Colleges Are A Failure Academically Adrift Limited Lea

colleges Are A Failure Academically Adrift Limited Lea

Summarize and critically analyze the resource “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses.” Focus on evaluating its approach, structure, design, and validity by identifying its strengths and weaknesses. The analysis should break down the article into parts to better understand the whole, considering how effectively it addresses its audience and supports its argument. Discuss the article's use of language, evidence, and methodology, and compare its rhetorical strategies with other related works or articles. Conclude with an assessment of the article’s overall effectiveness and its implications for stakeholders in higher education.

Paper For Above instruction

The article “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses,” authored by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, presents a critical examination of the actual learning outcomes of college students in the United States. It posits that despite significant investments and the primary mission of higher education institutions to foster intellectual development, many students demonstrate little to no improvement in key skills such as critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and writing during their college tenure. This essay provides a comprehensive rhetorical analysis of the article, exploring its strengths and weaknesses in terms of approach, structure, validity, and persuasive effectiveness.

In its core, Arum and Roksa’s work is grounded in empirical research, utilizing data from transcript surveys, student responses, and the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), a standardized test designed to measure critical skills development. The article effectively highlights its primary audience—higher education administrators, policymakers, faculty, students, and concerned parents—by emphasizing the widespread concern over the quality and value of college education. The authors use accessible, straightforward language to reach a broad audience, including laypeople unfamiliar with complex research methodologies, while still maintaining academic credibility through the presentation of data and rigorous analysis.

The article’s approach is reformist, aiming to expose deficiencies in current higher education practices and provoke change. By openly discussing the discrepancy between the public’s perception of college as a vehicle for intellectual growth and the empirical evidence indicating minimal learning gains, Arum and Roksa challenge the status quo. This persuasive strategy strengthens their ethos, establishing them as credible researchers committed to educational improvement. However, despite their compelling argument, the validity of their claims can be questioned due to the limited sample size—only 2,300 students across 24 institutions—which raises concerns about the generalizability of their findings. Still, their meticulous data collection and transparent methodology lend credibility to their conclusions, although expanding the scope could improve robustness.

Examining the article’s logos, the authors effectively use statistical data to substantiate their claims, such as the 45% of students showing no significant skill improvement. They also acknowledge counterpoints—such as the 30% who reported some gains—adding nuance to their argument. Critically, the article could strengthen its logical appeal by exploring underlying causes more deeply, such as institutional culture or instructional quality, rather than primarily focusing on outcomes. Nonetheless, the logical structure, gradually building from data to implications, makes the argument compelling and accessible.

Regarding ethos, Arum and Roksa establish authority through detailed data analysis and referencing recognized assessments like the CLA, aligning themselves with reputable academic standards. Their tone is serious and urgent, which appeals to ethos but also introduces a tone of critique that may polarize some readers. Pathos is less emphasized but still present; the authors evoke concern by highlighting the potential waste of resources and the societal repercussions of unproductive higher education, which motivates stakeholders to consider reforms.

The discourse community of this article primarily comprises higher education professionals and policymakers, as evidenced by its focus on institutional practices, assessment tools, and policy implications. However, its language is intentionally simplified enough for the general public, indicating an effort to reach a broader audience. When compared to specialized articles targeting academic peers, Arum and Roksa’s work is more accessible and less technical, emphasizing clarity over jargon. This strategic choice broadens its impact but potentially limits detailed technical debate.

In comparison with Perez & Ponce’s “Success and Failures—the Bilingual Student in Higher Education,” which concentrates on specific demographic groups within the educational system, “Academically Adrift” provides a national overview with broad implications. While Perez & Ponce’s article employs disciplinary jargon tailored to educators working with bilingual students, Arum and Roksa’s work avoids such terminology, making their message more universally digestible. However, this simplicity might dilute some of the nuanced complexities involved in higher education's effectiveness, and a more detailed exploration of causative factors would strengthen the article’s argumentative depth.

Despite its strengths, the article exhibits weaknesses. Its limited sample size, geographical scope, and focus on initial student years reduce the generalizability of findings across all higher education contexts. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the study cannot definitively establish causality between institutional practices and student outcomes. Furthermore, the article’s reformist tone, while compelling, might be perceived as overly negative or alarmist, risking alienation of institutional stakeholders resistant to change.

In conclusion, “Academically Adrift” makes a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about higher education’s effectiveness by presenting empirical evidence of limited student learning gains. Its approach is accessible, data-driven, and intended to provoke reform, though its methodological limitations suggest caution in interpreting its findings universally. The article’s careful balance of ethos, logos, and pathos enhances its persuasive power, but further research and broader sampling are necessary to fully validate its claims. Overall, it serves as a critical wake-up call for higher education stakeholders to reconsider and improve their practices, ensuring that colleges fulfill their primary mission of fostering meaningful learning and societal advancement.

References

• Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2014). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. The University of Chicago Press.
• American Council on Education. (2012). The State of Higher Education: An Empirical Analysis. ACE Reports.
• Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Jossey-Bass.
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The Condition of Education. NCES Reports.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Does Higher Education Lead to Higher Critical Thinking Skills? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 290-304.
• Brint, S. (2010). The Future of Higher Education. Stanford University Press.
• Baum, S., & Payea, K. (2013). The Value of College: A Meta-Analysis. College Board Advocacy & Policy Center.
• Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success. ACE/CCA Reports.
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. PCAST.
• Hills, J. (2010). The Collateral Damage of College Rip-Offs. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(2), 42-49.