Today's college students learn less than those of previous decades-

[old mark]

Book finds "almost no increase" in critical thinking over 4 years...many students report that college is easier than their high school was...

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/09/133310978/in-college-a-lack-of-rigor-leaves-students-adrift

College teachers lighten the load and decrease demands to win better ratings from students...


mark

[varkam]

1. And yet tuition keeps going up and up and up....

Hmmmmm....

[old mark]

2. It's just another business, after all...nt

[aikoaiko]

11. Yes, and students keep attending and paying at their choice.

hmmmmmmmm.

[varkam]

55. That's right! Don't go to school, kids!

Education's for suckers!

[midnight]

3. One only has to see George Bushes transcripts to know that

this may have been a problem for some time....

[Divernan]

8. He benefitted from being a legacy.

Legacies could get by with a "Gentleman's C" at the Ivies, and that's what he did. The faculty looked on them with contempt. At least, that's what I've been told by my son, who went to Yale in the same class with Scotty Bush (George H. W.'s nephew).

[Le Taz Hot]

4. Of course they do.

After the Boomers, they had to dumb down the curriculum all across the board. We asked too many questions.

[aikoaiko]

10. Who do you think is in charge of the academy right now?

Baby boomers.

:shrug:

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Nonsequitur . n/t

[aikoaiko]

14. Was that too difficult for you to follow?

You wrote: After the Boomers, they had to dumb down the curriculum all across the board. We asked too many questions.

The "they" we are talking about now are baby boomers. Why would baby boomers (the folks who asked too many questions as you say) be dumbing down the curriculum now?

[bettyellen]

16. they would be dumbing down the curriculum since job security became a thing of the past

and money was everything. The marketplace model meant that popularity with young students, unfortunately, became the way to success.
The Reagan years took away everyone pensions and put pressure on all to participate in a race to the bottom. Education became just another means to an end, a gateway diploma and then a workplace on the same trajectory - where money rules and the fruits of those who still care about innovation and scholarship would be quite happily purchased on the cheap - or stolen. Sad all around.

[anafreeka]

5. Easier today for college students?

I'm an older student finishing my bachelor's degree. I can judge today and several decades ago when I first started college. My courses are the same or more difficult than they once were. Maybe some schools are easier. I know that word processing has changed my perception of writing papers. The computer makes things much easier.

[laundry_queen]

53. Yeah, not sure I agree that it's easier now.

I attended college right out of high school for a year. I was in sciences and found it more difficult than high school, but there wasn't a ton of homework. We did spend a lot of time in labs, but again, not much homework. I went out often with my friends. Did a lot of partying and always had a lot of time for homework. Never had to stay up late to finish it.

Now I'm back and in a ton of business courses. It is far more work now than it was when I last attended. The internet has ADDED amazing amounts of homework. Nearly every class has powerpoints that must be read as well as online assignments and quizzes IN ADDITION to the stuff that used to be your regular homework (reading the textbooks, doing the problems in the back of the chapter, doing the odd assignment). I literally come home, start homework, take a break to cook my kids supper, back to homework, put my kids to bed, more homework, till at least midnight. It's crazy. There's less classroom time now too, but that's almost worse, you are expected to self-teach with all your internet/textbook resources. Personally, I liked it better the last time I attended.

I will say the place I am attending right now has a lot of 'faculty evaluations' that one must fill out every term for every class, but it doesn't seem to affect anything. I still have teachers who are very demanding and without a lot of empathy for things like illnesses, so I don't think *my* school weeds out the tougher ones, but maybe some do.

[Sancho]

6. This study has some major flaws....

even though grade inflation and a lack of rigor have been criticized for decades, the CLA is not a valid measure of "critical thinking". It is true that there is pressure for bodies and bucks to influence grading, but there is also an increase in the use of complex technology compared to a few decades ago. Some students are getting better access to information, more individualized learning, and more simulations than could have been done years ago without computers.

Costs are rising (but not faculty salaries) because colleges have less state support than they used to get, there are lots more opportunities to go to higher education than was available in the mid-1900's (all those colleges in each community cost money), and a larger percentage of the money goes to administration, athletics, technology, and student services (health clinics, inter-murals, students centers, etc.) than used to exist.

[Divernan]

7. "Teachers lighten load to win better student ratings."

Bottom line: the universities have figured out that easy classes from non-demanding faculty get large enrollments and that makes money for them. They are spoon-feeding their students.

As a doctoral student in sociology, way back in the 70's at Pitt, I was first a teaching assistant, and then for 3 years a Teaching Fellow. "Fellows" had full responsibility for teaching their own classes. Back then, the university evaluated faculty for promotion solely on professional publications, presentations at professional conferences, etc., and didn't care how poorly they taught. I was once assigned to teach Introduction to Criminology when I had never taken a single course on Criminology. I was told, that's OK - just keep a week ahead of the students in the reading. No classes assigned to a single instructor were supposed to exceed an enrollment of 40. If more than 40, the instructor was supposed to have one teaching assistant for each additional 40. My department used to offer many sections of the same classes at different times in the registration catalogue and then combine them. I ended up with a criminology class of over 100 students, with NO Teaching Assistants. The University made a ton of money off of me with that class.

I can still recall taking a graduate statistics class from a professor from South America whose English was so garbled and mispronounced that no one could understand him. If you as a student had a terrible professor, that was your problem. Tenured professors got by with teaching classes on topics so obscure and irrelevant (Max Weber: The Early Years) that only 3 students enrolled.

When I developed and taught the first class at the University on the subject of Death and Dying, I was ridiculed by the Max Weber-offering professor, for pandering to students by offering a popular topic. Silly me - teaching a topic aimed at being of practical use! I was an intellectual embarrassment to the department! A decade later, when the University finally laid the law down to the Weber professor, telling him he could not teach undergrad courses unless they got an enrollment of at least 20 students, he started teaching a class called "Death and Dying for the Medical Professions". That became a required course for all the nursing & pre-med students, and saved his ass. Of course he never apologized to me for his earlier insulting comments.

Flash forward 35 years. I participated in Pitt's OSHER program (for those 55 years of age and older). For a modest annual fee of $250, I can take as many classes as I want, either in the OSHER program, or auditing regular University classes. What I have found is shameless pandering to keep the undergrad students happy to get good evaluations. Example: an upper division political science course on the European Union. The undergrad students were all Poli Sci majors or minors. The doctoral student (from Eastern Europe), teaching the course was very knowledgeable and quite competent intellectually to teach the class. Her English was excellent. But, to keep her students happy (i.e,get good teaching evaluations & keep her fellowship appointment), she did not keep track of attendance; she posted power point slides of her lectures on line (no need to take notes in class); two of the weekly, Saturday morning, 3 hour classes were devoted to movies (not documentaries, but popular films like Goodbye Lenin); on movie days she treated the students to pizza and soft drinks; and provided the exam questions a week before the exam. We had her home phone number if we had any questions. When she would pause in her presentation to ask if anyone had any questions, or when she would try to throw out a topic for discussion, the students NEVER responded, and she never put any of them on the spot. I used to talk to her after class (I had studied History and Law of the European Union in a week long continuing legal ed. class in Dublin) and found her a treasure trove of information. The undergrad students missed out on a lot of insight by not interacting with her. She also tried to involve the students by telling them of conferences and lectures on campus which they could attend for free.

I have often observed other undergraduate classes where students are served pizza & soft drinks as a lure to get them to come to class and ultimately to give the professor a good rating.

What I have not seen in undergrad classes is any evidence of excitement about a topic, intellectual curiosity or enthusiasm. It all boils down to: "Will this be on the test?"

The non-credit OSHER classes for us older students are two hours long, with a 10 minute break in the middle. During these breaks, the room typically erupts in a torrent of enthusiastic conversations as we comment to each other on what was covered during the first hour of class, or exchange recommendations for other classes. The teacher has to rap loudly on the podium to call us to order to continue his/her lecture. One professor (a really excellent lecturer) compared this to his undergrad classes, where the students stare in sullen silence waiting for him to start or resume his lecture.

[a la izquierda]

9. I am a graduate student instructor right now...

and this line really resonated with me:
"where the students stare in sullen silence waiting for him to start or resume his lecture." I don't know what it is about this semester and the students I have, but holy smokes, they're like zombies. Last semester, my students would chat with each other and me before lecture started and were really engaged. This semester, I'm fairly certain most of my students don't actually have pulses. They do the *bare* minimum to get by. But unfortunately for them, my exams are really hard and if they pay attention and engage the material, they'll do fine. But since they don't care to, many of them are in serious trouble, and it's only 4 weeks in.

[eilen]

23. My son is the opposite

He is very engaged and spurs quite a bit in class conversation on the subject; reads voraciously but sadly is not very good at getting in homework (hates handing in notecards) and has had some testing problems. I am hoping his grades improve at community college as he is a fantastic writer.

[a la izquierda]

54. I have many students like your son...

but for whatever reason, this semester is a little off.

[antigone382]

dupe n/t

[antigone382]

20. As a sociologist, are you familiar with Randall Colllins's perspective on "credential inflation"

I'm a fairly new sociology student, and was just reading last night about his ideas regarding advanced education as a way of perpetuating class, in that the holders of those jobs set up entry requirements reflecting their own achievements, and to an extent the culture that has evolved around their education and class status (I'm not explaining this very eloquently because I just woke up). Credential inflation is the result of general recognition by parents of the need for their children to achieve higher and higher levels of education to access the most lucrative, powerful, and prestigious jobs, which in turn spurs the classes holding those jobs to develop additional prerequisites to limit the number of people qualified for those jobs.

I found it interesting that, while the number of gifted poor students attending the more prestigious institutions hadn't really changed (either at the time of Collins's work or at the time his work was being discussed in my aged text), the proportion of middle class and wealthy students attending had soared. Now the number of academically unimpressive wealthy students who go on to college or other advanced degrees exceeds the number of academically successful poor students who attend, which wasn't always the case. This could be interpreted to represent the growing recognition of the need for credentials to achieve or maintain class status.

...of course that makes things sound far more overt and orchestrated than Collins portrays them.

I'm a returning student with about five years on my peers. I'm going to a fairly unique institution--it guarantees free tuition to all admitted students, but includes not only fairly stringent academic requirements, but also a maximum income--in other words, it is dedicated to serving the poor and middle class. I'm here as a transfer student from a two-year school. To an extent, I'm struck by the vast differences in my attitude toward my education and that of my classmates; many are much less appreciative of the opportunity than I would think. However, I think it's largely a product of age; eighteen is really young to be making the kinds of choices that college demaneds. I wish that there was more encouragement to spend a couple of years out in the "real world," not only to gain some wisdom and sense of their desired role in the world, but also because of the very real cognitive developments that are still taking place during the early twenties.

Many of the classes are designed well for participatory learning, and demand a lot of responsibility and engagement. Others are a little simplistic in my view, but still have a degree of educational value. A few of my professors post their power point presentations online, but in my experience that isn't viewed as a replacement for taking notes; it's just exploiting a new technology for an additional learning aid.

Anyway, this post was kind of all over the place...I just was exploiting the chance to explore the perspective of an actual sociologist.

P.S. One more thing, though I haven't read the study (because I only have the time for homework and lengthy, meandering internet posts), I think it's important to remind people that it is impossible to measure "critical thinking," an abstract concept that can only be studied in terms of concrete indicators of what a handful of people agree reflect critical thinking. It can't be reified, and there may be flaws or omissions in their determination of those indicators.

[Divernan]

29. I switched fields back in 1982, so don't know that theory.

After 8 years in grad school, I saw that there were no jobs in academe for Ph.D.s in Soc., and went to law school.

However, you described Collins' theory pretty well and I'll tell you my thoughts. I did my master's thesis on the impact of the McCarthy era on academic freedom in high schools and colleges. That work educated me about the different levels of universities re networking, getting into grad. schools, lifetime incomes, etc. I found there was next to no academic freedom (critical thinking) at public or religious colleges or universities. Back in the 50's, there was too much pressure from politicians or religious hierarchies to not rock the boat by teaching about non-Christian religions, or communism, or Darwin, to name a few topics. The 2 main benefits of Ivy education are the broader scope of education (in the liberal arts fields) and the networking (even more so in today's economy and job market). I was blessed with three kids with high IQs and grades to match, and encouraged them to apply to the top schools.

I was a single divorced Mom at the time and my family had gone to only Catholic universities (Boston College, Notre Dame, Marquette), so there was no legacy standing for the Ivies. My kids went to Stanford, Yale and Columbia. There was a lot of financial sacrifice, a lot of campus and summer jobs, a lot of student loans and parent loans taken out.
At one point I was working 3 different jobs at once. Looking back, I don't know where we all got the energy for the lives we led.

I don't know the economic status of kids at Yale, for example, when my son went there, but with the exception of a small number of legacies, nearly all of his classmates, who came from all parts of the US and many foreign countries had been Valedictorians of their high school classes and were just plain brilliant. I also liked Yale because NONE of the undergrad classes were taught by grad. students. All the classes were taught by professors (often nationally known in their fields), which meant very impressive references for grad school, internships or other job seeking.

If Collins is correct that gifted poorer students did not go to the elite schools, I believe they did not have parents who understood it to be worth the extra cost and/or were able to make significant financial sacrifice. I got that feedback from my peers whose kids went to the state colleges and universities. Yale was not handing out scholarships or grants. It did not even give athletic scholarships. I do know my son got an excellent education and some terrific internships and jobs where I suspect the people who selected him either were Ivy grads themselves or wanted the perceived prestige of having interns from elite schools. They got their moneys' worth from choosing him - he graduated summa cum laude from Yale, went into environmental work for non-profits (when he could have made a lot more money from other possibilities open to him), has had his work published in some 12 different languages and won prestigious awards in his field.

Networking varies by geographic region and is not limited to Ivies. In my state, Penn State has very strong national networking, Pitt not nearly as much. As to law school, the general received wisdom is that you should choose a law school in the state where you want to practice, because their networks are strongest in their own states. (with the exception of Harvard, Yale, UVA and a few others) 5 of the 7 PA Supreme Court justices have their degrees from Pennsylvania law schools. The other 2 have degrees from UVA and Columbia.

Anyhow, I enjoyed your post. I agree that older students are far better motivated than 18 year olds. I started law school at the age of 40 and enjoyed it, as compared to my younger classmates who found at best it interfered with their social lives and getting blind drunk on weekends, and at worst were terrified of various professors or being called on in class.

Looking back, now that I'm retired, on the choices I made re my and my kids' educations and the expense thereof, I wouldn't do anything differently. I have lived for nearly 40 years in a little brick ranch house. I drive a 10 year old Saab with nearly 200,000 miles on it. No McMansions or new cars every year or so. But I've got 3 kids who are well-adjusted, well-educated, well-employed and all give back to their communities. And of course they're all politically progressive like their Mom!

[antigone382]

38. Thanks very much for your reply.

You have a pretty inspiring story, and what sound like some pretty awesome kids.

In addition, there's a lot you've written that illustrates or qualifies some of the concepts I've been trying to absorb over the last couple of days (I'm in a theories class, and while I consider my reading comprehension pretty decent, these books are giving me a run for my money).

I'm actually in sociology because it's the closest thing they have to anthropology at this school. It's a pretty small school, and while academically rigorous and generally a cool place to be, they can't offer the biggest diversity of programs. Columbia, being home to most of the great anthropologists of the twentieth century, is my dream grad+ school, though I think it's a long shot. My cousin is there now, working on a doctorate in environmental bio-engineering.

I'd like to work in applied anthropology, particularly in sustainable, participatory community development, and likely either in the U.S. (maybe Appalachia, where I'm from) or somewhere in South America, since I'm pretty conversant in Spanish--although a long way from fluent! I love what I know about Mexican history and culture, and plan to study abroad there, but doing what I would like to do for a career is potentially risky, since any (perceived) political activity by non-citizens is illegal there!

Although I've been told I'm on the correct path by the few people I've spoken with whose work is similar to what I'd like to do, I do wonder if there will be a job for me at the other side of all this education. On the other hand, I don't think I would be successful if I went for a field that interested me less, but was more lucrative. I love what I'm learning. :)

[Divernan]

43. Good luck with pursuing your education and your dream.

I have two suggestions for your consideration: Peace Corps and internships. I don't know how much geographic mobility you may have, or what your family obligations are. However, friends of mine who have served in the Peace Corps have typically gone on to very interesting careers. I'm including a link below for the Masters International program the Peace Corps sponsors with a number of universities. And of course the Peace Corps has all their standard openings, which typically require a bachelor's degree. I think that Peace Corps experience is the extra special kind of thing which could get you admitted to Columbia or a similar school. I would think it would be excellent field experience for a prospective anthropologist. And the 170,000 Peace Corps "alumni" have a very strong national and international network. For example, there must be Peace Corps alumni on many college faculties.

My second suggestion is that if you can find and secure an appropriate internship, it will give you a great advantage in applying to grad school or job hunting. Sometimes they even turn into real jobs at the place where you intern. One of my kids did two consecutive internships for two congressmen in DC. They were unpaid. She worked 1/2 days on the Hill and supported herself by waitressing at Bullfeathers evenings and weekends. That left her 1/2 days to study. When she was pursuing her master's in government studies at George Washington University, she was hired through the student work office as an administrator for the school's counterterrorism program (this was before 9/11). She helped set up conferences and made a tremendous number of excellent contacts which definitely stood her in good stead when she applied for jobs.

When I taught undergrads, I took time to meet with each one individually once during the semester. Many of the older students, particularly women, were worried about whether it was practical for them to be back in school and pursuing a degree. They would typically say something along the lines of, "I can only take one (or two) courses a term. I'll be (fill in the age - 35, or 40 or 50) by the time I get my degree. My response was, Well, in (x) years you will be (x) years old. Will you be better off at age(fill in the age) WITH a college degree, or WITHOUT one? Their answer was always the same - a big smile, as they said "WITH".

Here's the link I found. Probably the best place to research the Peace Corps would be its own website. As to internships, find a place you'd like to get one, and see if they have already set up some provision for internships. If not, offer to work for free, say 3 days a week or 5 half days a week, as long as they understand you have to work on assignments from which you'll learn.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whyvol.eduben.mastersint

Peace Corps Master's International (MI) Programs
Can I receive college credit for my Peace Corps Service?

There are two ways you can receive credit: The first is called Masters International; the other is called Fellows USA. Some of these programs do offer scholarships or stipends or fellowships. Each program is different, depending on the hosting university. You can find detailed information on both programs through our website: www.peacecorps.gov From the home page, go to the bottom to the section marked "take me directly to..." and choose Fellows USA or Masters International.

Here is a brief summary: Through partnerships with more than 30 schools offering master's level studies in a variety of subjects, the Master's International Program allows qualified applicants to both serve as a Peace Corps volunteer and earn a masters degree at the same time. In the "MI" program, individuals become Peace Corps Volunteers as partial fulfillment of a graduate degree. In fact, many schools will grant credit at no cost for Peace Corps service. Programs are not offered in every area, but are offered only in disciplines where there is a shortage of skilled people who can serve as Volunteers. The Fellows USA program offers opportunities to continue with graduate studies after completing the 27-month Peace Corps Assignment. In exchange for a two-year commitment to work in a community that needs your help, you can earn a master's degree and establish your career. 26 Universities currently have Fellows USA programs. Each university, with financial support from foundations, government agencies, corporations, and individual donors, will assist you in this process. You may receive any number of benefits such as tuition assistance, yearly stipends, housing, paid employment, and health benefits. The exact nature of the award varies with each university.

In closing, here's a quote I try to live by:
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." -- Mark Twain

PS on edit. Fluency in Spanish is a tremendous asset. Try to keep that current - listen to Spanish programs on cable or radio if you can. I got a book on Spanish for law enforcement once - useful phrases like, "Up against the wall and spread 'em!" LOL

[antigone382]

44. Wow, thank you so much!

I'm definitely bookmarking this. Peace Corps was definitely an option under consideration for me (I applied to Americorps before returning to school, but didn't hear back from them).

I'm doing an internship this summer at an ecological design/build school in Vermont. Apparently it's pretty well known, although a large part of me wanted to do something else that would incorporate a social science aspect. However, it relates to my minor, and at the very least will furnish some critical, practical skills. A goal of mine is to build an ecologically designed house on my mother's property. Fortunately, I'll have at least one other summer in which to find an internship that relates to my major field of study.

[Divernan]

47. Sounds excellent.

Don't get too locked in or fixated on a narrow career goal - life holds surprises and who knows what other interesting opportunities lie in wait?

Another PS on edit. When you finish your summer internship, get a general letter of recommendation - a To Whom It May Concern from one or more of the people you work for - detailing project(s) upon which you worked, your work ethic and other sterling(!) characteristics. People retire, move or die - and you might want to use them as recommendations five or ten years down the road.

And as Forest Gump would say, "That's all I have to say about that!"

[bettyellen]

31. I'm not sure where you got the "impossible to measure" or "abstract concept" in regards to critical

thinking. I know a lot of people who work in education, and there are many ways to measure a students ability to think critically.
There are some methods that are debatable, but many more are universally accepted- and not just by a handful of people. Are you not thinking of the basics in critical thinking- the ability to sort out what is relevant, to put things in perspective and summarize present conclusions? Because those can be tested, it's just not as simple as the standardized testing people would like. So they are falling by the wayside, and statements like "what a handful of people agree reflect critical thinking" only serve to further devalue them. I'm sure you don't mean to contribute to the dumbing down of education, but the reality is they are harder to measure- and harder to teach- but more worthwhile than the recitation of facts and figures never pondered that we do test for. The easy way is not the only way, nor is it the best.

[antigone382]

35. "critical thinking" like "intelligence" or "love" is an abstract concept.

In engaging in any type of social scientific analysis, it is critical to recognize that many of the things we are attempting to guage are not directly quantifiable. This doesn't mean they aren't worth exploring, and can't be measured indirectly through what's called operationalization, the stage in scientific inquiry where you develop a means of testing some quantifiable "indicator" of the abstract concept you are interested in studying, whether that be prejudice, alienation, or critical thinking. However, part of analyzing the results of tests like these is understanding what the indicators for the abstract concept are, and questioning if they are really the best or most accurate indicators for that concept. It's absolutely essential to avoid "reifying" abstract concepts, or viewing them as real, concrete things which can be directly and empirically measured. For a better explanation of this, read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen J. Gould, where he brilliantly dissects the flawed thinking which led the very best scientists of their era, who genuinely thought they were acting in unbiased and scientifically valid ways, to conclude that intelligence was tied to one's race and sex.

Now, as I said, that doesn't mean that this study isn't valid. I haven't yet had the time to read it. I'm just pointing out a scientific truth that is all-to-often ignored. In addition, I know too much about the exaggerated headlines and misleadinc conclusions that litter mass media's reporting of scientific study, in keeping with its general sensationalism. As a young college student, I am attempting to practice the very critical thinking that some are already concluding my generation as a whole is fundamentally incapable of.

Edited for subject verb agreement

[bettyellen]

39. I disagree, the ability to gather information and syntheisze it can be quantified

there maybe some quibbling about gray areas, if the tests or what questions are the best indicators of course. There will never be total agreement among academics about that. Same as with multiple choice exams that tell you nothing about a persons critical thinking skills. The value of those tests has equally been debated. All testing is skewed somewhat, what of it? If you are in the business of being an intellectual, you make your money questioning everything. But we have to work with what we know, and improve as we go along. Putting it under a microscope and saying it's impossible are two different things. Theoretical arguements are fun when you are in an ivory tower, but critical thinking is a skill students are quickly losing with the teaching for the test going on these days. It's ironic that a surplus of critical thinking on this subject, could cause a backlash against quantifying it as a skill at all. Odd, that.

[antigone382]

42. The gray areas are critical precisely because of the people they have excluded and subjugated.

Disinterest in "gray areas" is precisely what led to inaccurate conclusions about the intelligence, and thus the right to equal education and justice, of huge swaths of people. It is what led to eugenics, it is what continued to prevent women from having the right to vote into the twentieth century. Scientific "common knowledge" did that, because no one adequately questioned the methodology.

I never said that such testing had no value. I'm in the social sciences, my whole interest is in trying to understand abstract phenomena. But questioning the results is not just some pastime for elitists in ivory towers--(by the way, I've lived without running water or decent access to food for multiple periods of my life, so I'm not exactly some closed off intellectual). It's putting the critical thinking you desire into practice in an incredibly relevant way. If you don't question your methods, how do you improve them? Having read the article I've found what seem to me to be some pretty serious flaws, although I'd need to read their actual findings to be absolutely certain of them.

I'm certainly not an advocate for standardized tests or the privatization of education, and I don't understand why you seem to be interpreting my perspective that way. However, I don't think one flawed study that claims that students in their second year of college are not improving enough in their critical thinking has much of anything to do with that. If anything, reports like these will be used to further restrict the autonomy of educators.

It is incomprehensible to tell me not to practice critical thinking, in the interest of promoting critical thinking.

[bettyellen]

50. i think when you make statements like "impossible to measure"

regarding the testing, you have to accept that it sounds a great deal like you are devaluing, if not negating the concept of testing.
I'm not sure why you'd think that would be taken any other way. Is that not what you said?

I am not sure how you make a leap from testing a diverse group of student to the ugly history science played in eugenics, but I'm afraid your concerns seem a bit displaced. Unless it;s the teacher you fear for? The gray areas I speak of are not as sinister as you fear, sorry to disappoint you in that.


Perhaps because I have long and deep friendships with a few very experienced teachers I have seen a few things that you have not. I know there may need to be five fold as many methods - and as many discarded- to be employed when trying to discover how capable a person is of critical thinking. What I am saying, in the simplest way possible, is that teachers already do have and can employ ways to assess these skills on a basic level. And they can do so with no sinister intent or result at all despite your concerns. But they are being discouraged to do so.

It is being treated in many public high schools as a matter of very little importance these days, and this is very sad. And it is something that should not be dismissed as "impossible" because the methods may not be up to the standards of infallibility you seem to be setting down here. If you are waiting for a critical thinking test to pass a purity test, so to speak, it will never happen. And meanwhile the students suffer from being tested on what is, in your mind, suitably less abstract. I hope that;s clearer. I don;t doubt your good intentions at all, I just do not believe you will be satisfied a test is good enough. I'm a bit more pragmatic than you on this, I suppose is all.

[antigone382]

52. But abstract concepts *are* impossible to measure directly.

And again, being in the social sciences, I *don't* think that such testing shouldn't take place or has no value to society. I don't think that qualitative analysis has no value to society. I don't think that teachers' perspectives have no value to society. I don't think that multiple choice, standardized tests are a good thing--those are the very kinds of tests that produce the most flawed and questionable results. You are arguing with me about points that I'm not making. But this is one study conducted on *college* students (not grade school students), measuring improvements in performance *after* entering college, and I want to know more about the methodology before drawing any sweeping conclusions about the downfall of society.

[bettyellen]

60. actually, I was explaining how easily misunderstood your statements were

on it;s face- it sounded like a sweeping statement that these tests in general were useless, so I attempted to draw you out to clarify. Turns out you do agree with me that standardized testing in it;s current form is even worse. I am puzzled by the defensive reactions above. I had only asked if you thought that testing for critical thinking was useless because you said that it could not be measured. Turns out you should have qualified your statement about testing for critical thinking. And perhaps read my posts because that was the only point I was arguing with you about. Why you needed to go all over the map like that instead of getting to the issue is beyond me. No harm done, just sort of odd. Grade school, really? You inferred a lot in all your posts, and got it mostly wrong.

[antigone382]

66. Whether they're easily misunderstood or not, they're fundamentally true.

I never said anything remotely approaching the idea that critical thinking is useless. I only said that it's important to question how the concrete, measurable indicators for the abstract, immeasurable concept of critical thinking are derived.

In any case, this conversation is not productive and I don't intend to participate in it any further.

[bettyellen]

70. okay, but it's a shame you don;t review this conversation just for your

rown sake. Fully half if the things you think I said- in this case, that I thought you said critical thinking was useless- I never said at all. Not once.
I did say maybe five times what you communicated the idea that testing it was useless before you understood me. V ery poor comprehension skills, or perhaps you were just too stubborn to listen? You certainly took the most general statements way too personally, and were defensive, and perhaps shut down. Perhaps next time you'll try harder to be less presumptuous and dismissive, or at least reread what you are responding to to make sure it;s actually written there, and not imagined. Unprodcuctive indeed.

[madrchsod]

12. i guess i`ll go back to community college..

i`m retired and it`s free. it will be interesting to see the changes from when i started in the 60`s,went back in the 80`s,and now in 2011. i`ll be older than any of my instructors

[old mark]

18. I went back to college when I was in my mid 40's...I WAS older than all my profs but one

and I had attended college in the 1960's with him. I found it pretty mixed...I feel I got a much better real education at the community college where I started again than I did after I transferred to a private 4 year school to complete my degree.
I was very impressed by the community college, and pretty appalled by the 4 year college...the lack of knowledge by the profs and the lack of any enthusiasm by most of the students was pretty depressing, knowing that some of them would soon be teaching others...

My MIL was a professor at Widener, and I have several other family members involved in education...I'm not sniping at teachers-I didn't write the article, just posted it.

mark

[Curmudgeoness]

49. I also went back in my 40's. I had a prof who called me his *old lady*.

One prof who was brutal (over 60% of the students in his class were there for a second or third time) told me that he has been teaching and grading the same since the 60's, and did not have so many students failing in the past. He believed today's students were lazier and expected things to be handed to them. I don't know if he was right or not, but he has been there.

[old mark]

61. I had several classes with the Department Head-she did not know the years

for the beginning and end of the Civil War, nor of WWII, nor much of anything of US history before the 1980's...Here in PA, you can graduate from high school without ever having taken a single course in history...you have areas of concentration that you must fulfill, but no specific courses required to graduate. Very sad and seems to be getting worse.

mark

[Curmudgeoness]

69. Lousy commentary on our society. I did not realize

that in PA (where I live too), you could get away without any history. You and I are obviously both old, and I remember that we had to have several history courses---geography, world cultures, US history, civics. We had to have these classes.

I guess that the standardized tests don't ask questions about any of these subjects, so who cares about them.

:shrug:

[old mark]

74. If it's not on the test, it does not matter any more....

:hi:


mark

[Hannah Bell]

62. the best teacher i ever had was a CC science prof. i love the CC system.

i also attended the best uni in my state, nationally ranked public uni.

not so impressed in comparison to my CC & the other cow college I went to.

[mopinko]

19. you should go. it's good for your brain.

and you might be wanting an excuse to get out of that busy household of yours. this time you can take what you want.

[seabeyond]

15. people say the same about HS and i know that isnt true. HS today much harder. article acknowledges

HS is hard to hit universities.

i will take note when i have kids in college and see for myself. not believing what anyone says about schools today. seems to be more about agendas.

[antigone382]

37. I've already found one glaring flaw (at least in the way this study is presented)

They're comparing improvement by present day *sophomores* over improvement by *seniors* in the eighties and earlier. There are so many problems with that methodology I could spit.

For another thing, they dolefully report that "only" 44% of new college students expect to achieve the level of education necessary for their desired occupation. In other words, almost half of the tested eighteen-year-olds have a pretty good idea of how much education they need to get for the job they want to do--like most eighteen-year-olds even know for sure what they want to do to begin with!

I'm with you, I don't think it's time to panic yet.

[Taitertots]

17. So to test them, they test something that can't be taught

Critical thinking, reasoning, and writing skills? From there they go to make meaningless comparison after meaningless comparison. Of course students spend less time, they have much more efficient tools (computers, internet).


Why not test whether they actually know the material that they are supposed to be learning about?

[bettyellen]

21. um, because critical thinking can be taught... and it's decline is linked to the emphasis

on rote learning that you suggest they test for.

[Divernan]

25. Critical thinking should be the prime goal of higher education

One thing I emphasized to my undergrad. students was to be aware of the biases of the people who wrote their textbooks. The biases my be conscious or subconscious, and reflective of the life experiences, current ambitions and political beliefs of those authors.

I saw so many biased research projects which were structured to produce the outcomes/results desired by the researchers. In politics, we see it in push polling. Statistics can be manipulated so easily by researchers on what are supposedly objective, quantifiable data. You give respondents 5 possible responses to a statement, such as "Our community should stop flouridating municipal water:
1. Strongly Agree
2. Somewhat Agree
3. No Opinion
4. Somewhat Disagree
5. Strongly Disagree.

Let's hypothesize that you get 20 percent for each category.

You can slant your report one way by stating "Only 20 percent of respondents strongly agreed." or slant it the exact opposite by stating "Only 20 percent of the respondents strongly disagreed." In fact, the community is evenly divided on the issue.

The base for good education is of course knowledge of the basics of a field. But the ability to further knowledge requires critical thinking skills, i.e, analyze, correlate, innovate, etc.

[bettyellen]

28. yes, and our society benefits greatly when people can go beyond the face value of what they are told

[seabeyond]

26. why isn't it taught in home. i just had the most stimulating conversation with my 15 yr old

beyond what i get from a lot of adults. we have always been open to thinking, discussing, learning. from the time kids were little i had wonderful conversation about all manner of issues.

why aren't these kids growing up with it? why are we depending on schools, again, to do what should be done in the home?

it is a way of life. a class here and there has little chance if the kid has no curiosity or interest.

[bettyellen]

27. a lot of adults are incapable of that sort of thing! I was a great student but only when critical

thought was part of it, and I learned a lot from my teachers that I have used my whole life long. Kids need to be exposed to well rounded discussions of history, science, sociology and the arts instead of being spoonfed the "right" answers. They can't put what they learn ito any context or really know what they are talking about without it.
The things they had us memorize ot learn without questioning- it all pretty much went out the window unless it was connected to something more meaningful for me. ANd the meaning came from hearing different sides or facets of the subject matter. Many parents can be smart but not nearly articulate enought to give this to their kids. Many kids cannot make associations between what they learn in school and real life, without it. It is a critical part of education.

[MikeW]

22. they are correct

I interview college grads regularly.

Ive often asked myself how the hell this person got a degree in the first place during the interview.

[hunter]

24. Motivated students have always had to seek out the more challenging courses.

There have always been easy and much more difficult paths to a four year degree.

If you want to do something intense, say medical school or aerospace engineering or attempting to become a tenured professor, then you can't go through college following the easy paths.

You get out of college what you put into it.

There have always been incurious people like George W. Bush who take the easy paths and graduate from college without learning much.

[Divernan]

30. Your observations are very true.

[JI7]

36. of course Bush wouldnever have got in without the name and money

[Odin2005]

32. This is what happens when our colleges become businesses.

Professors are pressured to please lazy students because if they drop out the college doesn't get the tuition money.

[Puregonzo1188]

33. Here's another thought--maybe high school has gotten harder.

When I was in high school I took 8 classes.

No college would ever allow anyone to take 8 classes in a single semester. And this was a recent change in my county. Add to that an increase of AP classes, more homework, fixture on competition and getting to college so a bazillion hours of extracurricular, pressure from helicopter parents and it's not really surprising that people might find college easier than high school.

[Odin2005]

34. I found college easier simply because there was no meaningless busywork.

Most work in college has not been tedious crap but instead very enraging stuff that makes me think, and I enjoy thinking!

[coalition_unwilling]

40. Hope you mean 'engaging' and not 'enraging' -- can't help myself, I'm

an obsessive proofreader :)

[Odin2005]

41. DOH, stupid me!!!

[Puregonzo1188]

51. Very true. No more fill blank the worksheets or outlining chapters of textbooks.

So much of high school is just meant to take up time and not actually promote learning or education it is sickening.

I agree 100%

[Odin2005]

57. Yup, I loved most of my college classes.

Intro to Historical Linguistics blew my mind!

[wickerwoman]

46. Good points.

Also, in college you have more flexibility in choosing courses that interest you and at which you already know you have some talent. Not having to take any more math in college was a huge relief for me after the pointless time suck that was AP calculus in high school.

[Curmudgeoness]

45. Maybe it is because we don't look to college to enlighten us

anymore. The only purpose of college today is so we can get a job. I cannot tell you how many jobs require college educations, and these jobs would never have to be done by degreed individuals. So off we all go to college, just to have the privelege of applying for jobs.

[Xenotime]

48. that's because they are too busy fucking for cash.

[mediator]

56. It's because the typical incoming freshman is about as bright as an eighth grader was 30

years ago.

[Odin2005]

58. I highly doubt that.

My mom was shocked when I started learning pre-algebra in 5th grade.

Please continue the age-old tradition of thinking us youngsters and dumb-fucks. :eyes:

[mediator]

67. You're from a uniquely favored part of the country, intelligence-wise.

I don't think youngsters and dumb-fucks. (sic) :D

[Odin2005]

72. DOH, just noticed the typo!

:dunce:

[mediator]

75. haha...no sweat. Actually I should have said 'educated' rather than 'bright'.

my bad.

[tammywammy]

59. Of all the other students at the university I go to

I'm 30, the stupidest student I've ever seen is probably later 40s/early 50s. The woman cannot understand basic math. I seriously wondered how she got out of elementary school not knowing what the "2" in 4^2 was.

[AngryAmish]

77. Demonstrably false

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect>

[Divernan]

63. The Purpose of a Liberal Arts Education used to & should be:

The Purpose of a Liberal Arts Education

When they first arrive at college, many students are surprised at the general education classes they must take in order to graduate. They wonder why someone who wants to be an accountant or psychologist or journalist should study subjects that have nothing directly to do with those fields. That is a reasonable question -- Why should you study history, literature, philosophy, music, art, or any other subject outside of your major? Why should you study any subject that does not help to train you for a job? Why should you study biology or chemistry when you will never a scientist? Why study logic when all you want to do is teach first grade or be a musician? In answer to these questions, let's look at some of the benefits a liberal arts education and its accompanying widespread knowledge will give you.
In answer to these questions, let's look at some of the benefits a liberal arts education and its accompanying widespread knowledge will give you.

A liberal arts education teaches you how to think
1. You will develop strength of mind and an ordered intellect. The mind is like a muscle; exercise makes it stronger and more able to grasp ideas and do intellectual work. Exercising the mind in one area--whether literature or sociology or accounting--will strengthen it for learning in other areas as well. What at first was so difficult--the habits of attention and concentration, the ability to follow arguments, and the ability to distinguish the important from the trivial and to grasp new concepts-- become easier as the mind is exercised and enlarged by varied study.
2. You will be able to think for yourself. The diverse body of knowledge you will gain from a liberal arts education, together with the tools of examination and analysis that you will learn to use, will enable you to develop your own opinions, attitudes, values, and beliefs, based not upon the authority of parents, peers, or professors, and not upon ignorance, whim, or prejudice, but upon your own worthy apprehension, examination, and evaluation of argument and evidence. Your diverse studies will permit you to see the relations between ideas and philosophies and subject areas and to put each in its appropriate position.
Good judgment, like wisdom, depends upon a thoughtful and rather extensive acquaintance with many areas of study. And good judgment requires the ability to think independently, in the face of pressures, distortions, and overemphasized truths. Advertisers rely on a half-educated public, on people who know little outside of their own specialty, because such people are easy to deceive with so-called experts, impressive technical or sociological jargon, and an effective set of logical and psychological tricks.
Thus, while a liberal arts education may not teach you how to take out an appendix or sue your neighbor, it will teach you how to think, which is to say, it will teach you how to live. And this benefit alone makes such an education more practical and useful than any job-specific training ever could.
3. The world becomes understandable. A thorough knowledge of a wide range of events, philosophies, procedures, and possibilities makes the phenomena of life appear coherent and understandable. No longer will unexpected or strange things be merely dazzling or confusing. A wide ranging education, covering everything from biology to history to human nature, will provide many tools for understanding.

A liberal arts education teaches you how to learn
1. College provides a telescope, not an open and closed book. Your real education at college will not consist merely of acquiring a giant pile of facts while you are here; it will be in the skill of learning itself. No institution however great, no faculty however adept, can teach you in four years everything you need to know either now or in the future. But by teaching you how to learn and how to organize ideas, your liberal arts education will enable you to understand new material more easily, to learn faster and more thoroughly and permanently.
2. The more you learn, the more you can learn. Knowledge builds upon knowledge. When you learn something, your brain remembers how you learned it and sets up new pathways, and if necessary, new categories, to make future learning faster. The strategies and habits you develop also help you learn more easily.
Good learning habits can be transferred from one subject to another. When a basketball player lifts weights or plays handball in preparation for basketball, no one asks, "What good is weightlifting or handball for a basketball player?" because it is clear that these exercises build the muscles, reflexes, and coordination that can be transferred to basketball--building them perhaps better than endless hours of basketball practice would. The same is true of the mind. Exercise in various areas builds brainpower for whatever endeavor you plan to pursue.
3. Old knowledge clarifies new knowledge. The general knowledge supplied by a liberal arts education will help you learn new subjects by one of the most common methods of learning--analogy. People are best taught by using something they are familiar with, something they already understand, to explain something new and unfamiliar.
4. General knowledge enhances creativity. Knowledge of many subject areas provides a cross fertilization of ideas, a fullness of mind that produces new ideas and better understanding. Those sudden realizations, those strokes of genius, those solutions seemingly out of nowhere, are really almost always the product of the mind working unconsciously on a problem and using materials stored up through long study and conscious thought.


A liberal arts education allows you to see things whole
1. A context for all knowledge. A general education supplies a context for all knowledge and especially for one's chosen area. Every field gives only a partial view of knowledge of things and of humankind, and an exclusive or overemphasis on one field of study distorts the understanding of reality. As one armchair philosopher has said, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." All knowledge is one, a unified wholeness, and every field of study is but a piece or an angle or a way of partitioning this knowledge. Thus, to see how one's chosen area fits into the whole, to see the context of one's study, a general, liberal education is not merely desirable, but necessary.
2. A map of the universe. A well-rounded education, a study of the whole range of knowledge, produces an intellectual panorama, a map of the universe, which shows the relative disposition of things and ideas.
3. Life itself is a whole, not divided into majors. Most jobs, most endeavors, really require more knowledge than that of one field. We suffer every day from the consequences of not recognizing this fact. The psychologist who would fully understand the variety of mental problems his patients may suffer will need a wide-ranging knowledge if he is to recognize that some problems are biological, some are spiritual, some are the product of environment, and so on. If he never studies biology, theology, or sociology, how will he be able to treat his patients well?
The doctor who believes that knowledge of cell biology, pharmacology and diagnosis will be all-sufficient in her practice will help very few patients unless she also realizes that many patients need emotional ministration either in addition to or instead of physical treatment. The doctor who listens and who is educated enough to understand, will be the successful one. A doctor who has studied sociology or literature will be a better doctor than one who has instead read a few extra medical books.

A liberal arts education enhances wisdom
General knowledge will plant the seeds of wisdom. It will help you see and feel your defects and to change yourself, to be a better citizen, human being. Wisdom is seeing life whole--meaning that every realm of knowledge must be consulted to discover a full truth.

A liberal arts education makes you a better teacher

But, you say, I'm not going to be a teacher. To which I say, yes you are. You may not be a school teacher, but you might be a journalist, social worker, supervisor, Sunday School teacher, manager, lawyer, or missionary. Each of these roles is essentially that of a teacher. But more than this, you will almost certainly be someone's friend, a significant-other and probably a parent. As friend, partner, and parent you will be a teacher, sharing your life's knowledge and understanding with another daily and intimately. In fact, any time two human beings get together and open their mouths, teaching and learning are going on.

A liberal arts education will contribute to your happiness
1. A cultivated mind enjoys itself and the arts. The extensive but increasingly neglected culture of western civilization provides endless material for pleasure and improvement. A deep appreciation of painting or sculpture or literature, of symbolism, wit, figurative language, historical allusion, character and personality is open to the mind that can understand and enjoy it.
2. Knowledge makes you smarter and smarter is happier. Recent research has demonstrated that contrary to previous ideas, intelligence can actually increase through study and learning. Educated and intelligent people have, statistically, happier relationships, less loneliness, lower rates of depression and mental illness, and a higher reported degree of satisfaction with life.

[Viking12]

64. I haven't read the book yet, but the news reports indicate some simplistic explanations for complex

I haven't read the book yet, but the news reports indicate some simplistic explanations for complex issues. For example, student study time has been cut by modern technology. Where I used to spend hours in the library tracking down materials, a student can now access them online in minutes. I haven't seen if the research controlled for class size increases when comparing student writing loads; in the 13 years I've been at this, my basic course enrollment has expanded from 20 to 28. At 4 courses per semester that's 64 additional students per year. It is just not physically possible to grade that many more papers. Yet, the implication is that it's all the teacher's choices that are influencing shifts. There are other questionable conclusions as well.

[DireStrike]

65. College is a business. They sell really expensive pieces of paper. -nt-

[jobendorfer]

68. my experience, for what it's worth

I'm an engineer, B.S. in computer science, Master's in counseling psychology (don't ask).
Because I have an interest in physics, and want to keep developing new skills, I've been taking undergrad physics courses
at Portland State. This is a working-class school, probably 3rd maybe even 4th tier in the collegiate pecking order.

The last class I took was called "Classical Mechanics". It covers traditional Newtonian mechanics and the
equivalent LaGrangian formulation, with a brief introduction to Hamiltonians and Special Relativity. 4 quarter
hours. This is typically the last course in mechanics that an undergrad physicist takes. (They also do course
work in experimental physics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, optics, etc.)

I was putting in a minimum of 25 hours a week on homework, papers, and study -- that's on top of my fulltime job --
and barely keeping up with the class. I can tell you this class sharpened the heck out of my calculus, differential
equations, and conceptual physics skills. Due to some role shuffing at work, I got handed a project to lead at about
week 7 of the class. Given the increased workload, I sadly had to drop classical mechanics. Perhaps next year,
I don't know.

But I'm here to tell you, there are classes out there that will challenge the heck out of you, so much your bloody
brain hurts. You just have to find them.

J.

[Odin2005]

73. The science classes are damn hard, I switched from Biotech to Linguistics for that reason.

I like biology, but the chemistry part of the requirements kicked my rear.

[readmoreoften]

71. When I was in college 20 years ago, my professors made 2 to 3 times more than I do now and I teach

6 to 8 times more students than they do. I'm not fudging that: 6 to 8 times more. Try as I might, there is no way I can properly develop a relationship with my students or not teach to the lowest common denominator.

[zackvs]

76. there you go

i knew there was a reason college seems so tough