Last week I introduced a study related to the growing number of students who choose to double major in college. I referred to these students as “overachievers.” The study, “Double Majors: Influences, Identities and Impacts,“ authored by two sociologists at Vanderbilt University, classified them as either “deepeners” (double major in similar disciplines for a depth of study), “spanners,” or “Renaissance students” (double major in disparate disciplines for a breadth of study).
As I indicated last week, the study also poses and answers two important questions:
1) Are these students over-extended?
2) How should institutions better support these students?
For those who discourage students from double majoring, it is common for the concern to be over-extending, which will negatively impact performance. This study reaches a very different conclusion. This research indicates that students who double major “are classic ‘do more, do more’ students.”
These students are more involved in co-curricular activities than their single majoring counterparts; they more often assume leadership positions in clubs, organizations, SGA, athletic teams; are more involved in service programs and volunteerism; regularly attend outside activities like lectures, exhibits, discussion groups; and, are more likely to engage in research projects with faculty, independent study and research, and honors programs.
The concern raised by this study is that colleges and universities in general and faculty in particular do too little to encourage and support double majoring. Since these students are often the best and the brightest, some faculty are parochial, preferring these students to remain within their discipline. The study found little evidence that advisors and faculty help these students to optimize their integrated learning and better connect the disciplines they choose to pursue.
My own belief is that we should encourage, not discourage, these interests. I applaud students who do their best to maximize their educational experience inside and outside of the classroom. But I think it is important to do two things.
First, we need to help these students to better understand why they are choosing to double major. If it is simply an attempt to build a transcript and a resume for future job viability, that would lead to a different choice than a genuine interest in learning and in liberal education.
Second, I think double majors need to have the opportunity to meet with an advisor who can help them to see the relationship between the various areas of study. Understanding and appreciating the connection between art and science, history and math, science and philosophy require a depth of knowledge and an appreciation of learning that may not be readily present with undergraduate students.
So my advice regarding overachievers … teach them even more!
(As always, your comments and questions are welcome.)
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.)
