ACTA's Must-Reads
« Whither teaching? | Main | Calls for reform in the Pine Tree State »
What the AAC&U survey really says
On Friday, the Association of American Colleges and Universities issued a survey conducted in late 2008 and early 2009 of chief academic officers at AAC&U member institutions. Inside Higher Ed described the survey as showing only a "distinct minority" of colleges clinging to the distribution-requirement model, while The Chronicle of Higher Education's headline proclaimed, "Colleges Seek New Ways to Give Students a General Education." In its own press release, AAC&U offered more spin, claiming that colleges and universities have now moved beyond "cafeteria-style" requirements to "a model that combines course choice with other integrative features."
These claims sound quite good -- until one takes a closer look. For starters, the AAC&U survey doesn't actually collect or analyze different requirements in place at each college or university. Instead, it simply asks college administrators to assess their own institutions.
Second, far from showing the demise of distribution requirements -- a goal on which both ACTA and AAC&U can agree -- the survey shows quite the contrary. The report says bluntly that "four in five institutions include a distribution model as part of their general education program." No doubt in an effort to find some "news," the survey writers elaborate that "administrators indicate that many of their institutions also incorporate common intellectual experiences (41%), thematic required courses (36%), upper-level requirements (33%), core curricula (30%), and/or learning communities (24%)." Yet these features aren't defined in any informative detail, and are coupled with such depressing additional information that one is left totally unpersuaded that cafeteria style curricula are actually on the decline.
Indeed, the survey appears to show only that institutions have exchanged one diffuse list of specialized courses for another, or simply grafted on a few of the "integrative" features cited in the report. Less than half of those surveyed believe that students in general education programs actually understand learning outcomes set out for them and -- the most damning statistic -- 65 percent of administrators describe their gen ed programs as lacking a coherent sequence of courses. Notably, institutions using a core curriculum rank themselves higher in coherence than any other subgroup.
Apparently, AAC&U would like us to believe that if you don't like the cafeteria, all you need to do is add more food. But a more expansive menu doesn't make a fine restaurant. By performing a close review of the course catalogs and actual general education requirements at schools across the country, ACTA found in 2004 that it when it came to the key subjects that prepare students to become productive workers, informed citizens, and lifelong learners, most of the country's leading universities were not doing their jobs.
We will soon release a new and expanded assessment of curricula asking the question: What are students learning for the big bucks they pay? Stay tuned.
Posted by Anne D. Neal on May 18, 2009 at May 18, 2009 01:39 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/617