The recent book, Academically Adrift by Arum and Roksa has generated quite a buzz in higher education and the media. The book claims that, overall, students are graduating from college without making significant gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing as measured by the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) test. Of course the story isn’t simple, and analysis of CLA data provides only one kind of metric regarding student learning. Regardless, the authors slice and dice the data in a variety of ways and examine it from multiple perspectives.

Of interest to me was what their analysis showed for students in the STEM disciplines. It turns out that students studying science and mathematics are not as adrift as most of their peers, scoring higher on the CLA than other major fields (business, education/social work, health. communications, and even engineering/computer science). They do as well (or better) than their counterparts in the social sciences and humanities. If you follow their analysis further, they suggest that students in the sciences/mathematics and social sciences/humanities do better because they work harder – they write and read more, and spend more time studying. On the flip side, their analysis also suggests that they may do better because they are socially and academically advantaged, highlighting the persistent issue of broader participation of under represented minority (URM) students in STEM (For more on this, see a recent issue of New Directions in Institutional Research on Students of Color in STEM).

Overall, though, this is mostly good news for those of us in science and mathematics. But, what should we make of the analysis for students in other disciplines? As Arum and Roksa point out, we all agree that development of critical thinking and complex reasoning skills are important outcomes of higher education for all students – most institutions have statements along these lines in their university learning outcomes. But, what are we doing to really foster these capacities in ALL students? To me, this points us in the direction of general education. Are we taking science requirements in GE seriously enough? Do students take them seriously enough?

To meet general education requirements in the sciences, students at most institutions choose from a menu of courses that typically span the disciplines – Astronomy 101, Rocks for Jocks, Physics for Poets, Baby Biology and so on. You know the drill. These courses are typically created specifically for the non-major and are often lighter on content, designed to be “easier” than the introductory majors courses. What if we upped the ante for non-major science students and challenged them to think and reason as we expect of our science majors in the context of real world issues? Would they rise to the challenge? Both AAC&U and PKAL are working with campuses and national organizations create more real world focused STEM learning experiences for general education students. For example, AAC&U’s Shared Futures project is working with campuses around the country to create more robust, real world general education experiences. And, PKAL is working with eleven professional societies in STEM to advance the work of their members in educating undergraduates for a more sustainable future.