The Intercollegiate Studies Institute launched a worthwhile project recently: it surveyed 14,000 students at 50 schools as part of the largest study ever done on college students’ understanding of American democracy and political institutions. They didn’t just pick any college, either; the ISI study picked 25 schools at random, and then oversampled among the most selective schools, and added 25 Ivy League-schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.
As ISI’s Mike Ratliff told Newsweek, the results weren’t encouraging.
“Basically, we found that the freshmen arriving on campus were not very well prepared to take on their future responsibility as citizens. They earned a failing grade on our test. [The average participating freshman got 51.7 percent of the questions correct.] But after four to five years in college, we found that seniors, as a group, scored only 1.5 percent better than the entering freshmen.
“We looked at each field: government, American history, economics and international affairs, and came up with 60 themes. We then had classroom faculty come up with 60 questions that covered those specific areas that every citizen should know something about, like the thinking of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King and what part of the century the American Revolution and Civil War were fought.”
I’d like to get a closer look at these questions, but if nearly half of college students aren’t sure which “part of the century” the American Revolution and Civil War were fought, it’s not exactly encouraging.
Ratliff added, “If don’t understand how a democracy operates or what the Bill of Rights guarantees, you may not be able to do your part to preserve these institutions into the future.” Fair enough.
I’m curious, though, about whether this is a new phenomenon.
Have 18- to 22-year-olds, in general, ever been deeply engaged in civic affairs, or is this something that tends to develop in time, after people enter the workforce, start families, pay taxes, etc.?
Ratliff says this is a relatively new problem.
“I think there has been a deterioration of rigor in college and university curriculums. Derek Bok, the former president of Harvard, published a book last year called “Our Underachieving Colleges,” and it expressed his concern that students were not getting the kind of education colleges and universities committed to in previous generations.”
That sounds reasonable, but more classes may not be enough. Stephen Earl Bennett wrote a fascinating journal item recently in which he noted that the link between civics/history classes and informed citizenship is “extremely weak.” He points to cultural changes as the key.
One possible solution is deliberative polls, as suggested by University of Texas professor James Fishkin. The 2004 ANES found, for example, that persons who reported discussing politics with family and friends were significantly better informed than those who eschewed political talk. It is likely that political information and political discussions are mutually reinforcing.
Another approach would be to show young people that apathy and ignorance have palpably negative consequences. Public spending on education, for example, is waning while outlays for benefits to the elderly — who are, on average, politically interested, knowledgeable, and engaged — are waxing. As public colleges and universities raise tuition to make up for diminished funding, students — and their parents, who usually pay the bills — ought to be interested.
Teaching young folk — and many of their elders — that they have a duty to be politically alert and informed, and that people benefit when they know what’s happening in the political world, will not be easy. Given information’s importance to a democratic citizenry, though, it might be worth trying.
Food for thought.