Study: Many college students not learning to think critically

[one...two...tree 2,762]

NEW YORK — An unprecedented study that followed several thousand undergraduates through four years of college found that large numbers didn't learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education.

Many of the students graduated without knowing how to sift fact from opinion, make a clear written argument or objectively review conflicting reports of a situation or event, according to New York University sociologist Richard Arum, lead author of the study. The students, for example, couldn't determine the cause of an increase in neighborhood crime or how best to respond without being swayed by emotional testimony and political spin.

Arum, whose book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses" (University of Chicago Press) comes out this month, followed 2,322 traditional-age students from the fall of 2005 to the spring of 2009 and examined testing data and student surveys at a broad range of 24 U.S. colleges and universities, from the highly selective to the less selective.

Forty-five percent of students made no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college, according to the study. After four years, 36 percent showed no significant gains in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.

Combining the hours spent studying and in class, students devoted less than a fifth of their time each week to academic pursuits. By contrast, students spent 51 percent of their time — or 85 hours a week — socializing or in extracurricular activities.

The study also showed that students who studied alone made more significant gains in learning than those who studied in groups.

"I'm not surprised at the results," said Stephen G. Emerson, the president of Haverford College in Pennsylvania. "Our very best students don't study in groups. They might work in groups in lab projects. But when they study, they study by themselves."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchy...r#ixzz1BSTwfRkk

[^_^ 5,021]

That's what happens when college goes from being an exclusive institution intended for the best to what it is today. For many kids going to one of the many sub-standard colleges and universities out there (or going through one of the many sub-standard programs at one of the otherwise fine institutions), a bachelors degree might as well be High School Part II.

Edited January 19, 2011 by \

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

An endorsement for doing a traditional liberal arts or science degree.

[Krikit 1,166]

Moving from P&R to Off Topic.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I blame the hippies for this.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Amby 490]

When I view my grades online I always look at the class average compared to my score. I noticed in a lot of theundergrad core classes where we were required to write papers the averages for the papers were always quite low. I always thought it was because people just didn't give a sh*t since they were only taking the class because they had to. Humanities classes were the ones where I noticed it most.

[Amby 490]

That's what happens when college goes from being an exclusive institution intended for the best to what it is today. For many kids going to one of the many sub-standard colleges and universities out there (or going through one of the many sub-standard programs at one of the otherwise fine institutions), a bachelors degree might as well be High School Part II.

one thing I noticed is the people paying for school either by working or taking out loans were a lot more serious about their education than the people (high school part II people) waiting for their refunds from pell grants so they could go out and get a new tattoo. most of the time you could tell who those people were because they dropped their classes after they got their refund. I took as many night classes as I could just to avoid those people.

I also noticed the people in the science programs were a lot more serious about their education than the people in the liberal arts programs. just moving from one building to another there's an entirely different feel.

eta: btw I think the pell grant program is great for people who are serious about school. I just think the money should be regulated in some way to make sure it goes towards what it's supposed to be used for.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Amby

[ScottThuy 140]

Agreed.. Those who set the bar high, get higher achievers... Institutions today seem to be more worried with meeting minimum course objectives than creating a student who can solve the problems of the world analytically.. Generate revenues not create leaders... Too much handholding going on... A couple of the Universities I teach for expect the professors to do a degree of handholding today... its about student retention... not academic achievement....

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

For what it's worth, I did notice the smaller schools tend to encourage class discussions, and those can get rather heated at times. We had a couple professors migrate from the University of California Berkeley to Sonoma State University, and they were intimidated by the smaller class size, and the brashness of the students.

[ScottThuy 140]

Brashness? I have students that are down right disrespectful and arrogant...

[alienlovechild 75]

Brashness? I have students that are down right disrespectful and arrogant...

Comes with the grade inflation and high self-esteem environment most of them come from. Most of them never saw a recession until 3 years ago so graduarion is going to be like getting a cold bucket of water dumped on their heads.

[^_^ 5,021]

For what it's worth, I did notice the smaller schools tend to encourage class discussions, and those can get rather heated at times. We had a couple professors migrate from the University of California Berkeley to Sonoma State University, and they were intimidated by the smaller class size, and the brashness of the students.

Speaking of class size. I went to school at a large state university. Chem 101 had a few hundred students in an auditorium. I sat in the back and listened to the professors voice through speakers installed for the back row. Not the ideal class from my point of view, but the university had it set up that way for one reason and one reason alone - to weed out those it didn't want in the chem program or any program that had Chem 101 as a prereq. The 'education' was basically the textbook and the professors notes (handed out each session). There was a weekly session with a graduate student where he/she recapped that weeks lesson and stayed for q&a but even those were classes with around 50 students so only the seriously serious types who stayed after and waited for what I presume was forever (I never did wait) got to talk to him/her. In hindsight, I realized that the only people who did well in classes like that (the intro Comp Sci class was similarly set up) were people who had a strong background in the subject - could independently self-study their way to a B or higher*. If you got in on an urban scholarship based on B's and C's from an urban high school, you were going to either major in a program that didn't weed out or you were going to drop out at the end of the semester.

* there was no grade inflation in the comp sci program where i graduated. average gpa of a comp sci graduate at that time was 2.9. but you needed a 3.0 or higher in the intro series to stay in the program. the majority of people who started did not make it past the 3.0 cutoff.

Edited January 20, 2011 by \

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Speaking of class size. I went to school at a large state university. Chem 101 had a few hundred students in an auditorium. I sat in the back and listened to the professors voice through speakers installed for the back row. Not the ideal class from my point of view, but the university had it set up that way for one reason and one reason alone - to weed out those it didn't want in the chem program or any program that had Chem 101 as a prereq. The 'education' was basically the textbook and the professors notes (handed out each session). There was a weekly session with a graduate student where he/she recapped that weeks lesson and stayed for q&a but even those were classes with around 50 students so only the seriously serious types who stayed after and waited for what I presume was forever (I never did wait) got to talk to him/her. In hindsight, I realized that the only people who did well in classes like that (the intro Comp Sci class was similarly set up) were people who had a strong background in the subject - could independently self-study their way to a B or higher*. If you got in on an urban scholarship based on B's and C's from an urban high school, you were going to either major in a program that didn't weed out or you were going to drop out at the end of the semester.

* there was no grade inflation in the comp sci program where i graduated. average gpa of a comp sci graduate at that time was 2.9. but you needed a 3.0 or higher in the intro series to stay in the program. the majority of people who started did not make it past the 3.0 cutoff.

Stanford and Berkeley are comparable Universities, one in an urban setting with a large undergraduate population, and the other more suburban, and a small undergraduate population. Both are highly selective, and expensive. Going to a smaller school, you will get that face time with instructors, instead of a postgrad or undergrad TA. One of the things that made Sonoma State a great place to go to school, was that the instructors were accessible to the students outside the classroom.

I did notice that same winnowing of students for Calculus, for Physics, and for Inorganic Chemistry as you did. In all three series, only a handful finished of the many that started. I think that is typical for most schools.

[Amby 490]

Stanford and Berkeley are comparable Universities, one in an urban setting with a large undergraduate population, and the other more suburban, and a small undergraduate population. Both are highly selective, and expensive. Going to a smaller school, you will get that face time with instructors, instead of a postgrad or undergrad TA. One of the things that made Sonoma State a great place to go to school, was that the instructors were accessible to the students outside the classroom.

I did notice that same winnowing of students for Calculus, for Physics, and for Inorganic Chemistry as you did. In all three series, only a handful finished of the many that started. I think that is typical for most schools.

At the beginning of every biology, chemistry, and physics class I took there were about 100 people in a lecture forum and then 15-20 in the lab. Each time the prof would tell us only a certain % of people passed the class with a C or higher. I think the lowest % I heard was 20% for organic chemistry. I went home and called my aunt who was a chemistry major. I was freaking out because I'd never even had a bad grade on a test, so I wasn't sure what I'd do if I didn't pass an entire class! I think they do it to tell people to take the class seriously or they're just wasting their time. By the end of the every semester each class was at least half the size it was in the beginning.

I always tell everyone college is easy until you take real classes, not those silly classes where you pass just by showing up.

[BishopM 114]

It seems to me that all degree programs have a 'weed-out' class or set of classes. For me, (business major with acct emphasis) it was Intemediate Acct I (focus on the asset side of the balance sheet) and Intermediate Acct II (focus on the liabilities/retained earnings side of the balance sheet). IF a student made past Intermediate Acct II, they would most likely graduate. For my friends, it was similar, but it was Organic Chem I II or something along those lines. (I didn't go back to college to get my undergrad/master of religion until I was in my late 30s)

My son is now starting his $ophomore year of college and I actually think this will be the first time he actually has to 'try' to pass. His Freshman year was absolutely just a rehash of high school...in my opinion, a waste of time and dollars.