The Price of a College Education: Dumb and Dumber

Recently, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute issued a Civic Literacy Report titled, "The Coming Crisis in Citizenship. In it, the ISI claims that not only do students learn little about American history, economics, and government in college, in some cases they actually exhibit "negative learning." In other words, they knew more when they were admitted then when they graduated. Testing of incoming freshmen was compared with testing of graduating seniors; this testing showed a remarkable lack of progress. This held true for both Ivy League and "lesser" colleges (or "Elite" and "Non-elite" schools as the report calls them). Students at Yale scored 1.5% less as seniors than they did as freshmen!

Two days ago, CNN reported, "Harvard University, founded 370 years ago to train Puritan ministers, should again require all undergraduates to study religion, along with U.S. history and ethics, a faculty committee is recommending." The article went on to reveal that:

The State University of New York and George Mason University have adopted general education requirements that include mandatory American history.

In the Ivy League, Columbia University has a significant core curriculum with courses that include material on religion, and Dartmouth currently requires a course in the analysis of religion, though that will change next year, according to its Web site. But Harvard would be the only school in that group requiring students to take courses in both religion and U.S. history.

Public colleges in Colorado, along with Ohio University and Arizona State, are among the other universities currently reviewing general education requirements, said Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a generally conservative academic group that has urged universities to toughen general education requirements.

SUNY and George Mason "have adopted general education requirements that include mandatory American history"--it wasn't required before? No wonder the ISI Report found what it did.

I have read with interest the response to the ISI Report. As a high school AP US history and government teacher, I have often noted the happy tragedy that occurs whenever one of my students does well on the AP US History exam. It validates my teaching and his or her learning, but it also means that they will not be taking US history at college. While it is true that many colleges do not accept AP credit, it is easy to see how an advanced student could take enough AP exams to avoid taking any college social science (history, economics, government).

I have always been secretly disappointed that my best students would not be talking a “real” college class in US history. I am not enough of a statistician to know how AP plays into the ISI Report, but it does not appear to my near-sighted eyes to have been addressed as a factor in the report. I think it could be a factor that merits study; until then, I will continue to prepare my students as though they will not be taught a thing in college. It is the prudent thing to do either way.

Today in the WSJ and fresh on the heels of the ISI report, Naomi Schaefer Riley asks, "Test Question: Why is high school the new college?" Her answer, they aren't learning anything useful in college, but the enforced rigor of test-based high school courses (especially AP courses) actually gives students useful knowledge and skills. In her words:

Why? Because college increasingly offers a crazed social experience at the expense of rigorous study. But high school does better: It is often the last time that students are forced to learn something. Parents make their kids show up at school. More than a few teachers convey basic skills and knowledge. After-school life centers on burnishing a college application, not binge drinking. AP courses, where they exist, exploit these structured years for maximum learning.

I'll try.


Peace