2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the Editor: Science majors cheated
Issue date: 1/27/05 Section: Op/Ed
- Page 1 of 1
To the Editor:
I want to preface this discussion by acknowledging that all majors at Muhlenberg require their own set of skills and have their own demands. I am also not proposing that simply because I was a science major I could excel in all courses offered. However, when I look at my biology degree from Muhlenberg College, I can't help but feel as though there is something different about my education versus that of a non-science major.
The problem lies in the fact that if I were to take a course in art, for example, I would be taking the same Drawing I course that all art majors take. Why is it then that non-science majors are offered courses in "baby-biology" or biology classes structured for non-majors?
If I am required to take an art and attend class with art majors, why are they not required to attend the same Principles of Biology or General Chemistry courses I took as a freshman? If all courses count for one unit and I am tested against other majors in their introductory courses, why shouldn't those other majors be tested on the same material I took as my introduction to the sciences?
I am, of course, using art merely as an example to illustrate a parallel that exists with every other non-science class. Courses like Physics for Life or Biology for Dancers are not equivalent to General Physics and Biology I. With the exception of theater majors and possibly a few others, I averaged 7 more class hours a week with labs and recitations than most other majors but competed for the same course value. I would go so far as to say my work ethic required for science courses made the workload for other "equivalent" classes seem trivial. As stated earlier, this work ethic and extra course load obviously extends to other majors. The inconsistency lies in the fact that those other majors are never tested on a level playing field with me in my major as part of their college requirements. Is the school proposing that non-science students can't pass a true science class with more difficult material?
In nearly every non-science class I took in undergrad I sat alongside majors in that department; the only non-science majors I sat alongside with in my science classes were kids who later switched because they weren't doing so well.
Arguing that as a science major I should be expected to work longer, harder, etc is a cop-out. I am not bitter about the hours I put in; I'm bitter non-science students didn't have the opportunity to pass or fail the same classes I did. Gold trim on my graduation robe just doesn't cut it for me.
--Evan Wright Class of '04
I want to preface this discussion by acknowledging that all majors at Muhlenberg require their own set of skills and have their own demands. I am also not proposing that simply because I was a science major I could excel in all courses offered. However, when I look at my biology degree from Muhlenberg College, I can't help but feel as though there is something different about my education versus that of a non-science major.
The problem lies in the fact that if I were to take a course in art, for example, I would be taking the same Drawing I course that all art majors take. Why is it then that non-science majors are offered courses in "baby-biology" or biology classes structured for non-majors?
If I am required to take an art and attend class with art majors, why are they not required to attend the same Principles of Biology or General Chemistry courses I took as a freshman? If all courses count for one unit and I am tested against other majors in their introductory courses, why shouldn't those other majors be tested on the same material I took as my introduction to the sciences?
I am, of course, using art merely as an example to illustrate a parallel that exists with every other non-science class. Courses like Physics for Life or Biology for Dancers are not equivalent to General Physics and Biology I. With the exception of theater majors and possibly a few others, I averaged 7 more class hours a week with labs and recitations than most other majors but competed for the same course value. I would go so far as to say my work ethic required for science courses made the workload for other "equivalent" classes seem trivial. As stated earlier, this work ethic and extra course load obviously extends to other majors. The inconsistency lies in the fact that those other majors are never tested on a level playing field with me in my major as part of their college requirements. Is the school proposing that non-science students can't pass a true science class with more difficult material?
In nearly every non-science class I took in undergrad I sat alongside majors in that department; the only non-science majors I sat alongside with in my science classes were kids who later switched because they weren't doing so well.
Arguing that as a science major I should be expected to work longer, harder, etc is a cop-out. I am not bitter about the hours I put in; I'm bitter non-science students didn't have the opportunity to pass or fail the same classes I did. Gold trim on my graduation robe just doesn't cut it for me.
--Evan Wright Class of '04