Research by social scientists verifies what most of us have observed, that many students enter college with one set of beliefs and emerge four years later with quite different ones. Yet the same literature shows that formal academic life usually has little or no effect on value change, though parents, legislators, and even many professors themselves think otherwise.
Philip Jacob published the results of some painstaking research on this subject in Changing Values in College (1957). He concluded that the teacher, his teaching method, and the subject matter all have little if any effect on student value and attitude change. Change usually occurs, he says, only when the life of the student is affected, which could happen through personal contact with a professor or other students or through other experiences.
Joseph Katz and Nevitt Sanford, at the Stanford University Institute for the Study of Human Problems, agree with the basic premise Jacob set forth more than a decade ago. They assert that students probably do not change their basic values because of the formal educational experience, but they do undergo change in the way they value; they begin college with values either unclear or rigid, and as seniors are increasingly independent and less rigid, tending to view issues as complex (Stanford Today, Winter, 1966). Other researchers as well argue that faculty and subject matter have little to do with value change.
To what are we to attribute the change seen in college students? Researchers suggest that value change only comes through personal relationships, in what might be called the informal educational process.
These conclusions are of value in relation to the change in religious values and attitudes—a change that might be termed liberalization—that occurs in Christian students. They suggest that we must look beyond the formal education process for the causes of this liberalization. We must recognize, however, that on most secular campuses the environment and other forces do tend to neutralize spiritual involvement and hinder spiritual growth.
What factors most affect student values? Environmental continuity seems to be one. If the collegian can identify with institutions, persons, or groups that are definitely related to those in his former environment, he may well be able to relate the belief system of the former environment to his new one. But if he finds himself in a wholly new situation that has little continuity with his past, he will be more susceptible to change in beliefs. Denominational houses, campus groups, and campus ministers as well as local churches can help to provide religious continuity.
A second factor is the nature of the student’s belief. One mode of believing tends to be based upon assumptions, personal commitment, acceptance, emotional involvement, and trust, which we normally term faith. It is personal. A student who has this kind of belief can usually assimilate new facts without basic changes in his belief patterns. He may redefine his philosophy of life and even view it in a different perspective, but it still remains based upon the beliefs and assumptions he brought with him when he entered college.
At the other end of the spectrum is belief rooted in intellectual assent, an empirical methodology, and human reason. One who has this kind of belief claims to accept little by faith. As new, contradictory, or varied information challenges his system of belief, that system must change. Hence, the way a young person believes determines to a considerable extent how he handles the new information and experiences that come to him in his college years.
A third possible factor is the student’s conception of religious certainty. If he says he will accept only what can be verified by reason, experience, or the scientific method, he will necessarily reject some former beliefs in the light of new evidence. Or he will at least come to an agnostic posture. But if his epistemology allows for some certainties beyond the realm of experience, reason, and analysis, he may not see new facts and theories as an automatic threat to his beliefs.
Possibly the most powerful non-campus factor in the loss or preservation of religious values is the pre-college environment. An authoritarian environment, one that stresses moralisms and absolutes rather than seeking workable solutions to problems through reason, prayer, love, and Christ-centered principles, often leads to rebellion in religious and other areas.
Often parents, teachers, and religious leaders want young people to accept their teachings without question, even if they seem illogical or irrelevant. They make little effort to help young people develop the ability to think critically, to test and analyze matters for themselves. This approach may seem effective as long as the young person is at home and subject to the direct pressure of authority. But it certainly is poor preparation for later years, when as a college student he will lack the ability to defend his faith and to analyze challenges to that faith. All he will be able to say, perhaps, is, “It’s not really important anyway,” or “It’s something we’re not supposed to understand.” How much better off is the young Christian who has been encouraged to think for himself, to be able to give a reason for his faith, to confront hard questions rather than avoid them.
If a student has had a personal experience of faith and has also seen faith in other persons, he will probably remain committed in a new environment. The one who comes from a rather sterile spiritual environment, where the changing relationship to Jesus Christ is not emphasized, will be more likely to succumb to arguments against faith.
Personal relationships on campus, the general campus environment, a particular teacher or subject—these are possible influences upon the belief system and pattern of values of a college student. Yet more determinative than these is what the person himself is.
The college years are a period of uprooting, transition, and acquisition of responsibility. They are also a time of new awareness, sometimes leading to disillusionment and cynicism as the young person comes to realize that the ideals he has been taught are indeed ideals and are not always a part of real life. The Christian community makes a grave mistake if it does not help its young people prepare for a life away from the restrictive and protective environment of the home and church. The pre-college years should be a time of cultivation of a deep personal faith, a proper conception of religious certainty, and an open approach to the unknown. To give young people less than this is to send them into life unprepared.
