Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study: College Students Not Learning Much

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Study: College Students Not Learning Much

#41

Post by zerokyuu »

davidwparker wrote: post #14

I know that for my undergrad, college seemed to be an extension of high school- and both the slackers and the non-slackers went to college. Now that I am in grad school, I don't notice many, if any, slackers. Does anyone have any similar stories?

I don't know the actual statistics, but I heard that nearly everyone from my high school went to college after graduating. Even though I got good grades, I was actually a bit of a slacker myself in high school; mostly because I did a lot of extra curricular activities (ice/roller hockey, drumline, cello, studied Japanese and computer stuff). However, I heard somewhere that about 30% of the kids from my high school would drop out from college in their first two years. This seems about right based on what I saw on Facebook. Some of them were slackers, some of them must have had no interest in college and probably shouldn't have bothered going.

Anyway, I'm in grad school now, and I haven't noticed many slackers (maybe a grad student taking a weekend off?). Although, I didn't really notice many slackers in college either. That may be because I went to a research-focused University to study engineering.

Re: Study: College Students Not Learning Much

#42

Post by guynamedloren »

davidu wrote: post #32
kenjackson wrote: post #5

One problem is there is no incentive on the part of the college to teach much. I've long advocated that we need output measures for colleges. Colleges are rated on their input measures -- how competitive is it to get into the school. But no measure of how effective they are at teaching. As of today no one can really say where (on average) you'll learn more/better -- at Harvard or Ohio State. All we know is that Harva…

Colleges help you get out of them what you put into them. Harvard has more smart students and professors, so you can get more out of them. But any college will provide a sufficient environment for you to learn, study and think critically, if you so choose. But they won't make you do these things. You are an adult, after all.

I agree that there is a huge responsibility placed on the shoulders of students, as there should be, but there is a deeper problem here. Colleges should motivate students to inquire, to learn, and to challenge themselves. While this motivation could definitely be indirect, it should still be one of the primary goals of educational institutions (not only universities, but schools of all shapes and sizes).

One of the best ways colleges could motivate students is by making sure the curriculum and corresponding coursework is up-to-date. Now, it may have just been my department (enterprise systems engineering UIUC), but 99% of the material covered during my college career was extremely dated. The 8th edition textbooks were almost identical to their 1st edition counterparts published 30+ years ago. The homework assignments were re-used year after year (which made the acquiring the solutions ridiculously easy). You have no idea how disheartening it is to walk into class every day or sit down to do homework knowing that you will never, ever in a million years use anything you are "learning". It's not motivating. It's not encouraging. It's not challenging.

The 3.5 years I spent in college were, without a doubt, the worst years of my life. I just graduated (early, thank god) and I feel like my brain clicked on for the first time since 2007. Don't get me wrong - I am a huge fan of learning and critical-thinking (taught myself Ruby on Rails over the past few months with no prior programming experience), but it's pretty damn hard when you can get through one of the most prestigious engineering programs in the world on auto-pilot.

Re: Study: College Students Not Learning Much

#43

Post by barry-cotter »

copper wrote: post #28
reader5000 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 80% of modern college value-added is signalling. Employers should really just accept SAT scores directly, although I'm not sure if that's legal. It would certainly be cheaper.

Why isn't it legal, out of curiosity? I get to see quite a few CVs that include the rank the applicant got in the IIT-JEE exam (for most purposes, I find that to be a rather useless metric.)

Griggs vs. Duke Power Company

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.#Judgme...

Since the SAT[1] is a glorified IQ test[2] the rankings from high to low by population group go Ashkenazi Jews >> East Asians >> Caucasian >> Blacks.

The Disparate Impact legal doctrine[3] means that unless you can show business necessity any test that reliably discriminates between protected classes[4] is automatically illegal.

The strength of this argument is weakened by the fact that TTBOMK no equivalent law exists in the rest of the Anglosphere.

[1]And the LSAT, MSAT, GRE, GMAT etc.

[2]This isn't completely accurate for those tests that measure concrete knowledge like the MCAT, but the correlation is still pretty high

[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_Impact

[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

Re: Study: College Students Not Learning Much

#44

Post by barry-cotter »

tybris wrote: post #39

College isn't about learning, it's about developing intellectually.

I challenge you to develop that statement, so that I know what you meant to say rather than imputing it. An uncharitable interpretation would be that college could be taught with no resources beyond those available at secondary school, since in a number of fields it would be quite possible to use the secondary school intellectual tools to construct your own knowledge, e.g. 30 motivated Math students might be able to rederive up to Calculus II or III given four years to do it.

Re: Study: College Students Not Learning Much

#45

Post by JesseAldridge »

sprout wrote: post #15

I actually took part in this study. A few notes: 1. The exam was supposed to be administered 3 times, Freshman, Sophomore, and Senior years. I took it my Freshman and Senior years. 2. The exam was not a normal exam. I won't say it was pointless, it definitely measured something, but it's hard to say exactly what. Imagine you have to make an exam to measure "learning" and this thing was about as close as you could com…

Could you elaborate on what the exam was like?

Re: Study: College Students Not Learning Much

#46

Post by known »

reader5000 wrote: post #7
kenjackson wrote: post #5

One problem is there is no incentive on the part of the college to teach much. I've long advocated that we need output measures for colleges. Colleges are rated on their input measures -- how competitive is it to get into the school. But no measure of how effective they are at teaching. As of today no one can really say where (on average) you'll learn more/better -- at Harvard or Ohio State. All we know is that Harva…

I think 80% of modern college value-added is signalling. Employers should really just accept SAT scores directly, although I'm not sure if that's legal. It would certainly be cheaper.

IQ != EQ

Re: Study: College Students Not Learning Much

#47

Post by copper »

barry-cotter wrote: post #43
copper wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't it legal, out of curiosity? I get to see quite a few CVs that include the rank the applicant got in the IIT-JEE exam (for most purposes, I find that to be a rather useless metric.)

Griggs vs. Duke Power Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.#Judgme... Since the SAT[1] is a glorified IQ test[2] the rankings from high to low by population group go Ashkenazi Jews >> East Asians >> Caucasian >> Blacks. The Disparate Impact legal doctrine[3] means that unless you can show business necessity any test that reliably discriminates between protected classes[4] is automatically ille…

Thanks for the detailed reply. It's funny that you can't use a test to select people for a job, while you can use the same test to select people for college (though perhaps I'm extrapolating, since the wikipedia article only mentions that you can't use the test for internal transfers and promotions.)

Re: Study: College Students Not Learning Much

#48

Post by gexla »

People just aren't taking the right kind of classes. A math class which is a higher level than anything you have taken before is sure to teach you something. A writing class which is higher level than anything you have taken before (not as easy to measure, this is more due to a better quality instructor) is sure to teach you something. Along with a lot of writing is usually paired up with a lot of reading, which is also sure to teach you something. Outside of those areas...

It's the three R's; readin, ritten, rithmatic. Unfortunately, a lot of programs don't require those areas. People who aren't heavy into those areas in college should probably be going to a vocational school rather than a university.

Re: Study: College Students Not Learning Much

#49

Post by davidu »

guynamedloren wrote: post #42
davidu wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Colleges help you get out of them what you put into them. Harvard has more smart students and professors, so you can get more out of them. But any college will provide a sufficient environment for you to learn, study and think critically, if you so choose. But they won't make you do these things. You are an adult, after all.

I agree that there is a huge responsibility placed on the shoulders of students, as there should be, but there is a deeper problem here. Colleges should motivate students to inquire, to learn, and to challenge themselves. While this motivation could definitely be indirect, it should still be one of the primary goals of educational institutions (not only universities, but schools of all shapes and sizes). One of the b…

You went to a technical school and got a technical degree. That's very different from going to university and studying the liberal arts.

I have no idea why we consider them the same in America, but in most places, even though UIUC is a fantastic technical school, a degree in something called "Enterprise Systems Engineering" should not be considered a university degree. You simply didn't have that experience. And, yes, I'm sure it was horrible.

In my Anthro and other liberal arts classes, my homework was to read a famous literary work, study a movement, a people, a culture or an event and then be prepared to discuss it critically with my peers, often in classes with 5-8 students.

PS -- I need to add that there are definitely students of engineering who treat the curriculum as the science and discipline and art that it is. These students relish understanding the provenance of the discipline and the state of the art and spend all their time in it trying to master the art. It's just more obvious how to do that in the liberal arts because they groom you to do that. I think you have to be more self-aware and self-motivated in the engineering side of things.

Re: Study: College Students Not Learning Much

#50

Post by retroafroman »

joshkaufman wrote: post #9

The findings also will likely spark a debate over what helps and hurts students learn. To sum up, it's good to lead a monk's existence: Students who study alone and have heavier reading and writing loads do well. You can "lead a monk's existence" by yourself, without paying a college $40-50k per 30-week year. Hit the books, learn as much as you can, then go out into the real world and make things happen. It kills me…

'If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want to learn, go to a library.'

-Frank Zappa

Post reply on HN