US Colleges - what are you teaching your kids?

[brettDbass]

Debatable whether this should go in Education or General Sckeptiscizm, but who really cares?

What are kids being taught in US colleges these days, huh?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10950526/

May I proudly introduce my first use of this smilie .. :jaw-dropp

[tsg]

I would like to see the results of this survey divided between scientific and non-scientific majors.

[Dogdoctor]

I would be skeptical of this finding since previous studies have shown an association between more college and less religion.

[Jimbo07]

I would be skeptical of this finding since previous studies have shown an association between more college and less religion.

Here's a bet... I bet that you would find more college => less religion, but also => more supernatural/paranormal/spiritual woo

I know that multiple philosophy courses really softened my militant atheism to agnosticism!

[Dogdoctor]

Here's a bet... I bet that you would find more college => less religion, but also => more supernatural/paranormal/spiritual woo

I know that multiple philosophy courses really softened my militant atheism to agnosticism!
I had 8 years of college and during that time I firmed up my agnostic outlook on life. It sounds like college did you some good too.

[brettDbass]

It'd be interesting to see if there's a similar study for Uni students over here in the UK.

I'd also like to see a comparative study of non-collegers and how they develop their beliefs as they grow older.

[Hindmost]

People Believe in Weird Things," he indicates the opposite: More educated people have less belief in paranormal. Shermer's books also indicate that belief in the paranormal decreases with age. (There is much more info in the book related to many factors with people believing in one thing and not believing in some other paranormal stuff. He uses statistcal analysis.)
The msnbc article looked at a freshman and seniors and only 439 students. Statistically, that is a small sample. 1000 students would actually have been much better.

glenn:boxedin:

[CheeseDude]

Shermer's books also indicate that belief in the paranormal decreases with age.
If I remember correctly, belief increases again when people get much older and feel death approaching.

Unfortunalely, far too many professors don't encourage critical thinking. There is so much competitiveness nowadays, students become immersed in texts and memorize evrything so quickly, they just get used to taking things they read about in their studies as facts. When a nice, shiny asrology book looks just like a textbook and uses lots of scientific jargon, it is natural to assume it is correct. I was into astrology after college. Nobody ever once mentioned to me that it might be nonsense. I never learned until much later on with my own life experiences how to think crtically. I consider myself very lucky that I finally paid enough attention to learn this skill by myself.:)

[Hindmost]

If I remember correctly, belief increases again when people get much older and feel death approaching.



Shermer indicated that belief in god increased with age, but belief in paranormal ghosts and demons etc decreased...now, many on this board include god with paranormal, but many separate them.

I agree that college doesn't teach real critical and skeptical thinking. I keep telling my students the skeptics "code" (if I can use that type of term): extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

glenn:boxedin: feeling the same luck...but there is no such thing in critical thinking...huh?!

[CheeseDude]

Shermer indicated that belief in god increased with age, but belief in paranormal ghosts and demons etc decreased...now, many on this board include god with paranormal, but many separate them.
You are correct. I just checked. I agree that a distinction should be made in a study like this. Some beliefs should be expected to increase as we near death i.e. god, afterlife. These beliefs are based on life cycles, while others are merely supernatural and self-contained.:)

[Jeff Corey]

If I remember correctly, belief increases again when people get much older and feel death approaching.

Unfortunalely, far too many professors don't encourage critical thinking. There is so much competitiveness nowadays, students become immersed in texts and memorize evrything so quickly, they just get used to taking things they read about in their studies as facts. ..:)
What planet do those students come from?

[bigred]

"While 23 percent of college freshmen expressed a general belief in paranormal concepts — from astrology to communicating with the dead — 31 percent of seniors did so, and the figure jumped to 34 percent among graduate students."

Wow what a huge gap. :rolleyes: Brilliant conclusions too. Hey we asked a few hundred college kids about their paranormal beliefs and the freshmen scored a little lower than seniors.....therefore "education fuels paranormal beliefs." lol

Yet another example of how just because you have a "study" doesn't exactly mean you "proved" or even really showed evidence of anything.

[eri]

I think it's an interesting result - but like some people have pointed out, the sample size is rather small. I wonder if it was limited to only one university, and if geography had an effect. I've noticed an increase in religious beliefs and belief in general paranormal stuff since I moved south. Dr. Farha is in OK, I believe - I wonder if the study was carried out there? It would be interesting to poll other universities. Maybe I should give my undergrad lab students a quiz on the paranormal. Think I'll get in trouble for conducting psychology experiments on them? :D

[brettDbass]

I think it's an interesting result - but like some people have pointed out, the sample size is rather small. I wonder if it was limited to only one university, and if geography had an effect. I've noticed an increase in religious beliefs and belief in general paranormal stuff since I moved south. Dr. Farha is in OK, I believe - I wonder if the study was carried out there? It would be interesting to poll other universities. Maybe I should give my undergrad lab students a quiz on the paranormal. Think I'll get in trouble for conducting psychology experiments on them? :D
Not necessarily a bad idea, actually.
Is there any benefit to furthering this line of enquiry? Well, yes, there clearly is. If there wasn't I doubt any of us would be here in the first place!

[Aristides]

I think it's an interesting result - but like some people have pointed out, the sample size is rather small. I wonder if it was limited to only one university, and if geography had an effect. I've noticed an increase in religious beliefs and belief in general paranormal stuff since I moved south. Dr. Farha is in OK, I believe - I wonder if the study was carried out there? It would be interesting to poll other universities. Maybe I should give my undergrad lab students a quiz on the paranormal. Think I'll get in trouble for conducting psychology experiments on them? :D

Go ahead and do it. As part of a basic astronomy course (an easy out for students trying to fulfill a basic science requirement) my original advisor used to bring in the previous day's horoscope to the first or second class, read off their predictions minus the name of astrological sign, and have people guess which of the descriptions fit their experiences for that day. The results were what you'd expect, and it allowed the professor to get the subject of astrology out of the way quickly. No matter what your subject there's probably a way to insert a little skeptical survey in without going out of the bounds of the discipline, right?

[eri]

I give them quizzes on the material every other week. I'm sure I could find a way to work skepticism in there SOMEHOW. At the very least, 'define a scientific theory'.

[Hindmost]

I give them quizzes on the material every other week. I'm sure I could find a way to work skepticism in there SOMEHOW. At the very least, 'define a scientific theory'.

I have found with my students that using something truly obsurd helps make the critical thinking point. Using dowsing rods, I find water in the sink or I make astrological predictions of when the world will end--I usually pick a day after the next test--or I try and levitate a 1.0 kilogram mass. Then I ask them why people believe in such things and to show the evidence. The wheels always start turning. I always throw in something like John Edward or the moon hoax--eventually, students start to question such claims...but not all of them.

glenn:boxedin:

[JamesDillon]

I think perhaps there's another way of reading this article such that college students do in fact become more skeptical:

In general college students checked the "Believe" box less than the general population surveyed by Gallup. But the lack of "Don't Believe" responses among college students was lower for six of the 13 categories: psychic or spiritual healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, ghosts, clairvoyance and witches. That means a higher percentage of college students put themselves in the "Not Sure" column on these topics.

This suggests to me that college students may in fact be coming to appreciate the value of critical thinking, and rejecting dogmatism in favor of neutrality as to beliefs about which they (perhaps rightly) feel that they haven't enough information to make an informed judgment. After all, a part of the skeptical viewpoint is that we should be open to accepting any beliefs that are supported by sufficient evidence. If this survey illustrates a trend of college students moving away from a dogmatic non-belief in the paranormal (e.g., "I don't believe in psychics because my parents/church say they aren't real.") to a position of skeptical neutrality ("I don't know whether psychics are real or not, because I haven't seen enough evidence to decide."), that doesn't seem to me to be a negative result from the skeptical perspective.

[bpesta22]

I'd argue the sample size is large-- bigger than needed even.

But, this study screams for a within subjects manipulation. Test the same kids before and after they experience college, and also sort them by major and gpa.

No pretest leads to lots of possible alternate explanations / internal validity confounds.

I didn't read the study, but seniors on average are older than freshman. Does age explain the difference?

Did admissions standards change between freshman admission and when the seniors started?

It might be the case that in this data set, the seniors are more skeptical now then they were before-- they just started school less skeptical than the current batch of freshman.

[slingblade]

I agree that college doesn't teach real critical and skeptical thinking. I keep telling my students the skeptics "code" (if I can use that type of term): extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


I was very fortunate, as well as a little clever. My school offered classes in basic logic and skepticism, and I took them both. I feel well equipped now in critical thinking, to the point where I use it heavily in the HS composition classes I student-teach. The kids love it. They feel like they're learning something even their parents don't know, and we know how kids like that!

Our textbooks for the skeptics class were "Demon-Haunted World," and "The Hundredth Monkey."

Yes, I was one lucky lady.

[Hindmost]

I was very fortunate, as well as a little clever. My school offered classes in basic logic and skepticism, and I took them both. I feel well equipped now in critical thinking, to the point where I use it heavily in the HS composition classes I student-teach. The kids love it. They feel like they're learning something even their parents don't know, and we know how kids like that!

Our textbooks for the skeptics class were "Demon-Haunted World," and "The Hundredth Monkey."

Yes, I was one lucky lady.

My students have indicated that I should teach a class on "Bad Science." Unfortunately, we are shifting to less electives rather than more..budgets etc. I teach skeptical thinking whenever I can. And, as you have said, the students really feel they are learning something unique. I have used the "Demon-Haunted World" in my classes as I really enjoyed that book and Carl Sagan's teachings in general. I believe he did help motivate some people to choose science careers.

glenn:boxedin:

[ceo_esq]

Here's a bet... I bet that you would find more college => less religion, but also => more supernatural/paranormal/spiritual woo

Actually, whatever the explanation, all other things being equal, greater educational attainment is - curiously - linked to greater religiosity. There have been a handful of other threads discussing these findings in the past.

[Jeff Corey]

My students have indicated that I should teach a class on "Bad Science." Unfortunately, we are shifting to less electives rather than more..budgets etc. I teach skeptical thinking whenever I can. And, as you have said, the students really feel they are learning something unique. I have used the "Demon-Haunted World" in my classes as I really enjoyed that book and Carl Sagan's teachings in general. I believe he did help motivate some people to choose science careers.

glenn:boxedin:
Love the Larsen toon. I have it on my door. But the top says, "School for the Gifted."
And, isn't it "We are shifting to fewer electives..."?
Ain't irony fun?

[brettDbass]

Actually, whatever the explanation, all other things being equal, greater educational attainment is - curiously - linked to greater religiosity. There have been a handful of other threads discussing these findings in the past.
Interesting.

As bpesta22 said, a subject breakdown would be most useful here. Do you know if any of these other studies, previous threads or whatever cover that angle?

[bigred]

oops, disregard

[Hindmost]

And, isn't it "We are shifting to fewer electives..."?
Ain't irony fun?

I suppose it is...I am not very literate...mistakes will continue out to infinity.

glenn:boxedin:

[ceo_esq]

Interesting.

As bpesta22 said, a subject breakdown would be most useful here. Do you know if any of these other studies, previous threads or whatever cover that angle?

No, I don't know. However, studies tracking the religious beliefs and practices of faculty (rather than students) have broken down the findings discipline-by-discipline. According to a 1997 paper (http://gunston.doit.gmu.edu/liannacc/ERel/S2-Archives/Iannaccone%20-%20Rationality%20and%20the%20Religious%20Mind-D.pdf) co-authored by then-University of Washington (now Baylor) sociologist Rodney Stark, then-Santa Clara (now George Mason) economist Laurence Iannaccone, and then-Purdue (now Penn State) sociologist Roger Finke:

Note that by every measure, faculty in the "hard" sciences turn out to be more religious than their "soft" science counterparts: they attend church more regularly, are more likely to describe themselves as "deeply" or "moderately" religious, have retained their religious affiliation in greater numbers, and are far less likely to declare themselves opposed to religion. The differences between the soft and hard sciences are large, significant, and … unaffected by controls for age, race, gender, and religious upbringing.

Table 4 also summarizes the social sciences by specific fields. Here we see an additional feature, not previously noted in the literature. It is above all faculty in psychology and anthropology who emerge as towers of unbelief. The other social sciences remain relatively irreligious, but these two fields - the two most closely associated with the "primitive" and "religious" mind theses [i.e. the outdated theses that religion is linked to primitive thinking processes, or to irrationality or neurosis, etc.] - are true outliers. Compared to faculty in the physical sciences, psychologists and anthropologists are almost twice as likely to be irreligious, to never attend church, or to have no religion. One in five actually declare themselves "opposed" to religion. The differences are of such magnitude that one can scarcely imagine their not influencing the tone of conversation, instruction, and research in these two fields. …

The … disciplinary patters remain strong even after controlling for the faculty members' gender, marital status, race, age, and religious upbringing. … The estimated probability changes … reaffirm that, by every available measure, social scientists in general, and psychologists and anthropologists in particular are substantially less religious than faculty in the physical sciences. The regression data also includes faculty from the arts and humanities, and the results show that these faculty are no more religious, and by most measures slightly less religious, than the physical scientists.


If one were to extrapolate the disciplinary findings for faculty to the students, one might expect that increases in religiosity attributable solely to higher education are, broadly speaking, highest among students in the physical sciences, followed closely by students in the arts and humanities, with students in the social sciences showing the lowest (or negative) gains in religiosity through education. However, although this seems a reasonable hypothesis, I know of no study carried out on university students that breaks down findings by area of study which could confirm or deny it.

[bpesta22]

I remember seeing a stat that something like 90+ % of the NAS scientists are atheist or agnostic. I just doubt there are very many social scientists in that group?

I dont buy the explanation using the outdated, primitive mind thesis. Anyone got a better explanation?



I can't imagine biologists as a group are more religious than psychologists; even just those in academics.

[ceo_esq]

I remember seeing a stat that something like 90+ % of the NAS scientists are atheist or agnostic. I just doubt there are very many social scientists in that group?

I dont buy the explanation using the outdated, primitive mind thesis. Anyone got a better explanation?


I can't imagine biologists as a group are more religious than psychologists; even just those in academics.

I believe Finke et al. were examining data from the 1969 Carnegie Commission survey of academia, which they refer to as an "old but underutilized" study. You'd have to refer to the article itself for more information.

[screw_dog]

Please allow me to wade in with an uninformed opinion.

In my line of work I conduct training in various cognitive skills. One of the major facets that we focus on is being cognitively flexible. This translates as: not needing "one correct answer", being comfortable with ambiguity (and lack of knowledge) and accepting that oneself (and authority figures) can be wrong.

It seems to me that these are all the attributes of a good skeptic or scientist. However, when I studied mathematics I was surrounded by people (myself included) who were all searching for the "one correct answer". We all accepted what the lecturer told us without questioning. It's not a huge stretch to imagining the "hard" sciences fostering a similar atmosphere. This, in turn, would lead to more people with cognitive rigidity working in the field, and such cognitive rigidity is wonderfully fertile ground for religion to grow in.

On the other hand, in the "soft" sciences, I imagine there are a whole lot less "correct answers" and a whole lot more complex, incomplete explanations. This would require people to have more cognitive flexibility and hence less religion.

I guess psychology and anthropology help people to see themselves as humans. That is, prone to believe silly things. Maybe that's a good innoculation.

Just my opinion.

[bpesta22]

screw dog-- interesting point. I notice this most strongly with engineers. Hard scientists with only applied / practical interests. They crave the one correct answer.

Too bad the study didn't have info on engineers!

[drkitten]

I believe Finke et al. were examining data from the 1969 Carnegie Commission survey of academia, which they refer to as an "old but underutilized" study. You'd have to refer to the article itself for more information.

Of course, sociological data from 1969 is almost useless, in part because the culture of religion, science, and politics have all shifted remarkably since those days.

One of the key differences between, for example, C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures" analysis and the more relent analysis by Gross and Levitt in "Higher Superstition" is the apparent shift in political allegiance between Snow's two cultures. In Snow's analysis, science and technology (with their apparent 'progressive' outlook) were the culture of the left, while the tendency of science and technology to be associated largely with the conservative "military-industrial complex" was well-marked and documented by the early 1960s and apparently continues through Gross and Levitt. On the other hand, the rise of the extreme religious right in the 1980s and early 90s has shifted many of the traditionally "conservative" scientists back to the left.

Basically.... the data is sufficiently old that I'm not sure how much credibility to give it as a representation of current distributions. We know too much about too many cultural shifts in between....

[ceo_esq]

Of course, sociological data from 1969 is almost useless, in part because the culture of religion, science, and politics have all shifted remarkably since those days.

Your point is well taken, and no doubt there have been many relevant cultural changes in the last 35 years or so, but if Finke and Stark (the latter being probably the pre-eminent active sociologist of religion in this country) think (or thought, in 1997) there's still something useful to be found in religious sociological data from 1969, I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility.

[bpesta22]

Your point is well taken, and no doubt there have been many relevant cultural changes in the last 35 years or so, but if Finke and Stark (the latter being probably the pre-eminent active sociologist of religion in this country) think (or thought, in 1997) there's still something useful to be found in religious sociological data from 1969, I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility.

So, is it religious beliefs causing choice of major, or choice of major causing religious beliefs, or is there some 3rd variable thingy goin' on?

[ceo_esq]

So, is it religious beliefs causing choice of major, or choice of major causing religious beliefs, or is there some 3rd variable thingy goin' on?

That I don't know, but if the cited study about faculty was reasonably accurate, I would guess that we're not dealing with the case of religious beliefs influencing choice of academic specialization, since the authors claimed to control for religious upbringing.

[bpesta22]

well, upringing is only a moderately valid index of belief, I'd bet (where it predicts well in that data set seems to be for those raised as heathens). For example, I was raised catholic.

strength of religious belief when starting college might do it; or perhaps the education one gets, or perhaps something else!

[drkitten]

Your point is well taken, and no doubt there have been many relevant cultural changes in the last 35 years or so, but if Finke and Stark (the latter being probably the pre-eminent active sociologist of religion in this country) think (or thought, in 1997) there's still something useful to be found in religious sociological data from 1969, I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility.

Well, their opinion of "something useful" might not match ours. In particular, I think statements like "my graduate student can get a paper out of this," "if I publish this, I can attend that conference in Paris," and "I hope that this paper helps Roger get tenure" might be regarded as useful from Stark's perspective -- and almost certainly from Roger's -- but not necessarily from ours.... :D

I think the key point in their paper is that religion is not necessarily an anti-rational belief, not necessarily that it corresponds with rational belief in any particular version or at any particular point in time. And while that's certainly worth bearing in mind,.... lumping "religion" (broadly) in with " haunted houses, psychics, telepathy, channeling and a host of other questionable ideas" doesn't validate those beliefs, which I consider to be demonstrably anti-rational.

[ceo_esq]

Well, their opinion of "something useful" might not match ours. In particular, I think statements like "my graduate student can get a paper out of this," "if I publish this, I can attend that conference in Paris," and "I hope that this paper helps Roger get tenure" might be regarded as useful from Stark's perspective -- and almost certainly from Roger's -- but not necessarily from ours.... :D

I think the key point in their paper is that religion is not necessarily an anti-rational belief, not necessarily that it corresponds with rational belief in any particular version or at any particular point in time. And while that's certainly worth bearing in mind,.... lumping "religion" (broadly) in with " haunted houses, psychics, telepathy, channeling and a host of other questionable ideas" doesn't validate those beliefs, which I consider to be demonstrably anti-rational.

Well put. I can't add anything to this.

[bjb]

So college students become more likely to believe in the supernatural? If I didn't know better, I'd wonder if they spent all of their free time drinking and taking drugs.

[brettDbass]

So college students become more likely to believe in the supernatural? If I didn't know better, I'd wonder if they spent all of their free time drinking and taking drugs.
That's crazy talk.