<p>The lack of meaningful academic standards in higher education drags down the entire system.
[...]. A landmark book published last year, Academically Adrift, found that many students at traditional colleges showed no improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing, and spent their time socializing, working or wasting time instead of studying. </p>
<hr>
<p>GRE Subject tests exist in</p>
<p>Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology
Biology
Chemistry
Computer Science
Literature in English
Mathematics
Physics
Psychology</p>
<p>I think subject tests in more majors should be created, that colleges should encourage all seniors to take these tests, regardless of whether they are planning to attend graduate school, and that average scores by major for each college be published. There should be some way to compare how much students are learning at different schools. Currently schools are ranked according to the attributes (average SAT, fraction in top 10% of high school class) of students upon entrance rather than how much they learn at college.</p>
<p>Why ask ‘who will hold colleges accountable’ for a conscious decision that the student makes especially when it comes to socializing, wasting time and partying instead of studying. Where is the ownsership, responsibility and accountability on the part of the student for their own learning, which is a major part of attending college?</p>
<p>I think this article addresses a very real problem. I do think that our higher education system is being diluted by an emphasis on non-academic pursuits. Some of these non-academic pursuits are more worthy than others. I can understand a student working to get experience while still in school, but I have never been a big fan of the greek system (at least not what it has become). Athletics certainly have a place on college campuses, but perhaps even that has gotten a little ahead of itself. </p>
<p>But the thought of adding more standardized testing into the system at any level, just makes me cringe. We already have SSAT’s, PSAT’s, SAT’s, SAT II’s, ACT’s and AP exams. And there is the annual testing all throughout elementary and middle school. Enough is enough.</p>
<p>I have notice on this board more than a few college hopefuls asking for recommendations for schools that do not have a lot of partying. Also more than a few students who are looking to transfer to more “serious” schools. I think a change in the culture of our teenagers is what will make the difference. I think the colleges are making the education available, but students are not availing themselves of the opportunity to the same degree. I am not certain that testing senior year in college would be measuring what the college has to offer, but just the motivation of that particular student</p>
Obviously, GRE-subject tests are created for graduate school admissions, and are relied on heavily by admissions committees. Similarly, pre-professional entrance test like MCAT measures the students learning of the pre-requisite subjects needed for medicine; it also serves as a way put the GPA in-perspective given grade-inflation concerns. Most of this takes care of the student-side accountability in the pursuit of higher education. </p>
<p>Are you also advocating college-side accountability? Professional fields do have certifications (PE, JD Bar, MD boards, etc). On a broader scale, I suppose it is possible if employers start asking for subject competency of job applicants (in their UG major)… May be not practical, but worth some discussion.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how many colleges do this, but when I graduated we had to pass a competency exam in our major as part of the senior graduation requirements. And yes, there were always rumors of one or two kids who had to take it a couple times to “pass.”</p>
<p>I am, however a huge believer in capstone projects and internships.I do not think kids go to college to be “trained” with the exception of a few technical areas that have migrated into the college setting e.g. pharmacy, nursing etc. The whole concept of pre-med, pre-law implies that this is something the student is doing before they go to another college to be “trained.” The reality is the vast majority of colleges have the ability to help students develop critical thinking skills, writing skills, etc…but ultimately it is the motivation of the student that determines who much they “get out” of college. I’m not particularly interested in measuring the ability of the colleges to give kids a kick in the behind because I frankly don’t think it’s the college’s “job” to motivate students or to pound education in their heads as measured by some national college standardized test.</p>
<p>@SteveMA: Agree. Firing the high-GPA non-performer(s) comes first; schools with repeat high-GPA non-performers go in disfavor for recruiting and hiring. However, some employers seem to outsource hiring decisions to college pedigrees though :-)</p>
<p>Academic learning is pretty much up to a student. However, many of them are not strong enough to wisstand the amout of brain wash going on, I would say waterfall wash of their brains. I am against that. I did not send my kids to colleges to be brainwashed, I am as a parent responsible for their brain wash, not the HS or UG, non of their business. I know where money are coming from, and I am against accepting all these money from certain individuals who are paying for certain level of brainwash. This is my side of complain. On the flip side, of one wants to get academic knowledge in certain field, I am sure the opportunities are wide open to puruse it way beyond lecture and a knowledge of one prof who is teaching. I am saying that specific knowledge in any specific subject could be pursued way beyond the level of certain specific class if this is the goal. Class is just a starting point, if one wants deeper knowledge, go ahead, many do.</p>
<p>Then they show up in Zuccotti whining about how the system is broken. </p>
<p>I dont know how you go about assessing and addressing the responsibility of the colleges. The responsible kids already have enough to do and stress about without adding another set of EOC onto their burden. The ones who view college as an opportunity to prolong their adolescence into their late 20’s will find a way to slip by. Maybe professional certifications are part of the answer but in my mind thats an oxymoron for someone with only academic knowledge of the field.</p>
<p>Employers already do when it comes to jobs where subject matter is important (e.g. engineering and CS jobs).</p>
<p>Of course, it may be different for jobs where the employer expects an applicant to have any bachelor’s degree, even if for no specific reason other than the devaluation of the high school diploma.</p>
<p>My company uses a variety of competency based tools for some roles. We have a writing and editing test which we use (PR, some marketing roles which are writing intensive, other communications roles) and we’ve seen PhD’s in English flunk. I have a colleague who won’t even interview new grads coming out of undergrad Journalism schools- she says they can neither read NOR write. We have a critical thinking/quantitative analysis test which has a very low pass rate even for professionals who are coming out of analytically rigorous roles. And if I had a dollar for every resume which claimed “Fluent in XYZ language” where the candidate was barely conversant, let alone fluent…</p>
<p>I have no macro conclusions from all of this except that hiring is tougher than it’s ever been in some disciplines despite a weak economy and the fact that theoretically, we should have our pick of candidates.</p>
<p>Re: the preposterous idea that more standardized testing is a good idea. There used to be a LOT of other GRE subject tests, but most of them (in subjects like History, Music, Economics) were discontinued, presumably because Ph.D. programs did not find them useful in terms of evaluating candidates. Here are some relevant comments from an article on the AHA website about the GRE History test:</p>
<p>“The results of this survey indicated that most departments had no plans to require or recommend the history test for applicants. The departments responded that they do not consider the history test to be necessary because they believe that it does not predict success and that it serves as a barrier for students.” </p>
<p>“A similar sentiment was expressed by Robert Stacey, chair of the history department at the University of Washington, where the history test had not been a requirement for as long as anyone could remember. They are more interested in assessing the depth of applicants’ knowledge in the specific areas in which they proposed to specialize, while the test evaluated breadth of knowledge and rewarded candidates who had a smattering of knowledge about many areas of the world in all time periods. Besides, Stacey pointed out, assessing how well candidates can analyze historical problems, research historical questions, and write history essays could not properly be accomplished by a multiple choice test.”</p>
<p>I would assume that anyone who believed that doing well on a standardized test in my discipline actually indicated serious knowledge and high-level competence had an extremely poor understanding of said discipline.</p>
<p>^it does not matter what we think, the only important part is that you get in where you want to be next and if test is how it is being decided, then the best on this test, nobody will care about exceptional or poor understanding, if they select you for the next position in your life, whoever is in charge of this selection have figured out that you fit in there better than the next person in line. Pretty simple.</p>
<p>MiamiDAP, I was responding to the OP’s suggestion that GRE subject-type tests could be used to assess how much learning (presumably of content and methods) was going on at different colleges. If we are indeed interested in what it means to learn in a discipline–and the OP claims to be–then discussing what it means to have “exceptional or poor understanding” of the discipline in question seems to be rather relevant.</p>
<p>"And why is this the responsibility of anyone other than the kid? "</p>
<p>Well there is the issue that the taxpayer is footing the bill for some of this tomfoolery. </p>
<p>And society projects this general attitude to kids that as long as they are in college, regardless of major, regardless of rigor, they are doing something virtuous.</p>
<p>GRE subject tests only really make sense in subjects where there is a “common core” in the major, and then only to check base-level knowledge in that “common core” which may be seen as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for suitability to enter a graduate program.</p>
Glad you are not in medicine But in all seriousness, GRE subject tests are very valuable in masters level admissions in STEM fields. I will grant that the criteria used by History departments in selecting masters applicants may be unique such that standardized tests of proficiency are not best used. I also agree with @ucbalumnus who earlier pointed out that Engineering and Computer Science employers routinely seek confirmation of subject mastery. I am not sure what most potential employers of History graduates look for - other than a “general liberal education”. It is a different ball game all together, when it comes to doctoral candidates, even in the more objective STEM fields. May be the next post will take it back the the central question of “holding colleges accountable”.</p>
But in all seriousness, GRE subject tests are very valuable in masters level admissions in STEM fields. I will grant that the criteria used by History departments in selecting masters applicants may be unique such that standardized tests of proficiency are not best used. I also agree with