University is not for everyone

University students are learning almost nothing. At least that is the conclusion of New York University sociologist Richard Arum, whose recent report on American higher education has left more than a few jaws scraping the floor. The "disturbing" results show that 45 per cent of students after two years, and 36 per cent of students after four years, do not show any "significant" learning gains.

So, shall we burn the ivory tower to the ground for being a useless over-funded bureaucracy that appears only to exist to create jobs for people with PhDs? That is more or less the conclusion taken by economist Richard Vedder. Responding to the report he asked why the government is paying for the "expensive and hedonistic experience we call 'higher education?'"

It is a fair question, for Canadians as well as Americans, but it only applies if we consider universities as nothing but sprawling job training centres. Because, that is what the Arum report predominantly measures, learning outcomes for "general skills" valuable to employers.

Students were measured on their ability to write, to use complex reasoning and on their critical thinking skills. None of which universities should be expected to spend too much time actually teaching students, no matter how often university presidents trumpet these skills when trying to justify their existence.

While students might develop their writing, or their ability to use complex reasoning, through practice, these skills are in part personal characteristics, and in part prerequisites for students to succeed in university. If you can't string a sentence together or draw links between theories, or retain material that you've studied, no university should be able to help you. And, if universities are trying to teach these things, rather than expecting the students they admit to be broadly competent, then that is a scandal all its own.

A more appropriate way to assess how much a student has learned would be to quiz them on the sorts of things actually taught in universities. If political science students can't articulate the difference between Westminster parliamentary systems and American-style presidential republics, that is a problem. If biology students have no understanding of evolution, eyebrows should rise.

Arum and his co-author, Josipa Roska, do acknowledge that their research does not account for subject-specific learning outcomes, but it is only an aside.

While measuring subject-specific learning would be more useful, it still wouldn't fully account for the value added from teaching. Meaning, while the report places the bulk of the blame on university teaching, we still don't have an adequate way to measure what students gain from the classroom when accounting for their own level of intelligence, creativity and motivation.

The researchers do have some useful findings. Students who take courses with a heavy reading and writing load, whose professors impose high standards, and students who spend time studying alone, show greater improvement in their general skills. Though that is not particularly surprising. Of course students who work harder will perform at a higher level.

The authors also have some laudable policy recommendations. In particular, they recommend aligning curricula in K-12 education with the goals of post-secondary education. But a caveat needs to be added to Arum and Roska's call for increased "efforts to improve academic preparation."

Primary and secondary institutions shouldn't just be better preparing students for later educational pursuits. They should be sorting students, and sending clear messages to poor performers that they are unsuited to university education.

The only sorting universities should be expected to do is between university students who should continue onto graduate studies and those who should not. It is waste of resources when universities have to expend efforts to sort through those who should be there in the first place and those who shouldn't.

The greatest flaw in the report is not that the data are unhelpful, but that the authors frame it as a teaching problem, which is only part of the concern, and not even the most important part. When it is stated government policy, as it is in the Obama administration, and in pretty much every province on this side of the border, to send everyone to university, post-secondary learning outcomes are only going to further decline.

Carson Jerema is editor of Maclean's On Campus.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition January 24, 2011 A10