As a science or engineering student at Cornell, it is all too easy to get frustrated with labs. They tend to be time-consuming and tedious, especially when focus needs to be dedicated to other courses. Most of all, however, they feel like a dumbed-down version of the theory covered in class, lacking the depth of analytical problems. To many, it feels that labs are totally pointless, distracting from useful concepts that can be used for exams.
However, the fundamentals of scientific practice are not, shockingly, extracting elegant expressions from carefully posed problems. Instead, they are a pursuit of answers amidst unclear observations and contradictory ideas, guided by the fundamental principles learned in lecture. This is what science is really like, requiring clever problem solving as well as practiced interpretation. Lab work becomes an exercise in argumentation and rhetoric, as evidence to back up ideas must be used in conjunction with effective communication. Yet, this is rarely communicated to students, with labs feeling like they are tacked on to lecture-based classes.
Even if they are an important aspect of a thorough scientific education, the labs at Cornell are often lacking. Whether it be the burden of quizzes or rushed lab periods, there is a lot actively working against the well-being of the students. Pre-lab work, although typically presented by professors as an opportunity for additional credit, can distract from the actual concepts and techniques evaluated during the lab sessions — with students hyperfocusing on measured performance. These seem to be archaic detriments for evaluation, especially in the massive lab-based classes, such as General Chemistry I & II. For these, and other hated classes especially, students are usually more than happy to engage with pre-lab resources, as they are ultimately motivated in getting a good grade on their reports. This, though, becomes excessive when it compounds into several graded pre- and post-lab assessments, as well as the mismatched paces of lecture and lab material. Knowing that students are burdened with other busy science classes, these odd incentive structures seem like blunderous oversights.
Complementing this, many of Cornell’s labs are verification-based in nature, which rely on checking the validity of scientific theorems. This work is often rigid and methodical, leaving little room for student initiative, rendering the work boring and repetitive. It is a disingenuous interpretation of what it is “to do science.” Posing hypotheses is pointless, as the result is already known, rather than observed and argued for. As such, some have proposed to relinquish more control to students’ hands, allowing them not only to have a hand in designing experiments (assisted by professor supervision of course), but actively work in discovering relationships, rather than verifying them.
Yet, despite such ideas for innovation, which hope to encourage student independence, some may wonder how effective these might be actually implemented. More freedom in labs is a far higher burden for both students and teachers alike. Students will need to be more involved in their pre-class preparations, at risk of emerging from the lab with no results at all, while teachers will have to interact with the ideas of various students rather than a general cookie-cutter method. Furthermore, in labs where student leadership could be actively dangerous, such as chemistry, this proves infeasible.
This leaves a dilemma. On the one hand, many of Cornell’s labs suffer from their businesslike administration, sacrificing proper scientific understanding for a more methodical approach. It only takes a quick walk around PSB to hear the groans of “I have lab later today,” or “This report is taking me forever.” The alternative, however, can be distressing in the academic liberty it offers. Students, many of whom have never had lab-like classes before, are at the risk of finding themselves lost, creating unequal pedagogical accessibility.
Solutions to some of these problems exist in many of Cornell’s labs, but they have been held back from emerging to the forefront. “Introduction to Experimental Physics” is a class that, especially near the end, encourages students to participate in experimental design, allowing for the aforementioned process of discovery. However, it falls short in excessive hand-holding at the start of the course, initially avoiding the liberty that it gives students later on.
“Organic Chemistry Lab,” one of the better run labs, is a genuinely informative educational experience. Lab technique is contextualized well in lecture, and, despite the structured nature of the work, ends up being quite engaging. As a course, it is living proof that chemistry labs not only work better divorced from their associated lectures, providing liberty in student schedules, but also that tedious busy work, which the class lacks, is pointless.
When it comes to scientific education, especially at a university as prestigious as Cornell, the efficacy of lab-based learning is of central concern and importance. Lack of student engagement or interest in many introductory courses is a calamitous misstep, as proper science is not taught, while students get jaded with the material as they learn it. As long as labs continue to get sidelined, they hurt students and their ability to uncover the scientific relevance of the phenomena observed in class.
Ayman Abou-Alfa is a second year student in the College of Arts & Sciences. His fortnightly column Mind & Matter delves into the intersection of culture and science at Cornell University. He can be reached at [email protected].