A more cost-effective program can be found in other models. For example, some percentage of the applicants to Texas A&M are offered admission to Blinn instead ( UT now does this with Austin community college), and will automatically transfer after a year or 2 to the main university. The smaller environment seems to ease the transition for those students while solidifying their skills.
Professors are always able to offer to teach more small sections of a class rather than large lecture, as the professor in the article did ( for 1 term, at least). I do not see them rushing to do so.
What do you suggest should be done to identify and remedy maturity, financial, and social unpreparedness, since academic unpreparedness, while a significant factor in college non-completion, is nowhere near the full story?
Since a lack of maturity seems to be much of the problem, strongly encouraging local college options, such as community college, would seem to address this problem and provide the additional time needed to mature. Don’t most public universities ( and almost all community colleges) offer reasonably generous financial support to low-income in-state students already? Not clear how much more financial support is likely
Depends on the state. Pennsylvania is fairly well known for in-state public affordability issues compared to other states, and the rugged terrain outside of the big cities means that the lower income rural areas have more difficult commutes to the regional state universities.
Not sure that is the case. For example, UT schools have free tuition for those earning less than $60k, and full pay is about $10K in tuition annually. So the indebtedness is either coming from private schools, or from the living expenses of those choosing residential colleges in more expensive areas, or living off campus in higher cost of living places. Community college is very inexpensive.
We have much more serious problems than immaturity or similar issues with some of the young people. These issues are primarily individual in nature. If the society can’t solve such problems, neither can the colleges. If students who attend colleges are all well prepared academically and mentally, colleges will be able to redirect their financial resources to help those students who are financially needy but academically and mentally prepared.
Some rural areas of Pennsylvania don’t even have community colleges. Although full Pell and state grants can cover tuition at PASSHE schools, room, board, and books (and often fees) are generally not covered by grants, and often not even with Direct loans, work-study, and summer earnings. I’m sure there are other states with similar issues, especially for rural students who don’t live close enough to the nearest state and/or community college to commute, and/or who can’t afford a decent used car and car expenses.
As reflected by the profs in the NYT article about the Texas programs, most college professors care deeply about helping students succeed. Yes, ALL students. Even the unprepared/underprepared ones. Community college profs are particularly GREAT at this for the most part because it’s explicitly part of their job. But they can’t do it all, nor should they.
As for 4-year institutions, almost all the profs I know care deeply about helping underrepresented students 1) get to college, 2) succeed in college, and 3) succeed after college. The profs are not limited by the desire to do so, they are limited by the knowledge and the resources to accomplish this. That’s why I sent that NYT article to my chem prof spouse, and they forwarded it on to all their colleagues. They care SO much.
Students who are underrepresented in college and in STEM in particular are the same students who tend to be unprepared/underprepared: students whose parents are not wealthy or highly educated. This is a somewhat different group from wealthier students who are struggling for other reasons.
We all wish that these underrepresented students would receive more help at the preK-12 levels, and that should be the major goal. However, they are not a lost cause once they get to college and I don’t think they should be primarily tracked into community college as a default. Most professors would LOVE having a program like the one at UT Austin and would support it enthusiastically. I think it’s awesome and I wish all public schools adopted such programs. That is part of their mission.
Another important role for colleges is research. At academic research institutions, more and more people are discovering that having a diversity of researchers makes the research BETTER. It is not a side goal. It ENHANCES creative output and perspectives. The old boys’ network got us only so far. Not to mention, it’s the right thing to do. I am a researcher at a med school. Give me a student who has busted their ass through adversity to get a 3.0 any day over a student who has sailed through with the way cleared for them. I actively seek out trainees in the former category. By the way, my own kid is in the latter category. I would never get him a research opportunity with my connections. He would have to find it himself because he has been lucky enough to grow up in a family that has taught him how to do that stuff.
NOTE: The NAEP Proficient achievement level does not represent grade-level proficiency, but rather competency over challenging subject matter. NAEP achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted and used with caution.
It doesn’t seem as though you are using the standard with caution.
Added: From the director of the Brown Center on Education Policy on why it is a really bad idea to use the NAEP standards like they are being used here
I agree NAEP has quite a few disadvantages and concerns, just like any achievement based test.
Part of the issue is disparate curricula across schools and states. So, the timing of the tests, take the 4th grade one for example, would mean some students at certain schools may not have had adequate exposure to the subject being tested to attain a ‘proficient’ designation.
Students in underperforming schools with poorly prepared teachers will still struggle to achieve proficiency in any subject, let alone Basic skills.
I do support requiring k-12 teachers needing to have proficiency in both reading at math, no matter the subject they are teaching. I know that will be unpopular, but I believe if we had teachers take the 12th grade NAEP reading and math tests, that most of us wouldn’t like the results at either the proficient or basic level. And no, I’m not anti-teacher, but just concerned with the ongoing and accelerating brain drain in the teaching profession.
I’m not sure what the answers are for improving K-12 education, but expanding the NAEP test, where the results haven’t moved too much in a couple decades probably doesn’t make much sense. And over those couple of decades the US has made substantial investments in K-12 education, including NCLB and Common Core.
Well, the good news is that the faculty senate in most universities would be empowered to implement most of the UT program on its own-teach many more, smaller classes, provide more academic support, improve faculty engagement-all that can be done immediately by a willing faculty. We shall see who does so.
But the simple fact is that at a R1, “helping students succeed” is not job 1, which is research and publishing, particularly for those on tenure track. Next is teaching. Then mentoring Grad students. Then faculty committees and other commitments. Then, then…with the time left over, helping struggling students.
“I am a researcher at a med school. Give me a student who has busted their ass through adversity to get a 3.0…”
Say what? Which US med schools accept 3.0 students? Or, if you mean PhD programs at the med school, which of those 3.0’s are fully funded?
And I think we’re all using “struggling” to mean different things. My kids- at mid-sized R1 research universities not particularly known for being “nurturing”, found the faculty- almost without exception- to be incredibly available. You have a question which pops up during a lecture? Don’t wait for office hours- grab the professor for five minutes afterwards. Need help structuring a paper? Go to office hours, talk through the issue, get some guidance on “This topic is really robust and interesting” vs. “you’re going to burn out trying to get an angle on this problem”. And rough drafts? Lots and lots of drafts, all with professor’s input, all with copious notes in the margins so that the finished product was not a stab in the dark- but reflected a LOT of thought and input and help even for a “struggling student”. Student struggling with a problem set? TA’s hold regular work sessions, professors schedule regular “come let’s review” meetings, no stigma on attending, that’s what they’re there for.
But I doubt that any of these folks- as wonderful and accessible as they are- could sit and teach a student what a topic sentence is (that’s what 10th grade English teachers do) or help a student master numerator vs. denominator. You’re having trouble with a concept in topology? The professor WANTS to help you understand. But you had trouble with HS math? Even the most caring and committed professor can’t teach you that-- and be available to every other student who needs help.
So what is “Struggling” for the purposes of this thread? I’ve known kids who never wrote a real paper in HS. Never learned proper citations. Never used a primary source, or understood that Wikipedia is not considered the gold standard for academic research. And yes, some of those students “struggled” in college. Steep learning curve if you don’t have basic academic skills.
While disadvantages and concerns exist, it is not the NAEP assessment itself that is most problematic, but rather how it is is being misconstrued and misapplied. For example (with my emphasis added) . . .
“Ready for college” is not the definition of “proficient” under the NAEP standard. Students can be at or above grade level, well prepared for college, and still not score “proficient” these tests. The standard is aspirational and doesn’t not provide a realistic “by definition” assessment of college readiness.
Not so sure this is accurate. While such assessments have little or no value as benchmark for college readiness, the NAEP may provide useful a point of comparison over time. Ironically (given how they have been used here) the NAEP assessments suggest that there has been significant improvements.
According to the article above, between 1990 and 2015 the percentage of 8th graders scoring at “proficient” or above more than doubled, from 15% to 33%. Also from the article . . .
Another way to think about it: proficient for today’s eighth graders reflects approximately what the average twelfth grader knew in mathematics in 1990.
No assessment is going to satisfy everyone. One can always find fault in any assessment. I use NAEP assessment here as an example and a better assessment for the purpose of this discussion can certainly be devised.
There’re, however, forces in this country who wouldn’t like any measurable assessment of any kind. That, in my view, is one of the major obstacles to making meaningful progress in K-12.
You’ve used the NAEP to conclude that those who do not score at “proficient level” are “by definition” not ready for college. The NAEP does not support your conclusion, and specifically cautions against this very type of overreach.
Frankly I still am still not convinced that the question posed in the OP has been adequately answered, at least when it comes to academic preparedness. The NAEP does not indicate that we are are sending too many unprepared/underprepared students to college. Neither does the study linked in the original post.
I can’t speak for these unnamed “forces in the country,” but mine is not a criticism of assessments generally, but rather a criticism of a particular use of a particular assessment in support positions that the assessment clearly does not support.