A new book released today, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, is already creating quite a stir with its finding that an astounding 45 percent of students learn little in the first two years of college, as measured by progress on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). But the research, by New York University’s Richard Arum and the University of Virginia’s Josipa Roksa, also sheds important light on the perennial debate about whether it matters if one attends a more selective or less selective college.
Past research on the potential advantages of attending selective and wealthy colleges and universities has focused on inputs (spending per pupil) or long-term outputs (the degree to which attendance increases adult earnings.) My reading of the best evidence is that attending a more selective institution provides substantial advantages, which should intensify our concern about the fact that low-income students are largely shut out.
But until today, most research had not addressed another vital issue: do students at selective institutions learn more as well? In a small report accompanying Academically Adrift, entitled Improving Undergraduate Learning, Arum, Roksa and coauthor Esther Cho of the Social Science Research Council, conclude that while student learning varies a great deal at all institutions, on average more learning goes on at selective colleges and universities.
Controlling for a range of individual student characteristics, including academic preparation, the authors find that students at selective colleges make stronger gains on the CLA—which measures critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills—than those at less selective institutions. Selective institutions are defined as those in which students at the 25th percentile have a combined math and verbal SAT score above 1150, and less selective are those in which students at the 25th percentile have a combined score below 950.
Why do students at selective colleges learn more even after controlling for individual student characteristics? The study highlights several possible reasons:
- Peers. The authors write that “Being surrounded by peers who are well prepared for college-level work is likely to shape the climate of the institution as well as specific student experiences. Having high-performing students in the classroom can help improve achievement of all students, including those who have accumulated fewer skills before college.” In particular, the study found that peers in highly selective institutions reported “significantly higher” aspirations than those in less selective colleges.
- Course work rigor and expectations. Students in selective institutions are held to higher expectations of performing substantial work. For example, 71 percent of students at highly selective colleges were required to do at least 20 pages of writing in at least one course the prior semester, compared with 39 percent of students at the less selective colleges. Likewise, 92 percent of students at highly selective institutions reported at least one course requiring more than 40 pages of reading per week, compared with 56 percent at the less selective colleges.
- Faculty Interaction. Students at selective institutions were more likely to interact with faculty members. At highly selective colleges, only 2 percent of students reported having no contact with faculty outside of the classroom in the previous semester compared with 13 percentage of students at less selective colleges.
Other portions of the study found that students made larger gains on the CLA if they majored in traditional liberal arts fields as opposed to business, education, social work or communications.
The study, which followed several thousand students from 2005-2009, adds to the growing body of evidence that selective colleges provide distinct educational advantages. The research deepens our understanding of why stratification within higher education matters, and should add to the intensity of our concern over the fact that at selective institutions—where students learn the most—rich kids outnumber poor kids by 25:1
9 Responses to Learning More at Selective Colleges
nlasla - January 19, 2011 at 9:34 am
There are two other possibilities for this finding. One could be that students entering highly selective colleges are already further along in their development because they are more academically prepared for college. This could play a role in allowing them to learn more easily. The other reason could be the size of classrooms at selective institutions. Smaller class sizes allow for more discussions, interaction, and challenging assignments. These type of experiences have shown to contribute more to learning.
griblets - January 19, 2011 at 9:41 am
Another concern is motivation. How was motivation controlled for in the sample? CLA results are highly dependent on the motivation of the test-taker. Could students at more selective institutions be more highly motivated? In general, I suspect they would be. As the prevous poster implies, we do not know if we are comparing apples to apples with the 2 samples.
22081781 - January 19, 2011 at 9:57 am
Another possible explanation–and the elephant in the room in so many discussions of variable student performance–is student ability. Yes, some students are simply more intelligent/have a higher aptitude for the kind of learning college fosters and rewards. Why doesn’t anyone want to admit this anymore? Is it because one’s aptitude/ability level may be at least half inherited?
softshellcrab - January 19, 2011 at 10:01 am
I have remarked many times over the years, “It’s hard to teach above the level of your students”. This is especially so when there is pressure (and there almost always is) not to fail too many. Forget selective vs. nonselective, there are way too many students who don’t belong in college at all.
delonix - January 19, 2011 at 11:16 am
“22081781″ implies a stronger selection for ability than is warranted, even in this controlled set of variables. I would prefer to see selective schools compared with a large N which draw from different economic classes. As my uncle used to say, “Intelligence is no respecter of wealth.” I still believe he is right, and the less selective schools tend to be that way because they are public schools that must admit a more diverse group. There are unselective private (and expensive) schools too, so separating out the groups for comparison might be more prudent that assuming there is a measure of heritability associated with performance. There probably is — but what’s the proportions. Smaller than 22081781 implies, I imagine.
11223435 - January 19, 2011 at 11:16 am
Breathes there a soul who is surprised by any of this?
22081781 - January 19, 2011 at 11:58 am
In response to delonix, not long ago I was a sociologist and can address those proportions in an informed way. The status attainment models in the field have allocated about 45% of the variance in IQ to genetics/inheritance, 35% to class background, and 20% to the effects of class background on the development of inherited potential. (These variables were used to predict education, then income.) If any field would UNDER-estimate the effects of inheritance, it would be sociology. So 45% may be a tad too low.
tgroleau - January 19, 2011 at 12:07 pm
While I’m not surprised by the overall “Adrift” findings, they would be even more useful if there had been a control group of college-age individuals who did not attend college. If we’re going to compare the effectiveness of selective schools to other colleges, why not compare non-colleges too?
What kind of CLA improvements would we see between the ages of 18 and 20 for those who entered the work force? How about those who joined the military?
Only about 64% of college students showed significant improvement in CLA scores. While that may be bad, what if similar data showed that only 10% of non-college students had improved? That would put a completely different spin on the effectiveness of college.
I’m not criticizing the authors or the research. It would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to create and track an appropriate control group. I’m just saying that, absent a control group, we need to be careful about over-interpreting the study’s results.
snapcase - January 19, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Nlasla – Not to mention that students whose parents can afford to send them to a highly selective school might have gone to a private school and/or had a personal tutor. These students usually have had a much more rigorous high school education to begin with.
It is certainly true that select colleges have more resources to pay teachers to engage with and help students, and this translates to better results. I work at a public R1 school and the professors are so busy with research teaching is seen as at best a distraction.