Gareth McNamara
According to the Department of Education, full-time enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased by 45 percent between 2000 and 2010. Census Bureau figures show that more than 38 million people over the age of 18 that hold a bachelor’s degree. Does this mean the nation is achieving higher, getting smarter? In a word, no.
Sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa tracked the progress of thousands of students over a four-year period at just over two dozen colleges and universities in the U.S. While many college seniors report gaining significant knowledge, critical and analytical thinking skills over the course of their education, Arum and Roksa’s figures tell a different story.
Half of the students studied did not take courses requiring them to write more than 20 pages over the course of a semester, and 32 percent avoided courses that would require more than 40 pages of reading per week. The average time spent studying per week was 12 hours; half the average study time of full-time students in 1960. Bizarrely, the 36 percent of contemporary students who studied less than five hours a week still logged an average GPA of 3.16. For those of you who are wondering, yes, this is better than mine.
When assessed in terms of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing, students showed little to no progress. Reviewing the assessment on the typical 0-100 point scale, Arum and Roksa found that 45 percent of students failed to gain a single point between starting college and completing their sophomore year, with 36 percent failing to do so after completing four years. Well, there’s our “achieving higher, getting smarter” out the window, then. Getting a B.A. without having improved key thinking, reasoning and communication skills makes someone the definition of an educated idiot. So what’s the problem?
Allow me to put a spin on an old classic here and ask: “Are we becoming too thick to fail?” Are recent generations just chronically unsuited for a rigorous college workload, yet still pulled through the education system to keep enrollment figures looking good? The answer’s a bit of a mixed bag.
In its push for higher education reform, the Obama administration have criticized how federal financial aid for students (now costing over $150 billion) is divvied up among colleges primarily on the basis of the number of students they enroll rather than the number who graduate or the quality of education they receive. Given that almost half of all students who enroll in a third-level institution in the U.S. fail to graduate after six years, the White House is right to be skeptical.
The current system of federal loan disbursement was intended to empower students by allocating them money to spend on a college of their choice rather than linking aid to specific institutions and programs. Is the average 17- or 18-year-old really the best at prioritizing educational value over mod-cons and a bitchin’ social scene, though? You might find that ironic coming from a writer who scraped through secondary school despite not turning in a single homework assignment for over two years. You’re right, but I would ask you to dispense with the ad hominem critiques and give the question some thought. Were you really all that responsible at that age? It’s not that today’s college students aren’t capable of completing a rigorous course load; the majority of us are. We just know better than to pass up a free lunch when it’s available. Especially if doing so lets us dedicate more time to the fun stuff.
With colleges’ enrollment strategy shifting more and more towards pushing the shiny and new, prospective students are having their somewhat skewed priorities reinforced and catered to. The emphasis on the social, the sporty and the swanky over the educational in American higher education is shifting toward the obscene. Wooster is not the biggest offender, but we certainly aren’t innocent. Colleges increasingly treat their students as customers (and you all know the old marketing adage about customers) and compete with their peer institutions using luxury facilities and decadent construction projects. Super teaching and learning become a by-the-way.
The “education” in higher education is being reduced to a footnote, and the federal government continues to prop up these practices. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s plans for reform introduce as many problems as they aim to solve.
If factors such as graduates’ salary are included in the administration’s proposed rating system for third-level institution, excellent degree programs in social work, journalism, set-design, teaching and dozens of other less-lucrative fields will find themselves sinking towards the bottom, and federal funding for those students drying up. Though it’s often complained that the quality of an education is difficult or impossible to measure, it looks to me as if Arum and Roksa have the right idea. Critical thinking, complex reasoning and strong writing and communication are qualities that Wooster (and countless other schools) claim to instill in their graduates and incorporate into their marketing. These skills can be measured, and increases in them tracked. Surely that’s as good a place as any for us to start building an evaluative standard for the quality of education colleges provide?
Despite the problems with the system, intelligent students are out there and do graduate. But for every one of these students I encounter in the classroom or outside of it, I come across two more who are gaining nothing, yet still being pulled through to commencement. This is precisely the reason why having a B.A. doesn’t net you the advantages it used to. For as long as higher-education fails to deliver graduates who have gained from their four-year programs, a B.A. will continue to be an unreliable indicator of education progress, with wavering value. Until then, I guess you could always add a couple of zeroes to the end of your student loan balance and apply to grad school.