Gaps in required curricula may explain differences in climate change acceptance among college graduates

The average American college student has just a 17 percent chance of learning about climate change before graduation through required core courses. The finding may help explain why having a bachelor's degree doesn't always lead to increased acceptance of human-caused global warming, according to new research led by Vanderbilt sociologist David Hess. Undergraduate Brandi Collins, who has since graduated, contributed to the paper, "Climate Change and Higher Education: Assessing factors that affect curriculum requirements" available online now and appearing in print in the January 1, 2018, issues of the Journal of Cleaner Production.

Although a degree can lead to increased acceptance of , recent work in environmental sociology has found that the increases are unevenly distributed across ideological lines. Hess and Collins theorized that one culprit may simply be self-selection: because colleges offer hundreds of courses every semester, only the students already predisposed to accepting change choose to learn enough about it to change their minds.

To measure how likely students are to receive education on climate change through required courses, the researchers examined the menu of courses that comprise the core curriculum at 90 top-ranked colleges and universities.

For each school, they then calculated the likelihood that at least one of the required courses would cover climate change from a scientific, social, or cultural angle. Perhaps unsurprisingly, students were by far the most likely to learn about climate science as part of their natural science core than any other area, but even among those course options the likelihood was low—around 5 percent. Added together, the average likelihood was just 17 percent.

"The result is that there's a very small chance—about one in five—that a will learn about climate change through required core courses," Hess said.

Hess and Collins found trends between types of schools as well. Research universities were more likely to make climate change a part of their core curricula than liberal arts colleges, and public research universities in states with Democrat-controlled statehouses were more likely than those in split or Republican-led ones.

"I don't think that means there's direct supervision by the state legislature, but there may be a percolation of priorities," he said. "It could also reflect general cultural differences between red and blue states as to what areas of hiring and teaching are prioritized."

Finally, the researchers sought to identify best practices for exposing as many students as possible to . Columbia University does this very well, they noted, by incorporating a climate change segment into a required course. Even schools that do not have a single, required course can increase the odds by adding more climate-related courses to the core curriculum. "But the second option won't overcome the problem of self-selection," Hess said. "As educators we need to be thinking more about how much we prioritize this important topic."


Explore further

Climate change misconceptions common among teachers, study finds

More information: David J. Hess et al. Climate change and higher education: Assessing factors that affect curriculum requirements, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.215
Journal information: Journal of Cleaner Production

Citation: Gaps in required curricula may explain differences in climate change acceptance among college graduates (2017, December 8) retrieved 16 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-12-gaps-required-curricula-differences-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
6 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 08, 2017
"The finding may help explain why having a bachelor's degree doesn't always lead to increased acceptance of human-caused global warming, ........"

These programming gaps are unacceptable and the Ministry of Truth must evaluate each professor to make sure that the prescribed agenda is being followed!!!!!

Dec 08, 2017
Do you ever get tired of spewing the same garbage, MR166?

Dec 08, 2017
NOPE!

I will continue to point it out whenever a political agenda overrides scientific truth. The fact is that there is always room and always should be room for disagreement in science. Assuming that there is something wrong when everyone with a degree does not share the same thoughts is ludicrous.

Dec 09, 2017
Environmental sociology. I didn't realize the environment had social relationships. Good thing someone's studying it. I wonder if they ever thought to study the science of climate before assuming that "exposing as many students as possible" to the theory that humans are causing unprecedented and catastrophic climate change is a good thing.

One would think that exposing as many students as possible to a course on basic personal finances or health and fitness would be vastly more useful. But thank heaven alarmists are willing to compel the rest of us to be indoctrinated in their beliefs for our own good. How would we survive without them?

Dec 09, 2017
The ability to think your way out of a crumpled paper bag is not taught in schools today in the US.

My observation says it can't be taught. You either are born with the IQ points or you are not. What's material to me here is how many who have it are discouraged from using it by individuals like @assdad.

You're either part of the solution or part of the problem.

Dec 09, 2017
The purpose of education is to teach people how to think, not what to think. Expecting every graduate to think alike is not education but indoctrination.

Dec 09, 2017
"Students Learn Climate Change Advocacy, Not Climate Science
JUL 13, 2016 David R. Legates

"For almost thirty years, I have taught climate science at three different universities. What I have observed is that students are increasingly being fed climate change advocacy as a surrogate for becoming climate science literate. This makes them easy targets for the climate alarmism that pervades America today.

Earth's climate probably is the most complicated non-living system one can study because it naturally is an integration of chemistry, physics, biology, geology, hydrology, oceanography, and cryology and also includes human behavior by responding to and affecting human activities."

-IOW they're taught politics not science. Belief not understanding. What to think rather than how to think.

The fact that they're being taught activism rather than science sort of leads one to suspect that some sort of concerted deception is taking place no?

Dec 09, 2017
Go ahead, actually point to some evidence that proves any one of the following:
1: Global temperatures are not rising.
2: Carbon Dioxide does not increase the greenhouse effect.
3: Humans aren't responsible for atmospheric carbon dioxide increases over the past century.

But you can't. Oh, you may point to some right-wing blog or oil company website, but not to any actual scientific work. So here's one more piece of evidence you need before you can be considered anything other than a propaganda-spewing troll:

4: Proof that a conspiracy exists, and has paid off every single god damned climate scientist on earth.

Dec 09, 2017
http://business.f...e-mauled

If one dares to publish research that contradicts the accepted dogma good by career and hello harassment.

Dec 09, 2017
That's cute. https://www.thegu...-reveals

Now answer the questions, or shut up.


Dec 09, 2017
MR166
The purpose of education is to teach people how to think, not what to think
Ahh - so just throw away the text books - knowledge is not important - the only important thing is 'how to think.' And who defines 'how to think?' It seems that you have a great deal of difficulty in that arena. You come onto a science site - and link to blogs, and breitbart. Let's take this link you present - http://business.f...e-mauled It is an opinion piece - in a business journal. It refers to Susan Crockford - as a "polar bear scientist." But she is a zoologist - and a blogger. She is not a research scientist - yet your article talks about her 'research.' It is staggering to watch the conservatives - trying to discredit science - and making such fools of themselves. Why don't you quote some science MR, not blog articles?

Dec 10, 2017
Wow, citing Brietbart. Why don't you just tell me to read Mein Kampf directly?

Dec 10, 2017
It's easy enough to talk down the liberals when they're running things and things aren't getting better fast enough, but now watch the right wingnuts *really* screw things up.

You can aspire to Mad Max or you can aspire to Star Trek. What you'll get is probably Blade Runner.

Dec 10, 2017
"It's easy enough to talk down the liberals when they're running things and things aren't getting better fast enough............"

BETTER?????


Dec 10, 2017
"Wow, citing Brietbart. Why don't you just tell me to read Mein Kampf directly?"

And yet PTTG you will not hesitate to use the Guardian as a reference.

The fact is that where a paper or article appears is not as important as the validity of the information presented. If one only reads info that is presented by one side of the argument one cannot form a valid opinion. If fact that is how real science works. A paper either proves or disproves others that have gone before it. As an example, NASA and NOAA constantly revise historical temperature records and it is perfectly reasonable for others to prove or disprove the validity of these changes. NASA and NOAA are not final arbiters of historical records.

Dec 10, 2017
Onions polar bears are as good an example as any of the fraud being perpetrated by the CO2 lobby as any. Hurricanes are another. https://wattsupwi...ndfalls/

The so called "science" is far from settled. Here in P.org papers are published daily blaming increasing CO2 for every possible negative occurrence. Sorry buddy, this is not science it is propaganda.

Dec 10, 2017
Onions polar bears are as good an example as any of the fraud being perpetrated by the CO2 lobby
Really MR - please show us who is engaged in this fraud. My bet is that you dont show us science articles - but popular media. I have done a lot of reading regarding the polar bears. Scientists who are actually studying the bears are pretty consistent in terms of their current understanding. Due to the international agreement in 1973, polar bear populations clearly rebounded. Populations are difficult to measure exactly - due to the nomadic nature of the bears, and the wide range. Currently populations appear to be stable - at approx 25,000 bears.
Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, three are declining, six are stable, one is increasing, and nine have insufficient data, as of 2014

From https://en.wikipe...ribution
The concern for the scientists is regarding the future of the bears (cont)

Dec 10, 2017
Da by "Better" do you mean Europe's culture being overrun by Progressive sponsored immigration, mass rapes and the proliferation of "No Go" zones that the governments vehemently refuse to acknowledge?

Dec 10, 2017
Here is a quick overview of the current understanding - https://polarbear...QAvD_BwE
And an explanation of why scientists are sounding the alarm in terms of their predictions regarding the future - http://www.iflsci...ar-bear/

The problem MR is not science - it is people like you who never learned to appreciate science - and confuse your political views with science. As a result of a country like the U.S. - that seems to have a very large population of uneducated people like yourself - we are struggling to draw attention to the SCIENCE - that is telling us there is a problem. You get your science from Breitbart - and don't care about the future.

Dec 10, 2017
MR
If one only reads info that is presented by one side of the argument one cannot form a valid opinion
One can form a valid opinion - by looking at the facts. Let me show you how stupid your assertion is (and it is thrown at us by the dullards who are attacking science all the time.) If I ask you how old the earth is - what 2 sides of the argument would you reference? A smart person would go to a geology text, or look on the internet - and see what the current scientific consensus is. Here - https://www.scien...e-earth/
You on the other hand would turn to Ken Ham - and side with the other 'side' of the argument. That seems to be why so many try to point out your sloppy politicized thinking - but no one seems to get through to you.

Dec 10, 2017
"The ability to think your way out of a crumpled paper bag is not taught in schools today in the US. "

Given that 'what gets measured gets done', students are generally taught to pass tests rather than think outside the box...

"My observation says it can't be taught. You either are born with the IQ points or you are not."

Um, 'nature vs nurture' ? In my experience, 'curiosity' may trump 'IQ'...

{ Sorry for erratic typing-- Our boss-cat is 'helping' me !! }

Dec 10, 2017
MR
Sorry buddy, this is not science it is propaganda
Awsome - show us an example of a science paper - that is factually incorrect - and actually propaganda. You do not even understand that physorg is NOT science. physorg is a great web site - but it is NOT science. They do publish some rubbish. That is fine - smart people can filter. You can't.

Dec 10, 2017
Here is an example of a paper that is pure B.S.

https://phys.org/...ics.html

They are trying to imply that a plastic device is creating a routable Wi-fi signal with a unique IP address and real packets.

Dec 10, 2017
Onions perhaps you would like some B.S. from MIT this time eh.

https://phys.org/...nds.html

This process uses more fossil energy to run than it creates.

Dec 10, 2017
In fact, this article sounds more like indoctrination to propaganda than a discussion of fact. It proceeds from a presumption that the idea addressed is necessarily true and then go on to examine tricks to use to try to convince people. Proving the concept isn't considered, only "changing people's minds".
"Climate" is the interacting, self regulating system of influences, including land, sea, atmosphere, solar radiation, life. Face it, only the behavior of the air, really has changed. The other influences are as they were before. It is a separate influence altogether that is changing the air. If that influence stopped, everything would be as it was around 1950. That is why climatologists declare they see no evidence of "climate change" because only the air is being altered, and that is because of chemtrails.
Consider, if those who deny the presence of God saw this article about Intelligent Design, how many wouldn't call this indoctrination?

Dec 10, 2017
MR
They are trying to imply that a plastic device is creating a routable Wi-fi signal with a unique IP address and real packet
MR - here is the actual article - that is linked from physorg. - http://printedwif...wifi.pdf
Note this quote -
Finally, we present proof-of-concept 3D printed Wi-Fi sensors,
input widgets and smart objects that demonstrate the potential of
our 3D printable computational designs
In other words - they actually made one - and showed that it worked. Now the technical electronics stretched my understanding - but basically you are saying - "It is impossible to do what they have done - cuz I know about ip addresses Why don't you contact the authors - and tell them that you know better than they do - and what the actually accomplished in real life - is impossible. I wish you could understand how stupid you come off all the time.

Dec 10, 2017
MR
This process uses more fossil energy to run than it creates
Which means it would not be very good as a primary energy source. But they tell you in the article - that it can be used for creating
chemical feedstocks for a wide variety of products.
So if you can take a waste product - and turn it into both energy - and feedstocks - it may be a good deal. It may not be. It is primary research - and may not pan out. We read articles all the time that sound great - but we never see the product in the real world. That is how it works. And I dont care that you are too stupid to even understand a point that is explained to you over and over - but I wish you would all stop trying to ham string science...

Dec 10, 2017
@MR is flailing. Can't stick to the subject of the article.

This is about education. And the sorry state of it with regard to science, not to mention how to think in logical connected ways and follow evidence to a conclusion. @MR is a great example of the lack of the kind of difficult logical construction training that so-called "modern" education systems exhibit.

Dec 10, 2017
@Nik I didn't care to respond to you in the same post with one about @MR, since I wouldn't want you to think I equate your attitude with that one.

You are correct, there is an effect from both nature and nurture, but neither works without the other. I cannot emphasize enough the number of people who had plenty of education and training but no ability to think about difficult subjects and long strings of logical inference. Both are necessary for real capability to emerge. What I was speaking to is the number of people who have the real capability but never got the training; this is a waste. What makes it even worse is the amount of training wasted on those who never had the capability in the first place and were never going to learn it. This is the myth that intelligence is trainable. It's not unless the capacity already exists.

When I encounter someone who has both the capacity and the training, I know it, and so does everyone else who's ever seen it.

Dec 10, 2017
Onions reread the article carefully, especially the part where they plan to mix the CO they produced with nat gas and sell it on the open market as fuel. I ask you why on earth would they do that when their power plant uses natural gas as the original feed stock?

Dec 10, 2017
@MR the subject is education, not global warming and not alternative energy.

On Earth.

Dec 10, 2017
Onions reread the article carefully
I did MR. What they are proposing is generating electricity using Methane. The C02 from burning that methane - could then be separated by their new membrane into oxygen, and C0. The C0 could then be used to produce syngas, or chemical feed stock. This prevents the waste C02 from being dumped into the atmosphere - and uses it constructively. Sounds like a good idea. The point is that you and I are not qualified to determine if this is a viable process or not. Maybe it will pan out and be adopted - or maybe not. The point is that your education is so shitty - that you don't understand that you are not qualified to discount work done by researchers like this. The scientific process - and the market place will eventually determine the viability of the process. Don't experiment with something - you don't learn. You are the problem we are talking about today.

Dec 10, 2017
Onions you might believe in perpetual motion be it mechanical or chemical but I don't. The best they could accomplish is utilizing the waste heat of the powerplant but that is not emphasized. Selling the gas produced on the open market to offset costs is just plain silly when the power plant uses the very same gas to generate the electricity. If they said that the overall efficiency of the plant could be increased by x% by utilizing CO produced by the process then I would agree that it is worthwhile and that it would decrease CO2 emissions.

As presented, the process appears to lower efficiency and actually increase CO2 emissions since they are burning nat gas directly ( 2nd stream ) to produce the CO.

Dec 10, 2017
@MR still doesn't get that this is an education thread not a renewable energy thread.

The average IQ is 100. Thanks for helping keep it down there, @RentalMeatard169.

Dec 10, 2017
Da fraudulent papers submitted to journals strikes at the heart of education and the educational system.

Dec 10, 2017
@RM69, what "fraudulent papers?" You haven't shown any yet except breitbart the Nazi's.

Dec 10, 2017
Onions you might believe in perpetual motion be it mechanical or chemical but I don't
Wow MR - do you not see the irony - in you being the one trying to lecture the board on science - and the importance of learning HOW to think - and then no matter how many times - a very simple point is explained to you - you don't get it? FFS. The EFFICIENCY of the system being researched in the article - is not necessarily the point. The point is that they are taking a waste product (C02) - preventing it from being dumped into the atmosphere (that is bad) - and doing something constructive with it. Maybe they get more energy out of the system than they put it - maybe not. You don't know that - cuz you don't have the data. But it does not matter. They are proving a concept. Taking a waste product - and instead of venting it into the atmosphere (bad) - making something with it. You just prove the point about the U.S. educational system being shit...


Dec 10, 2017
Da fraudulent papers submitted to journals strikes at the heart of education and the educational system.


Prove it. If you have evidence that a published study is fraudulent then provide it.
As usual your argument boils down to "I don't agree with this so therefore all the evidence must be wrong".

I'm sorry but the epistemological process is supposed to work the other way.

Dec 10, 2017
The last paper purporting to turn CO2 into a usable fuel is a giant hoax. The CO thus produced is so costly they cannot afford to utilize it in their own imaginary plant which burns nat gas. BTW where are the energy calculations showing the input BTUs vs the output BTUs for the CO thus produced.

Dec 10, 2017
@RentalMeatard69 still doesn't get that this is not a renewable energy thread, it's an education thread.

I mean, seriously, how many times do you have to be told? Were you born this stupid or did you have to be taught?

Dec 10, 2017
BTW where are the energy calculations showing the input BTUs vs the output BTUs for the CO thus produced
That's a great question - right? And without seeing those calculations - you have no way of evaluating the efficiency of the system - and therefore no basis for calling this a hoax. But for the upteenth time - it does not matter. FFS - can you not read??? It does not matter. If this process takes a waste product - that we don't want to dump in the atmosphere - and makes something useful from it - it MAY be a viable process. The reality of that question will be answered in time. They are just beginning the process of researching. You dont know the answer - but you cant stop yourself from continuing to look stupid. Yes - all you do is validate the actual topic of the discussion - which is that you are a product of a shitty educational system - and it does not matter how many times it is explained to you - you are not capable of understanding it.

Dec 10, 2017
@RentalMeatard69 still doesn't get that this is not a renewable energy thread, it's an education thread.

I mean, seriously, how many times do you have to be told? Were you born this stupid or did you have to be taught?


I'm glad I wasn't the only one who confused.

This article reminds me of the issues we have with evolution. Regardless of their education level, if people aren't taught evolution properly in highschool then they are far less likely to accept the science. After all, you can have a PhD in economics but if someone asks you about biology you're going to draw on what you learned when you were 16. If that isn't comprehensive then you're going to struggle to understand what is and isn't accepted science.

Dec 10, 2017
I am blessed by having both a mother who was fascinated by natural history and a wife who is a biologist. But it's not hard to do well even without such resources.

The central paradigm is those who do well get to breed. It's as true of natural selection as human selection. #biologycrankscantcount.

What I wonder is how many stupids we could have saved will die. I do actually care about that.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more