand the interest to non-typical students - on both sides - would be helpful.
People like Rick Scott are basically saying that humanities don't matter, and we need to teach more STEM fields. By which he means that kids need to focus only on math and science, and to a lesser extent vocational fields, and that colleges should be job training factories, to the detriment of art, language, music, history and philosophy, which are not "practical careers."
I think we can all disagree with the second part! That's really my fear when it comes to promoting STEM education. That it ends up being the latter, which is a simplistic view of what Americans need, and a very dangerous path.
Yet people complain about Common Core standards expecting kids to do this very thing.
I used to let the math complaints on FB slide but I've kind of gone full frontal asshole about knee-jerk CC hate because I need a better reason than just "this isn't how I was taught." There are valid complaints about CC* but that isn't one of them.
*and I do think communication with parents about methods is important
One of my fave quotes on ed lately is "teach to the kids you have, not who you used to have". Yup
Even though I am obviously very supportive of STEM education, I definitely agree the humanities are also very important. When I chose my college within my university (my school had a weird system where college determined your GE requirements but was unrelated to major). I specifically chose the one that was based off a liberal arts system. I do think though that humanities majors need STEM subjects too though and there is a benefit in making these subjects accessible, in a non-memorizing way, to students that are going to pursue other paths.
I think you and I might've gone to the same school. I really appreciated my college's focus on taking at least one of each science class, taking multiple math classes, and taking upper division courses outside of your major's area of study. I also liked the focus on learning about different cultures that was particular to my college.
Even interdisciplinary learning in the social sciences and humanities is important. I didn't go into a STEM field, but it's what helps me be able to think critically about the journal articles and what helped my friend who is in STEM branch out into neuroscience. It allows us to make all kinds of connections that we might otherwise miss. Like all of you have been saying. I think the most rote memorization I did was for abnormal psych, for the diagnostic criteria and the medications. Maybe bio and chem too, but physics got me thinking critically.
True STEM ed is not on just science and math, but pbl. It's a way of teaching and thinking critically. Not rote memorization. I'm thinking the bigger issue is that there are schools with poor implementation of such learning practices.
THANK YOU...
I haven't read the rest of the comments yet, but you just hit it out of the park for me.
An interesting thing to me is that I actually did a lot more memorizing in my humanities classes than in my science classes. I don't know if that is because of how I was taught or because science came more naturally to me. It always seemed more efficient to learn concepts in science and not bother with memorizing, but I still had to remember who did what when in history, etc.
This is me too. Which is why I always feel a bit adrift in these conversations. I want to be all, "yeah...but...wait. huh?" and I'm never sure if it's because I just got lucky with really good science and math teachers and got screwed with really terrible history teachers or if this conversation is always being framed by people who never took an advanced math class if they could help it and that's why they're under the impression that higher level STEM is still all math facts and multiple choice.
(I'm TERRIBLE at memorization. To this day I do not have the times tables memorized. I can't. I've tried. I'm an engineer. I've been doing this for close to a decade and I'm really quite good at it. But I can't memorize for shit.)
An interesting thing to me is that I actually did a lot more memorizing in my humanities classes than in my science classes. I don't know if that is because of how I was taught or because science came more naturally to me. It always seemed more efficient to learn concepts in science and not bother with memorizing, but I still had to remember who did what when in history, etc.
This is me too. Which is why I always feel a bit adrift in these conversations. I want to be all, "yeah...but...wait. huh?" and I'm never sure if it's because I just got lucky with really good science and math teachers and got screwed with really terrible history teachers
I learned almost nothing from four years of high school history because it was all memorization. Relearning it all as a government major in college, where comprehension and critical thinking skills mattered, was kind of shocking, not to mention infinitely more interesting.
Post by mominatrix on Mar 30, 2015 12:42:47 GMT -5
To a certain extent I agree with all this, and to another I heartily disagree.
I'm coming at it from the perspective of deciding to send my older child to a STEM elementary school, doing a STEM focused education starting in Kindergarten. She's in 2nd now...
DD is not the type of kid you'd think would be all into STEM. She's not mathy. She's not even sciency. She's outdoorsy and campy. She carries a sketchbook and colored pencils with her whereever she goes.
But she LOVES her school. Loves it.
They do faster track math than most city schools (Singapore math)... if she stays on track (like, middle of the pack for her school) she'll be doing calculus in something like her Sophomore year of high school.
They're also doing all kinds of engineering and technology stuff you don't see all the time, Like, twice a week she goes to PE; and twice a week she goes to Tech. They do everything from video editing on IPods to coding.
...they also do a lot of arts stuff. The PTA has been all about raising $$ to train the teachers to integrate arts education with the STEM-PBL stuff. It's an integrated curriculum, so they're learning art techniques while they're doing biological drawings of spiders. Then, they're writing and producing a play about spiders. Then they're doing the math to figure out the tensile strength of spider webs, and making giant spider webs out of rope.
I decided this was important for her not because I want to steer her into a STEM based job in 20 years... but to give her the foundation to to whatever she wants to do. If she's already taken two years of college math classes by the time she enrolls, that gives her lots of extra time for Art History or for Poli Sci or for whatever she wants.
I guess for me, so many doors were closed really early on because I thought I wasn't good at math and science. She doesn't think that she's the bestest bestest at it, but it's all so natural. It's like running. She doesn't see it as a sport or exercise, it's just how you get around. Same with science and math... it's not something you memorize and drill (although, she knows that sometimes you do have to just work the math)... it's what you do to figure out, it's how you get around.
...so if she wants to go into a STEMmy job, she can, she'll have the background and confidence in those areas to do well. If she doesn't, then she has a background in doing projects and integrating... she's learning how to learn in a really fundamental way. I don't see creativity there being stifled, it's being supported, and I can only hope that other STEM schools figure out how to make it work.
(I'm TERRIBLE at memorization. To this day I do not have the times tables memorized. I can't. I've tried. I'm an engineer. I've been doing this for close to a decade and I'm really quite good at it. But I can't memorize for shit.)
My DH is a mechanical engineer and also can't memorize for shit. At his first ME class in college everyone had to figure out how to move a coffee can from the back of the classroom to the front, have it sit on a table for 5min, then fall over. That's much more challenging and useful than memorizing a bunch of formulas.