Section Size is a STEM Concern Too

For nearly a year, the Harvard Teaching Campaign has been seeking to cap section sizes at 12 students apiece, and since its inception, most of the support for the campaign has come from non-STEM fields. A simple look at the campaign’s endorsements shows that while the philosophy, sociology, and English departments all support smaller section sizes, there has yet to be a STEM field to follow up. Thus far, the list of faculty signers is missing STEM faculty.

I’m a science concentrator and pre-med. And I believe that students like myself need to express a vested interest in this campaign too.

For most students, science education consists of large lectures, topics of imposing difficulty, and frantic attempts to absorb as much information as possible. What we often miss from this standardized approach is the chance to truly talk through the subject.

Often in section, I feel that I should not ask questions, as I do not want to “hog” section time for my own inquiries. With a smaller section size, this problem can be remedied by creating a more intimate learning environment where students can ask questions and attempt to better explore the class material.

An April 2014 Undergraduate Council teaching survey indicated that nearly 80 percent of respondents believed “smaller section sizes encourage them to participate.” This participation should be the spirit of scientific inquiry.

Smaller sections facilitate this scientific conversation in class. Harvard does a good job with promoting this spirit—but, as Christina V. Groeger ’08 wisely pointed out in a recent op-ed in The Crimson, it can and should “set the bar high”, in all fields.

An additional concern largely unique to STEM fields is the lab component to classes. Assuming that there are 18 students in a section, a teaching fellow’s attention is constantly split between them. At any given moment, a lab TF is responsible for answering students’ questions, ensuring that lab protocol is being observed, and, most importantly, guaranteeing the safety of their students and responding to emergencies.

The Harvard Teaching Campaign recognizes this, and has asked for a cap on both mandatory sections and lab groups. This is reflected in the referendum question for the UC ballot in the current election.

Looking back at my past experiences in sections, it is very clear which have been effective and which have not. In LS1a, with a section of 15 students, I personally found it difficult to find confidence to contribute to such a large group. This was compounded by the fact that it was my first experience in the life sciences at Harvard. Had the section size been smaller, I am almost certain that I would have felt more confident contributing, and that my TF would have had an easier time facilitating a cooperative mentality that would ultimately lead to better learning.

Conversely, my smaller PS1 section better permitted discussion, as there was a more concentrated group of people contributing. In that environment, I had ample opportunity to speak up in section, as did my classmates, and we were able to cover both class material and discuss ideas that went beyond the lectures.

My section experiences push me to urge section size caps for all of my classes—not just those within my concentration. While there are arguments specific to STEM classes, STEM students participate in Harvard’s other educational offerings, such as the General Education program. And if Harvard really believes in the spirit of a liberal arts education, it should ensure the best learning environment in all fields by capping section size.

The only remaining question is, will enough of us take action to support the campaign and to have the departments to which we belong declare their support as well?

Please vote yes on a section cap.

Andrew Mazzanti ’17 is a human developmental and regenerative biology concentrator in Winthrop House.