next »

[fym22]

According to "The Coming Crisis in Citizenship," released by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) on Tuesday, seniors at some of our most prestigious universities (Berkeley, Yale, Brown, etc.) know less about American history and government than do the incoming freshman.

What does this say about what we are teaching our students? Are we teaching "just the facts, ma'am" or are we teaching our personal agendas instead?

[elsie]

Students have to bring something to the table, namely themselves. I saw at least one news story on the report that interviewed college students who said history, political science and economics were too boring.

[zharkov]

According to "The Coming Crisis in Citizenship," released by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) on Tuesday, seniors at some of our most prestigious universities (Berkeley, Yale, Brown, etc.) know less about American history and government than do the incoming freshman.

What does this say about what we are teaching our students? Are we teaching "just the facts, ma'am" or are we teaching our personal agendas instead?

College isn't about learning "just the facts," but about becoming skilled in critical thinking. 
 

[prytania3]

College isn't about learning "just the facts," but about becoming skilled in critical thinking. 

With all due respect, Zharkov, it's hard to think critically without the facts.

[historydude]

All it really means is that most undergrads can get through college on "distribution requirements" without taking a single American history or politics class.

[spork]

If students spend years in elementary, junior high, and high school being taught from textbooks that are nothing but incoherent jumbles of facts, then of course they're going to think civics is boring.

[speedwell]

Historydude is right. If students are required to take no history in college, should we be surprised that they graduate *gasp* knowing very little about history?

No one has ever accused me of promoting an agenda in my history classes. I think many of my students are willing to learn and do in fact learn a lot.

Once in a blue moon, however, I meet a student with an agenda. He or she may be upset for the entire semester that I don't regard either of the following as an all-purpose, no-evidence-required thesis:

1. "Americans love freedom and believe that everybody should always be free to do whatever they want."
2. "America is bad, because the evil white man has always tried to control everyone else."

[elsie]

This is a curious question rather than a challenging question, because general education is always on my mind. At how many universities are students not required to take history?  My impression from the colleges and universities I've attended is that history is a very common requirement.

[whiteknight]

At my S(mall)LAC, students only have to take ONE random history course. Students are required, however, to take the obligatory IT class (as if students need to be told how to turn on a computer and surf the Net) and a Public Speaking class (which hasn't helped them with their "umm"s, "like"s, and "you know"s).

[trentsands]

Has it occurred to anyone that civics education should happen much earlier than college?  I learned most of these facts in 8th grade civics.  Unfortunately, in something like 15 states, secondary level civic courses are not required.

[historydude]

Has it occurred to anyone that civics education should happen much earlier than college? 

Sigh... sure, but assuming students come to college knowing anything is dangerous.  And now with No Child Left Behind, civics and history will get left further behind in the dust.

[historyphd]

One significant problem is that in high school students are often "taught" history by the football coach.

At the institution where I teach I don't see a history requirement per se.  There are various gen ed requirements but one can fulfil them without taking a history, but if they do take a history it's usually just a very broad-based world history survey.

More scary, I think, is the requirement for education majors here.  Those choosing to focus on "social studies" (whatever the hell that is) are only required to take 2 history surveys!  I guess that makes them "qualified" to teach history...errr... social studies.

[larryc]

The ISI which funded the report is a right-wing think tank.  Which doesn't invalidate it right off the bat, but it makes me suspicious. My guess is that their test of historical knowledge emphasized the traditional, flag-waving narrative that kids get in high school and ignores all the new social history that have so illuminated our understanding of the past in the last 30 years.

 Maybe later I will go to their website and see what they have to say, but this reeks of Horowitz and his ilk.

[acrimone]

In the same vein as the facts/critical thinking points above, it's hard to do all that "social issues" history if you don't know all that "flag waving narrative" crap.

It's the narrative part that makes history intelligible.  Pick your story, but you have to tell a story and I'm going to say, as a general public policy, I'm all for the flag waving narrative to be taught in elementary and secondary school. 

The problem is that so few students (and probably so few teachers) actually pay attention to the story.

[larryc]

Oh, but social history is a narrative as well, or can be told as one.  That is how I teach it.  And it isn't either/or--students need to know both.  They need a firm framework before they can learn the nuances. They should know the presidents--and know which ones slept with their slaves.

OK, I found the report and press release.  (http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/index.html) The latter reads in part: College freshmen and seniors at 50 of the nation’s colleges and universities were asked 60 multiple choice questions about (1) America’s history; (2) government; (3) America and the world; and (4) the market economy. The average overall score for college seniors was 53.2 percent, just 1.5 percent higher than the average overall score for freshmen, which was 51.7 percent. Both scores represent failure by a wide margin on a traditional grading scale. More significantly, the results demonstrate that colleges and universities are failing to advance students’ knowledge teach students about their country’s history and founding principles. At 16 of the schools, the freshmen actually scored higher than the seniors.

So I click around the very extensive website looking for the test itself--and it isn't there!  A ton of money obviously went into this hit job I mean survey, yet we don't get to see the instrument that this supposedly scientific survey used to achieve its (predetermined) results.  Could it be that the questions were slanted towards conservative themes and interpretations of American history? I am calling B.S. on the whole thing.