I Weep For The Future

obama's mention in his SOTU speech regarding a renewed educational emphasis on math, science, and other subjects he thinks will spur American innovation prompted me to think, not for the first time, that he doesn't have the slightest idea what he is talking about. Yes, U.S. students could certainly stand to improve their math and science skills. But more importantly, they need to improve their understanding of math, science, and other topics.

As a college professor, I have my own thoughts on this. Let's start at the top and work our way down. (Note: much of the following material comes from Critical Mass.)

“How much are students actually learning in contemporary higher education? The answer for many undergraduates, we have concluded, is not much”

36 percent of students “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning” over four years of college.

Those students who do show improvements tend to show only modest improvements.

The above comes from a study that measured critical thinking, analytic reasoning, and other “higher level” skills (link here).

For many undergraduates, “drifting through college without a clear sense of purpose is readily apparent.”

Boy howdy, that last quote is right on target. At the beginning of each semester I ask my students "Why are you here? Why are you in this class, and why are you in college?" The typical response is a blank stare. Some of them mumble something about "to get a degree" or "so I can get a job." I can count on the fingers of one hand how many said "to learn."

Not convinced yet? More evidence:

For most of the past 20 years I have served on selection committees for the Rhodes Scholarship. In general, the experience is an annual reminder of the tremendous promise of America's next generation. We interview the best graduates of U.S. universities for one of the most prestigious honors that can be bestowed on young scholars.

I have, however, become increasingly concerned in recent years - not about the talent of the applicants but about the education American universities are providing. Even from America's great liberal arts colleges, transcripts reflect an undergraduate specialization that would have been unthinkably narrow just a generation ago.

As a result, high-achieving students seem less able to grapple with issues that require them to think across disciplines or reflect on difficult questions about what matters and why.

An outstanding biochemistry major wants to be a doctor and supports the president's health-care bill but doesn't really know why. A student who started a chapter of Global Zero at his university hasn't really thought about whether a world in which great powers have divested themselves of nuclear weapons would be more stable or less so, or whether nuclear deterrence can ever be moral. A young service academy cadet who is likely to be serving in a war zone within the year believes there are things worth dying for but doesn't seem to have thought much about what is worth killing for. A student who wants to study comparative government doesn't seem to know much about the important features and limitations of America's Constitution.

I wish I could say that this is a single, anomalous group of students, but the trend is unmistakable. Our great universities seem to have redefined what it means to be an exceptional student. They are producing top students who have given very little thought to matters beyond their impressive grasp of an intense area of study.

In other words, they know "what" but not "why." They lack the ability to analyze, integrate, synthesize - to think critically. My own experience with students reinforces this.

Now the big question. Why?

There are, of course, a number of factors. Chief among them, IMO, is the failure of the public school system to properly educate and prepare young people for college-level work. It is becoming distressingly more and more common for high school graduates to take a year or more of remedial classes, especially in math and English, before they can take freshman courses.

But public education is not the only problem. Much of the blame lies with the universities themselves. 

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a Washington-based advocacy group, graded many of America's universities on a basic question: What, if anything, should America’s college students be required to learn?

The group faulted (a number of) schools, including Yale, Brown, Cornell, Amherst and the University of California at Berkeley, for failing to require students to take courses in more than one of seven core academic subjects: math, science, history, economics, foreign language, literature and composition.

“At Stanford, you can fulfill the American cultures requirement by taking a class on a Japanese drum,” said Anne Neal, president of the trustees group.

“It is quite possible to avoid American history, or Plato or science,” she said. “Many colleges don’t even require their English majors to take a course on Shakespeare.”

“We’re certainly not saying that Harvard or Hopkins or Yale are not good schools, or that their graduates are not smart kids,” said Neal, who attended Harvard and Harvard Law. “What we’re saying is that those schools don’t do a good job at providing their students with a coherent core.”

This has far-reaching ramifications, not only for the students, but for society at large. How can future voters understand the complex problems and potential solutions facing this country if they lack the basic grounding and skills to comprehend, evaluate, and analyze competing claims and arguments? This may also be a contributing factor to the chasm between American political groups. Some people participating in the national debate may be ill-equipped to rationally consider positions advocated by the other side. Their clamor drowns out any meaningful exchange of ideas. Don't agree? Just read the letters to the editor of your local paper.  

So what can we do about this?

It is important to realize that universities, like people, have different individual characteristics. Stakeholders - parents, students, future employers, governors and legislators - "should decide for themselves whether a given school is living up to its obligations–and its own hype. There is a wide variety out there–and different kinds of schools are going to work for different kinds of kids. Parents and students need to be making informed choices about college–which means being aware that most schools out there are not doing what people tend to assume they do in the way of general education. Then they are better positioned to vote with their wallets and their feet, one way or another."

Got that? Send your kids to where they will get a good, well-rounded education. Avoid places that allow a Chinese restaurant approach to degree plans (one from column A, two from column B...).

I would also urge parents to be involved in the course selection with their kids. Don't let little Susie or Johnny take Japanese Drumming to satisfy an American Culture requirement. 

But most of all we need government leaders, administrators, and educators to ensure that students don't just earn a degree, but actually learn something.

How?

... deep engagement with complex ideas and texts, difficult and often solitary study, the discipline to write, revise, and write again. What students need most aren't additional social opportunities and elaborate services. They need professors who assign a lot of reading and writing. Professors, in turn, need a structure of compensation and prestige that rewards a commitment to teaching. ... Colleges are responsible for taking the first step toward reaching a newer, higher equilibrium of mutual expectations.

Federal and state lawmakers should stop providing hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies based purely on enrollment, and should start holding colleges accountable for learning.

Easier said than done...