As a behavioral neuroscience major, I have a bone to pick with Northeastern’s lab courses — and I know I’m not the only one.
Whether it’s asking students to spend 10 hours a week writing 15 page lab reports or rushing them through experimental protocol without ample time to grasp the subject matter, it’s clear that college-level lab courses fail to prioritize genuine comprehension.
In Northeastern’s lab courses, a lab report — a written summary of the experimental process — is a significant time commitment. During physics 1 lab, I spent numerous laborious hours crafting each report: inserting formulas, detailing the setup, collecting and analyzing data, and exploring the broader implications of our experiment. But much of this felt like busy work. Many of the experiments — like swinging a ball to demonstrate circular motion — cover concepts that are rarely applicable outside of the lab course itself. Given that 30% to 60% of science majors ultimately pursue careers outside of STEM, it’s worth asking: If research writing isn’t in our future, why devote so much time cranking out lab reports?
Aside from that, the structure of in-person lab courses is also a hindrance. Because of time constraints and limited access to lab equipment, most experiments are conducted only once. People frequently ask others to repeat their names shortly after hearing them — so how is it realistic to expect students to flawlessly execute complex, multi-step experiments on their first try? The lack of repetition makes it harder for students to gain a deep understanding of core concepts.
Additionally, safety concerns push students to rigidly follow protocols out of fear of penalties, diverting their focus away from truly grasping the material. For meaningful learning and retention, students need a lab environment where they feel comfortable asking questions and repeating steps without the fear of judgment. Consequently, some students may choose to intentionally underperform, prioritizing self-protection over academic success.
Despite the flaws of Northeastern’s lab courses, I’m not advocating for their removal. In fact, the sheer importance of labs is exactly why I care so much about changing them. As a visual learner, I find in-person labs especially helpful for understanding complex concepts; by building each experimental setup by hand, students can bring abstract theory to life.
Looking at all these benefits, shouldn’t a student’s active participation in the experiment be enough?
The essence of Northeastern is experiential learning, which prepares students to navigate an unpredictable world that rarely follows a script. The university’s lab courses should, therefore, serve as a training ground — not just for memorizing facts, but for understanding and applying knowledge to real-world contexts. As students, we aren’t designed to be robots or retriever dogs whose only skillset is matching an input to a specific output.
A key step toward experiential learning is replacing busy-work lab reports with in-person assessments that test real understanding. In Biology Project Lab, we rotated through stations, applying correct techniques in real-world scenarios — mirroring challenges scientists face, where even a few seconds’ delay in a chemical reaction can cause failure.
Our university should also offer more straightforward, lower-stakes settings for students to practice science. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Northeastern’s College of Engineering did just this by creating a series of highly-interactive lab modules designed to introduce students to an array of laboratory techniques.
The self-guided nature of these virtual simulations allow students to repeat the experiment as many times as needed — an ideal feature, given that it typically takes five to seven repetitions to commit information to long-term memory.
Another promising alternative to busy work is the “argument-driven inquiry model,” first introduced by chemistry professor Joi Walker at East Carolina University. She saw significant student improvements after transforming the traditional “scripted-lab” format into a multi-week process — allowing students to design and conduct their own experiments, engage in peer discussions and build scientific arguments.
At their best, lab courses have the potential to be the most valued class a college student will ever take. By prioritizing in-depth understanding over busy work lab reports and rigid in-person labs, students can leave knowing more than how to pipette — they’ll know how to critically think, question and adapt in any scientific setting.
Mikayla Tsai is a fourth-year behavioral neuroscience major and opinion columnist for The News. She can be reached at [email protected]
If you would like to submit a letter to the editor in response to this piece, email [email protected] with your idea.
