Major Findings

Colleges Stall Student Learning about America.

Colleges stall student learning about America’s history and institutions, advancing students at a slower annual rate than primary and secondary schools.

A five-year-old kindergartener would have scored about 20% on the American civic literacy exam simply by guessing. The average college freshman scored 50.4%. That means one can estimate that the average student’s score increased 30.4 points—or 2.3 points per year—in the thirteen years from kindergarten through 12th grade. After three years of college, however, the average senior scored 54.2%, a gain of only 3.8 points, or about 1.3 points per year. The college annual rate of gain was only about half the pre-college annual rate of gain.

Nothing More to Learn?

This is not because college students have nothing more to learn. At almost all colleges surveyed, the average freshman and average senior both failed the exam. At the University of Massachusetts, for example, the average freshman scored 46.1%, leaving plenty of room for improvement. Yet, the average Massachusetts senior earned virtually the same failing score of 46.7%. The average student at this flagship university entered college knowing little about America and left college knowing almost nothing more.

Even so, Massachusetts did better than some colleges, where students apparently “unlearned” what they once knew. We call this phenomenon “negative learning.”

At the eight worst-performing colleges, the average senior scored lower than the average freshman. Spending three years at these colleges appears to have reduced one’s knowledge of America.

Meanwhile, at the eight bestperforming colleges, the average senior scored at least eight points higher than the average freshman, posting an annual rate of gain that exceeded the average annual precollege rate of gain. This finding demonstrates that colleges are capable of imparting knowledge about America at a faster annual rate than grade schools, although most colleges do not.

Eastern Connecticut State University (ECSU), where seniors outscored freshmen by 9.65 points, was the best performer in this year’s survey. One of 25 colleges selected randomly, ECSU was not included in last year’s survey.

Rhodes College, where seniors outscored freshmen by 7.42 points, was the best performer among the 18 colleges included in both this year’s and last year’s surveys.

Cornell, an elite college included both this year and last, was the third-worst performer last year and the worst this year. Last year, Cornell seniors scored 3.3 points lower than Cornell freshmen. This year, Cornell seniors scored 4.95 points lower than Cornell freshmen.

Rhodes freshmen this year scored 8.1 points lower than Cornell freshmen, while Rhodes seniors scored 4.2 points higher than Cornell seniors. After three years at Rhodes, students tended to overtake their Ivy League peers.

Apologists for colleges where seniors show little or no gain (or a loss) in civic knowledge may argue that their students devote their college years to different—or more advanced—studies and criticalthinking skills. This argument is unpersuasive for four reasons. First, the civic literacy test did include questions that measured reasoning skills. Second, just as humanities majors in this technological age need to understand the rudiments of math and science, so, too, do scientists and technicians—especially those who are American citizens and future leaders in their communities—need to understand the rudiments of America’s history and institutions.

Third, it is implausible that college students studying history, philosophy, and economics at an advanced level forget the basics and should be excused from remembering them. Just as engineering or physics students need to retain knowledge of multiplication and division, students delving the depths of political philosophy or examining the causes and consequences of the Civil War need to retain knowledge of what the Declaration of Independence said and whether Fort Sumter preceded Appomattox.

Finally, some defenders of the status quo at colleges with poor results have argued that these schools are not attempting to teach students rote knowledge but how to think critically. But given that so many students are entering and leaving these schools with failing grades, this argument falls flat. How can students think rationally on a subject they know little about?

In history departments, some faculty argue that in expanding the curriculum to include nontraditional subjects the teaching of traditional American history is not being lost. The poor results that America’s colleges achieved in this subject, however, tell a different story.

College students are America’s—and in many cases the world’s—future leaders. Deepening their understanding of our nation’s history and institutions is a responsibility colleges must not shirk.