One of the growing trends in higher education is the increased number of students who choose to double major. These overachievers tend to fill (overfill) their schedules in an attempt to maximize their undergraduate experience and increase their opportunities for career choices.
A recent study published by the Curb Center for Art, Enterprise and Public Policy at Vanderbilt University provided an enlightening perspective on these students, the value of double majoring and the attitudes towards this phenomenon by most colleges and universities.
Sociologists Richard Pitt and Steven Tepper analyzed survey results of 1,760 seventh semester students at nine institutions: Duke, Emory, Ohio State, Trinity, Vanderbilt, Texas (Austin campus), Dartmouth, Knox and Wooster. The survey was conducted through the web and asked students to provide information about their “academic choices, motivations, and measures of creative thinking and achievement.” Within the sample group, 19% were pursuing double majors.
The first important insight from this study is the delineation of types of double major combinations most commonly chosen by students. The first type is identified as “hyper-specialization” majors or “deepeners.” These students pick two majors in the same or similar disciplines (e.g., two humanities, two social sciences) that complement each other and blend easily.
The second type is called “hypo-specialization” majors or “spanners” or “Renaissance students.” These students pick majors from very disparate disciplines (e.g., a hard science and the arts). Their choices provide the greatest challenge (and opportunity) to “bridge the furthest intellectual distance.”
This study also concludes that these students learn and think differently. The authors conclude that as our society demands more and more graduates capable of innovative thinking and higher level problem-solving skills, the answer may be in encouraging more double majors.
These students are “better at integrating knowledge, tend to think differently, and approach learning more creatively.” These characteristics are more evident in “spanners” because of the different orientations of their varied disciplines.
The study also poses and answers two important questions:
1) Are these students over-extended?
2) How should institutions better support these students?
I will share these results and my own thoughts and observations next week.
(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)
This past Sunday, the Christian Church celebrated Easter. I extend my best wishes for a blessed Easter from the entire AMC community. We are also in the midst of the Jewish celebration of Passover which began on March 25th and ends on April 2nd. Both religious celebrations are marked by a spirit of hope for the future.
In this season of hope, I would like to share some observations … some of my hopes for the future. And it should come as no surprise to those who read this blog regularly that my hopes center on an increase in civility, dialogue and service to the Common Good.
A month ago, I read an op ed piece by the theologian, Hans Kung, entitled, “A Vatican Spring” (NY Times, February 27, 2013). Dr. Kung is the last surviving theological advisor to the Second Vatican Council. While the Vatican stripped him of his authority to teach Catholic theology following his critique of the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the 1970s, he remains a priest in good standing and an emeritus professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tubingen in Germany. His writings were a central part of my undergraduate theology classes and remain important works today.
Kung’s article called for a reform in the Church and a movement away from the “monarchical habits” of the past. Whether Pope Francis will lead this reform (or even thinks it is necessary) is yet to be seen. But what gave me hope in Kung’s article was the recollection of an event that took place in 2005.
Kung recounts that in 2005, Pope Benedict invited him to a four-hour conversation at Castel Gandolfo, the Pope’s summer residence in Rome. Josef Ratzinger and Hans Kung had been colleagues and friends at Tubingen, even though their theologies were very different and Kung had been a harsh critic of Ratzinger. After Kung’s ecclesiastical teaching license was revoked, Kung and Ratzinger had no private contact for over 20 years.
Why did Pope Benedict reach out to Kung? Kung relates that they “decided to set aside (their) differences and discuss topics on which (they) might find agreement.” These included “the relationship between Christian faith and science, the dialogue between religions and civilization, and the ethical consensus across faith and ideologies.”
It seems to me that we need more dialogue and less division. This is true in the Church, in politics, on college campuses, in communities and in our families. While differences are real, we should seek areas of common ground and be open to new perspectives and different points of view. We should come to dialogue with an open mind, setting aside differences, and with a willingness to listen.
There is no evidence that the meeting in 2005 changed the thinking of Pope Benedict or Dr. Kung. But it was a sign of hope. And we need more signs of hope every day. Happy Easter!
(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)
Last week I shared my initial reflections about the election of Pope Francis. In the past week, we have all had a chance to learn about this new leader, to see him in action and to listen to his words. His Inauguration Mass, for example, provided graphic evidence of his ability to relate to all people and his commitment to a more simple and open style.
His homily at that Mass was replete with inspirational phrases capturing his clear focus on serving the needs of the poor, the less able and the environment. He framed his ministry and our calling as one of being a “protector” in the model of St. Joseph, on whose feast day this special Mass was celebrated. He challenged all of us to be “protectors of God’s gifts.” He encouraged us “not to be afraid of goodness, of tenderness.” He called us to create “a horizon of hope.”
But in the coming weeks and months, we will move from rhetoric and symbol to the reality of Pope Francis’ leadership for the Church. And a Pew Research Center study released on the eve of his Inauguration Mass provided a sense of expectation, at least in the United States.
The study is based on a survey of over 1500 respondents from every state who were contacted by landline or cell phone between March 13th-17th. The study reflects the actual responses from 325 Catholics. While an overwhelming percentage (73%) were happy with the selection of Pope Francis (only 2% were unhappy with the rest unsure), they have a clear agenda for the future.
This study reflects the following priorities for Pope Francis:
- Addressing the Abuse Scandal (70%)
- Standing Up for Traditional Moral Values (49%)
- Spreading Catholic Faith (39%)
- Addressing the Priest Shortage (36%)
- Reforming the Vatican Bureaucracy (35%)
But what this study also reveals is the increasing percentage of Catholics in the United States who favor a change in many of the Church’s “teachings and policies.” For example, 76% believe the Church should permit birth control; 64% believe that priests should be allowed to marry; and 59% believe that women should be allowed to become priests. Significantly fewer respondents thought any of these “teachings and policies” would, in fact, change in the foreseeable future.
What we know about Pope Francis is that his views are very traditional. It will be interesting to watch how he balances his clear fidelity to the teachings of the Church with his apparent ability to inspire people to faith, prayer and service. For now, we all look forward to a “horizon of hope.”
(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)
I share in the initial enthusiasm of so many in the election of Pope Francis I. We remain hopeful that the initial assessment of this humble and spiritual leader, committed to serving the poor and the needy, will prove accurate as we experience the years of his papacy.
As I thought about this week’s blog, I wondered what I could add to the plethora of reports and stories about the Church and the new Pope since the announcement in February of Pope Benedict’s resignation. What follows are simply some isolated thoughts and reactions. I would be interested in hearing your impressions.
First, I think the defining moment of Pope Benedict’s papacy was his resignation. This is not a criticism. I genuinely believe that his decision to step down from the papacy was an extraordinary act of leadership. We will never know what precipitated this decision. But in my mind, it took great courage and serves as a powerful model for all leaders within and outside the Church.
Second, I have found the overwhelming media coverage over the past few weeks both exhilarating and distressing. Stories about the rich history and tradition of our Church served as powerful witness to the central values of our faith. But the constant focus on the problems of the Church, albeit real and troublesome, were a sad reminder of how far we have drifted from the Gospel message.
The election of Francis had personal meaning to me. I relate well to the life story of the son of an Italian immigrant from modest means who found vocation in a life of service to the Common Good. As someone educated by the Jesuits and profoundly influenced in so many positive ways by Jesuit priests, I am proud to have my Church led by the first Jesuit Pope.
Finally, last Wednesday evening’s announcement of Pope Francis I demonstrated two of the most important elements of our faith. First, we are a universal Church. To see people from all over the world gather together to greet an Argentinian Pope reflects well on the global nature of our faith. We are a worldwide community of faith, different in so many ways, but sharing a common bond and belief in the Gospel message.
We also witnessed the power of prayer. This too is our common bond as we pray for ourselves, our families, our country, our world and our Church … together we form a single voice of thanks and petition to a God who knows and loves each and every one of us.
The challenges within the institutional Church are great. Whether or not Pope Francis can bring about reform is unknown. But he has already reminded us that we are all people of faith on a pilgrim journey, trying to live the Gospel each and every day.
(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)
Last week I began a discussion of the recent initiative from President Obama -- the College Scorecard. The Scorecard is part of the President’s goal to “equip Americans with the skills they need.” This initiative is described as follows:
“Holding colleges accountable for cost, value and quality: Today, the federal government provides more than $150 billion each year in direct loan and grant aid for America’s students. In an era of limited resources, we must allocate the federal investment in student aid wisely, in order to promote opportunity in higher education and ensure the best return on investment. The President will call on Congress to consider value, affordability, and student outcomes in making determinations about which colleges and universities receive access to federal student aid, either by incorporating measures of value and affordability into the existing accreditation system; or by establishing a new, alternative system of accreditation that would provide pathways for higher education models and colleges to receive federal student aid based on performance and results.
A new College Scorecard to provide clear information about college: Last year, President Obama called for the development of a new College Scorecard to give students and families clear information about college costs and quality as they make decisions about higher education. The Administration is unveiling this interactive tool so that every student and family can gain information on individual colleges and universities – and compare them to similar institutions – as they conduct their college search.”
The Scorecard provides information on five key areas related to affordability and value: Costs, Graduation Rate, Loan Default Rate, Median Borrowing and Employment. While I fully support transparency in information and recognize these areas as important measures of success and value, I believe that the College Scorecard has some serious flaws.
First, we can start with the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) own disclaimer. In describing the Scorecard, the DOE concludes with, “Note that the information included in the scorecard may not apply to all students.” What makes this even more confusing is that it doesn’t tell us for which students it does apply.
College students are one of the most diverse groups in America. Colleges and universities are also incredibly diverse in mission, scope, focus, etc. A single Scorecard intended to be of value to all prospective students comparing all colleges and universities is limited at best and likely more confusing than clarifying.
Second, the five criteria on the Scorecard are not easily understood by many prospective students and families. For example, cost is provided as "the average net price.” Many educators who work with college-bound students and families are concerned that this will be seen as a synonym for tuition and fees. A statistic like “loan default rate” is also not easily understood by many users of the Scorecard. In fact, each of the five criteria has been assessed as potentially confusing and incomplete.
These first two concerns can be fixed. Data can be organized by type of student and type of institution. Statistics can be clarified and more clearly defined. But my major concern is the total absence of a “scorecard” on quality education. While data on “employment” (yet to be published) will be helpful, this entire process ignores the central value of educational quality. And even if an institution has a high employment rate, how will a prospective student know if the graduate found the desired job and was well educated for both a professional career and for life?
Lots of restaurants advertise “a value meal.” But value doesn’t necessarily mean a good meal, a healthy meal, a memorable meal. Affordability in education is an important issue. But the quality of the educational experience is also important. It may be harder to “score” quality, but it’s worth trying!
(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)
