By Milliron, Valerie C
ABSTRACT: The values that younger (Millennial) versus older (non- Millennial) students express in choosing a class are contrasted with the skills and attitudes they need to compete. The first half of the paper reviews current literature regarding Millennial student expectations, skill competitiveness, and work opportunities. This is followed by examining priorities on class section selection as a vehicle for investigating student values. The source of this data is an undergraduate state university business program populated by middle class, mostly white students. Survey data from 275 students in accounting classes is analyzed to ascertain the importance attached to 14 class attributes. The overall results suggest that instructors face a major motivational challenge. Student ratings indicate relatively low importance is attached to developing skills associated with professional success. The Millennial student response appears even further out of alignment with global labor market reality by placing a significantly higher value on low workload and less importance on analytical and computational assignments.
Keywords: Millennial students; student values; accounting course selection.
Data Availability: Data are available upon request.
INTRODUCTION
In popular literature, those graduating from high school at the dawn of the new millennium are generally considered the start of a distinct generation. Beginning with the 1982 birth year, this cohort has been described in many terms such as Millennials, Generation Y, or the Net Generation. Regardless of the label, this generation promises to have a powerful and pervasive influence on shaping American society. Nearly 80 million in number and almost one-third of the U.S. population, these students are part of the largest generational group on record (CBS News 2004). At the beginning of the millennium they were hailed as the “next great generation,” better educated and more focused on teamwork, achievement, and good conduct (Howe et al. 2000). Continued American prosperity will rest on their achievements, yet little empirical evidence exists on how their values match attributes associated with success. This paper examines current literature on this generation and survey data on one small, yet potentially revealing, indication of values-the criteria students deem important in selecting a college course in accounting.
Class selection is examined in terms of 14 potential criteria. The list is not exhaustive, but rather reflects features suggested by student input and a literature review of teaching guides and projected employment needs. Data was collected from 275 college undergraduate students enrolled in accounting classes. The overall results suggest that college students place relatively low importance on some of the factors most emphasized in the literature as key to work success such as development of analytical and communication skills and the ability to work effectively with others. When comparing Millennial to non-Millennial students for a potential generational shift in student attitudes, Millennials were found to attach significantly more importance to a low class workload and significantly less importance to the development of analytical and computational skills.
These results are contrasted with an emerging sketch regarding the characteristics required for future professional success. As instructors struggle to continuously improve their classes for a changing student population in a changing world, an understanding of both the current students and the anticipated work environment is required. This study adds to the literature by identifying potential gaps between Millennial student values and their future career needs. These gaps represent a leadership opportunity for educators.
BACKGROUND
Generations are shaped by their environment. The cohort of U.S. students that began to populate college classes at the beginning of the 21st century were born in an economically expanding, fast- paced, electronic age with the greatest information access, product choice, and ease of communication in history. By looking at responses to a static question set in a meta analysis of 12 studies involving 1.3 million U.S. students over a 50-year period, Twenge (2006, 2) describes the current college-age generation as living in a time of “soaring expectations and crushing realities.” Although many generational and environmental differences are identified (Schor 2004; Brown 2006; Simplicio 2007), three areas stand out as especially relevant to understanding current U.S. college students and their future employment prospects. Consequently, the following literature review focuses on student expectations, cognitive skill competitiveness, and the restructuring of opportunities.
Student Expectations
For high school graduates, participation in higher education has become the norm rather than the exception. A study comparing the expectations of 12th-graders in 1982 with those in 2004 found aspirations of at least a bachelor’s degree doubling over this 22- year period to 70 percent in 2004. Of this 70 percent, half expect to go beyond this level and earn a graduate degree (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES] 2006). In the past century the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds attending college shows a steep climb from less than 5 percent in 1900 (Arnett 2006, 6) to 69 percent of the class of 2005 actually enrolling in college the semester after graduation (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] News, 2006).
Students appear encouraged to engage in more schooling as a result of the positive feedback they receive in high school. A comprehensive national survey of 2005 high school seniors reveals that, “89% reported grades of B or better with 44% reporting either A or A minus” (National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE] 2006, 31). This grade inflation has resulted in the number of entering college freshmen reporting A grade averages more than doubling in the past 40 years, while the number of C students has plummeted to about 5 percent (Sax 2003, 16). Rigorous evaluation of instructors appears to have yielded to less demanding standards as a consistent pattern of rising grades is evidenced throughout U.S. institutions of higher education over the past 35 years (Rojstaczer 1999, 2003).
In addition to grades, a massive cross-sectional study of more than 4,200 teenagers found work expectations unrealistically positive. “If the actual division of labor conformed to students’ expectations, there would be at least ten professionals for every blue-collar worker” (Csikszentmihalyi and Schneider 2000, 217). For example, “Accountant, CPA” ranked eighth in the most frequently mentioned occupations with 3 percent of those sampled indicating they “expect to have” this occupation. Although this is not as disproportionate as the 15 percent who expect to be doctors and lawyers (versus the 1 percent currently employed), it still projects out to three million accountant/CPAs when the present number of these jobs is about 1.2 million (BLS 2007). The rise in confidence that Twenge (2006) labels characteristic of the Millennial generation is also confirmed in general polls such as the national survey of young American adults for which 96 percent agreed with the statement, “I am very sure that someday I will get to where I want to be in life” (Arnett 2006, 13).
In contrast, expectation of time on task is declining. Coincident with good to excellent grades, the majority of Millennial students indicate that they spend only three or fewer hours a week preparing for all their high school classes (NSSE 2006, 30). Furthermore, students expect to continue in college with good grades without much more than a high school level of effort (Kuh 2003). Reviewing college data, it appears that only one-third of the students devote six or more hours per week to homework (DeBard 2004, 41) and only one-sixth expect to study the minimum faculty agree is needed for full-time students to perform adequately (NSSE 2006, 31). Overall, the longitudinal evidence indicates a substantial erosion of study time during the past two decades (Sax 2003, 16).
Skill Competitiveness
Are higher grades indicative of greater ability on the part of Millennial students to do college work? Although 90 percent of high school students going to college have gotten grades of B or better, a comprehensive Stanford University study found that half needed to take remedial courses to make up for math or language deficiencies (Venezia et al. 2003). Consistent with this finding, the U.S. Department of Education has tracked reading and math proficiency of 17-year-olds since 1971. Millennial student scores are not measurably different from historical student scores (Rooney et al. 2006, 48). In fact, Millennial student proficiency is very comparable to students in the early 1970s who had strikingly lower grade point averages and were generally less inclined to attend college.
Student and adult literacy scores in the U.S. have plummeted in international comparisons from a leadership role to a mediocre ranking because of rising global competency (Kirsch et al 2007, 3). For example, on tests of mathematical literacy and analytical problem-solving, U.S. students rate significantly below all but 11 of the 39 participating countries. With a 483 average, U.S. students scored far less than such countries as Hong Kong/China (550), Korea (542), and Canada (532) (Rooney et al. 2006, 49). Reading and focus are vital aspects of life-long learning and highly correlated with professional success (National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] 2007, 84). Yet, the number of adults with bachelor’s degrees who are proficient in reading shows a 22 percent decline over the past decade. Only 31 percent of those with bachelor degrees demonstrate a literacy level adequate to compare viewpoints after reading two newspaper editorials (NEA 2007, 65). Alarmingly, the deterioration is worst among Millennial students, with two-thirds lacking “active reading habits.” Even when reading does occur, the quality of the reading has generally declined as it is often combined with other media, resulting in “less focused engagement with a text” (NEA 2007, 10). Multitasking among Millennial students is prevalent and especially problematic in light of research suggesting that 60 percent of homework time on the computer overlaps with secondary activities (Foehr 2006, 20). This multitasking exists as a Millennial student norm despite evidence that the concentration and retention capacity of the brain is compromised when more than one activity is introduced (Just et al. 2001).
Not only do many students enter college with weak skills, but they also graduate with weak skills. Noting national survey evidence that indicates most bachelor degree graduates failed to measurably improve their cognitive skills during college, former Harvard President Derek Bok states that “students can pass courses and even earn high grades without truly understanding the material or how to apply it to problems different from those covered in class” (Bok 2006, 116). In fact, detailed analysis suggests that about one- third of college graduates actually have functional cognitive skills on par with average high-school graduates (Pryor and Schaffer 1999). Cognitive skills are essential to the pattern recognition, synthesizing, and complex problem-solving associated with higher value-added work and premium wages. However, less than one-third of college graduates can demonstrate a high level of proficiency (Friedman, 2006, 339).
Changing Opportunities
Although Millennial students benefit by arriving in the wake of a retiring Boomer generation (Marston 2007), the dynamics of the global marketplace dash any long-term assurances of employment security. Thomas Friedman, in the 2006 edition of his national bestseller, The World Is Flat, reports a number of insightful interviews with industry titans. “Bill Gates told me that within just a couple of years of its opening in 1998, Microsoft Research Asia had become the most productive research arm in the Microsoft system” (Friedman 2006, 353). Craig Barrett, the Intel chairman, expressed the view that, “We can thrive as a company even if we never hire another American … We will hire the talent wherever it resides” (Friedman 2006, 357). Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple Computer, was recorded by Friedman as saying that recently Apple “decided to build a major plant in China … ten years ago, that would have happened in Texas or somewhere else in America” (Friedman 2006, 389). The American CEO of a London-based multinational corporation notes, “The dirty little secret is that not only is outsourcing cheaper and efficient … but the quality and productivity boost is huge” (Friedman 2006, 340).
America is losing market share in many areas, including education. Although one million more non-U.S. students enrolled in college abroad in 2005 than 1999, the number enrolled in American higher education remains below the peak level recorded in 2002 (McCormack 2007). Developing countries such as China and India are keeping their best students home and 45 nations in Europe and western Asia are coordinating their education systems to “attract even more of the world’s brightest students” (Marklein and Slavin 2006). According to the British Times world ranking of universities, the Asia-Pacific region now has five of the world’s top 30 universities (Ince 2007). Despite an easing of visa restrictions and heavy recruiting from American universities, countries like Singapore are becoming magnets for students seeking a quality, reasonably priced university education (Labi 2007).
Ample worldwide educational opportunities plus an offshoring of college jobs is compounding the complexity of the labor picture. Recent estimates indicate that one-third of U.S. white collar and the majority of accounting jobs are vulnerable to moving offshore (Jensen and Kletzer 2005; Gosselin 2006; Wessel and Davis 2007). Princeton University economist and former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder (2005) asserts that we have barely seen the tip of an offshoring iceberg and places accounting in the top 10 “highly offshorable” occupations. The global trade in services has doubled over the past decade and presently most of the Fortune 500 contract out at least some of their back office functions. We appear to be witnessing the modest beginning of what promises to be a global shift of jobs to areas of comparative advantage as multinational corporations shuffle activities and U.S. companies outsource non-core areas to maintain competitive advantage (Government Accountability Office [GAO] 2005).
The national commission reviewing the current state of American education concludes, “To the extent that our skills are the foundation of our economic dominance, that foundation is eroding in front of our eyes, but we have been very slow to see it” (National Center on Education and the Economy [NCEE] 2007, 16). Distinguished labor economists Frank Levy of MIT and Richard Murnane of Harvard (2004, 5) project ample employment for the working poor but anticipate the erosion of middle class jobs because “the ability to apply well-understood routines to solve problems is not valued as it used to be.” Pay inequity is growing as middle-income workers, who may be college graduates, are getting closer to the bottom and those with the top 10 percent of cognitive skills are pulling away from the pack (Mishel et. al. 2006, 6). Given these global and technological change dynamics, Binder observes, “A college diploma may lose its exalted silver bullet status. It isn’t how many years one spends in school that will matter … it’s choosing to learn the skills” (Wessel and Davis 2007, A14).
How are students responding? An anthropology professor going undercover for a year at one state university campus reports students selecting courses for convenience, not content. She also observed that students actively seek to limit their workload rather than master their majors (Nathan 2005). In another in-depth view, a veteran Time magazine correspondent immersed himself in a two-year study of student life at 12 elite universities across the U.S. He concluded, “The best I could ascertain is that this first batch of real Millennials, those who have recently graduated from college, went there expecting good grades but were not planning to work very hard to get them and apparently didn’t much care what they learned” (Seaman 2005, 280). These observations are supported by a leading pediatrician who notes that after years of stroking with high grades and receiving rewards for participation rather than achievement, “I have a strong sense that our population of career-unready adults is expanding, and doing so at an alarming pace-like a contagious disease … Many children and adolescents are not equipped with a durable work temperament, having been submerged in a culture that stresses instant rewards instead of patient, tenacious, sustained mental effort and the ability to delay gratification for the sake of eventual self-fulfillment” (Levine 2005, 6).
The yielding of youthful optimism to painful reality that Twenge (2006) identifies is also described in a number of books over the past decade. For instance, Draut (2005, 43) notes, “A bachelor’s degree is fast becoming little more than an entry-level pass.” Apparently, a bachelor’s degree may also be a little less than an entry-level pass, as another author reports that one-third of Domino’s pizza delivery drivers in Washington, D.C. have four-year college degrees and observes that Gap employment ads have included the following qualifications, “Bachelor’s degree required, and the ability to lift 50 pounds” (Matthews 1997, 215). According to one recent graduate of an elite university, “This generation as a whole is experiencing a deficit between the careers we aspire to and prepare for and the jobs and paychecks that are actually out there” (Kamenetz 2006, 186).
THE STUDY
To query whether Millennial students are increasingly valuing high grades and low workload and to access the relative importance they place on skills acquisition, a rating exercise was given to students. Based on these areas of interest and a review of the instructional literature detailing characteristics traditionally associated with an effective learning environment (McKeachie 1986; Chickering and Gamson 1987; Brophy 2004), 14 criteria were developed and included in the rating exercise. The intent is to include a sufficient range of reasonable criteria to begin an exploration of student choice on an issue potentially impacting course quality.
Once the decision is made to take a course, what criteria do students use to select a particular class section? On the first day of class, without commentary on the issues, questionnaires were disseminated in seven accounting courses (four lower division and three upper division) by two instructors. A total of 275 responses were received and tabulated. Students were asked to rate the importance of the 14 criteria on a seven-point scale (with 1 as “Not at all Important” and 7 as “Extremely important”). The criteria were bulleted, ramer than numbered, and appeared in alphabetical order. At the end of the one page questionnaire, students were asked to check when they were born and indicate their major. To clarify the results discussion, the criteria used in the questionnaire are labeled Q1-Q14: Q1: Active learning environment with lively and engaging class sessions.
Q2: Assignments that emphasize development of analytical and computational skills.
Q3: Assignments that emphasize development of communication skills.
Q4: Clearly defined assignment and testing requirements.
Q5: Constructive feedback.
Q6: Convenience of the class time or location.
Q7: Expectation of achieving a high grade.
Q8: Expert instructor.
Q9: Flexible course design allowing choice in course components.
Q10: Frequent and prompt feedback.
Q11: Group work and opportunity to network with other students.
Q12: Instructor who is accessible and helpful.
Q13: Low out-of-class workload.
Q14: Relevance of course curriculum to life skills and/or career goals.
Research Questions
Although mere is considerable conjecture in the literature regarding distinctive Millennial student characteristics, the research questions center on three features mat have some empirical support. The first two questions are prompted by the survey evidence on rising grades (Question 1) and declining student effort (Question 2). The third question relates to these first two and is supported by qualitative studies that suggest that Millennial students place more value on achieving high grades and a low workload than on developing the analytical, computational, and communication skills necessary to succeed in professional employment (Nathan 2005; Seaman 2005). The three research questions are:
RQ1: Will Millennial students attach more importance to Q7 (a high grade)?
RQ2: Will Millennial students attach more importance to Q13 (a low workload)?
RQ3: Will Millennial students attach more importance to Q7 (a high grade) and Q13 (a low workload) than to skill development as represented by Q2 (analytical and computational) and Q3 (communication) skills?
Although the evidence suggests that student attitudes toward what constitutes effective teaching is consistent across age groups (Hartman et al. 2005; Garcia and Qin 2007), there is speculation in the literature of significant differences in preferences between Millennial and non-Millennial students (Lancaster and Stillman 2002; Howe and Strauss 2003; Coomes 2004; DeBard 2004). If Millennial students have been raised in a livelier, more collaborative environment with rapid-fire feedback, they may accord a higher rating to Ql (active learning environment), Q11 (group work), Q5 (constructive feedback), and Q10 (frequent and prompt feedback). If Millennial students are very time sensitive, they may rate Q6 (class convenience), Q9 (flexibility), and Q12 (instructor accessibility) higher and eschew the time-consuming skill development inherent in Q2 (analytical and computational) and Q3 (communication). Consequently, in addition to investigating the three research questions, we are interested in a general exploration of Millennial versus non-Millennial ratings on each criterion as well as the relative rankings of the criteria.
Results
The overall results show that the first six descriptors in Table 1 are features traditionally discussed in the educational literature as associated with an effective classroom environment. Like previous generations, students in this sample want a clearly defined, relevant curriculum taught by accessible and expert instructors and delivered in a convenient and constructive manner. A Tukey HSD analysis (a multiple comparison test used to determine the significant differences between group means in an analysis of variance setting) showed these six criteria clustering together and distinct from the other criteria at the .05 level of significance. Two of the criteria of most interest in this study, the importance of a high grade and low workload, fall in the middle of the rankings. The Tukey results indicate that course flexibility, skills- related descriptors, and group work emerge as a separate grouping at the bottom of the list.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for 14 Queries
Despite the mix of students (lower and upper division, accounting majors and nonmajors), the results are robust across classes and major. The age distribution of the sample, with 83 percent Millennial students, mirrors the general population of the university wherein 85 percent of the students are reported to be age 24 or younger and most of the remaining students are in the 25 to 29 age category. The university is a mid-sized state university with SAT scores that approximate the national average. It is considered a residential campus since 90 percent of the students live within a few miles of campus and attend class full-time. Although precise information is not available, the majority of students relocate to attend this university and there is a highly visible fraternity and sorority presence. About 80 percent of the 14,000 students are white and come from middle-class backgrounds from within the state.
The results shown in Table 1 conform to the consensus view that appears to be emerging in the literature for research Questions 2 and 3, but not for Question 1. At the .01 level of significance, RQ2 is answered in the affirmative. Millennial students scored a 5.3 mean importance rating on the Q13 criterion “Low out-of-class workload” versus a 4.6 mean rating for non-Millennial students. With regard to RQ3, the importance ratings assigned to Q2 (“Assignments that emphasize development of analytical and computational skills”) and Q3 (“Assignments that emphasize development of communication skills”) ranked 12th and 13th out of 14 criteria. Using Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure at the .05 level of significance, the mean scores on the skills criteria were significantly lower than the importance rating Millennial students accorded high grades and low workload. Thus, the results for RQ3 conform to the qualitative literature assertions: Millennial students devalue skill acquisition relative to grade and workload considerations. In contrast, for RQl on the “Expectation of receiving a high grade” criterion, the Millennial student mean rating of 5.7 was in the direction posited, but not significantly different from the 5.6 non-Millennial rating.
Moving from the three research questions to the general exploration of Millennial versus non-Millennial student differences, it is noteworthy that Millennial students appear more averse to analytical and computational assignments. With a mean score of 4.6 versus 5.3, the Millennial student importance rating was significantly (at the .01 level) lower for Q2 (development of analytical and computational skills). Other than attaching more importance to Q13 (low workload) and less to Q2 (analytical), conjecture in the generational cohort literature about other distinctive characteristics such as Millennial students particularly valuing flexibility, feedback, and group activities is not supported in this study.
DISCUSSION
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was not answered in the affirmative despite unprecedented grade inflation and expectations. One explanation in the literature is that students are paying more for education every year and, increasingly, they want and get the reward of a good grade for their purchase. In this consumer culture view, professors are not only compelled to grade easier, but also to water down course content (Rojstaczer 2003). However, grades may not be an overly salient factor to students used to living in a world where all are above average. As As have been assigned for acceptable work and Bs for mediocre work in recent years (Sperber 2005, 138), students may not be anxious about securing the grade they desire.
This lack of grade anxiety may be particularly true at our university. Published research reports that two-thirds of the students receive As and Bs in their courses (Moosa 2003, 64). Although the accounting program stands out in our college as awarding relatively more C grades, employment demand is high in accounting and the vast majority of students graduate with sufficient grade point averages to satisfy their entry-level job aspirations with regional firms, local businesses, or government agencies. Only a few of our students seek, or are recruited by, national firms with high grade point standards.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 is affirmed. Unlike the detailed history on grades in higher education, statistics on study time are a relatively recent development. Noting that, “The more students study a subject, the more they learn about it” and “Nothing substitutes for time on task,” the NSSE has begun gathering student engagement data from more than 285,000 students (Kuh 2003, 25). The preliminary evidence is alarming. “Record numbers of high school seniors are disengaged from academic work … The wider and deeper college- going pool then brings these habits and expectations, not to mention a lack of preparation, with them to college” (Kuh 2003, 27). Harvard President Emeritus Bok (2006, 112) cites a national study suggesting that 28 percent of college students are “either wholly disengaged from the life of their institution or deeply involved in social and extracurricular activities at the expense of their coursework.” National survey director George Kuh suggests that faculty time pressures have collided with an unprepared cohort of students to form an “unseemly bargain” or “disengagement compact,” where students and faculty leave each other alone. “The existence of this bargain is suggested by the fact that at a relatively low level of effort many students get decent grades-Bs and sometimes better” (Kuh 2003, 28). The greater importance attached to “low out-of-class workload” seems to point to a Millennial student propensity to devalue academic engagement. Research Question 3
Research Question 3 is affirmed. This question relates to the importance Millennial students are placing on skills that are projected to be crucial to professional employment in the 21st century. “The demand for specific vocational skills has been augmented with a growing need for general skills, including reasoning abilities, general problem-solving skills, and behavioral skills” (Carnevale and Desrochers 2003, 232). The Conference Board, conducting a comprehensive survey of several hundred executives regarding the skills of recently hired graduates, found “reality not matching expectations” and a “growing talent gap” in workforce readiness (Casner-Lotto and Barrington 2006). The preceding description of workload aversion may be linked to a lack of emphasis on skill-building among students. Because analytical, math, and communication activities tend to be among the most time-consuming, developing competencies in these areas require relatively high-out- of-class time commitments.
General Observations
Overall, the results of this study suggest that Millennial students (like their predecessors) primarily look to a half a dozen conventional criteria when choosing a class. The descriptor “Clearly defined assignment and testing requirements” stands out at the top of the list with a 6.3 rating on a seven-point scale and a relatively low standard deviation of 1.2. With ubiquitous information and dynamic business situations it is easy to see the attraction of a highly structured class. However, as Levy and Murnane (2004, 93) note, “the growing complexity of work has made uncertainty and disagreement far more prevalent in the workplace … a growing percentage of jobs in the American economy cannot be described in rules … the innovative part of the work-the source of value-added-requires the interpretation of new and complex information.” Thus, although clear and straightforward assignment and testing may be popular with students, this desire must be balanced with longer-term employment skills required in the high value-added jobs of the future.
Millennial student propensity to seek classes with a low workload may affect intrinsic satisfaction as well as undercut the chance for professional success. High grades, if too easily dispensed, can erode student motivation and undercut mastery of essential skills. Csikszentmihalyi and Schneider (2000, 12) stress that hard work and a mind fully stretched to meet a difficult challenge is essential for maturation and full cognitive development. As Harvard President Charles Eliot quipped more than 100 years ago, “A mind must work to grow” (Bok 2006, 123). In accommodating current student preferences rather than carefully crafting courses to serve long-run best interests, unhelpful personal characteristics may be inadvertently reinforced (Brophy 2004, 368). In a recent survey of potential CPA exam candidates, the top two reasons cited for not taking the exam were, “Can’t seem to find the time to prepare” and “Not sure I know the content well enough to take the exam” (SmartPros 2006). This may foreshadow a professional handicap that results from a failure to develop a strong work ethic and build core competencies in college.
A recent blue ribbon commission report featured on the cover of Time magazine asserts that we are dealing with a fatally flawed educational system. In their words, “The United States, almost unique among the advanced industrial nations, has managed to construct a system that could not be better designed to deprive the vast majority of our students of a reason to take tough courses or to study hard” (NCEE 2007, 37). As accounting educators trying to focus on student mastery of skills needed for long-term professional success, we are severely challenged. The magnitude of this challenge is especially daunting when we consider that many of the routine, back-office accounting functions currently performed by accounting graduates are highly vulnerable to relocation offshore in the next 10 to 20 years.
LIMITATIONS AND EXTENSIONS
This is an exploratory study of student values. We have concrete evidence that grading standards and student study habits have shifted substantially over the generations, but this study can only provide a small clue that we may also be in the midst of a change in values on the micro level of course selection. Another limitation is that those surveyed represent a predominately Millennial, non- random sample of students enrolled in accounting courses. With little age and ethnic diversity, the results are suggestive for only a limited segment of Millennial students, namely white, middle- class students with average SAT scores who can afford to leave home and attend college full-time at a state university.
It should also be noted that American Millennial students in college may not be representative of Millennial students in other countries. For example, Russian Millennial students attending college appear to spend a great amount of time on task and be actively engaged in academic learning despite a rigid curriculum and instruction described as “short on praise and long on correction” (Brophy 2004, 364). Similarly, Eastern European Millennial students are described as, “A new generation … bringing with it a work ethic never before encountered” (Harris 2005, 48).
Natural extensions of this study flow in two directions. One direction is to analyze Millennial student attitudes for different cultural groups. Although the comprehensive mid-1990s study of teen attitudes toward school and work was surprisingly robust across 13 diverse school districts (Csikszentmihalyi and Schneider 2000), Friedman (2006, 335) indicates that the Millennial progeny of H-1B visa parents are especially dedicated students and strongly oriented toward academic skill acquisition. Cultural differences in aspirations may translate into significant differences in education and employment values among Millennial students and between Millennial and other generations.
A second direction is to examine Millennial versus older generations on employment values. For instance, the demand for employees versus the supply of jobs was heavily tilted against the post-World War II Boomer generation, intensifying their work ethic (Marston 2007). The employment competition faced by the Boomer generation is very different from the employment situation the Millennial generation faces today. Thus, shifting worker loyalties and leisure time priorities may affect optimum career path and benefits packaging design within CPA firms (Tyler 2007).
CONCLUSIONS
We can be certain of change and challenge. As educational leaders we are responsible for helping students understand the economic environment they are likely to face and developing the skills and attitudes needed to thrive. The global trading of services promises a dynamic and competitive business landscape for aspiring business professionals around the world. However, the literature on Millennial students’ habits and achievements provides evidence that the mainstream U.S. high school experience is woefully deficient in developing the study patterns and academic skills essential to undertake real higher education. Excellent secondary school grades, coupled with little effort and minimal achievement, establishes an “irrationally exuberant” foundation for college learning.
The results of this study suggest that student preferences are not well aligned with their long-term interests. There are more than 2,200 four-year colleges in the U.S. and over 90 percent have non- selective admissions practices (Maeroff 2005, 14). Almost 70 percent of high school students are now going straight to college. Tragically, national literacy assessments suggest that, although high skill levels are strongly correlated with professional success, the majority who graduate from college lack the functional skills historically associated with a bachelor’s degree. Those who have not acquired strong cognitive skills are unlikely to succeed in securing and maintaining the rewarding careers they desire and expect in an increasingly competitive global labor market.
Despite Millennial student confidence in their own abilities, their course preferences may lead to crushing realities unless the “mutual disengagement” contract is renegotiated. The attitudes, habits, and intellectual ability developed today will decide the nature of work and living standards in the U.S. for generations to come. As they progress toward a diploma, Millennial students depend on faculty to insure that their education is higher, not merely longer.
REFERENCES
Arnett, J. J. 2006. Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way of coming of age. In Emerging Adults in America: Coming of Age in the 21st Century, edited by J. J. Arnett, and J. L. Tanner. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Blinder, A. S. 2005. Fear of offshoring. Center for Economic Policy Studies (CEPS) Working Paper No. 119, Princeton University.
Bok, D.C. 2006. Our Underachieving Colleges. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brophy, J. 2004. Motivating Students to Learn. Second edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Brown, J. D. 2006. Emerging adults in a media-saturated world. In Emerging Adults in America: Coming of Age in the 21st Century, edited by J. J. Arnett, and J. L. Tanner. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2006. College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2005 High School Graduates. News Release: USDL 06- 514. March 24. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Labor. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm.
_____. 2007. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006-07 Edition, Accountants and Auditors. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos001.htm. Carnevale, A. P., and D. M. Desrochers. 2003. Preparing students for the knowledge economy: What school counselors need to know. Professional School Counseling 6 (4): 228-237.
Casner-Lotto, J., and L. Barrington. 2006. Are They Really Ready to Work? Employers’ Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21st Century Workforce. The Conference Board. Available at: http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/BED- 06-Workforce.pdf.
CBS News. 2004. The echo boomers. CBS Worldwide Inc. October 3. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/60minutes/ main646890.shtml
dickering, A. W, and Z. F. Gamson. 1987. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin 39 (7): 3- 7.
Coomes, M. D. 2004. Understanding the historical and cultural influences that shape generations. In New Directions for Student Services, edited by M. Coomes and R. DeBard, No. 106, Summer 2004. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., and B. Schneider. 2000. Becoming Adult: How Teenagers Prepare for the World of Work. New York, NY: Basic Books.
DeBard, R. 2004. Millennials coming to college. In New Directions for Student Services, edited by M. Coomes and R. DeBard, No. 106, Summer 2004. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Draut, T. 2005. Strapped: Why America’s 20- and 30-Somethings Can’t Get Ahead. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Foehr, U. 2006. Media Multitasking Among American Youth: Prevalence, Predictors and Pairings. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (#7592). Washington, D.C: HJK.
Friedman, T. L. 2006. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Garcia, P., and J. Qin. 2007. Identifying the generation gap in higher education: Where do the differences really lie? Innovate 3 (4). Available at: http://innovateonline.info/?view=issue.
Gosselin, P. G. 2006. That good education might not be enough: American workers at all levels are vulnerable to outsourcing. Los Angeles Times (March 6). Available at: www.newsday.com/news/ nationworld/nation/la-na-outsource6mar06,0,4709921,print.story.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2005. Offshoring of services. GAO-06-05. Available at: http://www.gao.gov.
Harris, P. 2005. Boomer vs. echo boomer: The work war? ASTD (May): 44-49.
Hartman, J., P. Moskal, and C. Dziuban. 2005. Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow. In Educating the Net Generation, edited by D. Oblinger, and J. Oblinger, 6.1-6.15. Washington, D.C: Educause.
Howe, N., and W. Strauss, and R. Matson. 2000. Millennials Raising: The Next Great Generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
_____, and _____. 2003. Millennials Go to College. New York, NY: LifeCourse.
Ince, M. 2007. World university rankings: Ideas without borders as excellence goes global. Times Higher Education Supplement (November 8). Available at: http://www.mes.co.uk/worldrankings/ story.aspx.
Jensen, J. B., and L. G. Kletzer. 2005. Tradable services: Understanding the scope and impact of services outsourcing. Working Paper 05-9. Washington, D.C: Institute for International Economics. Available at: http://www.iie.com,
Just, M., P. Carpenter, T. Keller, L. Emery, H. Zajac, and K. Thulborn. 2001. Interdependence of nonoverlapping cortical systems in dual cognitive tasks. Neurolmage 14 (2): 417-426.
Kamenetz, A. 2006. Generation Debt: Why Now Is a Terrible Time to be Young. New York, NY: Penguin.
Kirsch, I., H. Braun, K. Yamamoto, and A. Sum. 2007. America’s Perfect Storm: Three Forces Changing Our Nation’s Future. Policy Information Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service (ETS).
Kuh, G. 2003. What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change 35 (2): 24-32.
Labi, A. 2007. Worldwide competition for international students heats up. The Chronicle of Higher Education (November 16): A34.
Lancaster, L., and D. Stillman. 2002. When Generations Collide. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Levine, M. 2005. Ready or Not, Here Life Comes. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Levy, F. and R. J. Murnane. 2004. The New Division of Labor: How Computers Are Creating the Next Job Market. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Maeroff, G. I. 2005. The media: Degrees of coverage. In Declining by Degrees. New York NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Marklein, M., and B. Slavin. 2006. USA losing its advantage drawing foreign students. USA Today (January 5). Available at: http:/ /www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-05-foreign-student- drain_x.htm.
Marston, C. 2007. Motivating the “What’s In It for Me?” Workforce. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Matthews, A. 1997. Bright College Years: Inside the American Campus Today. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
McCormack, E. 2007. Number of foreign students bounces back to near-record high. The Chronicle of Higher Education (November 16): A1.
McKeachie, W. J. 1986. Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Beginning College Teacher. 8th edition. Lexington, MA: Heath and Company.
Mishel, L., J. Bernstein, and H. Boushey. 2006. The State of Working in America 2006/2007. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
Moosa, S. 2003. “Lake Woebegone’s” grade ceiling, learning shortages and pricing breakdowns. The Journal of Global Business Perspectives: 61-68.
Nathan, R. 2005. My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by Becoming a Student. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). 2006. Postsecondary Expectations of 12th-Graders. Student Effort and Educational Progress: Student Attitudes and Aspirations (Indicator 23). Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/section3/ indicator23.asp.
National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). 2007. Tough Choices for Tough Times: The Report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). 2007. To Read or Not To Read: A Question of National Consequence. Research Report #47 (November). Washington, D.C.: NEA.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). 2006. Exploring Different Dimensions of Student Engagement. 2005 Annual Survey Results. Available at: http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/ NSSE2005_annual_report.pdf.
Pryor, F. L., and D. L. Schaffer. 1999. Who’s Not Working and Why: Employment, Cognitive Skills, Wages, and the Changing U.S. Labor Market. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Rojstaczer, S. 1999. Gone for Good: Tales of University Life After the Golden Age. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
_____. 2003. Grade inflation at American colleges and universities. Available at: http://gradeinflation.com/.
Rooney, P., W. Hussar, and M. Planty. 2006. The Condition of Education 2006. NCES Publication # 2006071. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006071.
Sax, L. J. 2003. Our incoming students: What are they like? About Campus 8 (3): 15-20.
Schor, J. B. 2004. Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture. New York, NY: Scribner.
Seaman, B. 2005. Binge: What Your College Student Won’t Tell You. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Simplicio, J. S. 2007. Educating the 21st Century Student. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
SmartPros. 2006. CPA exam candidates say prep time is biggest obstacle. SmartPws (April 27). Available at: http://www.pro2net.com/ x52749.xml.
Sperber, M. 2005. How undergraduate education became college lite. In Declining by Degrees, edited by R. Hersh, and J. Merrow, 131-144. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Twenge, J. M. 2006. Generation Me. New York, NY: Free Press (Simon & Schuster Inc.).
Tyler, K. 2007. The tethered generation: How Millennials are wired to work differently. HR Magazine 52 (5): 41-46.
Venezia, A., M. W. Kirst, and A. L. Antonio. 2003. Betraying the College Dream: How Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student Aspirations. Policy report from Stanford University’s Bridge Project. Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/ group/bridgeproject.
Wessel, D., and B. Davis. 2007. Pain from free trade spurs second thoughts: Mr. Blinder’s shift spotlights warnings of deeper downside. Wall Street Journal (March 28): 1.
Valerie C. Milliron is a Professor at California State University, Chico.
APPENDIX
HOW DO YOU SELECT A SECTION OF A CLASS?
What are the three most important factors that influence your choice of a class section?
On a scale of 1-7 (with 1 as “Not at all Important” and 7 as “Extremely Important”) rate the importance of each of the following:
* Active learning environment with lively and engaging class sessions ___
* Assignments which emphasize development of analytical & computational skills ___
* Assignments which emphasize development of communication skills ___
* Clearly defined assignment and testing requirements ___
* Constructive feedback ___
* Convenience of the class time or location ___
* Expectation of achieving a high grade ___
* Expert instructor ___
* Flexible course design allowing choice in course components ___
* Frequent and prompt feedback ___
* Group work and opportunity to network with other students ___
* Instructor who is accessible and helpful ___
* Low out-of-class workload ___
* Relevance of course curriculum to life skills and/or career goals ___
Are there any other attributes you consider when selecting a class?
Check one: Were you born before 1982? ___ Born 1982 or later?. _____ What is your major? __________
Thank you for your responses!
Copyright American Accounting Association Aug 2008
(c) 2008 Issues in Accounting Education. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.
Comments