Not only is the cost of a college education may be escalating without let-up, it’s pretty clear that students are not getting any more for their money. A new book, co-written by University of Virginia sociology professor Josipa Roksa, paints an alarming picture of what’s going on in higher education today.
In research for the book, “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses,” Roksa and New York University sociologist Richard Arun tracked more than 2,000 students between fall 2005 and spring 2009 at 24 different colleges and universities. The colleges ranged from highly selective to less selective. Sums up a McClatchy newspaper acccount:
Forty-five percent of students made no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college, according to the study. After four years, 36 percent showed no significant gains in these so-called “higher order” thinking skills.
Combining the hours spent studying and in class, students devoted less than a fifth of their time each week to academic pursuits. By contrast, students spent 51 percent of their time — or 85 hours a week — socializing or in extracurricular activities.
Given the deplorable state of affairs documented in “Academically Adrift,” parent shelling out hard-earned money for tuition is a fool not to ask the tough questions. Are their children actually getting an education, or are parents blowing $80,000 to $200,000 for their hedonist offspring to party for four (or five) years?
Taxpayers should demand answers as well. How many kids are graduating on time? If subsidized tuitions are justified on the basis of social benefits — we all benefit when the general education level rises — we need to ask, how much are students really benefiting? Is it possible that the gains to society stem mainly from educating the two-thirds of the students who work hard and manage to learn something? Could we be wasting our money on the other third?
With our budgetary backs to the wall, we especially need to ask the tough questions here in Virginia. Yesterday, Gov. Bob McDonnell rolled out the “Preparing for the Top Jobs of the 21st Century” higher education initiative. The plan is to spend millions of dollars, in the governor’s words, “[to] enable our institutions to meet the goal of issuing an additional 100,000 degrees over the next 15 years, making Virginia one of the most highly educated states in the nation.”
One hundred thousand more degrees? That’s nearly 7,000 extra degrees a year.
Before I launch into McDonnell’s logic, let me say in his defense that the initiative does contain a number of measures to ensure that state universities deliver their educational services more efficiently, including “the use of greater technology, year round facilities usage and innovative and economical degree paths.” It’s not a total give-away. But we ought to be pushing state colleges to continually improve their productivity in any case. Relentless efforts to drive down costs should be a given, not used to help sell more spending.
What I question is the assumption that we need to add another 100,000 degrees over the next 15 years. Where did that number come from? Did the higher ed lobby cook it up? On the assumption that the vast majority of students who could benefit from higher ed are getting a college degree anyway, what will these additional 100,000 students gain from the college experience? I’m willing to concede that Virginia institutions deliver more bang for the buck than most other universities, but that’s not enough for me. Why should Virginia taxpayers be subsidizing students who skip half their classes and get drunk five nights a week at the frat house? We don’t have unlimited dollars to spend on kids whose most vivid memories of college are getting wasted and puking on the floor. We need to bring costs under control. And demanding more from the student population — study or leave — sounds like a good place to start!
Before the General Assembly passes this bill, legislators should invite Ms. Roksa to testify about what she found. I would be surprised if she draws the same public policy conclusions that I do, but even so, I think lawmakers would get an earful.