<p>
Even if we assume that the CLA actually measures critical thinking, I don’t think we have sufficient evidence at this point to assign blame for the problem. My first gut instinct is to look at the students rather than the schools, but I don’t have anything to back that up other than experience with my peers in high school.</p>
<p>WSJ article on the study:</p>
<p>[College</a> Test Leaves Questions Unanswered - WSJ.com](<a href=“College Test Leaves Questions Unanswered - WSJ”>College Test Leaves Questions Unanswered - WSJ)</p>
<p>Excerpt:</p>
<p>"Universities are falling down on the job, a new study attests, failing to teach America’s college students the crucial skills they need to succeed throughout their lives.</p>
<p>The study, summarized in the new book “Academically Adrift” and in a paper out this week from the Social Science Research Council, tracked several thousand college students’ performance on a critical-thinking test from their first year on campus through their fourth year. Some 45% of students showed no significant improvement after two years of college, and 36% didn’t improve after four years—troubling numbers that made headlines this week.</p>
<p>That message about America’s universities plays into beliefs that the U.S. education system isn’t preparing students for an increasingly competitive world. But other researchers point out that the study relied on limited data that might offer an incomplete snapshot of the caliber of U.S. undergraduates. In addition, the findings are rooted in questionable assumptions about what constitutes a successful education.</p>
<p>The test only sought to gauge critical-thinking ability, which the study’s authors said was a crucial indicator of college achievement. It didn’t evaluate how much students learned about their area of study…"</p>
<p>[The</a> decline effect and the scientific method : The New Yorker](<a href=“The Truth Wears Off | The New Yorker”>The Truth Wears Off | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>This article has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it shows how sensational “scientific findings” tend to capture the headlines and be treated as proven facts, even when all evidence show they are wrong…</p>
<p>Even non sensational scientific findings wind up capturing headlines they don’t want. A guy in my lab was recently interviewed by a number of national news outlets for the stuff we’ve been doing, and I’d say about half of them got almost everything we’re doing wrong. :(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I second this, especially considering how college should not be the first or even the main place to start learning such skills. Critical thinking skills should have been developed throughout the childhood and adolescence of a given person through various means such as parents/teachers allowing progressively greater independent decision-making as age appropriate and with some guidance.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m daft, but I’ve always thought of colleges/institutions more as places where one has the opportunity to refine and sharpen whatever critical thinking skills they’ve already gained in their childhood and adolescence. That’s not to say they can’t learn critical thinking skills there if required. </p>
<p>In any event, it is up to the student to take advantage of the multiple opportunities to learn/sharpen his/her critical thinking skills in every area of his/her life…whether in college or in making decisions outside of one’s college life. </p>
<p>If the student is not willing to take full advantage of such opportunities, why should it be the fault of the colleges…whether they’re LACs or universities???</p>
<p>^Exactly.
Without knowing exactly what kind of test was used, it is impossible to interpret significance of its results. For example, my two kids who graduated from two great schools got fabulous education, and are extremely successful in their post-college endeavors. But both went into college with exceptional critical thinkig skills, so I would not be surprised at all if their critical thinking skills did no show improvement on a test that is not exceptionally well designed.</p>
<p>For example, kids who score 2300+ on SAT are not likely to improve their score very significantly. That does not mean that they are not learning a great deal.</p>
<p>OP: I don’t agree with the article as our experience with DD’s college is not same. The study might have not taken into account DD’s college where the motto itself is to bring the students level of critical thinking to a level so that they can solve any real world problem.
So it’s impossible to believe that there is no improvement in critical thinking of 45% of students.</p>
<p>Also where in the article it’s say
??</p>
<p>Are you making it up?</p>
<p>How many pages is a succint mathematical proof worth? LAC’s lack in course variety, majors offered. Quick- how is the LAC’s (even some Ivy league’s) Linguistics program? How many grad level math courses can be taken? Oh- and is a full course on Nietschke or others offered by the Philosophy dept? </p>
<p>Be sure to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, btw. Most LAC’s do not offer what the top flagship U’s do. Remember to deal in offerings a student may take, not percentages. Is a TA for calculus/chemistry discussion at a top 10 or even 20 big U a better deal than a so-so professor teaching the same thing year after year? Is the cutting edge political or other social science being taught by the LAC consistently? </p>
<p>Maybe a static subject works at an LAC- but one professor can’t offer the diversity of many. Most LAC’s are at the level of most state U’s, which won’t have the stellar students or huge classes. The top student will be in the honors classes and that is a different scenario. Don’t compare the very top LAC’s with the average public colleges (and remember, all 50 states can’t have a top 20 flagship U).</p>