Vox Day quotes an article on the topic of today’s college non-education experience
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 isn’t my experience. Did I accidentally make it into a college that is asking something more than another college I could have chosen?
My second quarter English class required multiple papers of 20+ pages. I aced that course, and I partly blame my having blogged here for seven years for that.
My previous and current Geography courses both require more than 40 pages of reading per week. Hell, the first week of the current quarter I was reading 90 pages to prepare for the first 10 page paper I had to write so that I could get the key to take the first online test the following Monday?
I understand that Geography isn’t exactly “hard science”, but great googly-moogly, this ain’t exactly a walk in the park either.
The Wife and I were having a discussion during the UK Tuition Hike riots. I had noticed that there were a lot of artsy types being whiny in the press but no science majors. I told her that they should make a deal with the protesters: You study math or science and you get the old rate. If you want to study something useless like Women’s Studies or Marketing, you had to pay the new rate.
She didn’t think that was fair because not everyone is “the math & science type”.
I then made a Golgafrincham Ark B reference and lost her.
Ha! Great reference!
Each school is different, and a lot actually have stringent standards (UWash is not a slacker school). There are a lot more, however, that are willing to let anybody in the door and either inflate grades or dumb-down classes in order to improve their graduation rates. Such places can even claim to be accredited because the regional accrediting organizations have pretty loose standards, and most people have no clue which accrediting bodies are exacting, and which just want to get paid their fee.
My fix – simple, the only schools that are allowed to get federal student aid (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, GI Bill, VA Benefits, etc.) are ones whose accreditation is provided by approved organizations (AACSB, ABET, ABA, AAMC, etc), and who require the standard entry exams (ACT, SAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, GMAT). I mention the entry exams because using the SAT & ACT for admissions has fallen out of favor, and even the ABA is considering removing the requirement that students take the LSAT before being admitted to Law School.
We need to get over this idea that everybody should be allowed into a degree seeking university. We should not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc., but we should discriminate on proven academic ability. This attitude has caused the erosion of university quality, since most schools do not want high attrition rates, especially in the first 2 years. I mean, if you can’t figure out how to pass a multiple choice exam, you really should think about Tech School, or Beauty College.
And for those who wail on about underprivileged kids not being able to get into university, well, there are only so many seats in the class, yet despite this, most major universities set aside seats for the disadvantaged who might have the ability, but have not yet been given the opportunity to prove it.
Higher Education is what you make of it.
Slackers slack off, and motivated people learn something.
Every environment has opportunities to excel.
However, I am all for Pell Grants being given only to students studying a “hard science”, engineering, or math.
The US does not need any more journalists, psychologists, sociologists or “political scientists”.
Never did get many requirements for writing longish papers in college.
Examination was by written tests, sometimes with questions dictated on the spot by the examiner for the students to write down (with the more sadistic ones grading the questions for spelling errors as well as the answers).
Of course my curiculum was heavy on the physical sciences, and did require lab reports but there was no required size for those (would have been pointless anyway, would only lead to people stuffing them to meet the requirements).
IMO setting lower limits on the bulk of a paper is silly, as bulk is no measure for quality.
Rather the teacher should spend time actually examining the content of the piece, and grade it by how well the topic is handled.
If you can meet the requirements for the paper (minus the bulk requirement) in 10 pages better than someone else in 20 pages, your paper is actually superior to theirs.
Mind you, I’m not talking about creative writing classes though there too the principle applies though maybe to a lesser degree (as creative writing is often paid for by bulk at least in part and certainly for beginning authors).
My wife attended WSU in a non-science, non-engineering program (accounting and biz mgmt double major). She worked hard but doesn’t feel that it was very difficult. The engineers there work hard, too – they have some great engineering programs. However, I have talked to people who attended WSU who didn’t have much to say about doing actual work. At UW, the English program is intensive, as you note. There are plenty of easier courseloads there, of course, but it’s not a slacker school.
Pingback: The Economics of a Degree - The Minuteman