First things first
Jobs, jobs, jobs, we keep hearing. But for whom, whom, whom?
Certainly not for the many young Americans being graduated from colleges that have prepared them inadequately for the competitive marketplace. The failure of colleges and universities to teach basic skills, while coddling them with plush dorms and self-directed “study,” is a dot-connecting exercise for Uncle Shoulda, who someday will say — in Chinese — “How could we have let this happen?”
We often hear lamentations about declining educational quality, but the focus is usually misplaced on SAT scores and graduation rates. Missing from the conversation is the quality of what’s being taught. Meanwhile, we are mistakenly wed to the notion that more people going to college means more people will find jobs.
Obviously the weak economy is a factor in the highest unemployment rate for those ages 16 to 29 since World War II. But there’s more to the story. Fundamentally, students aren’t learning what they need to compete for the jobs that do exist.
These facts have been well documented by a variety of sources, not to mention the common experience of employers who can’t find applicants who can express themselves grammatically.
A 2010 study published by the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that 87 percent of employers believe that higher-education institutions have to raise student achievement if the United States is to be competitive in the global market. Sixty-three percent say that recent college grads don’t have the skills they need to succeed. And, according to a separate survey, more than a quarter of employers say entry-level writing skills are deficient.
One of the most damning indictments of higher education came this year with a book, “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses,” by Richard Arum of New York University and Josipa Roksa of the University of Virginia. It’s a dense tome that could put Ambien out of business, but the authors’ findings are compelling. Just two examples:
●Gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills are either “exceedingly small or nonexistent for a larger proportion of students.”
●Thirty-six percent of students experience no significant improvement in learning (as measured by the Collegiate Learning Assessment) over four years of higher education.
Undoubtedly, critics of Arum and Roksa will find reason to diminish their findings. But Americans know that something is wrong with higher education, and the consensus is growing that young adults aren’t being taught the basic skills that lead to critical thinking.
Most universities don’t require the courses considered core educational subjects — math, science, foreign languages at the intermediate level, U.S government or history, composition, literature, and economics.
The nonprofit American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) has rated schools according to how many of the core subjects are required. A review of more than 1,000 colleges and universities found that 29 percent of schools require two or fewer subjects. Only 5 percent require economics. Less than 20 percent require U.S. government or history.
Critics of ACTA’s findings insist that the core curriculum is outdated and accuse the organization of being “conservative.” (Founders included Lynne Cheney and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.) Some also insist that such “old-fashioned” curricula merely encourage memorization and rote learning rather than critical thinking.
Ridiculous, says ACTA President Anne Neal: “How can one think critically about anything if one does not have a foundation of skills and knowledge? It’s like suggesting that our future leaders only need to go to Wikipedia to determine the direction of our country.”
College students may be undereducated, but they’re not dumb and many feel short-changed. A recent Roper Organization study found that nearly half of recent graduates don’t think they got their money’s worth. The problem with education isn’t money — we spend plenty — but quality. Yet, instead of figuring out how to make education pay future dividends, higher-educational institutions are building better dorms with flat-screen TVs, movie theaters and tanning salons, according to a recent CNN report. If parents aren’t furious, they’re not paying attention.
In the lost spirit of in loco parentis, Neal and Arum have teamed up to take these findings to those upon whom ultimate responsibility falls: the nation’s 10,000 college and university trustees. In a letter sent a few weeks ago, Arum wrote that institutions not demanding a rigorous curriculum “are actively contributing to the degradation of teaching and learning. They are putting these students and our country’s future at risk.”
That’s a provocative charge and a call to arms. Let’s hope trustees hear it and heed.
Okay, so I pasted in the whole thing. Glad to see the conversation about curriculum is getting connected to the conversation about jobs. The problems are long-standing, but could be covered over more or less in a flush economy. Not any more.
![[Critical Mass]](http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/cmlogo.gif)



A few quick responses….
– “instead of figuring out how to make education pay future dividends, higher-educational institutions are building better dorms with flat-screen TVs, movie theaters and tanning salons…” What else would we expect? Colleges don’t get rewarded for “figuring out how to make education pay future dividends”; they get rewarded for increasing overall enrollment (at underfunded state schools) or boosting average test scores of incoming students (at wealthy privates more concerned about prestige than education).
– “If parents aren’t furious, they’re not paying attention.” Um, no. Parents ARE paying attention. It’s just that they WANT flat-screen TVs for their college-age kids. Someone should inform Ms. Parker that the American middle and upper classes are not exactly known for the austerity of their tastes. There’s a reason the spartan Virginia Military Institute model has not gone nationwide.
– “those upon whom ultimate responsibility falls: the nation’s 10,000 college and university trustees.” Trustees have a number of important responsibilities, but student learning is not among them. Student learning is ultimately the responsibility of the student. Which brings me to this one:
– “College students may be undereducated, but they’re not dumb and many feel short-changed.” So, let’s see. I’m a recent graduate, and I feel “short-changed” because of the lax curricular requirements at my alma mater. “I’m so uneducated,” I think to myself, “and it’s all because I took underwater basketweaving instead of economics. True, I COULD have taken economics, but the fact that I don’t know Adam Smith from Adam Hicks is NOT MY FAULT. My college didn’t REQUIRE me to take that class, so my ignorance is THEIR FAULT!” Students are presumably tempted enough to think this way as it is, without having thoughtless pundits like Parker reinforcing the habit.
Trustees, administrations, and faculty have plenty of responsibilities of their own, which they discharge well or poorly as the case may be. But even colleges that don’t require the classes that they should generally do offer plenty enough excellent classes to afford a great education to any student who chooses well. Students who feel “shortchanged” have no one to blame but themselves. (“Gee, I spent all that money on college and never took a philosophy course. True, I COULD have taken any of the many philosophy courses offered every semester, but no one ever FORCED me to take one, so I took Music Video Survey and Refereeing Lacrosse instead. I’ve been CHEATED! I should SUE the TRUSTEES!”)
OK, sure–if we want to infantilize our young adults we can always argue that they’re too dumb to be entrusted with the choices they need to make to make themselves smart. But then I suppose we should keep that thought in mind the next time we encounter one of those techno-utopian “do-it-yourself, who-needs-college-when-you’ve-got-the-web we-can-all-educate-ourselves-for-free” types.