<p>If I’m interpreting the data and analysis in “Academically Adrift,” any major can foster critical thinking, if the courses a student chooses are sufficiently rigorous and the student applies himself or herself to the course work. But there are some majors where the courses do not tend to be rigorous, and the students are less likely to apply themselves seriously - and there are some colleges where this is more prevalent than others. Because many business majors tend to take mostly low-rigor classes, their performance on critical thinking assessments is at the bottom of the barrel. Because many liberal arts (broadly defined) majors and engineers tend to take a lot of rigorous courses, their performance is much higher.</p>
<p>At least that’s my interpretation. It would be interesting to hear from someone else (who’s actually read the book!) with a different take on it.</p>
<p>I think this is a bit odd. Most of the business folks I know (bankers, accountants, actuaries, CEOs of companies, etc) did NOT get undergrad degrees in “business”. If they got a business degree at all, it was an MBA. Most I know have liberal arts related degrees (examples I know…foreign language, history, economics, math, engineering, education, dance, yep…these folks are all working in business related fields now).</p>
<p>You may not like a different explanation, but here it is: majoring in business tends to be more popular at the least selective schools. If the least selective schools “dumb down” the curricula to avoid failing too many marginal students, then it is not surprising that the students there (with an overrepresentation of business majors relative to other majors) do not perform very well on the CLA.</p>
<p>Yes, annasdad, the book found that rigor of coursework in whatever major and rigor of academic institution both cause an increase in critical thinking skills- as for major, after controlling for all variables, there is no statistically significant difference among majors, engineers or fine arts included - here’s your own quote:</p>
<p>“Of course, the job market, business/economic environment, and cost of attending university and graduate school were much different decades ago when you graduated, compared to now.”</p>
<p>The question was what you would do with such a degree, and so I answered it. The program still exists (they only accept 3-4 students a year out of about 125 applicants), and graduates are not having any program getting employment. (By the way, within the Committee on Social Thought, I was the Special Humanities fellow, and wrote my major masters paper on Dante and Saint John of the Cross.)</p>
<p>Also, to be fair, all accepted students are fully funded. I actually paid off college loans on the amount they paid me.</p>
<p>ucbalum, not a question about whether I like an explanation. But the data seems to show that after correcting for rigor, there is still a statistically significant (though reduced) difference among majors but that that difference disappears when controls for institutional differences are factored in. So it would appear that business courses are low-rigor across the board.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t controls for institutional differences mean that, at the same school, differences in CLA performance between different majors are statistically insignificant? That would imply that the difference in CLA performance across majors has more to do with the distribution of majors in different schools, with business majors being most heavily represented at low rigor schools that do poorly on CLA performance.</p>
<p>The statistically insignificant results are achieved after all four categories of the controls are applied simultaneously - (1) entering CLA score, (2) social and academic factors, (3) rigor of program and degree of engagement, and (4) institutional differences. They don’t report any results with just institutional differences controlled.</p>
<p>Your underlying assumption is also incorrect, or at least not supported by the data they report - that “low rigor schools” do poorly on CLA performance. The authors are very careful to say that their sample size is not large enough to support theories of why certain schools have better performance on the CLA, only that the data shows that there are differences. They do say that students who take low rigor programs and have less student engagement (i.e., fewer interactions with faculty out of class and less time studying alone) do poorer on the CLA. It’s certainly reasonable to speculate that some schools in the sample are lower rigor than others and that this makes a difference - but that’s getting beyond the data that the authors report.</p>
<p>To save me the trouble of reading the CLA study, which I am too lazy to do, could somebody answer these basic questions about this CLA test and the study. I’m not interested in debating anything, I just want to know if I am getting the gist of this thing which keeps coming up on here in various threads. -
The CLA is basically a study of the value added to a student’s analytical competence by a particular program or a particular school. Is that correct?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It is adjusted based on the basic cognitive ability of the student entering the program. Is that correct?</p></li>
<li><p>So a student could come into the program scoring significantly higher than most other students, and leave still scoring higher than most other students, but not improve much, and that would be a low CLA score for the school, or program, based on this study? So even if students do better all the way through school on this test at one school than another, the school; with lower scoring students could still get a better score for improvement? </p></li>
<li><p>The CLA is graded somewhat subjectively (in that it is not a multiple choice exam) but graders are trained, use a rubric, and the resulting scores track with other standardized exams like the SAT.</p></li>
<li><p>Finally, who takes this thing? Has anyone on here ever taken it or known anyone personally who has taken it? Just curious.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Is this the general idea or am I completely off?</p>
[quote]
According to its developers, the CLA was designed to assess “core outcomes espoused by all of higher education - critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving and writing.”<a href=“%22Academically%20Adrift,%22%2021”>/quote</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The study reported in Academically Adrift administered the CLA twice - once to entering freshmen, then to the same students (less any who had left college in the meantime) at the end of their sophomore year. The study reports the raw end-of-sophomore-year results and also the results controlled for beginning-of-freshman-year scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As explained in the response to your question 2, the CLA itself is just a point-in-time test. The study reported in “Academically Adrift” reports both the raw and controlled numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The [test’s developer] has also published a detailed scoring rubric on the criteria that it defines as critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and problem solving - including how well the student assesses the quality and relevance of the evidence, analyzes and synthesizes data and information, draws conclusions from his or her analysis, and considers alternative perspectives. In addition, the scoring rubric with respect to written communication requires that the presentation is clear and concise, the structure of the argument is well-developed and effective, the work is persuasive, the written mechanics are proper and correct, and reader interest is maintained.<a href=“Ibid.,%2022”>/quote</a></p>
Okay, I get that. Thanks. The study and the test are different - the test is the tool used in the study.
I’d already seen the rubric. This is sort of like the rubric HR gives us to evaluate employment candidates on analytical skills and written and oral communication.
So there is somewhere in here where I cna find the raw CLA scores by department at sophomore year, as well as the scores controlled for freshman results. I’ll take a look and see if that’s easy to find.</p>
<p>Hello, I’m new to this post and I have a question. I have an undergraduate degree in public safety management and I’m considering pursuing a MS in public safety administration or a MBA in financial fraud examination. I have tuition reimbursement at my job so cost is not an issue. Which is more marketable?</p>
<p>Would suggest you talk with the degree programs you are contemplating and ask THEM what their placement success with the various masters programs they have are. Ask them to back up what they say with stats & info. Also, what does your employer want/need? Would you get raise/promotion by getting an advanced degree in either field?</p>