Graphic by Karina Wu ’23
BY CORRINE LIU ’23
The difficulties science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors face, including courses with time-consuming labs and problem sets, have been long subjected to debate from students and faculty. This debate includes how much is being assigned and how many credits such courses should be worth.
At Mount Holyoke, courses with labs are worth four credits, but recently there has been student-led discussion about potentially boosting STEM courses that are above the 200-level to five credits. Biology major Kiley Dugan ’22 said this initiative is about “recognizing the extra amount of time students in these courses spend both in and out of the classroom.”
Prospective history major Hannah Raykher ’23, also supported this proposed initiative. Raykher notes that lab students spend “an extra day in class as well as learn additional skills such as lab protocol.”
For prospective mathematics major Madden Lacoste ’23, the additional credit would compensate for taking on a 200-level STEM course that required a lab.
However, this issue is not as simple as gaining support from the student body or winning over faculty and administration. This initiative could also have ramifications on the already much-debated and complex discussion between workload distribution and validation of students pursuing STEM versus humanities majors.
Prospective Neuroscience major Carrie Lewis ’23 cited how this initiative could spark debate over fairness. “It could definitely call into question whether STEM or humanities is more valued here at Mount Holyoke,” Lewis said.
Raykher believes that it is challenging to compare the difficulty of such courses. “Though [STEM and humanities courses] are both very demanding, this demand presents itself in very different ways,” Raykher said. “Evaluating course credits based on how much ... class work is demand[ed] of students in the class is a much more concrete way to evaluate credits.”
“This proposed initiative is a part of a larger discussion about expectations in and out of classes and course load transparency in general,” Dugan said.
“Administration should devise a way to measure which courses are qualified to be five credits rather than four,” Lacoste said.
Additionally, certain merit scholarships only cover a specific amount of credits, which must be considered with this proposition.
Raykher said that the possibility of such limitations creates a “huge issue of accessibility which definitely needs to be addressed, whether with Student Financial Services or different administrators.”
Dugan added that it is “also important to give students credit for the work they are ... doing, which is currently not happening.”
Beyond ensuring students are receiving enough credit for their work, Dugan also sees this initiative as an amendment to the stressful workload and culture associated with STEM courses. Dugan noted that there are students “taking up to three labs a semester, spending significantly more time doing school work in and out of class, as well as struggling to even simply find time to eat.”
“Making these courses worth five instead of four credits could make it easier for students taking lab courses to take less classes,” Dugan said, “so they have more time [in] their schedule without being so behind.”
Raykher noted another potential benefit of such a change. “Pre-health and engineering tracks do not leave room for students who want to take advantage of other courses that MHC offers as a liberal arts college, so this might help students be more well-rounded if they are able to meet STEM credit requirements faster,” Raykher said. “I’m fully in support of this if it is a program put in place to help support STEM students and help alleviate some of the stress that they face.”