Thread by @JonBoeckenstedt

Thread: I hear there might be a report coming out about first-gen and/or low-income and/or students of color and performance in STEM.

I don't know what it says, but here's what I'd think about if I were doing this study.

First, some admissions anecdote. If you've spent any time actually doing admissions and you disagree, feel free to say so. But I think this is so widely acknowledged in the profession that I won't get much pushback. (it could still be wrong, of course)

In 9th grade, everyone wants to be a doctor (OK, this is hyperbole.) But no one wants to be a doctor more than a first-gen/low-income/student of color wants to be a doctor.

Why? It's the most visible path to financial success. It's not a bad dream to have.

Some wealthy kids want to be doctors too, but some of them want to work in VC or Consulting or Law or Finance. This is because these students, I think, are more likely to have exposure to a broader range of professions growing up. They don't have to be a doctor to succeed.

They also get better advice, both from having exposure to doctors, of course, but also in high school. That ninth grader who gets two years of Bs in math and science? If they're at a private prep school, they get told to reconsider that STEM major, from a counselor or parent.

The student at the public school that sends 25% to college? This is America, so that student gets told to work hard to pursue their dreams, despite, sometimes, not having the academic performance that portends a major in STEM. No one they know went to medical school.

So if you take a look at freshmen who enter as STEM majors, and say, "Guess what? This group of wealthy white kids does a lot better in STEM majors than those first-gen/low-income/and/or students of color do."

"So we shouldn't admit them. Or we should use tests!"

But guess what? You've already biased the study by looking at the students who survived to declare a STEM major in the first place. If you are at the private school with good counseling, you won't end up flunking chemistry. Because you never enroll in chemistry. Duh.

Sort of (but not exactly) like this.

So consider that there is more than meets the eye in some studies of human behavior. And there's some arrogance, too, in suggesting we have accounted for all the factors that determine the output.

We can't. And we don't.

My "data" aren't structured and are not statistically tested, but I've been doing this for a long time. I might be biased myself, and my colleagues might be too.

I'll give you that. But things make an impression on you after doing this a while.

Someone should look at kids in 9th grade and see what they are interested in and where they end up and how they get there. And see if the opportunities they've been given make a difference.

As if we don't know that opportunity makes a difference.

Pretty sure it does, but I'd love to be proved wrong.

PS: I've used "doctor" as proxy for STEM, but it could be engineer or mathematician or chemist. You get the picture. These tweets are free, and worth about what you pay for them.

Consider the source.

Oh, and #EMTalk