From the aforementioned "Room for Debate" blog in yesterday's NY Times comes this factoid from Prof. Phillip Babcock of UC-Santa Barbara.
"Full-time college students in the 1960s studied 24 hours per week, on average, whereas their counterparts today study 14 hours per week. The 10-hour decline is visible for students from all demographic groups and of all cognitive abilities, in every major and at every type of college. . . .
. . . Most of us in higher education believe that the skills that are truly worth acquiring involve hard work. Put simply, thinking requires effort.
If colleges no longer require this kind of effort, how could students hope to acquire these skills and how could colleges hope to instill them?"
Prof. Babcock's piece in the exchange is appropriately entitled, "An F for Effort."
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In trying to figure out what the major differences are between college students 50 years ago and now, there are probably many factors.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering if it is an involvement issue that was not previously seen in the 60s. My generation has been pushed from an early age to be involved in as many extra-curricular activities as possible, whether they be athletic, music, student government, church groups, etc. The problem with many students -- at Wartburg at least -- is that we are so involved that there simply are not enough hours in the week to balance everything while still being able to sleep at night.
Is this something that is different that generations past? That students feel as though there experiences and leadership skills they gain through organizations is nearly equivalent to the learning they receive in the classroom, therefore they do not feel the need to put as much time into their courses?
This reminds of the time someone asked a professor at Wartburg why he/she did not teach a particular class anymore. The professor answered: "Because I failed to many students." The professor did not mean there was a lack of commitment toward the students, but rather the students did not get high enough grades.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is more competition between colleges than 50 years ago and this leads to academic sacrifices being made. With more competition, money becomes a bigger factor in higher education. There are just too many lazy students colleges have to satisfy that it does not make fiscal sense to cut them loose.
This leads colleges to stretch admissions standards and as a result there are quite a few students who would not be in college 20 years ago. Professors can either dumb down the class or fail the students, and while I believe professors want to maintain high academic standards, they also may feel pressured to ease up a little bit.
I have to say that when a student fail a class it is by large the student's own fault. By no means should professors feel inclined to lower the standards in their teaching. Higher the standards and let students accommodate to this. The question is why students can study only for 14 hours a week and still have a nation average of 3.2? I do think Trevor has a point with his extracurricular activities, but I know a lot of athletes at Wartburg who don't give a damn about their intellectual progress or even care to open their textbooks on a regular basis. The mindset of my generation has changed to that of past ones. Either education needs to change or we need to change.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few different aspects responsible for this I feel. First, colleges need to keep students around. Here at law school (where first semester used to be a weed-out semester) schools try to keep their students around (both for money but more so out of fear that their national ranking will plummet if they kick too many students out). Thus, college becomes easier so that more students stick around. This is exacerbated by the fact that more students go to college now compared to the 60s. College is now not a limited opportunity, but expected of nearly high school graduates (particularly in a state like Iowa). Again this means there are students in college that would not have qualified 40 years ago. This puts pressure on some professors to lessen the workload. Combined with the fact that the added students may have not been prepared for college (and thus choose not to put the effort in) and study time plummets.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reminding me of the blog Dr. Thomas. Nice to see what you've all been working on.
I believe Trevor has made a valid point in pointing out that students are currently under a lot of pressure to not only excel in the classroom but to be involved as greatly as possible in extra-curricular activities. One of the things that have been greatly emphasized, especially in my high school when trying to prepare for college was to be an involved with as many clubs and organizations as possible. I also agree with Trevor that many students here at Wartburg are encouraged to get involved with as many organizations as possible.
ReplyDeleteI do not, however, believe that this is any excuse as to why by the end of the first 2 years in college that a large number of students have not increased their knowledge in their chosen fields. I believe that both students and professors are to blame for this lack of increase in academic expectations.
To fix this problem I have no real recommendations. I believe that it is up to the individuals to challenge themselves to increase their knowledge and push themselves to do better in the classroom. Although extracurricular activities are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the college and high school experience, in no way shape or form should that be affecting school work and striving to learn as much as possible in one’s chosen field of study.