From Readiness to Retention: Why Students Fail Science and How Science Success Tutors Closes the Gap
American parents send their children off to college believing that their high school success (with its A’s, AP classes, and honors diplomas) will translate directly into college persistence and degree completion. Yet in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), that expectation often falls short. Across the United States, too many students arrive underprepared for the rigor of college-level science and math, and too many never make it through. This is not a reflection of personal failure; it is evidence of a systemic gap between high school preparation and college reality.
The first major gap is readiness. The ACT defines “college readiness benchmarks” as the minimum scores associated with at least a 50 percent chance of earning a B or higher (or a 75 percent chance of earning a C or higher) in corresponding first-year college courses. For science, that benchmark is an ACT score of 23. Yet, according to ACT’s national reporting, only about one-third of high school graduates meet that standard in science, and the percentage has declined slightly over the last decade. In short, a high school “A” in biology or chemistry does not necessarily mean that a student can handle the complexity of college-level coursework. Many incoming students lack deep conceptual understanding, quantitative reasoning skills, and scientific problem-solving abilities.
This disconnect highlights what might be called the illusion of readiness. Because high school grading systems, course pacing, and test styles differ from those in college, students may appear highly competent on paper while still being underprepared for the intellectual demands of higher education. Many colleges ask students to complete foundational or co-requisite coursework or encourage participation in summer bridge programs to help close these academic gaps before classes even begin. The result is a clear sign that high school preparation, even when it looks strong, often does not align with college expectations.
Once students begin college with the intent to major in STEM, the second challenge appears: retention. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that roughly 40 to 50 percent of students who start in STEM fields either switch to non-STEM majors or leave college before completing a degree. Among those who leave STEM, many change majors outside of STEM, while others exit higher education altogether. These losses tend to occur early, often in the first or second year, when students meet challenging gateway courses such as introductory biology, chemistry, or calculus. Many capable students experience what feels like hitting a wall, often due to unfamiliar learning strategies, overwhelming course loads, and limited support.
National Science Foundation indicators similarly show that substantial numbers of students who begin in the physical, computer, or mathematical sciences do not complete degrees in their original fields. Many switch to other majors (sometimes within STEM and sometimes outside it), contributing to the broader national pattern of STEM attrition. Research consistently shows that attrition is especially pronounced after gateway mathematics such as Calculus I, with women more likely than men to leave despite comparable academic preparation, and with underrepresented students facing additional structural barriers such as fewer opportunities for advanced coursework and limited access to mentoring.
The impact of this readiness and retention gap extends far beyond grades. When students drop out of STEM or switch majors, the emotional toll can be immense. Years of effort and identity invested in a dream career can unravel quickly. There are also tangible costs: switching majors often delays graduation, increases tuition expenses, and reduces access to high-demand, high-paying STEM careers. The loss is not just individual; it represents wasted potential in a nation that depends on scientific innovation and technological advancement.
These challenges are not inevitable. They arise when students lack the scaffolding needed to translate high school success into collegiate and professional confidence. Many students who leave STEM are not struggling with intelligence or curiosity; they are struggling with the transition from learning content to thinking like scientists. They often lack mentors, metacognitive strategies, and the resilience to recover from early setbacks. Closing the readiness gap early and providing sustained guidance through the first critical years of college can make the difference between giving up and breaking through.
This is where Science Success Tutors (SST) comes in. SST’s mission is to prepare students not only to survive college science but to thrive in it. Our approach begins with a diagnostic readiness assessment that identifies each student’s strengths and gaps relative to college standards. From there, we deliver targeted instruction that emphasizes scientific reasoning, data interpretation, and experimental thinking, helping students move beyond memorization to mastery. Just as importantly, we integrate academic coaching focused on metacognition, study strategies, and mindset development. Students learn how to manage time, self-assess understanding, and recover from setbacks with confidence.
We also support students through the high-stakes transition of gateway courses, identifying early warning signs such as weak quiz performance or lab struggles, and intervening before the problem grows. Throughout the process, we nurture self-efficacy and persistence, or the belief that success in science is not about innate talent but about effort, strategy, and support.
The best time to bridge the gap is before college begins. Early intervention (ideally in high school) can prevent years of frustration, extra costs, and lost confidence. National data show that a large share of students who enter STEM will not finish a STEM degree without the right supports. Parents who want to protect their child’s potential should start early, ensuring that their learning habits and reasoning skills align with true college expectations.
At Science Success Tutors, we help students make that leap from readiness to resilience. We believe that no student should have to face the “weed-out” experience alone. With personalized instruction, scientific thinking strategies, and holistic coaching, we help students not only enter STEM but thrive there. The readiness gap and the STEM attrition leak are real, but they are not destiny. With the right support, every student can step confidently into the future of science.
References
ACT. (2019). The condition of college & career readiness 2019. ACT, Inc. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/secured/documents/cccr-2019/National-CCCR-2019.pdf
ACT. (2024). The ACT national profile report: Graduating class of 2024. ACT, Inc. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/2024-act-national-graduating-class-profile-report.pdf
Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
National Science Board, National Science Foundation. (2021). Science and engineering indicators 2021: Higher education in science and engineering (NSB-2021-2). National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212
Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLOS ONE, 11(7), e0157447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447
Seymour, E., & Hunter, A.-B. (2019). Talking about leaving revisited: Persistence, relocation, and loss in undergraduate STEM education. Springer.
Toven-Lindsey, B., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Barber, P. H., & Hasson, T. (2015). Increasing persistence in undergraduate science majors: A model for institutional support of underrepresented students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(2), ar12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-05-0082
