Academically Adrift Part 6

79. Robert D. Manning, aLiving With Debt: A Life Stage a.n.a.lysis of Changing Att.i.tudes and Behaviorsa (Rochester, NY: Rochester Inst.i.tute of Technology, 2005), 32.

80. Brint and Rotondi, aStudent Debt,a 7.

81. Anya Kamenetz, Generation Debt: How Our Future Was Sold Out for Student Loans, Bad Jobs, No Benefits, and Tax Cuts for Rich Geezersa"And How to Fight Back (New York: Riverhead Books, 2006), 16.

82. Manning, aLiving with Debt,a 34.

83. Charles F. Manski, aIdentification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem,a Review of Economic Studies 60 (1993): 531a"42.

Chapter 4.

1. See for example, Charles Murray, Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing American Schools Back to Reality (New York: Crown Publis.h.i.+ng House, 2008).

2. Pitrim Sorokin, Social and Cultural Mobility (New York: Free Press, 1959), 188a"89.

3. Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, The 35th Annual Phi Delta Kappa / Gallup Poll of the Publicas Att.i.tudes toward the Public Schools (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International, 2003).

4. Adam Liptak, aOn the Bench and Off: The Eminently Quotable Justice Scalia,a New York Times, May 11, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html.

5. William Bowen and Derek Bok, The Shape of the River (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998); William Bowen, Matthew M. Chingos, and Michael S. McPherson, Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at Americaas Public Universities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); and Kevin Carey, A Matter of Degrees: Improving Graduation Rates in Four-Year Colleges and Universities (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: The Education Trust, 2004).

6. For recent reviews see, George D. Kuh et al., What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 2006); and George D. Kuh et al., Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 2005).

7. Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini, How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 2005), 602.

8. For an extensive recent review of the previous literature on the factors a.s.sociated with development of general skills in higher education, see Pascarella and Terenzini, How College Affects Students, 155a"212.

9. For clarity of presentation in this section, faculty and peer-climate variables are divided into three categories: ahigh,a which represents one or more standard deviations above the mean; alow,a which indicates one or more standard deviations below the mean, and amedium,a which represents values in between. Since the original variables were based on a 1a"7 scale and were not normally distributed, the three categories contain varying proportions of cases. All models predict 2007 CLA scores while con trolling for 2005 CLA scores, and thus in effect estimate the relations.h.i.+p between different variables of interest and growth in learning over time. As indicated, some models also control for studentsa sociodemographic / high school characteristics, academic preparation, and inst.i.tutions attended (fixed-effects model).

10. The correlation between studentsa perceptions of faculty expectations and standards is 0.637, p < 0.01,="" and="" between="" studentsa="" perceptions="" of="" faculty="" expectations="" and="" being="" approachable="" is="" 0.523,="" p=""><>

11. William Sewell, Archibald Haller, and Alejandro Portes, aThe Educational and Early Occupational Attainment Process,a American Sociological Review 34 (1969): 82a"92.

12. Alexander Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 1993), 217.

13. See for example, Robert M. Carini, George D. Kuh, and Stephen P. Klein, aStudent Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages,a Research in Higher Education 47 (2006): 1a"32.

14. The two variables (faculty expectations and reading / writing requirements) are related, but far from perfectly so. Even if both are entered in the model simultaneously (as will be the case in the final model), they remain statistically significant and of similar magnitude.

15. Alexander Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 1993); Vincent Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).

16. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Experiences that Matter: Enhancing Student Learning and Success (Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington, 2007), 46.

17. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Descriptive Summary of 2003a" 2004 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Three Years Later, NCES 2008-174. (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2008), table 3.1.

18. Carini, Kuh, and Klein, aStudent Engagement and Student Learning,a table 2.

19. The three measures of peer climates are reasonably highly correlated, with Cronbachas alpha of 0.74. A summary measure combining the three questions is also not related to learning.

20. For a recent study illuminating which peer interactions have positive relations.h.i.+ps with learning, see Elizabeth J. Whitt et al., aInteractions with Peers and Objective and Self-Reported Cognitive Outcomes across 3 Years of College,a Journal of College Student Development 40 (1999): 61a"78.

21. Camille Charles et al., Taming the River: Negotiating the Academic, Financial, and Social Currents in Selective Colleges and Universities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 82a"90.

22. Ibid., 84.

23. Steven Brint and Allison M. Cantwell, aUndergraduate Time Use and Academic Outcomes: Results from UCUES 2006.a Research and Occasional Paper Series (Center for Students in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, 2008).

24. Victor B. Saenz and Douglas S. Barrera, Findings from the 2005 College Student Survey (CSS): National Aggregates (Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Inst.i.tute, 2007), 6, 10.

25. NSSE, Experiences that Matter, 13.

26. To answer this question, we estimate several regression models that predict 2007 CLA scores while controlling for 2005 CLA scores. Some models also control for studentsa sociodemographic / high school characteristics, academic preparation, and inst.i.tutions attended (fixed-effects model), as indicated in the text.

27. Astin, What Matters in College, 376. For some recent examples of studies examining the relations.h.i.+p between studying and GPA, see Brint and Cantwell aUndergraduate Time Use and Academic Outcomesa; Charles et al., Taming the River; and Ralph Stinebrickner and Rodd R. Stinebrickner, aTime-Use and College Outcomes,a Journal of Econometrics 121 (2003): 243a"69.

28. There is no direct tradeoff between studying and partic.i.p.ation in extracurricular activities. The two measures are actually slightly positively correlated (r = 0.120, p < 0.01),="" indicating="" that="" some="" students="" are="" more="" engaged,="" both="" in="" their="" studies="" and="" in="" other="" activities,="" while="" other="" students="" are="" less="" engaged="" in="" both="">

29. For a review of research on the relations.h.i.+p between out-of-cla.s.s experiences and learning, see Patrick T. Terenzini, Ernest T. Pascarella, and Gregory S. Blimling, aStudentsa Out-of-Cla.s.s Experiences and Their Influence on Learning and Cognitive Development: A Literature Review,a Journal of College Student Development 40 (1999): 610a"23.

30. Astin, What Matters in College; Tinto, Leaving College.

31. Studies in the 1980s were mostly consistent in showing positive effects of on-campus work and negative effects of off-campus work, although recent studies have produced a more mixed set of results (see Pascarella and Terenzini, How College Affects Students, 1991; 2005).

32. There is a positive relations.h.i.+p between the two forms of studying: students who spend more time studying alone also spend more time studying with peers (r = 0.263, p <>

33. NCES, Descriptive Summary of 2003a"04 Beginning Postsecondary Students, table 3.11.

34. Robert B. Barr and John Tagg, aFrom Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education,a Change 27 (1995): 12a"25.

35. National Science Foundation (NSF), Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: NSF, 1996), http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1996/nsf96139/nsf96139.txt.

36. Small-group learning can appear under the heading of either acooperativea or acollaborativea learning, which are related but have distinct theoretical bases. For review of recent research, see Leonard Spring, Mary Elizabeth Stanne, and Samuel S. Donovan, aEffects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-a.n.a.lysis,a Review of Educational Research 69 (1999): 21a"51. See also David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith, aCooperative Learning Returns to College: What Evidence is There That It Works?a Change 30 (1998): 27a"35. More recently, a broader definition of active / collaborative learning has been used to represent studentsa engagement with the learning process, including a range of activities from asking questions and partic.i.p.ating in cla.s.s discussion to working on projects and a.s.signments with peers inside and outside the cla.s.sroom. See for example, National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), National Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice (Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington, 2000).

37. Carol L. Colbeck, Susan E. Campbell, and Stefani A. Bjorklund, aGrouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects,a Journal of Higher Education 71 (2000): 61.

38. For example, see William Rau and Barbara Sherman Heyl, aHumanizing the College Cla.s.sroom: Collaborative Learning and Social Organization among Students,a Teaching Sociology 18 (1990): 141a"55.

39. We include a square term for on-campus employment due to findings from previous research which indicate that work has a positive relations.h.i.+p to student outcomes up to a certain threshold. Indeed, the square term is statistically significant. We have also tested a square term for hours spent working off campus. However, this second square term was not statistically significant and is thus not included in the models.

40. Our results for employment may be weaker than expected because students in our sample work less than the national average. This is not surprising given that we are relying on volunteers who are willing to spend a substantial amount of time completing the CLA a.s.sessment and a.s.sociated surveys. Indeed, very few students in our sample work more than twenty hours per week, and virtually none of them work full-time (i.e., thirty-five or more hours per week). In national samples, 13 percent of employed traditional-age students who entered four-year inst.i.tutions report working full-time (authorsa calculations based on the 2006 survey of the 2003a"04 cohort of the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study). However, students in our sample report working more hours than students at selective inst.i.tutions (see Charles et al., Taming the River, 84, 87). For recent national estimates of college-student employment, see National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Inst.i.tutions: 2003a"2004, NCES 2006-184 (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2006), table 5.1.

41. See also recent research by Pascarella and colleagues, who have conducted some of the most extensive a.n.a.lyses of the relations.h.i.+p between employment and direct measures of student learning. Ernest T. Pascarella et al., aDoes Work Inhibit Cognitive Development During College?a Educational Evaluation and Policy a.n.a.lysis 20 (1998): 75a"93; and Ermest T. Pascarella et al., aImpacts of the On-Campus and Off-Campus Work on First-Year Cognitive Outcomes,a Journal of College Student Development 35 (1994): 364a"70.

42. Gary R. Pike, aThe Influence of Fraternity or Sorority Members.h.i.+p on Studentsa College Experiences and Cognitive Development,a Research in Higher Education 41 (2000): 117a"39. For an example of a study using objective measures of learning, see Ernest T. Pascarella et al., aCognitive Effects of Greek Affiliation during the First Year of College,a NASPA Journal 33 (1996): 242a"59.

43. In Grigsbyas study, for example, students reported that involvement in Greek organizations has provided some of their most valuable experiences in college, and that affiliation with and leaders.h.i.+p roles in these organizations have taught them responsibility and organizational skills. Mary Grigsby, College Life through the Eyes of Students (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009).

44. For a recent review of the literature on the relations.h.i.+p between college major and cognitive development, see Pascarella and Terenzini, How College Affects Students, 174a"76.

45. We focus on fields of study for ease of interpretation. Fields of study are highly, although not perfectly, correlated with course concentrations described in the previous chapter.

46. John C. Smart and Paul D. Umbach, aFaculty and Academic Environments: Using Hollandas Theory to Explore Differences in How Faculty Structure Undergraduate Courses,a Journal of College Student Development 48 (2007): 183a"95; and Paul D. Umbach, aFaculty Cultures and College Teaching,a in The Scholars.h.i.+p of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective, ed. Raymond P. Perry and John C. Smart (New York: Springer, 2007), 263a"318.

47. John M. Braxton, Deborah Olsen, and Ada Simmons, aAffinity Disciplines and the Use of Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education,a Research in Higher Education 39 (1998): 299a"318.

48. John L. Holland, Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments (Odessa, FL: Psychological a.s.sessment Resources, 1997).

49. Steven Brint, Allison M. Cantwell, and Robert A. Hanneman, aThe Two Cultures of Undergraduate Academic Engagement,a Research in Higher Education 49 (2008): 383a"402.

50. The correlation between the percentage of costs covered through grants / scholars.h.i.+ps and hours worked off campus is a"0.080, p < 0.01;="" and="" the="" correlation="" for="" hours="" worked="" on="" campus="" is="" 0.083,="" p="">< 0.01.="" the="" correlation="" between="" the="" percentage="" of="" costs="" covered="" through="" loans="" and="" hours="" worked="" off="" campus="" is="" 0.053,="" p="">< 0.01,="" and="" the="" correlation="" for="" hours="" worked="" on="" campus="" is="" 0.050,="" p=""><>

51. We find no statistically significant interactions between any of the academic and social activities in college and race / ethnicity. Recent studies that have reported acompensatory effectsa include Carini, Kuh and Klein, aStudent Engagement and Student Learninga; Kuh et al., What Matters to Student Success; and George D. Kuh et al., aUnmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on College Grades and Persistencea (paper presented at the annual meeting for the American Educational Research a.s.sociation, Chicago, April 9a"13, 2007).

52. For a review of issues related to this topic see Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, eds., The Black-White Test Score Gap (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: Brookings Inst.i.tution Press, 1998).

53. Signithia Fordham and John U. Ogbu, aBlack Studentas School Success: Coping with the aBurden of Acting White,aa Urban Review 18 (1986): 176a"206.

54. For some recent examples, see Karolyn Tyson, William Darity, and Domini Castellino, aItas Not aa Black Thinga: Understanding the Burden of Acting White and Other Dilemmas of High Achievement,a American Sociological Review 70 (2005): 582a"605; and James Ainsworth-Darnell and Douglas Downey, aa.s.sessing the Oppositional Culture for Racial / Ethnic Differences in School Performance,a American Sociological Review 63 (1998): 536a"53.

55. Ann Swidler, aCulture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,a American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 273a"86.

56. Douglas Downey, aBlack / White Differences in School Performance: The Oppositional Culture Explanation,a Annual Review of Sociology 34 (2008): 121.

57. Claude M. Steele, aA Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Ident.i.ty and Performance,a American Psychologist 52 (1997): 613a"29.

58. Claude M. Steele and Joshua Aronson, aStereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African-Americans,a Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (1995): 797a"811.

59. Charles et al., Taming the River, 173a"87.

60. See for example, Carey, A Matter of Degrees.

61. Top-performing inst.i.tutions include four with the highest gains in CLA scores, after adjusting for studentsa sociodemographic and high school characteristics as well as for academic preparation. Reported differences are statistically significant at p <>

62. Kuh et al., aAn Unshakeable Focus on Student Learning,a in Student Success in College.

63. For a review of research on learning communities, see Kathe Taylor, Learning Community Research and a.s.sessment: What We Know Now. National Learning Communities Project Monograph Series (Olympia: Was.h.i.+ngton Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, 2003). Moreover, for a recent study examining the relations.h.i.+p between learning communities and self-reported gains in learning and intellectual development, see Gary R. Pike, aThe Effects of Residential Learning Communities and Traditional Residential Living Arrangements on Educational Gains During the First Year of College,a Journal of College Student Development 40 (1999): 269a"84.

64. George D. Kuh, aWhat We Are Learning About Student Engagement from NSSE,a Change 35 (2003): 24a"32; and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Promoting Engagement for All Students: The Imperative to Look Within (Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington, 2008).

65. For this a.n.a.lysis, we include only inst.i.tutions with at least twenty-five students in the sample.

66. Correlation between 2007 CLA scores and college GPA is 0.35l, p <>

67. Students who report having both requirements report studying 2.29 hours more than those not having the requirements (p <>

68. This estimate is based on change in R2 between model 2 (including 2005 CLA score, background characteristics, and academic preparation) and model 4 (adding measures of studentsa college experiences and controlling for inst.i.tutions attended) in table A4.5.

69. This estimate is based on change in R2 between model 1 (including 2005 CLA score and background characteristics) and model 2 (adding academic preparation) in table A4.5.

70. If our sample were less socioeconomically advantaged, we might have observed more time dedicated to activities such as work, child-rearing, caring for siblings, etc. These time commitments are very distinct from socializing, but they nonetheless take students away from the focus on academics. Whether it is frivolity or necessity, students in higher education have many competing demands. And in this compet.i.tion, learning seems to often lose out.

71. Brint and Cantwell, aUndergraduate Time Use and Academic Outcomes,a 3.

72. As Jenny Stuber pointed out recently, this emerges largely from the middle-cla.s.s conception of schooling. Jenny Stuber, aCla.s.s, Culture, and the Partic.i.p.ation in the Collegiate Extra-Curriculum,a Sociological Forum 24 (2009): 877a"900.

Chapter 5.

1. Excerpt from an interview transcript of Lee S. Shulman in Declining by Degrees: Higher Education at Risk (New York: Public Broadcast System, 2005).

2. Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz, Campus Life: Undergraduate Cultures from the End of the Eighteenth Century to the Present (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987), 11.

3. The National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1983).

4. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Cla.s.s Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press, 1994). For a critique of Herrnstein and Murray, see Claude Fischer et al., Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), and Richard Nisbett, Intelligence and How to Get It (New York: Norton, 2009).

5. Patrick Callan, Commentary on Measuring Up 2006 Report (San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2006).

6. Arthur M. Hauptman and Young Kim, Cost, Commitment, and Attainment in Higher Education: An International Comparison (Boston: Jobs for the Future, 2009).

7. U.S. Department of Education, A Test of Leaders.h.i.+p: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2006), vii.

8. Alan Wagner, Measuring Up Internationally: Developing Skills and Knowledge for the Global Knowledge Economy (San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2006). On the federal governmentas recent decision to partic.i.p.ate in this project, see Doug Lederman, aMeasuring Student Learning, Globally,a Inside Higher Ed, January 28, 2010.

9. Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, The Race between Education and Technology (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008).

10. Richard Arum, Josipa Roksa, and Mich.e.l.le Budig, aThe Romance of College Attendance: Higher Education Stratification and Mate Selection,a Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 26 (2008): 107a"22.

11. Richard Arum, Judging School Discipline: The Crisis of Moral Authority (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 2.

12. Clifford Adelman, The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2006), 5.

13. Ibid., 34.

14. Arum, Judging School Discipline.

15. Barbara Schneider and David Stevenson, The Ambitious Generation: Americaas Teenagers Motivated but Directionless (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999).