| | |  | | Home » Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses | | | | | | | Description: | | In spite of soaring tuition costs, more and more students go to college every year. A bachelor's degree is now required for entry into a growing number of professions. And some parents begin planning for the expense of sending their kids to college when they're born.
Almost everyone strives to go, but almost no one asks the fundamental question posed by Academically Adrift: are undergraduates really learning anything once they get there? For a large proportion of students, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa's answer to that question is a definitive "no."
Their extensive research draws on survey responses, transcript data, and, for the first time, the state-of-the-art Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test administered to students in their first semester and then again at the end of their second year. According to their analysis of more than 2,300 undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, forty-five percent of these students demonstrate no significant improvement in a range of skills - including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing - during their first two years of college. As troubling as their findings are, Arum and Roksa argue that for many faculty and administrators they will come as no surprise - instead, they are the expected result of a student body distracted by socializing or working and an institutional culture that puts undergraduate learning close to the bottom of the priority list.
Academically Adrift holds sobering lessons for students, faculty, administrators, policy makers, and parents - all of whom are implicated in promoting or at least ignoring contemporary campus culture. Higher education faces crises on a number of fronts, but Arum and Roksa's report that colleges are failing at their most basic mission will demand the attention of us all. | | | Product Details: | | | Author:
| Richard Arum | | Paperback:
| 272 pages | | Publisher:
| University Of Chicago Press | | Publication Date:
| December 28, 2010 | | Language:
| English | | ISBN:
| 0226028569 | | Package Length:
| 8.9 inches | | Package Width:
| 5.9 inches | | Package Height:
| 0.6 inches | | Package Weight:
| 0.6 pounds | | Average Customer Rating:
| based on 29 reviews |
| | | | Used and New: | | | |
| All | |
| $8.95 | Used
- Good | | | $9.94 | Used
- Acceptable | | | $9.95 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $12.93 | Used
- Good | | | $12.95 | Used
- Good | | | $13.80 | Used
- Good | | | $14.44 This item is eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. | New | | | $14.50 | Used
- Good | | | $14.82 | Used
- Good | | | $14.99 | Used
- Mint | | | $15.00 | Used
- Mint | | | $15.00 | Used
- Acceptable | | | $15.00 | New | | | $15.00 | New | | | $15.00 | New | | | $15.00 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $15.52 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $15.89 | Used
- Mint | | | $16.07 | Used
- Good | | | $16.15 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $16.20 | Used
- Mint | | | $16.21 | New | | | $16.22 | New | | | $16.25 | New | | | $16.47 | New | | | $16.47 | Used
- Mint | | | $16.80 | New | | | $16.80 | Used
- Mint | | | $17.34 | New | | | $17.99 | New | | | $18.88 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $18.91 | New | | | $20.00 | New | | | $20.11 | New | | | $20.89 | Used
- Good | | | $21.03 | New | | | $21.27 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $21.85 | Used
- Good | | | $21.91 | New | | | $21.98 | New | | | $22.42 | New | | | $22.72 | New | | | $23.00 | Used
- Good | | | $23.49 | New | | | $23.97 | New | | | $24.50 | New | | | $24.93 | New | | | $24.99 | Used
- Mint | | | $25.00 | New | | | $26.00 | New | | | $30.74 | New | | | $39.99 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $42.35 | New | | | $45.41 | New | | | $47.93 | Used
- Mint | | | $48.61 | New | |
| New | |
| $14.44 This item is eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. | New | | | $15.00 | New | | | $15.00 | New | | | $15.00 | New | | | $16.21 | New | | | $16.22 | New | | | $16.25 | New | | | $16.47 | New | | | $16.80 | New | | | $17.34 | New | | | $17.99 | New | | | $18.91 | New | | | $20.00 | New | | | $20.11 | New | | | $21.03 | New | | | $21.91 | New | | | $21.98 | New | | | $22.42 | New | | | $22.72 | New | | | $23.49 | New | | | $23.97 | New | | | $24.50 | New | | | $24.93 | New | | | $25.00 | New | | | $26.00 | New | | | $30.74 | New | | | $42.35 | New | | | $45.41 | New | | | $48.61 | New | |
| Used | |
| $8.95 | Used
- Good | | | $9.94 | Used
- Acceptable | | | $9.95 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $12.93 | Used
- Good | | | $12.95 | Used
- Good | | | $13.80 | Used
- Good | | | $14.50 | Used
- Good | | | $14.82 | Used
- Good | | | $14.99 | Used
- Mint | | | $15.00 | Used
- Mint | | | $15.00 | Used
- Acceptable | | | $15.00 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $15.52 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $15.89 | Used
- Mint | | | $16.07 | Used
- Good | | | $16.15 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $16.20 | Used
- Mint | | | $16.47 | Used
- Mint | | | $16.80 | Used
- Mint | | | $18.88 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $20.89 | Used
- Good | | | $21.27 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $21.85 | Used
- Good | | | $23.00 | Used
- Good | | | $24.99 | Used
- Mint | | | $39.99 | Used
- VeryGood | | | $47.93 | Used
- Mint | |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
( 29 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
69 of 72 found the following review helpful:
Insightful and AlarmingFeb 01, 2011
By Charles The authors' research and observations confirm what I see as very disturbing trends as I teach courses that involve complex, critical reasoning, and as I follow the experiences of current and recent undergraduates. Each year there has been a very noticeable decline in preparation for higher-level thinking. The students I encounter increasingly expect that they can succeed academically with shallow thinking and little effort by employing the social and strategic credential management skills that the authors describe. Those who seek a more meaningful intellectual experience feel surrounded.
The authors' observations about the importance of studious solitude and its increasing scarcity have obvious implications about the evolution of academic life. But I wonder if it is even worse than they describe. For example, the study hours they include in their data may be overly generous. Today, even those who want to learn and sit down to "study" are likely to be immersed in social media and other consumptive diversions. Students have many ways to avoid sinking into the depths of a subject or struggling with well-developed analytical writing, as the authors note. They rarely get honest and helpful criticism aimed at their individual intellectual and ethical development. I fear that the authors' important observations are only the tip of the iceberg. I hope that earnest students will read this book and set their own course.
174 of 194 found the following review helpful:
A Bombshell!Jan 21, 2011
By Loyd E. Eskildson
"Pragmatist"
This book couldn't be more potentially explosive if its contents were 100% highly-enriched uranium; unfortunately, the vested interests realize this and are already hard at work smothering the authors' findings. Authors Richard Arum (sociology and education professor at New York University) and Josipa Roksa (professor of sociology at the University of Virginia) studied over 2,000 undergraduates from Fall 2005 to Spring 2009 at two dozen universities (large public flagship institutions, highly selective liberal-arts colleges, and institutions that historically serve blacks and Hispanics). They determined that 45% "demonstrated no significant gains in critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and written communications during the first two years of college," and 36% showed no improvement over the entire four years. Including dropouts would have made the findings even worse. Further, those that did improve did so only modestly on average - eg. moving from the 50th percentile to the 68th in those four years. These findings severely undermine President Obama's proposal to boost the proportion of U.S. college graduates from 40% to 60% in ten years, parents' sacrifices to send their children to college, students incurring crushing amounts of college debt, and the rationale for average tuitions now having risen to 257% of their 1986 levels.
The author's assessment was made using the respected 'Collegiate Learning Assessment' (CLA) from the Council for Aid to Education. That group adds that "Academically Adrift" confirms their own findings, and that when combined with our 47 million high school dropouts and the fact that 40% of entering college students cannot read, write, or compute at a college-ready level makes our overall education outputs even dimmer - despite world-leading per-pupil expenditure levels.
The main culprit, per Arum and Roksa, is lack of academic rigor. The authors also found that 32% of the students they studied did not take any courses with 40 pages or more of reading/week, and 50% did not take a single course in which they wrote more than 20 pages during the semester. The authors also report that students spend an average of only 12-14 hours/week studying - 50% less than a few decades ago (per Babcock and Marks), and much of that study took place in fashionable but inefficient groups (per the data analysis). Another conclusion from the authors - instructors tend to be more focused on their own research than teaching. Despite this lack of effort, professor Arum also noes that the students studied averaged a 3.2 GPA. The 'good news' is that students reporting high expectations from faculty members did better, and 23% of the variation in CLA performance occurred across institutions.
The authors' findings are also consistent, per the New York Times (1/17/2010), with the National Survey of Student Engagement's previous review of thousands of students at almost six hundred colleges. That survey found that 12% of first-year students did essentially no quantitative reasoning activity in their coursework, and 51% of seniors had not written a paper during their final year that was at least 20 pages long - even at the top 10% of schools in the study. Similarly, The American Council of Trustees and Alumni study of more than 700 top educational institutions found that students can graduate with ever having exposure to composition, American history, or economics ("The Washington Post, 1/19/2011), while the National Assessment of Adult Literacy found the percentage of college graduates proficient in prose literacy decline from 40% to 31% in the past decade.
The authors found that students in traditional liberal-arts fields improved more on the CLA, education, business and social-work students didn't do so well. Business students not doing well is understandable, given the nonsensensical training they receive on free trade and illegal immigration, as well as logic derived from previously different levels of competition; education students receive even more fact-defying nonsense on the 'benefits' of class size reductions, extra years of teacher experience and training, and the general usefulness of certifications and added spending.
Authors Arum and Roksa recommend increased measurement of student learning, increased faculty expectations from their pupils, improved K-12 performance, and less emphasis on group study. They conclude with a question: "How much are students actually learning in higher education?" Their answer - "for many, not much." They may graduate (57%), but they're failing to develop higher-order cognitive skills - exactly the skills that educators use to excuse our dismal comparative performance on international assessments of K-12 learning.
Bottom-Line: "Academically Adrift's" findings are also consistent with studies of K-12 international achievement that found we're out-worked by our competitors. Why then do so many Asians come to American colleges: weekend observations at nearby Arizona State University indicate they're much more internally motivated, evidenced by my repeated observations that almost all the students in the library then are Asians, even though their overall enrollment is relatively small. American students must similarly become much more motivated. Meanwhile, Kevin Care, policy director of independent think tank Education Sector summarizes the situation well - colleges can no longer say "Trust Us" in response to questions about how much their students learn ("The Chronicle of Higher Education," 1/18/2011).
124 of 140 found the following review helpful:
A Sad State ...Jan 19, 2011
By Flounder I deeply admire and appreciate this book. I have taught at the college level for over fifteen years and this book confirms my long-held suspicion about the crisis of undergraduate education in this country (especially in the humanities). As an educator, I felt obligated to pay close attention to this book. Many people will not be happy with its findings, yet as a society we must pay attention to brutal facts: our students are failing in the areas of critical reading and thinking. Is a liberal arts education truly a social priority? My students struggle with basic composition and expressing ideas in writing. I wish these findings were in some way exaggerated or false. I've taught at over a dozen community colleges, UC campuses, and at two private universities--these findings are no surprise and do not contradict my classroom teaching experiences. In an era of education budget cuts, classroom down-sizing, and class cancellations are we really surprised by the results? Are we really surprised as higher education is becoming more 'McDonaldized' by a 'consumerism' corporate model? How about the ever-increasing trend of universities exploiting adjunct faculty and lecturers? In many English depts the part-time faculty ('freeway flyers') outnumber full-time faculty. This book is not an alarmist 'Closing of the American Mind.' However, it draws a similar conclusion: We are failing in the democratic project of an informed citizenry. But do we care? This book begs the question of our values and socio-economic priorities. Are we ruled by secular nihilism? What is the intrinsic value of a college education these days? Can we put a price on higher education? What's the value of incurring debt for a college education? Also, how is higher education really serving student interests? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE BUREACRATIC RHETORIC OF 'STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES'?? In California, community colleges were required to make curriculum changes based on revised 'critical thinking' student learning outcomes (SLO's). And the benefits?? Do such policy changes truly improve student academic performance and achievement?? Most university literature depts are increasingly under the influence of hodge podge 'cultural studies.' What if we teach canonical literature!? (And not literature for other means). Fancy that. We need to teach critical thinking in courses that focus on 'how to read' difficult books (at the proper level). We need to skip lessons on the simulacra of shopping malls or the semiotics of billboards; we need to teach individual pupils how to closely read actual books and print material. That is, we need to return to the basics--teach the next generation how to read and write! I'll recommend a few excellent books: Hubert Dreyfus's 'All Things Shining,' Anthony O'Hear's 'Great Books,' and Terry Eagleton's 'How to Read a Poem.'
71 of 86 found the following review helpful:
Interesting findings, but using the CLA to measure "learning" is problematicFeb 20, 2011
By Chuck Pine This is well written and analyzed (with good use of controls, etc.), and the findings are fascinating, though, unfortunately, not really surprising. The most significant problem is their mainly unexamined use of the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to measure "learning." They devote just a paragraph to discussions of the problems with CLA, with no mention, for instance, of Trudy Banta's insightful criticisms. So its arguments that certain groups of students fail to make gains at the rates of other groups are interesting and even useful, but these "gains" are gains of improvement in standardized testing. That's not necessarily the same as learning generally conceived.
Also because they surveyed students at only 20 schools, they are unable to say whether certain schools do a better job than others at fostering gains. For instance, do liberal arts colleges (there are two) do better? Do some schools perform better?
And they criticize surveys like the National Survey of Student Engagement because, as they ask, can we really depend on a self-report surveys to accurately measure learning, because respondents' memories are fallible. (Of course, that's true.) But they themselves depend on self-report surveys by students to describe which student-reported activities lead to more learning.
The book is worth buying, but one has to wonder whether their methods and findings warrant an entire book. Then again, it might take the publication of a book to engender the huge media coverage the study has received. And maybe that's a good thing. Higher education needs to pay more attention to teaching and learning, and this book brings that issue to public attention.
15 of 16 found the following review helpful:
A Thoughtful, Interesting and Important BookApr 11, 2011
By Richard B. Schwartz This is a thoughtful and interesting book, but readers should be wary of the reviews, responses and attention that it has received. It was hyped mightily in the pages of The Chronicle of Higher Education and it has received a great deal of attention in the popular press and throughout the media. Variously characterized as somewhere between cataclysmic and apocalyptic, it has since been attacked as the (educational establishment) empire struck back.
Basically, the book looks at the results of the CLA (Collegiate Learning Assessment) instrument that was administered over several years to 2,000+ students at two dozen diverse American colleges/universities. The CLA instrument does not assess content; it assesses the takers' ability to understand information, sort through it and propose answers/interpretations/solutions in clear and persuasive prose. In short, it measures those skills (written communication, critical thinking, problem solving, etc.) that the educational establishment in general and individual institutions in particular claim to be enhanced, refined and expanded by the college experience.
The bottom line is that for many students these skills are not expanded in the course of their undergraduate experience. This epiphany is an epiphany only in the sense that it has been supported by elaborate testing and elaborate, skilled analysis. There are, of course, loopholes. Not all institutions and not all students were tested. How could they be? And, of course, whenever we are talking about human performance or behavior there are a multiplicity of possible reasons that can be adduced as being causal. Critics, including defenders of the current situation, have seized upon these loopholes in an attempt to reduce the force of Arum and Roksa's argument.
The main point that I would make is that that argument is made very convincingly and in great detail, with full awareness that the authors are providing reputable social science, not an apodictic proof that will absolutely compel belief and silence any possible opponents. Readers should be aware that this is a piece of thoughtful research (supported by a 60+ pp. methodological appendix), not a polemic, not a screed, not a phillipic.
The reasons for students' lack of academic progress (in this particular sense and area) has been addressed by dozens of commentators. Arum and Roksa are well aware of their work and they present it clearly and effectively. Very little of this work is counter-intuitive and very few if any of Arum and Roksa's own conclusions are counter-intuitive. The conclusions do, however, step on toes. Some of the conclusions include the following: a) more progress is made by students of the sciences, social sciences and humanities than by students in business, education and social work; b) individual study is generally more effective than group study; c) participation in the activities of sororities and fraternities does not notably enhance the learning process; d) students are not being challenged by faculty in the ways that they should be challenged; e) students are often avoiding courses that involve decent levels of writing (20 pp. per course) and reading (40 pp. per week), and so on.
For the most part, the book confirms what many have long known and believed. It does so within the context of multiple applications of an important assessment instrument, but it also adduces a great deal of other evidence that is part of the ongoing research into the experience of students in the contemporary American college or university.
See all 29 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| | |
|