45% Of Students Don't Learn Much In College

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

solemole

War Child
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
580
Location
in a series of dreams
"And to think I spent all that money on big colleges,
and still I come out confused..."

45% Of Students Don't Learn Much In College

A new study provides disturbing answers to questions about how much students actually learn in college – for many, not much – and has inflamed a debate about the value of an American higher education.

The research of more than 2,300 undergraduates found 45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years.

One problem is that students just aren't asked to do much, according to findings in a new book, "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses." Half of students did not take a single course requiring 20 pages of writing during their prior semester, and one-third did not take a single course requiring even 40 pages of reading per week.

That kind of light load sounded familiar to University of Missouri freshman Julia Rheinecker, who said her first semester of college largely duplicated the work she completed back home in southern Illinois.

"I'm not going to lie," she said. "Most of what I learned this year I already had in high school. It was almost easier my first semester (in college)."

Three of the five classes she took at Missouri were in massive lecture halls with several hundred students. And Rheinecker said she was required to complete at least 20 pages of writing in only one of those classes.

"I love the environment, don't get me wrong," she said. "I just haven't found myself pushing as much as I expected."

The study, an unusually large-scale effort to track student learning over time, comes as the federal government, reformers and others argue that the U.S. must produce more college graduates to remain competitive globally. But if students aren't learning much that calls into question whether boosting graduation rates will provide that edge.

"It's not the case that giving out more credentials is going to make the U.S. more economically competitive," Richard Arum of New York University, who co-authored the book with Josipa Roksa of the University of Virginia, said in an interview. "It requires academic rigor ... You can't just get it through osmosis at these institutions."

The book is based on information from 24 schools, meant to be a representative sample, which provided Collegiate Learning Assessment data on students who took the standardized test in their first semester in fall 2005 and at the end of their sophomore years in spring 2007. The schools took part on the condition that their institutions not be identified.

The Collegiate Learning Assessment has its share of critics who say it doesn't capture learning in specialized majors or isn't a reliable measure of college performance because so many factors are beyond their control.

The research found an average-scoring student in fall 2005 scored seven percentage points higher in spring of 2007 on the assessment. In other words, those who entered college in the 50th percentile would rise to the equivalent of the 57th after their sophomore years.

Among the findings outlined in the book and report, which tracked students through four years of college:

_Overall, the picture doesn't brighten much over four years. After four years, 36 percent of students did not demonstrate significant improvement, compared to 45 percent after two.

_Students who studied alone, read and wrote more, attended more selective schools and majored in traditional arts and sciences majors posted greater learning gains.

_Social engagement generally does not help student performance. Students who spent more time studying with peers showed diminishing growth and students who spent more time in the Greek system had decreased rates of learning, while activities such as working off campus, participating in campus clubs and volunteering did not impact learning.

_Students from families with different levels of parental education enter college with different learning levels but learn at about the same rates while attending college. The racial gap between black and white students going in, however, widens: Black students improve their assessment scores at lower levels than whites.

Arum and Roksa spread the blame, pointing to students who don't study much and seek easy courses and a culture at colleges and universities that values research over good teaching.

Yahya Fahimuddin, a sixth-year computer science student at the University of California, Los Angeles, endorsed the latter finding, saying professors do seem more concerned with research. He said he can't remember the last time he wrote a paper longer than three pages, double-spaced. He feels little connection to his professors and gets the sense that mastering material is not as important as the drudge work of meeting goals and getting through material on schedule.

"Honestly, you can get by with Wikipedia and pass just about anything," he said.

Phil Hampton, a UCLA spokesman, said the university offers a rigorous and well-rounded curriculum led by faculty committed to student learning, and pointed to a study that showed high student satisfaction with their experience.

So what to do? The report warns that federally mandated fixes similar to "No Child Left Behind" in K-12 education would be "counterproductive," in part because researchers are still learning how to measure learning. But it does make clear that accountability should be emphasized more at the institutional level, starting with college presidents.

Some colleges and universities are taking steps. The University of Charleston, in West Virginia, has beefed up writing assignments in disciplines such as nursing and biology to improve learning. President Edwin Welch is among more than 70 college and university presidents pledging to take steps to improve student learning, use evidence to improve instruction and publicize results.

"I think we do need more transparency," Welch said. "I think a student at a private institution who might go into debt for $40,000 or $50,000 has the right to know what he can learn at the institution."

Lindsay McCluskey, president of the United States Student Association, said the findings speak to a larger problem in U.S. higher education: universities being run more like corporations than educational institutions, with students viewed as consumers who come for a degree and move on.

"There is less personal attention in the classroom, fewer tenure-track positions, and more classes are being taught by teaching assistants and in some cases undergraduate students," said McCluskey, a recent graduate of the University of Massachusetts Amherst. "Obviously, that has an impact on our learning and the experience we get in college."

___

AP staff writer Alan Scher Zagier in Columbia, Mo., contributed information to this report. Gorski reported from Denver.
 
Oh shit, you mean college is about more than pulling straight Cs with your girlfriends through that psycology BA, going to watch a ton of football games, and throwing up a lot in campus housing backyards?

What do people expect is supposed to come out of the False Entitlement Generation mixed with steady grade inflation?
 
I think there's several reasons at play here.

Here are just a few:

I think a large portion just doesn't value education, they only go to college in order to put it on their resume.

Too many students have no clue what they want to study therefore drift through the first couple of years, taking the easiest courses they can to get by.

If this study includes those that start off in a community college or jr college these numbers are not suprising at all.

How are these things measured? Someone who goes in and studies Engineering, Architecture, or Computer Science are often not going to have to take a class that requires them to write a 20 plus page paper but I guarantee you they graduate with a wealth of knowledge they didn't find in high school.
 
The study was measuring critical-thinking ability beyond knowledge gained in a particular field of study.

College Test Leaves Questions Unanswered - WSJ.com

Putting College Evaluations to the Test - The Numbers Guy - WSJ

The test asks students to write analytical essays and also to perform critical-thinking tasks; the latter was the basis for the study. A sample question asks students to place themselves in the role of an advisor to a fictional mayoral candidate and use data and documents to help counter an opposing candidate’s platform. A numbers-savvy test taker might note that the opponent’s claim that expanding the police force would increase crime was specious, because it was based on the argument that counties with more cops have higher crime rates (the higher rates might lead to the hiring of more cops, rather than the other way around).

“I am concerned that these results are getting abbreviated to ’students aren’t learning in college,’ ” Alexander C. McCormick, director of the National Survey of Student Engagement, wrote in an email. “The real contribution of this study in my view is that we can no longer assume that general education + specialization = assured development of broad analytic reasoning and writing skills.”
 
The study was measuring critical-thinking ability beyond knowledge gained in a particular field of study.

College Test Leaves Questions Unanswered - WSJ.com

Putting College Evaluations to the Test - The Numbers Guy - WSJ

But isn't the purpose of college to gain knowledge in a particular field of study?

Also, I'm not sure why they did this study on sophomores. Nah, I'm not shocked that almost half of them "hadn't learned much" (what does that even mean, that's a terrible phrase to use repetitively).
 
I went to two private colleges (transfer) and I did way more than that in terms of writing and reading. Maybe college is much easier now than it was when I trudged through ten feet of snow to get there....


I studied so much, lived at home, didn't party, and only had a part time job-mostly on weekends during the school year. I understand that college is way more expensive now but it still costs nothing to study rather than party. Part of what you get out of college is what you put into it.
 
you could finish college in two years if it weren't all a giant money grab.

every job has a different level of training. why is it then that we have an arbitrary 4 year number to get a degree? spend 2 years of studying your field, 2 years of on the job training and call it a day. lessen up requirements for degrees for entry level positions and allow those who don't know what they want to study to go right into the job force. set up apprenticeship programs so that people can really learn what they need to know to do the job in the field they want.
 
I went to two private colleges (transfer) and I did way more than that in terms of writing and reading. Maybe college is much easier now than it was when I trudged through ten feet of snow to get there....

I went to a private college as well, graduated in '06 and it was MUCH harder than what was described here (but for me not really any harder than high school....but I went to a hard high school.....). 40 pages of reading would be more like the bare minimum per day, per class, and 20 pages of writing would be per assignment/paper. However I did have the experience of the first year or two being very repetitive as one student in the article mentions. I attribute that to the "liberal arts" core curriculum and the high school I attended. It was not repetitive or easy for a lot of people.
 
But isn't the purpose of college to gain knowledge in a particular field of study?

I really don't think that it is, outside of a select few areas, like for example teaching, architecture and engineering.

For most of the others, I think the purpose is to learn to think critically, which you can then apply to a specialized field (where you'd gain specific knowledge). So that's what grad school, med school, law school, dentistry, etc are for.
 
Here's the problem... most people end up not using the degree they went to school for in the first place... so then what was the point?



i majored in English. i now make TV. i certainly considered being an English teacher, but the four years i spent at a small liberal arts college where i studied a variety of subjects and learned how to read and write enabled me to graduate and be able to move into any variety of careers. i studied English simply because i thought the courses looked more interesting overall than the courses in the History department, and because American Studies looked a bit too DIY at the time, though, in retrospect, that would have been better.

however, i think this kind of education was a luxury predicated upon not only my parents being able to afford for me to spend four years growing my mind, but also because i have a wide variety of interests and a base level of ability whereby getting into a graduate school, or making a total career change, were/are entirely possible. i do agree that most people who are more career oriented right out of high school -- people who know what they want to be and know what they need to do to get there -- probably wouldn't be as interested or even willing to pay for a liberal arts background and probably would be better served by the model you suggest.

and yet, there's a part of me that would like to think that a dental hygenist might have really loved her Shakespeare courses in college, or that a physical therapist has a bookshelf full of their Philosophy 101 books, and that because our professionals have had a wider exposure to knowledge and because they've been asked to write critically about a subject that isn't directly related to their career earnings, that they're more able to think outside of the box when performing their everyday jobs. and we're all better for that.

as education becomes ever more expensive, it does seem to me that many people would rather learn what they need to know as quickly (and cheaply) as they can, and then let's move on and maybe i'll only be $25K in debt rather than $50K.
 
Here's the problem... most people end up not using the degree they went to school for in the first place... so then what was the point?

I may not use the exact material I had to memorize but I certainly use the experience of having to work with all sorts of people (some of which I couldn't stand) and the experience networking in my fields of study and/or interest. College was not more difficult for me academically, but there was a much greater emphasis on networking and team work. To me there's a big difference between having to write a 20 page paper on your own where the teacher has given very specific guidelines and outline of what the paper should cover (high school assignment) and having to sit down with half a dozen other people not of your own choosing and developing a marketing and business plan for an existing business (undergrad assignment). I haven't written a real marketing plan or an employee handbook since college but those sorts of projects taught me how to work with other people and develop connections with local businesses and those skills I can and do use daily regardless of what field of study is on my BA.
 
i majored in English. i now make TV. i certainly considered being an English teacher, but the four years i spent at a small liberal arts college where i studied a variety of subjects and learned how to read and write enabled me to graduate and be able to move into any variety of careers. i studied English simply because i thought the courses looked more interesting overall than the courses in the History department, and because American Studies looked a bit too DIY at the time, though, in retrospect, that would have been better.

however, i think this kind of education was a luxury predicated upon not only my parents being able to afford for me to spend four years growing my mind, but also because i have a wide variety of interests and a base level of ability whereby getting into a graduate school, or making a total career change, were/are entirely possible. i do agree that most people who are more career oriented right out of high school -- people who know what they want to be and know what they need to do to get there -- probably wouldn't be as interested or even willing to pay for a liberal arts background and probably would be better served by the model you suggest.

and yet, there's a part of me that would like to think that a dental hygenist might have really loved her Shakespeare courses in college, or that a physical therapist has a bookshelf full of their Philosophy 101 books, and that because our professionals have had a wider exposure to knowledge and because they've been asked to write critically about a subject that isn't directly related to their career earnings, that they're more able to think outside of the box when performing their everyday jobs. and we're all better for that.

as education becomes ever more expensive, it does seem to me that many people would rather learn what they need to know as quickly (and cheaply) as they can, and then let's move on and maybe i'll only be $25K in debt rather than $50K.

and that last paragraph is the entire point... the cost.

yes, i agree... it would be great if everyone could take the 4 years of college and learn as much as possible.

but the costs are getting outrageous, and we have generations of young adults saddled in debt before they even get a job. i don't even think a change to the colleges themselves is necessary. why should you need a degree to work at trader joe's? many people could get the appropriate training with associate degrees or even from taking certificate programs.

if the job market would look more at whether or not you can do the job and less at whether or not you have a piece of paper that says you can do the job, even if you can't... i think we'd all be happier and in a lot less debt.
 
why should you need a degree to work at trader joe's?

if the job market would look more at whether or not you can do the job and less at whether or not you have a piece of paper that says you can do the job, even if you can't... i think we'd all be happier and in a lot less debt.

Because nobody goes to college so that they can work at Trader Joe's.

It just so happens that the bachelor's degree has been watered down and is almost worthless. There is a lot of competition for grad schools and professional schools and many people get left behind because they don't have the grades, or don't want to spend the money or whatever.

But a lot of them go to college with a certain goal in mind, and that goal sure isn't Trader Joe's. It just so happens that they end up there anyway. Could that have been foreseen at the outset? Maybe, for some of them. Maybe not for others.
 
"If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library"
Frank Zappa
 
anitram said:
Because nobody goes to college so that they can work at Trader Joe's.

Trader joe's lists "4 year degree preferred" on their job postings.

That was my point. Not that people with degrees settle for trader joe's because they have no choice, but that trader joe's its looking for people with degrees to stock shelves and wave little red flags.

If employers cared more about who can do a job vs. who has a piece of paper that says they should be able to do a job, then maybe just maybe colleges wouldn't be able to jack up their tuition as much as they do now.
 
I am not happy with the cost of my education, but I definitely got the job I have now because I was in the right place at the right time working on my BA. I feel that I make the right amount of money considering what I do, I make enough to enjoy the type of lifestyle I prefer, and there are very, very few jobs in any industry in this country that can offer anything comparable as far as the benefits package. Also my current employer pays for me to receive additional training and certifications in my field, so I already have other industry-specific titles that are not part of graduate programs. So was it worth the high cost "just" for the BA? I'm inclined to say yes (just received an acceptable counter offer on purchasing our first house as I was typing this post).
 
a four year degree....jesus. maybe if you want to become a pharmacist or a pilot.

from my perspective outside looking in, gen ed is a downright insulting waste of money and i can't (wait...i can) believe places can pull that shit.

but i digress.
 
Trader joe's lists "4 year degree preferred" on their job postings.

That was my point. Not that people with degrees settle for trader joe's because they have no choice, but that trader joe's its looking for people with degrees to stock shelves and wave little red flags.

If employers cared more about who can do a job vs. who has a piece of paper that says they should be able to do a job, then maybe just maybe colleges wouldn't be able to jack up their tuition as much as they do now.

I do agree and think this is ridiculous in some cases. My mom works for an affordable daycare program at an inner-city community center and they have a favorite daycare employee that has been with them for years and raised several children of her own by herself. She is amazing and is great with the kids, the type of woman whose gift is truly child-rearing. No amount of chaos effects her mood or ability to do her job. But, something was changed (I believe some requirement of the state or possibly the foundations issuing the grants that fund the daycare program) and now all employees must have an associates degree at minimum regardless of their other qualifications. That is cakepie to some people but this woman came from nothing, a high school drop-out, and works her hands raw. So she reads at a 5th grade level, she is not doing payroll or writing grant proposals, she is raising infants. Everyone at the daycare helped her with her schoolwork, heck even I was in on proof-reading her papers, formatting the correct MLA citations, etc. Her professors knew she was only in their program so she could keep her job and didn't seem to care that my mom and I were basically writing her papers. Such a waste of time and money for everyone involved but they couldn't afford to lose such a valuable employee.
 
my degree is in sports management. helped me get my job, but most of what i do at my job now consists of advertising, web programming & design. just happens to be advertising & web programming/design in a non profit sports & rec type job. i have lots of on the job training now doing these things, completely self taught.

i now live in manhattan. i still work on long island. takes a long ass time and a lot of money to get out there and back every day. and when it snows? forget it.

so i've tried looking at web & graphic design jobs in the city. haven't gotten a sniff. why? i have no certification in web & graphic design. so now i'm taking a $4,000 certificate program at hunter college so that i can get a piece of paper that says that i know what i already know how to do.

now $4,000 ain't much, and is certainly something i hope to make up (and then some) with a new job and fewer travel expenses. but i'd certainly like to put that $4,000 towards, oh i dunno, my wedding and/or honeymoon, rather than for a piece of paper that tells someone else that i can do what i can already do.

in a side, ironic note... my fiancé has a masters in public policy, specializing in non profit work, yet works in sports. go figure.
 
Congrats on the house, Lies!! :hyper:

On topic - my undergraduate degree was in Immunology, which has exactly ZERO to do with my current career (corporate law). Do I regret it? Not at all. I always knew that a bachelor's degree wasn't enough for me and I'd do further schooling so I studied what interested me at the time.
 
One more thing to throw into the mix.

Unemployment rate is around 10%

15% for those with out a 4 year degree
and 4% for those with a 4 year degree.


I am not surprised Trader Joes is putting degree preferred on their postings.
I think many places may be doing that, just to make sure that the employee will have basic reading comprehension.
 
I am not happy with the cost of my education, but I definitely got the job I have now because I was in the right place at the right time working on my BA. I feel that I make the right amount of money considering what I do, I make enough to enjoy the type of lifestyle I prefer, and there are very, very few jobs in any industry in this country that can offer anything comparable as far as the benefits package. Also my current employer pays for me to receive additional training and certifications in my field, so I already have other industry-specific titles that are not part of graduate programs. So was it worth the high cost "just" for the BA? I'm inclined to say yes (just received an acceptable counter offer on purchasing our first house as I was typing this post).

Congrats on your house! That's pretty exciting!
 
As there is a need for shorter degrees that deliver real skills at a reasonable cost, bursting this bubble will hopefully deliver it. Eventually.

The Coming College Education Bubble - Forbes.com

Higher education's price-earnings ratio looks like Nevada housing circa 2007.

The overwhelming cultural consensus of the post-WWII generation was that if you are middle-class, then you simply must own your own home and your children must go to college. Out of that cultural consensus emerged a complex system of tax breaks and special lending deals designed to make sure that the number of Americans who bought houses and bachelor's degrees was as high as possible--or maybe more so.

Many people now understand that this system of tax-and-lend has created a multigenerational housing bubble. But only a few have noticed that a very similar tax-and-lend system has also created a multi-generational higher education bubble.

Higher education shows every reasonable sign of having a completely unrealistic, astronomical price tag. Beyond that, the sacred cow psychology that commonly accompanies other mania is clearly present.

Numerous authors have minutely detailed the dangers to college consumers: the price tag is too high; the lending is too lax; the product is too low-quality; the socialization process is too coarsening; the parents are kept too much in the dark; the earning advantages are too aggressively touted; the alternatives are too cheap.

And yet, when I asked these critics whether it was worth it any longer, some of the harshest of them still piously genuflected to the college altar and rebutted the idea that higher education had entered a bubble phase. What greater sentiment indicator could there be? It reminded me of one of those third-world dictatorships where even the opposition candidates effusively praise the virtues of the glorious leader against whom they run.
 
the college loan people should be put out of business.

sometimes i wish the youth of america wasn't so lazy and had such a bad sense of entitlement regarding college. seems that any time the price goes up in other parts of the world there are massive riots and protests. here we all just bend over and take it in the tookus.
 
Back
Top Bottom