What do you think?
Rate this book
Are You Smart Enough?
This book explores the many ways in which the obsession with being smart distorts the life of a typical college or university, and how this obsession leads to a higher education that shortchanges the majority of students, and by extension, our society s need for an educated population. The author calls on his colleagues in higher education to return the focus to the true mission of developing the potential of each student: However smart they are when they get to college, both the student and the college should be able to show what they learned while there.Unfortunately, colleges and universities have embraced two very narrow definitions of smartness: the course grade and especially the standardized test. A large body of research shows that it will be very difficult for colleges to fulfill their stated mission unless they substantially broaden their conception to include student qualities such as leadership, social responsibility, honesty, empathy, and citizenship. Specifically, the book grapples with issues such as the following: Why America s 3,000-plus colleges and universities have evolved into a hierarchical pecking order, where institutions compete with each other to recruit smart students, and where a handful of elite institutions at the top of the pecking order enroll the smartest students. Why higher education favors its smartest students to the point where the not so smart students get second-class treatment. Why so many colleges find it difficult to make good on their commitment to affirmative action and equality of opportunity. Why college faculties tend to value being smart more than developing students smartness (i.e., teaching and learning)."
- GenresEducationNonfiction
160 pages, Paperback
First published April 30, 2016
6 people are currently reading
241 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
August 30, 2018
This should be required reading for people who work in higher education. Dr. Astin nails one of the big problems facing public higher ed: Prioritizing rankings and prestige over student learning, hurting students. He describes several ways this happens:
1. Misuse of grades and standardized tests: He makes a good case for why the use of grades and standardized tests are not used to gauge student learning accurately (we know they don't), but to rank and divide students, thus facilitating the weeding out of students who aren't "smart enough."
2. Faculty culture that prioritizes prestige and self-aggrandizement -- which he conceptualizes as "smartness" – over helping students learn. He lays bare the skewed value system that gives the most prestige to faculty who take very well prepared students and manage to not interrupt their rising trajectories and reserves the least prestige for faculty who work with poorly prepared students and actually add value to their learning. He rightly notes that this is troubling for all public institutions, but particularly so for those with land grant missions.
3. Systemic issues with funding: Most states arrange their public institutions hierarchically – research institutions at the top, community colleges at the bottom, etc. -- and then fund the schools in an upside down manner, giving those with the greatest need for resources -- those that serve more underprepared and underrepresented students -- the least amount of funding and giving those with the most well-prepared students (and the least need for support) the highest levels of funding. This has a real cost in student completion.
We in higher education like to believe that we are the good guys, the ones who help students transcend their circumstances and go on to economically secure and enriched lives. Astin shows how often this just isn't true. He offers some solutions, like using thoughtful narrative feedback in lieu of grades and using standardized testing that is criterion-referenced, so students are compared against a standard, not against how they rank among all test-takers.
Some quibbles: I think administrators are equally complicit in this sorry situation and he spares them too much. The book is a bit superficial and I would have preferred a deeper dive into the topic. Finally, I think some of his solutions may not be tenable in large institutions where faculty teach large numbers of students, some with few resources like graduate assistants, or are beyond the ability of higher ed employees to effect, such as our states’ funding models.
That said, this is a good start for anyone who's just starting to think about how many institutions of higher ed have, intentionally or unintentionally, become engines of inequality and how we can do better.
1. Misuse of grades and standardized tests: He makes a good case for why the use of grades and standardized tests are not used to gauge student learning accurately (we know they don't), but to rank and divide students, thus facilitating the weeding out of students who aren't "smart enough."
2. Faculty culture that prioritizes prestige and self-aggrandizement -- which he conceptualizes as "smartness" – over helping students learn. He lays bare the skewed value system that gives the most prestige to faculty who take very well prepared students and manage to not interrupt their rising trajectories and reserves the least prestige for faculty who work with poorly prepared students and actually add value to their learning. He rightly notes that this is troubling for all public institutions, but particularly so for those with land grant missions.
3. Systemic issues with funding: Most states arrange their public institutions hierarchically – research institutions at the top, community colleges at the bottom, etc. -- and then fund the schools in an upside down manner, giving those with the greatest need for resources -- those that serve more underprepared and underrepresented students -- the least amount of funding and giving those with the most well-prepared students (and the least need for support) the highest levels of funding. This has a real cost in student completion.
We in higher education like to believe that we are the good guys, the ones who help students transcend their circumstances and go on to economically secure and enriched lives. Astin shows how often this just isn't true. He offers some solutions, like using thoughtful narrative feedback in lieu of grades and using standardized testing that is criterion-referenced, so students are compared against a standard, not against how they rank among all test-takers.
Some quibbles: I think administrators are equally complicit in this sorry situation and he spares them too much. The book is a bit superficial and I would have preferred a deeper dive into the topic. Finally, I think some of his solutions may not be tenable in large institutions where faculty teach large numbers of students, some with few resources like graduate assistants, or are beyond the ability of higher ed employees to effect, such as our states’ funding models.
That said, this is a good start for anyone who's just starting to think about how many institutions of higher ed have, intentionally or unintentionally, become engines of inequality and how we can do better.
May 12, 2016
Didn't really learn anything new. I could have Googled most of this information. There's weird spacing in the word it on page 31.
July 13, 2019
I admire Dr. Astin's work, but this is far from his best. It perhaps was cathartic for him to write it, but the result is a somewhat shrill and underdocumented work, and a tediously repetitious one. While I actually agree with much (or even most) of what is written in the book, it could have been done a lot better and more carefully.
Astin correctly reports our national preoccupation with rankings. Higher education was forever changed by the US News ratings, which appeared in the early 1980's. They are widely venerated even though they measure nothing meaningful about education. In addition, there is a tendency for everyone to value colleges in proportion to their selectivity and average college testing scores. Yes, this is unfortunate, but I am not optimistic that it will ever change. While Astin attributes it to a national obsession with smartness, I see it more as a preoccupation with getting a leg up on a future career path. College choice, in which I have worked for many decades, is, sadly, too often more about seeking prestige than seeking to associate with smart peers.
As Astin point out, colleges compete to enroll students with the strongest testing and grades. He attributes this to faculty pressure. However, at the three highly selective institutions where I headed admission offices, this pressure came much more from the administration than from the faculty. I never experienced a faculty admission committee which was very active. The obsession was to rise in the US News ratings, on which many colleges these days focus management. Higher ratings mean more prestige, more applications, more grants and higher bond ratings.
The point where I agree most fervently with Astin is when he points out how deficient colleges are in assessing educational outcomes. There is an illusion that the most prestigious schools educate students most effectively. However, given their intake, their graduates are going to look good. My question is how much better do they look than if they had enrolled somewhere else.
Astin also talks, correctly, that the main thrust of admissions decision and education is on smartness. He discusses many other values which are important: creativity, leadership, service, etc. and urges colleges to focus more on these. However, he never mentioned the National Survey of Student Engagement which has many institutional members and adheres to this mission.
Before I worked in admissions, I taught in a public high school. My experience agrees with Astin's perspective that mainstreaming the less prepared students works better than creating separate classes for them. I also am saddened to agree with his assertion that faculty at all levels are rarely enthusiastic about working with the less gifted students. Really smart students are much easier to teach, but not necessarily more rewarding.
I also agree with Astin's perspective that all institutions, but especially public ones, should embrace the mission of educating all their students with equal resources and enthusiasm. But this qould require a lot of additional resources, in a culture which is annually reducing funding for institutions of higher education. He cites the special services offered to student athletes as an example of how this can be done. However, these services are extensive and would be expensive to implement on a universal scale.
Where I was totally lost in the implication that all colleges should refrain from making achievement and "smartness" the focus of their admission decisions. In fairness, he does not actually say this, but I got a sense that all institutions should either be open enrollment, or admit students based on a range of other qualities besides academic prowess. Open enrollment for all institutions, of course, does not make sense. Schools have a right to have different missions. And using the other qualities he mentions is a worthy proposal, but to date despite many experiments, no school has found away to do this. In particular, weaker secondary schools are unlikely to be able to produce the information, which would largely have to come from recommendations, to identify students with special personal strengths.
In passing, Astin makes a number of good points which it is impossible to consider effectively in a book of such modest length. Hiring and evaluating faculty is inappropriately focused more on research production than teaching skills. Less prepared students are too frequently taught by part-time adjuncts (though he never addresses the preponderance of adjuncts now used for all students by so many institutions), and the inadequate training PhDs get in skills to teach these students -- and again, PhDs are actually poorly trained to teach students at any ability level. The best college teachers have learned "in the saddle" how to do this well.
We have here a bit of a screed, though with some good points and many good intentions. It is perhaps best seen as an outline for things which merit further and wider discussion. I wish I could be optimistic that will take place.
Astin correctly reports our national preoccupation with rankings. Higher education was forever changed by the US News ratings, which appeared in the early 1980's. They are widely venerated even though they measure nothing meaningful about education. In addition, there is a tendency for everyone to value colleges in proportion to their selectivity and average college testing scores. Yes, this is unfortunate, but I am not optimistic that it will ever change. While Astin attributes it to a national obsession with smartness, I see it more as a preoccupation with getting a leg up on a future career path. College choice, in which I have worked for many decades, is, sadly, too often more about seeking prestige than seeking to associate with smart peers.
As Astin point out, colleges compete to enroll students with the strongest testing and grades. He attributes this to faculty pressure. However, at the three highly selective institutions where I headed admission offices, this pressure came much more from the administration than from the faculty. I never experienced a faculty admission committee which was very active. The obsession was to rise in the US News ratings, on which many colleges these days focus management. Higher ratings mean more prestige, more applications, more grants and higher bond ratings.
The point where I agree most fervently with Astin is when he points out how deficient colleges are in assessing educational outcomes. There is an illusion that the most prestigious schools educate students most effectively. However, given their intake, their graduates are going to look good. My question is how much better do they look than if they had enrolled somewhere else.
Astin also talks, correctly, that the main thrust of admissions decision and education is on smartness. He discusses many other values which are important: creativity, leadership, service, etc. and urges colleges to focus more on these. However, he never mentioned the National Survey of Student Engagement which has many institutional members and adheres to this mission.
Before I worked in admissions, I taught in a public high school. My experience agrees with Astin's perspective that mainstreaming the less prepared students works better than creating separate classes for them. I also am saddened to agree with his assertion that faculty at all levels are rarely enthusiastic about working with the less gifted students. Really smart students are much easier to teach, but not necessarily more rewarding.
I also agree with Astin's perspective that all institutions, but especially public ones, should embrace the mission of educating all their students with equal resources and enthusiasm. But this qould require a lot of additional resources, in a culture which is annually reducing funding for institutions of higher education. He cites the special services offered to student athletes as an example of how this can be done. However, these services are extensive and would be expensive to implement on a universal scale.
Where I was totally lost in the implication that all colleges should refrain from making achievement and "smartness" the focus of their admission decisions. In fairness, he does not actually say this, but I got a sense that all institutions should either be open enrollment, or admit students based on a range of other qualities besides academic prowess. Open enrollment for all institutions, of course, does not make sense. Schools have a right to have different missions. And using the other qualities he mentions is a worthy proposal, but to date despite many experiments, no school has found away to do this. In particular, weaker secondary schools are unlikely to be able to produce the information, which would largely have to come from recommendations, to identify students with special personal strengths.
In passing, Astin makes a number of good points which it is impossible to consider effectively in a book of such modest length. Hiring and evaluating faculty is inappropriately focused more on research production than teaching skills. Less prepared students are too frequently taught by part-time adjuncts (though he never addresses the preponderance of adjuncts now used for all students by so many institutions), and the inadequate training PhDs get in skills to teach these students -- and again, PhDs are actually poorly trained to teach students at any ability level. The best college teachers have learned "in the saddle" how to do this well.
We have here a bit of a screed, though with some good points and many good intentions. It is perhaps best seen as an outline for things which merit further and wider discussion. I wish I could be optimistic that will take place.
August 24, 2018
While the book is great at looking critically at higher education institutions, it makes many assumptions, provides anecdotal information and drags it out to a certain degree. It primarily blames faculty interested in knowledge or smartness and not in growth and learning, which I think is a bit of a stretch but understandable. Astin’s solutions I think are fantastic at improving higher education but his approach is not that great.
July 5, 2018
If you work in education it has some thought-provoking assertions. It has some suggestions to improve the problems, but it would take bravery, innovation and a huge paradigm shift in education to implement those changes. At any rate, it certainly calls us to find ways to teach students how to become smart rather than expecting them to come to us that way.
August 7, 2017
Although repetitive, Austin's book raises some valid points about the serious issues facing higher education in America today. Worthwhile (though you can skim in places) if you work in education.
June 17, 2016
A good read that asks colleges (and prospective applicants) to think beyond "inputs" (the incoming class's grades and scores) and focus more on "outputs," that is, how well they've actually educated their students. A tough task, definitely. Astin offers some ideas about why colleges focus on the former over the latter as well, and offers some possible "ways out" of the dilemma. Sometimes repetitive and a little disjointed, it still challenges some assumptions about the quality of institutions and provides food for discussion.
August 9, 2016
I received an advance reading copy of this book in a goodreads giveaway, and I feel that I have learned a lot. As a "gifted" student, I never noticed that schools are designed for the "smart" students, putting the majority of students at a disadvantage. Astin provides a strong argument to prove this and discusses methods of improvement.
August 17, 2016
Eh. I don't disagree, but the arguments feel dated though. Not my favorite from Sandy.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews