Intellectualism vs. Career Preparation: A Comparative Assessment of Self Reported Growth among Graduating College Seniors

Critical scholars have often proclaimed that US colleges have failed to generate substantial levels of intellectualism among their graduates, and have emphasized career development at the expense of intellectual growth. In addition, such scholars have often stated or implied that US colleges have generated a relatively low level of intellectualism as well as career preparation among their first generation and minority graduates. This study utilized a sample of graduating college seniors who completed the ACT College Outcome Survey to subject such claims to an empirical assessment. The resulting analysis failed to provide any of these claims with empirical support. Further research is needed, however, to subject these claims to a more complete empirical assessment. ********** American undergraduate education has always been constituted by the contrasting, and often competing academic missions of enhancing student intellectualism and preparing students for their future careers. Advocates of student intellectualism have emphasized that students should learn to create and/or appreciate ideas regardless of their practicality, whereas advocates of student careerism have emphasized that students should learn career relevant knowledge and skills. While some commentators have asserted that intellectual and vocational growth are not mutually exclusive (Reisman, 1998; Katchadourian and Boli, 1985), most have adopted a more partial approach, and have chosen to promote either intellectual cultivation (Aronowitz, 2000; Graft, 1999; Rahman, 1997; Hofstadter, 1963; Newman, 1947), or career development (Karabel, 1998; Kerr, 1963). Supporters of an intellectually oriented undergraduate education have been at loggerheads with supporters of a more career relevant education since at least the late eighteenth century (Katchadourian and Boli, 1985). A wide variety of critics have asserted that since that time, supporters of student intellectualism have gradually lost ground (Veblen, 1993; Kerr, 1963; Barrow, 1999; Rahman, 1997 and Aronowitz, 2000). According to Clark Kerr (1963), this trend became particularly pronounced during the post World War Two era. Kerr made the frequently cited proclamation that higher education administrators have largely replaced the intellectual ivory tower model (e.g. the classical model professed by Cardinal Newman, 1947) with a more practical "knowledge industry" model. In Kerr's (1963) view, the transmission of vocationally relevant knowledge and skills has become--in actual practice if not in formal mission statements--the dominant educational mission for the vast majority of american colleges. Kerr welcomed this trend, arguing that it is functional for economic growth. Higher education critics, unlike Kerr, have rarely greeted this trend with enthusiasm. For the most part, they have bemoaned the lack of student intellectualism, and have called on our nations colleges to re-emphasize intellectual growth (Vail, 2001; Aronowitz, 2000; Graft, 1999; Rahman, 1997; Veblen, 1993; Bloom, 1987). Aronowitz (2000), for example, has charged that virtually all of our nation's undergraduates learn in "knowledge factories' in which intellectual creativity and exciting intellectual discussion is rare. He has called on our nations colleges to foster true higher learning (i.e. an intellectually oriented liberal arts curriculum). Critics have generally appreciated that the decline of the liberal arts ideal has been accompanied by a democratization of access to college (e.g. Nasaw, 1979; Karabell, 1998; Rahman, 1997; Aronowitz, 2000). Students who were often excluded from undergraduate life (i.e. working class students, students who are members of minority groups), have been admitted to college in rapidly increasing numbers (see Nasaw, 1979). Critics have frequently asserted, however, that colleges have generally been ill-equipped to handle such students. They have often stated or implied that colleges have generally failed to ensure that they graduate college with high levels of intellectualism and career preparation. …