Disciplinary categories, majors, and undergraduate academic experiences: Rethinking Bok’s “underachieving colleges” thesis

Using data from the 2008 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey, we show that study time and academic conscientiousness were lower among students in humanities and social science majors than among students in science and engineering majors. Analytical and critical thinking experiences were no more evident among humanities and social sciences majors than among science and engineering majors. All three academically beneficial experiences were, however, strongly related to participation in class and interaction with instructors, and participation was more common among humanities and social sciences students than among science and engineering students. Bok’s (2006) influential discussion of “underachievement’ in undergraduate education focused on institutional performance. Our findings indicate that future discussions should take into account differences among disciplinary categories and majors as well. Post-war higher education advocates spoke of “talent waste” (Wolfle 1954), because many young people who might have profited from higher education were denied access for lack of financial support or places in the system. Today, the term “talent waste” has a second meaning. Although issues of access have not been solved, most students who complete high school degrees do go on for post-secondary work (Bound, Lovenheim & Turner 2009). However, relatively few spend their time in college focusing on their studies or developing their core academic skills. Instead, social life dominates the time of most college students. For this reason, talent waste is now also a product of a higher education system that demands relatively little of most of its undergraduate students. The amount of time students spend on their studies in and out of class has fallen by about 15 hours a week since the early 1960s, controlling for socio-demographic and institutional