What do you think?
Rate this book
Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses
In spite of soaring tuition costs, more and more students go to college every year. A bachelor’s degree is now required for entry into a growing number of professions. And some parents begin planning for the expense of sending their kids to college when they’re born. Almost everyone strives to go, but almost no one asks the fundamental question posed by Academically Adrift: are undergraduates really learning anything once they get there?
For a large proportion of students, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s answer to that question is a definitive no. Their extensive research draws on survey responses, transcript data, and, for the first time, the state-of-the-art Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test administered to students in their first semester and then again at the end of their second year. According to their analysis of more than 2,300 undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, 45 percent of these students demonstrate no significant improvement in a range of skills—including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing—during their first two years of college. As troubling as their findings are, Arum and Roksa argue that for many faculty and administrators they will come as no surprise—instead, they are the expected result of a student body distracted by socializing or working and an institutional culture that puts undergraduate learning close to the bottom of the priority list.
Academically Adrift holds sobering lessons for students, faculty, administrators, policy makers, and parents—all of whom are implicated in promoting or at least ignoring contemporary campus culture. Higher education faces crises on a number of fronts, but Arum and Roksa’s report that colleges are failing at their most basic mission will demand the attention of us all.
For a large proportion of students, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s answer to that question is a definitive no. Their extensive research draws on survey responses, transcript data, and, for the first time, the state-of-the-art Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test administered to students in their first semester and then again at the end of their second year. According to their analysis of more than 2,300 undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, 45 percent of these students demonstrate no significant improvement in a range of skills—including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing—during their first two years of college. As troubling as their findings are, Arum and Roksa argue that for many faculty and administrators they will come as no surprise—instead, they are the expected result of a student body distracted by socializing or working and an institutional culture that puts undergraduate learning close to the bottom of the priority list.
Academically Adrift holds sobering lessons for students, faculty, administrators, policy makers, and parents—all of whom are implicated in promoting or at least ignoring contemporary campus culture. Higher education faces crises on a number of fronts, but Arum and Roksa’s report that colleges are failing at their most basic mission will demand the attention of us all.
272 pages, Paperback
First published December 28, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 143 reviews
October 1, 2011
This is really a research article disguised as a book. That's the worst part of this study. Also the graphics are miserable and the quality of the writing is wooden. So much for the bad.
The good is that this work is perhaps the final brick in the wall in assessing the nature of contemporary college education. Chris Healy and I put one brick in that wall: college grades are ridiculously high in comparison to past grading standards. Babcock and Marks put in another brick: college students are studying about half as much as they did in the 1960s. The NSSE studies indicate that students, on average, care little about the academic aspects of college. Other studies have shown that today's college graduates are less literate than the college graduates of the past.
Until now, the defense on the part of the education establishment in response to the above analyses is that none of this matters. What's important is that college education still gives students life skills and still does an admirable job in teaching students critical thinking, analytic reasoning and problem solving.
There were no data to back this rebuttal on the part of the education establishment. It was just a sunny assertion. Now, with this book, maybe we have some data. If the methodology used here is correct, we don't do a good job teaching students critical thinking and problem solving skills. Students are studying 12 hours a week on average. Their average GPA is 3.2. After four years of study, over one third have not improved upon the academic skills they possessed when they entered college.
There are plenty of books that talk on and on about the nature of college without any real data. I find almost all of them to be exercises in narcissism. This isn't that kind of book. It's all about the numbers. The numbers, if they are correct, say we've increasingly turned college into a very expensive nine month summer camp for many students.
However, there are, the more I think about it, some problems with the methodology used in this book. The CLA test that is the foundation for most (but not all) of the analyses and conclusions of the authors is highly correlated with SAT/ACT scores and like SAT/ACT scores is poorly correlated with grades. The test also has a ceiling, which means that probably about five percent of the student body cannot do much better over time (the creators of the test say it's one to three percent). There is certainly some part of the CLA test that measures something of value in terms of learning. But like the SAT/ACT it's likely measuring something akin to "aptitude" for learning rather than learning itself.
Like that SAT/ACT, there is certainly noise in the CLA measure. Taking a difference between two CLA tests, which is what the authors do here, results in even more noise. The authors may well be confusing signal with noise in their assessements.
This book, in the end, is consistent with other measures that show unequivocally that we aren't doing a good job at teaching at the college level. But its results are not, probably, as strong a confirmation as I might surmise based on a cursory reading.
The good is that this work is perhaps the final brick in the wall in assessing the nature of contemporary college education. Chris Healy and I put one brick in that wall: college grades are ridiculously high in comparison to past grading standards. Babcock and Marks put in another brick: college students are studying about half as much as they did in the 1960s. The NSSE studies indicate that students, on average, care little about the academic aspects of college. Other studies have shown that today's college graduates are less literate than the college graduates of the past.
Until now, the defense on the part of the education establishment in response to the above analyses is that none of this matters. What's important is that college education still gives students life skills and still does an admirable job in teaching students critical thinking, analytic reasoning and problem solving.
There were no data to back this rebuttal on the part of the education establishment. It was just a sunny assertion. Now, with this book, maybe we have some data. If the methodology used here is correct, we don't do a good job teaching students critical thinking and problem solving skills. Students are studying 12 hours a week on average. Their average GPA is 3.2. After four years of study, over one third have not improved upon the academic skills they possessed when they entered college.
There are plenty of books that talk on and on about the nature of college without any real data. I find almost all of them to be exercises in narcissism. This isn't that kind of book. It's all about the numbers. The numbers, if they are correct, say we've increasingly turned college into a very expensive nine month summer camp for many students.
However, there are, the more I think about it, some problems with the methodology used in this book. The CLA test that is the foundation for most (but not all) of the analyses and conclusions of the authors is highly correlated with SAT/ACT scores and like SAT/ACT scores is poorly correlated with grades. The test also has a ceiling, which means that probably about five percent of the student body cannot do much better over time (the creators of the test say it's one to three percent). There is certainly some part of the CLA test that measures something of value in terms of learning. But like the SAT/ACT it's likely measuring something akin to "aptitude" for learning rather than learning itself.
Like that SAT/ACT, there is certainly noise in the CLA measure. Taking a difference between two CLA tests, which is what the authors do here, results in even more noise. The authors may well be confusing signal with noise in their assessements.
This book, in the end, is consistent with other measures that show unequivocally that we aren't doing a good job at teaching at the college level. But its results are not, probably, as strong a confirmation as I might surmise based on a cursory reading.
January 30, 2011
After receiving a pretty lucrative grant from some folks I just can't name here, at my former gig at Pacific Tech, I recruited a large group of our best and brightest to help me work on some really exciting, cutting-edge science. We were building a laser--something that could revolutionize the industry. But these kids--bright as they may have been--needed motivation. They were a slack bunch, always goofing off. I needed to ride them hard, and I did. Without my sense of discipline, all bets would have been off--they'd have faded into the muddling mediocrity that is American higher ed.
The worst offender was Chris Knight. Worst because Knight was probably the most intelligent and the least ambitious, and his sarcasm and tomfoolery tainted everyone. I was working very hard to get young Mitch (whose last name I'll keep mum, to protect him) on track, but Knight... Knight really steams me, you know? With his pool parties and his ironic t-shirts. The project did get back on track for a while, 'til Knight famously blew up my plans with that popcorn stunt. That shit-eating little weasel confirms everything this book argues.
The worst offender was Chris Knight. Worst because Knight was probably the most intelligent and the least ambitious, and his sarcasm and tomfoolery tainted everyone. I was working very hard to get young Mitch (whose last name I'll keep mum, to protect him) on track, but Knight... Knight really steams me, you know? With his pool parties and his ironic t-shirts. The project did get back on track for a while, 'til Knight famously blew up my plans with that popcorn stunt. That shit-eating little weasel confirms everything this book argues.
May 8, 2011
I jumped into this book thinking it was going to be the most important book on education that I'd read this year. I was sorely disappointed. Arum bemoans the decline of "critical thinking, complex reasoning, and written communication" so much it becomes the mantra of the book. And yet, the book itself is as poorly written as any other dense, self-important piece of academese that I've ever had the irritation to read. Here's a sample sentence: "Full-time faculty in resource-poor institutions likely feel increasingly overwhelmed and demoralized by the growing institutional demands placed on them and their inability to identify sufficient resources to maintain traditional levels of support for undergraduate education." If this were submitted by one of my students, I would write in the margin "SIMPLIFY!!" This sentence could make its point so much better is fewer words: "Faculty feel so much pressure on the job, they can't focus on their students' education."
My other complaint is that, in addition to all the jargon, I also had to wade through piles and piles of data, which the author felt very little incentive to actually interpret for the reader. Isn't the job of an author to synthesize and package hard research into palatable chunks for their readers' consumption? Many a time I felt my eyes just glazing over as I tried to make sense of a paragraph of statistics and percentages. It does little justice to the data if it is left raw and inaccessible to the reader.
Despite my complaints, the book is important. As Arum and Roksa write in a surprisingly engaging last chapter, "A Mandate for Reform," "The dissatisfaction of corporate leaders in the private sector with the quality of U.S. undergraduate education has... become palpable," and graduates are simply NOT showing up to the work force with the basic skills that employers and the economy as a whole desperately requires. We've got a long road ahead of us.
My other complaint is that, in addition to all the jargon, I also had to wade through piles and piles of data, which the author felt very little incentive to actually interpret for the reader. Isn't the job of an author to synthesize and package hard research into palatable chunks for their readers' consumption? Many a time I felt my eyes just glazing over as I tried to make sense of a paragraph of statistics and percentages. It does little justice to the data if it is left raw and inaccessible to the reader.
Despite my complaints, the book is important. As Arum and Roksa write in a surprisingly engaging last chapter, "A Mandate for Reform," "The dissatisfaction of corporate leaders in the private sector with the quality of U.S. undergraduate education has... become palpable," and graduates are simply NOT showing up to the work force with the basic skills that employers and the economy as a whole desperately requires. We've got a long road ahead of us.
August 13, 2011
Academically Adrift highlights an important problem with higher education: extremely low levels of learning, as measured in terms of critical thinking, complex problem solving, and communication.
The authors are careful to point out that this does not mean that all forms of learning are in decline—specifically, the tests used did not in any way measure subject-/domain-specific knowledge. However, the authors rightly assert that the particular forms of learning they concern themselves with (critical thinking, complex problem solving and communication skills) are considered essential by employers and faculty alike, are widely viewed as being in decline, and that it is the responsibility of higher education to foster quantifiable growth in those areas.
Based on observational studies, the book is very limited in terms of offering practical advice for reform; however, the authors do seem to do a good job of articulating the complexity of the problem and its many levels, particularly as it relates to the culture on American campuses at colleges and universities.
Though the advice they offer is scant, and, often, generic, the authors do point out several activities and characteristics that appear to have either a positive or a negative relationship with learning, including:
• working on or off campus
• living on or off campus
• studying individually or alone
• involvement in fraternities or sororities
• involvement in clubs or student organizations
• interaction with faculty
• course requirements
• race
• academic preparation (number of AP courses taken in high school, and/or SAT/ACT scores)
• parents' education levels
Some of the relationships observed do seem to point to areas where specific changes could lead to improved learning (e.g., increased interaction with faculty); however, I find many needing further examination to clarify the observed relationship. Obviously, their research being observational, one cannot infer causal influences, however, they offer many theories which I find suspect (e.g., the effects of group study). Appropriately, the authors do stress the need for future research to develop a better understanding of what they have observed.
While reading chapter 5, A Mandate for Reform, a few things came to mind. One, yes, the basic mandates the authors espouse are good, but they are more philosophical than practical—focusing on undergraduate student learning, finding and keeping good faculty, exhibiting higher expectations on students, etc. And where their suggestions are most concrete (e.g., requiring more intensive coursework, defined as reading 40 or more pages per week, and writing 20 pages or more per semester) I see problems regarding implementation as well as effectiveness.
For one, there is the problem of time. Using my own personal experience as a reference (which, may or may not be considered average, of course), I know that I struggle a great deal with finding time for studying—or with maintaining attention and focus as I study. Although I am a good student—I achieve relatively high marks, I am regularly on the Dean's list, and generally receive praise from my professors—nevertheless, I still struggle quite a bit with the idea of trying to simply study more or produce more work. That's not to say that I don't think I'm capable of doing more work than I do now—rather, I tend to feel like I don't perform up to my full capacity—I just don't think that simply adding "more" is the solution. I think it is a case of needing to work smarter, not necessarily longer.
I agree with their concerns regarding the consumer-based mindset of higher-education institutions in culture: "What conservative policy makers have missed, however, is that market-based educational reforms that elevate the role of students as 'consumers' do not necessarily yield improved outcomes in terms of student learning" (pg. 137). They present the issue fairly, though, outlining the positive effects such a mentality has had; however, they are quick to remind us of its possible consequences, as well.
Final Thoughts
Academically Adrift was a good book to read, even if as another reviewer pointed out, it is really a research paper disguised as a book. It is limited, in that it is strictly observational in nature; although it could identify the problem and highlight areas of concern, it could do little for making practical suggestions for reform—though the authors do provide some advice based on their findings.
They do a good job of establishing the problem. I agree with their finding that learning (as defined for their study) is in strong decline, and I agree that something (or, rather, a great many things) needs done to try to correct the problem. Their critique of the culture of higher education was enlightening, too. Although I have reservations about some of their findings, I agree with their mandate for further research and with their overarching goals. However, while I believe the general cultural reforms the authors indicated are important pieces of the puzzle, I think some of the items the book did not emphasize are, perhaps, more important to explore.
For one, I think academic preparation before entering college has become ineffective and needs substantial reform. In addition, I think society has changed so much that new methods of teaching, learning, and organization need to be developed in order to better reach the needs of today's students.
The authors are careful to point out that this does not mean that all forms of learning are in decline—specifically, the tests used did not in any way measure subject-/domain-specific knowledge. However, the authors rightly assert that the particular forms of learning they concern themselves with (critical thinking, complex problem solving and communication skills) are considered essential by employers and faculty alike, are widely viewed as being in decline, and that it is the responsibility of higher education to foster quantifiable growth in those areas.
Based on observational studies, the book is very limited in terms of offering practical advice for reform; however, the authors do seem to do a good job of articulating the complexity of the problem and its many levels, particularly as it relates to the culture on American campuses at colleges and universities.
Though the advice they offer is scant, and, often, generic, the authors do point out several activities and characteristics that appear to have either a positive or a negative relationship with learning, including:
• working on or off campus
• living on or off campus
• studying individually or alone
• involvement in fraternities or sororities
• involvement in clubs or student organizations
• interaction with faculty
• course requirements
• race
• academic preparation (number of AP courses taken in high school, and/or SAT/ACT scores)
• parents' education levels
Some of the relationships observed do seem to point to areas where specific changes could lead to improved learning (e.g., increased interaction with faculty); however, I find many needing further examination to clarify the observed relationship. Obviously, their research being observational, one cannot infer causal influences, however, they offer many theories which I find suspect (e.g., the effects of group study). Appropriately, the authors do stress the need for future research to develop a better understanding of what they have observed.
While reading chapter 5, A Mandate for Reform, a few things came to mind. One, yes, the basic mandates the authors espouse are good, but they are more philosophical than practical—focusing on undergraduate student learning, finding and keeping good faculty, exhibiting higher expectations on students, etc. And where their suggestions are most concrete (e.g., requiring more intensive coursework, defined as reading 40 or more pages per week, and writing 20 pages or more per semester) I see problems regarding implementation as well as effectiveness.
For one, there is the problem of time. Using my own personal experience as a reference (which, may or may not be considered average, of course), I know that I struggle a great deal with finding time for studying—or with maintaining attention and focus as I study. Although I am a good student—I achieve relatively high marks, I am regularly on the Dean's list, and generally receive praise from my professors—nevertheless, I still struggle quite a bit with the idea of trying to simply study more or produce more work. That's not to say that I don't think I'm capable of doing more work than I do now—rather, I tend to feel like I don't perform up to my full capacity—I just don't think that simply adding "more" is the solution. I think it is a case of needing to work smarter, not necessarily longer.
I agree with their concerns regarding the consumer-based mindset of higher-education institutions in culture: "What conservative policy makers have missed, however, is that market-based educational reforms that elevate the role of students as 'consumers' do not necessarily yield improved outcomes in terms of student learning" (pg. 137). They present the issue fairly, though, outlining the positive effects such a mentality has had; however, they are quick to remind us of its possible consequences, as well.
Final Thoughts
Academically Adrift was a good book to read, even if as another reviewer pointed out, it is really a research paper disguised as a book. It is limited, in that it is strictly observational in nature; although it could identify the problem and highlight areas of concern, it could do little for making practical suggestions for reform—though the authors do provide some advice based on their findings.
They do a good job of establishing the problem. I agree with their finding that learning (as defined for their study) is in strong decline, and I agree that something (or, rather, a great many things) needs done to try to correct the problem. Their critique of the culture of higher education was enlightening, too. Although I have reservations about some of their findings, I agree with their mandate for further research and with their overarching goals. However, while I believe the general cultural reforms the authors indicated are important pieces of the puzzle, I think some of the items the book did not emphasize are, perhaps, more important to explore.
For one, I think academic preparation before entering college has become ineffective and needs substantial reform. In addition, I think society has changed so much that new methods of teaching, learning, and organization need to be developed in order to better reach the needs of today's students.
Shelved as 'started-not-finished'
March 3, 2015.
February 24, 2013
This is a splendid, dry, detailed, and frustrating little book, potentially interesting to most people involved in higher education: teachers, administrators, deans, student politicians, etc.
I’ve seen quite a few test of learning outcomes administered to large populations of students, but what makes this one interesting is the focus on the broad, general skill sets of liberal education: critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing. These are evaluated by a new test called the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). I’m a sucker for this kind of thing: standardised, well-defined, well-constructed, with clear scoring metrics. (In short, the student is provided with a clear task, a set of diverse written sources, and gets 90 minutes to write a recommendation.) Thousands of studens in dozens of colleges are subjected to this in a longitudinal study, and their performance is tracked through their college experience.
(For data nerds like me, this is broken down in social science fashion, with socioeconomic variables, GPAs, number of hours spent in fraternities, and whatnot. Standard deviations, multivariate regression models, tables, graphs, pie charts, and whatnot. Bliss.)
Unsurprisingly, the findings are harrowing. Most students learn very little or nothing, and leave college with dismal general skills. This, if anything, is the main message of this book.
More optimistically, the main message may actually be: it’s complicated. Some students to very well. Most don’t. And we understand very little about which environmental effects (say, teaching styles, learning styles, collegiate experience, professorial attitudes, curricular decisions) have any significant effect. There are some unsurprising correlations that we can confirm with the book’s findings: studying is good, math is good, talking to your professor after class is good, taking classes that require substantial weekly reading and writing assignments is good, nonacademic social interaction is detrimental, high expectations (from professors towards students and from students towards peers) are good, etc. It is useful that the current study confirms these traditional recommendations. But of course, we don’t know much about causation—good students may simply self-select into these learning patterns, curricular choices, and environments.
There are some surprises, though. For example, learning outcomes correlate with number of hours spent studying, but the correlation can be negative or positive, depending on whether you study alone or with peers. Which is which? I’m not going to spoil it.
So it is difficult to operationalise these results, even though they make for fascinating reading. Maybe instead of using this study to take concrete recommendations on how to improve higher education, it can at least stop us from making stupid mistakes. Next time a mid-level administrator suggest to you that “method X improves Y” (say, for X = Problem-based Learning and Y = student learning), hit him or her over the head with this study. Pretty much nothing improves anything. Doom and gloom.
Oh, and the Kindle edition is pretty bad, because the tables are rendered in very low resolution and don’t scale.
I’ve seen quite a few test of learning outcomes administered to large populations of students, but what makes this one interesting is the focus on the broad, general skill sets of liberal education: critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing. These are evaluated by a new test called the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). I’m a sucker for this kind of thing: standardised, well-defined, well-constructed, with clear scoring metrics. (In short, the student is provided with a clear task, a set of diverse written sources, and gets 90 minutes to write a recommendation.) Thousands of studens in dozens of colleges are subjected to this in a longitudinal study, and their performance is tracked through their college experience.
(For data nerds like me, this is broken down in social science fashion, with socioeconomic variables, GPAs, number of hours spent in fraternities, and whatnot. Standard deviations, multivariate regression models, tables, graphs, pie charts, and whatnot. Bliss.)
Unsurprisingly, the findings are harrowing. Most students learn very little or nothing, and leave college with dismal general skills. This, if anything, is the main message of this book.
More optimistically, the main message may actually be: it’s complicated. Some students to very well. Most don’t. And we understand very little about which environmental effects (say, teaching styles, learning styles, collegiate experience, professorial attitudes, curricular decisions) have any significant effect. There are some unsurprising correlations that we can confirm with the book’s findings: studying is good, math is good, talking to your professor after class is good, taking classes that require substantial weekly reading and writing assignments is good, nonacademic social interaction is detrimental, high expectations (from professors towards students and from students towards peers) are good, etc. It is useful that the current study confirms these traditional recommendations. But of course, we don’t know much about causation—good students may simply self-select into these learning patterns, curricular choices, and environments.
There are some surprises, though. For example, learning outcomes correlate with number of hours spent studying, but the correlation can be negative or positive, depending on whether you study alone or with peers. Which is which? I’m not going to spoil it.
So it is difficult to operationalise these results, even though they make for fascinating reading. Maybe instead of using this study to take concrete recommendations on how to improve higher education, it can at least stop us from making stupid mistakes. Next time a mid-level administrator suggest to you that “method X improves Y” (say, for X = Problem-based Learning and Y = student learning), hit him or her over the head with this study. Pretty much nothing improves anything. Doom and gloom.
Oh, and the Kindle edition is pretty bad, because the tables are rendered in very low resolution and don’t scale.
July 10, 2019
5/10.
Very uneven chapters depending on the coauthors. Some are very insightful, but two do nothing but unbelievable rhetorical and mental contortions to try oh-so-hard to not let hereditarianism or biological group differences show in their data, which virtually scream it.
At one point the authors note that 'controlling for all environmental and academic factors, the gap [in academic outcomes as measured by the CLA administered to incoming freshmen and the same after sophomore year] was reduced by 24%', and then go on in that vein, instead of admitting how perfectly the 0.75 heritability of g explains the data.
They note that ethnic, parental SES [=proxy for parental IQ], and parental educational attainment [=proxy for parental IQ, even stronger when combined with SES] inequality in students' cognitive outcomes increases in higher ed no matter how many variables are controlled, and never accept nor even approach the group-mean-difference hypothesis (which implies that those who were lagging in high school academic preparation were by and large not college material, and 'maxed out' their cognitive capacity much earlier than others who showed greater CLA improvement; e.g. the CLA shows a 1sd gap which controlling for environment closes by 0.23sd between Whites and American blacks, the exact same gap as is found on every IQ test [cf Jensen, 'Bias in Mental Testing'; Jensen, 'Educability and Group Differences') or directly broach the heritability of IQ or its explanatory power for literally every outcome and inequality noted.
The authors conflate the SAT (an IQ test) and the ACT (a subject matter test) and then conflate both with the CLA (which sounds like an IQ test - but the authors are looking for improvements in it and find an average 0.18sd improvement in two years, so it's obviously testing for things other than the general factor of intelligence, which is static), but never - even in the methodological appendices - investigate what each test tests, how they are correlated, and how much each loads on g, except to note that high SAT (=IQ) scores predicted the majority of the 2005-2007 improvement on the CLA.
The same with parental education and SES, both ideas which are rendered inert by Herrnstein and Murray [1994], which is given one sentence and one footnote: 'We reject the unitary IQ thesis of Herrnstein and Murray's 'The Bell Curve' (which is supported additionally by the work of Jensen, Eysenck, Lynn, Rushton, Levin, Vanhanen, Nyborg, and everyone else working in the field except for the various Gould-Lewontin-X troikas*), with the attached footnote referencing the entirety of (!) the refuted, ideological collection of essays, 'Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth', which is tantamount to a scientist quoting a creationist paper to prove that man is actually different from the rest of the animals.
Still worth reading for people interested in the field of educational outcomes.
*These are the same guys who went so far as to deny evolutionary adaptationism tout court in their paper 'The Spandrels of San Marco' in an attempt to salvage their anti-hereditarian thought.
Very uneven chapters depending on the coauthors. Some are very insightful, but two do nothing but unbelievable rhetorical and mental contortions to try oh-so-hard to not let hereditarianism or biological group differences show in their data, which virtually scream it.
At one point the authors note that 'controlling for all environmental and academic factors, the gap [in academic outcomes as measured by the CLA administered to incoming freshmen and the same after sophomore year] was reduced by 24%', and then go on in that vein, instead of admitting how perfectly the 0.75 heritability of g explains the data.
They note that ethnic, parental SES [=proxy for parental IQ], and parental educational attainment [=proxy for parental IQ, even stronger when combined with SES] inequality in students' cognitive outcomes increases in higher ed no matter how many variables are controlled, and never accept nor even approach the group-mean-difference hypothesis (which implies that those who were lagging in high school academic preparation were by and large not college material, and 'maxed out' their cognitive capacity much earlier than others who showed greater CLA improvement; e.g. the CLA shows a 1sd gap which controlling for environment closes by 0.23sd between Whites and American blacks, the exact same gap as is found on every IQ test [cf Jensen, 'Bias in Mental Testing'; Jensen, 'Educability and Group Differences') or directly broach the heritability of IQ or its explanatory power for literally every outcome and inequality noted.
The authors conflate the SAT (an IQ test) and the ACT (a subject matter test) and then conflate both with the CLA (which sounds like an IQ test - but the authors are looking for improvements in it and find an average 0.18sd improvement in two years, so it's obviously testing for things other than the general factor of intelligence, which is static), but never - even in the methodological appendices - investigate what each test tests, how they are correlated, and how much each loads on g, except to note that high SAT (=IQ) scores predicted the majority of the 2005-2007 improvement on the CLA.
The same with parental education and SES, both ideas which are rendered inert by Herrnstein and Murray [1994], which is given one sentence and one footnote: 'We reject the unitary IQ thesis of Herrnstein and Murray's 'The Bell Curve' (which is supported additionally by the work of Jensen, Eysenck, Lynn, Rushton, Levin, Vanhanen, Nyborg, and everyone else working in the field except for the various Gould-Lewontin-X troikas*), with the attached footnote referencing the entirety of (!) the refuted, ideological collection of essays, 'Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth', which is tantamount to a scientist quoting a creationist paper to prove that man is actually different from the rest of the animals.
Still worth reading for people interested in the field of educational outcomes.
*These are the same guys who went so far as to deny evolutionary adaptationism tout court in their paper 'The Spandrels of San Marco' in an attempt to salvage their anti-hereditarian thought.
June 26, 2011
Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses is a detailed collection of statistics and cross references to additional research compiled by the authors. While the book contains 259 pages, the relevant information it presents is limited to the first 144 pages. The remainder is devoted to the bibliography and validation of the authors’ statistical analysis.
The book can be summarized by three basic themes:
Education is not equally available or of the same quality across socioeconomic lines.
Students don’t want to study and want the easiest path to a degree.
Educators promote this behavior because they don’t hold students to standards.
The book offers that students today have high aspirations but simply no plans for reaching those goals. They are “adrift” not only academically but in their lives. They have no drive and expect a degree to be handed to them. Some of the statistics presented as backup were a bit startling. The average college student sends only 27 hours per week on all academic activities; going to class, studying and working on assignments. This is less time spent on academics than the typical high school student. However, this lack of effort isn’t reflected in their assessments as there has been little change in the average GPA of college students or graduation rates over the decades. Universities are simply handing out degrees to students that haven’t earned them.
Both students and faculty are to blame. A number of student interviews are quoted in the book and show that students want to put in as little effort in their studies as possible and spend more time socializing and having fun. There is little incentive on the students’ part to work hard because educators don’t push them to perform. Some “ivy league” schools are noted as inflating grades so that the average GPA of their student population stays higher than average. This does a disservice to their students and could lead to a depreciation of the very brand image they are attempting to bolster.
The majority of the book details the dire situation in which we find the educational system today. The last chapter does offer a few solutions. These include: better preparing students for academics prior to reaching college, pulling back on the notion that every student needs to go to college because some simply won’t be able to keep pace, holding higher education faculty to higher standards and improving curriculums to include more reading and writing which was shown to increase critical thinking skills.
The book can be summarized by three basic themes:
Education is not equally available or of the same quality across socioeconomic lines.
Students don’t want to study and want the easiest path to a degree.
Educators promote this behavior because they don’t hold students to standards.
The book offers that students today have high aspirations but simply no plans for reaching those goals. They are “adrift” not only academically but in their lives. They have no drive and expect a degree to be handed to them. Some of the statistics presented as backup were a bit startling. The average college student sends only 27 hours per week on all academic activities; going to class, studying and working on assignments. This is less time spent on academics than the typical high school student. However, this lack of effort isn’t reflected in their assessments as there has been little change in the average GPA of college students or graduation rates over the decades. Universities are simply handing out degrees to students that haven’t earned them.
Both students and faculty are to blame. A number of student interviews are quoted in the book and show that students want to put in as little effort in their studies as possible and spend more time socializing and having fun. There is little incentive on the students’ part to work hard because educators don’t push them to perform. Some “ivy league” schools are noted as inflating grades so that the average GPA of their student population stays higher than average. This does a disservice to their students and could lead to a depreciation of the very brand image they are attempting to bolster.
The majority of the book details the dire situation in which we find the educational system today. The last chapter does offer a few solutions. These include: better preparing students for academics prior to reaching college, pulling back on the notion that every student needs to go to college because some simply won’t be able to keep pace, holding higher education faculty to higher standards and improving curriculums to include more reading and writing which was shown to increase critical thinking skills.
April 13, 2012
This is a book that should be read by every college professor, dean, provost, and president. Far too many of our colleges are failing in their mission to educate undergraduates. The authors suggest one crude recommendation which they reiterate ad nauseum: have students read at least 40 pages a week per class and have them write over twenty pages in at least one class. This makes sense. Apparently, students are able to graduate from college without doing much studying, reading or writing. One of the culprits is grade inflation. Another is the idiotic belief by administrators that students are customers and that education is a commodity to be sold like Big Macs or milk shakes. In actuality, students are more like patients or clients who come to a highly trained professional who can treat their illness: ignorance. They can't have it their way; they can't say "hold the literature, hold the math, hold the history." Students need to take general education classes to be reasonably well educated people. The goal is not just earning a credential--a diploma. The diploma is only paper; it is a a symbol of earning knowledge and skills.
The good news is that the math, science, and humanities majors do the best in critical thinking. Business majors are at the bottom with education and communication majors not far behind.
We, as a nation, can fix this problem if only we have the will.
The good news is that the math, science, and humanities majors do the best in critical thinking. Business majors are at the bottom with education and communication majors not far behind.
We, as a nation, can fix this problem if only we have the will.
March 20, 2011
I looked at some of the other GoodReads reviews after I finished this book, and I have to agree with those who said the writing style is wooden and not engaging. But I was interested enough in the topic and the findings to read the whole thing fairly quickly -- and during finals week. It was fascinating to read this while grading final projects in my visual communication class; the authors' findings about college students match much of what my students have to say about themselves.
I had assigned a visual self portrait, with a brief explanatory essay applying concepts from class. Most students elected to created photo collages. They identify the most important things in their lives to be their friends, their families, and their faith. Next were movies and video games they enjoy, and pets. When they wrote about or included images related to their university experience, it was about college friendships and parties, sorority life, or sports. None mentioned their major, and very few mentioned career goals or plans for the future, except for the desire to have a family.
I had assigned a visual self portrait, with a brief explanatory essay applying concepts from class. Most students elected to created photo collages. They identify the most important things in their lives to be their friends, their families, and their faith. Next were movies and video games they enjoy, and pets. When they wrote about or included images related to their university experience, it was about college friendships and parties, sorority life, or sports. None mentioned their major, and very few mentioned career goals or plans for the future, except for the desire to have a family.
February 23, 2011
Five stars do not seem enough reward for this book. Every university academic and every student should read it. The writers demonstrate how and why 'limited learning' takes places in our courses and classrooms. Their arguments are both horrifying and inspiring. If we think differently and behave differently, then we can make a difference. This book has changed how I think about the world.
July 9, 2017
Do students actually learn anything in college? That is the research question at the heart of Academically Adrift, which is presented as a book but is essentially a lengthy academic paper. Drs. Richard Arum and Josipa Roska test the hypothesis that, whether they learn anything vocationally significant in college, students who attend liberal arts schools come out with improved skills in the areas of critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication. Their findings suggest that this may not be true after all.
Using a instrument called the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), the authors measure student ability in the three areas noted above at the beginning of the freshman year in college and again at the end of the sophomore year. The data shows little improvement across these skills. Arum and Roska then break the findings down further, attempting to see what factors might correlate to improved outcomes, including student contact with faculty outside of the classroom, academic preparation before college and amount of work or extracurricular activities in which students are involved. They use this data to suggest ways in which faculty or college administrators might improve the learning environment on campuses.
One of the more depressing findings in the research is that there is still a significant gap in learning outcomes along racial lines. In addition socio-economic status seems to play some role as does the amount of education a student's parents had. But perhaps most disturbing is Arum and Roksa's assertion that one of the fundamental reasons learning outcomes are so bad in colleges is because the system is not designed to actually stimulate learning. Instead, faculty are driven away from teaching toward research and tenure promotion activities while administrators are encouraged to treat students like consumers who are in search of a social experience in college, not an education. Unless these systemic issues are addressed, and incentives re-aligned, poor learning outcomes are likely to continue. The authors qualify their results and point out the limitations of the CLA and their findings, but anyone who has worked in higher education can likely validate some of the underlying truths in this study from their own experience. The research simply proves how widespread and pervasive the issues really are.
Unfortunately, this book is written in the style of an academic journal article, meaning it is dry and at times, a bit obscure. The findings are truly important, but the writing is wooden and will be unlikely to reach a wide audience outside of academia. Parents and students will not be drawn to read this because, ironically, the authors do not present it using written communication appropriate to a broad audience. (Perhaps they should take the CLA and see how they fare?) The content of this book is probably worthy of four stars. But the presentation is two stars at best. I would love to see a "popular science" version of this research released so I could recommend it to a wider group of people. As it is, this one will primarily appeal to those of us who already work in higher education.
Using a instrument called the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), the authors measure student ability in the three areas noted above at the beginning of the freshman year in college and again at the end of the sophomore year. The data shows little improvement across these skills. Arum and Roska then break the findings down further, attempting to see what factors might correlate to improved outcomes, including student contact with faculty outside of the classroom, academic preparation before college and amount of work or extracurricular activities in which students are involved. They use this data to suggest ways in which faculty or college administrators might improve the learning environment on campuses.
One of the more depressing findings in the research is that there is still a significant gap in learning outcomes along racial lines. In addition socio-economic status seems to play some role as does the amount of education a student's parents had. But perhaps most disturbing is Arum and Roksa's assertion that one of the fundamental reasons learning outcomes are so bad in colleges is because the system is not designed to actually stimulate learning. Instead, faculty are driven away from teaching toward research and tenure promotion activities while administrators are encouraged to treat students like consumers who are in search of a social experience in college, not an education. Unless these systemic issues are addressed, and incentives re-aligned, poor learning outcomes are likely to continue. The authors qualify their results and point out the limitations of the CLA and their findings, but anyone who has worked in higher education can likely validate some of the underlying truths in this study from their own experience. The research simply proves how widespread and pervasive the issues really are.
Unfortunately, this book is written in the style of an academic journal article, meaning it is dry and at times, a bit obscure. The findings are truly important, but the writing is wooden and will be unlikely to reach a wide audience outside of academia. Parents and students will not be drawn to read this because, ironically, the authors do not present it using written communication appropriate to a broad audience. (Perhaps they should take the CLA and see how they fare?) The content of this book is probably worthy of four stars. But the presentation is two stars at best. I would love to see a "popular science" version of this research released so I could recommend it to a wider group of people. As it is, this one will primarily appeal to those of us who already work in higher education.
April 27, 2021
There is interesting material here with lots of data, but in the end it is utterly unsurprising. Students by and large learn very little in college (except good students, they tend to learn a lot). This can vary across some demographics and different institutions, but still not a lot of learning going on. Partly this is because the students come in quite unprepared for academically rigorous college courses, but also because the college teachers are either more concerned with their own research or overwhelmed by larger and larger classes. Add to this administrators who have little incentive to focus on improving undergraduate education (I’d add as well that they also don’t know how to do this) and you get the situation we have: Students pretend to learn and teachers pretend to teach.
The authors offer reform proposals in the last chapter. Most of these amount to calls to teach undergraduates more rigorously and for the institutions to support that. Noble as that sounds, it seems to miss the core issues. (1) There is little incentive for any of the parties to do this. For students, the credential more than learning matters more (See The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money). For professors, by and large it doesn’t makes sense to engage all that much in improving teaching since the money and prestige is all in publication. And for instructional faculty, there is not a lot of room for career growth so little incentive to invest in improving. And these faculty are teaching such high loads, they have little time or capacity to do so even when they want to. For administration, they have a little to gain from investing in undergraduate education. Like professors, the status and prestige comes from other parts of the university (graduate programs, athletics). As long as students persist and pay tuition, they seem happy. (2) No one really knows how to improve teaching – or to measure how effective teaching is. Each teacher, in each classroom, dealing with different students calls forth many different ways to go about teaching. Each new teaching proposal and technique holds promise and can work--with some teachers, some students, some subjects, some of the time. In many ways, it is a very local problem to solve and no amount of grand reform program is likely to work.
For those really interested in digging into the data, this book could be useful. Otherwise, reading the introduction/summary is all that is really necessary.
May 28, 2019
What the authors did well: Presented a range of issues and reasoning for their existence based on their data sets.
What the authors did not do well: Offer any solutions other than assigning more writing in classrooms and for faculty to be more responsive, which is what college classes should be like anyway...
The authors first blame the faculty, stating that students aren't challenged, then back up and claim it's an issue with institutions that expect faculty to do more than teach (sorry, but faculty willingly signed their contracts and publications aren't being constantly written each semester...). Towards the end, a solution is that k-12 teachers should do better with preparing students.
Yes, I agree that many students are not challenged, but they at times do make choices not to challenge themselves, happily accepting Cs (or lower). In the end, it's their choice, but I am concerned as to why these authors felt compelled to write this book without an consultation of curriculum studies, which could have provided useful suggestions for readers who are interested in making actual changes.
What the authors did not do well: Offer any solutions other than assigning more writing in classrooms and for faculty to be more responsive, which is what college classes should be like anyway...
The authors first blame the faculty, stating that students aren't challenged, then back up and claim it's an issue with institutions that expect faculty to do more than teach (sorry, but faculty willingly signed their contracts and publications aren't being constantly written each semester...). Towards the end, a solution is that k-12 teachers should do better with preparing students.
Yes, I agree that many students are not challenged, but they at times do make choices not to challenge themselves, happily accepting Cs (or lower). In the end, it's their choice, but I am concerned as to why these authors felt compelled to write this book without an consultation of curriculum studies, which could have provided useful suggestions for readers who are interested in making actual changes.
August 25, 2011
Thoughtful, thorough, and carefully-explained. This isn't a novel or self help book; it's a summary of an academic research project. The complaint by some reviewers that the prose is too complex is an eerie foreshadowing of the study's results.
Main findings:
- undergraduate learning is rarely adequately prioritized
- gains in reading, writing, and critical thinking skills are disturbingly low
- individual learning in higher education is characterized by persistent and/or growing inequality
- there is notable variation both within and across institutions
The results are based on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, which is an unusual kind of standardized test. Participants are given a variety of primary and secondary source documents and required to make a recommendation based on them. The format is an open essay. The authors don't disclose how the essay is graded, but stress that it evaluates reading, writing, and the ability to logically justify a position. The test was administered to incoming university students and to the same cohort two years later. The researchers found no statistically significant increase in scores overall.
Some demographic groups and variables were found to be correlated with increased scores. The authors discuss these points in detail, analyze these results in light of other similar studies that both agree and disagree with their findings, and carefully avoid claiming to have found causes. The tone is measured and avoids inflammatory language.
One interesting finding was that some factors found by other studies to be positively correlated with persistence were negatively correlated with learning. Studying in groups is a notable example.
Main recommendations:
- improve pre-college preparation (1/3 of recent four year college students took at least one remedial course in college)
- improve pre-college development of norms, values, and behaviors conducive to assuming productive lives as responsible adults, as well as ability and interest to focus on academic learning
- balance research funding with "commitments tied to the improvement of undergraduate learning."
- colleges and universities need to take greater responsibility for shaping the developmental trajectories of students
- ensure the course work is appropriately demanding and requires significant reading, writing, and critical thinking.
- rigorous grading standards that encourage students to spend more time studying
- "clearly stating course objectives, providing students with examples of what is expected, creating ample opportunities for students to apply what they have learned and perform their knowledge publicly, and assessing learning frequently and adjusting teaching accordingly." (p. 131)
- Increased study of active/collaborative learning is needed -- how it is used by faculty, how it is used by students,and what effects it has on learning. "Has a adopting active/collaborative learning meant mostly that we have made classrooms more lively and interesting, but not more demanding and challenging? … Perhaps it is not surprising that NSSE measures of engagement do not track strongly were consistently with objective measures of learning." (p. 132)
- break down isolation of teaching
- faculty must engage in the scholarship of teaching
- Consider that some activities that increase retention decrease learning. However, it appears that all activities that increase learning increase retention.
Main findings:
- undergraduate learning is rarely adequately prioritized
- gains in reading, writing, and critical thinking skills are disturbingly low
- individual learning in higher education is characterized by persistent and/or growing inequality
- there is notable variation both within and across institutions
The results are based on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, which is an unusual kind of standardized test. Participants are given a variety of primary and secondary source documents and required to make a recommendation based on them. The format is an open essay. The authors don't disclose how the essay is graded, but stress that it evaluates reading, writing, and the ability to logically justify a position. The test was administered to incoming university students and to the same cohort two years later. The researchers found no statistically significant increase in scores overall.
Some demographic groups and variables were found to be correlated with increased scores. The authors discuss these points in detail, analyze these results in light of other similar studies that both agree and disagree with their findings, and carefully avoid claiming to have found causes. The tone is measured and avoids inflammatory language.
One interesting finding was that some factors found by other studies to be positively correlated with persistence were negatively correlated with learning. Studying in groups is a notable example.
Main recommendations:
- improve pre-college preparation (1/3 of recent four year college students took at least one remedial course in college)
- improve pre-college development of norms, values, and behaviors conducive to assuming productive lives as responsible adults, as well as ability and interest to focus on academic learning
- balance research funding with "commitments tied to the improvement of undergraduate learning."
- colleges and universities need to take greater responsibility for shaping the developmental trajectories of students
- ensure the course work is appropriately demanding and requires significant reading, writing, and critical thinking.
- rigorous grading standards that encourage students to spend more time studying
- "clearly stating course objectives, providing students with examples of what is expected, creating ample opportunities for students to apply what they have learned and perform their knowledge publicly, and assessing learning frequently and adjusting teaching accordingly." (p. 131)
- Increased study of active/collaborative learning is needed -- how it is used by faculty, how it is used by students,and what effects it has on learning. "Has a adopting active/collaborative learning meant mostly that we have made classrooms more lively and interesting, but not more demanding and challenging? … Perhaps it is not surprising that NSSE measures of engagement do not track strongly were consistently with objective measures of learning." (p. 132)
- break down isolation of teaching
- faculty must engage in the scholarship of teaching
- Consider that some activities that increase retention decrease learning. However, it appears that all activities that increase learning increase retention.
September 23, 2012
This is a book in the broader literature presenting research on the state of undergraduate education. This volume attracted much attention and raises good issues. It is based on a statistical analysis of the Collegiate Learning Assessment survey results. Two of the most notable conclusions from the study are that students are not spending much time studying and that they are not learning that much, presumably from the lack of time and focus and also due to distractions from extra curricular activities, work, etc.
The results are plausible and not dissimilar from the results we have identified in efforts to assess undergraduate education. I think the book grossly oversells the results and that the picture is not as dire as it seems.
First, I am doubtful regarding the extent to which a broad assessment instrument can provide useful information - beyond a broad picture - of undergraduate learning of items such as "critical thinking", which will mean a dozen different things in you ask faculty in a dozen different disciplines. Besides, even under the best of conditions, the potential value of self-report surveys is limited. The "family feud" approach to educational research (survey says!) when done at such a broad level is more a symptom of the state of educational research than anything else. Where research and its conclusions are concerned, I am a believer in GIGO.
Second, the link between hours spent studying and learning results is certainly valid at some levels, but the relationship need not be a linear one of hour spent to what is learned. Some students may be more efficient at studying than other, especially in a world of proliferating AP classes in high school. Why penalize them by imposing some hourly metric? No matter how many hours are spent, some students may have problems in understanding differential equations, modern poetry, and the techniques of modern dance. I don't believe an "hours spent" logic is without value but it can oversimplify. At $50K+ per year at elite private schools, I hope there is more to this than can be simply assessed on such straightforward surveys.
Third, the other activities besides classroom materials are important and worth the time, as is the experience of learning to navigate the college experience on one's own.
As I said, I do not disagree with the results as much as wish that the sales pitch was moderated. Another aspect of what is going on here is that faculty may not be thinking as much about undergraduate education as they had in prior years and there is likely something to that, especially in larger public institutions. The pressures of research and publishing, coupled with the established norms for the prestige in teaching graduate students may well have contributed to a lack of attention to undergraduates. That should be sharply modified, but it will take faculty and administrator attention more than survey results. These results are informative and useful but can at best be a part of a reform effort.
The results are plausible and not dissimilar from the results we have identified in efforts to assess undergraduate education. I think the book grossly oversells the results and that the picture is not as dire as it seems.
First, I am doubtful regarding the extent to which a broad assessment instrument can provide useful information - beyond a broad picture - of undergraduate learning of items such as "critical thinking", which will mean a dozen different things in you ask faculty in a dozen different disciplines. Besides, even under the best of conditions, the potential value of self-report surveys is limited. The "family feud" approach to educational research (survey says!) when done at such a broad level is more a symptom of the state of educational research than anything else. Where research and its conclusions are concerned, I am a believer in GIGO.
Second, the link between hours spent studying and learning results is certainly valid at some levels, but the relationship need not be a linear one of hour spent to what is learned. Some students may be more efficient at studying than other, especially in a world of proliferating AP classes in high school. Why penalize them by imposing some hourly metric? No matter how many hours are spent, some students may have problems in understanding differential equations, modern poetry, and the techniques of modern dance. I don't believe an "hours spent" logic is without value but it can oversimplify. At $50K+ per year at elite private schools, I hope there is more to this than can be simply assessed on such straightforward surveys.
Third, the other activities besides classroom materials are important and worth the time, as is the experience of learning to navigate the college experience on one's own.
As I said, I do not disagree with the results as much as wish that the sales pitch was moderated. Another aspect of what is going on here is that faculty may not be thinking as much about undergraduate education as they had in prior years and there is likely something to that, especially in larger public institutions. The pressures of research and publishing, coupled with the established norms for the prestige in teaching graduate students may well have contributed to a lack of attention to undergraduates. That should be sharply modified, but it will take faculty and administrator attention more than survey results. These results are informative and useful but can at best be a part of a reform effort.
March 10, 2011
Arum and Roksa make good points in their book, Academically Adrift. For many decades, America has been riding on its academic (and other)laurels, and it is books like this that remind us a citizens that it is time for change. Arum and Roksa use statistical studies to present numbers that are unfortunately too close to reality. Among other points that they make is that college may not be for everyone, and that both teachers and students are not fulfilling their contractual duties to each other. One may ask: how can students make 'B's' and 'A's', get a degree, and come out of college with no more critical thinking skills than they began with. Other points concern the attitudes of both colleges and students, an attitude called the 'consumer student'. The consumer student, according to Arum and Roksa,is one that is not at college to learn, but simply to get a degree. Furthermore, such a student expects a grade point average in each class based upon the fact that they have paid for that class: academic integrity becomes secondary. This attitude, Arum and Roksa claim, is being accepted by many academic establishments across the board (both those that are highly respected and those that are less so).
While their studies seem to correlate with many aspects of academic reality, they are studies that are primarily based on sociological and psychological foundations: both academic by nature. For that reason, I would suggest that one takes their claims with a grain of salt as it were. I give the book a 4-star rating mainly based upon the subject-matter, one which I would suggest needs much study, reflection, and most of all action on the part of good teachers and academic administrators.
While their studies seem to correlate with many aspects of academic reality, they are studies that are primarily based on sociological and psychological foundations: both academic by nature. For that reason, I would suggest that one takes their claims with a grain of salt as it were. I give the book a 4-star rating mainly based upon the subject-matter, one which I would suggest needs much study, reflection, and most of all action on the part of good teachers and academic administrators.
March 3, 2011
I'm not quite sure where I weigh in on this polemic against the university system. As an economics-minded individual, much evidence I find compelling, but some of it is inconsistent. As a rhetorician, some of the arguments are well-fashioned, qualified and hesitant, but some of them are door-bashing fear-mongering. As an overachieving hardliner, I definitely rally that students should be working harder, studying longer and not mucking about trapped in ineffective administrative policies that include vast recreational facilities, easy A's, and professors who aren't really teachers. As someone who learned the most in college through an after-school comedy group, I think maybe not all distractions from studying are disastrous. After all, the biggest companies to come out of college, from Microsoft to Apple to Facebook, are often the fruits of "individual pursuits" rather than nose-to-the-grindstone studying. I recognize that not every student who majors in "art appreciation" or takes a year off to discover himself is going to be a major mover and shaker, but there's got to be some space for those critical thinking skills to be applied in ways even teachers designing homework can't imagine.
Read
November 6, 2011Now I see why so many news stories following the publication of this book picked up on the minimum requirement for college students of at least forty pages of reading a week and twenty pages of writing a semester: the authors repeat that formula many times, and stress how students who have met these requirements perform better in “tasks—such as the Collegiate Learning Assessment—that require skills in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing.” While their data support this assertion, why do we need statistical research to prove that students who study more also learn more? Their quantitative surveys don’t distinguish kinds of reading and writing, or even how they (or student respondents) count pages. The authors like their “adrift” metaphor, applying it variously to institutions, faculty, and students, and they examine many possible causes including family background and K-12 preparation, but it doesn’t really help in the search for solutions, nor does their assumption that faculty are more concerned with pursuing their own research than with undergraduate learning (not true on my small-college campus). For anyone involved at all in higher education, it’s a book to challenge critical thinking.
November 6, 2022
This must be one of the most widely cited and depressing and shocking books on higher education to ever hit the shelf. In a nutshell: “American higher education is characterized by limited or no learning for a large proportion of students." We know that cognitive ability is a heritable trait; students from wealthier families tend to possess it. They are well prepared for college, complete challenging and complex work, and learn a lot in four years. Then there are the other students, from not very good high schools who go on to less-selective colleges that do not challenge them or the students do enough to pass and don't learn much, but are awarded a degree anyway. Graduates who scored poorly on the Collegiate Learning Assessment are more likely to be living at home with their parents, burdened by credit-card debt, unmarried, and unemployed.
Why had no one attempted to measure learning before?
Why aren't students learning and why are many even losing their ability to reason critically after four years? Why are we making it so easy to earn a degree?
Why is this not being addressed adequately?
Why are we paying for this?
Why had no one attempted to measure learning before?
Why aren't students learning and why are many even losing their ability to reason critically after four years? Why are we making it so easy to earn a degree?
Why is this not being addressed adequately?
Why are we paying for this?
November 1, 2016
Undergraduate students are getting a bum deal. Eminent educators like Derek Bok and Clark Kerr have written about this since at least the 1960's. This book adds some sociological research to validate the obvious, and wraps it all in endless pages of turgid, small-print academese. Under the heading "Reaching for the Moon", the authors conclude:
Reaching for the moon indeed.
While limited learning in higher education is indeed cause for concern, it will probably not be easily or quickly remedied without some form of exogenous shock to the system. Social scientists have no particular expertise in predicting the particular form and timing of such an occurrence. We are familiar enough with U.S. history, however, to know that these shocks do periodically transpire.
Reaching for the moon indeed.
August 2, 2011
Ouch!
The book makes a strong case that the undergraduate education is in a bad state. The authors represent the findings of their study based on a few thousand students' responses.
The book is a bit dry to read but the findings are often shocking.
Recommended to anyone with an interest in this subject.
The book makes a strong case that the undergraduate education is in a bad state. The authors represent the findings of their study based on a few thousand students' responses.
The book is a bit dry to read but the findings are often shocking.
Recommended to anyone with an interest in this subject.
November 25, 2021
Although it has been a while since this book was published, many of the conclusions and concerns remain at least as relevant as they were then. My only complaint about the book is that it seems to only concern itself with more traditional categories of students (i.e. those who attend college right after graduating from high school, and live on college campuses) versus inclusion of the truly diverse plethora of ages and types of students who attend various types of colleges, along with some living on campus, some living in apartments nearby, some commuting, and some learning online. That said, I found some particularly salient points:
• “Even when most faculty use their time to meet professional and institutional obligations, the academic ratchet still shifts output from undergraduate education toward research, scholarship, professional service, and similar activities—a process that we have termed ‘output creep’” (p. 9).
• “… the question of how much students in particular colleges are learning—or, whether they are learning anything associated with academic knowledge at all—is worth pondering at a societal and regulatory level” (p. 19).
• “Students are told: ‘to believe in themselves,’ ‘put forth more effort,’ or ‘establish themselves a little more as a person’. While some [high school] counselors work to steer students to more or less selective schools, in general they have become reluctant to provide information that might in any way discourage students from enrolling in college… Providing open and unlimited access to college might yield tangible benefits for students who otherwise might be denied these opportunities… However, only the most cynical policy analysis could advocate ‘college for all’ without simultaneously demanding that once admitted into college, students would be compelled to demonstrate significant academic growth. Otherwise ‘college for all’ becomes little more than a policy designed for warehousing students during the years when they would otherwise face an elevated risk of unemployment and criminal behavior” (p. 55).
• “The benefits of schooling solely associated with individuals attaining educational degrees and certificates that did not reflect improvement in academic performance—that is, the positive signaling function of educational attainment that sociologist Randall Collins referred to as ‘credentialing’—would, of course, also be significantly muted or indeed nonexistent once college education became universal… ‘college for all’ policies require that higher-education institutions focus as much attention on monitoring and ensuring that undergraduate learning occurs as elementary and secondary school systems are currently being asked to undertake” (p. 55).
• “Students often embraced a ‘credentialist-collegiate orientation’ that focused on earning a degree with as little effort as possible. Academic ‘success’ was achieved through ‘controlling college by shaping schedules, taming professors and limiting workload” (p. 70).
• “Financial aid has so empowered students as consumers that higher-education institutions now compete for applicants by focusing on student services and organizational goals aligned more with U.S. News and World Report college rankings than with undergraduate learning” (p. 141).
• “More than 90 percent of employers rate written communication, critical thinking, and problem solving as ‘very important’ for the job success of new labor market entrants. At the same time, they note that only a small proportion of four-year college graduates excel in these skills: 16 percent excel in written communication and 28 percent in critical thinking/problem solving… While employers might lament the capacities that current college graduates bring to the workplace, industry has already largely adapted by turning to graduate schools and foreign sources of labor to fill positions that require sophisticated technical expertise, and it has often relegated U.S. college graduates to routine nonmanual occupations within firms” (p. 143).
• “Even when most faculty use their time to meet professional and institutional obligations, the academic ratchet still shifts output from undergraduate education toward research, scholarship, professional service, and similar activities—a process that we have termed ‘output creep’” (p. 9).
• “… the question of how much students in particular colleges are learning—or, whether they are learning anything associated with academic knowledge at all—is worth pondering at a societal and regulatory level” (p. 19).
• “Students are told: ‘to believe in themselves,’ ‘put forth more effort,’ or ‘establish themselves a little more as a person’. While some [high school] counselors work to steer students to more or less selective schools, in general they have become reluctant to provide information that might in any way discourage students from enrolling in college… Providing open and unlimited access to college might yield tangible benefits for students who otherwise might be denied these opportunities… However, only the most cynical policy analysis could advocate ‘college for all’ without simultaneously demanding that once admitted into college, students would be compelled to demonstrate significant academic growth. Otherwise ‘college for all’ becomes little more than a policy designed for warehousing students during the years when they would otherwise face an elevated risk of unemployment and criminal behavior” (p. 55).
• “The benefits of schooling solely associated with individuals attaining educational degrees and certificates that did not reflect improvement in academic performance—that is, the positive signaling function of educational attainment that sociologist Randall Collins referred to as ‘credentialing’—would, of course, also be significantly muted or indeed nonexistent once college education became universal… ‘college for all’ policies require that higher-education institutions focus as much attention on monitoring and ensuring that undergraduate learning occurs as elementary and secondary school systems are currently being asked to undertake” (p. 55).
• “Students often embraced a ‘credentialist-collegiate orientation’ that focused on earning a degree with as little effort as possible. Academic ‘success’ was achieved through ‘controlling college by shaping schedules, taming professors and limiting workload” (p. 70).
• “Financial aid has so empowered students as consumers that higher-education institutions now compete for applicants by focusing on student services and organizational goals aligned more with U.S. News and World Report college rankings than with undergraduate learning” (p. 141).
• “More than 90 percent of employers rate written communication, critical thinking, and problem solving as ‘very important’ for the job success of new labor market entrants. At the same time, they note that only a small proportion of four-year college graduates excel in these skills: 16 percent excel in written communication and 28 percent in critical thinking/problem solving… While employers might lament the capacities that current college graduates bring to the workplace, industry has already largely adapted by turning to graduate schools and foreign sources of labor to fill positions that require sophisticated technical expertise, and it has often relegated U.S. college graduates to routine nonmanual occupations within firms” (p. 143).
September 7, 2015
378.198 ARU
Review:
1. This book is mainly statistical summary on CLA to evaluate college students learning(Collegiate Learning Assessment)- involving 3 parts: critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing -- most agreeable key skills to be taught in higher education. Courses focused on these skills are usually mandated by a college's "general education" or "distribution" requirement in the first 2 college years.p73
2. Contemporary collegiate culture.
p70 Students embraced a "credentialist-collegiate orientation" that focused on earning a degree with as little effort as possible. Academic "success" was achieved through "controlling college by shaping schedules, taming professors and limiting workload. .. A common way to regulate workload is simply to restrict the amount of time and effort one spends on a course by doing no more than necessary. (my words: one easy way to do it is to take a course with easy going professors, easy grades, easy homework, no demanding reading, writing, etc). p81 Students embraced the cultural scripted of college life in popular movies such as Animal House (1978) and National Lampoon's Van Wilder(2002).
p120 The college experience is perceived by many students to be , at its core, a social experience. The collegiate culture emphasizes sociality and encourages students to have fun-to do all things they have not had a chance to do before, or may not have a chance to do after they enter "the real world" of labor market.Faculty, administrators, policy makers, and parents are all implicated to a certain extent in accepting or at least partly acquiescing to contemporary collegiate culture.
p124 Limited learning in the U.S higher educations system cannot be defined as a crisis because institutional and system-level organizational survival is not being threatened in any significant way. Parents-although somewhat disgruntled about increasing costs-want colleges to provide a safe environment where their children can mature, gain independence, and attain credentials that will helps them be successful as adults. Students in general seek to enjoy the benefits of a full collegiate experience that is focused as much on social life as on academic pursuits, while earning high marks in their courses with relatively little of efforts. Professors are eager to find time to concentrate on their scholarship and professional interests. Administrators have been asked to focus largely on external institutional ranking and financial bottom line. Government funding agencies are primarily interested in the development of new scientific knowledge. In short, the system works. No actors in the system are primarily interested in undergraduate student academic growth, although many interested in student retention and persistence. Limited learning in college campuses is not a crisis because the institutional actors implicated in the system are receiving the organizational outcomes they seek, and therefore neither the institutions themselves nor the system as a whole is in any way challenged or threatened. ---My words: this ensue the the debate: research universities vs. teaching universities. My conclusion the teaching is personal pursuit, even environment has some affect on learning, still personal will and passion hold a key to intellectual development, and this will and passion need to be cultivated in early childhood and through child's whole life.
3. p130 Pygmalion effect: Pygmalion in the Classroom is a 1968 book by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson about the effects of teacher expectation on student performance.
Reviewing the book, James Rhem wrote: "Simply put, when teachers expect students to do well and show intellectual growth, they do; when teachers do not have such expectations, performance and growth are not so encouraged and may in fact be discouraged in a variety of ways" -- from wikipedia.
4. Spending only 12 hours per week studying p69
p97 168 hours, full seven days
51% socializing, recreating, others; 24% sleeping; 9% working, volunteering, fraternities/sororities and student clubs. (these are normal college activities); 9% Attending class/lab; 7% studying. p97
5. p102 Student performance increased with on-campus employment until students reach approximately ten hours. Off-campus working has negative influence.
6. p118 framework of learning in higher Education
Factors prior to college entry
Sociodemographic and high school characteristic: Gender; Race/Ethnicity; Parental Education; Parental Occupation; Non-English home language; Two parents household; Number of siblings; Non-white high school; Urbanicity; Geographic region;
Academic preparation: SAT/ACT performance; Number of AP courses Taken; High school grades.
Factors after College Entry
College Experience:
Hours Spent Studying alone: the more the better
Hours Spend studying with Peer:the less the better
Hours spent in A Fraternity/Sorority: the less the better
My words: those 3 questions answers social integration in foster learning or not.
Field of study: The more toward STEM, the better. The first Science/Math, the second Humanities/Social Science, Engineering/Computer Science not so much, the worst Business, Education/Social work. p107 Educational expectation: the more toward doctorate or professional degrees, the better. for more technically oriented field(science/math and engineering/computer science), where students go to school matters.
Faculty Expectation: the higher the better. Faculty are most directly involved in shaping student experiences. p117
Reading/Writing Course Requirement: the more demanding, the better. e.g Reading more than 40 pages a week and write more than 20 pages of a semester.
Percent of College costs by Grant/Scholarships: the more covered, the better. (This make sense, since those who get usually have high motivation, better skills) On the contrary, the more covered ,the worst. (This make sense, since who get the most usually viewing college life not a learning life)
Institutions Attended:
p117 The final analyses affirm the the important of students' college experiences and institutions attended for their intellectual development.
p6 "As Derek Bok observed: "in the eyes of most faculty members in research universities, teaching is an art that is either too simple to require formal preparation, too personal to be taught to others, or too innate to be conveyed to anyone lacking the necessary gift."
p91 The education system is viewed as "a very complicated 'sieve', which sifts 'the good' from 'the bad' future citizen .....-- my review: I do not agree with, although there is inequality, but true education should reduce achievement gap.
Chap 5 A mandate for reform
p126 These students have not formulated what social psychologist William Damon calls "path of purpose"-that is, moral grounding that anchors their ambitions in the tasks, behaviors, and practices required to achieve the ends they views as meaningful. Youth today have been unable to develop a sense of purpose in their lives not only because of general changes in parenting and larger culture, Damon argues, but because schools have turned away from accepting responsibility for youth socialization and moral education. Elementary and secondary educational reform has focused almost exclusively on improving students' standardized test scores. "Often squeezed entirely out of the school day are questions of meaning and purpose that should underlie every academic exercise," Damon notes. Our obsessive reliance on standardized test scores deters both teachers ans students from concentrating on the real mission of schooling developing: a love of learning for learning's sake - a love that will then lead to self-maintained learning throughout the lifespan.
The Path to Purpose: Helping Our Children Find Their Calling in Life By Damon, William
Movies
Animal House (1978), National Lampoon's Van Wilder(2002): popular cultural scripted of college life embraced by students.
Review:
1. This book is mainly statistical summary on CLA to evaluate college students learning(Collegiate Learning Assessment)- involving 3 parts: critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing -- most agreeable key skills to be taught in higher education. Courses focused on these skills are usually mandated by a college's "general education" or "distribution" requirement in the first 2 college years.p73
2. Contemporary collegiate culture.
p70 Students embraced a "credentialist-collegiate orientation" that focused on earning a degree with as little effort as possible. Academic "success" was achieved through "controlling college by shaping schedules, taming professors and limiting workload. .. A common way to regulate workload is simply to restrict the amount of time and effort one spends on a course by doing no more than necessary. (my words: one easy way to do it is to take a course with easy going professors, easy grades, easy homework, no demanding reading, writing, etc). p81 Students embraced the cultural scripted of college life in popular movies such as Animal House (1978) and National Lampoon's Van Wilder(2002).
p120 The college experience is perceived by many students to be , at its core, a social experience. The collegiate culture emphasizes sociality and encourages students to have fun-to do all things they have not had a chance to do before, or may not have a chance to do after they enter "the real world" of labor market.Faculty, administrators, policy makers, and parents are all implicated to a certain extent in accepting or at least partly acquiescing to contemporary collegiate culture.
p124 Limited learning in the U.S higher educations system cannot be defined as a crisis because institutional and system-level organizational survival is not being threatened in any significant way. Parents-although somewhat disgruntled about increasing costs-want colleges to provide a safe environment where their children can mature, gain independence, and attain credentials that will helps them be successful as adults. Students in general seek to enjoy the benefits of a full collegiate experience that is focused as much on social life as on academic pursuits, while earning high marks in their courses with relatively little of efforts. Professors are eager to find time to concentrate on their scholarship and professional interests. Administrators have been asked to focus largely on external institutional ranking and financial bottom line. Government funding agencies are primarily interested in the development of new scientific knowledge. In short, the system works. No actors in the system are primarily interested in undergraduate student academic growth, although many interested in student retention and persistence. Limited learning in college campuses is not a crisis because the institutional actors implicated in the system are receiving the organizational outcomes they seek, and therefore neither the institutions themselves nor the system as a whole is in any way challenged or threatened. ---My words: this ensue the the debate: research universities vs. teaching universities. My conclusion the teaching is personal pursuit, even environment has some affect on learning, still personal will and passion hold a key to intellectual development, and this will and passion need to be cultivated in early childhood and through child's whole life.
3. p130 Pygmalion effect: Pygmalion in the Classroom is a 1968 book by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson about the effects of teacher expectation on student performance.
Reviewing the book, James Rhem wrote: "Simply put, when teachers expect students to do well and show intellectual growth, they do; when teachers do not have such expectations, performance and growth are not so encouraged and may in fact be discouraged in a variety of ways" -- from wikipedia.
4. Spending only 12 hours per week studying p69
p97 168 hours, full seven days
51% socializing, recreating, others; 24% sleeping; 9% working, volunteering, fraternities/sororities and student clubs. (these are normal college activities); 9% Attending class/lab; 7% studying. p97
5. p102 Student performance increased with on-campus employment until students reach approximately ten hours. Off-campus working has negative influence.
6. p118 framework of learning in higher Education
Factors prior to college entry
Sociodemographic and high school characteristic: Gender; Race/Ethnicity; Parental Education; Parental Occupation; Non-English home language; Two parents household; Number of siblings; Non-white high school; Urbanicity; Geographic region;
Academic preparation: SAT/ACT performance; Number of AP courses Taken; High school grades.
Factors after College Entry
College Experience:
Hours Spent Studying alone: the more the better
Hours Spend studying with Peer:the less the better
Hours spent in A Fraternity/Sorority: the less the better
My words: those 3 questions answers social integration in foster learning or not.
Field of study: The more toward STEM, the better. The first Science/Math, the second Humanities/Social Science, Engineering/Computer Science not so much, the worst Business, Education/Social work. p107 Educational expectation: the more toward doctorate or professional degrees, the better. for more technically oriented field(science/math and engineering/computer science), where students go to school matters.
Faculty Expectation: the higher the better. Faculty are most directly involved in shaping student experiences. p117
Reading/Writing Course Requirement: the more demanding, the better. e.g Reading more than 40 pages a week and write more than 20 pages of a semester.
Percent of College costs by Grant/Scholarships: the more covered, the better. (This make sense, since those who get usually have high motivation, better skills) On the contrary, the more covered ,the worst. (This make sense, since who get the most usually viewing college life not a learning life)
Institutions Attended:
p117 The final analyses affirm the the important of students' college experiences and institutions attended for their intellectual development.
p6 "As Derek Bok observed: "in the eyes of most faculty members in research universities, teaching is an art that is either too simple to require formal preparation, too personal to be taught to others, or too innate to be conveyed to anyone lacking the necessary gift."
p91 The education system is viewed as "a very complicated 'sieve', which sifts 'the good' from 'the bad' future citizen .....-- my review: I do not agree with, although there is inequality, but true education should reduce achievement gap.
Chap 5 A mandate for reform
p126 These students have not formulated what social psychologist William Damon calls "path of purpose"-that is, moral grounding that anchors their ambitions in the tasks, behaviors, and practices required to achieve the ends they views as meaningful. Youth today have been unable to develop a sense of purpose in their lives not only because of general changes in parenting and larger culture, Damon argues, but because schools have turned away from accepting responsibility for youth socialization and moral education. Elementary and secondary educational reform has focused almost exclusively on improving students' standardized test scores. "Often squeezed entirely out of the school day are questions of meaning and purpose that should underlie every academic exercise," Damon notes. Our obsessive reliance on standardized test scores deters both teachers ans students from concentrating on the real mission of schooling developing: a love of learning for learning's sake - a love that will then lead to self-maintained learning throughout the lifespan.
The Path to Purpose: Helping Our Children Find Their Calling in Life By Damon, William
Movies
Animal House (1978), National Lampoon's Van Wilder(2002): popular cultural scripted of college life embraced by students.
March 4, 2019
Lots of impressive, alarming numbers; questionable premise
This book is fairly reminiscent of the infamous "A Nation at Risk," at least thematically. The language used to describe the state of higher education is clearly intended to drive readers' interpretations of their results, rather than a straightforward presentation of the data where readers are invited to draw their own conclusions (though, I suppose the title of the book gives that away ahead of time).
This might be forgivable if "Academically Adrift" pulled from a variety of sources, both in terms of types of data (including ways of assessing) and diversity of intepretations (as in: findings from sources besides social scientists), but nearly all of the book's findings relate to the Collegiate Learning Assessment (I think...it's more often referred to as the CLA). This is such an issue, in fact, that the book's central premise often feels like less of a report on higher education and more like an advertisement for this singular standardized test. Worse, the authors continuously refer to the CLA as objective. Let's get one thing clear: no standardized test is truly objective. Certainly the CLA measures what they say it does, probably quite well. The issue is that, foundationally, the CLA is a measure of the indicators that the designers of the test felt demonstrate things like literacy and, perhaps more troublingly, critical thinking.
The argument, they posit, is that everyone who is everyone agrees that the indicators measured by the CLA are important, but these indicators, particularly in the case of critical thinking, are ambiguous. Further, especially as it pertains to college, context is important. People do need to communicate clearly and think critically, but, in college and after graduating, students need these skills as they pertain to their career, not a manufactured assessment with artificial and apparently unrelatable scenarios (based on a student's major). If that's not bad enough, consider the fact that one of the indicators for communication is "entertainment value," or "how engaged the grader is." Get out of here with your propsed "objectivity." There is no world where these two things coexist.
In the end, I read the whole thing because there were instances where the data they present is worth considering, albeit NOT as it relates to the CLA. This is a book about education based on studies conducted by people not in education. I agree, colleges are not serving their students well enough, but it's more because they collectively find new ways to scam students out of more and more money (as in: colleges have become less about preparing students for their future careers and more about finding new ways to improve their bottom line). The flaw in this book is in the foundation. Learning in colleges should be diverse; yes, themes of literacy, communication, and critical thinking should be espoused across the board, but only as they apply to a student's future career (you, know, what they're PAYING to study). No "objective" test could ever capture the plethora of contexts, and none ever should. Anybody proposing a one size fits all solution ought to rethink their strategy. It is unlikely to have any lasting effect.
This book is fairly reminiscent of the infamous "A Nation at Risk," at least thematically. The language used to describe the state of higher education is clearly intended to drive readers' interpretations of their results, rather than a straightforward presentation of the data where readers are invited to draw their own conclusions (though, I suppose the title of the book gives that away ahead of time).
This might be forgivable if "Academically Adrift" pulled from a variety of sources, both in terms of types of data (including ways of assessing) and diversity of intepretations (as in: findings from sources besides social scientists), but nearly all of the book's findings relate to the Collegiate Learning Assessment (I think...it's more often referred to as the CLA). This is such an issue, in fact, that the book's central premise often feels like less of a report on higher education and more like an advertisement for this singular standardized test. Worse, the authors continuously refer to the CLA as objective. Let's get one thing clear: no standardized test is truly objective. Certainly the CLA measures what they say it does, probably quite well. The issue is that, foundationally, the CLA is a measure of the indicators that the designers of the test felt demonstrate things like literacy and, perhaps more troublingly, critical thinking.
The argument, they posit, is that everyone who is everyone agrees that the indicators measured by the CLA are important, but these indicators, particularly in the case of critical thinking, are ambiguous. Further, especially as it pertains to college, context is important. People do need to communicate clearly and think critically, but, in college and after graduating, students need these skills as they pertain to their career, not a manufactured assessment with artificial and apparently unrelatable scenarios (based on a student's major). If that's not bad enough, consider the fact that one of the indicators for communication is "entertainment value," or "how engaged the grader is." Get out of here with your propsed "objectivity." There is no world where these two things coexist.
In the end, I read the whole thing because there were instances where the data they present is worth considering, albeit NOT as it relates to the CLA. This is a book about education based on studies conducted by people not in education. I agree, colleges are not serving their students well enough, but it's more because they collectively find new ways to scam students out of more and more money (as in: colleges have become less about preparing students for their future careers and more about finding new ways to improve their bottom line). The flaw in this book is in the foundation. Learning in colleges should be diverse; yes, themes of literacy, communication, and critical thinking should be espoused across the board, but only as they apply to a student's future career (you, know, what they're PAYING to study). No "objective" test could ever capture the plethora of contexts, and none ever should. Anybody proposing a one size fits all solution ought to rethink their strategy. It is unlikely to have any lasting effect.
December 6, 2023
Introduction:
In "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses," authors Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa embark on a rigorous exploration of the challenges plaguing higher education. Published at a time when educational institutions face increasing scrutiny, this book stands out with its comprehensive research and transparent presentation, including a detailed appendix of data. The authors, both experts in education, confront uncomfortable truths, urging a fundamental reevaluation of our academic structures and methodologies.
Synopsis:
Arum and Roksa's book provides an in-depth analysis of the higher education system, focusing on critical issues such as student engagement, academic rigor, and the overall value of a college education. Supported by extensive data, the authors paint a picture of an educational system in dire need of reform. They advocate for a shift towards a learning-centric model, emphasizing the need to instill a lifelong love of learning, critical thinking skills, and a sense of responsibility in students.
Strengths:
"Academically Adrift" shines in its well-grounded research and potent call to action. The authors compellingly argue for a transformation in higher education, stating, "A renewed commitment to improving undergraduate education is unlikely to occur without changes to the organizational cultures of colleges and universities that re-establish the institutional primacy of these functions." Their insistence on the need for a cultural shift towards embracing lifelong learning and critical thinking highlights the book's relevance and urgency. Another significant strength is its clear advocacy for leadership in driving this change, as noted: "Institutions need to develop a culture of learning if undergraduate education is to be improved... Strong leadership, including presidents, deans, provosts, and others, demonstrating a commitment to these goals is essential."
Weaknesses:
However, the book's academic tone and data-heavy approach may limit its accessibility to a wider audience. Its sobering narrative, while honest, can be disheartening, affecting reader engagement. Additionally, the authors' reluctance to label the challenges in higher education as a crisis might undermine the perceived urgency for transformative action.
Evaluation and Recommendation:
I rate "Academically Adrift" 3 out of 5 stars. Despite its challenging style and often depressing narrative, the book's message is crucial for those in the field of higher education. It is a necessary read, compelling us to confront the realities of student engagement and educational rigor. By highlighting the urgent need for reform, Arum and Roksa inspire a deeper reflection and a call to action, essential for sustaining the relevance and integrity of higher education institutions.
#AcademicallyAdrift #HigherEducation #EducationalReform #StudentEngagement #RichardArum #JosipaRoksa #LeadershipInEducation #CultureOfLearning #EducationalCrisis #TheClarkCommunique
January 2, 2020
Mixed feelings upon finishing this book. First, it's worth noting that despite all the attention that it has received, at its roots it is simply a research paper packaged into five chapters of analysis and conclusions. Yes, the prose is wooden and un-engaging, but only if you are reading this like a traditional work of non-fiction as opposed to a dissertation or an academic treatise. Measured in those latter contexts, this reads like a pulp thriller novel.
Not being a researcher, I won't comment on the study's methods, but I will say several things about the book's content. The authors go out of their way to paint a picture of "the Academy" as a place where learning is de-emphasized in favor of 1) in the case of faculty, research; and 2) in the case of students, social activities and other forms of non-academic engagement on and around campus. In this endeavor they pull (and in some cases cherry-pick) from an impressive variety of other research to emphasize their points, and bring to bear some jarring results using before-and-after results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) test, which purports to measure critical thinking, analytic reasoning, and problem solving (as opposed to domain knowledge).
The authors draw a compelling picture of colleges' failure to improve these broad areas of cognitive ability (which, as the authors point out, are in high demand in the world after college), and then make extensive efforts to contextualize and explain why those failures might have occurred. In my view, it is in this second area that the book fails to make its case -- it has barely established the problem itself, much less the causes and potential solutions to the problem. The broad areas that the CLA measures are not the whole of learning, nor are colleges similar enough for the authors' broad assertions about the reasons for students failures to learn (e.g. faculty emphasis on research; students' desire to socialize rather than study) to withstand serious scrutiny.
It sometimes feels as though, in order to ensure that the reader's attention is grabbed early on, an interesting research paper was packaged into a nearly hyperbolic account of the modern failures of colleges. But if you ignore some of those trappings, the book points to some very serious issues that deserve additional attention and research: in what ways may incentives at colleges be structured to favor other goals over learning? What is still needed in order to adequately measure "learning" or the value added by college? Is the "market" approach to higher education creating a consumer mindset that diminishes the importance of learning in favor of things that are more "fun" or satisfying for college-age students?
Given all of the above, if you are interested in higher education, this is absolutely worth a read. Just don't expect to be convinced by the authors' arguments for how and why all of this is happening, or how it can be solved anytime soon.
Not being a researcher, I won't comment on the study's methods, but I will say several things about the book's content. The authors go out of their way to paint a picture of "the Academy" as a place where learning is de-emphasized in favor of 1) in the case of faculty, research; and 2) in the case of students, social activities and other forms of non-academic engagement on and around campus. In this endeavor they pull (and in some cases cherry-pick) from an impressive variety of other research to emphasize their points, and bring to bear some jarring results using before-and-after results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) test, which purports to measure critical thinking, analytic reasoning, and problem solving (as opposed to domain knowledge).
The authors draw a compelling picture of colleges' failure to improve these broad areas of cognitive ability (which, as the authors point out, are in high demand in the world after college), and then make extensive efforts to contextualize and explain why those failures might have occurred. In my view, it is in this second area that the book fails to make its case -- it has barely established the problem itself, much less the causes and potential solutions to the problem. The broad areas that the CLA measures are not the whole of learning, nor are colleges similar enough for the authors' broad assertions about the reasons for students failures to learn (e.g. faculty emphasis on research; students' desire to socialize rather than study) to withstand serious scrutiny.
It sometimes feels as though, in order to ensure that the reader's attention is grabbed early on, an interesting research paper was packaged into a nearly hyperbolic account of the modern failures of colleges. But if you ignore some of those trappings, the book points to some very serious issues that deserve additional attention and research: in what ways may incentives at colleges be structured to favor other goals over learning? What is still needed in order to adequately measure "learning" or the value added by college? Is the "market" approach to higher education creating a consumer mindset that diminishes the importance of learning in favor of things that are more "fun" or satisfying for college-age students?
Given all of the above, if you are interested in higher education, this is absolutely worth a read. Just don't expect to be convinced by the authors' arguments for how and why all of this is happening, or how it can be solved anytime soon.
Read
June 26, 2018Josipa Roksa
ΦBK, Mount Holyoke College, 1999
Co-author
From the publisher: In spite of soaring tuition costs, more and more students go to college every year. A bachelor’s degree is now required for entry into a growing number of professions. And some parents begin planning for the expense of sending their kids to college when they’re born. Almost everyone strives to go, but almost no one asks the fundamental question posed by Academically Adrift: are undergraduates really learning anything once they get there?
For a large proportion of students, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s answer to that question is a definitive no. Their extensive research draws on survey responses, transcript data, and, for the first time, the state-of-the-art Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test administered to students in their first semester and then again at the end of their second year. According to their analysis of more than 2,300 undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, 45 percent of these students demonstrate no significant improvement in a range of skills—including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing—during their first two years of college. As troubling as their findings are, Arum and Roksa argue that for many faculty and administrators they will come as no surprise—instead, they are the expected result of a student body distracted by socializing or working and an institutional culture that puts undergraduate learning close to the bottom of the priority list.
Academically Adrift holds sobering lessons for students, faculty, administrators, policy makers, and parents—all of whom are implicated in promoting or at least ignoring contemporary campus culture. Higher education faces crises on a number of fronts, but Arum and Roksa’s report that colleges are failing at their most basic mission will demand the attention of us all.
ΦBK, Mount Holyoke College, 1999
Co-author
From the publisher: In spite of soaring tuition costs, more and more students go to college every year. A bachelor’s degree is now required for entry into a growing number of professions. And some parents begin planning for the expense of sending their kids to college when they’re born. Almost everyone strives to go, but almost no one asks the fundamental question posed by Academically Adrift: are undergraduates really learning anything once they get there?
For a large proportion of students, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s answer to that question is a definitive no. Their extensive research draws on survey responses, transcript data, and, for the first time, the state-of-the-art Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test administered to students in their first semester and then again at the end of their second year. According to their analysis of more than 2,300 undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, 45 percent of these students demonstrate no significant improvement in a range of skills—including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing—during their first two years of college. As troubling as their findings are, Arum and Roksa argue that for many faculty and administrators they will come as no surprise—instead, they are the expected result of a student body distracted by socializing or working and an institutional culture that puts undergraduate learning close to the bottom of the priority list.
Academically Adrift holds sobering lessons for students, faculty, administrators, policy makers, and parents—all of whom are implicated in promoting or at least ignoring contemporary campus culture. Higher education faces crises on a number of fronts, but Arum and Roksa’s report that colleges are failing at their most basic mission will demand the attention of us all.
January 2, 2012
A common theme in DC is the decline in US universities. We are no longer the world leader. I'm not sure we ever were in terms of undergraduate studies - graduate studies, I think we still lead - but it is still a common theme. This book attempts to look at this objectively and concretely.
This book reads like an extended research paper. The author bases his analysis on the Collegiate Learning Assessment Longitudinal Study (CLA), which included a test that was administered to 2,362 Freshman students in the Fall of 2005. These students came from 24 different US institutions. The test was re-administered to the same students in the Spring of 2007, so they had completed two years of college, and transcripts and survey information was collected. Just under 50% of the students were still enrolled in the Spring of 2007. The author did more data gathering, such as associating the kind of high school each student came from (eg, demographics, financial and other support). The author gives a detailed explanation and reports much of the first reduction of the data for interested researchers. For example, I don't know how students who transferred were handled,but I think I could find the answer if I dug deeply enough into the appendix.
The study tested a student's abilities in three areas: critical thinking, problem solving, and writing. The test require no particularly technical skills (such as higher math, programming, engineering, biology). For example, one question was to come up with a recommendation for a fictitious CEO who wanted to purchase a private plane that had some current negative press. The test is not useful for measuring a particular individual (because it is a single 90 minute cognitive ability test) but the author - and others - believe it is useful for assessing group behavior.
In general, the scores did not improve much - 5% or so - although they did improve with statistical significance, depending on how students were grouped.
The author puts enormous importance on the skills tested by this test. He claims that it is exactly these three skills that are meant to be developed by college students. He has his supporters: my colleague Stefan Savage claims one of his advantages was getting a History major as an undergraduate because it taught him similar skills that have helped him as a researcher.
I went to university to learn particular skills for being a physicist (deep math, physics, experimental methods) and then for a computer scientist (different math, semantics, abstraction). I did learn a lot about writing, how to make an argument and to debate, different kinds of philosophies, etc. but was all part of the academic life. I decided to attend Occidental College instead of CalTech because I wanted the broader education offered by a liberal arts institution, so I must share the author's opinion, although I would have never said it the way he does.
The author observes that things have changed from my student days: a higher percentage of high school students go on to university (this is a societal goal); professor evaluations have become more prevalent and used for T&P decisions; on-campus housing gives more privacy and comfort to students, student expectations about collegiate life is now much closer to what was portrayed in "Animal House"; the role of a university providing role models for life has weakened (eg, curtailing of social and sexual activities, watching out for excessive drinking or usage of drugs, etc). He observes that parents desire their children to get degrees that will lead to stable income and good jobs; students optimize for a pleasurable experience that leads to good grades and a degree (eg, easier classes); faculty optimize for research; administrators optimize for high rankings and stable or growing student bodies. Nowhere in this is anyone thinking about undergraduate education and the need to teach critical thinking, problem solving, and writing.
As an aside, when I taught at Cornell I had graduate students who had learned to write "creatively", requiring me to re-train them to write technically. I haven't had this problem as much in the last ten years, which may be indirect evidence of the lack of teaching undergraduates how to write.
I found some of the statistics shocking: the halving in the number of study hours, for example, as well as the loss in career counseling in high schools.
The author draws several conclusions from the data in looking at the results:
- students need to read and write more
- professors need to have higher expectations on their students
- the kind of environment that degree-holding parents provide help students succeed in improving in these three abilities.
The author has done a lot of work, and some conclusions made me think hard: the impact of on- versus off-campus work, the value (or lack of value) of group projects, the differences in behaviors of students of different backgrounds. But, I also wondered how meaningful the conclusions are: the gains in the test were small, in my experience learning to argue and write took more than one year, and for some students, the first year was used to make up for weak backgrounds: improvement between the first and four years would be more meaningful, especially for such students. Thus, despite the careful correlation of data and analysis, I was left wondering how much one could truly gather from this study.
I was struck at how conservative - bordering on reactionary - the conclusions seemed: students these days are disengaged, universities are "academically adrift" and need to reclaim, somehow, their moral imperatives. Maybe so, but I'm an engineer and think more about: what are the social and economical problems, what are the constraints, and how do we go about solving the problems?
And, what of STEM? I recall back in the days we were terrified of Japan economically surpassing us, we worried about the math skills of our high school and undergraduate students. Japanese workers in manufacturing knew calculus and statistics, and could do kind of engineering reasoning that led to large improvements in manufacturing quality. I think that this is still a priority.
This book reads like an extended research paper. The author bases his analysis on the Collegiate Learning Assessment Longitudinal Study (CLA), which included a test that was administered to 2,362 Freshman students in the Fall of 2005. These students came from 24 different US institutions. The test was re-administered to the same students in the Spring of 2007, so they had completed two years of college, and transcripts and survey information was collected. Just under 50% of the students were still enrolled in the Spring of 2007. The author did more data gathering, such as associating the kind of high school each student came from (eg, demographics, financial and other support). The author gives a detailed explanation and reports much of the first reduction of the data for interested researchers. For example, I don't know how students who transferred were handled,but I think I could find the answer if I dug deeply enough into the appendix.
The study tested a student's abilities in three areas: critical thinking, problem solving, and writing. The test require no particularly technical skills (such as higher math, programming, engineering, biology). For example, one question was to come up with a recommendation for a fictitious CEO who wanted to purchase a private plane that had some current negative press. The test is not useful for measuring a particular individual (because it is a single 90 minute cognitive ability test) but the author - and others - believe it is useful for assessing group behavior.
In general, the scores did not improve much - 5% or so - although they did improve with statistical significance, depending on how students were grouped.
The author puts enormous importance on the skills tested by this test. He claims that it is exactly these three skills that are meant to be developed by college students. He has his supporters: my colleague Stefan Savage claims one of his advantages was getting a History major as an undergraduate because it taught him similar skills that have helped him as a researcher.
I went to university to learn particular skills for being a physicist (deep math, physics, experimental methods) and then for a computer scientist (different math, semantics, abstraction). I did learn a lot about writing, how to make an argument and to debate, different kinds of philosophies, etc. but was all part of the academic life. I decided to attend Occidental College instead of CalTech because I wanted the broader education offered by a liberal arts institution, so I must share the author's opinion, although I would have never said it the way he does.
The author observes that things have changed from my student days: a higher percentage of high school students go on to university (this is a societal goal); professor evaluations have become more prevalent and used for T&P decisions; on-campus housing gives more privacy and comfort to students, student expectations about collegiate life is now much closer to what was portrayed in "Animal House"; the role of a university providing role models for life has weakened (eg, curtailing of social and sexual activities, watching out for excessive drinking or usage of drugs, etc). He observes that parents desire their children to get degrees that will lead to stable income and good jobs; students optimize for a pleasurable experience that leads to good grades and a degree (eg, easier classes); faculty optimize for research; administrators optimize for high rankings and stable or growing student bodies. Nowhere in this is anyone thinking about undergraduate education and the need to teach critical thinking, problem solving, and writing.
As an aside, when I taught at Cornell I had graduate students who had learned to write "creatively", requiring me to re-train them to write technically. I haven't had this problem as much in the last ten years, which may be indirect evidence of the lack of teaching undergraduates how to write.
I found some of the statistics shocking: the halving in the number of study hours, for example, as well as the loss in career counseling in high schools.
The author draws several conclusions from the data in looking at the results:
- students need to read and write more
- professors need to have higher expectations on their students
- the kind of environment that degree-holding parents provide help students succeed in improving in these three abilities.
The author has done a lot of work, and some conclusions made me think hard: the impact of on- versus off-campus work, the value (or lack of value) of group projects, the differences in behaviors of students of different backgrounds. But, I also wondered how meaningful the conclusions are: the gains in the test were small, in my experience learning to argue and write took more than one year, and for some students, the first year was used to make up for weak backgrounds: improvement between the first and four years would be more meaningful, especially for such students. Thus, despite the careful correlation of data and analysis, I was left wondering how much one could truly gather from this study.
I was struck at how conservative - bordering on reactionary - the conclusions seemed: students these days are disengaged, universities are "academically adrift" and need to reclaim, somehow, their moral imperatives. Maybe so, but I'm an engineer and think more about: what are the social and economical problems, what are the constraints, and how do we go about solving the problems?
And, what of STEM? I recall back in the days we were terrified of Japan economically surpassing us, we worried about the math skills of our high school and undergraduate students. Japanese workers in manufacturing knew calculus and statistics, and could do kind of engineering reasoning that led to large improvements in manufacturing quality. I think that this is still a priority.
July 10, 2019
So we’re collectively less learned than ever thanks to our pre-college preparations, desires to place social priorities over learning, income inequality, desire for low expectations in classes, faculty being less prepped and attended to by students outside of class, and university goals that aren’t geared toward educating individuals at a moral high ground.
Not shocked, but based on Arum and Roksa’s CLA metric the results are worse than expected. The only thing I’m shocked by is the book’s 3.4 rating. Sure it’s likely because the raters were “academically adrift.” Then again, the score should not be surprising if only 24 percent of reported respondents read a news source and 34 percent of extra reported respondents didn’t receive news at all.
The book might be repetitive in some aspects and should be thinner to not make it seem as if it’s a lengthy piece of literature. Still, based on the statistics given and an reasonable attempt to define learning more should be alarmed and thus respect the work that Arum and Roksa have done.
Not shocked, but based on Arum and Roksa’s CLA metric the results are worse than expected. The only thing I’m shocked by is the book’s 3.4 rating. Sure it’s likely because the raters were “academically adrift.” Then again, the score should not be surprising if only 24 percent of reported respondents read a news source and 34 percent of extra reported respondents didn’t receive news at all.
The book might be repetitive in some aspects and should be thinner to not make it seem as if it’s a lengthy piece of literature. Still, based on the statistics given and an reasonable attempt to define learning more should be alarmed and thus respect the work that Arum and Roksa have done.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 143 reviews