End The University As Mark Taylor Knows It (Part 1)
First, read this op-ed in the New York Times. In it, Prof. Mark C. Taylor, chair of Columbia’s Religion department, offers a critique of America’s university system. He says that departments have become too specialized and fractured, reducing our university system’s ability to tackle real world issues and combine intelligence and background to produce the best from America’s brightest minds. He also offers six specific recommendations for the overhaul. I will now critique these recommendations.
1. “Restructure the curriculum, beginning with graduate programs and proceeding as quickly as possible to undergraduate programs.” He cites anecdotal evidence for this needed overhaul by referencing a meeting of political scientists he went to where they discussed why religion has never been a part of International Relations Theory. Sounds like exactly what Jonathan Fox wrote about in 2001 (read his full article here).
Prof. Taylor attempts to use this as evidence that our stratified university system can’t possible work together. But the synthesis of fields has always been important in most lines of university studies. An officemate of mine is getting her doctorate in Rhetoric, but she writes about music. A recent presentation she did for her area involved her singing, as she also majored in music as an undergraduate. Yes, rhetorical studies and music are both humanities and not likely to help solve the world’s problems, but she is most definitely forging connections.
In reality, it’s easy to spot people who are working to bring different areas of study together. Even though International Relations Theory (which, as a side note, is unlikely to solve problems that face the world even with the inclusion of religion, despite Prof. Taylor’s lofty expectations) hadn’t bridged religion and politics, I bet there are other theories that do just that. In my own area of study (communication science), all we do is bridge areas: media effects, children’s emotional responses, decision making, advice giving. In some ways, it’s a flapping hose that is spraying in so many directions, merging so many fields, it’s hard to absorb it all. Maybe that means that the research area has different problems, but our biggest issue is certainly not doing research that doesn’t address but a tiny subset of interests and problems.
There’s a lot more to critique in this article. I’ll move on down his list of recommendations tomorrow.
Related posts (automatically generated):